Sitting of 25 January 1994

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

    Community Care Grant
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to monitor the adequacy of the special transitional community care grant during the current financial year; and if she will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowls): We have in place a wide-ranging and continuing programme of monitoring.
    Mr. Parry: Does the Minister recognise the problems that have arisen because of the ill-thought-out formula used to calculate community care grants in the first year? Will he look at the suggestion contained in the Select Committee on Health's report for a contingency fund to help those authorities that have lost badly in the current financial year?
    Mr. Bowis: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the settlement for community care was one of the most generous that we have made for public sector spending this year. It is noticeable that not only was the total more than was expected, but it included in particular £20 million extra this year for respite and day care, and another £30 million for next year.
    The hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that this year the community care special transitional grant for Liverpool has increased on that of last year. He should take back to Liverpool the message that what we look for from the authority is efficient use of resources and efficiency savings. If it stopped putting people into council-owned homes, at twice the cost of the price of care in the private and voluntary sectors, the hon. Gentleman would have a good message for the people of Liverpool.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that all the independent monitoring of the community care reforms shows that they have got off to a good start in their first year? Does that not show that although others have long supported that policy in theory, it is this Government who are putting it into practice and making it work?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the independent, impartial evidence on the monitoring of community care, which has been in place since 1 April, shows that the start has been encouraging. That is the word
    146
    used by the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission, and it is the message of the Association of Directors of Social Services.
    It is an encouraging start, because a partnership is being built up not just between national and local government but between local government and the health authorities and the voluntary and private sectors. After all, social services did ask to be given the challenge of implementing community care. We gave them the opportunity to meet that challenge, and we now expect them to deliver.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the details of a written answer that he gave me on 14 December, which showed that, according to the Government's own assessment of individual local authority need, numerous local authorities have lost millions of pounds during the operation of the current year's special transitional grant? Sheffield has lost more than £2 million, my own authority has lost £1 million and London boroughs have lost nearly £25 million. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government need to compensate those local authorities for the problems they face as a result of the bizarre formula the Government use to calculate the grant?
    Will the Minister listen to the demand by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), that a contingency fund should be established to help those councils, as suggested by the Select Committee on Health? Will he further reflect on the fact that numerous authorities are encountering difficulties in developing genuine community care because of the Government's continued insistence on their spending 85 per cent. of grant in the so-called independent sector?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the messages that we have received in the first year of the distribution mechanism have been brought into play, and we have transferred towards the standard spending assessment. The reasons for that are partly that there was a faster than expected shift of some 10 per cent. towards domiciliary care and partly that, to some extent, this year's SSA changes go to meet the balance.
    I wish that the hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the fact that we are talking about a budget in the first year of £565 million. That will go up to £1·2 billion in the coming year, to £1·8 billion the following year and to £2·2 billion in the year after that. There is no way in which the Government could be said to be selling community care short. We want to see a partnership, and we want to make sure that local authorities that might have other things in mind, encourage, permit and facilitate the independent sector, and that the voluntary and private providers to play their part, too.

    Social Work Council
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she intends to make to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Under its recently appointed chairman, Jeffrey Greenwood, the CCETSW is undergoing substantial reform, both in its internal management structure and in the education and training for social workers for which it is responsible. The underlying

    147
    intention of these changes is to ensure that social workers are equipped for the difficult job that they do with knowledge, practical skills and common sense.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the reform will extend to the CCETSW document, which states:
    "CCETSW believes that racism is endemic in the values, attitudes and structures of British society"?
    Is my right hon. Friend aware of the job advertisement for a lecturer in social work at the then Leeds polytechnic, which sought someone with a commitment to"anti-oppressive practice"? Is it not that sort of left-wing, politically correct nonsense that makes some people believe that social workers do not live in the real world?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There can be no place in the training of social workers for politically correct notions, for the domination of ideology and textbook theories over practical skills for children. Social workers have an important job to do, and their decisions should not be informed by fashionable theories, but by sensible, time-honoured principles and values.
    Ms Jowell: As a former social worker, does the Secretary of State not recognise the complex job they do on behalf of society with people whose lives are often marked by discrimination on grounds of race or disability? Does she not recognise the importance of social workers being properly trained to meet those challenges?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As a qualified social worker, I have all the more reason to feel impatient at the way in which good social workers have their work contaminated by some of the more ludicrous theories and extreme ideas. There is no place for playgroups that ban Christmas, or for parents being turned down for fostering or adoption simply because they are the wrong age or have not had sufficiently acute experience of racism.
    There are too many examples of that, and training is the way forward. Over 90 per cent. of social workers are now qualified, whereas, in the mid-1970s, about 34 per cent. were qualified. It is vital that the substantial sums spent on social work training are spent delivering people who have to undertake precisely the complex and difficult tasks that the hon. Lady describes.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the job of training social workers might be made easier if it were easier to discern who is and who is not properly so described? What progress is being made towards establishing a social work council?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There is a debate about the establishment of a social work council. So far, it is not entirely clear whether selection to the council should be based on qualification or simply on occupation. That needs to be carefully studied before further progress can be made.

    Withington Hospital
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the chairman of South Manchester health authority to discuss the future of Withington Hospital.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): No such discussions have taken place.
    Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister aware of the chronic shortage of hospital beds in Manchester? General practitioners find it increasingly difficult to get their patients into hospital. A local GP in Withington had to ring 999 to get my constituent, who had a suspected heart attack, into hospital, having failed to find a bed at Manchester royal infirmary, Wythenshawe hospital and Withington hospital. In the light of that appalling situation, will the Minister reject proposals to close Withington as a district general hospital with a loss of another 300 beds in Manchester, and undertake a complete review of the real hospital needs of the people of Withington and Manchester?
    Mr. Sackville: I am certainly aware of the pressure on emergency admissions in recent months, but that does not change the overall underlying picture in Manchester. The population is declining, there are enormous advances in day care, with a dramatic effect on bed use, and many facilities and excellent hospitals, such as that in Bolton where I come from, are being built outside Manchester. All that will affect the demand for beds in the future. In several years' time, there will be over-capacity of acute beds in Manchester, despite overspending according to capitation. That needs to be addressed: hence the proposals to rationalise services between Wythenshawe and Withington.
    Mr. McCartney: The Minister's reply is one of the most complacent I have heard about closures. There are 97,000 people on waiting lists in the north-west, hundreds of beds in Manchester have been taken out of the system, children have been refused access to intensive care units, patients are being bussed as far away as Blackpool, and some patients have died before treatment could be given. When will the Minister make a commitment to meet the Members of Parliament for Greater Manchester about the crisis in health care in the area?
    Mr. Sackville: My door is open to the hon. Gentleman at any time, and he knows it. Given his obsession with beds, he must be aware that the numbers of beds has gone down in recent years, but, despite that, activity has gone up. That is a trend he cannot deny, and one which will continue.

    Accident and Emergency Admissions
    Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the West Midlands regional health authority about the increase in accident and emergency admissions in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Sackville: No representations have been received on that specific topic.
    Ms Morris: Is the Minister aware that the West Midlands regional health authority has just announced plans to close 1,500 beds in the city of Birmingham? Given the massive increase in accident and emergency admissions over the past few months, and the effect of that in terms of patients having to lie for up to 21 hours on trolleys in corridors and the constant and regular cancellation of elective surgery, does the Minister agree that further bed closures will exacerbate the situation? What action will the Minister take to stop the planned bed closures going ahead?
    Mr. Sackville: If I may correct the hon. Lady, the report said that, over a period of years, between 1,000 and 1,500 acute beds may be surplus to requirements, depending on an increase in day surgery and various other factors, as she well knows. She also knows that, thanks to the establishment of an emergency bed co-ordinator for Birmingham, there are very many fewer incidents involving difficulties with emergency admissions.
    She will also know that, only last week, the chief executive of the national health service circulated all the hospitals and health authorities with a document stating their responsibility to make flexible arrangements, so that, when there is a sudden increase in emergency admissions—for example, when there is an outbreak of influenza—the hosptials can cope.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that £404,000 in extra funding has been made available to the Birmingham Heartlands hospital for accident and emergency use? Is he further aware that, only the weekend before last, I had the privilege of opening a new wing in the Lichfield Victoria hospital?
    Mr. Sackville: I am aware of a great many excellent developments in the health service.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Is it not a fact that, although the number of emergency admissions in Birmingham has gone up year after year for several years, the health service, managers in Birmingham base their plans for this year on the totally unreasonable assumption that there will be a reduction in the number of emergency admissions? When will the Minister do something about health service managers who behave in such a totally irrational way?
    Mr. Sackville: The House well knows that, in many parts of the country, there has been an unprecedented increase in emergency admissions during the past few months. Hospital managers must make their arrangements against that background. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the Heartlands hospital more than once. The emergency bed co-ordinator in Birmingham has been able to make dispositions so that there has not been a serious alert more than perhaps twice in recent months. That is against the underlying background of a rapid increase in emergency admissions. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate that hospital.

    Family Doctors' Lists
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of patients on each family doctor's list (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: At 1 October 1979, the average number of patients on family doctors' lists in England was 2,286; the figure for 1 April 1993 is 1,915, a reduction of 16 per cent.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for those excellent figures. Does she agree that the family doctor service is the backbone of our national health system? Will she confirm that today there are more GPs, they are better paid, there are more practice nurses and there is far more effective treatment? Will she join me in urging the Labour
    150
    party to look at the family doctor system to see how it is working so effectively for the benefit of all the patients in the national health system?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. My hon. Friend rightly identifies the family doctor service as the basic building block of our NHS. One of its distinguishing features is as gatekeeper to the NHS. The average person goes to his or her GP five times a year. That is why it is important that there are an extra 4,759 GPs. That is why it is so important that the number of practice nurses has increased by 819 per cent. since the Government came to power, and that family doctor service spending has increased by 151 per cent. Those are substantial figures, resulting in very much better care for patients.
    Ms Primarolo: Has the Secretary of State had time to study the parliamentary answer she gave me about the decline in the number of GPs in London over the past three years? Does she share my surprise and anger that that should have occurred at a time when GP services in London are under such massive stress and demand? Does she agree that the increased use of accident and emergency units is partly a by-product of that decline, and immediately agree to investigate the reports from those departments that 8 to 14 per cent. of patients attending accident and emergency units are not registered with a GP in London?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am beginning to see a glimmer of hope that the hon. Lady might be supporting "Making London Better" and the strategy that we set out. It is precisely that distortion of resources in London, which has gone back over many years, that means that urgent action is necessary. There have been far more older GPs in London. There have been far more single-handed practitioners in London. Although, over the past 10 years, there has been a substantial improvement in GP services in London, there is still room for manoeuvre. That is why we are spending an extra £43 million in primary care in London this year, investing it in more than 100 primary care initiatives.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend cast her mind back to when the GPs' contract was being introduced? At that time, were not the sick and the vulnerable unnecessarily frightened by a campaign that stated that GPs' lists would dramatically increase and that doctors would not have enough time to look after their patients? As that scare campaign has proved totally untrue, how seriously can we take any pronouncements on the NHS from the Labour party, which was prepared to use the sick and the vulnerable as pawns and puppets in its own sick political campaign?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend rightly identifies the Labour party's history of making scaremongering statements, having no policy and denying the results, which have been extremely impressive. For example, the latest immunisation figures, part of the new GP contract, show that 95 per cent. of children are now being immunised against diphtheria, compared with 80 per cent. when the Labour party was in power; 93 per cent. for measles compared with 51 per cent. when the Labour party was in power, and 93 per cent. of whooping cough compared with 35 per cent. when the Labour party was in power. Those are the results of the changes, quite apart

    151
    from the introduction of deprivation payments which mean that GPs in the most deprived inner-city areas receive additional resources.

    Social Care
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to carry out a review of regulation and inspection in social care.
    Mr. Bowis: As part of the Government's deregulation initiative, we are already looking at a number of areas of regulation in social services. There will be a review of the independence and effectiveness of inspection next year.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: The Government recognise the need to protect individuals through registration and inspection in some forms of social care, but does the Minister share my concern that no such protection is afforded to those people receiving domiciliary care in their own homes? Does he recognise that an increasing number of people will receive domiciliary care, and that that is increasingly being provided by private organisations and agencies? Will the Minister now give detailed consideration to the Licensing of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill which was introduced in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Ashley and previously in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)?
    Mr. Bowis: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that domiciliary day services should increasingly be provided by the voluntary and private sectors, and I share his view that we must do whatever we can to ensure that high standards are maintained. The question is how quickly we can find and monitor the evidence of good practice that is necessary in order to set out a proper programme of high standards.
    The Department has issued guidelines and advice to independent sector firms that might be considering setting up domiciliary day services which we shall follow up. In the meantime, as my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege said in the other place, local authorities that provide such services have an absolute right and duty to define within the terms of the contracts the standards of service that they expect to be provided. That is the first step. The second step is to continue to monitor such services, and the third step is to keep an open mind, as I shall do, on whether further protection will be needed in future.
    Mr. Wilshire: Whatever my hon. Friend decides on the general issues of inspection, will he set up a special inspection of Surrey county council's social services department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Is he aware of his inspectorate's report on six child deaths in Surrey which apparently arose from child abuse? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Is he further aware of the non-accidental injuries and severe brain damage caused to my constituent, Thomas Harris, at the hands of a registered child minder? In the light of the judge's criticisms last Thursday of the county council's team adviser, whom he described— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    I know that I am reading Madam Speaker. I wish to quote the judge's comments correctly.
    Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman knows that he is reading, he must know that he is out of order.
    Mr. Wilshire: In the light of the judge's criticism of the team adviser, who he described as showing "bumbling inactivity"; in view of his criticism of the case conference which, he said, "chose to ignore the risks"; and in view of the general approach, which the judge described as showing a "lack of urgency", does not my hon. Friend consider that an immediate inspection of Surrey county council is required?
    Mr. Bowis: I am sorry that Opposition Members reacted as they did to this case. The House and the nation will have watched with horror the effects of that small child's injuries as we saw him crawling around his living room. The first thing that the House should do is to send its sympathy to that child and his mother and to wish them well for the future.
    Secondly, whenever instances of this kind occur, of course there should be investigations and inquiries, and I am glad to hear that Surrey county council has instituted an internal inquiry and has also brought in the area child protection committee to ensure that there is an independent element in that investigation.
    We will always keep the quality of inspection and social services under review, regardless of the area concerned. It should be pointed out that all the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend occurred before implementation under the Children Act 1989 of the circular about shaking, in particular, which we distributed to all county council social services departments, as they regulated child minders. I hope and pray that the case to which my hon. Friend referred is never repeated.
    Mrs. Mahon: Why does not the Secretary of State set up a statutory register for domiciliary workers in the private sector? Surely the Minister is aware that the elderly and the sick are very vulnerable in their own homes. Common sense dictates that, if tragedies are to be avoided, there should be a formal register.
    Mr. Bowis: As I have said, we are keeping an open mind on the question of monitoring local services in the domiciliary sector. We will continue to consider the standards of good practice that we should be setting and disseminating throughout the country.
    There is nothing to stop local social services departments from setting their own standards and discussing them with the voluntary and private sectors. I hope that all social services departments are not simply consulting the independent sector but involving it in the provision of services. That will enable us to agree standards, to set up local registers of approved firms and —through contracts and, ultimately, by whatever means prove necessary—to secure the national standards that we want.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of NHS patients waiting (a) over one year and (b) over two years since March 1991; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The number of patients waiting over one year for hospital treatment has fallen by 58 per cent. since March 1991—from 169,761 to 71,022. There were more than 51,000 patients waiting over two years in March 1991; two-year "waiters" have now all but been eliminated.
    Mr. Hunter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that waiting lists reflect the ever-growing demand for services, that what matters to the waiting patient is how long he or she must wait, not how many other people are on the list, and that her answer shows that the health reforms—especially those involving the internal market—are having a positive impact on waiting lists?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. Waiting lists are almost inherent in a health service that is free at the point of use. The number of people on the list as a percentage of those who are treated has remained fairly steady for the past 20 years. What matters to an individual patient, however, is how long he or she must wait. In that regard, our achievements have been dramatic, enabling everyone to benefit from the NHS reforms. Those reforms will continue and develop, and patients will benefit further.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State give us the complete waiting list figures, not just those relating to one year or two years? If doctors and nurses are doing such a wonderful job—which they are—will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that she will tell the Treasury that the pay review recommendations for doctors and nurses should be met in full? If they are not met in full, will she resign?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Doctors and nurses are, indeed, doing a magnificent job in reducing waiting times. Before the reforms, the average waiting time was about nine months; now, it is about five months, and there will be further improvements. Doctors and nurses should note what the Government have already achieved. Doctors' pay has increased by 34 per cent., while nurses' pay has increased by 52 per cent. That contrasts sharply with Labour's record.
    The review bodies have undertaken their work in the normal way this year, and the Government will consider their recommendations in the normal way.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to reduce waiting lists is to increase the number of patients who are treated? That is precisely what has happened when trust hospitals have worked in conjunction with fundholding general practices. Is it not strange that the Opposition wish to abolish the most successful part of the NHS? Far from abolishing trusts and GP fundholders, should we not extend the benefits of those institutions throughout the health service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Most certainly we should. GP fundholders have been able to innovate and to pioneer new forms of treatment, and all family doctors are benefiting from their new procedures. The trusts are going from strength to strength and I shall shortly announce the full number of the fourth wave, which will be the largest wave yet. That is the programme of reform that we have set in hand. During the 1980s, there was a 2·5 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated, but, since the reforms have been in place, the figure has risen to an average of 5 per cent. When the Labour Government were in power, they were struggling along at annual rates of 1 per cent.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my area we are sick to death of the con trick, of being told that the Government have dealt with the waiting lists while at the same time cutting the money allowed for the running of the general hospital? The Government have cut
    154
    £3 million from the budget of a district general hospital while pretending that they have dealt with the waiting list —it is an insult to the community's intelligence.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady comes from a part of the country which has seen a magnificent achievement in terms of the quality and quantity of patient treatment and it reflects the sharp contrast to the attitude of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who asked the first question about social services in that part of the world. If other public services were run with the skill of the health service in that area, there would be many improvements. Progress is being made in the number of in-patients and out-patients treated, but there is more to do.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the Royal Free hospital trust, which serves many patients in my constituency? Since it became a trust hospital, it has substantially reduced waiting lists and increased the number of patients that it serves. Should not that be commended instead of criticised, as it often is by the Opposition?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Royal Free is an excellent example of the opportunities to be had in becoming a trust hospital. It was one of the first wave. As we move to the fourth wave, we hope that ever-greater numbers of hospitals will develop the same skills. Last year, trust hospitals increased the number of patients treated by an average of 5·3 per cent., whereas other hospitals increased the number by 4·3 per cent.
    Ms Lynne: Following the Government's continual claims that more patients than ever are being treated, will the Secretary of State explain why waiting lists are higher than ever? Could it be because the Government count finished consultant episodes instead of patients treated?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Liberal Democrats seek to undermine the figures produced by the national health service in any way that they can. The figures are an accurate reflection of the work undertaken by the service. There was one change when we moved from the Korner figures to finished consultant episodes, but since then the proportions have remained steady and stable. The hon. Lady is seeking any excuse not to pay tribute not only to the managers who have established the reforms but to the doctors and nurses who are reducing the time that patients have to wait.
    Mr. Streeter: I welcome the excellent figures that my right hon. Friend gave at the beginning of her reply. None the less, does she agree that the people of Devon and Cornwall would have to wait an even shorter time for their operations if some of the resources currently locked away in the London specialist hospitals were released for the benefit of the country as a whole? When will the unfair imbalance cease?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will know that we are seeking an end to the imbalance which has bedevilled the national health service for many decades. We spend 20 per cent. of the money on 15 per cent. of the people, but we have to proceed with care and full consultation. We must consider not only the questions of service but the important elements of research and education. I hope soon to be able to make further announcements which will ensure a more

    155
    balanced health service and ensure that London releases resources to other parts of the country which are supporting London to the tune of £100 million this year.
    Mr. Blunkett: Is it a fact that the number of people on waiting lists has risen by a third since the Government took office, while the number of beds available has dropped by a third, that the number of people waiting for more than a year rose by 25 per cent. in the first half of this financial year and that those waiting for the first crucial out-patient appointment to see a consultant are not counted at all?
    Is the right hon. Lady aware that in the Mersey region, about which the fact is paraded that no one waits for more than a year, the Royal Liverpool hospital had just sent out a notice, saying that the waiting list for out-patient appointments for the spinal clinic now exceeds 18 months? Are not there lies, damned lies and Department of Health statistics?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is hard for the Labour party to speak of waiting lists, as every Labour Government have left office, with longer waiting lists than when they took office. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman study the Audit Commission report on the use of beds, which suggests that if all did as well as the top 25 per cent., the health service could do with fewer beds than we have now. We have to ensure that we make balanced progress.
    Once again, Labour Members seek to pour scorn on the Mersey region. They may be interested to know that not only has Mersey tackled the subject of all its one-year waiters but it is now setting a target time of six months maximum for out-patient appointments and hopes to ensure that 90 per cent. of out-patients are seen within three months. It is such a shame that the Labour party cannot listen and watch and observe those regions that have made outstanding progress. Together, we should seek to apply those lessons to other parts of the country that are not yet doing so well.

    Trust Hospitals
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure that overall NHS trust hospitals are able to continue the greatly increased equipment expenditure of recent years.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Trusts now have freedom to spend more than a third of the capital allocated to them according to their own capital investment priorities and we are increasing that amount year by year. Many trusts choose to make equipment a priority and that policy makes more money available for that purpose.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since Basildon hospital achieved trust status, 7 per cent. more patients have been treated and expenditure has been reduced by 7 per cent? Is he further aware that more than £425,000 has been spent on new medical equipment, including £200,000 on a new gamma camera? That is an improvement of 100 per cent. on what the hospital did before it became a trust. Finally, will my right hon. Friend vigorously continue to defend our wonderful national health service against the scurrilous attacks from socialist Opposition Members?
    Dr. Mawhinney: No one could have put it better than my hon. Friend. His commitment to his constituents, which
    156
    is well known, also extends to health. Indeed, the trust has done even better in terms of capital equipment. In the year before it became a trust, the hospital was spending only £150,000; now, as my hon. Friend says, it is spending £425,000. The most important thing, however, is the increase in the number of patients treated. That is what Conservative Members consider the national health service to be about. Unfortunately, that view is not shared by the Opposition.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister realise that high spending does not always mean good value? Of the 60 different hip replacement implants that are available to the health service, the ones that are most expensive are often the least reliable, requiring new operations. Has the Minister noticed that in Sweden 5,000 Christiansen hips were put into people and none of them lasted four years? In Britain, we are spending huge sums without a proper examination of the quality of the replacements that are put in. Will the Minister require and ensure that there is a system properly to evaluate the reliability of hips that are put into patients?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was certainly right. Every year, we observe Labour-controlled authorities throughout the country spending lots of money and getting poor value for it. The Government have done more to improve the quality of care in the health service than any of our predecessors, and we shall continue to pursue that end.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Essex Rivers healthcare trust gained trust status on 1 April 1992 it has substantially expanded its facilities, with a new day surgery centre and a new ward, and that it has further plans for expansion? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hardworking staff of the hospital and will he give an undertaking that North Essex health authority will continue to benefit from the increase in its share of resources, which is rightly due to it under the capitation funding system, so as to enable that expansion to continue?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend's latter point, and I am happy to join him in paying tribute to the nurses, doctors and staff—including the management and administrative staff so denigrated by the Labour party—for combining to improve patient care in the trust. The difference between the average number of patients treated under the Labour Government and the number treated under the reformed national health service amounts to no fewer than 360,000 each year. That is the sort of record to which my hon. Friend's hospital trust contributes, and I congratulate it on its achievements.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Prime Minister confirm that at the time of the general election, when he promised tax cuts, he knew that the Government were forecasting a public sector borrowing requirement of £28 billion and that tax increases would be a likely part of the Conservative strategy to deal with that? Surely he is not asking us to accept that the important fact escaped his notice and was not drawn to his attention.
    The Prime Minister: If I had expected to have to raise taxes after the election, I would not have expressed the contrary view. The right hon. Gentleman fails to take into account two prospects—first, the length of the recession and, secondly, demand-driven expenditure. It is an oddity for the right hon. Gentleman to say what he has said, because the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) recently said:
    "We are going to have to find a new language which expresses taxation, not as a burden, but as an opportunity."
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's CBI survey, which shows that orders and output are growing at the strongest rate since 1989? Is that fact not exemplified by Long Products, a company in my constituency, which now exports 85 per cent. of its output and has recently won orders from countries as diverse as Indonesia and Kuwait? Does not that company's success and the CBI survey show that, thanks to the Government's sound economic policy, the United Kingdom economy is the motor leading to European recovery? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to hear such a welcome for our recovery on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend says, there is a remarkably encouraging set of results across the board. Those results tend to support the figures previously released, which show manufacturing output up by about 2 per cent. on a year earlier. Critically, the survey also sets out the expectation of a growth in output and orders in the months immediately ahead. Car output and retail sales are already rising quite sharply, and the EC, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund all expect this country to have the fastest growth of any of the EC countries in 1993 and 1994.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Prime Minister now admit that all the promises that he made on taxation at the time of the last election were a total deception and that he should apologise to the British people?
    The Prime Minister: No. There was no deception in what I said at the time of the election. Events have forced us to raise taxes, and I regret that, but it has been necessary to raise taxes to ensure that we cut the borrowing requirement and provide the opportunity for sustained growth with low inflation over the medium term. I believe that we have to take the decisions that will safeguard the future of the British economy in the years immediately ahead. It was not an easy decision, not one which we would have wished to take, but it was the right decision and Governments cannot duck the right decision.
    Mrs. Beckett: But why should people take the Prime Minister's word for any of those reasons, when the Conservatives claim to be the party of low crime and it is the party of high crime? They claim to be the party of low tax, when everybody now knows that it is the party of high tax. Why should the Prime Minister be believed when he makes excuses?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Lady will have some difficulty in persuading the nation that, in any given circumstances, the Labour party, or indeed the Liberal Democrats, would have lower taxation than a Conservative Government. I invite the House to recall what has occurred in recent years to prove that point.
    We cut the basic rate of income tax from 33p to 25p, and the Labour party voted against it. We cut the top rate from 83p to 40p, and the Labour party voted against it. We lowered the starting rate to 20p, and the Labour party voted against it. We cut corporation tax, and the Labour party —[HON. MEMBERS: "Voted against it."] It voted against it.
    Mrs. Beckett: The fact is that, after all those lines from the Prime Minister, people are still paying more tax. Everyone is paying more tax. What is the point of all that wriggling, when the figures that we have forced the Government to reveal tell the truth? The country now faces the biggest tax hike in British history and it is time for the Prime Minister to own up that, from April, the Government will squeeze every British family until the pips squeak.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady disinters a few old cliches, but if she thinks that she can resurrect the tax record of that old rogue who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time she has a tough job. The right hon. Lady misses an essential point which is vital to the British taxpayer. Despite the tax increases, which I acknowledged a few moments ago, net take-home pay at all levels of income has risen substantially and the spending pattern and the living standards of everyone in the nation indicate that fact.
    Of course, we might, I suppose, have been able to keep taxes lower if there had been further reductions in expenditure. I would just like to know which reductions in expenditure that we have imposed have had support from a single Opposition Member in recent years.
    Mr. Lamont: Will the Prime Minister treat the posturing of the Labour party on taxes with the absolute contempt that it deserves? Is not it the case that taxes had to be increased to reduce borrowing, and that was responsible, whereas the Labour party wanted much higher taxes to finance much higher spending, which would have left borrowing at the same level and would have simply meant higher interest rates, more unemployment and no recovery?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Interruptions are very time consuming.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right and I agree with every word he said.
    Ms Walley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Walley: What has the Prime Minister to say to one of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent, North a woman of 71? She wrote to me saying that she has a heart condition and that her husband has had a colostomy. They are unable to go out and unable to afford to heat their home. As the Prime Minister thinks that he has a question about VAT on fuel and as he is raising these taxes at the moment, will he tell us why there is so much incompetence and bungling in his Government that he has failed to raise £1·5 billion from uncollected taxes? Why is he making my constituents pay in fuel bills for uncollected taxes? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be heard; she must not be shouted down. Has the hon. Lady completed her question?
    Ms Walley: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Did you hear the question, Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that I did hear the question, Madam Speaker. It was quite clear.
    On the hon. Lady's first point on value added tax on fuel, as she knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has introduced a very generous package to help people who are in particular need. I strongly suspect, although I cannot be sure of all the details of the hon. Lady's constituent without further information, that she would be a beneficiary of that. I certainly hope that that will prove to be the case. As for the collection of taxation, it is our policy to make sure that taxes right across the board are fully collected. I wish, in terms of taxes and rents, that that was also the position of some local authorities on which the hon. Lady has served.
    Mr. Barry Porter: When will my right hon. Friend be able to report to the House on his recent conversations with the President of the Republic of Lebanon? Is it not appropriate to congratulate the President on the period of peace and stability after years of difficulty? Will he also emphasise to British industry and commerce that there are now enormous opportunities in the Lebanon?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the record of President Hariri. I had the opportunity to have a conversation with him yesterday. I have no doubt from our conversation that there are significant business interests for this country in the Lebanon. In view of my hon. Friend's remarks, I will arrange for a written answer to be tabled, setting out the details of our discussion.
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Byers: Does the Prime Minister recall the 1992 Conservative election manifesto, which stated, "We are pledged to cut tax rates"? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that promise to the electors with the freezing of personal allowances, the increase in national insurance contributions and the extension of VAT to
    160
    domestic fuel? Does he accept that it is now becoming increasingly clear that the Conservative election victory was founded on deceit, distortion and misrepresentation?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken about that. The fundamental responsibility of any Government is to maintain sound money and the right conditions for a growing economy. That sometimes means that one has to raise taxes when one would prefer not to. We have had to do that, as I indicated to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) some moments ago. I do not suppose that we wished to raise taxes in 1981, but it led to years of sustained growth and improvement for the British economy, and I strongly suspect that the Budgets of 1993 will do precisely the same.
    Mrs. Browning: Given the encouraging signs from industry this week about recovery, particularly in manufacturing, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will not seek an EC agreement for an energy tax to be imposed on industry, as advocated this morning on Radio 4 by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats?
    The Prime Minister: I can see that there is some purpose in listening to Radio 4. I am interested in that information. I find it extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats should have advocated VAT on fuel, opposed VAT on fuel, claimed to be environmentalists and claimed not to be dealing with the environment, and now this morning we apparently have the latest example of utter double-dealing from them. On doorstep after doorstep we are used to it, and clearly it is becoming more and more apparent to people across the country.
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wigley: May I ask the Prime Minister to look again at the impact of the imposition of VAT on fuel on the disabled, the chronically sick and many pensioners? Is he aware that, for many of those people, the bill for fuel each week may be £20 or £30 and that the effect of VAT may be an increase of £3, £4 or even £5? Is he further aware that the £1 compensation announced by the Chancellor does not go anywhere near towards meeting that? In those circumstances, will he please introduce a compensation package specifically for those people by way of a heating allowance?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, who is a tireless campaigner on behalf of the disabled, and has been for many years, will know that heating allowances in their original form were introduced by the Conservative Government to help people who were in difficulties. I agree with him about the need to help the most vulnerable people over higher fuel bills. That is why 5 million disabled people will get extra help with VAT on fuel and that extra help will arrive before their fuel bills arrive. I believe that that is a substantial amount of help which will be of great assistance.

Environmental Policy
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given your office notice of a substantial point of order which concerns not so much the self-importance of the House of Commons or our amour propre, but the fact that the House is being bypassed and neglected, perhaps on purpose.
It has always been the tradition for major statements by Ministers to be made in the House. This morning, many of us heard on Radio 4 a trailer for what was billed as an environmental policy for two decades. It was apparently important enough to have a major press conference for which the Banqueting house was hired, so it was not just a minor matter. It now transpires that, not only is the announcement not being made first to the House of Commons; it is not being made at all to the House of Commons. We must consider the accountability effect that that has on people outside the House.
Thinking automatically that there would be a statement, I rang the director of Kew about a possible supplementary question. He asked in a surprised way, "Have you not been invited to the launch?" No, I was not invited to the launch and, more to the point, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is the Opposition spokesman on the environment, was; not invited either. However, 300 or more other people were.
The question arises about what is the attitude to the House, and there may be a reason. A huge amount of documents were involved, but a cursory look at those documents shows that the promises given at Rio by the Prime Minister do not amount to very much. The fact is that the numbers of words and documents are not a substitute for action in relation to biodiversity and the environment.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I put it—I must not stray from order—that there is a point for you about whether this House asserts its; rights. Parliament at least should have the right to question, particularly when there are real doubts about the money aspects of a Government fanfare of trumpets which has been made outside this House.
Mr. Chris Smith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you make it clear to the Government once and for all that the first place which should hear about what in theory could have been a major statement on the future direction of this country, its economy and its environment is the House of Commons and that we, Members of Parliament elected to represent the people, should have the opportunity to question Ministers about it? May I also prevail on the Government to ensure that, while they have sinned today, there will be in the very near future a full parliamentary debate on the documents that have been issued this morning?
Mr. Roy Thomason: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you advise us whether it is usual for Ministers to make a statement pursuant to policies already declared, well known and in the public domain?
Madam Speaker: The whole House is well aware of what the matter is about and of the importance that I attach to Parliament being the place where important Government announcements are made in the first instance. I cannot, however, be the judge of whether every development in the application of an existing policy—we are talking about existing policy—justifies an oral statement in the House. That is a matter for Ministers in the first instance. No doubt, if hon. Members want to pursue matters arising from today's announcements—I assume that they do—they will seek ways to do so and will convey their wishes to the occupants of the Front Bench in clear terms, for example, by tabling parliamentary questions on the documents to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has just referred. Can we now move on—
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May we have a ruling that in future what is good enough for the Banqueting house is good enough for the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: It is not my concern where Ministers wish to make statements outside the House. I have made it clear that when there is a change of policy it should be announced to the House in the first instance.

Employment Protection (Government Communications Headquarters)
3.36 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice; and for connected purposes.
It is 10 years to the day since the Government announced that those employed at GCHQ would be banned from belonging to a trade union. It was a shameful decision. It was a decision taken without any justification. Employees were told to sign a form which stated that, if they wished to continue to be employed at the Government communications headquarters, they had to resign at once from membership of any union to which they belonged. The form added that they could join a departmental staff association approved by the director of GCHQ.
I pay tribute to the 14 people who decided that such was the principle at stake that they could not possibly sign the form. They were sacked. They were victimised. They have not given up the struggle because they understand what is at stake and the principle involved. I pay tribute to them from the Labour Benches in the House of Commons.
The justification for banning trade unions at GCHQ was that industrial action had disrupted work there. However, when the then Foreign Secretary announced the ban 10 years ago almost to the minute, he conceded that no threat to national security had resulted from industrial action. That was confirmed by Sir John Nott, who was Secretary of State for Defence when some of the action occurred.
Limited industrial action occurred in 1979 and 1981. In the following year, 1982, the Falklands war occurred. I wish to quote what the director general, Sir Brian Tovey, wrote to every employee at GCHQ when that war was over —when it had been won. He sent a message to every employee at GCHQ. He said:
"High level praise. There can be no doubt that this praise has been well deserved. It has been earned by hard and dedicated work by you as individuals."
A large number of those individuals were long-standing members of the appropriate trade union.
On 25 January 1984 Ministers showed their appreciation of such dedicated work by taking away the right of the employees at GCHQ to belong to a trade union.
We are told that no one need worry too much because there is a staff federation, but that is a company union. It has no independence: it is dependent on the good will of the director at GCHQ.
It is interesting to note that, when the officers of the staff federation—foolishly, in my view—made an application to the certification officer asking that the federation be considered an independent trade union, that application was, not surprisingly, refused. The federation appealed, again rather foolishly, to a higher organisation, the employment appeals tribunal, which turned down its appeal on 10 December 1992. The certification officer and the tribunal came to the obvious conclusion that the staff federation could not be considered in any way to be a genuine trade union.
Of course, it is not only Opposition Members and those in the wider labour and trade union movement who are concerned. The International Labour Organisation has also expressed deep concern about the ban on union
164
membership at GCHQ. It has repeatedly said that the ban is a breach of convention 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. It has repeatedly called on the British Government to try to reach a settlement with trade unions over trade union membership at GCHQ. It has been right to do that.
As hon. Members know, the unions met the Prime Minister last December. They were willing to give various guarantees and to compromise on a number of points. They were not willing to compromise, however, on the vital principle that employees at GCHQ had the right to belong to an independent trade union. The Prime Minister's response was the same as that of his predecessor. He was not willing to compromise and was totally negative. That meeting, therefore, ended after a short while and without success.
It now appears that the International Labour Organisation may decide formally to censure the Government because they are clearly in breach of convention 87. No western Government have ever been so reprimanded by the ILO. If that occurs, this British Tory Government will join the company of regimes such as those in Sudan, Brazil and El Salvador whose practices have been condemned by the ILO.
I started by saying that it is 10 years to the day since the Government announced that they were to introduce the ban. Clearly the issue will not go away. The Ministers of the time may have believed that the fuss and uproar might last a year or two, but that there was no need to worry because it would go away. We have shown that that is not the case and we have kept the issue alive.
We are raising the issue again today. Demonstrations are being held this week. There will be a large one in Cheltenham this weekend, which I am pleased to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition will attend. It cannot be emphasised enough that what is at issue is a basic principle. There are those on the Government Benches who find this difficult to understand, but throughout the centuries in this country struggles have taken place for democratic and trade union rights. People have been victimised, sacked and in some cases even deported, but the issues on which they fought did not go away. This issue is not likely to go away either because it is too important. It is a basic democratic right to be able to belong to a union at the place of employment. That right was taken away 10 years ago by the Government, and it must be restored.
Employees at GCHQ need no lessons about patriotism and duty from a Government who sent political signals to the junta in Argentina and made it believe that, if it invaded the Falklands, there would be no repercussions from this country. They need no lessons from a Government who continued to sell arms to one of the most criminal, murderous regimes, the Iraqi regime, right up until the invasion of Kuwait.
If there are Conservative Members who believe that what I am saying is wrong, not only should one of them oppose the Bill; they should do what we have always done in the House when we have opposed a measure—go through the Division Lobby.
Mr. Tony Banks: They do not have the guts.
Mr. Winnick: If they do not have the guts, let us compare their lack of courage with the courage of the 14 people at GCHQ willing to sacrifice their jobs because of the principle involved.
Let us conclude this matter today in the usual democratic manner. If there is a Division, my hon. Friends and I will vote in favour of the Bill. If there are any hon. Members who believe that what I have been saying is wrong, let them have the courage to vote against it.
If the Government refuse to restore the rights of employees at GCHQ, a Labour Government will restore them, as my party has promised to do. That day cannot come soon enough.
3.45 pm
Mr. Rupert Allason: GCHQ is an unusual organisation. Unlike any other branch of the civil service, it not only is at the heart of the British intelligence-collection system but also saves lives. It is quite true that the 1984 ban on external trade union membership curtailed the rights of individuals to join a trade union of their choice, as opposed to the staff association that now deals with the pay, conditions and grievances of GCHQ employees.
However, the ban to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has referred is not an example of Mrs. Thatcher's alleged spite or some manifestation of the Government's anti-union crusade. It can be explained and justified only in the context of the very sensitive work being carried out at GCHQ, which acquired that title in 1940.
Quite apart from the construction and development of secure cipher systems for British use, the organisation is concerned, among other responsibilities, with the interception and decryption of foreign communications. Good intelligence, particularly from what are termed technical sources, can prevent bloodshed and deter aggression. By the timely deployment of troops, or by diplomatic initiatives or other suitable counter-measures, the ill-disposed despot can be prevented from launching an invasion. Pearl Harbour, the Falklands war, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Yom Kippur are all classic, textbook examples of how failure to collect, analyse and disseminate intelligence can lead to war. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is opposing the motion, he must be heard. In this respect, he has an equal right with the hon. Gentleman who moved the motion.
Mr. Allason: Any interference with GCHQ's operations—even the slightest disruption—can prove terribly damaging to the British intelligence-collection system. Let me give an example, which I hope Opposition Members will understand. The loss of just one radio-intercept shift can mean the loss of an enormous amount of collection effort. Just one word or one group of ciphers—even one letter—lost can mean the nullification of months, perhaps even years, of cryptographic work. Great skill is required to ensure tremendous accuracy, and the loss of any of that constitutes an enormous waste of time and taxpayers' money. More to the point, however, it puts lives at risk.
This is precisely what happened when, in December 1981, martial law was imposed in Warsaw and General Jaruzelski's tanks surrounded the city. On that occasion the trade union movement called out its members at GCHQ.
166
When martial law was imposed in Warsaw, we were blind, in intelligence terms, to the signals traffic and the interception that was going on. That was the reason for the ban. Senior GCHQ personnel considered the disruption sufficiently damaging to request the ban on external interference.
In addition to the deliberate disruption, considerable anxiety was felt about the kinds of people who were attending GCHQ trade union meetings. They were not GCHQ officials or officers, but so-called full-time trade union researchers who seemed to take a great deal of interest in the workings of GCHQ, the location of the intercept sites and the strength of personnel at particular locations.
It must be emphasised that the ban was not an American demand. In all honesty, the United Kingdom has little to offer its allies any more—we are no longer a super-power. GCHQ is the jewel in the British intelligence crown, however, and it is a tremendous asset. As well as offering services to the Americans, GCHQ achieves unrivalled access to any other part of the American intelligence system. It would be folly to jeopardise that.
Nearly half of the GCHQ staff did not want to join a trade union and they did not. Thousands of staff opted to receive compensation in return for their agreement not to join a trade union; only a handful resisted that agreement. Alternative employment was offered in every case and, after five years of negotiation and court action, just 14 staff were dismissed. That was not victimisation. It was regrettable, but GCHQ now enjoys the full confidence of its staff and our allies.
Any attempt to support this misconceived Bill would severely damage GCHQ's credibility and its capacity to deal with and anticipate emergencies. It would also mean that GCHQ was unable to anticipate threats to Britain's national security. I accordingly urge the House to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 69.

Division No. 89]

[3.51 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Byers, Stephen

Ainger, Nick

Caborn, Richard

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Alton, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Armstrong, Hilary

Canavan, Dennis

Austin-Walker, John

Cann, Jamie

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Barnes, Harry

Clapham, Michael

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Battle, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bayley, Hugh

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Coffey, Ann

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Connarty, Michael

Benton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Bermingham, Gerald

Cousins, Jim

Berry, Dr. Roger

Cox, Tom

Betts, Clive

Cryer, Bob

Blair, Tony

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 upon Tyne E)

Dalyell, Tam

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Darling, Alistair

Burden, Richard

Davidson, Ian

167

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McAllion, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McAvoy, Thomas

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McCartney, Ian

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

Macdonald, Calum

Denham, John

McKelvey, William

Dewar, Donald

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dixon, Don

McLeish, Henry

Dobson, Frank

McMaster, Gordon

Donohoe, Brian H.

McNamara, Kevin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McWilliam, John

Eagle, Ms Angela

Madden, Max

Eastham, Ken

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Enright, Derek

Mahon, Alice

Etherington, Bill

Mandelson, Peter

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Martlew, Eric

Fatchett, Derek

Meacher, Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Michael, Alun

Fisher, Mark

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Flynn, Paul

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Milburn, Alan

Foster, Don (Bath)

Miller, Andrew

Foulkes, George

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fyfe, Maria

Morley, Elliot

Galloway, George

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Mowlam, Marjorie

Godsiff, Roger

Mudie, George

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mullin, Chris

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Murphy, Paul

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gunnell, John

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hain, Peter

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hall, Mike

O'Hara, Edward

Hanson, David

Olner, William

Hardy, Peter

O'Neill, Martin

Harman, Ms Harriet

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Harvey, Nick

Parry, Robert

Henderson, Doug

Patchett, Terry

Heppell, John

Pike, Peter L.

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hinchliffe, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hoey, Kate

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Prescott, John

Home Robertson, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Hood, Jimmy

Purchase, Ken

Hoon, Geoffrey

Quin, Ms Joyce

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Radice, Giles

Hoyle, Doug

Raynsford, Nick

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Redmond, Martin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Reid, Dr John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Rendel, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hutton, John

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Ingram, Adam

Rogers, Allan

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Rooker, Jeff

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Rooney, Terry

Janner, Greville

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Ruddock, Joan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Salmond, Alex

Jowell, Tessa

Sheerman, Barry

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Khabra, Piara S.

Short, Clare

Kilfoyle, Peter

Simpson, Alan

Leighton, Ron

Skinner, Dennis

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lewis, Terry

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

Litherland, Robert

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Soley, Clive

Llwyd, Elfyn

Spearing, Nigel

Lynne, Ms Liz

Spellar, John

168

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Watson, Mike

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Welsh, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Wicks, Malcolm

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wigley, Dafydd

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Winnick, David

Tipping, Paddy

Wray, Jimmy

Turner, Dennis

Wright, Dr Tony

Vaz, Keith

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Wallace, James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walley, Joan

Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.

Wareing, Robert N

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Batiste, Spencer

Kilfedder, Sir James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Legg, Barry

Butcher, John

Lidington, David

Butler, Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Coe, Sebastian

Pawsey, James

Congdon, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Couchman, James

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

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

Shaw, David (Dover)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Shersby, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Duncan, Alan

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Elletson, Harold

Spink, Dr Robert

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Stern, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Gallie, Phil

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Gardiner, Sir George

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Garnier, Edward

Thurnham, Peter

Gill, Christopher

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Waller, Gary

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Waterson, Nigel

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Whitney, Ray

Grylls, Sir Michael

Whittingdale, John

Harris, David

Hendry, Charles

Tellers for the Noes:

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Julian Brazier.

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Hunter, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Terry Davis, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Alan Simpson.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS)
Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 February, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  [Relevant document: Second Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on The November 1993 Budget (House of Commons Paper No. 87)]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.4 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Finance Bill begins its passage through the House today. The House will know that managing the Bill each year requires co-operation between the parties. In the interests of good government, we must ensure that each of the inevitably complicated matters in the Bill is given time for discussion and that outside interests are given plenty of time to comment. We have always been able to do that in the House on the basis of sensible arrangements between the parties for orderly debate, but this year the Labour party will not co-operate. I have written to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—my opposite number—setting out a sensible scheme for consideration of the Bill and proposing the clauses to be taken on the Floor of the House and a reasonable timetable to which we can all work to ensure that the Bill can be given full consideration by the Easter recess.
  That the hon. Lady has refused to enter into any understanding with me I regard as most unreasonable. The matters in the Bill are very important, and people outside the House expect us to give them careful consideration. It is extraordinary of the Labour party to block the most common-sense arrangements for doing our business. Today, I once again reiterate my appeal to the hon. Lady to reconsider her position and to make an arrangement in the interests of orderly business in the House.
  The Government bring their Bill to the House because we are committed to align what the Government spend with what they receive in tax. The Bill is crucial if we are to have sound public finances. Sound public finances are essential to our national prosperity. What is more, the Government believe that it would be ethically indefensible for the Government to plan consistently to live beyond their means when every family and business in the country has had to make the sacrifices necessary to bring income and expenditure into line.
  The Government have therefore set out their economic policies with great care. Over the past 18 months, we have set out our monetary policy, we have put in place the transparent arrangements that determine the considerations that lead to our decisions on interest rates; the markets can be confident about what they are. We have set out a medium-term spending strategy. We did that first in the autumn statement 1992 with the new top-down approach. We produced figures then. We followed that up in the Budget introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in November with new figures that came in below the public spending ceilings that we had set the year before.
  170
  People know the limits of what the Government will spend. They know that the Government will stick within those limits. In the most recent spending round, we demonstrated our determination not only to hold down public spending but to reduce the plans for public spending that we had made. For 1994–95, we have made, in successive autumn statements, two reductions totalling more than £8 billion off the plans for the coming year. We have a medium-term spending strategy, and a medium-term taxation strategy. The markets know exactly how the Government will raise the revenue that is needed. They know that they can have confidence that the Government's borrowing will be reduced sharply. That confidence is reflected in today's low level of interest—the lowest since 1977.
  I now want to make a statement which will, I believe, deeply shock the Labour party, as most statements of the obvious do. There is an unbreakable link between what Governments spend and what they must raise in taxes. At the last election, the contest was between a Conservative party whose every instinct is to control spending and reduce taxation and a Labour party that is dedicated to extending the role of the state through increased public spending and, therefore, to raising taxes in order to pay for that. Nothing that has happened since the last election has changed the validity of the choice that was put before the British people then, or the validity of the decision that the British people made on that point.
  Ms Harriet Harman: The Chief Secretary has just been telling the House about ethics. Will he admit to the House that he misled the country on taxes at the last general election?
  Mr. Portillo: The Government gave a pledge that they would uphold sound public finances, and we have responded in the difficult circumstances that we have faced since then in order to fulfil that pledge. I do not believe that Chancellor Kohl promised the German people that there would be a 9 per cent. reduction in industrial production. I do not believe that Mr. Gonzales promised that there would be a 22 per cent. rate of unemployment in Spain.
  Governments have to cope with the circumstances that they find, and if they are good Governments they do so in accordance with their principles. The principle of this Government is that we will have sound public finances. What the Government raise and what the Government spend will be brought into line with one another.
  Ms Harman: What this Government did was promise to cut taxes. Will the Chief Secretary admit that he misled the country in the last general election because he promised to cut taxes?
  Mr. Portillo: We gave the most solemn pledge to the country that we would deliver sound public finances. That is what we stand by today. The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that the Conservative party's every instinct is to cut taxation, but our principle to establish sound public finances comes first. We have principles. We have priorities. We know what those priorities are and that is why we deliver policies in which people can have confidence.
  Mr. Clive Betts: Does the Chief Secretary remember that in the Budget debate he said that he and his colleagues did not say at the time of the election that taxes would go up because

  171
  "We thought that the recession was coming to an end in early 1992."—[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1072.]
  How does the right hon. Gentleman square that statement with the statement made by the Chancellor in the same Budget debate? He said:
  "It is now clear that the recovery started in the first half of 1992".—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c.1919.]
  If the recovery started in the first half of 1992, why did he not manage to anticipate that during the general election and make the clear commitments on taxation that obviously he did not make at that time?
  Mr. Portillo: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He has had a couple of months to think out that question. There is the small matter of the pace at which the recovery was taking place, and the hon. Gentleman was as wrong as anybody else in thinking that the recovery had begun at a rapid pace during the early part of 1992. Alas, we were disappointed, but the Government have not been afraid to take the action that is necessary.
  Nothing has changed about the Labour party. Nothing has changed in the series of promises that it will spend more money, which it gives day after day. In recent times, we have heard promises from the Labour party that local councils will spend another £6 billion from the money that is rightly set aside against their indebtedness. We have heard that it will increase overseas aid by £2·5 billion. We have heared that it will increase health spending, which it wants to take up to 7 per cent. of national income. That would mean another £6 billion. We have heard that it wants to equalise the state pension age at 60 instead of 65, and the additional cost of that would be £12 billion.
  There is no accounting from the Labour party to show how all those promises will be paid for, and no Labour spokesman has the self control to get up in a debate in the House or to give a radio interview and last the five minutes necessary without making some new promise about public spending. On Friday evening, I took part in "Any Questions" with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). We had not got five minutes into the programme before he was promising us a new and highly expensive house building programme. Even the shadow Chief Secretary suffers from that marked lack of public expenditure control. One searches in vain through the wilderness of her speeches for any sign that she urges restraint on her colleagues, any sign of the cuts that she believes will be necessary. No such promises are to be found from the hon. Lady.
  From top to bottom, the Labour party is characterised by its public-spending incontinence. If spending today, as a proportion of national income, is higher than we would wish, and it is, we can rely on this: it would be much higher under Labour. If the taxes that we require today, at the end of a recession, to balance the books are higher than we would like them to be, and they are, we can count on this: they would be higher still under Labour.
  Let me put it plainly. Labour spends more; Labour borrows more; Labour would tax more. Come rain or come shine, Labour would tax, borrow and spend more than we do. The House need not take my word for it. In "On the Record", the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said:
  "The Budget decisions that the Conservatives made in the 1980s were completely unacceptable."
  172
  What does that mean? It means that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the reduction in income tax from 33p to 25p in the pound; it means that he disagrees with the reduction in corporation tax from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent. Those were changes that we introduced in the 1980s, and the hon. Gentleman disagrees with both of them.
  There is one honest man on the Labour Benches, although he is too honest to be on the Front Bench. I refer to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who, in that same programme, said:
  "I think the Labour party ought to accept that we will always be likely to have a higher tax burden than our opponents, because we believe in public spending."
  Bravo! The hon. Gentleman spoke the simple truth. Here is a man who is not afraid of the truth—a man with whom it is a joy to have lunch.
  The Labour party has changed in only one respect. In the good old days of the Labour party—the days when it was led by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)—it used to produce a shadow Budget that showed that it would need to raise higher taxes to pay for all its promises of higher spending. Where is that old Welsh honesty that we all miss so much? It has gone out of the window.
  In this Bill, the Government recognise that business cannot prosper and jobs cannot be created if public finances are under strain. That is why we have taken decisive steps to bring our finances into balance, tackling both spending and taxing: spending levels determine tax levels, so spending must be tackled.
  Several hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Portillo: As my hon. Friends know, part of our deficit results from the large increases in what we have spent on health, education and social security. In each of the three years preceding 1992–93, we were spending an extra 5·5 per cent. in real terms on the health service. Did the Labour party ever say that that was too much? No: Labour, disgracefully, used individual cases to lead the public to believe that we were spending too little. Conservative Members well remember the party's scandalous, shameful behaviour over Jennifer's ear.
  Several hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Portillo: Given that the Government have spent so much on health, would Labour spend more? Labour Members say that they would. Over the past five years, we have increased our spending on education by 25 per cent. in real terms. Did Labour tell us that that was too much? Did they tell us to cut back? No; they were too busy promising the earth and more. Would they now wish to spend more on education? They tell us that they would.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Portillo: So the question for the hon. Member for Peckham to answer in her speech is this: what would Labour cut?
  Mr. Howarth: Will the Chief Secretary give way? Mr. Portillo: What would Labour—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that you would endorse my view, and the view of many hon. Members who are present, that it is most unusual for a senior Minister, having

  173
  given us this prepared gibberish, not to yield to hon. Member after hon. Member when there are valid points to be made. Would you occasionally reprimand the Chief Secretary, Madam Speaker, or ask him kindly to observe the parliamentary courtesy of giving way when an hon. Member wishes to intervene?
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] That may be the opinion of some people but it is not mine. He happens to be my constituency neighbour so I have to be very careful. As he knows, it is up to the hon. Member who had the floor to decide whether to give way. I am sure that the Minister has taken that into consideration.
  Mr. Portillo: Indeed, I choose to give way often and have done so several times in this debate. I gave way twice to the hon. Member for Peckham and once to another hon. Member.
  I want to ask the hon. Member for Peckham where the Labour party is to make the cuts. Her party says that taxes and borrowing are too high but it has promised extra spending on education, health and overseas aid, so where are the cuts to be made? I want to know. Are they to be made in social security? The hon. Lady and her friends are opposing the Bills that would reduce social security spending. Will the cuts be in transport, in housing, in defence or in training? The hon. Lady must tell us, and if she wants to, I should be happy to give way to her. She does not want to tell us. I genuinely thought that she would get up and make her usual, fatuous commitment that the Labour party will cut unemployment.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Why is it fatuous?
  Mr. Portillo: How will the Labour party cut unemployment? It is committed to the social chapter, which we know destroys jobs. Employers across Europe want to locate their businesses in Britain because we have the lowest non-wage costs in Europe. The Labour party wants the social chapter and wants to destroy jobs.
  The Labour party says that it wants to stimulate investment but what plans does it have to do so? It wants to levy a special penal rate of tax on the utilities, which are some of the biggest investors in the British economy, and that would also destroy employment. Labour says that it will put more people into work, but how? By spending more on job creation schemes, I suppose—and how would they be financed? By more taxes? The Labour party tells us that taxation is already too high, so is it going to borrow? It tells us that borrowing is also too high. If it borrowed more, it would lose the confidence of the financial markets and we should have higher interest rates, slower recovery and fewer jobs, which is why I say that the Labour party's claim is fatuous. It is not only fatuous; it is misleading, it is dishonest and it is basically ignorant.
  The Liberals—
  Mr. George Howarth: Perhaps the Chief Secretary could throw some light on a subject that is worrying many hon. Members and people outside. During the general election campaign, either the Government knew what lay ahead in terms of public finance and they therefore misled the electorate or they did not know what was to happen, in which case how can we believe the figures that they are using now?
  Mr. Portillo: We believed, as investment analysts, banks, other Governments, commentators and politicians in the Labour party believed, that the recovery was well under way around the time of the election. If we were wrong, the analysts, the banks, other Governments and people in the hon. Gentleman's party were wrong. If we made an error, it was an error and not a matter of dishonesty. The Labour party is presenting a dishonest policy and the Liberals are not much better—
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am sorry, but the Government did not make an error; they forecast a public sector borrowing requirement of £28 billion. It surely followed that they must already have had an idea that some tax increases would be necessary for a Government whose first priority, as the Chief Secretary has said, was to bring their taxes into line with their spending.
  Mr. Portillo: The PSBR that we forecast at £28 billion turned out to be £37 billion. We did not foresee a PSBR of £50 billion.
  The measures that the Government have had to take are accounted for by the differences between those figures. The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government's policy has been to balance spending and income over time. We have recognised that we have run a PSBR when we were in recession, in the same way as we ran a surplus when we were at the peak of the recovery. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, therefore, that it was consistent to run a policy of sound public finances and to tolerate a PSBR at the very trough of the recession. That trough turned out to be deeper than we thought and we are taking the corrective action that is in the Bill.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Chief Secretary is obviously suffering from repetitive taxing strain. Does he recall telling the country that he promised to provide —his words—an ultra-low-tax economy? Having now presided over the highest tax hike in our history, will he now resign?
  Mr. Portillo: My aim is an ultra-low-tax economy and I believe that the British people will believe that the Conservatives are directed towards that. What should worry the hon. Gentleman is that the British people will never believe that that is the ambition of the Labour party. Members of the Labour party think that they are very clever whipping up this tax row. They think that they will make people disaffected with the Conservative Government. Well, perhaps they will, but when the Labour party has succeeded in convincing the British people that they are paying too much tax, and then the Labour party goes to the electorate and puts before the British people its plan to spend more and to tax more, I wonder whether its members will feel so clever then. I very much doubt it.
  The Liberal party is not very much better. It does at least admit that it is its policy to spend more and borrow more. It gets some marks from me for frankness for that. At a time when the Government are already borrowing £1,000 million a week, however, what serious political party can propose that the solution to our problem is to borrow more money? The way to establish the low-tax economy that I and my hon. Friends want is to underpin the recovery with prudent fiscal policies. Our recovery will depend on clear, sustained determination to take difficult decisions now to

  175
  provide a basis for longer-term prosperity. No one will look to the Labour party for that type of determination or that type of responsibility.
  Mr. Mandelson: If the newspaper is not too undeferential for his tastes, has the Chief Secretary read The Sun today? Very properly, it asks why borrowing is so high. Is not the answer that borrowing is so high because unemployment is costing the country £26 billion a year? Is not the reason why we have such high taxation in Britain that we have such a low level of economic success as a result of the Government's policies?
  Mr. Portillo: We had the highest growth in the European Community in 1993 and in 1994. I gave the explanation about unemployment. The hon. Gentleman was too busy squawking, "fatuous" from a sedentary position to listen to what I was saying. I did read the leader in The Sun this morning, which made it perfectly clear that it would be worse under a Labour Government That has been the thesis throughout my speech.
  The Government have received the extremely interesting report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. We shall want to respond to it in due course, but I express my gratitude to the Select Committee. I welcome its conclusion that the Chancellor was right to tighten the fiscal position further, and that not to have done so would have had adverse economic consequences—that, remember, from an all-party Committee. I am pleased, too, that the Select Committee expects expenditure restraint. I know that my hon. Friends will be interested that the Committee expects expenditure restraint to contribute significantly towards the Government's objective of reducing public spending as a proportion of national income. That is the objective of Conservative Members. That has been underlined by the Select Committee. It is not, I believe, the objective of the Labour party. Without our determination to control state spending, the tax rises that we would need would be much higher than those in the Bill.
  Mr. Giles Radice: I am sure that the Minister is aware that two amendments, supported by all the Opposition Members in the Committee, were tabled, expressing concern about the scale of the tax hikes and saying that they could put our recovery at risk. In view of his new worries about the institutions of the House, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House.
  Mr. Portillo: My interest in the institutions of the House is not new found. As I said, we shall give a considered reply to the Committee's report. It is the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my judgment too, that the recovery is strong enough. It is broadening and sustainable, and it will be proof against the increases in taxation this year. Both our forecasts and the independent forecasts for the coming year take into account the tax increases in the Bill, and those in the previous Finance Act.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Presumably the Chief Secretary acknowledges that in colder areas of the country vulnerable groups in the community have to
  176
  pay more for their fuel, and will therefore be forced to pay more VAT. Why is that fact of life for those vulnerable groups not reflected in the compensation scheme?
  Mr. Portillo: It is not reflected because there are variations in what people spend on all sorts of goods, depending upon where they live. Some people in city areas have more expensive lives to lead than people in country areas, and so on. It is simply not possible to adjust social security arrangements to take account of each and every different factor, many of which tend to cancel each other out.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has led me on to the subject of VAT on fuel and power. That has been the most difficult decision for my right hon. and hon. Friends, yet they have supported the Government, and I thank them very much for that. I believe that our announcement that we would extend VAT to fuel and power, unpopular though it was, clearly underlines our determination to deal with the borrowing problem.
  We were under no illusions about the unpopularity of the measure. It is not the Conservative party that needs convincing that increasing taxes is unpopular, and is to be avoided whenever possible. The fact that, none the less, we decided to extend the scope of VAT made it clear beyond doubt that we were absolutely serious, and that we would take the necessary action to bring the public finances under control. As a result of that confidence, both short-term and long-term interest rates fell in 1993, and the recovery gained pace, because the markets were convinced that we were in earnest about dealing with public spending and borrowing.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall make a little more progress.
  The amendment that has been tabled on VAT surprises me. I had assumed that by now the Labour party had given up its opposition to the extension of VAT to fuel and power. If Labour Members were concerned about that, surely the natural time to introduce an amendment was at the end of the Budget debate. That would have been a timely occasion on which to debate the issue. I cannot understand why the Labour party did not table such an amendment then. Of course, I assume that whatever the reason was, it was not just plain incompetence on the part of the Labour party.
  Because of the prudent decisions that we have taken, and because of the measures in the Bill, we shall not build up such a large burden of debt to pass to our children. Without that action, the interest rate burden would have mounted inexorably, and high debt interest would have required a permanently higher rate of taxation to pay for it. We have arrested that process in time. By taking steps now to bring our public finances into balance, we have created the prospect of lower taxes in years to come. Without the firm action we have taken, and the action that we propose today, we would have been increasing taxes every year, just to pay the interest on the Government's overdraft.
  Any sensible Chancellor of the Exchequer would take action to avoid that. Only one has acted otherwise—a Labour Chancellor, Lord Healey. When he was faced with a mounting debt and a mounting burden of interest, he chose to cut taxes and to leave public spending and borrowing increasing inexorably. That was irresponsible in the extreme. That action by Lord Healey—cynical and irresponsible as it was—taken in 1978–79 as the general

  177
  election approached, was the starting point for all the comparisons that the Labour party makes about the burden of taxation under its Government and under the Conservative Government. It was a year of shame and the Labour party ought to be happy to forget all about it.
  The essential difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party is highlighted by our different attitudes to what has been described as the growth dividend. As the economy grows, the Labour party commits itself to squander that dividend on higher public spending. On the other hand, our commitment is to control spending and to pass that dividend to those who earned the money in the first place—the taxpayers. There remains today a huge gulf between the two parties in that respect. It is the same divide that faced the nation at the last general election. It is the same choice between the Labour party, which believes that the state should do more, spend more, tax more, and the Conservatives, who believe in sound public finance, the control of public spending and the shrinking of the state. My right hon. and hon. Friends—
  Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there, in "Erskine May", any restraint of solo recitation?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that that is not a point of order. I have no doubt that if there is such a restraint, he will go and find it.
  Mr. Portillo: The Labour party has raised the stakes on taxation. It has convinced the people of the country that high taxation is something that it does not want. Labour Members think that they are sitting pretty today. I predict that they will rue the day. Come the next general election, no one will believe that the Labour party will reduce taxes. People will vote for the party that stands for the reduction of taxation, and the Conservative party believes in that.
  The Budget and the Finance Bill provide the means of controlling public spending and setting our public finances on a sound footing. The Bill gives effect to the measures in the Budget, and I commend it to the House.
  4.36 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I welcome the Chief Secretary to the debate about taxes, because, while the whole country has been talking about taxes over the weekend and since then, the Chief—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I draw it to the attention of the hon. Lady that she should move the amendment?
  Ms Harman: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the Finance Bill is not an acceptable and effective measure because it fails to make any proposal to repeal section 42 of the Finance Act 1993, which imposed value added tax on domestic fuel. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is not much point in asking the hon. Lady to move the amendment if I cannot hear her.
  Ms Harman: I welcome the Chief Secretary to the debate about taxes, because, while the whole country has been talking about taxes over the weekend and since then, the right hon. Gentleman has been noticeably absent. While the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have been running around television studios
  178
  trying, unsuccessfully, to rescue the tattered reputation of the Government, the Chief Secretary, uncharacteristically, has been nowhere to be seen. It seems that he is ever available to make speeches to right-wing groups of Conservatives.
  Sir Peter Hordern: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the hon. Lady was going to move the amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already pointed out to the hon. Lady that she should move the amendment and I would be obliged if she would.
  Ms Harman: May I point out to the right hon. Member for Horsham that the amendment—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall have order, whether I take points of order or not. The Chair will decide whether or not the hon. Lady is in order or out of order. That decision can safely be left to the Chair.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that, of course, it is perfectly in order to move the amendment at any time during the speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not in order that you remind the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) to move the amendment, because she forgot to table it last time? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will have less frivolity, and get down to serious business.
  Ms Harman: People outside the House of Commons are not interested in procedural points to disrupt debate; they are interested in the increases in taxes that they will face from this lying, hypocritical Government, and they are interested in the VAT which the Government have insisted on. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) will have an opportunity to vote with his constituents against VAT on gas and electricity.
  Although the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is ever available to make speeches to right-wing groups, he has been available nowhere, it seems, to talk about the Finance Bill. He could hardly bring himself to discuss the contents of the Bill today. While his colleagues prepare for the next day's battering from a now furious Tory press, he has been watching his back in preparation for the next leadership election. That is why he has been so silent. It is no wonder he has not wanted to be seen talking about the Finance Bill: the Bill destroys once and for all the Conservatives' central claim that theirs is the party of low tax.
  That is the claim that was presented to the British people as the principal reason for voting Tory at the previous election. That claim is now dead, for now the very same party has imposed 12 major tax increases in just one Bill, 20 tax rises in 20 months, and the largest tax demand in peacetime history. It is no wonder Tory Back-Bench Members are worried—taxes to the left of them, taxes to the right of them, into the valley of taxes Ministers are leading them.
  Within two hours of the supposedly tax-cutting Chancellor making his Budget speech on 30 November,

  179
  taxes began to rise—this year, next year, the year after, the year after that and the year after that as well. The Tories' five-year plan is tax upon tax, year after year.
  As the claim to be the party of low tax is destroyed, so too is any claim to the trust of the British people. The Conservative manifesto invited the electorate to trust the Tories as
  "the only party that understands the need for low taxation".
  But now the Government have been forced to admit that, whether it is tax on what one earns or tax on what one spends, one will pay more.
  The Prime Minister promised the British people that he could be trusted not to increase VAT, but the Government have been forced to admit that people are already paying twice as much VAT as they paid in 1979. He promised not to put VAT on gas and electricity, and now he intends to do just that. The Prime Minister promised that he could be trusted to make reductions in the rate of tax, year on year. But, in a parliamentary answer that the Financial Secretary gave me, the Government have been forced to admit that taxes on income have not only been raised but are now higher than they were in 1979.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Does the hon. Lady accept that it is quite extraordinary to many people both in the House and outside that she should be lecturing on credibility and trust, given the economies with the truth and the innuendos and smears that she practised as shadow health spokesperson in the previous Parliament?
  Ms Harman: That is a disgraceful diversion, and an attempt to distract attention from what the Government are doing to the hon. Gentleman's constituents on taxation. The hon. Gentleman is too cowardly to stand up and protect them against what the Government are doing.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I am trying to follow the hon. Lady's argument on tax matters, which is central to her speech. If she really is sincerely complaining about rates of tax under the Government, which rates of tax would her party cut if it were in office?
  Ms Harman: I am complaining about tax increases from a Government who promised to cut tax, tax increases to pay for high unemployment, and tax which hits hardest those who can least afford it.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) should be reminded of what he said in his election address to his constituents, and perhaps he will vote with us against the Finance Bill. He said:
  "The burden of income tax has been reduced and only the Conservatives promise further reductions"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Which taxes would you cut?"] We would stop VAT on gas and electricity.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Ms Harman: I shall not give way for a while.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it quite clear that she is not giving way. These are not the football terraces.
  Ms Harman: The Chief Secretary claimed last year—the right hon. Gentleman could confirm the point:
  180
  "Over time, we have shifted the tax burden away from direct taxes".—[Official Report, 26 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 734.]
  But that is not what they have done. They have put up direct as well as indirect tax. The tax bill on the earnings of a typical family will be higher from April than it was in 1979. The Chief Secretary still refuses to own up to that deceit. Instead, he lectures us about morality and ethics. Perhaps we should not be surprised.
  Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I will not give way.
  The Chief Secretary has a history of brazening out extravagant claims, for it is he who promised the British people that he was committed not just to a low-tax economy—that was not good enough—not even to a very low-tax economy, but to an ultra-low-tax economy. With an unbridgeable gap between what he says and what he is doing—that is the real gap at issue—perhaps you should turn off the television cameras, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that the country cannot see what is going on.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: As the hon. Lady now wishes to present herself as a champion of low taxes, does she regret that the Labour party opposed all the reductions in direct tax rates, income tax and corporation tax which we have brought about over the past 15 years? Will she apologise for the Labour party opposing those reductions?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman should remember that we did not vote against widening the 20 per cent. ban when we considered the previous Finance Bill, but I am grateful for his intervention, because it allows me the opportunity to remind his constituents and his colleagues of what he said in his own election address. It was a good one. He said:
  "We are absolutely committed to continuing to bring down taxes."
  What garbage. It is no wonder Conservative Members want to end the televising of Parliament. Having been exposed for putting up VAT and putting up national insurance, the Government continue to claim—one last claim—that theirs is the party of low income tax.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I am going to press on. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is on the list".] As my hon. Friends say, the hon. Gentleman is on the list.
  In his new year message, after the Budget, the Prime Minister said:
  "The Conservative party remains … the party of low income tax."
  Last Tuesday, in the House of Commons, he contradicted my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and said:
  "standard rates of tax under the Conservative party have dropped dramatically since the Opposition were in government".—[Official Report, 18 January, 1994; Vol. 235, c. 703.]
  But the Treasury's own figures, which were given to me in a parliamentary answer from the Financial Secretary—the hon. Gentleman will agree with me—show that the income tax bill for a family with a mortgage will be higher from April than it was in 1979. We know what the Government have done. They have reduced headline income tax rates, but they have cut tax allowances, and that is how they have

  181
  put up tax bills. So their claim to be the party of low income tax is now exposed as being as fraudulent as all the other claims.
  After all the broken promises and the betrayal of trust, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary offer not a word of apology to the people of this country. What they offer is only evasion and excuses—the same kind of evasion and excuses which they have been dishing out since the election: "The recession went on longer than we expected," or, "Well, it depends what you call a political promise," or, "It is all outside our control." When confronted with the Treasury's own figures on tax increases, the Chancellor brazens it out and calls it "piffle".
  With that record, the Chief Secretary's speech 10 days ago when he was whingeing about cynicism was a disgrace. Despite that record of betrayal, he demands respect from the British people. He believes that he and his colleagues are blameless victims of that terrible cynicism. The Chief Secretary tells us that it is all the fault of the British people—the new enemy within. It is all of them —all the British people. The public, he says, lack moral fibre. The Government do not lack moral fibre—not this honourable Government!
  Mr. Riddiclk: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Harman: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman on moral fibre. I do not think that he has anything to tell the House about that.
  The Chief Secretary says that leaders should be afforded respect whatever they do. Otherwise, he tells us, the country will not work so well. He wants us to turn off the television cameras so that the ignorant electorate cannot jump to so many wrong conclusions. The discredited and dishonest electorate have betrayed a decent and upstanding Government. The Tory party is not the party of low tax —it is the party of low excuses.
  Mr. Portillo rose
  Ms Harman: Here comes another excuse.
  Mr. Portillo: No, not at all. I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said about my speech. Not a single comment that she made was accurate, and every one was a distortion. I do not want to get into a great discussion with her now, but the hon. Lady would be on stronger ground if she quoted what I said and argued against that, rather than parodying what I said. It shows her to be on weak ground, not strong ground.
  Ms Harman: I must apoligise, as clearly I have been very hurtful to the Chief Secretary.
  The Tory party is not the party of low tax—it is just the party of low excuses. In the case of the Chief Secretary, the excuses are not just low, but ultra-low. As the Government run out of excuses, all they can say—the Chief Secretary said it again this afternoon—is that they did not intend to put up taxes.
  The Prime Minister says, "I very much regret that we had to put up taxes," and, "It was not our intention," and, "I did not wish to do it." The Chancelloor tells us about his instincts, but I am not sure that I want to know about them. He tells us that his instincts are for low taxes. The Chief Secretary tells us that the Conservative party believes in low taxes.
  Those people who hold the great offices of state can offer nothing but their instincts and their aspirations.
  182
  Ministers of the Crown have opened their hearts and told us of their hopes. This is truly, as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said, a Government in office but not in power. A party which has been in government for 14 years begs to be judged not on its record but on its instincts. However, no one will take those instincts seriously and they count for nothing, because the Tories cannot deliver on their promises. They cannot deliver on their pledge of low tax, because they have failed on the economy.
  After 14 years, the Tory economics of leaving everything to the markets have failed. Their economic failure has torpedoed their tax plans. They have presided over 14 years of our economy falling behind and of low growth. They have allowed our economy to sink into the deepest and longest recession since the war. They have presided over the destruction of one third of this country's manufacturing employment. They have landed Britain with a deficit in manufacturing trade for the first time in history. The party which says it stands for sound finance —whatever that means from this Government; the Chief Secretary has said it again today—is borrowing more than any other Government since the war.
  It is in the face of that failure that the Government are putting up taxes in the Finance Bill. The higher taxes are not for better hospitals—they are cutting capital investment in the health service. The higher taxes are not for better railways—they are cutting investment in British Rail. The higher taxes are not for better training—they are cutting employment programmes.
  The higher taxes are to pay the price of economic failure, and they are to deal with the cost of nearly 3 million unemployed people. With £9,000 being spent for every one person who is unemployed, that means that this country is spending £25 billion of public money a year on unemployment—two and a half times more than it was under Labour in 1979. That is where the money goes.
  Mr. Portillo: What would the Opposition cut?
  Ms Harman: The Chief Secretary asks what we would cut. We would cut unemployment. We want a nation at work, not a nation on benefits.
  The higher taxes are to deal with the problems of high unemployment and low growth that the Government have created. The taxes are the price that the country is paying for a Government who believe that unemployment is a "price worth paying". The tax rises will not solve Britain's economic problems—they will just take the Government's economic failure one step further. The Government have raised taxes because of their economic failure, but the tax rises threaten to make the problem worse.
  Even Ministers are admitting that the tax rises will slow the recovery, and that the recovery will be checked. Instead of a panic Budget which put up taxes, there should have been a Budget which took immediate action to address the real causes of the deficit that the Government have created. The Budget should have taken action to promote growth and cut unemployment, and to encourage investment in our industry, our infrastructure and our people.
  The Chief Secretary thinks that cutting unemployment would be "fatuous". We wanted a Budget which would have released the £4 billion of capital receipts from council house sales. It is not fatuous to put building workers back to work and to take them off the dole. We wanted a Budget which gave an incentive to firms to hire the long-term

  183
  unemployed. It is not fatuous to put the long-term unemployed back to work. We wanted an extended capital allowance to help industry with investment, and we wanted genuine action to modernise our infrastructure. We did not get that, and in consequence we will continue to have a weak economy.
  Having been driven off its claim to be the party of low tax, the Conservative party cannot resist one further fundamental Tory instinct. Government Members have not been talking about that instinct tonight, but it is the real Tory instinct—the instinct for unfairness. Tonight, we ask the House to vote against VAT on gas and electricity because it breaks a clear election promise and because it hits hardest those who can least afford it.
  The compensation scheme is wholly inadequate. All Government Members will find that even their poorest pensioners will have to pay some of this new tax. Is that what they want? Is that what they promised their constituents? Is that fair?
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) wrote in a letter to one of his constituents that he would vote against VAT on gas and electricity if only he had the chance. Tonight he has that chance. His constituents will notice that he is not in the Chamber. But he has the chance to vote tonight.
  The choice for Conservative Members is this: they can vote with these discredited Ministers or they can vote to honour the promises that they made to their constituents and the pledges that their Prime Minister made to the country. If they do not take the chance tonight to get rid of VAT on gas and electricity, their constituents will never forgive them.
  To add to the unfairness of VAT on gas and electricity, the new taxes on spending are grossly unfair. The tax on insurance hits hardest people who live in poor, high-crime areas. They will have to pay up to seven times more of this tax than people in affluent areas.
  Let us take the airport tax—the tax on holidays. It is neat, is it not, that the Conservatives have made an exemption for small aircraft? The Chancellor presented it as an exemption for the Scottish islands, yet 90 per cent. of those who go to, from and between the Scottish islands do not travel on planes which qualify for the exemption. Only 10 per cent. of them will escape the tax. It is a badly targeted exemption if it fails to help 90 per cent. of those who travel to the Scottish islands.
  My hon. Friends suspect that there is another group who can expect not to pay the airport tax. It is not Scottish farmers or crofters, but millionaires with private jets. Who are the people who will be exempted? They are people such as John Latsis, Li Ka Shing and Asil Nadir—if he ever flew back to this country: all Tory donors, all private jet owners, all exempt from the tax.
  The truth is that the Chancellor's exemption is not protection for crofters but protection for Tory donors. There is one thing that demoralised Conservative Members of Parliament can still hold to. There is one thing that we can rely on Tory Chancellors for. We can rely on them, when they put up taxes, always to ensure that there are loopholes for their friends.
  The Tories have also increased direct taxes in the most unfair way possible. A family on half average earnings will pay more tax after April. They will spend more than they
  184
  would have done in 1979. A family on average earnings will pay more tax after April than now and more than they paid in 1979, but a family on £100,000 will pay £1,000 a week less tax than in 1979.
  Even as the Finance Bill imposes new unfair tax increases, it fails to end tax abuses by the wealthiest. The truth is that this is a Government who look to the most wealthy when they want to give away tax cuts but turn to ordinary people and their families when they put taxes up.
  We shall oppose the Finance Bill, not only because it breaks election promises but because it is deeply unfair. The Chief Secretary complains about the cynicism that he says bedevils Britain. That cynicism has not arrived from nowhere. It has not arrived from outer space. It is not some virus or some new British disease, as the Chief Secretary calls it. It is the Tory Government who have made people cynical about politics. It is the Prime Minister who has brought shame on No. 10 Downing street. It is Tory Chancellors who have brought contempt on No. 11 Downing street.
  No wonder that a Tory activist confided to The Daily Telegraph:
  "When you go out and canvass you are hampered by the fact that everyone thinks the Prime Minister is … slippery".
  The Sun described the Prime Minister as
  "weak and mediocre, surrounded by unprincipled spivs and chancers."
  I agree with the Chief Secretary on one thing. The deceit and duplicity of the Tories have taken their toll. People are demoralised. They have lost confidence. It is not that the Chief Secretary has discovered it: his Government have created it.
  As the events of the past few days have shown, the Finance Bill marks an historic moment in British politics. Let us make no mistake about it: it is a decisive turning point against the Conservative party. The pledge of tax cuts has been betrayed. The promises of low taxes have been broken. The integrity of the Conservative party lies in tatters. It has nothing left. No one will believe it if it ever says again that it is a party of low tax. No one will ever trust the Tories on tax again.
  Mr. Michael Stern: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). [HON. MEMBERS: "He was not here."] I have been here throughout. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. How can I be expected to deal with a point of order if I cannot hear it?
  Mr. Stern: I deliberately refrained from intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham so that I could hear her speech more clearly. Despite your invitation at the beginning of her speech, and despite Madam Speaker's selection of the Opposition amendment, I genuinely believe that at no point was that amendment moved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Chair. The Chair was satisfied.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) formidably indicted practically every clause in the Finance Bill. She made it clear that in her experience it was one of the most unacceptable pieces of legislation that she had ever encountered. If that it true—I take her words—the prospect

  185
  of the Bill being fiercely debated in Committee is assured. It is a Bill of massive proportions. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government owe it to the public outside and to the parliamentary process, if it seems that the Bill will be filibustered or impeded so that it will not receive proper consideration from beginning to end, to table an early timetable motion. That is the only way in which there can be proper consideration of the Bill in circumstances which are not of the making of my right hon. Friends, but which are certainly detrimental to the public interest in our affairs.
  Finance Bill debates are always occasions for going down memory lane. Today has been no exception. Practically all the debate has concentrated on what has happened in the past. Not much has been said about what will happen in the period between now and the next election. The Bill marks the beginning of a phase of consideration of the economy that will dominate the next two or three years and will be central to what will be debated and resolved at the next general election.
  I should like to share with the House a passing thought inspired by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. He talked about the Denis Healey Budget of 1974, which cut taxes in a situation in which that was clearly damaging—[HON. MEMBERS: "1978."] I am sorry, 1978.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was just before the election.
  Mr. Biffen: That is right. I remember it well. Whatever the year, it was before an election.
  The events are clearer in my imagination than the pedantry of dates. The Budget came after a narrow Labour victory and portended a somewhat enhanced Labour victory. I remember it well because it bore all the hallmarks of the measures against which my right hon. Friend has reacted. But the Opposition of the time did not oppose it; they thought that it was not the time to be seen to oppose tax cuts. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) and to me—like two rednecks below the Gangway—to divide the House, earning ourselves the irritation of the Whips and an approving editorial in The Times. It was a sort of morning star of Maastricht to come. I say that to emphasise that we would be unwise to assume that there is a puritanical attachment to truth and analysis in connection with Budgets during the heady days leading up to elections.
  Having said that, I hope that we have learnt something from the events of the past two or three years. It is now clear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has presented a Budget that includes massive increases in taxation. Nobody disputes that. Those increases are wholly merited, and I would have gone even further. The increases are wholly merited because they mark a very substantial reduction in the borrowing requirement, which I believe is my right hon. and learned Friend's utmost priority. From now on, as we begin to take advantage of the recovery—which of course will be affected by the tax increases, but which is reasonably well established and which my instinct tells me will continue —one question will increasingly characterise the political situation: how should the political world use the resources that are created by the recovery? Without doubt, our first priority should be to continue to reduce borrowing.
  186
  Thereafter, we shall have to make the tantalising choice between reducing taxation and accommodating further public expenditure increases.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not become too enthusiastic about any one of the courses that are available to him. Although we are discussing a combined spending and revenue-raising arrangement in a new form of debate, it is spending that determines taxation rather than vice versa. Of course, there is an interplay between the two, but hon. Members would be profoundly foolish if they though that they could walk away from dealing with the prime importance of accepted and legitimate public expenditure and the undertaking of collective responsibilities that are accepted by the ' Conservative party and many of its opponents. One always looks for an opportunity to reduce spending, but between now and the next election the underlying thrust of expenditure, certainly in health and education, is likely to be sustained and to intensify rather than to diminish.
  I make that point as a check on rhetoric about what is available for tax cuts. Of course, one would like tax cuts, but my experience of them over many years is that they are tax redistributions. Revenue has increased in almost every sector except income tax, where it has been reduced. That has become the flagship of fiscal policy. I can understand the political attraction of that, but it seems to me that, when it came to the point of increasing the poll tax so that it would yield more than the local government taxes that it replaced—again, as part of the master strategy to reduce income tax—a certain amount of political misjudgment was involved; I put it no higher than that. Such realities will control us over the next two or three years.
  Welfare spending is of enormous significance in our total budget. I believe that, sooner or later, changes in welfare spending will be forced on the House by the Borrie report or some other mechanism. Those changes will have to be made on the basis of the private sector being able to take over the running of a substantial part of a service which would otherwise and historically have been the responsibility of public expenditure. We have achieved that with retirement pensions and there are other sectors where it can be achieved. In my view, however, we are talking about a developing, almost Fabian-style policy, not one of substantial cuts delivered in a short time.
  We should take pride in the fact that we have been successful in eliminating great sectors of expenditure on industry from the Budget. The most important part of that policy has been the privatisation of various public utilities so that their programmes are privately, and not Exchequer, financed. If expenditure on those programmes were superimposed on today's levels of public spending, that would present a formidable challenge.
  I say to my hon. Friends and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in particular that we need to be very careful to ensure that the idea of public sector involvement in industrial activity does not return via an unexpected route—Brussels. I have no hesitation in, and feel no shame about, putting the proposition that the growth in our European Union budget sits ill alongside the constraints that we try to place on our domestic economy. That creates new centres of fiscal patronage, which are then tapped, usually by local authorities, outside what ought to be the overriding determination of a national Treasury. I see that on the horizon as something that could become a factor in adding to the difficulty of ensuring prudent financial control in the years to come.

  187
  As we come to the next general election, I have no doubt that we are now moving back into a position from which a Conservative Government can move forward by encouraging a relationship between spending, revenue and borrowing that is defensible and can be properly understood by the public. When the parties are compared, the issue will be not about the promises of the past but about the promises for the future and the extent to which the Opposition parties will try to cap spending, make other alterations or relate the consequences of their policy on the known national budget.
  Above all, the comparison of the parties will revolve around the extent to which politicians preach easy options. The easiest option is economic growth. That is the option that is reminiscent of the 1960s. The election of 1964 was fought on the belief that, through the national plan and the centralised allocation of resources, we could claim a much higher performance than would otherwise be the case. The events of the 1960s showed the shortcomings of that policy.
  I feel, and live with, great charity towards the Opposition, especially the shadow Treasury team. I am sad that they are still trapped in the time warp of the 1960s. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is a great proponent of economic growth, saying that we would be able to do away with unemployment that is created by a Tory Government—by which he means, created by a low level of economic activity. That is reminiscent of the past. The hon. Gentleman has much charm, but being a child of flower power and the 1960s is no guarantee of effectiveness at No. 11.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Of course the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) views the 1960s differently from me. He lost an election in the 1960s and I won one. I think that that has coloured his attitude to that time.
  I find it rather surprising that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury hardly mentioned the Bill, even though it is the largest Finance Bill that I have ever seen, running to two volumes. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the size of the Finance Bill and the amount of time that the Chief Secretary spends in explaining it.
  The Bill includes two new taxes—on air passengers and on insurance premiums—but they did not get a mention. It is rare that a Chancellor of the Exchequer or Chief Secretary comes to the House with two new taxes but fails to mention them. When I was a Treasury Minister, I made it a principle that new taxes should be introduced at a low rate. That was a sensible policy. One ought to get the structure right and then jack it up. If a rate is low now, we must not be under the misapprehension that what we have is some minor tax about which we do not need to bother too much. In fact, it will be fertile ground for future Chancellors of the Exchequer seeking to raise money for the Treasury.
  What we have been discussing repeatedly is tax rates —a very limited issue. In 1991 and 1992 the Conservative party captured the agenda. The issue at the last election should have been—indeed, the issue at any election should be—the future development of the country, a society caring for its weaker members and the prosperity of the
  188
  people. At the last election the issue was no such thing. It was not even the economy, not even general taxation. It was the small difference in income tax as applied to certain people. We were talking about pence or, sometimes, a very few pounds, and 90 per cent. of people were not going to be affected very much.
  What we are seeing now is the nemesis. It has come late, but it has come certain. The views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Conservative party are now being explained away because of their problems.
  We ought not to be talking about expenditure against tax. That is not the only way of looking at the situation. Even less should we be concerned with tax rates against expenditure. What we ought to be talking about is revenue against expenditure. It is true, of course, that expenditure has to be covered by revenue. But revenue includes a multitude of things. It involves growth, investment and the cost of unemployment as well as tax rates. These are the matters that ought to have concerned the Chancellor in his preparation of the Budget, and ought to have concerned us all at the time of the last election and thereafter.
  I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not satisfied with the increasing value of the pound against the deutschmark. He ought to be concerned not just about exporters but about the whole of manufacturing industry. I believe that he manifests some slight movement away from the hostility towards manufacturing industry that clearly existed throughout the 1980s. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have a slightly more open mind, and I congratulate him on that.
  Manufacturing industry must be given a chance. I can hardly ever make a speech without mentioning the 30 per cent. of middle-sized manufacturing firms that were lost to my constituency as a result of the problems that arose between 1979 and 1981. What we have lost can never be recovered, but the Chancellor could deal with some of the problems by doing more for manufacturing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), whose speech hon. Members—at least, Opposition Members—enjoyed, dealt very adequately with this matter.
  In the 19th century, income tax—this single aspect of the taxation system—was regarded as the great engine of revenue. Historically, however, income tax was a tax on the middle classes. It was based on taxable capacity and was raised on income after the exclusion of certain expenditures. The most important of those expenditures was the cost of maintaining a wife. Until the 1930s, women gave up their jobs when they got married. Their reliance on their husbands' support was acknowledged through the married woman's allowance. The children's tax allowance was in exactly the same category. It acknowledged that the family's expenditure had changed seriously upon marriage. The justification was that it applied to the middle classes. A working-class woman in my constituency left her child with her mother and went to the mill. In the case of the middle classes, the birth of a child resulted in a distinct drop in income as the woman ceased working.
  In the case of family allowance, Beveridge excluded the first child. Why? Because the first child does not cost very much: it does not eat very much, and it does not need extra housing. But that was a middle-class concept. The working-class concept now, as it was shortly after Beveridge, is that the first child results in an enormous drop in the family's income. This is the reason for the children's tax allowance, and it is the reason for child benefit. These benefits are crucial to people whose income

  189
  has undergone such change. It has always been accepted that expenditure such as that to which I have been referring is part of the cost of running a family.
  As people are given personal allowances, so they should receive allowances for essential expenditure. In addition to the cost of keeping a wife and a child, there is the cost of earning a living. Here we have seen fundamental changes. Earning a living now involves costs that people did not have to meet in the past. There was a time when people in my constituency and elsewhere earned their living in the mill down the road or in the pit down the street. A man would dress up in his muffler and take a butty with him. The cost was either zero or negligible.
  Things are different now. Making a living now costs a great deal of money. Many people live 20 or 30 miles from their places of work and have to meet the cost of transport. People in my constituency often travel on the motorway in order to earn their living. Many must have motor cars. Of course, sensible people try to modify their expenditure, but their costs are still very high. They can no longer turn up in a muffler and looking dirty; they must look presentable. They may work in dirty situations, but they clean up before going home. Also, extra expenditure is involved in the provision of clothing and meals.
  The tax system makes no provision for such costs. As someone who has dealt with these matters, I understand why. The Inland Revenue's fear is that if the dam were to burst, the flood could not be stopped. However, these matters can be dealt with, and this is something that we need to think about.
  There is no doubt that the Exchequer could not go into too much detail in this respect, but something could be done. For the best part of 100 years we had the earned-income allowance—a concept rather different from what we know today. Anyone with unearned income has capital, providing security. It is very comforting for a person to know that there will always be income derived from that capital. Thus it was that unearned income resulted in higher tax than was paid by a person in danger of losing his job next week. This was a very reasonable arrangement.
  After the second world war, people had the benefit of knowing that their jobs would be secure for a very long time. But, parallel to that, there were high levels of inflation, and capital security was not as great as it had been. It was in those circumstances and with that justification that the Government removed the earned-income allowance. However, the time has come to restore it in some way, as capital has enormous advantages again. The security of income arising from capital is very great indeed, as is the insecurity of earning a living—quite apart from all the costs.
  The restoration of the earned-income allowance in some form would also be a great advantage to the Department of Social Security as earning a living is so expensive. It costs a person so much to be in a job 30 miles away that it is better for that person to draw whatever benefits are available. This is why I suggest the provision of some allowance against working expenses.
  There is no doubt that most of this country's taxes are regressive. We have flat-rate duties on petrol, tobacco, and so on. People pay the same amount of tax regardless of their earnings. There have been two main exceptions. One is value added tax, which, generally, has been neutral as a result of zero rating but has probably been slightly regressive. The other is income tax. There is no question
  190
  but that was the true, great, progressive tax. One does not need to believe, as I happen to believe, in greater levels of social equality to appreciate that there are certain reasons for that tax. The people with the broadest shoulders should carry the broader burden. That was accepted not just by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Governments, but by the people, who understood that theory. Now the Government are trying to reduce that one progressive tax—the fair tax. Their policy is a disgraceful error and it is shameful. The rate of the income tax will always be politically divisive, but the principle behind that progressive tax should not be subject to party-political argument.
  When it was introduced, VAT was something near to a neutral tax, but it will become a regressive one. That, too, is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham was right to launch her attack on that tax. It is the most important aspect of the changes introduced in the Bill, and I hope that it will be reconsidered.
  Under the Government, the incentive effects of reductions in the higher rate of income tax have been held sacrosanct. I happen to believe that those effects are nonsense. If one goes to extremes, I accept that such an effect might result, but within the limits of 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. rates, it is hard to tell whether there is any incentive effect.
  If one offers someone an incentive to work, he will work for a year or two, but he will then get used to the incentive offered. It is hard to prove that incentive effects go on and on working. We have had a number of trial runs at producing such an effect. In 1962, the higher income tax rate was reduced precisely to bring about those incentive effects, but none were forthcoming. I remember Tony Barber telling us in 1972 about the great incentive effects that would result from his decision. Another recent Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Lawson, also told us about the enormous advantages that would be gained from the incentive effects. We saw none. If there had been any, we would not be discussing the Bill.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Surely it is not so much the incentive effect but the disincentive effect and disclosure effect that are important. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the problem in the 1970s, given the high rates of marginal tax that were paid at the top end, was that many people found attractive schemes to avoid paying any taxes. Since the tax rate has come down, people have disclosed their income and therefore the take from the top level of taxpayers has risen.
  Mr. Sheldon: I do not disagree that more people will declare their income for tax purposes when the rate is lower, but I am talking about incentive effects. Academics and others argue that when people are subject to a higher level of tax, they must work harder in order to obtain the same take-home pay. There is some validity in that argument as well as in the incentive argument. The jury has never come to any conclusion. To base a political philosophy, let alone an economic one, on such an argument is of little use.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's argument that marginal rates of taxation have no effect on investment, risk taking or incentives to work will carry no conviction with any hon. Member who has any experience of business or the way in which investment decisions are taken. Has he noticed that in the past 15 years 1 million more businesses

  191
  have been created, a net gain above those businesses that have disappeared, than were created in 1979 or 1980? Does he not appreciate that tax reform is a major element of that considerable achievement?
  Mr. Sheldon: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman for falling for that one. Surely he knows that the companies that go under tend to be rather bigger than those that are created. That important factor is slid over by many people. The hon. Gentleman must know that the effects of taxation will work both ways. If one is not succesful, the tax relief on losses are equal to the profits that will be made.
  I have been responsible for substantial investments in my time and I do not know of anyone who was put off from making an investment because of the taxation involved. We now have low levels of taxation, but what is the level of investment today? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think about that. I had hoped that the Chancellor would do something about investment allowances.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North is right in believing that we all have an aversion to taxes, and quite right too. That is natural, basic, right and proper. At the same time as we are thinking about the problems involved in taxing people, however, we should also understand that if we want to carry the people with us, the essential thing is to decide to opt for fair taxes. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham was right to highlight that.
  Anyone who has served in the Treasury will know that hypothecation is an unmentioned word. The Treasury does not like hypothecation because, once it gets the money in, it cannot spend it as it would wish. We all know the lesson of the road fund licence. It was supposed to be spent on building roads, but when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer finally got hold of it he said, "Look here, this is nonsense. Roads are only one item that we need to spend on." I agreed with that argument then and I agree with it now.
  There is one difference today, however, because the financing of the national health service will inevitably continue to rise. That expenditure will increase in the next century and, who knows, beyond that. We will spend more and more of our resources on it. On that basis, there is a case for arguing that if one makes an exception for a service as important as the NHS, perhaps hypothecation would be the best way to finance it. That argument should be considered. Although I was strongly against hypothecation, in the current circumstances and for as far as one can see, it must be looked at afresh. I look forward to that being done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham was right to draw attention to the important issues. I hope that we will be treated to a better consideration of the details than has been offered hitherto. The Chief Secretary spoke about the way in which the Finance Bill would proceed, and I hope that he will not proceed with it in the manner that he adopted in his speech. He should deal with the details in the manner to which we have been accustomed over the years.
  5.37 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: Given that the Opposition failed to table an amendment on VAT on fuel in the earlier Budget debates, it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) resolutely refused
  192
  to move the Opposition amendment on VAT today. Despite being prompted by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, several times, she failed—
  Mr. Terry Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is challenging the Chair.
  Sir Terence Higgins: No, I am not. I accepted your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendment had been moved.
  The fact is that the hon. Lady could not bring herself to utter the words, "I beg to move the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend" and so on. There is a good reason why she might not wish to move that amendment, because linked to VAT on fuel are the compensatory arrangements that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made. The reality is that the tax will fall across the population, but nearly half of the revenue will be redistributed to just 15 million people. It is, to a great extent, what one might fairly describe as a socialist measure.
  If the Opposition amendment was carried this evening, many of my constituents, particularly pensioners, would find that they suffered considerably, because those compensatory payments would be lost. That is an interesting point.
  In one sense, the Bill can be described literally as a monster. We have never had a two-volume Finance Bill. It is twice the size of the average Finance Bill and, in terms of the number of pages, three times the size of many previous ones. That gives considerable cause for concern. Whatever the Opposition's attitude, it will be difficult for the Bill's many clauses to be properly considered in Committee.
  A Procedure Committee that I chaired about 12 years ago made a recommendation that has been repeated by successive Procedure Committees—that there is an overwhelming case for isolating the main political measures in the Budget, and then presenting a separate taxes management Bill.
  When the Procedure Committee suggested that to the Leader of the House, he had three objections. First, he said that it was not a simple matter to separate the technical details from substantive tax changes. But it would not be difficult to remove from this massive document a large percentage of purely technical items that could reasonably be included in a separate Bill that would not be subject to timetable restraints.
  Secondly, the Leader of the House said that two Bills would need extra time for Second Reading and consideration. But that is not a great time constraint. Thirdly, he said that a taxes management Bill might not be given sufficient priority. If sufficient priority could not be given to it, there is a good case for not having it anyway. The Leader's three objections were not valid, and there is a strong case for splitting future Finance Bills. There might even be a case for dividing the present Bill, even at this late stage. I shall say more about procedure later.
  It is clear that the recovery is under way. I congratulate the all-party Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which analysed the Budget in considerable detail. I have great doubts about the timing of the Budget measures. The recovery is at an early stage, and we cannot yet say that demand should be reined back by tax increases.
  There are two worrying matters. First, the previous Chancellor and the present one have developed a tendency

  193
  to announce tax changes in advance, anticipating tax increases at some time in the future. We all know perfectly well that forecasting in the Treasury and elsewhere is so bad that no one can tell what the situation will be at the point in the future for which we are now seeking to legislate tax changes.
  While the changes may be good in themselves, the timing is certainly doubtful. It is also true that the Chancellor would have been much better placed next spring to judge the situation and decide what needed to be done than he was at the time of the unified Budget at the end of last year.
  The tax increases will inevitably put some brake on the recovery, although they may not stop it. Perhaps it will accelerate again, but it is difficult to see the case for a recovery, slow-down, recovery scenario. The problems arising from that should be considered.
  However, some factors will be stimulating the recovery as the tax increases are being introduced. The fact that the Government are not fully funding the borrowing requirement should stimulate the recovery, although the passage in paragraph 10 in the report from the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service on the issue of funding is obscure.
  Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us whether, on the true definition of funding—that is to say, the deficit that is being financed from the non-bank public—the Government are proposing to overfund or underfund, because that is not at all clear. I hope that at this stage we are somewhat underfunding, and producing an additional stimulus.
  All forecasters, Government or otherwise, tend to underestimate turning points in the economy—whether it is going up or down. At every successive cycle, the error has been greater. Therefore, as we have now passed a turning point, there is every reason to suppose that the recovery will be stronger than expectations. That has happened even since the Budget. There is now a general feeling that the recovery is faster than it was then. In view of those two factors, I am hopeful that the recovery will accelerate.
  As the recovery proceeds, pay restraint will come to the fore. It was in the headlines this morning and on the 1 o'clock news. In "The World at One", Mr. James Naughtie came up with the old question, "Why aren't Members of Parliament setting an example?" The press grossly misrepresented what happened after the debate on Members' pay a short time ago. Over the period 1992–95, our pay has not gone up faster than inflation, although the press have represented the increase at about three times the rate of inflation.
  It is said that we should set an example, but an interesting statistic arises from the long-term view. I have been in the House for a long time, for about 30 years, and throughout that time, in real terms, Members' pay has been below what it was when I first came here. It is now approaching that level, following the recent decision of the House.
  In real terms, we are now in almost exactly the position that we were in 30 years ago. Meanwhile, average earnings for the population as a whole have gone up 19 times in cash terms and 90 per cent. in real terms. That gives some idea of the extent to which Members of Parliament have set an example. I hope that, when Mr. Naughtie and others in the
  194
  media deal with this matter, they will remember that, although I do not expect the example that we have set to be followed.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am anxious that we do not appear to be engaged in special pleading. One of the best examples that we could set would be for more than 55 of the 651 hon. Members to join the charity payroll giving scheme that is operated by the Fees Office.
  Sir Terence Higgins: Hon. Members may join that scheme, but the hon. Gentleman's intervention does not in any way undermine my main point about the relative rates of pay of the population as a whole and of hon. Members. Increasingly, that issue will become relevant as the recovery proceeds, despite the considerable changes in the structure of the economy over the past 12 years.
  As the recovery proceeds, British industry should have a fair deal in relation to its competitors. I am increasingly worried by our tendency to set an example with EC directives. We are proud of the fact that Britain is the first country to implement this or that directive, hoping that everybody else will immediately follow, but we know that that does not happen and that there is often such time lags. There is a strong case for a mechanism by which directives are implemented simultaneously. British industry is often placed at a disadvantage by that time lag.
  Last year, we debated at length, on two specific amendments, the British shipping industry. One amendment was about 100 per cent. capital allowances, and the other was about roll-over relief. Most hon. Members recognise that this is a difficult and special issue that could be ring-fenced. I hope that the Government will pay more attention to that in Committee and on Report.
  It was said last year that, if we took action, we would not be setting an example to the other European countries, and that we must try to get them to get rid of their subsidies. In the meantime, those countries have either greatly extended their subsidies or introduced new ones. The competitive position of British industry must be taken into account in international negotiations. Let us have a level playing field. I have no doubt that, if we had a level playing field, the British shipping industry would be competitive. We must take a broader view of such issues.
  Finally, I want to say a few more words about procedure. Before the last election, it was clear from a number of Committee reports that there should be great consultation before moving to a unified Budget. We then had the election and everyone forgot about it. The next thing we knew was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the former Chancellor, announced, with no consultation whatsoever, that we were to have a unified Budget.
  It is important that both sides of the House should clearly agree what the financial programme of the House should be in future. We used to have financial debates on three occasions during the year: the autumn statement, the public expenditure White Paper and the Budget. We are now down to just the Budget and a Second Reading debate on taxation issues.
  We are told that there may be a two-day debate on public expenditure in the summer, but we still have no discussion on public expenditure as part of the unified Budget. In many respects, it would be better to have a

  195
  debate on specific public expenditure items in addition to the usual estimates days, which fulfil a useful function in the parliamentary process.
  A unified Budget should cover public expenditure as well as tax. Such debates on the Floor of the House might be more helpful than further debates on taxation, which gets extensive scrutiny.
  I hope that, despite the present breakdown in communications, the Opposition will realise that this is not simply an opportunity for sorting out our financial programme during the year; it is the responsibility of both sides of the House. We do not want the extent of parliamentary debate on such matters to be restricted as a result of moving to a unified Budget. It is an important matter for the House, and we need to sort out the procedures.
  Having said that, the Bill is extremely complex. We have not yet had a chance to go into detail, and when we do, we shall find a number of aspects which need careful consideration or reconsideration. The Bill contains a series of proposals which need to be put into proper context, and the present procedures for analysing, discussing and amending them cannot be regarded as satisfactory.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: We have heard two interesting speeches from the Government Back Benches. I agree with the wise words of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on matters of procedure, on the British shipping industry and on the uncertainties of the projections from either side of the House about the speed of recovery and the difficulty of making judgments on the effect of tax measures so far ahead.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) brought to the debate his usual candour to such an extent that I began to realise why he had not been used more prominently in the election campaign in which the tax promises figured. I am sure that he would have wanted to qualify them as appropriately as he qualfied much of what he said today.
  For the most part, it is hon. Members who have served on Finance Bill Committees who have commented on the enormous size of the Finance Bill. It is a two-volume edition or serial publication. When the Chief Secretary referred to the need to give it orderly consideration, he failed to recognise that the Bill is scarcely capable of orderly consideration by the normal procedures of the House. That is why its division into a taxes management Bill and a Bill dealing with more controversial items would have been appropriate. I have often felt that some aspects of Select Committee procedure, as used in Special Standing Committees, would be appropriate to some of the detail of a taxes management Bill.
  I have often watched or participated in exchanges where neither the Minister nor the hon. Member knew what they were talking about and each had to be refreshed by notes from elsewhere before replying to questions. That is such a frequent occurrence with the more technical parts of Bills in Standing Committee that I would wish to see it replaced by technical questions being answered by someone who actually knew the answers. That is a procedural development which would be widely welcomed.
  196
  In the current climate, the Chief Secretary has made it clear that he proposes to guillotine the Finance Bill. We need to see that guillotine. Now, partly as a result of the current climate, we are getting "Jopling minus"—the proposals of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) without some of the safeguards and qualifications which the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee on which I served considered to be necessary and appropriate. It is time that we had the whole package instead of automatic timetabling. We should consider any proposals from the Chief Secretary against that background.
  Mr. Stern: As a member of the Jopling Committee, may I say that my understanding is that we are not getting the Jopling proposals, which I still support, because the two or three Front Benches have been totally unable to agree on their implementation.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is partly correct. There are objections from two Front Benches but certainly not from three. We were, and are, in favour of the Jopling proposals. I understand that Labour Front-Bench Members have become more critical than they were initially. Whether that is in any way related to perceptions that they will be in opposition for longer and that government is not beckoning is not for me to say. The atmosphere appears to have changed from initial welcome to increasing hostility.
  As a result of how the Labour party legitimately chooses to exercise its tactics in the House, we may end up with one side of the Jopling proposals without their important safeguards. There is no reason why that should be so; if the Government wish to proceed they should proceed with the safeguards. We shall test that when we see the Chief Secretary's proposals. That is the procedural and political background to the Bill.
  The economic background is the deficit of which the Prime Minister did not seem fully aware when he said how readily he could achieve tax cuts when the Conservatives won the election. That was the phraseology he was using.
  The deficit was created by the Government because of the boom-bust sequence which produced the length and depth of the recession. That is the background to the measure. What has made the recession so damaging to public finances and made the gap between what the Government spend and what they raise so large? It is of course the scale of unemployment, the number of people who are receiving benefits instead of paying tax and the lower levels of tax paid by people and companies because of the effects of the recession.
  Throughout the recession we have argued that it would have been appropriate to engage in greater public capital spending to get more people back to work and thereby contribute to hastening recovery. It would give us assets that we will need in future if our industry is to be more competitive, such as better public transport and education.
  Although at some future time public finances may be in a relatively healthy state, it might then be inappropriate to engage in large-scale public capital expenditure for fear of creating the very overheating of the economy which has occurred previously under Governments of both parties.
  I also believe that the Chancellor has overdone the scale of the tax increases and that his judgment about what the tax increases are likely to do to demand in the economy is not correct. There was obviously a hint of that fear in the speech of the right hon. Member for Worthing.

  197
  The country has been through a severe recession. People who have money are frightened that they will soon not have much of it and feel that they should not risk spending it. Many more people borrowed and are now in great difficulties. Negative equity and disaster in the housing market are leading people to be very cautious.
  I recall when the effect of a previous Chancellor warning of and indeed recommending future tax cuts was to encourage people to spend. If people see large tax cuts coming, they are likely to be more cautious about spending, particularly against the background of their experience of the recession and that of their friends and relatives.
  I am not one who actually seeks a consumer-led recovery; I would much rather see an investment-led recovery, hence the policy proposals that I described a moment ago. I do not think that we will get a consumer-led recovery against the background of fear about the effect of these tax cuts. What I say about capital expenditure is borne out in what the Treasury and Civil Service Committee said. I am not praying the Committee as a body in aid of the whole of what I argued a moment ago. Indeed, there were differences of view in the Committee on the Budget judgment, which are expressed in the various amendments that were moved.
  In paragraph 90, the Committee collectively and without dissent said:
  "We believe that the reduction in the level of capital expenditure announced in the November 1993 Budget reflects the relative ease with which such cuts can be made. We recommend that a proper priority should be given to capital expenditure in future spending rounds."
  In the preceding paragraph we cast doubt on the Government's optimism about their private sector initiatives—not hostility, but doubt about how the Government can rely on major private sector contributions to public works projects after all the experience of the Jubilee line and crossrail, and the difficulty of assembling that mix without the public sector taking on the risks that turn it into public borrowing.
  That weakness in capital expenditure will lead to shortages of capacity and weaken our competitive capacity for the future. That applies not only to the physical investment in, for example, the transport system, but to our investment in education.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: In searching for clarity in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, may I say that it appears that he does not want the tax increases to come in, because he is worried about the recovery, and that he does not want to cut public expenditure. The consequence of that must have been the increase in borrowing, which could well have caused other problems for the economy. Where is he prepared to make the changes?
  Mr. Beith: I did not say that there should never be any cuts in public expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Treasury and Civil Service Committee report and the amendment in it that I moved, he will see that it is clear that I wanted a different mix of fiscal tightening and public capital expenditure. That recognises that one would not be able to project from that the achievement of as great a reduction in the borrowing requirement through tax increases, but one could hope to secure reductions in the borrowing requirement through the taxes paid by the
  198
  people who would then be in work as a result of the public investment, and the reductions in the benefits that would need to be paid out to those people.
  That is a judgment that the Chancellor has made. I disagreed with his judgment about the scale of the tax increases and its effect on recovery and about how reasonable it would be to allow in the borrowing for some more capital expenditure. The Committee pointed out that all this talk about ending the public finance problem "once and for all"—the words that the Chancellor used—betrays an assumption of reliability and certainty in the whole process, which is foreign to anybody and everybody's experience of those matters. We are all talking about judgments. I am arguing for a different judgment.
  Mr. Forman: In his argument about getting more people back into work and so increasing revenue, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is bound to be a first year public expenditure cost in doing that, and therefore that the deficit will worsen before it improves? If he is intending to take the strain on borrowing, he must realise that there are implications for monetary policy in allowing full reign to the use of capital receipts by local authorities, which is, I believe, part of his party's policy.
  Mr. Beith: The answer to both questions is yes. That is why I argued that it would have been better if we had done that earlier. The effects would then have come through now. There is, of course, a monetary policy implication in what we are all talking about today. If the Government's measures have too severe an effect on demand and growth, the pressure will be on the Chancellor to relax monetary policy to offset the effects of his fiscal policy. Let us be in no doubt that that is what lies at the back of this. It puts pressure on the Chancellor and on monetary policy, which might be inappropriate given all the other things that he must take into account, as long as it is he and not the central bank who determines that policy.
  The range and scale of the tax increases are considerable. There is the VAT increase on domestic fuel —not just 8 per cent. this year, but 17·5 per cent. next year. That does not address the question of where many of the problems about global warming and carbon dioxide emissions lie. It does nothing about transport and the huge contribution that private transport makes to that. Nor does it address the issues of energy savings, about which I shall seek to direct the House when I introduce a Bill a week on Friday. I hope for much Government support for it, particularly as they are putting up people's fuel bills on such a considerable scale.
  There is also the matter of 1p on national insurance contributions. It is not mentioned in the Bill. It is the equivalent of a penny on income tax for all but the higher levels of income. That is what is so unfair about it. It is done for straightforward tax and fiscal reasons, yet the Government stick it on national insurance so that they can go on saying that they have not put up the basic rate of tax —not that anybody is impressed by the story that the Government have not put up the basic rate when they have managed to put up income tax by every other possible means.
  The failure to index personal allowances and the defiance of the Rooker-Wise amendment—I can say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who moved that amendment—brings 400,000 more people into tax. I cannot count the occasions

  199
  when I have heard Ministers rejoice in the number of people whom they have taken out of tax by indexing the personal tax allowance, year after year. This year I have not heard any of them mention that they are taking 400,000 more people into tax as a result of this.
  Then there is the interesting case of mortgage interest tax relief. In the election campaign the Liberal Democrats were lambasted constantly by the Government on this issue. We argued that it was not a good idea and that we should look for ways of phasing it out because it involved a considerable subsidy from people who were not well off to people who were a great deal better off. On countless occasions, I have seen leaflets and have been at meetings where Conservatives challenged the incorrectness of such a course and used it as a means of attacking us. They are actually doing it by steady stages and will eventually complete the process if they are in power long enough. Let us have no more of their criticisms of us.
  Conservatives were saying the same thing about petrol tax. They attacked us on the petrol tax increases that we proposed, which are smaller than the increases that they have introduced. The Government will pay a penalty for trying to hide their tax intentions and, having done that, to hide the scale of the tax increases. Most of what has been discussed in the press and on television in the past few days about their scale has been known since the Budget, and a large part of it since the preceding Budget. The Government will have to change their rhetoric and their way of describing things if they are ever to convince people that tax increases on this scale can be justified.
  The Government are introducing two new taxes. What about all those Budgets in which another tax was abolished? Some of them were taxes of which we had never heard. But now the Government have managed to introduce two taxes that we have heard of. One, an insurance tax, is not a good idea, especially in the light of the experience of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who correctly pointed out the Treasury approach—"Bring it in low and you can always increase it later." The insurance tax may look low at the moment, but it can be steadily increased. It will not appeal to those whose insurance premiums are right at the margin of their spending, particularly pensioners in areas where there is a lot of crime, or fear of it, many of whom do not insure, or surrender insurance polices as premiums increase. It is not a good idea, particularly in relation to the revenue that it raises.
  I do not have the same fundamental criticism of the airport tax, but I am worried about the impact that it will have on remote communities who are dependent on air communication. They have little alternative and will not be effectively safeguarded by the Government's attempts to make an exception that relates to the size and number of seats on the aircraft. That will not help many of the island communities in Scotland who will be affected by the tax, and also the remote communities on the mainland of Scotland who are dependent on air travel for any form of rapid communication across the country.
  Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman listened, as I did, to the speech on Budget day—on St. Andrew's day —and heard the Chancellor give what apparently was a clear commitment that those people would be protected. But in the detail of the measure, as the right hon.
  200
  Gentleman well knows, the vast bulk of island travellers will have to pay the airport tax. Is not it a matter of honour as well as a matter of finance that the Chancellor now changes his mind?
  Mr. Beith: Indeed. I am giving the Chancellor the credit of assuming that he wants to exempt remote communities. That is why he talked about limitation on the number of seats on the aircraft, providing a tax exemption. If that is his intention, he will have to do much better to achieve the object. I am therefore tabling amendments designed to do that. I hope that Ministers will either come up with their own or be sympathetic to what we propose, if that is the Government's intention. It will hit people who have to travel frequently by air services and who are dependent on those services, rather in the way that Ministers get in cars to make journeys, or others of us get on trains or buses for regular and frequent journeys.
  I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne talking about hypothecation and his experience of the arguments about it in the Treasury. We have argued the hypothecation case in proposing at the previous election that a specific additional 1p of income tax should be used for added educational expenditure. The issue of hypothecation is worth examining. The Liberal Democrats are examining it as a party.
  We have reached the point—if we have not already we shall certainly have done so after these increases—where the general public ask what all this is for. When they are confronted with massive tax increases designed to bail out previous economic failures, they are bound to say that they pay taxes in order to obtain certain benefits. If that is so, it is reasonable for the public to demand that we should look at ways of tying the tax more clearly to the benefit that they seek. That gives the Government less flexibility, but it might put more power in the hands of the people.
  My general conclusion is that the Chancellor has put on too much by way of tax increases; that by their nature, in many cases those tax increases are unfair, for example, the national insurance contribution; they are not spent on or dedicated to the things that are most needed in the way of investment, and they represent a broken promise.
  Ministers talk as if they are obliged to impose painful taxation measures to clear up the mess left by an irresponsible Government with whom they have no connection whatever. They seek to give us the impression that they are left with a painful task that they carry out rather as the headmaster used to carry out corporal punishment on the basis that "This hurts me more than it hurts you", as a direct result of taking over the reins of Government from a lot of incompetent scoundrels who must have been holding them for the previous 14 years. Yet they are part and parcel of that Government. They have held office in it at every conceivable level. That excuse simply will not wash.
  The new Government line is that it is all right to introduce huge tax increases as long as they are to bail out their own crass incompetence and not to pay for better schools, better public transport or better benefits for disabled people. That will not wash either. The Government say, "Never mind our policies. Never mind our record. Our instincts are all right. Our instinct is to cut taxes." Well, the Government's economic instincts were wrong because they gave us the boom and then the bust, and their political instinct was not to tell the voters what they intended to do about it.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. John Watts: I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and supported by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for a technical Finance Bill to separate the purely technical issues from those which have mainline economic and political importance.
  I listened with interest and amusement to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed when he talked of hon. Members putting questions that they did not quite understand to Ministers who did not quite understand the answers that they were giving based upon slips of paper from officials advising them. I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman had in mind an incident some years ago when my noble Friend Lord Hayhoe was a Treasury Minister and we were dealing with some extremely arcane aspects of the tax code. In the spirit of great co-operation that reigned in those days, my noble Friend said, "I must tell the Committee that I do not fully understand the answer that I am giving, but I can assure it that it is right." That was accepted.
  Almost in the same category comes the passage on funding in the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing referred. I believe that all members of the Committee concluded that what we had agreed to there was right, but it was based more upon confidence and trust in our advisers than on any great depth of understanding.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be helpful if the Financial Secretary, in replying, could say whether, on the old definition of fully funding, we are underfunding or overfunding at the moment.
  Mr. Watts: It would be enlightening for all of us.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report, as did the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The House will be relieved to learn that I do not intend to go through its conclusions in great detail. I hope that hon. Members find it informative and useful. It reviews monetary policy and inflation prospects and, in paragraph 17, we conclude:
  "It would appear that the short term prospects for inflation are good."
  The report then moves on to examine economic prospects and, in paragraph 40, we conclude that there is still a significant output gap which will ensure that the economy continues to operate at below full capacity for some years to come and therefore:
  "Notwithstanding the scale of the fiscal tightening announced in the March arid November Budgets, the degree of monetary easing already seen, together with a recovery in world markets, existing spare capacity estimates and an improved trade position, suggest that average annual growth of 3 per cent. over the medium term is a reasonable central projection."
  Clearly there will always be doubts surrounding any forecast, but, on the balance of the evidence that we received and the judgments that we reached, that central forecast is reasonable and attainable.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred specifically to the Select Committee's conclusion in paragraph 46 of its report on fiscal policy. It is probably that part of the report that is most germane to the Finance
  202
  Bill. Our conclusion referred back to the Select Committee's report on the March 1993 Budget in which we concluded that
  "further increases in taxation or reductions in public expenditure would be required if the Government was to eliminate the structural Budget deficit."
  The Select Committee then went on to say:
  "We welcome the fact that the Chancellor has tightened fiscal policy further. The balance between fiscal and monetary policy has been dramatically adjusted over the past year and this is very welcome for medium term prospects for the economy. We agree with the Chancellor that if further action had not been taken to redress the fiscal position, this would have had adverse economic consequences."
  That was a considered view reached by the Committee, and not without or before consideration of other possible strategies.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to amendments that were moved during our deliberations on the report. The one that was moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and supported by the hon. Member for Durham, North and other Labour members of the Committee expressed concern about the size of the fiscal adjustment and the possible impact that it would have, and sought a different mix between fiscal tightening and capital expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman argued that there should perhaps have been more room for greater capital expenditure, notwithstanding the constraints, to go alongside the fiscal tightening.
  That was not in the end the overall view of the Committee, but the proceedings show that the balance, at 5:4, was fairly close and that the Committee as a whole had some sympathy with the view that capital expenditure in this Budget had received a rather low priority than, in particular, in the autumn statement of November 1992. We recommended that a proper priority should be given to capital expenditure in future years.
  That shows that, when these matters are considered calmly and rationally, a less partisan overall view of strategy can be struck. There is no doubt in my mind that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was entirely correct in his view that borrowing could not be allowed to continue at existing levels unchecked, and that, as we enter a period when we anticipate substantial and sustained growth, that is precisely the right time to conclude that part of that growth can be taken in the medium term in higher taxes in order to reduce borrowing so as to lay the foundations for sustainable growth into the future and the aspiration of Conservative Members that that will lead to opportunities to get direct taxes lower in future.
  Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend also agree that many of us hope to return to the heady days of the late 1980s, when the public sector borrowing requirement was eliminated and replaced by a public sector debt repayment?
  Mr. Watts: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has set out a sensible and credible strategy to bring the public finances back towards balance within the foreseeable future, and that that will provide us with a real opportunity to look at options, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) argued.
  If we are in that happy position, we can make choices about whether the burden of taxation should be reduced or expenditure be allowed to increase. But while finances are

  203
  not in balance and are not in vigorous health, those chances do not present themselves to my right hon. and learned Friend or any Chancellor in future years.
  Much has been made of the possible comparison between the burdens of taxation imposed on an average earner by Conservative and Labour Governments. In the past week or so, the most popular comparison has been between the proportion of average earnings taken in direct taxation—income tax and national insurance contributions —in 1978–79, and the proportion that is taken now.
  Before making such crude comparisons, however, hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that, under the last Labour Government, the real net income of an average earner rose by only 0·6 per cent. The real net income of that same person—given that he has continued to enjoy average earnings throughout the period of Conservative government—has risen by more than 40 per cent., or £80 a week.
  A parliamentary answer last week reveals that today's average earner pays a slightly higher proportion of his income in direct taxes than did someone on average earnings in 1978–79. If that is true, it tells us only that, over the intervening period, although personal tax allowances have been increased by more than inflation—more than would be required by the Rooker-Wise amendment—they have not been increased as rapidly as earnings. In arguing against the consequences of the facts, the Labour party seems to be arguing against the principles of progressive taxation on which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) waxed so eloquent.
  The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the highest marginal tax rates had been reduced under the present Government, but did not appear to take on board the stark fact—presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor)—that the top 10 per cent. of income earners today contribute 45 per cent. of the total income tax take. In 1978–79, when marginal tax rates were very much higher, that same 10 per cent. contributed only 34 per cent. of the total take.
  Even by the right hon. Gentleman's definition, the reforms that we have made to income tax rates over the years have made the income tax system much more progressive: those with higher incomes are contributing a higher proportion of the overall revenue raised by the tax.
  There are, however, other bases on which to make comparisons. Rather than comparing the proportion of average 1978–79 earnings absorbed in direct taxation with today's proportion, we should consider a different, perhaps fairer, proposition. If the last Labour Government's income tax policies had continued—if personal allowances had been increased only in line with inflation, which I understand to have been Labour's policy at that time, and if the same marginal tax rates of between 33 per cent. and 83 per cent. on earned income and 98 per cent. on savings income had continued to apply—what would be the proportion of an average earner's income taken in tax in 1994–95?
  The answer is interesting. In 1994–95, the average earner would be paying 21·9 per cent. of his income in direct tax as a result of the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor; under a Labour regime, with the index that I have described, that same person would be paying 25·4 per cent.—an extra £13. a week.
  204
  I could, of course, make assumptions about how the policy might have changed, but I think most of them would be unfair to the Labour party. I might have assumed, for example, that Labour would want expenditure to increase year on year, and might have chosen to pay for that increase by raising taxes rather than by continuing to increase borrowing. Such assumptions, however, would not have been favourable; I am trying to be as fair to the Labour party as I possibly can.
  On Third Reading of the last Finance Bill, I spoke of the need for what I described as "son of BES". The business expansion scheme, in its existing form, was being phased out; I saw a need for replacement measures to encourage equity investment in small businesses. I welcome the package of measures contained in the Budget and the Bill, which is designed to encourage such investment—in particular, capital gains tax reinvestment relief, the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. I shall be especially happy to speak about those measures when, along with others wading through this enormous Bill, I debate them in Committee.
  I also welcome the new regime to assist the unit trust industry to improve its export performance in the European Community, and to grab back some of the vast amount of business currently managed from Luxembourg. That regime was introduced following an assurance given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary during the passage of the last Finance Bill. Both those measures deal with interests that I have consistently espoused.
  The changes contained in the Bill will play a vital role in improving our public finances, reinforcing the foundations for sustainable growth on which our ability to lower taxes again in the future—we retain that as our central objective, unlike the Opposition parties—must depend. I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I support the Opposition amendment—which I distinctly heard my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) move: there can be no doubt about that. In fact, I heard much of what was said as I resumed my seat after the intervention.
  The huge tax hike contained in the Bill has clearly been caused by the deficit. That is apparent both from our discussions here, and from other discussions that have taken place in recent months. It is also accepted, certainly by Opposition Members, that the prime cause of that deficit is mass unemployment.
  The overall Budget package that we are debating again —I am grateful for the Chair's forbearance in that regard —may even add further to the number of unemployed people: that is the paradox inherent in it. Certainly it will not enable unemployment to fall even to what might be termed an acceptable level. Because of the Government's refusal to run our economy in a more intelligent fashion, we are storing up massive problems for future generations.
  Unless we begin to accept the proposition that work is the foundation of human endeavour and well-being, and that a nation's greatest asset is the capacity and willingness of its people to work, we are in real trouble: we shall be heading towards social disintegration. However, we do not seem to be accepting that proposition at present.
  We have a choice, of course. According to Professor Colin New of Cranfield university—whom I would term an engineering thinker—by the early part of the next century,

  205
  we may either have 15 million people working 40 hours a week and 15 million on the dole, or have 30 million people working 20 hours a week. One option, says Professor New, spells social disaster; the other spells social equity.
  That is the choice that is facing this and other industrialised western nations.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is advocating more part-time work—which, as far as I know, is not Labour party policy?
  Mr. Rooker: I am not advocating anything of the kind, but I am saying that, unless we accept the idea that work is important to individuals—[Interruption.] Conservative Members clearly do not accept it. If they did, we should not be creating a scrap heap of mass unemployment which means the loss of hope for millions of people.
  No attempt has been made to manage the situation. If we do not manage it, we shall find that half the population is fine and in secure jobs while the other half constitutes a virtual no-hope economy. That spells social disaster. I do not like the direction in which the Government are heading; nor do I think that the Bill is heading in the right direction.
  As has been said, the Government have lost the people's trust. Trust is a key factor for political parties and political leaders. It has been a missing ingredient for a long time in this country, but it has taken the Government a long time to lose it. I am certain that they can regain the people's trust, but the problem is that it will take them as long to regain it as it took them to lose it and, in the intervening period, they will have to meet the electorate at a general election. For the first time in a decade and a half, they will meet the electorate having lost their trust and without being in a position to regain it. That will be the difference between the next election and those of 1992, 1987 and 1983.
  Judging from experience, it seems that the British public do not take too kindly to being ambushed with new policy ideas—whether financial or social—during general elections. There is abundant evidence that people's minds are made up well in advance of the white heat of an election campaign. That process is now under way—people are making up their minds about what they will do when the election comes, whenever it may be. The process cannot be reversed. It is therefore crucial that those of us who oppose the Government lay the groundwork well in advance.
  For a so-called mature democracy, we have incredibly immature popular mass media, so it is even more important to articulate the foundations of a different way of running the country. For the sake of our fellow citizens, there has to be a better way of running the country than that which we have seen in the past 15 years.
  That way has to be presented not only at the general election but in the months and years before. The Government will unashamedly steal good ideas. They will steal every good idea they come across, but this time they will do so having lost the trust of the people. That will work to the advantage of those who propagate a better way forward.
  I have heard Tory Members on television and on the wireless—or the radio, as it is more popularly called—calling for their supporters to stand firm "at this trying time". In the Chamber, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor can look behind them and see that they have a majority in the House. No one denies that that, is the case,
  206
  in the Division tonight or in those that will come in the summer. Being able to see their support is their parliamentary comfort factor.
  However, when they go outside to face the people, things are rather different. When they leave here and look behind for their supporters "at this trying time", they will realise that they received only 42 per cent. of the votes in the ballot box and the support of only 33 per cent. of the British electorate in 1992. They do not have a legitimate majority in Parliament to drive through their policies. They received the support of only one third of the total electorate at the previous general election. That is a fact that cannot be denied.
  Mr. Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I do not want to be diverted, but that point needs to be stressed constantly.
  Mr. Forman: On an historical point, surely the hon. Gentleman realises that, if one applies that test to our system of government, one has to go back to 1935 to find a Government who received the votes of more than 50 per cent. of the qualified electorate. Surely he is using an outdated argument.
  Mr. Rooker: I am in favour not only of a modern economy but of a more modern electoral system. I believe that people's views should be represented here according to the votes cast. The Tory party is over-represented in terms of votes in the ballot box, which is why it is in trouble now and why it is wholly bewildered by the fact that the country is up in arms not in support of its policies but against them. The Tories did not have a majority to start with, but I do not want to get diverted. [Laughter.] I should be happy to debate the issue at length, but you would rule me out of order if I were to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I and some of my colleagues from Birmingham were not present for the presentation of the Budget in November and December. We were otherwise occupied at a three-day inquiry into parliamentary boundaries in Birmingham. I therefore paid more attention than usual to the press reports, some of which I re-read this morning.
  I picked up one newspaper dated 1 December and read four headlines: "Hidden tax will bite in spring"; "Double whammy of Lamont and Clarke costs family £430"; "Recovery for the Tories and for the country"—that was the headline of the leader column—and "Clarke masters the art of invisible taxation". They are rather different from the headlines this morning and those of the past few days.
  We no longer read about the "master of invisible taxation", because the Tories have been rumbled—the public have rumbled what has happened, not only in this Budget but for the past decade and a half. Now that their taxation policies have been rumbled, panic has set in, and the simplistic reaction of many Conservatives is to call for more cuts in services.
  Their dilemma is that the public are already receiving fewer services for more taxes. The Government cannot justify the extra taxes, because they have not promised corresponding extra services. That is their dilemma, not ours, and we shall seek to exploit it and ram it home at every opportunity.
  Not all the challenges to our services will be financial but I shall dwell on the financial aspect for the moment. There will be an attack on the benefits system. I wish to

  207
  make it clear that I am in favour of maintaining universal benefits for the elderly and for the youngest in order to ensure maximum take-up by those who are dependent on them, but I also favour clawing back payments from those who clearly do not depend on them. That must be a fairer way in which to proceed. We must ensure universal take-up by the oldest and the youngest, because we know that enormous numbers of people do not collect their non-universal benefits.
  I do not mean, however, that we should pay benefits willy-nilly and irrespective of resources to the richest in the land. I cite one example. I see no justification for the fact that a low-paid worker earning £60 or £65 a week—too little to pay income tax—should have to pay more than £5 a month in national insurance to help to pay for the current state retirement pension of someone who is receiving a substantial private pension, when the recipient has not paid for the state pension but has paid for the private pension. The pay-as-you-go system for the state pension is nonsense if we are calling on the very lowest paid to fund the state pension for people with substantial private pensions. There ought to be a clawback mechanism for that, to bring in some equity and fairness. The same ought to operate, on the grounds of equity, for the youngest.
  I want universal child benefit. I would like it to be properly indexed and fully funded to meet the costs of bringing up children, bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said earlier about the reason why we abolished the income tax allowances related to the children in the family and merged them with family allowance all those years ago. Families have been ripped off terribly in recent years, because the benefit has not been properly indexed and was never set at a level sufficient to meet the costs of bringing up children.
  Universality is the key to ensuring that we do not miss out the vulnerable, but that does not mean that we do not have a mechanism for clawing it back from the wealthiest in the country, who obviously do not need it in terms of dependency.
  Sir Terence Higgins: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the national insurance pension should be means-tested?
  Mr. Rooker: No. The right hon. Gentleman has been here much longer than I have, and has also been a Treasury Minister. The national insurance pension is getting smaller as a proportion of pensioners' incomes, and it will continue to get smaller proportionately.
  One of the reasons is that the Government are committed to freezing it in real terms. Because it increases only in line with prices and not with earnings, the pension is frozen in real terms, and has been frozen in real terms for more than a decade. It has cost a married couple of pensioners more than £20 a week, because it has been frozen in real terms. There is no extra benefit for those pensioners.
  The pension ought not to be frozen in real terms for the generality of the population. It is based on pay-as-you-go. It is not a funded system. I cannot see the benefit, however, in ensuring that the pay-as-you go system operates for the millionaires and the wealthiest people in the country, who could give up what is a pittance to them, which they do not
  208
  need and—what is more—they have not paid for because by then they are not paying national insurance contributions. One can therefore bring in a clawback mechanism on the wealthiest people in the country.
  I see nothing in social justice against that. However, the national insurance pension has to be a universal benefit, available to every citizen in the land. Otherwise, acceptable changes, based on equity, would not be passed by the House.
  I shall suggest three and a half new taxes before I conclude. It behoves the Opposition to do a little bit of free thinking, because we do not like the unfairness of the taxation system and the way in which it has been rigged against the poorest in the country during the past few years, as I will show using the Government's figures.
  There are many taxes in the Bill. I lost count whether there were 12 at this stage or 20 if one counts the two Finance Bills put together. Some we oppose; others we support. I have not heard anyone speak—I do not expect that anyone will—against the extra increase in tobacco duty in excess of the rate of inflation.
  I cannot believe that any sensible Member of the House would not vote for that tax. Every all-party Committee, from the Public Accounts Committee to the Health Select Committee, has called for increases in tobacco duty on the grounds of improving the health of the nation, which has a by-product in reducing the financial burden on the national health service. In my view, probably 3 per cent. is not enough. I declare myself a non-smoker, but that is not the point.
  Smoking is the cause of the biggest killer in this country —coronary heart disease, which kills 300,000 people a year. It is a tragic loss of life, and it is heavily based on the people's propensity to smoke. Although I would not wish to ban smoking—that would be crazy—we may be able to use the price mechanism to price people into good health. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a tax increase that we can support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  I do not want to go into the highways and byways of the insurance surcharge. I understand that it is a new tax. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is right to say that it is outrageous that the Chief Secretary came to the House to promote a Finance Bill with new taxes, a Bill which is large by any standards—I do not complain about that, as I shall not be serving on the Committee—and did not refer to those taxes. I should have thought that one would be proud that one was bringing forward new taxes to broaden the tax base. People have tried to broaden the tax base for a long time, although it can be done in unacceptable ways—VAT on fuel was an example.
  The insurance surcharge does not relate to crime, although I think that it is a crime prevention measure. It is, in effect, a surcharge on motor vehicle insurance, which is one of the biggest causes of crime in the country as a result of the irresponsible ownership of motor vehicles that are left empty and not parked properly, wasting much police time. However, the imposition of a surcharge, effectively, on motor insurance will lead to people cutting corners by cutting the cover they pay for.
  The insurance surcharge will not assist pollution. It will not reduce overcrowding on the roads. It would have been much more effective to make the provision of free parking by employers a taxable benefit in urban areas, including this place. I am happy to suggest that and get it in the neck, if necessary.

  209
  That would cut overcrowding on the roads. That would cut pollution. That would be a worthwhile new tax to consider. It would have the benefit of raising money, and it would assist public transport and have the other spin-off effects that I have mentioned. That would be a much more effective way of bringing in a new tax. It is not intended to bash the motorist. I simply take it as an extension.
  When people challenged me, as a Member of Parliament, about all the perks we have, the only two perks that I have ever been able to mention since I have been a Member of the House are permanent 24-hour, 365-day parking free of charge in the centre of Birmingham and in the centre of London.
  We have the peculiar arrangement that people have to pay to park cars. The parking of cars uses up space. That in itself is a cost, and in some ways it can be met. Some people know what the costs are, whether it is commercial parking or not. It would have been more effective, in terms of pollution and overcrowding on the roads, to make the provision of such parking a taxable benefit than to bring in a surcharge on motor vehicle insurance.
  The Finance Bill could also have been a vehicle—that was not an intended pun—for securing proper funding of the national health service. That is why I was delighted with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. We could have used the Finance Bill to introduce a special tax for the health service, made up of an income and expenditure element.
  I see no problem about setting aside, and I have called it a set-aside tax. If we can have set-aside for land, I am sure that we can have a set-aside of part of income tax or a set-aside of one of the expenditure taxes, to be hypothecated, to use the technical term, as a way of funding the national health service. It is the single area, at national level, where a specific task to run a service would be acceptable. I think that it would even be popular.
  I also think that we should fund part of our compulsory education service—I emphasise, the compulsory years—from local education bonds. We ought to consider that seriously. I know that my local authority in Birmingham is making inquiries and considering the issue. It would require changes in the law. Local people need to know that there is some transparency in the provision of their services and the way in which they pay for them.
  Hypothecation for health at a local level and for the compulsory part of education would be useful because it would be transparent. It would ensure that the services were provided. People would see what they were getting for the cash. It would enable the services to be ring-fenced. There would be a defence from the constant simplistic calls of people who demand cuts. The cuts always fall on the wrong elements of our social wage. I also think that the transparency of that type of tax would enhance value for money. The only downside is less Treasury control and I for one can live with that.
  I shall not recite the figures on the tax burden increases, which were so well illustrated earlier by the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham.
  I have to confess that I had a moment of inner pleasure on Sunday as I heard my noble Friend Lord Healey taking apart Lord Parkinson on the non-indexation of personal allowances. The freezing of personal allowances will create, from April, 600 or more new low-paid taxpayers in every constituency in the country. I hope, that hon.
  210
  Members are proud of that. If anyone thinks that 600 is not very many, 24 Conservative Members have majorities of fewer than 1,200 and 13 have majorities of fewer than 600.
  We are at the margin, it is true, but the Budget is creating almost half a million new low-paid taxpayers. It is a thundering disgrace that the lowest-paid people in the country should be asked to put their shoulders to the wheel in that fashion to pay for the Government's economic mess.
  The most telling point that I have come across in recent months shows that the Conservative party has not simply happened to come up with this year's Budget, or last year's Budget. My example proves that increasing taxes on the low-paid and on average earners is not a mistake, or a one-off incident that the Government can put away in aberration or get out of in the next couple of years, before the general election. The tax increases in this Budget and in the spring 1993 Budget are part and parcel of a long-run process of shifting wealth, income and the tax burden in this country.
  My example comes from the Government's own publication, the 1993 edition of "Social Trends". Table 518 shows that, between 1979 and 1989, real net incomes for the poorest fifth of the population, after housing costs had been taken into account, remained exactly constant, whereas for the middle fifth they increased by 23 per cent., and for the wealthiest part of the population, the top fifth, they increased by no less than 40 per cent. There is the contrast.
  That did not happen because of one incident in one Finance Bill; it has been part of a long-run process ever since 1979, when the Conservatives came into office. In Budget after Budget, we can detect the shift. All in all, it is making our society more unequal and more polarised than ever. The Bill will only make matters worse.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: I do not propose to follow up the intriguing suggestions of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about free parking in Birmingham, not to mention the means-testing of universal benefits. However, I agree with him that the Finance Act is not popular legislation. Nobody likes paying increased taxes or welcomes the need for the state to take more money out of the economy, but there are times when that is necessary, and I strongly believe that this is one of them. The measures in the Bill are entirely justified.
  At some £50 billion, the budget deficit is unsustainable and it had to be tackled, for good reasons. If the deficit continued at £50 billion, an increase in interest rates would inevitably and rapidly follow, and soon after that, curiously enough, there would be a short-term increase in the exchange rate. As the deficit continued, that would end and the exchange rate would collapse, which would lead to further interest rate rises. Almost inevitably, lenders would then refuse to provide more money for the Government to finance their deficit.
  We have been there before. That is precisely what happened in the mid-1970s, and it led to what happened to the Labour Government—the coming of the International Monetary Fund and the forcing of savage cuts in the budget of this country. So the problem had to be tackled. There was no question but that the deficit was unfundable in the long term.

  211
  In tackling the deficit we have two choices, and I am glad to say that the Government have taken them both. The first is cutting Government expenditure, and I believe that that has been done as far as is possible at this stage. In yesterday's debate we heard how difficult it is to limit the growth in Government expenditure, let alone to cut it. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House earlier that we shall cut about £8 billion from expenditure over the next few years. That is welcome, but it is by no means enough to bring our finances back into balance. That inevitably means that, even with all the reductions in public spending, we still need tax increases.
  The increases have to be large. We cannot limit them to a level that we hope will be sufficient, but that may prove insufficient. One of the principal reasons for increasing taxes at this stage, and showing that we are doing something about our budget deficit, is not only to ensure a rapid reduction in the deficit but to make certain that the financial markets have considerable confidence in the Government's determination to reduce it. That confidence will allow lenders to continue to provide the Government with the money needed to carry them over a period during which the borrowing requirement is bound to remain high, and, unfortunately, may even increase, as it tends to in a period of recovery from recession. We must boost the confidence of the markets that the Government propose to tackle our fundamental problems.
  Of course, the tax increases proposed in the Bill, which I believe are right, may turn out to be too high and, in a shorter time than some people suppose, we may find that the Government have raised too much tax. Then we shall be faced with the happy prospect of having to decide where to cut taxes. That time will come rather sooner than some pessimists think. It will come; the signs of the recovery of our economy are strong. We have heard that estimates of economic growth have increased from 2·5 per cent. at the time of the Budget to almost 3 per cent., and even that may underestimate how rapidly the economy is growing.
  That rapidity of economic growth may mean that the tax paid to the Exchequer increases more rapidly than we projected; in fact, it is certain to do so. We may find that the Budget deficit is brought down more rapidly than we expect. That will not happen this year, but the signs may start to appear next year. Certainly, in three years' time we shall start to see significant effects of a sustained economic growth at those levels of recovery. So I hope that we shall soon see more pleasant Finance Bills.
  The speed of recovery itself can cause problems, especially if it gets out of control, so one of the benefits of the tax increases will be their effect in slowing down the historic tendency of our economy to overheat. Taxes may provide the necessary damper. If our economy grows too fat, we risk returning to our historic problem of the conflict between interest rates and foreign exchange rates. As our economy recovers, the pound tends to increase rapidly in value. Historically, that problem has been tackled by reducing domestic interest rates, which continues the overheating of the economy, and foreign exchange rates increase even further. We then end up in a boom-bust cycle, as we did most notably in 1988. That in itself is undesirable, and the problem needs to be tackled. I hope
  212
  that the Treasury is watching carefully the strength of our economic recovery, and will ensure that it does not get out of control.
  Mr. Salmond: Given the current state of our balance of payments, is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the possibility that we may currently be in a bust-bust cycle?
  Mr. Carrington: The hon. Gentleman must not be watching the economic indicators or keeping in touch with the many constituencies in which business and economic activity is growing visibly and fast, and where activity is showing encouraging signs of sustainable and rapid recovery.
  That recovery raises the question of whether interest rates need to be cut to enable the stimulation of the economy, as is often suggested. Interest rates should not be cut. There would be little benefit from doing so. Interest rates are at an historically low level and cutting them will not encourage investment. Investment decisions are less dominated by interest rate levels and much more dominated by the ability to sell the goods and services. What drives the recovery of the economy is investment decisions, not the cost of the money necessary to provide that investment. Little would be gained from cutting interest rates and if the Government did that, they would run the risk of over-heating the economy.
  Foreign exchange strength, especially against the deutschmark as we have seen in recent weeks, is not something to worry about. Such strength is unfortunate for exporting industries, especially those exporting in Europe, and will undoubtedly dampen our export-led recovery, but it will also right itself, because recovery in the German economy has begun. As soon as that recovery in the German economy has gone beyond a certain stage and there is great confidence in it, the rate of the deutschmark will rise again and sterling will depreciate against the deutschmark.
  I welcome the Finance Bill. It is unpleasant medicine, but I believe that it is the right medicine at the right time. The measures in the Bill provide the possibility of sustained, non-inflationary growth in our economy, a possibility that we have not seen for many years and one that we should go for with full confidence.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I support the Opposition amendment, which I, too, clearly heard my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) move. I interpreted the prospect of a tax overshoot, instanced by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), as a general criticism of the proposed high taxes. If it was not that, it was indeed a sophisticated speech.
  The Chief Secretary's speech was brief—much briefer than his usual speeches—brash and aggressive and it seemed to be a diversion, a ruse—
  Mr. Salmond: It was brazen.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that the speech was brazen and I also attach that epithet to the Chief Secretary's singular performance. I heard the right hon. Gentleman ask plaintively where all the Welsh honesty had gone. I resisted the temptation to intervene but, in his absence, I say that he has one honourable Welsh Member in me, one who is honest and makes an honest observation of the Bill. The people of Wales will totally reject what he

  213
  has proposed. I can honestly say to the House that, in Wales, the proposal for value added tax on domestic fuel is greatly, bitterly and angrily rejected. There is no case for it to persuade the people of Wales.
  The Chief Secretary made his speech flanked by what I thought were anxious-looking Ministers. Later, I noticed that the Chancellor left the Front Bench and took up a position on the Back Benches beside the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts). What the subject of their collusion was, I do not know. In Wales, we describe the Chancellor as "Ken the tax" and that is an honest report from Wales.
  I have a letter from the regional electricity board, which was addressed to me as a resident of north Wales and is headed "Introduction Of VAT On Domestic Fuel". It said to me, as a householder:
  "As you may be aware from recent press coverage, supplies of domestic fuel may continue to be zero rated where an advance payment has been credited to your electricity account by 31-3-94."
  I found that surprising, but when I held my surgery days later in the town of Buckley, one of my constituents, Mr. Tasker, came to me with a similar letter and told me of his anger and disgust at the letter because, he said, the proposition was unfair. He did not have spare money to make a payment in advance. He saw the letter as an invitation to those who were well off to take advantage and he instanced the predicament of his fellow constituents who found it hard to make ends meet over this financial year and could find no money to put aside for the year after that.
  There is an injustice at the heart of the Bill. Imposing VAT on domestic fuel is an unjust measure that brings forth a doubtful proposition. The indignation and anger of my constituent was real and I put it to the House, and specifically to Government Front Benchers, that they should concede the case that is made in our amendment.
  It is helpful to hon. Members to be accessible to their constituents and to live among them. I hold nearly 50 surgeries a year and on Friday in Buckley some 54 people consulted me. It took me more than three and a half hours to interview them. Throughout the consultation, their anxiety about not being able to make ends meet was repeatedly raised. The Bill will make the predicament of my constituents worse.
  A residents association in my constituency was determined to consult me about the residents' problems in meeting fuel bills.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only the imposition of VAT but the proposals for cuts in benefit in general terms suggest that the Government are making people who are caught in the poverty trap and who are already some of the poorest members of society pay for the mismanagement of the economy, specifically through the measures that they have introduced over the past 14 years?
  Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. The important word is poverty. It is a growing poverty and it is a fuel poverty. My surgery attracted people who were anxious about the future, their fuel poverty and their housing problems. They find the going tough. Heating their homes adequately through the winter is difficult and their domestic budgets are strained to the limit, yet we are discussing a measure that will make their problems greater.
  One constituent from Penycoed told me that she had arthritic joints and had a ventilator for asthma and that her
  214
  daughter had a heart condition and was also epileptic. She had extreme difficulty in carrying buckets of coal, so she had a coal bag in her kitchen. When I inquired about the specific problem in buying fuel, she told me that she used two to three bags of coal a week; bags of coal are £6·50 each. She said that she often used an electric fire and that she also often used hot-water bottles. She said that she paid £10 to £15 a week on her electricity bill.
  Those are the raw facts of people—ordinary, honest, decent people such as my constituents who are already up against it. This unjust measure proposes hardship. The Bill was arrogantly presented by a Cabinet Minister, without addressing its contents. That is an honest observation by an hon. Member from Wales. The House has not considered such an unjust measure for many years. On behalf of my constituents, I protest in the knowledge that, so far, the measure has not a shred of support.
  Another constituent was similarly affected. She said that she had to retire from work because of a severe back complaint. She had arthritis in her shoulders, neck and spine, and it was necessary for her to keep warm. She said that, each week, she used three bags of coal at £6·50 each. She said also that her electricity bill was about £16 a week. She bought logs to keep her fire going.
  Wales is not noted for high wages. I am sorry to say that Wales is top of the low wages league. People on low wages already find the going tough in terms of their domestic fuel budget. I remind the House that, for about 10 days in November, in anticyclonic weather, temperatures dropped greatly. At that time, the houses of those who were not wealthy and of those who could not afford perpetually to feed the electricity meter became very cold. I had a series of petitions from householders, mainly those on council estates. I made it my business to meet those people in their own homes. There was a meeting of about 12 or 14 people, including some of those who had signed a petition.
  Mr. Richards: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the cost of electricity, will he tell his constituents why he voted against the proposal to build a gas-fired power station at Connah's Quay in his constituency, which would have produced cheaper electricity?
  Mr. Jones: I should like the hon. Gentleman to meet the people whom I have met and explain to them why he is prepared to support an unjust measure which will put domestic budgets under greater pressure.
  When I met one group of householders, the person who made her home available to her fellow signatories and me said that it was her usual practice to light her fire, the sole source of heat in her home, late in the day. For the purposes of the meeting that I attended, she lit the fire early. Mothers told me of their worry that in such weather there was only one warm room. Some mothers said that it was too cold upstairs for their children to sleep and that there were icicles on blankets. I believe that, because some residents in that street had recorded the temperature in their homes in the dead of night.
  One way to help to relieve my constituents' predicament and that of several million others is to modernise houses and make them draughtproof and warm. The benefit of modernising a house is that work could be found for six or eight people, thereby making inroads into high unemployment. It would also make people happy and healthier.

  215
  The Government are hellbent on imposing another unjust tax. First, there was the poll tax; now there is value added tax on domestic fuel. It will hit those on low wages but above benefit level very severely. The Government cannot begin to expect a pennyworth of acceptance from the nation if they propound unjust measures. At its heart, the Bill is very unjust. If the Government want the nation to pull together to overcome our economic problems, just and fair measures will be required. VAT on domestic fuel is most unjust. The nation yearns for a programme for national recovery which proposes fair measures. The Government do not have the respect of our people. The Government are neither wisely led nor decisively led. Many aspects of the measures go against the grain of a national sense of fair play. I therefore hope that the Government's proposal is defeated.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I begin by declaring my interests, as set out in the Register of Members' Interests, as an adviser to NatWest Securities, a director of Dewe Rogerson Consultants and an adviser to the Institute of Taxation. I need hardly say that none of those institutions has the faintest idea of what I propose to say.
  In the six years in which I have been a Member, there has not been an occasion on which we have debated the Finance Bill on Second Reading against the background of such lively public interest in the issue of taxation. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is right to laugh at that. There is no doubt that, over the past few days, the Labour party has been making the running. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has enjoyed the experience, because it will be very short. I am confident that this debate will mark the point in the public discussion of the issue throughout the country at which the tide turns. I am confident of that for two precise and specific reasons.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) notably failed to take the obvious opportunity of saying how she would achieve the essential prerequisite to reduce the burden of taxation of which she complains by reducing public expenditure. Over and again the question was put to her, and over and again she characteristically avoided it.
  The people of this country are not fools. They will draw their own conclusions from the hon. Lady's evasive answers. From running household budgets, running the budgets of industry and business, small and large, and running the businesses of clubs, voluntary bodies and charities, they know that it is profoundly frivolous and puerile to dispute one side of a budget without being prepared to take into account the consequences for the other side. It is frivolous to the point of being farcical—and it goes way beyond the normal irresponsibility with which we associate the Labour party in these matters—for the Labour party to say that the Government are raising too much money by means of taxation without being prepared to say how the Government should be spending less, so as to balance the Budget at a lower level.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: On the subject of answering questions, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he intends to vote for the new tax rises and
  216
  for the imposition of VAT on fuel? Will he also give the House a short resume of what he told his constituents about tax at the election?
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It ought to be clear to the House that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel supplies is already the law of the land.
  Mr. Davies: Having made my strictures about the evasion of difficult questions, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to be subsequently and unjustly accused of a similar evasion because you have ruled a question out of order. I am only too anxious to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I said at the election with conviction, and I repeat it now, that the party for which I have the honour to stand is the party of low taxation. The Conservative party is the party which delivered in the 1980s and is most likely to deliver in the future the lowest possible rates of taxation with the lowest possible burden of public spending and borrowing.
  I shall vote this evening, as I have said in my constituency, and with all the conviction at my disposal for the increases in taxation and for the extension of VAT to domestic fuel. I believe that that was the right and thoroughly responsible measure for the Government to take in the present circumstances.
  The second reason why I believe that the debate will turn during the evening is the Labour party's attempt to depict the Conservative Government as a high taxation Government on the basis of the statistical fact that taxation as a proportion of national income is slightly higher at present than it was at a particular time in the late 1970s. The attempt to depict the Conservative party as a taxation party on the basis of that statistic is based on an optical illusion. That statistical fact conceals a reality which is thoroughly creditable to the Government.
  If taxation is slightly higher as a proportion of national income and as a proportion of public expenditure, that is because borrowing is lower both as a proportion of national income and as a proportion of public expenditure than it was when the Labour party was in power. Here again, the Labour party underestimates the intelligence of our voters. Our voters know perfectly well—whether or not the Labour party is willing or able to acknowledge the fact —that borrowing is merely deferred taxation. If we borrow more money today, we will have a higher interest charge tomorrow and we shall have to meet that higher interest charge either by raising taxation or by further cutting public expenditure tomorrow.
  That is the salient statistic. Public expenditure as a proportion of national income—current plus deferred taxation as a proportion of national income—is substantially lower than it was in the 1970s. Indeed, the figures are set out incontrovertibly on page 115 of the Red Book for all to see. At present, public expenditure as a proportion of national income is about 44 per cent. Let us look back to 1974–75, when the proportion was 48·75 per cent., or 1975–76, when the proportion was 49·25 per cent.
  In the 1970s, the Labour party actually had a level of current and deferred taxation, or aggregate taxation, that was five percentage points higher than at present. That is the optical illusion which will not survive its exposure during the debate tonight.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Is not the hon. Gentleman being too simple-minded in just talking about tax and borrowing? Is there not the question of other receipts? In the 1970s, about 10 per cent. of income came from other receipts. Were not those industries which have now been privatised a major factor in that? Would they not have provided a continuing source of income to the Government, which has now been lost?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was based not so much on an optical illusion, or an attempt to put the wrong gloss on the facts, as on something more elemental—a misunderstanding of the facts. During the 1970s, the nationalised industries turned in an aggregate net loss to the country. They included a large number of industries which, now that they have been privatised, are generating considerable sums of money for the Exchequer by paying corporation tax. The figures in relation to that have been so often quoted in the House that I do not need to detain it on that subject.
  It is because of my analysis that what counts is the total amount of public expenditure which has to be met by either current or deferred tax that I particularly pay tribute to the courage of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They have cut public expenditure by more than £4 billion below the level of the rigorous control totals which they had previously set. In the difficult world of politics, I know how easy it is for Back Benchers to urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to cut public expenditure further, which I regularly do. However, I recognise that cutting £4 billion from the control totals was a major political achievement, and I think we should give them the credit which they are undoubtedly due.
  I shall turn to one of the other major issues which have been thrown up by the Budget and by the Bill, on which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke earlier. That is the fear which has been expressed in some quarters that the fiscal retrenchment—the reduction in public expenditure and the increase in taxation which the Bill brings in—will have a negative impact on the growth potential of this country and, therefore, on our hopes to get unemployment down further. The fear is that that will act as an excessive check on growth.
  I believe that that concern—which I understand theoretically—is misconceived in practice for this reason: we must remember that the economy has received considerable stimulus during the past two or three years. During the past three or so years, nominal interest rates have fallen from a base rate of 15 per cent. to a base rate of 5·5 per cent,—in other words, nominal rates have fallen by about 66 per cent., a considerable reduction over a brief time, by any historical standards.
  During the past 15 months, the base rate has fallen from 10 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. The time lag in such matters means that a great deal of the stimulus that derives from those reductions in interest rates is still in the pipeline. It will still hit the economy in terms of its impact on borrowing, the creation of money, the increase in demand and, therefore, the potential increases in investment, output and employment. I have no doubt that those increases will come through.
  On top of that, there has been the devaluation. Despite some rise in the sterling parity during recent months, the pound is still of a parity 10 per cent. lower on a
  218
  trade-weighted basis than it was in September 1992. That again is a considerable measure of stimulus and, again, not all its effects will have come through.
  Finally, we have had the considerable fiscal expansion which preceded this responsible Budget in which we went from a fiscal surplus to a public sector borrowing requirement of about £50 billion on an annual basis. That is a considerable stimulus.
  Against the background of all those stimuli, a lot of us would have been worried if some fiscal or other retrenchment had not come through at this stage. We would have been worried that we would overdo it and head into the inflationary problems that have beset the British economy so often and so unfortunately in the past. So, far from being worried about it, I am greatly relieved by the element of fiscal restraint that my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget introduces.
  The other factor that we cannot ignore is the international context. Foreign trade accounts for about 40 per cent. of our gross domestic product. We know that our continental trading partners in the rest of the European Union, which represents about 60 per cent. of our overseas trade, are not growing at all. Last year, they had an average growth rate of between minus 1·25 per cent. and minus a little more than 1 per cent., whereas we have enjoyed a positive growth rate of about 2 per cent. That is already a three percentage point differential between our growth rate and those of our major trading partners. The whole of economic history makes it clear that one cannot sustain a substantial differential in growth rates without running into balance of payments problems or inflationary problems, or a combination of both.
  Therefore, it is reassuring in the present circumstances —even though I hope that our continental competitors, for all our sakes, will begin to show some positive growth next year—that the reasonable assumption was made that there were natural limits to the extent to which we could drive up the growth rate in the short term. Again, I endorse and welcome the courageous judgments—I use that word advisedly—of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Now, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General may have been relatively gratified by some of the observations that I have made so far. However, I have to tell him frankly that, if I applaud, welcome and admire the substance of the Budget and the fiscal judgment that lies behind the Finance Bill, including the brave decisions to set up new taxes, such as the airport tax and the insurance tax, and the extension of VAT to domestic fuel—all of which are the subject of great controversy—I utterly abhor the form of the Bill. I regard the text of the Bill which has been presented to us tonight in an unprecedented two volumes and 400 pages of proposed tax law as an abomination and an example of how we should not legislate.
  The Bill is a disgraceful comment on the work that has been performed by the parliamentary draftsmen who have the nerve to present it to the House. It is far too long. I was always brought up to believe that the lazy and easy thing to do was to write at great length; the difficult thing to do and the test of one's drafting was how succinct one could be. The parliamentary draftsmen who produced the Bill have not even heard of that principle, let alone tried to implement it.
  Not only is the Bill far too long, far too prolix—a simple ad valorem duty on insurance comes out at 18 pages—but

  219
  it shows all sorts of evidence of sloppy thinking and drafting, such as definitions produced way after the terms are first brought into the text. It simply is not good enough.
  I began my speech by declaring an interest as an adviser to the Institute of Taxation. I hope that I shall still have that interest tomorrow. Perhaps I will not, after my remarks have been reported to it. The fact is that if one group of people will benefit from this appalling piece of drafting, it is the professional tax advisers. The other side of that is, of course, that the cost of compliance to the taxpayer will increase and, even more crucially, the clarity of the law will be diminished. Parliament and democracy will thereby suffer.
  I wonder whether I could leave my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General with a thought. I applaud the Government's initiative in introducing into the civil service an element of competition from the private sector through the principles of contracting out and market testing. I beg him to put right at the top of the priority list for market testing and contracting out the future drafting of the Finance Bills presented to the House.
  7.34 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: I wish to speak in support of the amendment and to take this opportunity to examine the effect of the Budget on charities and other voluntary organisations. In doing so, I should like to register my interest as an adviser to a community care project supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, whose community care programme I ran before my election to Parliament.
  The National Council for Voluntary Organisations expressed its disappointment in restrained terms. It said that the Chancellor's Budget had proved to be a "missed opportunity" and that several aspects of it would further increase the tax burden on charities and voluntary organisations and to produce the perverse effect of deterring people from volunteering.
  It is important to set the charitable sector in its context as a significant player in the economy of Britain. It is a sector worth about £16 billion a year. It directly employs almost a quarter of a million people. It is larger than the United Kingdom motor industry. Despite that, charities are still uniquely penalised by the present VAT system. They currently pay more than £335 million a year in irrecoverable VAT. They pay more in tax than commercial organisations or local authorities, which do not have to pay VAT on expenditure associated with the services that they provide. Those services are increasingly exactly the same as the services provided by charities.
  A clear example is domiciliary care. Local authority home care services are exempt from VAT. However, the community care rules set by Ministers at the Department of Health require local authorities to spend 85 per cent. of their community care grant in the independent sector. When a private care agency acts as principal—that is, provides staff to care for people in their own home—it is liable for VAT. That increases its costs and obviously, in turn, the costs to the elderly or disabled people to whom the agency provides services. Meanwhile, care services provided in registered residential homes are VAT exempt. The position is a mess of inconsistencies.
  220
  A core aim of the community care legislation was to remove what the Audit Commission called "the perverse incentive"—that was a financial incentive that positively encouraged people through the social security system to enter residential nursing homes rather than to remain cared for in their own home. The imposition of VAT on care services in people's own homes, while care services in institutions are exempt from VAT, perpetuates the financial inequalities and, in turn, the perverse incentive.
  I now turn to VAT on domestic fuel. The Chancellor has announced inadequate measures of help for pensioners with the additional costs of VAT on domestic fuel. However, he has failed to acknowledge the position of charities which provide residential care for elderly or disabled people. Estimates of the additional burden on charities range from about £30 million to £50 million. Many smaller organisations are seriously considering reducing their services.
  The Government may be happy to deal with elderly people's fear that they will be unable to meet their heating bills by telling those who live in their own homes to turn their heating down, put on an extra sweater and knit a woolly hat. But the manager of a residential care home cannot turn down the heating. Such staff will have to make a choice—a choice that many voluntary organisations and charities now face—between cutting another service and asking their friends, supporters and volunteers to undertake still more fund raising. Does the Chancellor really believe that it is a proper use of volunteers and other workers who support charitable effort that they should spend more time rattling cans and running jumble sales to help their organisations to meet VAT bills?
  A further aspect of increased taxation is the increased costs resulting from the new tax on insurance premiums. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has reckoned that the imposition of a 3 per cent. duty on a general insurance premium will represent an additional cost to the charitable sector of about £4·5 million. The obvious fear is that that will prove to be a disincentive to charities' taking out adequate insurance cover against the risks involved in the day-to-day provision of their services.
  I should like to quote from the letter that the Charities Tax Reform Group sent to the Chancellor when the Budget proposals were being drawn up. The letter from that very large consortium, which represents all the major charities and charitable voluntary organisations, states:
  "In spite of ministerial assurances to the contrary, we are beginning to wonder precisely what value the Government places on the voluntary sector. Charities are not the icing on the cake of state provision. In many areas, such as life boats and rehabilitation services for the newly blind, they are the only provisions."
  There is no limit to the fine words that the Government will deploy in their apparent support for the work of voluntary organisations and charities up and down the country, but voluntary organisations and charities are increasingly sceptical about the Government's will to do anything to sort out the increasing burden that they have to bear in serving their communities. They are asking the Government to listen to their well-argued and reasoned case for reform of charitable taxation.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I do not wish to take the line of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), as I do not know anything like as much about

  221
  the subject as she obviously does. However, I shall read the report of her speech in Hansard and think more closely about it.
  I should like to begin by concentrating on a procedural point that has been well made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It concerns the size of this Finance Bill and the opacity of its language. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others who have pointed out forcefully that this is a very powerful argument for splitting future Finance Bills, and preferably this one, into a technical measure, which could perhaps be dealt with through a semi-Select Committee procedure, and a political measure, which would attract debate such as we have had today, especially at an earlier stage.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and the Whip who is on duty will take note of the fact that very few hon. Members on either side of the House have expressed disagreement with that view. I hope that, for once, the business managers will be made aware, through the usual channels, of the feelings in the House, and will take those feelings into account.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: When we were talking to each other, the Opposition offered this option to the Treasury team, but it was turned down.
  Mr. Forman: I am sorry to hear that. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have second thoughts about the matter in relation to this measure, and certainly in relation to future Finance Bills.
  I should like to make a few points about the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), whom I am delighted to see in the House, if not exactly in her own place. In opening for the Opposition, she made great play of the Labour party's alleged new credentials as the taxpayers' friend and the tax-cutting party.
  I have been in the House since 1976, but this is something unusual for me to hear. When some of my hon. Friends and I asked where and how the hon. Member would cut taxation if her party were in office, we were told that she would not extend value added tax to domestic fuel and power. That comes as no surprise, as it is the subject of the Labour party's amendment today.
  If the Labour party—this Johnny-come-lately of the tax-cutting cause—is to be taken more seriously, the hon. Lady and her right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition ought to demonstrate some commitment to cutting levels and rates of income tax, and similar commitment in the sphere of corporation tax and, perhaps, in the sphere of national insurance contributions, all of which ordinary electors tend to regard as taxation. I am telling the hon. Lady gently—and I shall give way if she wishes to intervene again—that her party's record does not indicate very powerful tax-cutting credentials. This is something of which the electorate should take note.
  With regard to the Labour party's position in relation to public expenditure savings—the other side of the account —the hon. Lady, in answer to questions from Conservative Members, was able only to make comments that were rather fatuous. In saying so, I am turning the adjective against her. Her fatuous answer was that a future Labour Government would cut unemployment.
  222
  As I pointed out in an intervention during the course of the speech of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, cutting unemployment—if the process is to be state-led—inevitably involves some initial extra public expenditure, which in turn is likely to increase the deficit, encourage extra public borrowing, and possibly even put upward pressure on interest rates—or there may be a combination of all those things.
  I cannot see that, in the short term—politicians have to deal with the short term as well as the long—it is enough simply to parrot that the Labour party would cut unemployment.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that our greatest concern about the Conservative Government's taxation policy, as demonstrated in the Budget, the Finance Bill and the direction in which the country is going, is that freezing personal allowances has affected people at the lower end of the income scale far more than the wealthy? Indeed, wealthy people have benefited from Conservative tax policies since 1979. The people at the bottom are losing considerably as a result of the freezing of personal allowances.
  Mr. Forman: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I believe that, if he looks at the tax tables in the Red Book and in the Inland Revenue's press releases, he will see that income at all levels is affected by the Chancellor's adjustment of allowances. It is true that, relatively speaking, the effect may be greater on those in low-paid work. However, I am very keen that, on the social security side, we should boost such things as family credit, which is designed to assist the low-paid in a cost-effective manner.
  Were we to put much faith in the Labour party's new-found position—it has taken the Opposition about 15 years to reach this point—it would be rather like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank, as my right hon. Friend the former Member for Bath, who is now the Governor of Hong Kong, used to say. That is how the electorate ought to treat what the Opposition is saying.
  In spite of the fact that this Finance Bill is the product of the first unified Budget in modern times, it is still public spending that creates the need to borrow and the need to tax. The need to borrow and the need to tax do not drive public spending. I wish it were otherwise, but that is the reality.
  Because it would have been wholly impracticable to make large cuts in public expenditure in one year—something that could not sensibly be done by a responsible Government—and because it would have been wholly irresponsible of the Chancellor not to seek to reduce the level of public borrowing over several years, as his Budget measures are intended to do, my right hon. and learned Friend had no responsible alternative to a substantial increase in taxation through this Bill. That is something that his predecessor did in the Budget of last March, and Governments of different political hues throughout the European Union are doing likewise almost as we speak.
  Such an approach to public finances is obviously unwelcome to everyone who pays tax, whether direct taxpayers, indirect taxpayers or corporate taxpayers. The alternative to such fiscal responsibility would either have been punished by the markets, if the level of unchecked borrowing had brought on a funding crisis, which would have been the worst possible outcome, or, in less dramatic

  223
  circumstances, would have led to the monetisation of public debt—in other words, another bout of severe inflation. That is something which this country, in a highly competitive global economy, could do with like a hole in the head.
  As Martin Wolf put it in the Financial Times on Monday:
  "The proper start for discussion of the fiscal burden is not with taxation, but spending. In the short term governments may borrow, rather than tax. In the long term, revenue will have to be raised, either to service debt or in the form of the inflation tax."
  Those of us with long memories will know that inflation is the most insidious form of taxation and that it affects this country more than most, or used to, because of the consequences of so-called fiscal drag.
  Conservative Members were greatly relieved that the Chancellor and his immediate predecessor grasped the nettle of deficit reduction this year as the main priority of fiscal policy. With the economic recovery now healthily under way and a structure of taxation which, at least in terms of corporate tax and income tax, is now much more responsive to the economic cycle than it used to be—that is one of the positive legacies of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lawson—it should be possible to reduce PSBR relatively quickly as the recovery gathers pace. At any rate, it should be possible to reduce it to a safely low level by the end of this Parliament, which I understand to be the objective of the Red Book.
  Once the PSBR reduction is achieved via the mechanism of this Budget and subsequent ones, I urge my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to adhere to two broad principles of fiscal policy in future Finance Bills and Budgets.
  First, they should recognise that the right approach to tax policy requires continuing, endless tax reform, especially by making sustained efforts to broaden the base of taxation, so that lower rates of tax in all categories can be achieved without loss of revenue. The figures that have been quoted in the debate relating to the impact of the personal tax changes in 1988, in particular, reveal the way in which one can broaden the base, lower the rates and get in more revenue. The same was true during the period of growth in the 1980s, in relation to corporation tax following the 1984 reforms.
  In that context, I greatly welcome clauses 73 and 77, which progressively restrict to 15 per cent., in 1995–96, the tax relief available via the married couple's allowance and mortgage interest relief. It is the right decision to phase out those allowances gradually and to drive towards a situation where we can emulate Hong Kong, which has a standard rate of tax of about 15 per cent.
  Such action by the Chancellor will increase the effective rate of tax, but it should leave the way open for future reductions in the marginal rates of tax, and steady progress towards making 20 per cent. the standard rate of income tax. Perhaps 15 per cent. is too much to ask for in the foreseeable future, but it should be feasible to broaden the 20 per cent. band as part of broadening the base of tax. That is something for which the Chancellor should strive.
  My second point of principle is that we shall only achieve those lower rates of tax on income, which we must have if our economy is to remain internationally competitive, if we also move gradually, over the years ahead, towards more of an expenditure-based tax system.
  224
  That implies lower rates of tax on income and capital, with the burden of providing extra revenue borne more by VAT and excise duties.
  I therefore support the extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power, even though it is an unpopular move, which was contained in the Finance Act 1993. It forms a logical part of a longer-term thrust of policy, with a broader base for VAT. This could enable the Chancellor, perhaps next year, to reduce the standard rate of VAT to 15 per cent. and to introduce a lower starting rate on the real essentials at perhaps 7 per cent. or 8 per cent., as happens elsewhere in the European Union. That is not an outlandish suggestion, and it would offer a net contribution to the overall revenue according to runs on the Treasury model that I have seen. I set out those broad arguments in my speech during the Budget debate, so I will not weary the House by repeating the consequentials tonight.
  The House will know that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Having declared that interest, I should like to put down markers on two further points which arise out of the Finance Bill and which cause some concern to the accountancy profession.
  The first point has already been raised by the president of the institute in a letter to the Chancellor. There is little point in introducing "simplified assessment" clauses in a Bill of this kind if their effect is to be vitiated by the tortuous style of parliamentary draftsmen. That point has already been underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).
  It might have been better to allow the profession and all taxpayers to get used to the current year basis of assessment in the cause of simplification, which was brought in initially last year, before introducing the far-reaching changes of self-assessment, which are planned to be fully introduced before the current year basis of assessment is fully running.
  Secondly, many in the profession have grave reservations about clause 241, which appears to allow the Inland Revenue extensive powers to obtain papers relating to people's personal tax position, subject simply to the consent of a special commissioner. I do not know enough about the technicalities of this matter because I am not an accountant, but it has been brought to my attention that it would be well worth Treasury Ministers reconsidering the issue to ensure that they have got it right.
  The Bill is necessary. It is the legislative expression of but one part of a responsible unified Budget. It takes some useful steps towards a more broadly based and buoyant tax system, and I hope that further steps will be taken by the Chancellor in subsequent years.
  I must end by offering the House the rather sad reminder that the overall burden of taxation can only be lowered, at any stage in the economic cycle, if the burden of public expenditure is reduced. That is likely to mean going further with the deliberate reduction in the scope and responsibilities of the state. Big government is always likely to mean high taxation.
  To escape from that universal dilemma, which affects all societies, we must continue to privatise, to contract out and to reassess and reduce the role of the state. That way lies greater freedom and prosperity, and that is the path that we should follow.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I begin, uncontroversially, by accusing the Government of racial incitement. I do not believe that I can possibly interpret the actions of the Chancellor as anything other than that, given that he decided to launch his Budget on St. Andrew's day and now has its Second Reading on Burns night. I suppose that I should be grateful that the House was not recalled on Hogmanay to debate some other part of this miserable Budget. I detect a plot to ruin Scotland's great national days with debates on this depressing Bill.
  There is no doubt that the Cabinet would benefit from some Burns—
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Burning.
  Mr. Salmond: No doubt that will come to them all in due course. In this earthly life, however, the Cabinet would benefit from some quotes from Robert Burns. Earlier today the Prime Minister dared to accuse another hon. Member of speaking in cliches. The Prime Minister obviously has not encountered
  "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
  To see oursels as others see us!"
  I certainly believe that if the Cabinet, collectively, had read "Holy Willie's Prayer" they would never have embarked on a "back to basics" policy. If Rabbie was silently and mockingly listening to our proceedings tonight—who knows, perhaps he is—he might get the imspiration to go off and pen, "The De'il's awa wi' th' Vatman."
  The Chief Secretary earlier said that it was not possible to target the compensation scheme for VAT on domestic fuel to allow those vulnerable groups in the coldest areas of the country, who will suffer most, to benefit from some extra compensation package. The Chief Secretary told me in grand terms that it was not possible to target fiscal measures in such detail. I went to the Library and discovered that it had been possible specifically to target huge tax handouts. Almost £14,000 million was given away in tax handouts over four years starting from the 1988 Budget—£12,516 for each high-rate taxpayer. The geographical split for those tax handouts was 58·7 per cent. for the south-east of England, about twice its population share, and 4 per cent. for Scotland, which is about half its population share. The Government were clearly capable of targeting that fiscal initiative but are somehow incapable of targeting a compensation scheme to allow some additional benefit to those who will suffer first and foremost from the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.
  The present level of fuel poverty is totally unacceptable. It is well documented that there are 3,000 to 5,000 deaths in Scotland every winter because of the rigours of the Scottish climate. On 28 October a debate on cold climate allowance was initiated by hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru and the SNP. That debate had two remarkable features. After the debate I received a letter of apology from a social security Minister, the first time that I have had such a letter following a debate, in which he apologised for inadvertently misleading the House on some statistics. That is a cautionary tale for Ministers who suggest that the cold climate of Scotland does not translate into higher fuel bills. The Minister led himself into trouble by trying to disprove that obvious fact.
  The second remarkable feature about the debate was that only 33 hon. Members voted in favour of a cold
  226
  climate allowance. To their eternal discredit, Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen sat on their hands during the vote. If my memory serves me correctly, only eight Scottish Labour Members were prepared to defy their party's instruction and voted in favour of the allowance. The deplorable attitude of Labour Front Benchers on that occasion has certainly not gone unnoticed by the many organisations representing pensioners and other vulnerable groups in Scotland. That debate was designed to highlight the fact that fuel poverty is utterly unacceptable. The imposition of VAT on domestic fuel will inevitably cause more suffering to more people in those groups.
  I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). He capably showed, by using individual examples, that it was nonsense to believe that the compensation scheme would be adequate in real terms for his constituents. The best guess is that for vulnerable groups the compensation scheme will meet about half the VAT imposition. In broad figures, I calculate that over the next three years an extra £500 million will be taken out of the Scottish economy by VAT on domestic fuel. The rebate by way of the compensation scheme will be about £130 million, or about 25 per cent. of the total tax yield. That averages an additional £75 a head over those three years for every man, woman and child in Scotland.
  The heaviest additional burden will fall on the vulnerable groups who are already unable to pay fuel bills. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), has joined us in the Chamber. I should like to see some semblance of a sign that there is a Scottish dimension to this policy. Even at this stage, Scottish Office Ministers should attempt to persuade their Treasury colleagues that the cold climate problem needs to be addressed and not made worse by the Bill. Scots suffer the paradox of fuel poverty amid energy plenty.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that it will be possible, at least for a time, for some people to escape VAT on domestic fuel. Helpfully and carefully, some electricity companies, one of which is the Hydro Board in Scotland, are putting in a readable place in electricity bills the information that, if bills are paid in advance, VAT can be avoided. That is because VAT is charged at the point of sale and not at the point of use. I am informed by my accountancy friends that those who have the money to pay their electricity bills for the next three years could get a much higher return than is available from any bank or building society.
  For those who have £2,000 or £3,000 in the bank, such knowledge is useful, but once again those who will be hit hardest by the measure will be totally unable to finance even that sort of temporary tax avoidance. I do not begrudge people the loophole, but I would like to see it widened so that it could be used by vulnerable groups who most need such relief. But, more than that, I should like to see a properly funded cold climate scheme, such as the one suggested many times in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). That would tackle the problem at its source.
  Because of the Government's repeated failure to raise allowances when that is inconvenient for the Treasury, people on depressing and disgracefully low incomes will now be expected to pay income tax. A person on the princely annual income of £3,445, or £66·25 a week, will have to pay it. That compares with a £124 a week tax threshold in France. If the Government were prepared to

  227
  consider the raising of allowances by 15 per cent., financed perhaps by the raising of the ceiling on national insurance contributions—which is approximately a pound for pound exchange involving no additional cost to the Treasury—it would be possible to raise the level at which people pay tax to £4,033 a year, or £77 a week, which is hardly a prince's ransom. I hope that most hon. Members agree that, in terms of equity, that would be a much more reasonable level at which to expect low-paid workers to come into the taxation net than the current depressing £66 a week.
  At the last election the Labour party suggested the raising of the national insurance ceiling. In a sea of nonsense, that was an island of common sense in Labour's proposals, and I wish that the Treasury would consider the trade-off that I put forward because it would be of enormous benefit to low-paid workers.
  There has been little notice taken and, as yet, little comment on a specific tax incentive in the Bill. In a Budget that was awash with taxation increases for a huge number of people, many of whom will be totally unable to meet these imposts, there was a significant taxation concession. It was not announced by the Chancellor in his Budget speech, but it is in Inland Revenue press release No. 23 on petroleum revenue tax, one of the many attendant on the Budget details. That tax concession was extraordinarily specific. In an earlier speech in the House I said that if it had been an income tax concession, it would have been rather like the Chancellor announcing a concession for people called Clarke, whose first name was Kenneth, who happened to be Chancellors of the Exchequer, who wore Hush Puppy shoes and who dressed in a dishevelled manner.
  The tax concession on petroleum revenue tax is drawn in quite remarkably specific terms and is for a single pipeline system in the North sea. It is not for all pipeline systems, but for one called the Central Area Transmission System—CATS. It was already the beneficiary of some £200 million of public finance in terms of offsets against petroleum revenue tax to enable it to be established. The Treasury now believes that it should benefit from an additional tax inventive of £20 million over the next few years.
  I should like some explanation from the Financial Secretary of how a Budget which increased taxation across the board could find an additional £20 million to respond to the no doubt intense lobby from British Gas, Amoco and other oil companies which make up the CATS consortium.
  Significantly, from a Scottish viewpoint, the pipeline from the central North sea to Tayside is currently suctioning Scottish gas out of Scottish waters with no economic benefit whatsoever to the Scottish economy. As a result of the tax subsidy to the CATS pipeline, Scotland has become the first country in history to pay a consortium of international oil companies to take away one of our most valuable natural resources.
  The message from the Finance Bill is clear: even when times are tough, the Government look after their own. That is very clear indeed from the lack of equity in the taxation proposals. Even at a time of financial stringency, another £20 million could be found to bung to the companies in the CATS consortium to enable them to continue the process of denuding Scotland of its natural resources.
  228
  The Budget which was introduced on St. Andrew's day and which has its Second Reading on Burns night is resplendent with anti-Scottish measures, from VAT on domestic fuel to extra subsidies to the Central Area Transmission System. Such a Budget is inflicted on Scotland, a country which has huge amounts of energy but is desperately in need of power.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: Earlier this evening, I had the rather unusual experience of hearing my parliamentary representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), speaking on the Bill. I am the only hon. Member in the House who is a member of the Institute of Taxation and my hon. Friend is our parliamentary representative. At the end of his speech, he questioned whether he would still have a job tomorrow. I shall certainly be contacting the institute in the morning to discuss his future.
  As several hon. Members have said, the Bill is quite a substantial document. I have not yet had the opportunity to read it. I doubt whether anyone has read it all and it will be some time before anyone will be able to cross reference the Bill to various sections of existing tax legislation.
  Like my parliamentary representative, I have some concerns about the form and scope of the Bill, which runs to 419 pages. I have conducted a short exercise on its contents. Altogether, it raises about£billion in extra tax. I have found that measures accounting for around £6·9 billion—more than 90 per cent. of the tax raised—are contained in 51 pages of the Bill, so the other 370 pages do not appear to deal with significant tax-raising measures. There may be some merit in the argument that we have heard today from some of our colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), that it may be time to decide whether some of the technical aspects of the Bill can be considered separately.
  The Bill provides a particular challenge to hon. Members in terms of scrutiny. There has been criticism in recent years that various Acts have not been adequately scrutinised. Although the Bill will not affect everyone in Britain, it contains provisions that will affect many businesses and companies and may create difficulties.
  The Bill should also be a monument to one of the tax strategies of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is for ever saying that, if only we could close up all the tax loopholes, we would raise much more revenue. I am sure that the Bill's 419 pages contain many measures aimed at closing so-called loopholes, but I suspect that they will raise very little revenue. That illustrates the paucity of the argument that the hon. Gentleman advances on behalf of the Labour party.
  Before this evening's debate, I spent some little while trawling through the columns of Hansard trying to ascertain Opposition Front Bench policy on the budget deficit. Despite studying many column inches and listening to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) this afternoon, I found very little information on what Opposition Front-Bench Members think about the budget deficit and whether the Labour party advocates any policy changes.

  229
  If one trawls through Hansard, one finds comments such as that from the Leader of the Opposition on Budget day when he declared that
  "the deficit is the symptom, not the cause."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 943.]
  I wonder what he means by that. Does he mean that it is a symptom of recession and that the whole budget deficit is cyclical? I can find very little economic basis for that. I am aware of only one economist in the United Kingdom—Professor Patrick Minford—who believes that the entire budget deficit is cyclical and that, if we had sufficient growth, it would disappear. Professor Minford's particular brand of free market economics supports the view that there has been a supply-side revolution in the United Kingdom and that an upturn in growth will lead to the elimination of the budget deficit.
  Coupled with those vague phrases from the Opposition, one often comes across statements referring to investment, jobs and skills. There may be an implication that the way to solve the budget deficit is to spend more to make the deficit bigger and it will then get smaller.
  We heard a little more of that view tonight from the hon. Member for Peckham, who implied that Labour's answer to the budget deficit was to abolish unemployment. She did not tell us what policies she would put in place to do that, but those policies seem to have escaped her socialist colleagues who were in office in France and those still in office in Spain. Somewhere in the Labour party there seems to be some magic solution to do away with unemployment: at a stroke and to make substantial inroads into the budget deficit.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was wise to reject siren voices advocating that the budget deficit would either cure itself or could be cured by greater helpings of public expenditure. In his Budget on 30 November, he wisely and rightly set about balancing the budget. He made it clear that unless the deficit were tackled, the recovery could not be sustained, low inflation could not be maintained and British industry would not be able to compete effectively in the world.
  Since the Budget, we have seen a marked upturn in confidence. We have seen signs of that from the CBI yesterday and in the financial markets. Since the Budget on 30 November, the equity markets have risen by some 11 per cent., demonstrating that investors—who include millions of people in Britain—have confidence in the future of British industry and believe that there are opportunities for increased profitability and success. Furthermore, gilt-edged securities have risen in value and their yields have fallen.
  The long-term rate of interest has fallen some 0·5 per cent. since Budget day. That is a significant development. Long-term gilt-edged securities are now yielding around 6·5 per cent. That is the lowest level that gilt-edged securities have reached in the experience of most hon. Members.
  One would have to go back quite a long way in British economic history to find long-term gilts at 6·5 per cent. If the Labour party is keen for an investment-led recovery, it should welcome that development, because long-term interest rates, the rate that Government have to pay for borrowing money, determine in turn the rate that industry and businesses have to pay to borrow money, build successful businesses and invest for the future. That is a most welcome development.
  230
  That economic environment in the United Kingdom gives us much about which we should be cheerful. The prospects for the remaining years of this Parliament are good. There can be above-trend growth of the order of 3 to 4 per cent. a year, and low inflation. We have what economists call quite a large output gap in the United Kingdom and substantial unused resources, which, in a recovery, can be brought back into play. The prospects for the rest of this Parliament are: continuing low inflation, running at 2 per cent., above-trend growth of 3 per cent. plus and falling unemployment.
  If one looks at that background and at what is likely to happen economically over the next three years, one can understand something of the frenzy of the Labour party's current reckless attack. To pose as the party of low taxation is nothing but humbug. What the Opposition will have to witness over the next three years as they sit on the Opposition Benches is month after month of good inflation figures, good growth figures and falling unemployment. That is not a happy political prospect for them.
  It is strange that the Opposition are opposing tax rises at the moment when in the past they argued that the recovery should be investment-led. Some of the tax increases that are coming through will help to change the balance of the recovery more towards business and industry. Business and industry are in a strong position for the future. The ratio of corporate liquidity is at its highest level since 1988. Orders for construction and investment are increasing sharply; up some 6 per cent. in the first 10 months of 1993. Stock building, an important component of recovery, is also likely to rise in the coming year.
  Furthermore, export markets are much better for the United Kingdom. The figures released in November by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade show that, in the three months to August, exports to non-EC markets had increased by some 14 per cent. We can have a recovery, and one that is not just consumer-led but driven by industry, investment and exports. That is a much healthier outlook than we have had in prospect in the United Kingdom economy for some while.
  Some hon. Members may criticise some elements of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. Against the economic task that he had to undertake, it would have been difficult for him to keep everybody happy. Overall, he has completed the process of rebalancing the economy—a task that we set ourselves over the past 18 months. He had the courage to address the budget deficit. Let us remember that there were many voices—in the House and outside—who urged him before the Budget to do nothing. By addressing the budget deficit, he has set us on the road to a sustainable recovery and sustainable low inflation.
  I believe that later tonight the House will reject unequivocally the Opposition's attempt to set us on some rake's progress. I believe that the House will reject the concept that we should run huge deficits and increase public spending. I believe that we shall vote for policies to eliminate the deficit, to facilitate cheap capital, to enable British industry to revive and to ensure that we have a balanced and successful recovery over the remaining years of this Parliament.
  8.20 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I should like to begin by reading out a letter that I received from one of my constituents. It was sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that it is unlikely that he will read it out, so I shall have great pleasure in reading it for him. It says:
  "Dear Mr. Clarke,
  I write to protest at what I regard as the inequity of the new tax measures introduced in your recent budget.
  While I can appreciate the Government's need for raising extra revenue, I can see no reason whatsoever for increasing the tax burden on those least able to pay it.
  I felt shocked and deeply betrayed to find today that my Additional Personal Allowance, for which I qualify as a mother of two young school-age children separated (unwillingly) from her husband, had been cut by £340. For me, despite working full-time as a teacher, this reduction in allowances means facing the unavoidable threat of forgoing some of those activities which I regard as necessary for my children's full development, such as out-of-school activities, which include swimming, music and sports lessons.
  How can it be right that they should suffer such deprivations when another family, more fortunately positioned than mine, could meet this burden without noticing the extra weight? Perhaps this is one true interpretation of that phrase that seems to be on all Government Ministers' lips, "Back to Basics"—i.e., do without, do without."
  The real inequity is the way in which the Government have cheated the British people with remarks such as, "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT", which was said by the Prime Minister just a few days before the 1992 general election. Is it any wonder that people regard Tory politicians with such scepticism? It is not just me who says that; one has only to look at the opinion polls and the tabloids, which are such good reflectors of public opinion these days.
  It has been said even by Ministers that no one expects what politicians say immediately before an election. I suggest that the Conservative party gets back to real basics such as telling everyone what will happen and not trying to con the voters into believing that something will not happen when they know that it cannot be avoided.
  It is now obvious that the Tory party must have been expecting that it would not be in office, and therefore not held accountable for the tax rises which it knew were inevitable. Just think what its fickle friends in the tabloid newspapers would have said if the Labour party had had to deal with the shambolic mess in which the Tories left the economy in April 1992.
  It is true that ordinary people are suffering from the tax rises that the Chancellor is imposing, not the people who benefited from Nigel Lawson's largesse in the previous Tory Government when he abolished the highest rate of tax. Pensioners, students, people on disability benefit and low-income families with children will suffer the most. Lloyd's is trying to bail out rich Tory Members of Parliament. Overseas aid is financing arms sales to Tory backers. Westminster council is turfing out homeless people so that their homes can be sold to Tory voters. It is a case of, "We'll look after our own, and the rest of you will pay for it."
  In answer to questions that I asked the Chancellor, he told me that, under his and his predecessors' Budgets, those in the lowest 10 per cent. income group will be just over 1 per cent. worse off. He also told me that if he had taken the money by raising the rate of income tax, the bottom 10 per cent. would not have seen any change in
  232
  their income. Therefore, not only does the Chancellor take away from people more money than ever before; he chooses to take it from those who can least afford it.
  All Opposition Members agree that the most unfair tax of all is VAT on fuel. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the poorest households spend 13·25 per cent. of their incomes on fuel, and that is before VAT. They are the people who will not be able to save energy by turning down their heating because they already run only a minimum level of heating—the pensioners on basic state incomes, students living in rented accommodation and the unemployed.
  Many people are already afraid to turn on their heating when they feel cold because they know that at the end of the day they will not be able to pay their bills, so they have no room to cut back any further on heating and VAT. The proportion of their incomes spent on fuel will increase to 15·5 per cent. and that will go up to 20 per cent. in April 1995 when the full rate of VAT is imposed.
  People who work in the public sector, such as the health workers to whom I spoke yesterday, will find their living standards particularly hard hit. As well as having to pay the extra tax, they will suffer from a public sector pay freeze during the next three years.
  Yet at the other end people on high incomes, earning £800 a week or more, spend only 2·25 per cent. of their incomes on fuel compared with 13·25 per cent. for those on low incomes. When VAT is imposed, that figure will increase to only 2·75 per cent.—hardly noticeable to a person on an income at that level.
  Throughout the Tory agenda there is the same message —"If you are old, poor or helpless, expect nothing from us. If you are already well off, this Tory Government will protect you." It is a strange philosophy that taking money away from those on low incomes will make them work harder but that those on high incomes have to be rewarded to produce the same effect.
  We have heard something about small businesses from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), who is no longer in the Chamber. The Budget will do little for the small high-tech businesses that we are relying on to get us out of the recession. A recent survey carried out among small businesses in my constituency revealed that, despite the fact that they are new businesses, only one in three have borrowing facilities with banks. Banks are widely distrusted and have a major public relations problem. Only 6 per cent. had obtained a small firms loan under the guarantee scheme. Interestingly enough, less than a third thought that interest rates affected their businesses. I regret that the good news that the Government have been pouring out will not affect their businesses.
  The firms themselves regarded traditional venture capitalists as expensive and they were perceived as having little idea about technology-based business. About 60 per cent. of the investments made by venture capitalists are in management buy-outs. A management buy-out on cheap terms is considered to be small business finance. The most widely used method of raising equity funds outside immediate family and friends was corporate funding.
  That leaves small firms with the potential to create hundreds of thousands of jobs with totally inadequate means of expansion and development. Banks and venture capitalists tell us that plenty of money is available, but they

  233
  usually claim that the proposals themselves are not good enough. In fact, that probably shows poor judgment on the part of the banks and faulty risk assessment techniques.
  St. John's innovation centre in Cambridge, which has about 150 small firms under its roof, is sometimes asked for help by its tenant companies which have already approached the bank and been refused help. The requirement is usually short term, about six to nine months, so it may not be considered appropriate for equity or loan finance. But in the past couple of years, out of 30 firms that have been helped in that way, in only two cases was the decision to provide help incorrect. Those are firms that should have been helped by the banks to which they turned first but which turned them down as being a poor bet. But 28 out of those 30 firms were helped from another source.
  The survey raises questions about whether traditional providers of finance can any longer evaluate risk. What seems to have emerged in Cambridge is the growth of a black economy for funding as traditional sources are unwilling or unable to meet demands. That leaves a major problem for those businesses in my constituency that are not lucky enough to be in St. John's innovation centre or those that need equity, where the nature of their businesses does not lead to corporate venturing.
  In case it sounds as though I am just another disgruntled person hitting out at the banks and the venture capitalists, let me say that what I am trying to do is to express my profound concern about the relationship between the financial institutions and the industrial sector. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West regaled us with wonderful stones about the way in which the financial markets were doing extremely well at the moment. But the real problem is the relationship between the financial institutions and the industrial sector. The financial sector does not seem to be helping industrial productivity in Britain in the best possible way. We are seeing a long-term damaging effect on industrial productivity in Britain. That can lead only to the continuation of our well-documented industrial decline.
  That is not because we do not have the people or the ideas—we have both in great abundance in Britain; it is because the financial sector is geared to the non-productive quick-buck merchants who could not care less about Britian's future, only about their own personal gain.
  I do not know whether that is what the Government mean by the entrepreneurial spirit, standing on one's own feet or providing for oneself and one's family. But the only way forward is to restructure our financial institutions so that they support British business rather than send it headlong into terminal decline.
  The measures proposed in the Bill are inadequate. They only tinker with the problem. I hope that Tory Members who care about small businesses and VAT on fuel will join Opposition Members in the Division Lobby tonight.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I found the comments of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) most interesting, not least because they seemed to lead us towards something which was for many years an essential part of Labour party policy—the partial or complete nationalisation of the banks and the financial institutions. But the problem that the hon. Lady defined will be solved by greater competition between financial institutions rather than less, and will certainly not be solved
  234
  by the state stepping in and telling the financial institutions that they must lend whether or not they consider the proposition a good one.
  I want to spend the time allotted to me talking purely about some of the technical aspects of this large Bill. In my maiden speech, nearly 11 years ago—I apologise for repetition, but I promise not to come back to the subject for at least another 10 years—I pointed out that the standard work recording all the law on income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax, published by Butterworth, which the late and much lamented Lord Ridley referred to in that debate as the "Butterworth mountain", had, 1,017 pages in 1978, and by 1983 had increased to 1,266 pages. Therefore, within five years it had increased by roughly 20 per cent. By the end of 1993—before the enactment of this Bill—it had increased to 3,940 pages. Such an acceleration rate would be much admired in a space vehicle, but I am not sure that it is entirely to be welcomed in complex legislation.
  As several speakers have pointed out, it is alarming that a Finance Bill should be so long that it must be produced in two volumes. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I cite the observations of that excellent magazine Taxation, on whose editorial board I happen to sit. Every year, the Treasury responds to representations from numerous bodies about whether certain necessary legislation should be included in the Finance Bill by saying that it would be difficult to make the Bill any longer. The editor of Taxation points out that it may be a little difficult in future to argue that this year's Bill had to have no more than 417 pages, that last year's had to have no more than 296, and so on.
  I wish to defend my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in one respect. One reason for the length of the Bill is clear to those of us who have read it: instead of incorporating numerous amendments to individual sections of the existing legislation, the draftsmen chose to introduce the major reforms in the Bill by replacing whole sections of that legislation. The effect is especially clear in the clauses introducing the current year basis of assessment, and those enabling a change to a self-assessment taxation system.
  It is possible that the legislation repealed by the Bill is at least as long as that which replaces it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will clarify the matter in due course; I also hope that the Bill will not be much longer than 417 pages by the end of its Committee stage. I have long urged the Treasury not to add unnecessary clauses in Committee, and I hope that it will stick to that policy. We may well not be faced with an additional 417 "net" pages of legislation.
  I warmly welcome some measures in the Bill. It includes the first instalment of legislation to replace the previous year basis of assessment with current-year assessment. That reform has been urged on the Treasury for as long as I have practised as a chartered accountant —and I started in practice in 1964.
  In the past, it was considered too difficult; but we are well rid of a relic of the past which—like, for instance, our Sunday trading legislation—the rest of Europe viewed as quaint. It was felt that we were living in the previous century. I also welcome the provision to formulate the rules for corporate membership of Lloyd's: that institution clearly needs corporate membership, and it needs tax legislation to match it.
  What I do not welcome is not so much the purpose of the Bill as the esoteric and—as others have pointed out —unnecessarily prolix way in which it is being introduced.

  235
  It is all too easy to cite examples from the raw and unstudied Bill, but is it really necessary to use the language exemplified by schedule 7(7)(5)(8A)(1)(a), which states:
  "where the whole of the accounting period to which any insurance premium tax is attributable falls within the period of six months next before the relevant date ('the relevant period'), the whole amount of that tax shall be referable to the relevant period"?
  I am sure that the Financial Secretary will be given an opportunity to explain that and many similar phrases. I am equally sure that he will not be expected to understand his explanation for more than 10 minutes after he has given it, and that many lawyers will disagree with that interpretation of the legislation at the time when it is presented, 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after. We really can do better than the abortion of the English language that is being served up on us.
  Like many others who have spoken, I hope that future Bills can be split into two parts. Unfortunately, it is too late to do so with this Bill. One part would consist of a financial Bill dealing with the raising and spending of money; the other would comprise a tax management Bill dealing with the method of doing that. I would welcome such a move, not least because it would give us the chance to consider the detail of the legislation longer. Moreover—this is perhaps a slightly controversial constitutional point—it would allow us to designate a tax management Bill as a non-money Bill, thus gaining the advantage of double consideration of some of the more detailed wording, which could be debated in the other place.
  As I said in an earlier intervention, I was a member of the Jopling Committee, which recommended that all major Bills should be timetabled at the outset. Towards the end of this complex Bill, a great deal of legislation requires detailed consideration. If we engage in the standard practice of holding lengthy debates on timetabling and on the first few clauses, and endlessly debating the economic policy that lies behind the Bill, there is a danger that the important work of the Committee will be done badly—if, indeed, it is done at all.
  My fear is heightened by something that was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Stern: In the 13 January edition of Accountancy Age, the hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying:
  "This year's debates on the bill are going to look like the Battle of the Somme. It will be parliamentary trench warfare."
  That may well be good politics, but the one thing of which we can be sure is that it will enable the House to produce bad legislation.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: That is up to your side, not ours.
  Mr. Stern: In the past, responsible Oppositions have considered it part of their task to assist the Government to produce slightly better legislation than was served up to them. It is a shame that the current Opposition do not adopt the same approach.
  In view of the declaration of war issued by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), the only way in which to secure proper, detailed consideration
  236
  of all aspects of the Bill is to ensure that, on Monday, when the Committee stage begins, we begin with a timetable motion for the entire Bill.
  The clauses relating to the introduction of current year assessment, for instance, will be implemented—in theory —in 1996. Many businesses that start their operations after 5 April, or whose accounting date falls shortly thereafter, will be affected by those provisions before Report; hopefully, the provisions will have been considered in Committee.
  It is therefore crucial that at least one Committee has the opportunity to consider the provisions before they become effective in practice. In view of the length of the Bill, I urge my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to consider carefully giving all parts of it a fair wind by means of an early guillotine motion.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: On the day that the Government announced that sustainable development must henceforth be the touchstone of all their policies, and on which they also published four important documents as a follow-up to the Rio summit, I thought that it would be appropriate to consider the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel, in relation to which an amendment has been tabled, from an environmental perspective.
  The Government have claimed that VAT is in part an environmental tax. In the document on climate change, they list VAT on domestic fuel as one of the instruments for reaching the target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the century. They suggest that the target can be reached through the more thrifty use of domestic fuel which will result from the instrument.
  The document speaks of a reduction of 1·5 million tonnes in carbon dioxide emissions. That is 1 per cent. of all carbon dioxide emissions from all forms of energy use. It may not sound a great deal, but it is 15 per cent. of the 10 million tonnes reduction in CO2 emissions that the Government need in order to reach their stabilisation target by 2000. The Government's intention may be fulfilled, but the reduction is to be brought about in a grossly inequitable way. That point has already been mentioned, and I shall cite one further set of statistics to prove it.
  On average, bills will increase by £108 for the bottom 10 per cent. of households in terms of level of income, but by only £135 for the top 10 per cent. There will therefore be a gross disparity in the Bill's effect. Any compensation package will be a blunt and inadequate instrument. I stress that it should be a fundamental principle that environmental taxation must take account of equity.
  In moving towards sustainability, as we must—the Government have today stated that there is a terribly urgent need to do so—we must proceed in a socially equitable manner. The geographical inequity caused by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel can be seen in a comparison between Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole.
  In Wales, the full rate of VAT on domestic fuel will take up 0·9 per cent. of usual disposable income, compared to 0·7 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. I dare say that one could find the same disparity between the north

  237
  and south of England. It proves yet again that a taxation system that punishes low-income groups also punishes the regions where average incomes are low.
  That is a general point to be made against the Budget and the Bill. Taxation that punishes low-income groups redistributes wealth by taking it from the less prosperous areas, impoverishing them still further. The first principle is therefore that we must move towards sustainability while taking account of social equity.
  A related principle is that a large proportion of the proceeds from any environmental taxation should be invested, first, to maximise the environmental gain that it is intended to bring about and, secondly, to prevent the taxes from being inequitable. In other words, environmental taxation should be recycled in the form of action to maximise environmental gain.
  A self-evident way of adhering to both principles would be to introduce a comprehensive energy efficiency package aimed, in the first instance, at lower-income groups. It is perfectly feasible and should be clearly set out as part of the package if we are to take seriously the Government's claim that VAT on domestic fuel is an environmental tax.
  Domestic energy consumption produces 41 million tonnes of CO2 a year, which is 27 per cent. of total emissions from energy use. It is a very substantial contribution. A 20 per cent. reduction through an energy efficiency programme in homes is perfectly feasible, and would in turn produce a saving of 8 million tonnes a year. It would, of course, take several years to complete such a programme, but we could be well on the way by the end of the century. It would be a far more effective contribution towards the task of reaching the target in 2000 than the use of VAT as one of the instruments for that purpose.
  Energy efficiency must surely become a major investment priority if we are to take seriously the rhetoric of the Government's documents, and their rhetoric is very strong. I cannot understand why energy efficiency has not become a central priority. I believe that the total investment in energy efficiency measures is currently well under £100 million a year. We need to be far more ambitious.
  The Government have used the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel as an argument against agreeing to the European Union proposal for a Europe-wide carbon tax. I heard the Paymaster General use that argument when I attended a sitting of European Standing Committee B. He said that we did not need to agree to the European demand for a carbon tax because we had our own instrument, and this was it.
  A carbon tax would be far preferable as an instrument for achieving that aim. It would apply across all sectors, not the domestic sector only. It would apply to commerce and to transport, which is especially important, and those are sectors where, as we all know from observation, energy use is often profligate. I believe that it is profligate in the retail sectors especially. Huge quantities of energy are wasted by overheating and by constantly opening doors. A carbon tax would tackle that waste. It would be more effective and far more equitable.
  A carbon tax would also discriminate in favour of renewables. However, one should note that the European proposal is for a carbon and energy tax—a combination —so it is not quite as effective in that way. That combination was suggested because the European Community does not wish to act strongly against coal and oil, and it does not wish to support nuclear energy.
  238
  However, a carbon tax would discriminate in favour of renewables, as it should if we are serious about the environmental issue.
  I hope that I have made my few arguments clearly. I hope that I have said enough to show the way in which the Government claim about the tax as an instrument of environmental policy is unsustainable and the way in which they get the process of environmental taxation off on the wrong foot by not associating it with the other fundamental and essential principles. I hope that I have completely justified our decision to vote for the amendment and against the Bill.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Hon. Members would not thank me, I suspect, if I followed the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) too far down that route. I believe that the extension of VAT to domestic fuel has an important role to play in reflecting the true cost of energy consumption in our society. The hon. Gentleman did not mention several aspects—the enormous unparalleled package of help to those people who will most need it, the fact that fuel prices are falling, the massive expansion of the home energy efficiency scheme, and so on. I could go on, but I shall not.
  I was listening to the radio yesterday morning when the dulcet tones of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) reached my ear. He was speaking about tax. The thrust of his remarks was that he did not think much of the tax proposals in the Bill. He expressed himself with some vigour—so much vigour, in fact, that one might have thought that he would be rather more certain about his position—yet he remained curiously unwilling or unable, under questioning, to confirm whether, had a Labour Government been elected in 1992, taxes would have been higher or lower than is proposed in the Bill. He did say that it did not matter very much because, if there had been a Labour Government, the taxes raised would have produced money to be spent on what he said were "sensible things". On that basis, he justified the theory that Labour taxes are good and Conservative taxes are bad.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not, as one might expect, spell out what "sensible things" he had in mind, but all Conservative Members know that there is an extensive shopping list. Not much of it appears very sensible from our point of view. There is no doubt—we have heard something about that this evening—that there would be an attempt to spend a way into full employment.
  I have thought hard about that. If one of the principal reasons we have a budget deficit is that we have spent too much money as a Government, I simply do not understand how spending more will help—even if, as he seemed to argue, and as the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) seemed to reiterate, the excessive element of spending arises only in respect of unemployment benefit. That seemed to me a curious allegation. It brings me to my next argument.
  Obviously, all hon. Members want unemployment to continue to fall and spending on unemployment to fall, but singling out the increase in unemployment as the reason for the deficit shows a failure not only to grasp the difference between cyclical and structural spending patterns—which is quite serious in someone who aspires to be a Chancellor of the Exchequer—but to understand the way in which the deficit has accumulated and where the money is spent.

  239
  Spending on unemployed people has undoubtedly increased in recent years. It has increased throughout the developed world, for reasons which Opposition Members do not seem to understand. The recession that the world has been experiencing has been international. The United Kingdom is pulling out of it now, happily—much of the rest of the world is not yet.
  I have examined the figures. Opposition Members seem to have gone to The Sun for their figures on the subject. I went to a combination of the Red Book, the excellent document "The Growth of Social Security" and the Library. Spending on unemployed people in 1993–94 is put at £10·4 billion. That is a great deal of money.
  Of course it is important to get unemployment down, not only for fiscal reasons but for social reasons, but it is important to understand that £10·4 billion represents about 13 per cent. of the total social services bill and less than 3·5 per cent. of Government spending. To pin the blame for the deficit on an item of expenditure representing less than 3·5 per cent. of Government spending is arrant nonsense, but it happens to be convenient nonsense because it obscures the need to confront the real issue, which I will discuss in a minute.
  The other reason why the talk about unemployment being the root cause of the deficit is nonsense is that unemployment is one of the few areas of Government spending that goes down of its own accord, as well as up. For example, between 1986–87 and 1988–90 spending on unemployment fell by 50 per cent. in real terms. In addition, as the House will know, unemployment has been falling sharply in recent months—it fell by 223,000 in 1993.
  That is no thanks to Opposition Members, who, as well as paying scant regard to the good news when it comes through, do their best to moan about British industry at every possible opportunity. We have heard some of that this evening. When Opposition Members do that, I wonder whether they understand that they are criticising not the Government but ordinary men and women, from the shop floor to the board room, who have been straining every sinew through an extremely difficult recession to improve the productivity and profitability of their businesses. As a result of those efforts, productivity and exports are at record levels, profitability is on the up and Britain is growing faster than any other European country. The CBI survey published yesterday confirms that positive trend. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) mentioned the encouraging figures for corporate liquidity.
  The last thing that people in industry want is gloomy lectures from the Opposition, half-baked statements about how life under Chancellor Denis Healey was somehow better than it is today, and adherence to the Euro-socialist action programme, which would add £5 billion to the cost of British industry and send the unemployment figures soaring. It is not good enough for the shadow Chancellor to pin the blame for higher taxes on increased spending on unemployment benefit. That is another fatuous strand in the series of fatuous arguments that we have heard from the Opposition. In the light of their employment policies, it is also hypocritical and shoddy.
  I shall now answer a question that was asked earlier. There are two clear underlying reasons why there is a
  240
  deficit—the after-effects of the recession, which obviously reduced Exchequer income, and the recent levels of Government spending across the board. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, over the past five years the Government have increased spending on education by 25 per cent. in real terms, and since 1992–93 alone, spending on health has risen by 5·5 per cent., investment in British Rail has been trebled and spending on law and order has increased dramatically. Amazingly, at every point the Opposition criticised the Government for spending too little in all those vital areas.
  That brings me to the vital question that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary asked the hon. Member for Peckham. Perhaps over-optimistically, I look forward to getting an answer where he failed. The Opposition must come clean. If they criticise the Government for the tax increases, will they say where they would have made the savings necessary to restore sound national finances? The silence is almost Pinteresque. Spending restraint does not appear to feature in the Opposition's vocabulary. It did not do so in the 1970s, either—at least not until it was too late, and Denis Healey, whom Opposition Members now seem to revere as a paragon of fiscal probity, had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund, having cut Government spending in crucial areas such as health.
  Of course nobody likes to pay increased taxes. The Government, unlike the Opposition parties, do not like having to ask for them. But it is one thing to return to the impoverishing cycle of tax and spend to which the Opposition parties tacitly or overtly still adhere and quite another to raise taxes against a background of tight spending restraint. Let us remember that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has announced that more than £8 billion is being taken out of the control total over the next three years.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) spoke about fair taxes. Those start when Government spending comes under scrutiny. Fair taxes start on the premise that there is no such thing as Government money, only other people's money which Governments take away and spend in different ways. That is the basis for fair taxation.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will understand that it is in no way a criticism of him when I say that I cannot find it in my heart to give an enormous cheer for the tax increases in the Bill. However, in common with other Conservative Members, I understand why they are necessary. I agree with those Conservative Members who have expressed confidence that the tax increases proposed in the Bill will not unduly impact on the recovery.
  There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill besides the effective action being taken to reduce the deficit, which is clearly its primary purpose. I especially welcome the measures for business, as somebody who has spent 10 years in the equity markets and who now has a consultancy for the SG Warburg Group, the investment bank. I especially welcome those parts of the Bill which are designed to help businesses and to help stimulate equity investment.
  I was sorry that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) felt that the new enterprise investment scheme, which would replace the business expansion scheme, was inadequate and was not able to welcome it. It has a great deal to offer for those smaller companies that we know will lead recovery and will lead the whole process of job creation. For far too long, smaller companies have

  241
  laboured under inadequate access to equity investors and have had to rely, sometimes excessively, on debt. I have long been a great believer in spreading equity investment and ownership and anything that is done to promote that robust type of long-term finance is to be warmly welcomed.
  I also welcome the proposals for capital gains reinvestment relief and the venture capital trusts. I would add only that it is a pity that the proposals to restrict the indexation allowance on capital gains to prevent it creating or increasing a tax loss are likely to act as a disincentive to investment, especially in unquoted companies. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will listen carefully to the concerns expressed by individual investors and by market practitioners on that point.
  With an economy which has become fundamentally stronger, more competitive and more productive under the Government, Britain is well placed to sustain economic growth at a rate that can only improve as the international recession lifts. The Finance Bill underpins that opportunity by securing the foundations for national prosperity and deserves the whole-hearted support of the House.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I have only five minutes so I shall have to curtail my remarks, but as I spoke for half an hour in the Budget debate, I cannot complain.
  The Bill is important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said in her brilliant demolition of the Conservative party, it could well represent a turning point in modern political history and certainly in the reputation of the Conservative party. The Bill has exposed the Conservative party as the party of tax trickery, tax unfairness, tax dishonesty and tax lies. The Government may be forgiven by some of the British people for putting up taxes, but they will certainly not be forgiven for promising the opposite and for cheating their way to election victory through their fraudulent claims.
  Secondly, the Bill is significant because behind that tax rise is the economic incompetence of the Government. The Labour party has alway known about that, and now the British people will realise it. Thirdly, the Bill makes it clear that the Conservative party represents only a small section of society—the rich. Middle-income and low-income earners are clobbered by the Bill. Those groups will unite and throw out the Conservative party at the next election.
  Taxes should be increased, but only for the rich, such as the top 1 per cent. of the population, who have benefited to the tune of £3·2 billion a year since 1988. Tax increases certainly should not have been targeted at middle-income people, and especially not at low-income people. Coupled with public expenditure cuts, we have the most massive piece of discretionary deflation since the 1930s. With a very weak recovery, that is exactly what the British economy does not want. Opposition Members oppose the Bill because it will knock that recovery on the head and make further recovery far more difficult, and because of its devastating effect on millions of middle-income earners, people on low pay and people on no pay.
  Many measures will affect people on low pay. About 500,000 people will have to pay more in national insurance contributions, although they are not even in the income tax net. The Government have targeted the increase at them. Also, 400,000 people will be brought into tax for the first
  242
  time. Allowances—for example, the married couple's allowance and the single parent's allowance—have been affected.
  In the Budget, the Government boasted of what they were doing for low-income women through their child care allowance. However, yesterday I received a written answer that showed that only 10 per cent. of people presently on family credit could get the full benefit of that measure. Many measures will hit the low-paid, particularly low-paid women, who constitute a disproportionate number of the low-paid.
  One matter that has not been mentioned much is the public sector pay freeze, which is actually a public sector pay cut.
  As for people on no pay, the main criticism is that the Bill will do nothing to relieve the mass unemployment that still afflicts the country. We all know that the official figures show unemployment coming down, but the labour force survey shows that far more people are out of work and are looking for jobs. That figure is not only large but increasing.
  There is to be a vote on the VAT amendment. VAT on domestic fuel will punish not only the people whom I have mentioned but those who are on benefit and whom the Government boast that they are helping with a compensation package worth £1·3 billion. Only half of that is discretionary, and the other half is automatic uprating because of inflation. People on income-related benefits will gain by 0·4 per cent. A person with a partner and two children will gain 45p a week. A single person will gain far less. That is the only compensation. In future, the payment will be the normal uprating.
  On pensions, the Government boasted of the extra 50p, but we must remember that a single pensioner will receive a derisory increase of £1 next year. Pensioners will still suffer as a result of the measure. I appeal to Conservative Members to join us in the Lobby.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Nicholas BrownLike my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I wonder whether we would have heard Conservative Members speaking in favour of fiscal rectitude if the Labour party had won the previous general election. It is not long ago that Conservative Chancellors boasted that they had dealt with the public sector borrowing requirement, reduced taxation and increased essential public expenditure. In fairness, they did not say that they had dealt with the deficit "once and for all", but the debate has moved on rather a long way since those heady days.
  Now, the Conservative party not only acknowledges that tax increases are necessary but rather irritably says, "So what?" when asked whether the tax rise is equal to 7 percentage points on the basic rate of income tax. The issue has moved on from whether taxes should rise to which taxes should rise and who will bear the burden. The tax cutting of the late 1980s reduced the tax bills of the richest. The tax rises of the post-election period are much more evenly spread. Taking the 1988 cuts and the more recent increases together, all but the very wealthy are worse off.
  Last year, I suggested that the then Chancellor—after his inevitable dismissal—might end up with a job lecturing on demand management at the London School of

  243
  Economics. This, I now appreciate, was very unfair to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) and I unreservedly apologise. He should, of course, have sought a post lecturing on the new post-Keynesian economic theory—one which is unique to the British Conservative party—known as demand mismanagement.
  It takes a peculiar kind of short-sighted greed combined with enormous arrogance to manage demand in such a way as to take a pro-cyclical rather than a counter-cyclical fiscal stance, and exacerbate rather than offset the economic cycle. That also belies talk of automatic fiscal stabilisers. This is not the Conservative party's first foray into demand mismanagement. The policy that it has adopted is entirely consistent with the way in which the 1981 Budget's tax rises were put into place in the depth of a recession.
  The folly of the short-term tax cuts of the late 1980s is bluntly exposed by the Budget speech and the accompanying measures included in the Bill. The Chief Secretary told us earlier that his party's "every instinct" is to cut taxes. Having heard that, it is hard to believe that there are £2·5 billion worth of tax increases contained in the Bill for the financial year 1994 to 1995, rising to £4·8 billion worth for the financial year 1996 to 1997.
  Altogether, the Budget increases almost entirely reverse the tax cuts which were made in the late 1980s and they exceed anything enacted by Labour Governments. They hit the poor hard and middle-income families the hardest. The tax burden rose from 34·75 per cent. of GDP in 1978 to 1979 to a peak of 39·25 per cent. in 1981 to 1982. It fell to 37·25 per cent. in 1988 to 1989, largely as a result of cuts in the top rate of income tax.
  The Conservatives ask what Labour would do. They might at least give the Labour party credit for what it did at the time. It voted against those cuts, and warned that the reduction was unsustainable. At the same time, there was the ideological divide which still exists between the two parties. If it is possible to make tax reductions, it is the Labour party's view that those reductions should go to the very poorest in society and not to the very wealthiest.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but I do not have much time. I would like to make a little more progress, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  In 1993 to 1994, the tax burden fell to 34·25 per cent. of GDP, partly as a result of the cumulative effect of the tax reductions of the late 1980s, but mostly as a result of the effects of the recession on Government revenues.
  By the time all of the tax rises come in, and allowing for some recovery, the tax burden is projected to rise to 38·5 per cent. of GDP. That more than offsets the previous tax cuts, although the new taxes are not being paid by the same people who benefited from the reductions. The wealthiest I per cent. of our fellow citizens received about £3·2 billion from the 1988 tax cuts. They will pay about £300 million after the tax rises next year. That is a saving of £2·9 billion for them, and yet the tax take for the economy is almost up to its peak of 1981 to 1982.
  Mr. Richards: What does the hon. Gentleman now say that the top rate of direct taxation should be?
  Mr. Brown: I am addressing myself to the measures in the Finance Bill which is before the House today. It is not my intention to introduce my own tax and spending package, even though I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would rather debate that than the package which the Government have brought before the House today.
  The journey back to massive tax increases has been accompanied by the most extraordinary series of climbdowns and U-turns. The journey has been accompanied by the sort of incoherence and double standards which would make even the most well-motivated observer of the Government's management of the economy a little cynical.
  I can remember the present Prime Minister denouncing the Labour party at a Welsh Conservative conference a few years ago for planning to peg the married couple's allowance and mortgage tax relief to the basic rate of income tax at 25 per cent. Having alleged that that was our plan, he denounced us thoroughly for it. He then went on to implementing it, engendering not a little cynicism on the way. There was more to follow. Both those tax reliefs are now pegged to the 20 per cent. band.
  At least it could be said for the previous Chancellor that he has a tax band to peg the reliefs to. The present Chancellor has not even gone through the usual form of introducing a lower band and accusing the Labour party of secretly planning to undermine two important tax allowances. He has arbitrarily introduced a new 15 per cent. rate for the allowances without reference to any other part of the tax system.
  One of the key features of the Chancellor's Budget and the accompanying Finance Bill is its complete opportunism. It is the sort of opportunism that might induce cynicism. Presumably, next year's Chancellor will have the job of tidying it up. In the past, Conservative Chancellors have boasted that they have regularly abolished yet another tax, even if on closer examination it turns out to be the duty on matches and mechanical lighters or something of the sort. The present Chancellor is not bothered with any of that. He has introduced two new taxes, not to broaden the tax base but simply to introduce new taxes. He has done it because he needs the money.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: On the subject of needing the money, yes of course.
  Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman is making a detailed attack on Government policy. In the spirit of his speech, may I ask him to give one detail about the Labour party's policy? If Labour had won the election, would public expenditure today be higher or lower?
  Mr. Brown: As I said before, I have not come to the House to present my tax and spending plans. The fault of the Labour party—I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to it—was to put its tax and spending plans candidly and truthfully before the electorate. The Conservatives put before the electorate a version of events that turned out not to be the truth about either our tax and spending plans or their tax and spending plans. I have to inform the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) that, although it may be possible to deceive the electorate once, I doubt whether the Conservative party will ever be trusted on these matters again.

  245
  The Bill contains an astonishing series of deceits and U-turns. Direct tax allowances are again frozen. That is an effective increase in income tax—something which the hon. Member for Eastleigh no doubt promised his electorate that he would not do. The reduced rate band again turns out to be a device for reducing the value of tax allowances instead of reducing the rate of income tax.
  The life cycle of the business expansion scheme is remarkable. It has gone through introduction, praise, exploitation, abuse, denunciation, abolition and now resurrection as the enterprise investment scheme. What do we make of clause 89, which reneges on Chancellor Lawson's arrangement for the indexation of capital losses? Is the Conservative party united behind that measure? I suspect not. The clause will reduce the incentive to invest in risky ventures—something that the enterprise investment scheme is supposed to encourage. I see that the clause is listed in the Red Book as an anti-avoidance measure which blocks a loophole. If the Chancellor thinks that that is a loophole, he would not know a loophole if it hit him in the face.
  The Budget is incoherent. Its hallmark is fiscal opportunism. There is a further problem. The question of the deficit—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady ought to be interested in the deficit.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Could this be described as copious reference to notes, or is the hon. Gentleman simply reading his speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is making a valid speech.
  Mr. Brown: I shall not disappoint the hon. Lady. I shall do my best to keep her entertained as well as well informed. However, I certainly would not want to misquote the Chief Secretary or the Financial Secretary.
  There is a further problem when discussing the Budget. It is the deficit. The Chancellor has said that it will be dealt with "once and for all". Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. That ought to cheer up the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman): we are giving the Chancellor the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that he is not planning to do a flit next door and leave the debt and the bad credit rating to the new tenant of No. 11. Let us assume that that will not be another broken Conservative promise and that he means what he says. I have to say that the spending targets that he has set are very tight. The control total for the non-cyclical elements of public expenditure allows for growth of only 3·8 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1998–99. Under Baroness Thatcher's Government—and Baroness Thatcher was no slouch when it came to dealing with public expenditure—the comparable figure at the same stage of the economic cycle was 12·5 per cent. We are dealing, therefore, with extraordinarily tight parameters for public expenditure.
  In the unified Budget process, we are supposed to consider tax and spending together and there are a number of questions to which the House should address itself. Can the public sector pay freeze hold as private sector earnings increase? It is also right to ask whether it is fair that it
  246
  should hold. Even though the Chancellor's dodge with the contingency reserve is a genuine cut in spending, I do not see how it can be repeated.
  What happens if there is a real contingency that cannot be met from within Departments' budgets? Will the savings drawn this year from the environment and transport budgets be repeated? I think not. How far will the Government say to local authorities that they are going to cut their budgets and how sustainable will that policy be? Is not the heart of the matter that the Chancellor, to reach his tight public expenditure targets, will have to reduce the civil service by about 10 per cent.?
  Are the Government confident about their legislation? I do not entirely think that they are. I have a briefing note provided by Mr. Ian Gambles for the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary—and myself. Mr. Gambles draws the Chief Secretary's attention to a number of points. He starts by saying:
  "You are responsible for piloting the Finance Bill through the House."
  It is just as well that the Chief Secretary has Mr. Gambles to point that out to him. One could not possibly have drawn that conclusion from the Chief Secretary's speech today. Mr. Gambles, who is a shrewd man and clearly has a future under the next regime, goes on to say:
  "Life is likely to be made more difficult this year by the Opposition."
  Revealing the Government's true intentions, he says:
  "Committee of the Whole House is arguably rather pointless … It may be worth floating the idea of dispensing with it … But it is very unlikely that they"
  —meaning the parliamentary Labour party—
  "will be in a mood to be so co-operative on this occasion."
  That certainly captures the spirit of these exchanges.
  Mr. Gambles goes on to say—and this is the very good advice—
  "Assuming we do have Committee of the Whole House, it would be very odd not to debate there the two short clauses introducing new taxes."
  He is referring to air passenger duty and insurance premium tax. The Chief Secretary is extraordinarily lucky to have such an adviser. I listened to the Chief Secretary's speech and I did not hear him mention air passenger duty or insurance premium tax, so it is just as well that there are good civil servants to remind him of the contents of the Bill.
  This trusty aid goes on to say:
  "It is also hard to see how you can avoid having at least one, and probably two debates on the floor of the House relating to income tax and the restriction of MIR"—
  mortgage interest relief. But good advice follows. Mr. Gambles says:
  "On the former, it might be better to go for clause 72 (personal allowances) rather than clause 73 (restriction of the married couples allowance)",
  pertinently going on to say,
  "where there will be linkages with 'Back to basics' and Child Support Agency issues."
  Why would the Chief Secretary want to avoid discussion of "back to basics"? I leave that to the House to ponder.
  Mr. Gambles, a good and faithful servant, draws our attention to one more matter that will certainly be of interest to hon. Members—including, perhaps, the hon. Member for Lancaster, whose attention I see I am almost holding: who will have to serve in Committee? The question to which we all like to address ourselves is, "Who is going to do the work?" It is made clear in the document that it will not be the Chief Secretary. Those of us who were responsible for the untimely interruption or at least

  247
  the revealing of the right hon. Gentleman's holiday in Barbados two years ago during the passage of a Finance Bill will sense a certain irony in that.
  The document says:
  "I attach a list of Finance Bill clauses with an illustrative division of responsibilities between yourself and your colleagues. It is based on the following assumptions:
  you take a small number of high-profile clauses".
  It is only fair that I should treat the House to the final carve-up. The Paymaster General will be responsible for 67 clauses and six schedules of this mammoth volume. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury gets 64 clauses and is trusted with one schedule—someone clearly having followed last year's proceedings quite closely. The Financial Secretary is entrusted with the overwhelming bulk of the Bill—perfectly fairly, as he does these things very well. He gets 102 clauses and 14 schedules. Let us hope that we can deal with all this expeditiously upstairs. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, leading his men from the front, gets six clauses and two schedules. So much for the fair division of labour in the Conservative party.
  Much has been said about the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel. The Opposition contend that the House should have a further chance to consider this matter. The reasons are very clear.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Opposition forgot about it the last time.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady really is showing some enthusiasm. I shall do my best to deal with all the points that she has raised from a sedentary position. However, I am not sure that I shall succeed if she keeps firing questions.
  It is our contention that VAT is a regressive tax. Indeed, of all the zero-rated goods and services that the Government could have picked on, fuel is the most regressive one to tax. We believe that the compensation package is inadequate. Most pensioners will get only half of what they need, and the same is true of families on income-related benefits. The tax hits standing charges as well as fuel consumed, undermining its credibilty as an environmental measure. My hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made the point that it will hit charities, costing them an extra £35 million over the next two years. And there is further transitional injustice inasmuch as those with money can pay in advance and avoid the early imposition.
  It has been said repeatedly, but is worth pointing out again, that before the last general election the Conservative party promised that it would not increase the rate of VAT or extend the scope of the tax. This was stated clearly, firmly and repeatedly, but it has been reneged on.
  I wish, in my concluding remarks, not just to make the case against this tax but also to make the case for further consideration by the House. When the tax was introduced the House was not made aware of the other tax rises imposed in the autumn Budget. Nor was it made aware of the latest growth forecast. We were not given a chance to assess the impact of this tax increase on economic recovery. When the tax was introduced, the House had no knowledge of the details of the compensation measures that were supposed to offset the effects of this imposition on the poorest of our fellow citizens. The compensation package has been bludgeoned through the House. Surely it
  248
  is reasonable that the House be given a further opportunity to consider it in the light of the inadequacy of the compensation package.
  Why are the Government failing to take public opinion into account before the tax comes into effect? The Chief Secretary might find that the public would be less cyncial about Parliament if, just occasionally, some notice were taken of their opinions.
  Is not the House supposed to be considering a unified Budget process which is supposed to bring together tax decisions and spending decisions? Northing of the kind has happened. This is a complete sham.
  I urge the House to reassert the principle of annual scrutiny of Government tax measures and to reassert its right annually to refuse supply. It is perfectly possible for Conservative Members to vote for our amendment without ultimately opposing the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They can do so without, untimately, opposing the Bill.
  Parliament should think about the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. It should support our amendment, because we are more than just a rubber stamp for the Cabinet's decisions. The right to refuse supply on an annual basis should be a fundamental part of the British constitution, if it is not already.
  I do not believe that Parliament has been treated so roughly since the reign of Charles I. It is worth hon. Members remembering his fate. He fell because he was disloyal to his closest associates, chief of whom he got rid of in an effort to save his own skin. He was given to saying one thing and doing another. He told lies and induced cynicism. He was not up to the job and was given to petulance. He might have been described by Andrew Rawnsley as "Richard Nixon, played by Brian Rix." In the 17th century, Parliament stood up for itself, and we should do the same.
  9.40 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I am sorry to tell the House that I do not have a minute from Mr. Gambles to read out, although I enjoyed listening to that minute, and some of the text was familiar.
  I must start by commenting briefly on the length of the Bill and on what several of my right hon. and hon. Friends said about that. The Government are aware of the fact that a Bill running to more than 240 clauses and published in two volumes causes concern to both sides of the House, and, in particular, to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Its length is not a source of pride to us but, none the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) drew attention to some of the reasons for its length. We can return to that subject in Committee.
  I listened with respect to the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), by my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr. Watts) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). They set out their concern that the Bill contains substantial chunks of technical tax legislation which they believe could be as adequately dealt with in a separate taxes management Bill. My hon. Friends and the House will be aware that that has been proposed more than once by the Procedure Committee. The Government

  249
  always listen with respect to its views, but we have set out clearly the reasons why we do not espouse the cause of a separate taxes management Bill.
  In recent years, in order to deliver better quality tax legislation, we have ensured that, as far as possible, advance consultation has taken place on the technical aspects of Finance Bills. The Bill is no exception, because roughly half of its clauses have already been subject to consultation. I hope that that will lead to better-informed consideration in Committee.
  All those comments underline the importance of the first point raised by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary about the importance of an orderly consideration of the Bill during its passage through Parliament. I very much hope that the official Opposition will see fit to assist in the orderly discussion of the important issues. I hope that the Bill does not become the victim of parliamentary guerilla tactics that deny us the opportunity to give it proper parliamentary consideration.
  The debate has presented the House with a certain difficulty, because for as long as any of us can remember there has always been a clear distinction between the Labour party and the Tory party when it comes to the consideration of economic matters. The Labour party has consistently argued for extra money for public services. Today, that cause was maintained in a distinguished fashion by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). His speech, however, seemed to be more directed in code to those on his own Front Bench than to members of the Government Front Bench.
  The tradition has been that Labour argues for more money for public services while we recognise the need to restrain ambitions for the public services without an affordable tax burden. The House has been asked to believe that during the past week there has been an important event —it might be described as a seismic event—in British politics. We have been asked to believe that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have changed sides in the argument and have suddenly become more concerned about the tax burden than about increases in public expenditure. We have the rather touching prospect of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary marching shoulder to shoulder to control the tax burden and deliver the taxpayer from increased taxes.
  Not surprisingly, the prospect of this unexpected alliance has aroused some interest in the media. It is right for them to be interested because if it were true that the Opposition had changed sides in the argument, it would be rather like Martin Luther calling off the Reformation. The key phrase is "if it were true". Every hon. Member knows that Labour's claim to be the party of low tax simply does not stand up to five minutes' serious examination.
  Labour appears to believe that it will be allowed to conduct two separate but parallel debates—one on tax and one on spending—and that no voter anywhere in the country will make the link between its advocacy on one day of extra public expenditure and on the next of control of the tax burden, and that those two unrelated debates are carried on in hermetically sealed units.
  Let us look at what happened last week on the issue of tax and expenditure—one week in the life of the Labour party. On Monday, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), the Opposition spokesman on overseas aid, railed against reductions in official development assistance. On Tuesday, I did not have to read far through
  250
  Hansard to find the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) because he asked the first question at 2.35, and joined his hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) in railing against alleged reductions in grant aid to the Health and Safety Executive.
  On Wednesday during Environment questions it was the turn of my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who railed against what he called the inability and unwillingness of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to provide extra money for public expenditure on London. On Thursday, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who makes the others look like amateurs, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) —[Interruption.] My hon. Friend is an excellent Member and he asked a pertinent question. He asked the hon. Gentleman why he opposed compulsory competitive tendering, which is producing £130 million extra for patient care. The response by the hon. Member for Brightside was informative. He dismissed my hon. Friend's perfectly correct question with the comment "brass neck".
  The real spending commitment of the hon. Member for Brightside was not made in the House last week: it was made, as is often the case with Opposition spokesmen, to the lobby group that they wanted to buy off. It was made through the columns of Public Finance and Accountancy. In that journal, the hon. Gentleman made the commitment to take Britain into the 7 per cent. club of countries that spend more than 7 per cent. of gross domestic product on health care.
  That commitment would cost £6 billion and still the Labour party expects us to take it seriously as the party committed to controlling the tax burden.
  Mr. Chisholm: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No. I have not finished the story of last week in the Labour party.
  Last Saturday, against the background of the spending concerns and commitments that had been rolling out of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen for the whole of last week, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and the hon. Member for Peckham sought to persuade the British people that Labour would tax less. That is the politics of make-believe.
  The hon. Member for Peckham cut a sorry figure today. She was charged by her Front Bench with making a speech arguing the case for lower tax. So deeply ingrained were her own habits that she could not resist the opportunity of implying that we needed to spend more on health and transport. The hon. Lady's habit of advocating extra public expenditure is so deeply ingrained that she does not seem to have noticed that it is inconsistent with her new-found interest in controlling the tax burden.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member or Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). The Opposition Front Bench are playing a dangerous game in front of their own goal. By stressing the importance of tax as an issue, they are creating the opportunity for the Government to show the importance of expenditure restraint if we are to deliver the low tax burden, and that is precisely what I and my hon. Friends intend to do.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: As my hon. Friend was discussing the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), did he notice that she was so modest in moving the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition that hardly anyone in the House heard her move it? That reinforced the fact that she forgot to table the amendment in the Budget debate.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is within the memory of every hon. Member that the reason why the amendment is on the Order Paper today is that somebody on the Opposition Front Bench forgot to move the relevant amendment at the end of the Budget debate. It is the hon. Lady's good fortune that the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair to prompt her today. Perhaps she regrets that that friendly prompt was not there at the end of the Budget debate.
  Labour Members have no credibility whatever on those issues. By arguing the case for low tax, they demonstrate why they sit on the Opposition Benches and will continue to sit there. They show that they are unselective and cannot resist a populist cry, never mind that it is inconsistent with the argument that they presented last week or even a few hours before. They have no strategy and cannot resist a sound bite.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that the best sound bite on the subject of the Labour party and tax came from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I quote him with respect as I always do. He is a former tutor of mine, who, quite rightly, said:
  "I think the Labour party ought to accept that we will always be likely to have a higher tax burden than our opponents because we believe in public spending."
  That is the truth about the Opposition. It is the truth about what they want to do and, furthermore, it is the truth about what they did. They cannot escape the fact that, when they were in government and had the opportunity to deliver their aspirations, between 1974 and 1979 the average share of national income taken in public expenditure was 46 per cent. That was the average for the five years they were in office.
  During the current cycle, public expenditure will peak at 45 per cent. of national income and we have published in the Red Book firm plans to reduce the share of national income taken by public expenditure from 45 to 41 per cent.
  The fact is that the Labour party spends more. It wants to spend more. It is because it spends more that it is inevitably committed to tax more.
  Mr. Pike: Does the Financial Secretary recognise one important factor? It would have helped them in their attempts to spend money and avoid taxation increases if the Government had not destroyed such a large part of the British economy and employment by trying to maintain the pound at an artificially high value when it was in the exchange rate mechanism.
  Mr. Dorrell: That was the policy espoused by the Labour party. What the hon. Gentleman overlooks is that, over the past 12 months, the year in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East projected continued increases in unemployment, we have delivered a reduction of 225,000 in the unemployment queue and a growth rate of 2 per cent. against an almost equivalent recession rate in the former West Germany. The recession rate last year in West Germany was 2 per cent. whereas there was 2 per cent. growth in this country under this Government.
  252
  There is, of course, an escape route for the Members on the Opposition Front Bench. It is just as well that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East spotted it in advance. It is the escape route that they used last time. "Oh, no," they said, "we do not need to raise the tax burden. We can pump up expenditure. There is always another way of squaring the circle. We can borrow it." That is what they did the last time. The borrowing requirement of national income was 7 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. That was the average deficit. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). The key difference between the parties in the debate this evening is that, when we commit ourselves to expenditure plans, we accept that it follows that we must finance those plans responsibly.
  We saw between 1974 and 1979 what happens when Governments do not do that. They deliver instead 15 per cent. inflation, economic decline and a cycle of disappointed expectations. We shall not allow that to happen. The reason for the Bill is that we are committed to put in place the tax plans that are necessary to deliver responsible finance of our expenditure proposals, because that is what underwrites and will sustain the recovery in the medium and long term. That is the key difference. That is the essential priority that the Bill represents. It underwrites the recovery. That is not only our view; virtually every independent commentator has agreed with the Government's view that it is necessary to close the budget deficit, and to do that by reducing public expenditure and raising revenue.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Is my hon. Friend not being a bit unkind? Surely there is one Department—just one—where the Labour party would spend less.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend would no doubt have his own candidate for that. The one Department that the Labour party usually regards as the milch cow, the one that can always be safely reduced, and whose future one can gamble away, is the Ministry of Defence. Whatever the figure, the Labour party always says, "You can spend less."
  The Government are determined to deliver key economic disciplines. We shall continue to deliver the improvement in living standards for the British people that we have seen since the Conservatives took office. The vote at the end of the debate is about whether the House is prepared to take the necessary action to deliver the key economic disciplines. It is a straight choice between the responsible finance of the Conservatives and the Opposition's public services on the never-never. It is a straight choice between sound money and a return to the Opposition's borrowing and inflation.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No.
  It is a straight choice between sustainable growth and the stagflation of the Opposition. It is a straight choice between the Government improving living standards and a return to the cycle of despair of the Opposition.
  My hon. Friends understand that choice and the British people understand that choice. That is why the House will accept the Bill tonight and why, more importantly, the Bill will underwrite the re-election of the Government when the time comes.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 321.

  Division No. 90]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainger, Nick

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dowd, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Alton, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Eastham, Ken

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Enright, Derek

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Bayley, Hugh

  Flynn, Paul

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Beggs, Roy

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bell, Stuart

  Foulkes, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fraser, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benton, Joe

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galloway, George

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Betts, Clive

  Garrett, John

  Blair, 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 (Dunfermline E)

  Gordon, Mildred

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

  Gould, Bryan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Graham, Thomas

  Burden, Richard

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Byers, Stephen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hanson, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hardy, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Harvey, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coffey, Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hume, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hutton, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ingram, Adam

  Darting, Alistair

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

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

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  254

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prescott, 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

  Leighton, Ron

  Reid, Dr John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Richardson, Jo

  Litherland, Robert

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rogers, Allan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAllion, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCartney, Ian

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCrea, Rev William

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Salmond, Alex

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McGrady, Eddie

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKelvey, William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Short, Clare

  Maclennan, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Madden, Max

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

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

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

  Maginnis, Ken

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Alice

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Snape, Peter

  Mandelson, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Marek, Dr John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Stevenson, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Stott, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Trimble, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Turner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tyler, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Vaz, Keith

  Morley, Elliot

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walley, Joan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mudie, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mullin, Chris

  Watson, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Andrew

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Olner, William

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wise, Audrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Worthington, Tony

  Parry, Robert

  Wray, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pendry, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pope, Greg

  Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  255

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dover, Den

  Alexander, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arbuthnot, James

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ashby, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bates, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Booth, Hartley

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowden, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowis, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bright, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorst, John

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  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

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Horam, John

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  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 (Wirral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dicks, Terry

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  256

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Sims, Roger

  Leigh, Edward

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, David

  Sproat, Iain

  McLougnlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stephen, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marlow, Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Monro, Sir Hector

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

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Needham, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Willetts, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  257

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 296.

  Division No. 91]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cran, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

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

  Amess, David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bates, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Batiste, Spencer

  Eggar, Tim

  Beggs, Roy

  Elletson, Harold

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Gallie, Phil

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butcher, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butler, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorst, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hague, William

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Colvin, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Congdon, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Conway, Derek

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  258

  Harris, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hawkins, Nick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawksley, Warren

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Horam, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robathan, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel, Sir David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Merchant, Piers

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thomason, Roy

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  259

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

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

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tracey, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Tredinnick, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Trend, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trimble, David

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilkinson, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Willetts, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Walden, George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Waller, Gary

  Ward, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watts, John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cryer, Bob

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davidson, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Harry

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bell, Stuart

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Enright, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blair, Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blunkett, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Flynn, Paul

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

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Byers, Stephen

  Fraser, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Garrett, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  George, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clelland, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Connarty, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Gunnell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hain, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hall, Mike

  Cousins, Jim

  Hanson, David

  260

  Hardy, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Miller, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Henderson, Doug

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Heppell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Murphy, Paul

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Olner, William

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hume, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hutton, John

  Parry, Robert

  Illsley, Eric

  Patchett, Terry

  Ingram, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Janner, Greville

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, Tessa

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Keen, Alan

  Randall, Stuart

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Redmond, Martin

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Reid, Dr John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rendel, David

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Richardson, Jo

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Leighton, Ron

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Lewis, Terry

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Litherland, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAllion, John

  Salmond, Alex

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCrea, Rev William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Macdonald, Calum

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McFall, John

  Short, Clare

  McGrady, Eddie

  Simpson, Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Soley, Clive

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mallon, Seamus

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Stott, Roger

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martlew, Eric

  Straw, Jack

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meale, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tyler, Paul

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Vaz, Keith

  261

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wilson, Brian

  Wallace, James

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Joan

  Wise, Audrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wray, Jimmy

  Watson, Mike

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Welsh, Andrew

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That Clauses 28, 46, 72 and 77 be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
  That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee— [Mr. Dorrell]
  Committee tomorrow.

  Civil Legal Aid
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: Earlier this year, there was considerable discussion on the extent to which legal aid should be available in civil cases. My hon. Friend the Minister will recollect that I was not backward in supporting the policy of the Government—that civil legal aid should remain generally available, with some readjustment of income scales. As my hon. Friend will be aware from our subsequent correspondence, information coming to hand over the past few months has given me cause substantially to revise that opinion and I must admit that I am now very doubtful about the utility of legal aid in civil cases and about whether it fits at all into an equal opportunity society.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that my doubts arise from two cases, both of them in my constituency and both involving a legal action between one party fully supported by the legal aid system and one party who has not only had to find all the legal costs of the action but cannot hope to recover any costs if successful in the action. The case of Rolfe v. Harries is the sort of boundary dispute that occurs too often in a suburban area where lawyers have been less than 100 per cent. accurate in drawing up the title deeds. It was the sort of dispute that would normally have to be settled by some means short of legal action, simply because neither side could possibly afford the potential cost.
  Unfortunately, in that case, one side, namely Mr. Rolfe, could afford the potential cost, as he was entirely supported by legal aid, despite the fact that, at every stage, it was clear to all the lawyers concerned except the Legal Aid Board that his case had not one whit of merit. Although, on two separate occasions, the court has come to the identical conclusion about the merits of his case, the fact remains that Mr. Rolfe was able to pursue it in the knowledge that the costs to him would be insignificant, whereas, having won their case, Mr. and Mrs. Harries were faced with costs which to most people would be ruinous and which would certainly have had a significant effect on their standard of living in retirement.
  The case of Jones v. Sinton, a dispute over a claim by Mr. Jones for a share in the successful business started by Mr. and Mrs. Sinton, is again one which would normally have been settled by agreement if Mr. Jones had not been able to obtain the full support of the Legal Aid Board for a claim to take over the business or a substantial part of it from the people who set it up. Again, Mr. and Mrs. Sinton face at least substantial financial hardship even if they win the case, as they are advised is highly likely, because they have been forced to enter into a legal action against a litigant with the full resources of the state behind him. That is clearly a classic no-win situation.
  In correspondence in those two cases, my hon. Friend the Minister has stated that the percentage of legally aided cases where judgment was against the legally aided client has fallen constantly over the past decade and currently stands at less than 10 per cent. I find that statement very worrying. What was the percentage a decade ago? We must remember that the percentage represents cases where injustice has been created by the intervention of the state. Clearly, 10 per cent. of cases in which the Legal Aid Board

  263
  was wrong is much too high, because of the consequences of the board's getting it wrong, but at no stage has either of my constituents received so much as an apology from the board for getting it wrong. After all, my constituents cannot sue the Legal Aid Board for negligence in deciding whether there was a reasonable case for action, as clearly it was negligent in the case of Rolfe v. Harries and might prove to have been negligent in the case of Jones v. Sinton.
  In addition, although my hon. Friend the Minister has suggested in the case of Jones v. Sinton—no one has made a similar suggestion in the case of Rolfe v. Harries—that my constituents could apply to the Legal Aid Board for certification to be withdrawn in respect of Mr. Jones, they are advised by their own lawyers that they, the lawyers, do not know of any case in which such an application has been successful. It would be interesting if my hon. Friend would confirm that the percentage of such successful applications—that is, for the Legal Aid Board to reconsider a patently wrong decision—is considerably less than the 10 per cent. of cases in which the Legal Aid Board gets it wholly wrong.
  I have already pointed out that, win or lose, the unaided litigant cannot recover his costs except in the case in which the unaided litigant suffers severe financial hardship. A non-lawyer such as myself might have assumed that the potential loss to the owners of a successful small business, in which all the proprietor's funds are committed to the business, or the substantial reduction of funds set aside over a working lifetime would amount to severe financial hardship, but clearly it does not. I should be interested to know how much room there is between the definition of severe financial hardship used by the Legal Aid Board and entitlement to legal aid. I suspect that there is not much.
  The worries I have which are aroused by those two cases are, however, much wider. It is clear that the Legal Aid Board can be fooled by someone claiming financial hardship. Common sense says that an organisation that has fewer resources than the Inland Revenue and the fraud squad will be fooled some of the time, but the consequence of its being fooled falls entirely on a random victim. It is clear that there needs to be some system whereby the Legal Aid Board can be called to account for, and to pay compensation for, its own mistakes.
  Above all, the two cases demonstrated to me—this is why I am drawing the matter to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention—that there is something desperately wrong with a legal system in which, by the offer of maintenance in a legal action, the Legal Aid Board can effectively pick, and indeed select, winners.
  Without civil legal aid, many people have said that we have already reached a situation where civil justice through the courts is available only to the rich or to the insured. With civil legal aid, we have introduced the additional element of the state using taxpayers' funds like dice in a craps game, and that is clearly wrong. If the state is unable to withdraw from civil legal aid—I am sure that philosophically my hon. Friend would agree with me—that legal aid which consists of putting the resources of the state behind one individual and against another when they are both citizens must be intrinsically wrong. If civil legal aid cannot be withdrawn entirely, it should be severely cash-limited and available only in certain types of case, for
  264
  example matrimonial cases, as against the random scattershot approach of the dispensing of injustice which has been thrown up by the two cases.
  10.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on securing the debate, and thank him for the unfailing and characteristic courtesy with which he has dealt with the exchanges which preceded it.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the support he gave last year to the eligibility changes for legal aid. I did not need reminding of that support, which was most appreciated. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has since become doubtful of the wider benefits of the legal aid scheme. I hope that tonight's debate will go some way towards removing some of those doubts.
  My hon. Friend has written to me on a number of occasions about the case he has raised tonight, that of Mr. and Mrs. Harries, and once about the Sintons. As I think he appreciates, I cannot intervene in the way that the Legal Aid Board handles any particular case. Nor should my comments be taken to refer to the reasonableness of a grant of legal aid in the case in which the Harries were involved, or the ongoing litigation concerning the Sintons' business. However, there are two main points of wider concern to answer: the extent to which the legal aid scheme may permit hopeless litigation to be brought, and the financial consequences for a successful defendant facing a legally aided plaintiff. I will deal with each of those in turn.
  Before the introduction of the legal aid scheme almost 50 years ago, it was possible for an individual of limited means to pursue a spurious claim through the courts by way of a speculative action, safe in the knowledge that, should he lose, his opponent would be unlikely to find it worth while trying to recover costs against him due to his impoverished circumstances. Over the years, the legal aid scheme has evolved into the system we know now and, while it may not be perfect, it is a great improvement on what occurred before.
  A number of measures have been incorporated into the legal aid scheme to ensure that, as far as possible, privately paying clients are protected against having unjustifiable or even ludicrous cases brought against them by those who fall within the financial eligibility limits for legal aid. Indeed, today's legal system offers more benefits to its potential users than a system that does not include a legal aid scheme.
  One of the measures adopted by the scheme which goes some way towards preventing spurious claims is the merits test. In addition to having to qualify financially for legal aid, an applicant must satisfy certain tests as to the merits of his case. An applicant must be able to show the Legal Aid Board—the granting authority for civil legal aid—that he has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to proceedings. He must also be able to show that his case has a reasonable prospect of success. The tests do not stop there. It must remain reasonable, as the case develops, for it to continue to receive public funding.
  When the board makes its initial decision to grant a legal aid certificate, it has before it only one side of the argument and it must make its decision based on the facts before it. However, the opponent, or someone else entirely, may have information which puts the assisted person's

  265
  case in an altogether different light. The Legal Aid Act 1988 therefore gives an opponent or anyone else the opportunity to make representations to the Legal Aid Board against the grant of legal aid. That is not merely a theoretical right. It is one which is taken up in practice in a fair number of cases, although it must be said that something that strikes an opponent as conclusive evidence of a weak case will not necessarily strike the Legal Aid Board in the same way. Using further evidence provided in that way, the board may decide to discharge the legal aid certificate, should the circumstances warrant it.
  My hon. Friend has asked in what proportion of cases where such representations are made the board removes legal aid. I am afraid that the board does not keep a record of that. However, all such representations are taken very seriously and, unless they give the board nothing at all to go on, are pursued with the other side, who are asked to show cause why legal aid should not be removed. This process, combined with the board's checks on the continued validity of a grant of legal aid, ensures that virtually all weak cases are weeded out before the case reaches court.
  In contrast, in privately funded cases, it is often not until the case comes to court that it is scrutinised and its merits are assessed. By then a large amount of costs may already have been incurred. The opponent is then faced with a further battle to secure his costs, sometimes to no avail. It is still possible, therefore, for a privately funded client to bring a bogus claim.
  I must dispute my hon. Friend's comment that the board gets it wholly wrong if a legally aided plaintiff loses. Last year, more than 92 per cent. of legally aided parties won their cases. This is not to say that those cases which were lost should never have received legal aid. It is rather a reflection of the generally successful way in which the board applies the merits test. In answer to my hon. Friend's question, the figure for 10 years ago—the year 1982–83—was 86 per cent. success. So there has been a significant improvement in the past 10 years.
  I think that the current proportion is about right, because the Legal Aid Board's job is not to fund only sure-fire winners but to sift applications to ensure that only reasonable cases receive funding. There should, therefore, always be a proportion of legally aided cases which are lost. Otherwise the board would be replacing the "reasonableness" test with a test of complete certainty, and many perfectly respectable cases which stood a fair chance of success would not be given that chance.
  Therefore, there are occasions on which the legally aided plaintiff will lose his case against an unassisted defendant. As I have said, I do not think that that is in itself wrong. I am, of course, concerned about the position of the privately-paying defendant, who may be by no means wealthy. Therefore, in the event of this happening, and provided that it is just and equitable for the defendant to receive costs from public funds, an order can be made for the costs to be paid by the Legal Aid Board. Before this can be done, however, at the first instance only, the defendant must be able to satisfy the court that he will suffer severe financial hardship if the order is not made. That final safeguard acts as a protection for those who would be most likely to suffer, despite successfully defending a claim.
  I am concerned that my hon. Friend's constituents have been experiencing the problems that gave rise to this debate. However, I am grateful for this opportunity to explain to the House an aspect of the legal aid scheme that
  266
  is not always easy to understand. It may be helpful if I set out the reasons for the scheme's operating as it does in this respect.
  The need for the defendant to prove that he will suffer severe financial hardship—which my hon. Friend may find it consoling to know is a matter for the courts, and not for the board—has been called into question as being unfair. I am bound to say that if the provision could be considered in isolation from anything else, I might agree. But this cannot be considered simply on its own merits.
  As my hon. Friend will know, there are many calls on public funds, both to widen the proportion of people or types of case eligible for legal aid and, more widely, in many other aspects of our lives. These cannot all be met from the public purse. What this provision therefore seeks to do is to protect those who would suffer most. This is not a perfect solution. It is perhaps inevitable that there will be cases in which the decision seems harsh. But, in view of financial realities, I consider that the balance represented by the provision is about right.
  Legal aid expenditure has risen by 130 per cent. over the past four years. The public purse is not a bottomless pit, and there are many competing claims on it. This measure was debated fully by Parliament when the Bill was passing through it, and Parliament has determined that it is right for the defendant's means to be considered.
  Whilst again I cannot comment on the board's handling of a particular case, it may be helpful if I set out my understanding of what happened on this aspect of the Harries case. I understand that two orders for costs were made in this matter—by the county court and the Court of Appeal respectively—and it is the first that has caused difficulty. It appears that the problem has arisen because there is some concern on the part of the board that the original order made in this matter is defective as no inquiry was made into the defendants' means before the order was made. The board has attempted to sort out the problem informally with my hon. Friend's constituents' solicitors in order to avoid the cost of any further court proceedings. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to do this, and the board now intends to apply to have the order rectified.
  The board is quite happy to satisfy the further order made in this matter, by the Court of Appeal, once the inquiry into the plaintiffs' means has been concluded. The purpose of that inquiry is to assess the amount payable by the plaintiffs, with the balance of the appeal costs being paid by the Legal Aid Board. I believe that this inquiry stands adjourned at present.
  Although my hon. Friend has not explicitly said so, I sense from his remarks a wider concern about the costs of civil litigation for those without the benefit of legal aid. As he will know, since the publication of the civil justice review in 1988 we have been taking steps aimed at reducing cost, delay and complexity in civil litigation, and this programme is continuing.
  Finally, I must also address the underlying concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed about the whole nature of the current legal aid scheme and the use of the courts for resolving apparently minor disputes. As my hon. Friend may know, the Lord Chancellor is currently conducting a fundamental review of expenditure on courts and legal services, including legal aid. This will be looking at whether the present system offers the best forums for resolving disputes and at factors influencing cost in a number of areas of civil litigation, with a view to achieving changes that will reduce the cost of such litigation for all

  267
  those concerned in the system, including individual litigants and the taxpayer. If my hon. Friend, whose views
  268
  I greatly value, wishes to write to me with any suggestions he may have about this, they will certainly be taken into account.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Hearsay Rule
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has in relation to the Law Commission's Report, "The Hearsay Rule in Civil Proceedings"—Cm 2321, Law Com. No. 216 —which was published in September 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government welcome the report and will introduce legislation implementing its recommendations when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Judges' Accommodation
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of accommodation for judges in 1992–93 and 1982–83; what were the major categories of cost; and what was spent in each category.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Figures for the cost of accommodation of judges when sitting in the courts are not separately maintained. The cost of accommodation in lodgings for judges on circuit was £5·02 million in 1992–93. These costs are in two categories, of fixed costs —including rents, hiring charges, maintenance and permanent staff—and variable costs, including fuel and utilities, and casual and itinerant staff. Fixed costs in 1992–93 were £4·14 million and variable costs were £0·88 million. The Property Services Agency was primarily responsible for the lodgings in 1982–83 and the figures for that year cannot be ascertained without disproportionate cost.

  Medical Treatment (Consent)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what work has been undertaken by the Law Commission, in consultation with the British Medical Association or other bodies, on the production of draft Bills dealing with the subject of the withdrawal of consent to medical treatment or related matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Law Commission is reviewing the law and procedures relating to decision making on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults, which involves consideration of issues relating to consent to medical treatment by or on behalf of such persons.

  Consultants
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.
  124
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  An answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to create a post of prisons ombudsman; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Proposals to revise the procedures under which prisoners in Scotland are able to make requests and complaints and to air grievances in relation to the Scottish Prison Service were contained in the report of a Scottish Prison Service working group entitled "Right and Just", which was published for comment in September 1992. The consultation exercise indicated a general consensus in favour of introducing an independent element to the system, and we have taken the view that this can best be achieved by the appointment of an external complaints adjudicator—an independent person on a fixed term contract, with advisory functions. This will fulfil the commitment in the justice charter for Scotland to introduce an independent element in the new procedures. Officials in the Scottish Office have been asked to start the process of advertising for such a person with a view to an appointment later this year.

  In advance of that, however, proposals for revised internal grievance procedures have been fully worked up for implementation in establishments next month. The main features are that requests or complaints will be resolved as close as possible to the source of the matter at issue; those who take decisions will be accountable for them; prisoners will receive reasoned responses within a set time scale; and accurate and sufficiently detailed records will be maintained. Gallery officers and hall managers will have a key role to play in the day-to-day handling of requests and complaints, but issues which they cannot resolve will be referred to an internal complaints committee. Prisoners will be given the opportunity to appeal against the committee's decisions to the governor-in-charge. If they remain dissatisfied, they will have the right of appeal to the external complaints adjudicator. Under transitional arrangements there will be a right of appeal to Scottish Prison Service headquarters.

  The external complaints adjudicator will take a case on board only when all previous stages in the procedure have been exhausted. He or she will review both the merits of decisions and the way in which requests and complaints have been handled in the internal system. Where the complaints adjudicator disagrees with a decision, he or she will have the power to recommend the questioning of any finding of guilt or remission of any punishment. The complaints adjudicator will make a report to the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service on each case with a reasoned recommendation.

  I believe that this new appointment, taken with the overhauled internal procedures, will represent a significant advance in the way in which prisoners' requests and complaints are handled.

  Sheriff Courts (Training)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the organisation of training for the judiciary in the sheriff courts.
  125
  Mr. Lang
  Responsibility for the content of judicial training rests with the judiciary and responsibility for its funding rests with me. I very much welcome the growth in recent years in the amount of training undertaken by the judiciary. To assist in its further development I have decided, following consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, to set up a group to co-ordinate the provision of training for the judiciary in the sheriff courts. The right hon. Lord Cameron of Lochbroom has kindly agreed to chair the group, the membership of which will be as follows:

  Sheriff Iain Macmillan CBE, President, Temporary Sheriffs Association

  Mr. Gordon Murray CB, Director, Scottish Courts Administration

  Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson QC, Convener, Sheriffs Principal

  Sheriff Gordon Shiach, Acting President, Sheriffs Association

  Mountain Deaths
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an inquiry to ascertain the causes of deaths arising from incidents on Scottish mountains and to initiate action to avoid a repetition of such fatalities.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: I am sure that the hon. Member is aware of the great concern I have repeatedly expressed about the loss of life in the Scottish mountains. He will no doubt have seen my Christmas message on mountain safety which was extensively relayed in the Scottish press. The Scottish mountain rescue committee publishes annual statistics which give a breakdown of accidents by type of incident and injury and provide details of resources expended in rescue. Relevant bodies incuding the Scottish mountain safety group and the Scottish Sports Council are actively considering the question of further research into safety in the Scottish mountains and I expect to receive their recommendations in due course. Until that time I have no plans to set up an inquiry.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Order Act 1986
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General how many times the Attorney General has refused his consent to a prosecution under part III of the Public Order Act 1986.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Solicitor General to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on 17 December 1993, at columns 1050–51.

  Public Interest
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases the Crown Prosecution Service has dropped in the public interest in each year since its establishment.

  The Attorney-General
  The information sought by the hon. Member is recorded only on individual case files and is not collected or collated centrally. The information requested could therefore be collected only at dispropor-tionate cost. Many of the files on case completed since 1986 have been destroyed in accordance with the Public Records Acts.
  126
  A survey has been carried out of all prosecutions dropped during November 1993 and the results will be published very shortly.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were accepted as homeless and in priority need in the Greater Manchester area in each year since 1987.

  Sir George Young
  Information on households accepted by local authorities in the Greater Manchester area as homeless and in priority need, and covering the whole of the period, is readily available only for financial years. The information is as follows:

  Number

  1987–88

  8,960

  1988–89

  11,030

  1989–90

  10,630

  1990–91

  13,030

  1991–92

  13,280

  1992–93

  11,840

  Source: Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are homeless in the parliamentary constituencies of Sunderland, North, Sunderland, South and Washington and Houghton.

  Sir George Young
  The available data relate to local authority areas. The numbers of households accepted as homeless by Sunderland metropolitan district council are given in the supplementary table to the quarterly information bulletin "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985: England"; copies of both are in the Library. The latest available statistics are for the third quarter of 1993.

  Petrol Fumes
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held about the environmental and health risk of vapour fumes from unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Atkins
  Government Ministers and officials have held discussions with interested parties at national and international level.

  Environmental Standards
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the effect of the GATT on environmental standards.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 29 November,Official Report, column 381.

  Petrol Pumps
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to regulate to ensure that petrol pump nozzles are fitted with vapour controls to limit the dangers of carcinogenic fumes.
  127
  Mr. Atkins
  None at present. However, a proposal from the European Commission to introduce a system of petrol vapour recovery during vehicle refuelling is expected in the near future. The proposal is likely to aim at controlling emissions of volatile organic compounds as precursors of ground level ozone.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the findings of his Department's research on rent arrears as an update to "Preventing Rent Arrears", published in December 1983.

  Sir George Young
  I expect to publish the research findings in the summer.

  Assured Shorthold Tenancies
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average duration of assured shorthold tenancies granted under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988.

  Sir George Young
  This information is not available at present. However, the survey of English housing will provide further information. The results of the first year of the survey are expected io be published in the autumn.

  Waste Management Licensing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the new waste management licensing provisions of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be implemented before 1 May 1994; and when the necessary regulations will be laid.

  Mr. Atkins
  As the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside announced on 24 November 1993 at column 384 it is the Government's intention to bring the waste management licensing provisions of part Il of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 into force on 1 May 1994. The necessary regulations will be laid before Parliament before that date.

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that no buildings or parts thereof will be secured for or on behalf of his Department unless there is adequate access for disabled people.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is already Government policy to take into account the needs of disabled people both in operating existing buildings and in acquiring new buildings.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received on draft guidelines prepared by the sea mammal research unit on precautions to minimise acoustic disturbance to small cetaceans.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received no written representations on the draft guidelines, and three telephoned inquiries from two non-governmental organisations.
  128

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the expected total costs to public funds of the 16 enterprise zones that he announced on 18 January.

  Mr. Baldry
  The principal public sector costs of enterprise zones are rate relief and capital allowances. Neither can be accurately calculated in advance as they depend on the rate of development of the zones.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the ownership of the sites of the 16 enterprise zones which he announced on 18 January; what measures he will use to evaluate the effectiveness of those enterprise zones; and how he will monitor their performance.

  Mr. Baldry
  Designation of the 16 sites proposed for enterprise zone status is subject to the agreement of the European Commission and to statutory consultation procedures. Precise site boundaries have yet to be determined. It would therefore be premature and potentially misleading to give details of land ownership at this stage. This information will be available as part of the statutory consultation process.

  A programme of monitoring and evaluation for any new zones will be established on designation.

  Portable Discounts
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many recipients of portable discounts paid for leaving their rented council property have subsequently received a further discount on purchasing a second council-owned property.

  Sir George Young
  No statistics on the matter are held by my Department.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many portable discounts were paid to tenants of(a) Westminster council and (b) Wandsworth council in each year of the operation of the scheme to date which did not result in the vacant property being relet to a homeless family or an applicant on the council's housing list.

  Sir George Young
  The table shows the number of cash incentive grants paid directly by Westminster council and Wandsworth council which did not result in the property vacated being relet to a homeless household or an applicant on the housing waiting-transfer list.

  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State approved these schemes on the basis that vacated properties could be sold to tenant purchasers, whose vacated properties would in turn be relet to a homeless household or waiting list applicant.

  Westminster

  Wandsworth

  1989–90

  0

  0

  1990–91

  13

  0

  1991–92

  0

  31

  1992–93

  34

  29

  129

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to the consultation paper on local government reorganisation, "Proposed Arrangements for 1994–95 Reorganisation Costs", issued to all local authorities on 2 December 1993; and what arrangements he has decided to adopt in relation to reorganisation costs to be incurred by authorities in 1994–95.

  Mr. Curry
  There have been some 40 responses to the consultation paper. We have carefully considered the responses, and have decided to confirm the proposals for 1994–95 with modifications. We shall issue to authorities supplementary credit approvals to enable them to borrow to meet specified reorganisation costs incurred in 1994–95, up to a limit. We shall determine the limit on the basis, inter alia, of information provided by the authorities concerned and the Government's public expenditure plans.

  We have issued to authorities in the Isle of Wight and Cleveland notices requiring them to supply information about their reorganisation costs to be incurred in 1994–95. We intend, in the course of 1994–95, to issue further notices to any other authorities in respect on which reorganisation orders under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992 are made that year. We do not expect reorganisation costs in 1994–95 to be significant for such authorities.

  Pollution
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure the monitoring of pollution levels in Britain's larger towns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: In the second anniversary report of the 1990 environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", the Government made a commitment to extend their urban air quality monitoring network to cover all major cities by 1997. In addition, the Government are currently considering responses to their recent consultation paper "The Future of Air Quality Monitoring Networks in the United Kingdom", which included proposals for a framework which draws local and national air quality monitoring together into a coherent quality assured network.

  Waste Exports
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what quantities of waste have been exported annually from the United Kingdom since 1988 to non-OECD countries for(a) disposal and (b) recovery or recycling;

  (2) if the Government intend to support a total ban on the export of all toxic waste to non-OECD countries at the forthcoming Basel convention meeting in March;

  (3) if he will place in the Library the information supplied by the United Kingdom to the European Commission as its contribution to the review of waste exports for recovery, as requested at the Environment Council meeting in March 1993;

  (4) which local and national authorities (a) were responsible for determining whether the United Kingdom waste exported to the Brazilian company Produquimica in
  130
  August 1993 was a controlled waste and (b) are now responsible for the management of the waste subsequently returned to the United Kingdom recently;

  (5) what measures he has taken or intends to take to ensure that wastes exported to non-OECD countries for the purposes of recycling and recovery are handled in an environmentally sound manner.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: My Department has no record under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 of any exports since 1988 of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries for disposal. A total of 16,300 tonnes of hazardous red and amber list waste were exported to non-OECD countries for recovery or recycling in 1991. Information for 1992 is as follows. Information for earlier years has not been analysed and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) on 12 January at columns 200–201.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 18 January, at column 567. I understand that no documentation was submitted to the competent authorities under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 prior to the export of this material by London Metals Ltd. to the Produquimica Co. in Brazil. Humberside county council is aware that the material is being transported to a storage facility in its area.

  The following information was supplied to the European Commission:

  United Kingdom exports of hazardous recoverable red and amber list waste to non-OECD countries 1992

  Country

  Tonnes

  Thailand

  2,371

  South Africa

  1,393

  South Korea

  1,160

  Dubai

  925

  India

  748

  Israel

  269

  Libya

  187

  Singapore

  134

  Burma

  127

  Taiwan

  111

  Qatar

  103

  Bolivia

  102

  Pakistan

  99

  Indonesia

  73

  Egypt

  71

  United Arab Emirates

  62

  Malta

  60

  Saudi Arabia

  45

  Abu Dhabi

  40

  Mexico

  39

  Brunei

  22

  Malaysia

  21

  Zambia

  12

  Ecuador

  8

  CIS (former Soviet Union)

  7

  Ghana

  3

  Sri Lanka

  2

  Venezuela

  1

  China

  1

  TOTAL FOR ALL NON-OECD COUNTRIES

  8,196

  Note: Figures rounded.

  Source of information: United Kingdom Customs and Excise

  Department—May 1993.
  131

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for her Department during 1994.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 21 January 1994 Official Report, column 849, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what working definition of "back to basics" is used by her Department; and what her Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 January 1994 Official Report, column 849.

  Animal Welfare
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made as to the effect of GATT on standards of animal welfare at home and abroad.

  Mr. Soames
  No such assessment has been made. However, the GATT Uruguay round agreement on agriculture does not change the basic GATT requirement that animal welfare measures should not place more stringent measures on third country imports than on domestic production.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which special advisers in her Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Jack
  None.

  Intervention Stocks
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of the intervention stocks for free distribution that were(a) allocated and (b) distributed, for each European Union member in 1993 in (i) pound sterling and (ii) ecus.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The maximum levels of expenditure allocated by the Commission for 1993 under the EC surplus food scheme were as follows:

  Member state

  £ sterling12 (millions)

  ecus2 (millions)

  Belgium

  1·931

  2·422

  Denmark

  1·595

  2·000

  France

  22·771

  28·560

  Germany

  nil

  nil

  Greece

  9·567

  12·000

  Ireland

  3·668

  4·600

  Italy

  19·534

  24·500

  132

  Member state

  £ sterling12 (millions)

  ecus2 (millions)

  Luxembourg

  0·062

  0·078

  Netherlands

  2·392

  3·000

  Portugal

  8·324

  10·440

  Spain

  28·224

  35·400

  United Kingdom

  19·932

  25·000

  Total

  118·000

  148·000

  1ecu/£ conversion rate=0·797291 as at 1 October 1992.

  2These total figures include transport and administration costs.

  Final figures for actual expenditure for 1993 are not yet available.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 24 January; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This Council meeting, at which I represented the United Kingdom, formally adopted the legal texts implementing the package of decisions reached at its December meeting and as described in my reply of 17 December to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter)Official Report, columns 1071–72. As stated in that reply, I voted against the decision on oilseeds.

  The Council also adopted unanimously a regulation permitting member states to impose a levy on milk production in order to fund promotional measures; considered the situation of beekeepers in the Community, on which the Commission will present a more detailed study in due course; and discussed, without reaching any specific conclusions, a report from the Commission on the sheepmeat market.

  I took the opportunity to press the Commission to reach a speedy decision on the legality or otherwise of French national assistance to pig producers, an issue which I had first raised in the Council last October.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agreements have been made, how much has been spent and how many kilometres of hedgerow were restored under the hedgerow incentive scheme by her Ministry in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 in each region in England; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The table sets out by MAFF region the number of claims and the amount of money paid at November 1993 to farmers under the farm and conservation grant scheme—F and CGS—in support of the Countryside Commission's hedgerow incentive scheme—HIS. No such payments were made in the financial year 1992–93. Because these payments accompanied payments by the Countryside Commission it is not possible to identify separately the proportion of the hedgerow restored under the HIS which attracted grant under the F and CGS.

  Government support for hedgerow restoration through the HIS is minor compared to the considerable support which is available also under the F and CGS. Under

  133
  this scheme, since 1989, we have paid 3,500 farmers £5·24 million towards the restoration of 3,300 km of hedgerow.

  1993–94

  MAFF Regional Service Centre

  Number of Claims

  Grant Paid £

  Anglia

  1

  455

  East Midlands

  8

  3,290

  North East

  10

  10,375

  Northern

  16

  17,654

  North Mercia

  9

  12,659

  South Mercia

  11

  10,644

  South East

  8

  6,073

  South West

  8

  8,839

  Wessex

  7

  5,433

  England

  78

  74,972

  Cash income and average manual workers earnings

  Cash income on cattle and sheep farms (LFA)1

  3Year

  England £ '000s per farm

  Wales £ '000s per farm

  Scotland £''000s per farm

  Northern Ireland £'000s per farm

  2Full-time adult manual workers earnings in Great Britain £'000s

  Current prices

  1986–87

  7·1

  8·7

  10·5

  10·6

  8·5

  1987–88

  10·8

  7·7

  14·3

  11·7

  9·0

  1988–89

  11·0

  10·4

  14·5

  8·9

  9·7

  1989–90

  14·1

  13·5

  14·9

  12·0

  10·6

  1990–91

  13·2

  14·3

  15·5

  11·5

  11·6

  41991–92

  14·3

  17·8

  17·9

  9·9

  12·3

  41992–93

  18·4

  22·0

  19·8

  13·6

  13·0

  4 51993–94

  22·0

  28·9

  21·9

  15·2

  13·3

  1992–93 prices6

  1986–87

  10·0

  12·3

  14·8

  15·0

  12·0

  1987–88

  14·6

  10·4

  19·4

  15·9

  12·2

  1988–89

  14·1

  13·4

  18·6

  11·4

  12·5

  1989–90

  16·8

  16·1

  17·7

  14·3

  12·6

  1990–91

  14·3

  15·5

  16·8

  12·5

  12·6

  41991–92

  14·8

  18·4

  18·5

  10·2

  12·7

  41992–93

  18·4

  22·0

  19·8

  13·6

  13·0

  4 51993–94

  21·7

  28·4

  21·6

  15·0

  13·0

  1 Sample averages for farms larger than 8 ESU. The system of farm classification is set out in appendix 3 of Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1991–92.

  2 As at April each year.

  3 March-February accounting year.

  4 Provisional and forecast figures based on the sample of farms in the survey for 1992–93.

  5 Forecast.

  6 Deflated by the retail prices index—all items (March 1992-February 1993 prices).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Iran
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government have given to Iran to help refugees from Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1991 we have contributed £2,216,000 to helping Iraqi refugees in Iran. These sums include £200,000 to CARE; £320,000 to the Iraqi humanitarian relief committee; £52,000 to the South Manchester accident and rescue team; £20,000 to the Association of Pioneer Relief Officers; £1 million to the International Commission of the Red Cross and £624,000
  134

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish the farm income figures for(a) English, (b) Welsh, (c) Scottish and (d) Northern Irish hill livestock farm enterprises in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available, at constant prices, shown as a percentage of full-time manual earnings for the United Kingdom for the same period.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: None of the measures of farm income are comparable with those of manual worker's earnings. The tables show estimates of the level of cash income for each accounting year since 1986–87 and the average earnings of full-time adult workers as at April each year in terms of current prices and 1992–93 prices. Income data are not available for the new classification of farm types before 1986–87.

  to Iraqi civilian aid. This latter British based non-governmental organisation has used the funds for work in refugee camps in Iran and also for work with displaced marsh Arabs camped on the Iran-Iraq border. The United Kingdom has not given any funds directly to the Government of Iran to help Iraqi refugees.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government have given to Iran to help refugees from Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have given £3 million in 1993–94 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for work with Afghan refugees. This includes the repatriation programmes from both Pakistan and Iran.
  135
  We are ready to consider funding proposals for humanitarian activities by non-governmental organisa-tions; and are currently considering proposals for a river crossing on the Helmand river which would provide an additional border crossing for returning Afghan refugees.

  Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The board of Crown Agents is presently constituted as follows:

  Mr. D. H. Probert (Chairman)

  Mr. J. D. Andrewes

  Mr. P. F. Berry (Managing Director)

  Mr. F. Cassell CB

  Baroness Miller of Hendon MBE

  Miss K. Mortimer

  Mr. A. K. Stewart-Roberts

  Mr. F. I. Sumner

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for National Heritage which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Brooke
  Mr. Bryan Jefferson acts as architectural adviser to the Secretaries of the State for National Heritage and for the Environment. His appointment to the Department of National Heritage is on a one day a week basis.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement setting out his policy and his objectives in relation to the British film industry.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is the Government's policy to create an economic framework which will allow the United Kingdom film industry to thrive. The Department's medium-term objectives in relation to film are to help reverse the decline in British film production since 1985; to promote the United Kingdom as a location for the filming of feature films, television programmes and commercials; to expand opportunities for access to high quality films from Britain and elsewhere; and to foster international co-operation in production, distribution and exhibition of films. Measures to achieve these objectives are under consideration, and I will make an announcement as soon as practicable.

  Regional Sports Councils
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a table showing the grant in aid for the last 10 financial years, this year and projections for the next two years, for each of the regional sports councils.
  136
  Mr. Brooke
  The Sports Council's regional offices provide the secretariat for the regional councils for sport and recreation, but neither the Department nor the Sports Council makes grants to these bodies.

  The Sports Council's support for regional sporting activity and development is delivered directly through its own regional offices.

  Millennium Commission
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his timetable for the setting up of the Millennium Commission; whether he will chair the commission; when he expects to hold the first meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I expect the Millennium Commission to be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen in February, and the Government Minister to chair the Millennium Commission will be announced at the same time. The first meeting of the commission will be held shortly thereafter.

  Royal Opera House
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the Royal Opera house development plan.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand that the board of the Royal Opera house is currently considering the outcome of a review it has commissioned of financial and other aspects of the present development scheme, which received Government consent in 1991. I will be advised of the board's conclusions and will then consider, in the usual way, the extent to which any new consents are required.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Sports Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of the Sports Council are:

  Sir Peter Yarranton (Chairman)

  Professor Allan Patmore CBE B.Litt MA (Vice-Chairman)

  Julia Bracewell

  Trevor Brooking MBE

  Gerald Dennis

  Jim Elms MBE

  Tim Marshall MBE

  Keith Oates BSc(Econ), BSC(FCT)

  Michael Parker

  Graeme Simmers OBE CA

  David Simon CBE

  Dr. Sarah Springman

  Geoff Thompson

  Ossie Wheatley MA

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of Theatres Trust.

  Mr. Brooke
  The members of the board of the Theatres Trust are:

  G. Laurence Harbottle (Chairman)

  Peter Plouviez (Vice Chairman)

  Sir Eddie Kulukundis

  Ian Albery

  Professor James Dunbar-Nasmith

  Sir Michael Marshall MP

  Sir Ronald Millar

  137

  Gayle Hunnicutt

  John Drummond

  A. W. P. Stenham

  Baroness Birk

  Sir Geoffrey Cass

  Peter Longman

  The Marchioness of Anglesey

  Yvonne Brewster.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C—are:

  Mr. Ifan Prys Edwards (Chairman)

  Dr. Gwenllian Mair Awbery

  Mr. Dyfig John

  Dr. Gwyn Jones

  Mr. R. Gerallt Jones

  Ms Janet Lewis Jones

  Mrs. Elan Closs Stephens.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Radio Authority.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of the Radio Authority are:

  The right hon. Lord Chalfont OBE, MC (Chairman)

  Mrs. Jill McIvor

  Mrs. Margaret Corrigan

  Mr. John Grant

  Mr. Richard Hooper

  Mr. Michael Moriarty CB

  Mr. Ranjit Sondhi.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission are:

  Rev. Canon Peter Pilkington (Chairman)

  Mr. Donald Allen CMG

  Mr. Tony Christopher CBE

  Baroness Dean

  Ms Jane Leighton

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the national heritage memorial fund.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of the national heritage memorial fund are:

  Lord Rothschild (Chairman)

  Mrs. Catherine Porteous

  Professor Palmer Newbould

  Sir Richard Carew-Pole

  Sir Martin Jacomb

  Sir Nicholas Goodison

  Mrs. John Nutting

  W. Lindsay Evans Esq.

  Lord Crathorne

  Commander Michael Saunders Watson

  Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Plenary Session (Voting)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list Her Majesty's Government voting record for each measure, and amendments thereto, on the agenda of the plentary session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1993.
  138
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 48th plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly met from 21 September to 23 December 1993. It adopted 232 resolutions and 37 decisions during that time. One hundred and sixty-eight resolutions and 35 decisions were adopted without a vote.

  The 48th session voted on 64 resolutions and two decisions during its plenary meetings. The United Kingdom's voting record for these measures was as follows:

  Voting

  Resolutions adopted without reference to a main committee

  RES/14

  Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency

  For

  RES/15

  Return or restitution of cultural property to countries or origin

  Abstain

  RES/16

  Ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba

  Abstain

  RES/23

  Zone of peace and co-operation in the South Atlantic

  For

  RES/28

  Law of the Sea

  Abstain

  RES/52

  Implementation of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples

  Against

  RES/53

  Dissemination of information on decolonisation

  Against

  RES/56

  Question of Island of Mayotte

  Abstain

  RES/58

  Middle East Peace Process

  For

  RES/59A

  Situation in the Middle East

  For

  RES/59B

  Syrian Golan

  Abstain

  RES/88

  Situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina

  Abstain

  RES/158A

  Committee on the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian People

  Abstain

  RES/158B

  Division for Palestinian rights of the Secretariat

  Abstain

  RES/158C

  Department of Public Information of the Secretariat

  For

  RES/158D

  Peaceful settlement on the question of Palestine

  Abstain

  Resolutions adopted on reports of the first committee

  RES/66

  Scientific and technological developments and their impact on international security

  Against

  RES/67

  The role of science and technology in the context of international security, disarmament and other related fields

  Abstain

  RES/68

  Verification in all its aspects, including the role of the UN in the field of verification

  Abstain

  Separate vote on Operative paragraph 2 of RES/68

  Against

  RES/69

  Amendment of the Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, outer space and under water

  Against

  RES/72

  Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia

  For

  RES/73

  Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons

  Abstain

  RES/74A

  Prevention of an arms race in outer space

  For

  Separate vote on preambular paragraph 2 of RES/74A

  Abstain

  Separate vote on operative paragraph 8 of RES/74A

  Abstain

  Separate vote on operative paragraph 10 of RES/74A

  Abstain

  RES/75C

  General and complete disarmament

  Abstain

  RES/75H

  Conventional arms control at regional and sub-regional levels

  For

  RES/751

  Regional disarmament

  For

  RES/75J

  Conventional arms control at regional and sub-regional levels

  For

  RES/76A

  Review and implementation of the concluding document of the 12th special session of General Assembly: confidence-building measures

  Abstain

  RES/76B

  Convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons

  Against

  RES/78

  Israeli nuclear armament

  Against

  139

  Voting

  RES/79

  Convention on the prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects

  Abstain

  Separate vote on preambular paragraph 5 of RES/79

  Abstain

  RES/80

  Question of Antarctica

  1—

  RES/82

  Implementation of the declaration of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace

  Abstain

  RES/83

  Review of the implementation of the declaration on the strengthening of international security

  Abstain

  RES/84A

  Maintenance of international security

  For

  Resolutions adopted on reports of the second committee

  RES/182

  Enhanced technical co-operation towards a durable solution to the external debt problems of all developing countries

  For

  RES/212

  Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli settlements on the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territory, including, Jerusalem, occupied since 1967, and on the Arab population of the Syrian Golan

  For

  RES/168

  Economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries

  Against

  Resolutions adopted on reports of the third committee

  RES/89

  Status of the International Convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid

  Abstain

  RES/92

  Use of mercenaries as a means to violate human rights and to impede the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination

  Against

  RES/94

  Universal realisation of the rights of peoples to self-determination

  Against

  RES/101

  UN African Institute for the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders

  Abstain

  RES/123

  Alternative approaches and ways and means within the UN system for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms

  Against

  RES/124

  Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states and their electoral processes

  Against

  RES/131

  Enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections

  For

  RES/142

  Situation of human rights in Cuba

  For

  RES/144

  Situation of human rights in Iraq

  For

  RES/145

  Situation of human rights in Iran

  For

  Res/147

  Situation of human rights in Sudan

  For

  Resolutions adopted on reports of the forth committee

  RES/40A

  Assistance to Palestinian refugees

  For

  RES/40D

  Offers by member states of grants and scholarships for higher education, including vocational training, for Palestinian refugees

  For

  RES/40E

  Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967

  For

  RES/40F

  Return of population and refugees displaced since 1967

  For

  RES/40G

  Revenues derived from Palestinian refugees' properties

  Abstain

  RES/40H

  Protection of Palestinian refugees

  For

  RES/401

  University of Jerusalem "Al-Quds" for Palestinian refugees

  For

  RES/40J

  Protection of Palestinian students and educational institutions and safeguarding of the security of the facilities of UNWRA in the Near East and occupied territories

  For

  RES/41A

  Report of the Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories

  Abstain

  RES/41B

  ditto

  For

  RES/41C

  ditto

  Abstain

  RES/41D

  ditto

  Abstain

  140

  Voting

  RES/45

  Information from non-self-governing territories transmitted under article 73e of the Charter of the United Nations

  Abstain

  RES/46

  Activities of those foreign economic and other interests which impede the implementation of the declaration on the granting of indpendence to colonial countries and peoples in territories under colonial domination and efforts to eliminate colonialism, apartheid and racial discrimination in Southern Africa

  Against

  Decision

  ditto

  Against

  RES/47

  Implementation of the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples by the specialised agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations

  Against

  Decision

  Implementation of the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples

  Against

  1 Did not take part in the vote.

  A copy of the United Nations information record of the resolutions and decisions of the 48th session of the General Assembly showing the texts and voting records will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it is available.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) Greek Cypriots and (b) Turkish Cypriots are employed by the United Kingdom high commission in Cyprus.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom high commission in Cyprus employs 28 Greek Cypriots and six Turkish Cypriots. It also has seven Armenian Cypriot employees.

  Lot Airlines
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of the impact on United Kingdom-Polish relations of the suspension of the permit of Lot Airlines to land at Heathrow.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We remain concerned at the suspension of air services between Britain and Poland. This is an air services dispute and has no impact on our current friendly relations with Poland. We want to see the situation resolved as soon as possible.

  There has been a number of contacts recently with the Polish Government and I hope there will be an early meeting of officials to discuss a framework for the resumption of services. We are making every effort to secure a settlement which will be in the interests of both the airlines involved and the travelling public, and be consistent with the principles which govern aviation in the European Union.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss the future of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Governor of Hong Kong visited London from 19 to 24 January. My right hon. Friend the
  141
  Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a useful discussion with Mr. Patten on a wide range of Hong Kong issues, including the 1994–95 election arrangements.

  The first stage of the draft legislation on election arrangements is now progressing through the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. We expect it to complete its passage next month.

  It would clearly not be feasible to withdraw this draft legislation. But this should not preclude continued discussion with China on the remaining electoral issues; nor should it prevent our co-operating with China in the many other matters of importance to Hong Kong.

  State

  Signed

  Ratification/Acceptance

  Entry into Force

  Austria

  20 May 1980

  12 April 1985

  1 August 1986

  Belgium

  20 May 1980

  1 October 1985

  1 August 1986

  Cyprus

  20 May 1980

  13 June 1986

  1 October 1986

  Denmark

  11 April 1991

  11 April 1991

  1 August 1991

  France

  20 May 1980

  4 August 1982

  1 August 1986

  Germany

  20 May 1980

  5 October 1990

  1 February 1991

  Greece

  20 May 1980

  8 March 1993

  1 July 1993

  Ireland

  20 May 1980

  28 June 1991

  1 October 1991

  Italy

  20 May 1980

  —

  —

  Liechtenstein

  20 May 1980

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  20 May 1980

  25 May 1983

  1 August 1986

  Netherlands

  20 May 1980

  23 May 1990

  1 September 1990

  Norway

  17 January 1989

  17 January 1989

  1 May 1989

  Portugal

  20 May 1980

  18 March 1983

  1 August 1986

  Spain

  20 May 1980

  30 May 1984

  1 August 1986

  Sweden

  28 March 1989

  28 March 1989

  1 July 1989

  Switzerland

  20 May 1980

  27 September 1983

  1 August 1986

  United Kingdom

  20 May 1980

  21 April 1986

  1 August 1986

  State

  Signed

  Ratification/Accession/Succession/Extension

  Entry into force between the United Kingdom and State

  Argentina

  28 January 1991

  19 March 1991

  1 June 1991

  Australia

  29 October 1986

  29 October 1986

  1 January 1987

  Austria

  12 May 1987

  14 July 1988

  1 October 1988

  Bahamas

  (Accession)

  1 October 1993

  1 January 1994

  Belgium

  11 January 1982

  —

  —

  Belize

  (Accession)

  22 June 1989

  1 October 1989

  Bosnia-Hercegovina

  (Succession)

  1 October 1993

  7 April 1992

  Burkina Faso

  (Accession)

  25 May 1992

  1 August 1992

  Canada

  25 October 1980

  2 June 1983

  1 August 1986

  Ontario

  (Extension)

  2 June 1983

  1 August 1986

  New Brunswick

  (Extension)

  2 June 1983

  1 August 1986

  British Columbia

  (Extension)

  2 June 1983

  1 August 1986

  Manitoba

  (Extension)

  2 June 1983

  1 August 1986

  Nova Scotia

  (Extension)

  27 February 1984

  1 August 1986

  Newfoundland

  (Extension)

  6 July 1984

  1 August 1986

  Prince Edward Island

  (Extension)

  12 February 1986

  1 August 1986

  Quebec

  (Extension)

  11 October 1984

  1 August 1986

  Yukon Territory

  (Extension)

  18 November 1984

  1 August 1986

  Saskatchewan

  (Extension)

  11 August 1986

  1 November 1986

  Alberta

  (Extension)

  4 November 1986

  1 February 1987

  Northwest Territories

  (Extension)

  26 January 1988

  1 April 1988

  Croatia

  (Succession)

  5 April 1993

  1 December 1991

  Czech Republic

  1 January 1993

  —

  —

  Denmark

  17 April 1991

  17 April 1991

  1 July 1991

  Ecuador

  (Accession)

  22 January 1992

  1 April 1992

  142

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Child Abduction
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries(a) are and (b) are not currently signatories to the international convention on child abduction.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are two international conventions on child abduction. The following countries have signed the European convention on recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody of children and on restoration of custody of children.

  The following countries have signed The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.
  143

  State

  Signed

  Ratification/A ccession/Succession/Extension

  Entry into force between the United Kingdom and State

  France

  25 October 1980

  16 September 1982

  1 August 1986

  Germany

  9 September 1987

  27 September 1990

  1 December 1990

  Greece

  25 October 1980

  19 March 1983

  1 June 1993

  Honduras

  (Accession)

  20 December 1993

  —

  Hungary

  (Accession)

  7 April 1986

  1 September 1986

  Ireland

  23 May 1990

  16 July 1991

  1 October 1991

  Israel

  4 September 1991

  4 September 1991

  1 December 1991

  Italy

  2 March 1987

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  18 December 1984

  8 October 1986

  1 January 1987

  Macedonia

  (Succession)

  23 September 1993

  1 December 1991

  Mauritius

  (Accession)

  23 March 1993

  1 June 1993

  Mexico

  (Accession)

  20 June 1991

  1 September 1991

  Monaco

  (Accession)

  12 November 1992

  1 February 1993

  Netherlands

  11 September 1987

  12 June 1990

  1 September 1990

  New Zealand

  (Accession)

  31 May 1991

  1 August 1991

  Norway

  9 January 1989

  9 January 1989

  1 April 1989

  Poland

  (Accession)

  10 August 1992

  1 November 1992

  Portugal

  22 June 1982

  29 September 1983

  1 August 1986

  Romania

  (Accession)

  20 November 1992

  1 February 1993

  Slovak Republic

  1 January 1993

  —

  —

  Spain

  7 February 1986

  16 June 1987

  1 September 1987

  Sweden

  22 March 1989

  22 March 1989

  1 June 1989

  Switzerland

  25 October 1980

  11 October 1983

  1 August 1986

  United Kingdom

  19 November 1984

  20 May 1986

  1 August 1986

  United States of America

  23 December 1981

  29 April 1988

  1 July 1988

  Yugoslavia

  27 September 1991

  27 September 1991

  1 December 1991

  UNESCO
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress Her Majesty's Government have made in considering renewal of the United Kingdom's membership of UNESCO.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are continuing to keep this matter under close review.

  Visas
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold discussions with the Governments of those commonwealth countries whose nationals are currently able to visit the United Kingdom without a visa about the European Commission's proposals to make a list of countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external frontiers of member states.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European Commission's proposals will be a matter for discussion with European Union partners and the Commission. I do not propose, at this stage, to initiate discussions with those commonwealth countries whose citizens would be affected by the Commission's proposals as currently drafted.

  Social Development Summit
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will be representing the United Kingdom Government at the preparatory committee meeting in New York on 31 January to 11 February for the world summit on social development; which non-governmental organisations have been invited to be members of the United Kingdom delegation; what plans Her Majesty's Government have to set up a national committee on the summit; and which organisations have been invited to participate.
  144
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's permanent represen-tative to the United Nations will represent the United Kingdom at the forthcoming preparatory committee for the world summit for social development. He will be supported by his local staff and experts from Whitehall. We have not invited any non-governmental organisations to be part of the United Kingdom delegation. The secretariat for the summit has made arrangements for any NGO's who wish to attend. There are no plans at present to establish a national committee on the summit. We will review this question following the preparatory committee meeting in February.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many hon. Members have written to him concerning the human rights situation in Iran since April 1992; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how Her Majesty's Government have voted in the United Nations General Assembly on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to Iran concerning the abuse of human rights in Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received 423 letters from hon. Members on the human rights situation in Iran since April 1992.

  We remain seriously concerned about the human rights situation in Iran and repeatedly make this clear to the Iranian authorities, both with our European partners and bilaterally. In December 1993 we co-sponsored and voted in favour of a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly that reflected the critical report of the United Nations special representative on human rights in Iran.

  Most recently we gave our full support to representa-tions made by the European Union on behalf of the Rev. Mehdi Dibaj and two members of the Baha'i faith, all of

  145
  whom were reportedly sentenced to death in Iran for their religious beliefs. We have also raised Dibaj's case with the Iranian embassy in London.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy with respect to Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We restored relations with Iran on 27 September 1990 on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in each other's affairs.

  We and our European Community partners made clear at the European Council at Edinburgh in December 1992 that improvements in Iran's behaviour in a number of areas, particularly human rights, the fatwa on Mr. Rushdie and terrorism, would be important in determining the extent to which closer relations and confidence in Iran could be developed.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the circumstances of the recent shooting incident near the United Kingdom embassy in Teheran; what co-operation has been received from the Iranian authorities to investigate it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of shots were fired at the offices of the British embassy in Tehran late on 9 January 1994, after office hours. No one was injured. The Iranian authorities are investigating the incident and we are satisfied with their co-operation.

  Flight ULE 966
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice was given by British officials at the United Kingdom post in Jamaica to Jamaican citizens booked to travel on flight ULE 966 chartered from Air UK Leisure to the United Kingdom when they sought advice on the suitability of their travel documents.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As prior entry clearance for visitors from Jamaica is not mandatory, they are not obliged to contact the British high commission in Kingston. When Jamaican citizens seek advice on documents required for entry into the United Kingdom, the high commission does not necessarily know details of the flights on which they intend to travel. This was so in the case of the visitors booked to travel on flight ULE 966, and it is not therefore known how many may have sought advice.

  All visitors seeking advice from the British high commission are given the information which I described on 11 January at column 43 in reply to an earlier question from the hon. Member.

  Lockerbie (Trial)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the United Nations the possibility of holding the trial of two Libyan nationals suspected of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 crime in The Hague.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is clear from resolution 883 of 11 November 1993 that the United Nations Security Council envisages trial only before the appropriate United Kingdom or United States court.
  146

  Malaysia
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agreements Her Majesty's Government made with the Government of Malaysia with respect to arms contracts and an overseas aid package; when those agreements were made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  During discussions in 1988 about the proposed memorandum of understanding on defence sales, the Malaysians expressed their wish to make a reference to aid. A protocol was signed during the visit to Kuala Lumpur in March 1988 by the then Defence Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Younger of Prestwick. This set out the Malaysian Government's intention to buy defence equipment from the United Kingdom, with the details to be elaborated in the later memorandum. The protocol included a reference to"aid in support of non-military aspects under this programme."

  After consultation with ministerial colleagues in London, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Malaysian Minister of Finance in June 1988 to say that aid could not be linked to defence sales. As a result, the issue was not taken up in the memorandum of understanding on defence procurement which the British and Malaysian Prime Ministers signed in September 1988, and which did not cover aid. Our aid programme is not linked to arms sales.

  Malaysia has been eligible for support under the aid and trade provision since the scheme was introduced in 1977; and 23 of the 270 ATP projects financed since then have been in Malaysia. The Malaysian Government have been well aware of the availability of ATP, which was reaffirmed in 1988. Malaysia is expected shortly to graduate under OCED rules from eligibility for aid credits such as ATP. British aid has contributed to Malaysia's rapid economic development and to the productive relationship which we have with Malaysia in many fields of activity, including trade.

  Angola
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation to the Government of the Republic of Angola and to UNITA; and if he will indicate what specific support is being given by Her Majesty's Government to the Angolan peace process.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our policy in Angola is to support a negotiated settlement to the civil war. To this end we took an active part in drafting Security Council resolution 864, which imposed sanctions against UNITA. We fully support the United Nations brokered negotations taking place in Lusaka between the Government of Angola and UNITA. We have provided £10 million of humanitarian aid since June 1993, to all areas of Angola.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax (Further Education Courses)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Customs and Excise current consultative proposals on VAT in relation to training and education
  147
  provide for the continued exemption from VAT for courses of further education for adults provided by local authorities under section 11 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

  Sir John Cope
  I can confirm that as part of their review of the VAT treatment of education and training services Customs and Excise are considering the VAT posgtion of courses of further education for adults provided by local authorities. Consultation with interested parties is currently taking place and decisions on the review have not yet been made. However, at this stage it is not envisaged that such courses will be made subject to VAT.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average cost of a valuation investigation for an appeal against council tax banding.

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

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of outstanding appeals against council tax bandings at each valuation office as at 1 January.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of outstanding appeals against council tax bandings in England and Wales as at 1 January 1994 is as follows:

  Number

  East Anglia

  Bedford

  7,548

  Cambridge

  7,327

  Chelmsford

  11,532

  Colchester

  13,075

  Ipswich

  8,260

  Norwich

  11,311

  Peterborough

  9,219

  St. Albans

  7,167

  Stevenage

  6,371

  East Midlands

  Derby

  8,729

  Doncaster

  4,408

  Grimsby

  5,053

  Hull

  6,439

  Leicester

  4,815

  Lincoln

  7,626

  Loughborough

  6,212

  Mansfield

  5,532

  Northampton

  5,409

  Nottingham

  5,473

  Sheffield

  6,009

  London

  Barking

  3,340

  Bromley

  14,122

  Camden

  6,095

  City of London

  199

  Ealing

  7,028

  Enfield

  15,634

  Greenwich

  9,315

  Harrow

  7,193

  Islington

  6,824

  Kensington

  12,386

  Lambeth

  10,137

  Redbridge

  4,864

  Tower Hamlets

  2,861

  Westminster 1

  2,403

  Westminster 2

  4,452

  148

  Number

  Wimbledon

  9,841

  North Western

  Bolton

  4,207

  Burnley

  6,322

  Chester

  5,262

  Crewe

  7,786

  Lancaster

  6,957

  Liverpool

  6,697

  Manchester

  1,712

  Preston

  5,455

  Rochdale

  2,342

  Salford

  4,135

  Stockport

  5,457

  Warrington

  7,394

  Northern

  Alnwick

  5,464

  Bradford

  3,987

  Carlisle

  5,395

  Durham

  6,558

  Halifax

  7,490

  Harrogate

  9,742

  Leeds

  6,283

  Middlesbrough

  3,137

  Newcastle

  3,320

  Sunderland

  3,267

  Ulverston

  5,006

  York

  8,029

  South Eastern

  Brighton

  7,883

  Chatham

  5,228

  Eastbourne

  7,806

  Folkestone

  6,487

  Guildford

  9,033

  Reigate

  11,127

  Tunbridge Wells

  13,288

  Worthing

  11,217

  Southern

  Aylesbury

  12,178

  Basingstoke

  8,861

  Bournemouth

  9,259

  Dorchester

  7,034

  Oxford

  11,557

  Portsmouth

  5,135

  Portsmouth (IOW)

  3,083

  Reading

  13,038

  Southampton

  12,212

  Swindon

  9,988

  Western

  Barnstaple

  6,192

  Bath

  6,298

  Bristol

  8,647

  Exeter

  10,277

  Gloucester

  13,340

  Plymouth

  9,296

  St. Austell

  9,711

  Taunton

  9,968

  West Midland

  Birmingham

  6,335

  Coventry

  5,014

  Kidderminster

  5,283

  Lichfield

  4,651

  Sandwell

  1,197

  Shrewsbury

  8,934

  Stoke-on-Trent

  5,451

  Warwick

  8,026

  Wolverhampton

  4,083

  Worcester

  10,769

  Wales

  Bangor

  5,210

  Cardiff

  4,166

  Carmarthen

  10,186

  149

  Number

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,418

  Newport

  4,365

  Pontypridd

  2,861

  Swansea

  4,529

  Wrexham

  6,037

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separately the forecast of council tax receipts contained in line 5 of table 6.11 in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1994–95.

  Mr. Portillo
  Disaggregated projections of council tax receipts in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are not available.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he took of the level of costs of local government reform in determining his allocation of resources to the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Portillo
  The total resources allocated to Scotland are determined in accordance with the established block and formula arrangements. Within those totals, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out the amounts he has made available for local authorities, including for the costs of local government reform, in replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) on 7 December,Official Report, columns 187–88.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he expects GATT to have on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Nelson
  GATT will lead to an increase in world trade and benefit both business and consumers. More effective competition and lower tariffs should lead to some downward pressure on prices.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to his Department of exempting from income tax benefits payable under permanent health insurance policies in the first 12 months of disability.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Precise figures are not available centrally but is estimated that in 1994–95 the cost of exempting payments made in the first 12 months of disability will be around £10 million.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made, and what representations he has received, in respect of the impact of the air passenger duty charges on small municipally owned airports and the market for small turbo prop and regional class jet aircraft.

  Sir John Cope
  I have received a small number of representations about air passenger duty which mentioned the impact on small airports and turbo prop aircraft. The 150
  impact of air passenger duty on demand for air travel will vary by type of passenger and by route. Overall, the impact is expected to be small. No specific estimates have been made of the impct on small municipally owned airports nor on the market for small turbo prop and regional class jet aircraft, and any such estimates would be highly speculative.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show for England only and for each year from 1992–93 to 1994–95, the local authority transactions contained within table 6.1 in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1994–95.

  Mr. Portillo
  The local authority transactions underly-ing table 6.1 are set out in table 6.9. Separate figures for England only on the basis of table 6.9 are not available.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separately the amounts of local authority self-financed expenditure recorded in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" and identify the amounts within that figure of expenditure financed from council tax.

  Mr. Portillo
  Total local authority spending for 1988–89 to 1993–94 and total central Government support for 1988–89 to 1996–97 will be published by country in the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1994–95. Projections for total local authority spending in 1994–95 to 1996–97 are not available on a disaggregated basis.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast he has made of when Britain will be economically strong enough to reconsider rejoining the ERM.

  Mr. Nelson
  Sterling's re-entry to the ERM could not be considered until there is greater convergence between the monetary policies appropriate for all the Community economies. I should also need to be satisfied that the system would be operated to the benefit of all its members. I do not expect these conditions to be met during this Parliament.

  Westfield Contributory Health Scheme
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from Westfield contributory health scheme as to the effect of the insurance premium tax on their membership.

  Sir John Cope
  Various representations have been made to Treasury Ministers seeking exemption from the proposed insurance premium tax by a number of contributory health schemes, including the Westfield contributory health scheme.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.
  151
  Mr. Nelson
  Neither of the special advisers in the Treasury seconded from other organisations.

  EC Programmes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the the total budgets of the European Commission's educational mobility programmes of(a) ARION, (b) ERASMUS, (c) LINGUA, (d) the science plan, (e) SPES and (f) sectoral grants in each year since their establishment; and what proportion of each was granted to (i) the Northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Boswell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The science plan, SPES and sectoral grants are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. 'The information requested on ARION, ERASMUS and LINGUA is as follows:

  The ARION Programme started during the 1978–79 academic year. Complete records are only available from 1985–86. The table illustrates the number of bursaries awarded.

  Year

  Total budget (value in ECU)

  Total number of grants

  Number of grants to United Kingdom

  Number of grants to Northern region2

  1986–87

  364,000

  520

  70

  5

  1987–88

  364,000

  520

  70

  6

  1988–89

  569,500

  580

  80

  5

  1989–90

  1574,650

  1600

  80

  4

  1990–91

  556,350

  529

  80

  4

  1991–92

  587,800

  651

  95

  7

  1992–93

  1807,050

  1850

  120

  3

  1Estimated figures.

  2Northem region conforms to the Eurostat code R71 and consists of Cleveland, Durham, Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear.

  LINGUA
  Aggregate statistics by member state and region are not available in the form requested, but the United Kingdom share in 1992 of the budget directly administered by the Commission for Actions III and V was 20 per cent.
  The budget administered by the UK LINGUA Unit for Actions IA and IV was as follows:

  (Ecus)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Action IA—Measures to assist Modern Foreign Language teachers

  EC Budget

  5,600,000

  7,000,002

  7,700,001

  United Kingdom Share

  588,629

  946,369

  1,057,074

  Northern Region

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Action IV—Exchange of young people

  EC Budget

  6,000,000

  8,400,000

  10,500,000

  United Kingdom Share

  783,838

  1,230,426

  1,562,070

  Northern Region

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a=Not Available.

  ERASMUS

  Year

  Total ERASMUS budget12

  Student mobility grant allocated to UK13

  Student mobil-ity grant allocated to Northern 134 region

  1987–88

  11·2

  n/a

  n/a

  1988–89

  30·0

  2·1

  0·05

  1989–90

  52·5

  4·1

  0·10

  1990–91

  60·6

  5·1

  0·22

  1991–92

  73·8

  6·4

  0·29

  1992–93

  97·2

  8·5

  0·34

  1993–94

  97·8

  8·8

  0·34

  152
  1 Amounts quoted are in million ecu.

  2 Source: ERASMUS Bureau.

  3 Source: United Kingdom ERASMUS Student Grants Council.

  4 Northern region conforms to the Eurostat code R71 and consists of Clevland, Durham, Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kashmir
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had in the last six months regarding Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed Kashmir at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. We regularly raise Kashmir in our discussions with the Indian and Pakistan Governments.

  Arms Supplies (Iraq)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to ascertain who drew up the original draft of the letter about arms supplies to Iraq that he sent to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on 17 February 1992 and who made deletions in that draft to alter it to the form in which the Prime Minister sent the aforesaid letter to the right hon. Member; what explanation he has received for the deletions; and what action he intends to take(a) in regard to responsibility for the deletions and (b) in regard to writing to the aforesaid right hon. Member to correct the false impression that he now acknowledges his letter gave.

  The Prime Minister
  My Office has supplied Lord Justice Scott's inquiry with the further information he requested. The issues arising are a matter for Lord Justice Scott. As will be apparent from my evidence to the inquiry, I do not accept that my letter to the right hon. Gentleman was misleading.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister which public appointments are handled by the No. 10 appointments secretary.

  The Prime Minister
  My appointments secretary assists me over a range of appointments in Church and state for which I am responsible, particularly those where the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen on my advice.

  New Year's Honours List
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a list of the people included in this year's new year's honours list with their place of residence by standard region and their occupation.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Empire Forces
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister where the records of all the soldiers of the British empire forces, who were sentenced to death during the first world war but
  153
  whose sentences were subsequently commuted, are located; and if he will now arrange for them to be made available in the Public Record Office.

  The Prime Minister
  The courts martial records of British service men who were sentenced to death during the first world war but whose sentences were subsequently commuted have regrettably not survived. The available evidence suggests they were lost when a German bomb hit the main war office and Army repository in 1940.

  The availability of the courts martial records of other British empire forces is a matter that should be pursued with each of the countries concerned.

  Government Successes (Criteria)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the criteria by which Her Majesty's Government will measure their success in 1994 Official Report, column 849.

  The Prime Minister
  By the success of our policies in all areas of national life.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement giving details of the Government's "back to basics" policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 January 1994 Official Report, column 849

  Ministers (Unsuitability for Office)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the circumstances which render Ministers unsuitable to retain office.

  The Prime Minister
  There can be a variety of circumstances but the main criterion should be whether the Minister can continue to perform the duties of office effectively.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if, when he next meets President Clinton, he will discuss the report of the Harvard medical school team on child malnutrition and disease in Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to meet President Clinton during my visit to Washington at the end of February. The situation in Iraq may come up in our talks then. However, United Kingdom and United States officials are in regular touch over Iraq, including the humanitarian situation.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 January Official Report, column 814.
  154

  Health Promotion, Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to place in the Library a copy of his efficiency unit's efficiency scrutiny of the delivery of health promotion in Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  Copies of the efficiency scrutiny of health promotion in Wales were placed in the Library of the House on 1 April 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail and probation hostels and places are currently open and available in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently 115 approved hostels providing 2,690 places.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail and probation hostels in England and Wales are due to close as a consequence of the most recent public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Maclean
  Seven hostels have been identified for closure: Bewsey Street, Cheshire; Dover, Kent; St. Vincents, inner London; Dudley centre, Devon; Fir Tree Grange, Durham; Windyridge, Essex; and Hollywood Manor, Kent—currently closed and not to reopen. In addition three probation areas have been asked to identify which of their hostels should be closed: west midlands —two hostels; south Yorkshire—one hostel; and inner London—one hostel.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure will be saved during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 by the closure of certain existing bail and probation hostels arising out of the public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Maclean
  The expected savings in revenue grant expenditure are about £1·2 million in 1994–95 and about £2·5 million in 1995–96.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital and revenue expenditure will be available for bail hostel provision in inner London for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Maclean
  Revenue grant for inner London approved probation-bail hostels for 1994–95 and 1995–96 will be £1·9 million a year. The level of capital grant will depend on the scrutiny of spending proposals submitted by inner London hostels and the results of the current survey of the condition of all hostels.

  Probation Trainees
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the intake of probation trainees to the diploma in social work courses in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of probation trainees sponsored by the Home Office starting diploma in social work courses was 451 in 1992 and 470 in 1993.
  155

  Social Work Courses
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many trainee places to diploma in social work courses will be lost in 1995, 1996 and 1997 as a consequence of the public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Maclean
  Decisions on the number of sponsorships in future years will be taken in the light of the conclusions of the forthcoming review of probation officer qualifying training.

  Police (Press)
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions govern the use by members of the Metropolitan police of their position of advantage to sell stories to the press.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under schedule 1, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, an offence against discipline is committed where a member of a police force without proper authority communicates to any person, any information which he has in his possession

  Year

  Offences decided at court to be murder

  Cases in column (1) involving police

  Assaults on police:

  Police strength

  Fatal

  Serious

  Minor/Other

  Male

  Female

  1982

  —

  —

  ‥

  ‥

  ‥

  3,124

  205

  1983

  5

  —

  ‥

  ‥

  ‥

  3,117

  220

  1984

  6

  —

  ‥

  ‥

  ‥

  3,113

  231

  1985

  10

  —

  ‥

  ‥

  ‥

  3,137

  231

  1986

  4

  —

  ‥

  ‥

  ‥

  3,108

  253

  1987

  8

  —

  ‥

  ‥

  ‥

  3,206

  272

  1988

  5

  —

  ‥

  ‥

  ‥

  3,166

  294

  1989

  8

  —

  —

  35

  426

  3,199

  327

  1990

  14

  —

  —

  24

  653

  3,186

  342

  1991

  3

  —

  —

  53

  819

  3,114

  346

  1992

  5

  —

  —

  68

  436

  3,198

  388

  Custodial Remand
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were remanded in custody in the west midlands in the latest year available broken down by(a) sex, (b) racial category, (c) aged under 17, (d) aged 17 to 21 and (e) aged over 21 years.

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

  Receptions of remand prisoners into prison service establishments in England and Wales from west midlands courts, 1991

  Ethnic Origin

  All

  White

  Black African Caribbean

  Asian Bangladeshi Indian Pakistani

  Other Chinese not recorded (including refusals)

  MALE

  First received as untried not subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  Under 17 years old

  62

  44

  11

  3

  4

  17–21 years old

  757

  555

  87

  81

  34

  Over 21

  1,088

  794

  180

  85

  29

  Total

  1,907

  1,393

  278

  169

  67

  First received as untried subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  Under 17 years old

  39

  26

  7

  3

  3

  17–21 years old

  396

  318

  43

  24

  11

  Over 21

  330

  259

  42

  25

  4

  156
  as a member of a police force; or improperly uses, or attempts so to use, his position as a member of the force for his private advantage.

  European Parliamentary Constituency Committee
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the Official Report of the European Parliamentary Constituency Committee for England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The reports of both committees were published on 20 January.

  Police, Northumbria
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the numbers of(a) murders, (b) murders of members of the police force, (c) attacks on police officers, giving level of seriousness of injury, and (d) policemen and women in post in each year since 1973 in the Northumbria police force area.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following table shows for Northumbria such information as is readily available centrally:

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 25 January 1994:

  WEST MIDLANDS REMANDS

  The Home Secretary has asked me to rely to your recent Question asking how many people were remanded in custody in the West Midlands in the latest year available broken down by (a) sex, (b) racial category, (c) aged under 17, (d) aged 17 to 21 and (e) aged over 21 years.

  The latest available information is given in the attached table for 1992.
  157

  Ethnic Origin

  All

  White

  Black African Caribbean

  Asian Bangladeshi Indian Pakistani

  Other Chinese not recorded (including refusals)

  Total

  765

  603

  92

  52

  18

  First received as convicted unsentenced

  Under 17 years old

  10

  6

  3

  1

  —

  17–21 years old

  129

  107

  8

  13

  1

  Over 21

  121

  99

  14

  8

  —

  Total

  260

  212

  25

  22

  1

  All received on remand

  Under 17 years old

  111

  76

  21

  7

  7

  17–21 years old

  1,282

  980

  138

  118

  46

  Over 21

  1,539

  1,152

  236

  118

  33

  Total

  2,932

  2,208

  395

  243

  86

  Female

  First received as untried not subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  Under 17 years old

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21 years old

  17

  15

  2

  —

  —

  Over 21

  22

  17

  4

  1

  —

  Total

  39

  32

  6

  1

  —

  First received as untried subsequently received as convicted unsentenced

  Under 17 years old

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21 years old

  6

  4

  1

  —

  1

  Over 21

  7

  3

  3

  —

  1

  Total

  13

  7

  4

  —

  2

  First received as convicted unsentenced

  Under 17 years old

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21 years old

  12

  9

  2

  1

  —

  Over 21

  6

  4

  2

  —

  —

  Total

  18

  13

  4

  1

  —

  All received on remand

  Under 17 years old

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17–21 years old

  35

  28

  5

  1

  1

  Over 21

  35

  24

  9

  1

  1

  Total

  70

  52

  14

  2

  2

  1 Provisional.

  Firearms
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will tabulate the cost of renewing(a) a firearms certificate and (b) a shotgun certificate in real terms for each year since the introduction of the Firearms Act 1968, using 1968 as the base year.

  Index

  Year

  (a) Renewing firearm certificate (cash prices) £

  1968 prices £

  (b) Renewing shotgun certificate (cash prices) £

  1968 prices £

  100

  1968

  0·125

  0·125

  0·125

  0·125

  105·22

  1969

  1·25

  1·19

  0·375

  0·36

  113·89

  1970

  1·25

  1·10

  0·375

  0·33

  124·29

  1971

  2·50

  2·01

  0·50

  0·40

  134·43

  1972

  2·50

  1·86

  0·50

  0·37

  143·66

  1973

  2·50

  1·74

  0·50

  0·35

  171·88

  1974

  2·50

  1·45

  0·50

  0·29

  215·60

  1975

  4·50

  2·09

  1·50

  0·70

  244·73

  1976

  10·00

  4·09

  4·00

  1·63

  158
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Using the gross domestic product deflator, the cost of renewing(a) a firearm certificate and (b) a shotgun certificate in real terms for each year since 1968, using that year as the base year, are given in the following table:
  159

  Index

  Year

  (a) Renewing firearm certificate (cash prices) £

  1968 prices £

  (b) Renewing shotgun certificate (cash prices) £

  1968 prices £

  278·02

  1977

  10·00

  3·60

  4·00

  1·44

  309·09

  1978

  13·00

  4·21

  5·00

  1·62

  360·74

  1979

  13·00

  3·60

  5·00

  1·39

  426·84

  1980

  20·00

  4·69

  8·00

  1·87

  468·12

  1981

  20·00

  4·27

  8·00

  1·71

  501·47

  1982

  20·00

  3·99

  8·00

  1·60

  524·72

  1983

  20·00

  3·81

  8·00

  1·52

  551·09

  1984

  20·00

  3·63

  8·00

  1·45

  581·66

  1985

  20·00

  3·44

  8·00

  1·38

  598·69

  1986

  33·00

  5·51

  8·00

  1·34

  630·59

  1987

  33·00

  5·23

  8·00

  1·27

  672·92

  1988

  33·00

  4·90

  8·00

  1·19

  719·72

  1989

  33·00

  4·59

  8·00

  1·11

  777·74

  1990

  46·00

  5·91

  11·00

  1·41

  826·99

  1991

  46·00

  5·56

  11·00

  1·33

  858·74

  1992

  46·00

  5·36

  11·00

  1·28

  886·65

  1993

  46·00

  5·19

  11·00

  1·24

  922·11

  1994

  46·00

  4·99

  11·00

  1·19

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will tabulate the cost of acquiring(a) a firearm certificate and (b) a shotgun certificate in real terms for each year since the introduction of the Firearms Act 1968, using 1968 as the base year.

  Index

  Year

  (a) Acquiring firearm certificate (cash prices) £

  1968 prices £

  (b) Acquiring shotgun certificate (cash prices) £

  1968 prices £

  100

  1968

  0·25

  0·25

  0·25

  0·25

  105·22

  1969

  2·50

  2·38

  0·75

  0·71

  113·89

  1970

  2·50

  2·20

  0·75

  0·66

  124·29

  1971

  3·50

  2·82

  1·00

  0·80

  134·43

  1972

  3·50

  2·60

  1·00

  0·74

  143·66

  1973

  3·50

  2·44

  1·00

  0·70

  171·88

  1974

  3·50

  2·04

  1·00

  0·58

  215·60

  1975

  7·00

  3·25

  2·00

  0·93

  244·73

  1976

  12·00

  4·90

  5·00

  2·04

  278·02

  1977

  12·00

  4·32

  5·00

  1·80

  309·09

  1978

  16·00

  5·18

  7·00

  2·26

  360·74

  1979

  16·00

  4·44

  7·00

  1·94

  426·84

  1980

  25·00

  5·86

  12·00

  2·81

  468·12

  1981

  25·00

  5·34

  12·00

  2·56

  501·47

  1982

  25·00

  4·99

  12·00

  2·39

  524·72

  1983

  25·00

  4·76

  12·00

  2·29

  551·09

  1984

  25·00

  4·54

  12·00

  2·18

  581·66

  1985

  25·00

  4·30

  12·00

  2·06

  598·69

  1986

  33·00

  5·51

  12·00

  2·00

  630·59

  1987

  33·00

  5·23

  12·00

  1·90

  672·92

  1988

  33·00

  4·90

  12·00

  1·78

  719·72

  1989

  33·00

  4·59

  12·00

  1·67

  777·74

  1990

  46·00

  5·91

  17·00

  2·19

  826·99

  1991

  46·00

  5·56

  17·00

  2·06

  858·74

  1992

  46·00

  5·36

  17·00

  1·98

  886·65

  1993

  46·00

  5·19

  17·00

  1·92

  922·11

  1994

  46·00

  4·99

  17·00

  1·84

  Crime, Northumbria
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of cars damaged and the level of house burglary, theft from cars and burglary in each year since 1973 in the Northumbria police area.
  160
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Using the gross domestic product deflator, the cost of acquiring(a) a firearm certificate and (b) a shotgun certificate in real terms for each year since 1968, using that year as the base year, are given in the following table:

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is contained in the table. Police force area boundaries changed in 1974 so figures are given from 1975 onwards. Information on the number of cars damaged is not collected centrally.
  161

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in Northumbria

  Number of offences

  Year

  All burglary

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Theft from a motor vehicle

  1975

  25,057

  11,622

  8,158

  1976

  24,316

  10,792

  7,707

  1977

  28,381

  12,768

  10,092

  1978

  28,476

  13,109

  11,169

  1979

  27,014

  12,285

  11,186

  1980

  31,068

  14,557

  13,955

  1981

  34,665

  16,581

  16,442

  1982

  43,274

  22,806

  19,079

  1983

  44,116

  22,148

  18,559

  1984

  50,900

  24,229

  20,893

  1985

  51,176

  24,630

  22,213

  1986

  52,006

  25,880

  27,105

  1987

  50,444

  25,186

  31,961

  1988

  46,052

  23,257

  29,621

  1989

  49,585

  24,955

  33,117

  1990

  54,746

  27,092

  34,452

  1991

  66,101

  31,413

  32,680

  1992

  66,072

  32,499

  28,030

  Mr. Brian Charrington
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of drug offences where assistance in the police investigation and detection was given by Brian Charrington.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Operational matters are the responsibility of the chief officer of the police force concerned and it would not be appropriate for me to provide information on any particular case.

  Video Outlets
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to license video outlets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Where the sale and hire of sexually explicit material comprise a significant degree of the business of video outlets, such establishments are already subject to licensing by local authorities under section 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. These adoptive powers enable local authorities to vet those seeking to run sex establishments and to exclude such establishments altogether from unsuitable areas. We have no present plans to extend these provisions nor are we persuaded that compliance with the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 would be improved by a more general licensing system.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding clamping companies; whether he proposes to have consultations on the subject of clamping companies; if he will introduce legislation or guidelines to control clamping companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  During the consultation exercise carried out last year concerning wheel clamping on private land, the Government received a number of different views, including some from the companies themselves and a representative association, about the activities of clamping companies and about ways of reducing concerns that exist about those activities.
  162
  In considering what, if any, action it may be appropriate to take, the Government's aim continues to be to ensure that any measure introduced to prevent or deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheel clamping on private land does not prevent sensible measures being taken to control genuine parking problems.

  Vehicle Identification
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which manufacturers and importers have given him commitments in respect of the introduction of visible vehicle identification numbers; and if he will detail those commitments.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No specific commitments have been made to the Home Office by motor manufacturers on this issue. However, following representations from the Home Office and the police, a number of manufacturers and importers—including BMW, Ford, Honda, Jaguar, Porsche, Rolls-Royce, Rover, Saab and Volvo—have introduced visible vehicle identification number plates into some or all of their models. A number of others—including Peugeot and Vauxhall—are etching the vehicle identifica-tion number into the front and rear window glass.

  Information provided by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in March 1993 showed that, in 1992, visible vehicle identification numbers were provided on 49 per cent. of vehicle models—of which 61 per cent. were on the structure of the vehicle and the rest etched into the window glass.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he is making for local emergency planning in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement regarding training for volunteers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During 1994–95 a maximum of £15 million will be available from the Home Office as a contribution towards expenses incurred by local authorities in carrying out their responsibilities under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1993.

  The Home Office no longer provides funds for the training of volunteers for civil defence but encourages local authorities to develop and maintain relationships with established voluntary organisations. Some authorities have chosen to keep their volunteer groups and to provide training.

  British Caledonian Flight
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers were on a charter flight by British Caledonian from the Caribbean arriving at Gatwick on 14 December; how many passengers were(a) allowed to enter the United Kingdom as visitors, (b) given temporary admission as a visitor to the United Kingdom, (c) refused entry, (d) detained and (e) deported; how many passengers remain in detention; and what was the (i) minimum and (ii) the maximum period for which the passengers sought to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is as follows. I understand that 353 passengers arrived on flight BA 1262—KT 310—at Gatwick on 15 December. Most
  163
  were citizens of Jamaica who sought entry as visitors. Thirty-eight people were refused leave to enter of whom 33 have been removed. Twelve of those refused were detained, none of whom remain in detention. Those admitted as visitors were given leave to enter for six months.

  St. Vincent's Bail Hostel
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the residents of St. Vincent's bail hostel for the last 12 months to the latest available date were(a) aged under 17, (b) aged 17 to 20 inclusive and (c) aged 21 years or over.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) none, (b) 25, (c)

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the average cost per week of a place in St. Vincent's bail hostel, (b) the average length of stay in St. Vincent's bail hostel and (c) the average cost per week of a prison remand place in the inner London area, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) £222. (b) This information is not available. (c) For 1992–93, the average weekly net operating cost per prisoner at prisons in inner London was £566. Remand prisoners represent just over 40 per cent. of these prisoners but costs for remand prisoners are not kept separately.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the occupancy rate of St. Vincent's bail hostel for each of the last 10 quarters.

  Mr. Maclean
  The occupancy figures for the period April 1991 to March 1992 are not available in a quarterly form. The figures from April 1992 to September 1993 are as follows:

  Per cent.

  April 1992 to June 1992

  64

  July 1992 to September 1992

  56

  October 1992 to December 1992

  31

  January 1993 to March 1993

  27

  April 1993 to June 1993

  34

  July 1993 to September 1993

  43

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been and who will be consulted about the proposed closure of St. Vincent's bail hostel in inner London.

  Mr. Maclean
  The chief probation officer for inner London and the chair of the hostel's managing committee were notified on 1 December of the proposed closure and given the opportunity to comment.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he expects to be the annual saving as a result of the proposed closure of St. Vincent's bail hostel in inner London.

  Mr. Maclean
  I expect the saving to the Home Office in 1994–95 to be approximately £100,000 and in 1995–96 approximately £200,000.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital expenditure was planned for St. Vincent's bail hostel prior to his Department's statement of 30 November.
  164
  Mr. Maclean
  A proposal for capital expenditure on the conversion of dormitory to single bedroom accommoda-tion had been submitted and was under consideration prior to the 30 November statement; but no plans for improvements to the hostel had been approved.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) rearrested and charged or (b) breached for failure to comply with requirements at St. Vincent's bail hostel in each of the last 10 quarters.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information supplied by the hostel is in the table.

  Rearrested and charged

  Breached

  August to October 1991

  2

  2

  November to January 1992

  2

  0

  February to April 1992

  2

  3

  May to July 1992

  0

  3

  August to October 1992

  0

  2

  November to January 1993

  0

  0

  February to April 1993

  0

  6

  May to July 1993

  2

  4

  August to October 1993

  2

  3

  November to 24 January 1994

  5

  4

  Totals

  15

  27

  Note: In addition, during this period 41 residents are recorded as having absconded.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people he expects to be remanded into custody per annum as a result of the proposed closure of St. Vincent's bail hostel in inner London.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the courts to decide who should be remanded in custody. There are other approved hostel facilities available to them throughout London.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were remanded in St. Vincent's bail hostel during the last 12 months to the latest available date; and how many of these people were(a) black males and (b) black females.

  Mr. Maclean
  Between February 1993 and 24 January 1994, 150 bailees were admitted to the hostel. The information requested at(a) and (b) is not held centrally and is not readily available.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are expected to be made redundant by the proposed closure of the St. Vincent's bail hostel; and at what financial cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  It will be for the managing committee to decide how to handle the consequences of closure in terms of redeployment or redundancies; we have not yet received a full account of its conclusions.

  Carl Bridgewater
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision on whether to refer the convictions in the Carl Bridgewater case to the Court of Appeal.
  165
  Mr. Maclean
  The latest representations about this case were received between June and December 1993. We understand that more are to follow. We have already asked the police to make inquiries into some of the matters raised. When those inquiries have been completed and any further representations have been considered, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider in the light of all the information available to him whether it would be right for him to refer any of the convictions to the Court of Appeal or to take any other action.

  Mrs. Joy Gardner
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the name of the immigration officer involved in the deportation of Joy Gardner; what was his or her rank; and whether this officer has been suspended from duty pending the Police Complaints Authority investigation into the death of Joy Gardner.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A male immigration officer accompanied the police officers to Mrs. Joy Gardner's home. No complaint has been made against this officer, and he has not been suspended. It would not be appropriate to name him while an investigation by the Police Complaints Authority remains in progress.

  Flight ULE 966
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the immigration service received advance knowledge of charter flight ULE 966 which landed at Gatwick airport on 21 December; when the immigration service received from the charter company a passenger list; whether this list was volunteered or requested; how many people named as passengers had(a) previously been refused entry to the United Kingdom and (b) previously been refused entry clearance to the United Kingdom; how many passengers, in either category, were (i) refused entry as a visitor, (ii) detained and (iii) deported on 25 December; and how many passengers in either category were given (1) entry to the United Kingdom and (2) given temporary admission.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The immigration service was informed about flight ULE 966 on 16 December and the passenger list was requested subsequently. It was received on 21 December, three and a half hours before the aircraft's arrival. Of those passengers listed, two were identified as having previously been refused entry; eight were identified as having been refused entry clearance and one of whom had also been refused entry.

  Of those nine passengers, five were refused entry and four were granted leave to enter. Four passengers were detained for at least one night; five were granted temporary admission. Three passengers were removed on 25 December.

  May Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from the inquiry presently being conducted by Mr. Justice May.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that Sir John May hopes to submit his report into the case of the Guildford Four in March.
  166

  Somali Nationals
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the concessionary policy operated by his Department to facilitate family reunion for Somali nationals resident in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Somali family reunion concession was introduced to make it easier for those Somalis with relatives in the United Kingdom who had been displaced to refugee camps in Ethiopia and Djibouti to seek entry clearance to the United Kingdom. It took account of the fact that fighting in both Somalia and Ethiopia at that time had made it difficult to travel to any British diplomatic post in the area in order to apply for entry clearance.

  The concession allowed the United Kingdom sponsor to seek advice in advance from the Home Office on whether his or her relatives seemed likely to qualify for a visa if they made a formal application at their nearest post. It thus reduced—usually to one—the number of journeys they needed to make to the post in order to pursue their application.

  The concession had its origins in a period when both Somalia and Ethiopia were torn by civil war and any movement by civilians in the area was potentially hazardous. The situation in Somalia itself remains grave, but over 95 per cent. of cases now raised under the concession concern people who are in Ethiopia. That country has been at peace for nearly three years now, and the evidence is that Somali nationals in Ethiopia can move about safely there. People in Somalia itself are able to move into Ethiopia, Kenya or Djibouti if they wish. In these circumstances it is open to applicants to seek entry clearance at our posts in Addis Ababa, Nairobi of Djibouti in the normal way. I have therefore decided that the concession should be withdrawn with effect from midnight on 27 January 1994.

  This decision applies to new cases only. All cases which have already been raised with us under the concession, including any received between now and 27 January 1994, will be considered under the existing arrangements.

  Prison Visits (Homosexuals)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will allow homosexual partners to benefit from the assisted prison visits scheme on similar terms to other partners.

  Mr. Howard
  No. I do not believe that taxpayers' money should be used for this purpose.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve the protection from car crimes on public roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 24 January 1993]: The Home Office continued with its car crime prevention campaign during 1993, to build on the success achieved in 1992. Evaluation of the campaign showed a very high awareness of the campaign's message. We shall continue to encourage the motor manufacturers to improve

  167
  vehicle security. We shall also continue our efforts to make motorists aware of car crime and the measures they should take to keep themselves and their vehicles safe.

DEFENCE

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Aitken
  Those firms identifying themselves as having accountancy as their principal business awarded centrally placed consultancy contracts valued at over £10,000 by the Ministry of Defence in 1992 and 1993 were as follows:

  KPMG

  Touche Ross

  Date

  Contract title

  Company

  March 1992

  Housing Task Force

  Coopers and Lybrand

  March 1992

  Policy Changes—RAF Officers Aircrew

  PE International

  April 1992

  Outplacement (MODOPS) for Senior Grades

  KPMG

  April 1992

  Cost Allocation Model for Director General Ships Refitting (DGSR)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  June 1992

  Activity Based Costing in HQ BAOR

  Ernst and Young

  July 1992

  AWE Tender Evaluation

  Touche Ross

  July 1992

  Army Static Workshops Review

  Touche Ross

  August 1992

  Consultancy Support to Director General Supply Management (DGSM) (RAF)

  Touche Ross

  August 1992

  Consultancy to Royal Dockyards (DGSR)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  August 1992

  Consultancy Support to Defence Research Agency Implementation Team (DRAIT)

  Price Waterhouse

  October 1992

  Consultancy Support to Director General Supply and Transport (Naval) (DGST(N)) for Spearfish Bid

  Coopers and Lybrand

  October 1992

  Attitude Survey to Military Survey

  PA Consulting

  October 1992

  Marine Services Pay, Conditions of Service and Grading

  Coopers and Lybrand

  October 1992

  Consultancy Report for MOD(PE) Remodelling Study

  Coopers and Lybrand

  December 1992

  Consultancy Assistance for Cost Allocation Model

  Coopers and Lybrand

  January 1993

  Consultancy Support to Prepare Land Systems Technical Publications Authority and Army Scaling and cataloguing Authority for Market Testing

  Coopers and Lybrand

  January 1993

  Review of RAF Command Staff and Air Warfare Training

  Arthur Andersen

  January 1993

  Army Static Workshops Industrial Pay Grading

  Touche Ross

  February 1993

  Relocation of Warrior Test Facility

  Coopers and Lybrand

  March 1993

  Advice on Applicability of Activity Based Costing within DGST(N)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  May 1993

  Support to CIRPLS Study Team

  Coopers and Lybrand

  June 1993

  Future Management Arrangements of Service Married Quarters

  Coopers and Lybrand

  June 1993

  Study into the Repair and Overhaul of Naval Gas Turbine Engines

  PE International

  June 1993

  Marine Services Follow On Review of Pay and Grading

  Coopers and Lybrand

  August 1993

  Merchant Bank Support to Director General Fleet Support

  Kleinwort Benson Investment Trust Ltd.

  August 1993

  Defence Agencies Consultancy Support for the Framework Team

  KPMG

  August 1993

  Consultancy Support—Business Study for FMRA Corporate Plan

  Coopers and Lybrand

  August 1993

  Consultancy Support for DRA Owners' Secretariat

  Price Waterhouse

  August 1993

  Defence Agencies—Consultancy Support for the Framework Team

  Ernst and Young

  September 1993

  Business Process Review—Naval Logistics

  Coopers and Lybrand

  168

  Coopers and Lybrand

  PE International

  Price Waterhouse

  Arthur Andersen

  PA Consulting

  Ernst and Young

  Merchant Banks awarded centrally placed consultancy contracts by the Ministry of Defence in 1992 and 1993 were as follows:
  Kleinwort Benson Investment Trust Ltd.

  The total value of these consultancy contracts amounted to £14·9 million. A breakdown of these contracts is as follows. To protect commercial confidentiality, the individual contract values have been omitted.

  A number of other low-value contracts will have been placed with such firms in the period in question but these could be identified only at disproportionate cost. Furthermore, a number of consultancy contracts may be placed as part of specific projects but are not separately accounted. These are not recorded centrally and, similarly, could be identified only at disproportionate cost.
  169

  Date

  Contract title

  Company

  October 1993

  Army Personnel Centre Functional Analysis

  Price Waterhouse

  October 1993

  Independent Evaluation of Four Purchasing courses at the Contracts Training Centre

  PE International

  October 1993

  REME Tools and Workshops Equipment Procurement Process Study

  PA Consulting

  October 1993

  Consultancy Support for Training in Contract Management

  PE International

  December 1993

  Support for Market Testing of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  December 1993

  Defence Exports Services Organization Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Touche Ross

  December 1993

  Consultancy Support to CBDE In-House Bid Team

  PA Consulting

  Airports and Aerodromes
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the airports or aerodromes other than RAF Northolt that his Department owns or controls in south-east England; and if he will list the length of each airport or aerodrome runway, together with details of the annual volume of flights in and out of each location.

  Mr. Hanley
  Airfields other than RAF Northolt which the Department owns or controls in south east England are: RAF Manston, RAF Odiham and Farnborough. The length of their runways together with details of the annual volume of flights in and out of each location are as follows:

  (a) RAF Manston—One main runway, RW 28/10 (2,752 metres), and one secondary grass strip, RW 24/06 (792 metres). Landings and take-offs during 1993 were: military 19,708, civilian 36,797.

  (b) RAF Odiham—One runway, RW 28/10 (1,830 metres). Landings and take-offs during 1993 were: military 20,054, civilian 137.

  (c) Farnborough—One main runway, RW 07/25 (2,400 metres), and two secondary runways, RWs 11/29 (1,370 metres) and 18/36 (1,282 metres). Landings and take-offs during 1993 were: military 7,932, civilian 5,380.

  RAF Northolt
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft have landed or taken off from RAF Northolt for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Landings and take-offs from RAF Northolt for each of the past five years were as follows:

  Year

  Military

  Civilian

  Total

  1989

  9,500

  5,600

  15,100

  1990

  9,300

  5,400

  14,700

  1991

  9,100

  4,700

  13,800

  1992

  9,608

  4,893

  14,501

  1993

  8,310

  4,650

  12,960

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the length of the runway at RAF Northolt airport;

  (2) what scope there would be to extend the existing runway at RAF Northolt within the airport's existing curtilage.

  Mr. Hanley
  The length of runway at RAF Northolt is 1,684m, there is no scope for its extension within the existing curtilege.
  170
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which is the largest military aircraft to have landed, or taken off, at RAF Northolt since 1964.

  Mr. Hanley
  The largest military aircraft to have landed, or taken off at RAF Northolt since 1964 is a United States Air Force C141 Starlifter.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which is the largest civil aircraft to have landed, or taken off, at RAF Northolt since 1964.

  Mr. Hanley
  The largest civil aircraft to have landed or taken off at RAF Northolt since 1964 was a European Airbus A320 on a demonstration flight; the aircraft was both lightly fuelled and loaded.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which is the largest civil aircraft that could be landed at RAF Northolt in normal operating conditions.

  Mr. Hanley
  Under current regulations specified in the United Kingdom aeronautical information publication—AIP—RAF Northolt can accept an approved quiet turbo jet powered civilian aircraft with a maximum capacity of 20 seats, subject to specified load, runway and pavement classifications. The largest aircraft on the civil register to operate routinely from RAF Northolt is the BAe 146.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual cost of running the airport at RAF Northolt.

  Mr. Hanley
  Of the total running costs for RAF Northolt, £11,960,000 per annum is spent on operating the airfield: this includes the costs of personnel; air traffic control; fire, crash and rescue services, heating and lighting.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total area of the airport at RAF Northolt.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total area of the RAF Northolt base is 448·4 acres—181·5 hectares.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distance between RAF Northolt and the nearest Heathrow airport terminal building.

  Mr. Hanley
  The distance between RAF Northolt and the nearest Heathrow terminal building is 8·7 miles—14 km—by road, or 6·2 miles—10 km—in a straight line.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the primary function of the airport at RAF Northolt.
  171
  Mr. Hanley
  The primary function of RAF Northolt is to meet the air transport needs within Europe of members of the royal family, and senior members of Her Majesty's Government and the armed forces.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review there has been into the requirement of the airport at RAF Northolt for military purposes(a) before the publication of "Options for Change" and (b) since the publication of "Options for Change".

  Mr. Hanley
  The requirement for RAF Northolt has frequently been examined and confirmed in the normal course of business, both prior to and after "Options for Change". This process has involved a number of studies and is continuing with the current front line first initiative.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what non-governmental organisations had use of the royal yacht Britannia; for what purpose; on whose authority; and at what cost in(a) 1991–92 and (b)1992–93.

  Mr. Hanley
  Government Departments sponsor the use of the royal yacht by non-governmental organisations in order to promote British exports and attract inward investment to the United Kingdom. Such use is authorised by Buckingham palace and the Cabinet Secretary. All additional costs of these events are paid for by the organisations concerned. For the period in question the events were as follows:

  1991–92

  British Invisibles at London

  1992–93

  British Invisibles at Rome

  British Invisibles at Stockholm

  Scottish Financial Enterprise at Leith

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the result of the review of the future of the royal yacht Britannia.

  Mr. Hanley
  In view of the age of the royal yacht, its future is currently under review, with a range of options being considered. The future of the yacht will be made clear in due course.

  Flag Officer Royal Yachts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of the flag officer royal yachts.

  Mr. Hanley
  Flag officer royal yachts—FORY—is both an independent fleet flag officer and the commanding officer of HM yacht Britannia. He is generally accountable, as a member of the royal household, to Sir Robert Fellowes, private secretary to Her Majesty the Queen. He is responsible for Britannia's safe and efficient operation at all times and for the detailed planning of her programme keeping First Sea Lord and Commander in Chief, Fleet informed. He acts as the host at official receptions on behalf of the Queen when Britannia visits countries when no member of the royal family is embarked, and also hosts receptions on behalf of the Queen during sea days or commercial seminars held on board in support of British industry. These events bring FORY into direct and frequent contact with Heads of State and Government, and captains of industry.
  172
  In addition, he also exercises tactical control over RN, Commonwealth and foreign warships and RFAs forming the Royal Squadron when the Queen or other members of the royal family are embarked.

EDUCATION

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to extend the scope of exemptions to CCT requirements for cleaning contracts to more schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Travellers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for each relevant education authority, the amount of the bid for grant towards traveller education in 1994–95 and the actual grant awarded.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Twenty-six local education authorities and one grant-maintained school in England were invited to bid for specific grant in 1994–95 for traveller education projects. Details of the bids and of the expenditure actually approved for support are as follows:

  LEA

  Bid

  Allocation

  Barnsley

  57,488

  31,195

  Bolton

  68,900

  50,025

  Brent

  159,967

  46,409

  Bromley

  120,404

  53,188

  Chalvedon GM

  21,190

  Nil

  Cleveland

  70,303

  25,421

  Cumbria

  50,000

  35,000

  Ealing

  9,528

  8,775

  Hammersmith

  45,500

  38,850

  Hampshire

  184,470

  166,520

  Havering

  24,027

  Nil

  Kent

  586,180

  405,500

  Leicestershire

  104,543

  34,355

  Newcastle

  33,544

  24,024

  Norfolk

  166,907

  138,295

  Northamptonshire

  266,670

  211,996

  North Yorkshire

  157,000

  116,200

  Nottinghamshire

  75,829

  71,929

  Oldham

  52,540

  28,740

  Rochdale

  109,208

  70,817

  Rotherham

  47,210

  30,221

  Sefton

  65,250

  22,750

  Somerset

  25,000

  22,000

  Sunderland

  28,594

  24,094

  Tameside

  128,050

  94,644

  Trafford

  4,700

  Nil

  Wiltshire

  15,550

  15,510

  Support for a further £8·48 million of expenditure has been approved for the continuation of existing traveller education projects in 68 local education authorities and one grant-maintained school. Unsolicited bids from two of these authorities for new projects in 1994–95 were rejected. Grant is payable at the rate of 75 per cent. on all approved expenditure.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each relevant education authority the amount of grant towards traveller education in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local education authorities receive allowance in their revenue support grant to meet the basic
  173
  educational needs of travellers in the same way and at the same rate as for other pupils. Grant is also payable under section 210 of the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of extra provision made by LEAs to meet the additional educational needs of travellers. The total approved expenditure in England, on which grant was payable at the rate of 75 per cent. for each of these three financial years was as follows:

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Avon

  260,200

  272,600

  284,900

  Barnsley

  Nil

  15,000

  26,900

  Bedfordshire

  207,100

  216,900

  226,700

  Berkshire

  212,400

  222,500

  232,500

  Bolton

  Nil

  35,800

  37,400

  Bradford

  165,800

  173,700

  181,500

  Brent

  26,700

  66,000

  69,000

  Bromley

  84,100

  64,350

  Nil

  Buckinghamshire

  245,500

  257,200

  268,800

  Bury

  9,100

  9,500

  9,900

  Cambridgeshire

  249,100

  260,900

  272,600

  Cheshire

  Nil

  24,500

  53,000

  Cleveland

  62,900

  88,000

  92,100

  Cumbria

  13,800

  54,000

  56,500

  Derbyshire

  145,200

  152,100

  158,900

  Devon

  139,500

  146,100

  152,700

  Doncaster

  58,100

  60,900

  63,600

  Dorset

  57,000

  59,700

  62,400

  Durham

  110,700

  116,000

  121,200

  Ealing

  12,000

  17,000

  17,800

  East Sussex

  54,400

  27,700

  46,500

  Essex

  509,500

  533,700

  557,700

  Gateshead

  35,800

  37,500

  39,200

  Gloucestershire

  59,800

  73,000

  Nil

  Greenwich

  75,400

  79,000

  82,600

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  9,600

  41,900

  43,800

  Hampshire

  Nil

  156,900

  164,000

  Haringey

  78,100

  81,800

  85,500

  Harrow

  40,700

  42,600

  44,500

  Havering

  8,800

  17,100

  17,900

  Hertfordshire

  600,200

  628,700

  657,000

  Hillingdon

  nil

  30,500

  44,300

  Hounslow

  96,100

  100,700

  105,200

  Humberside

  226,700

  237,500

  248,200

  Kensington/Chelsea

  8,000

  8,400

  8,800

  Kent

  173,000

  376,000

  393,000

  Lambeth

  16,500

  17,300

  18,100

  Lancashire

  293,600

  307,500

  321,300

  Leeds

  193,900

  203,100

  212,200

  Leicestershire

  85,000

  131,000

  136,900

  Lewisham

  49,000

  51,300

  53,600

  Lincolnshire

  162,800

  170,500

  178,200

  Liverpool

  30,100

  25,300

  26,400

  Manchester

  286,100

  299,700

  313,200

  Newcastle

  16,000

  19,900

  20,800

  Newham

  46,800

  49,000

  51,200

  Norfolk

  65,300

  200,500

  209,500

  Northamptonshire

  184,000

  183,700

  192,000

  Northumberland

  32,000

  33,500

  36,000

  North Yorkshire

  105,000

  110,700

  115,700

  Nottinghamshire

  28,800

  96,100

  100,500

  Oxfordshire

  282,000

  295,400

  308,700

  Richmond

  14,600

  15,300

  16,000

  Rochdale

  nil

  50,900

  53,200

  Salford

  nil

  46,200

  48,300

  Sefton

  39,900

  41,800

  43,700

  Sheffield

  156,400

  163,800

  171,200

  Solihull

  22,100

  23,200

  24,200

  Somerset

  58,600

  81,400

  85,100

  Southwark

  200,500

  179,400

  187,500

  Suffolk

  122,500

  128,300

  134,100

  Surrey

  322,900

  338,200

  253,400

  Tower Hamlets

  17,800

  18,600

  19,400

  Trafford

  19,200

  22,400

  23,400

  Wakefield

  86,400

  73,700

  77,000

  West Sussex

  114,800

  120,300

  125,700

  Wigan

  56,300

  59,000

  61,700

  174

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Wiltshire

  76,000

  93,500

  97,700

  Wolverhampton (West Midlands Consortium)

  739,100

  774,200

  809,000

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of full-time equivalent places in nursery education for each of the London boroughs; and what proportion of under-fives in each borough attend a nursery school or class.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 21 January 1994,Official Report, columns 857–59, which gave the latest information about the numbers of pupils below compulsory school age and under-fives participation rates in maintained nursery provision in each local education authority in England. Information about nursery places is not held centrally.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to ensure that the Further Education Funding Council encourages schools and colleges to gain maximum use for the local community from their sports facilities.

  Mrs. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Control, which is reponsible for the funding of colleges in the further education sector, including sixth form colleges, already encourages college governing bodies to utilise their facilities efficiently. There is nothing to deter colleges from making their sports facilities available to the community when they are not required for other college purposes. The Further Education Funding Council does not have funding responsibilities for schools.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to encourage schools and colleges to share their sports facilities with the local community.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government do encourage schools and colleges to make their premises, including sports facilities, available for use by the community when they are not required for school or college purposes.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what applications were received from grant-maintained schools for capital grant for the financial year 1994–95; what was the level of grant approval in each case; what is the total value of (i) applications and (ii) approvals; and how much has been set aside for the second round of bids closing on 28 January.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have placed in the Library copies of papers detailing the applications received from grant-maintained schools for 1994–95 and the allocations approved.

  Applications from grant-maintained schools incorporated up to September 1993 totalled £315 million for funding in 1994–95 and £133 million for subsequent years.

  175
  Allocations worth over £40 million have so far been made and projects worth over £30 million are being funded for extra development work in 1994–95.

  A minimum of £8 million has been set aside for 1994–95 starts in the next round of bids open to schools incorporated between September 1993 and January 1994.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the planned level of capital expenditure on grant-maintained schools for 1994–95 published in the DFE's departmental report, Cm 2210 in February 1993; what is the level of capital expenditure on grant-maintained schools for 1994–95 published in DFE press notice 425–93 in December 1993; and what is the reason for the difference between the two figures.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The two sets of figures are not strictly comparable. The figure of £165 million in Cm 2210 relates to the total planned expenditure in 1994–95. The figure of £150 million in press notice 425–93 relates to the allocation of funds in particular projects within the capital programme and also includes allocations brought forward into the current financial year and projects of high priority for 1995–96.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the 82 grant-maintained schools where bids for more than £30 million of capital grant were unsuccessful for 1994–95, but which were identified in the DFE press notice 425–93 as high priorities for funding in 1995–96, and which have been awarded funds to start development work on the projects, are being given advance priority over other grant-maintained schools which will be submitting bids for capital grant in 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Funding for 1995–96 is not guaranteed at this stage. The allocations for 1994–95 are intended to enable the schools to develop proposals which have been identified as high priorities for a future year. These schools, and all other grant-maintained schools, will be able to bid for funding in 1995–96 in the usual way.

  Higher Education Funding Council for England
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the annual cost of administering the Higher Education Funding Council for England for every year of its existence; and what is the cost to the HEFCE of the quality assessment process.

  Mr. Boswell
  The HEFCE was set up during the financial year 1992–93 while the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and Universities Funding Council were still in existence. The cost of setting up and administering the HEFCE for that period was £500,000. Now in its first operational year, the cost of administering the HEFCE is £10·1 million. The cost of the HEFCE of quality assessment this year is £2 million.

  Manchester University Drama Society
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the hon. Member may expect to receive an answer to his letter of 16 December with regard to Colin Child, chairman of Manchester University drama society.
  176
  Mr. Boswell
  An interim reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 23 December 1993. I expect to send a full response shortly.

  Postgraduate Fees
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will announce the maximum level of postgraduate fees payable through the awards system for 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The maximum level of postgraduate fees payable through the Department for Education postgraduate awards schemes will be £2,350 for 1994–95. This represents an increase of 4 per cent. on the rate of 1993–94 and preserves the level of postgraduate fees in real terms.

  Funding Reductions
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what reasons universities which have increased the admission of science and technology students and reduced arts and social science admissions are now advised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England that they will be subject to a larger than average reduction in funding; what effects this will have on universities which have achieved the targets for the admission of a higher proportion of science and technology students; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  No such advice has been given. The Higher Education Funding Council for England will publish its approach to funding and student numbers for 1994–95 shortly, including the position of institutions whch have increased science and technology intakes.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in which national newspapers the Department of Education places advertisements for appointments to the Ofsted inspectorate.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since its establishment in September 1992, Ofsted has been responsible for its own appointments procedures for inspectors and the Department for Education places no advertising on its behalf.

  Cost-place Multipliers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the cost-place multiplier is in respect of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and what was the outturn capital expenditure in each local education authority in England in each category in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost multiplier used to calculate the basic need elements of LEA's annual capital guidelines for 1994–95 are:(a) for five to 11 age-range places, £3,747; (b) for 11 to 16 places, £5,116; and for 16 plus places, £6,128.

  The outturn capital expenditure by LEAs, as notified to the Department of the Environment, for the financial year 1991–92 is shown in the following table:
  177

  LEA Capital Expenditure 1991–92

  £ thousands

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Total schools

  Polys

  FE

  Youth

  Other

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,395

  4,784

  0

  6,179

  0

  977

  0

  93

  7,249

  Barnet

  825

  1,303

  51

  2,179

  0

  116

  5

  0

  2,300

  Bexley

  998

  993

  81

  2,072

  0

  261

  27

  5

  2,365

  Brent

  1,788

  1,077

  462

  3,327

  0

  108

  89

  203

  3,727

  Bromley

  1,397

  5,434

  81

  6,912

  0

  219

  7

  77

  7,215

  Croydon

  3,153

  4,672

  128

  7,953

  0

  379

  24

  83

  8,439

  Ealing

  1,006

  379

  24

  1,409

  17

  474

  0

  26

  1,926

  Enfield

  446

  10,612

  1,832

  12,890

  0

  3,201

  44

  11

  16,146

  Haringey

  876

  886

  67

  1,829

  0

  111

  0

  107

  2,047

  Harrow

  2,822

  481

  1

  3,304

  0

  215

  19

  0

  3,538

  Havering

  468

  4,123

  58

  4,649

  0

  97

  1

  101

  4,848

  Hillingdon

  225

  1,060

  0

  1,285

  0

  50

  30

  352

  1,717

  Hounslow

  2,871

  1,492

  466

  4,829

  0

  217

  44

  214

  5,304

  Kingston upon Thames

  888

  2,861

  96

  3,845

  0

  237

  80

  51

  4,213

  Merton

  1,430

  1,848

  281

  3,559

  0

  89

  67

  240

  3,955

  Newham

  6,310

  3,822

  4

  10,316

  0

  17

  220

  289

  10,662

  Redbridge

  906

  1,486

  30

  2,422

  0

  94

  129

  619

  3,264

  Richmond upon Thames

  479

  2,208

  37

  2,724

  0

  156

  62

  4

  2,946

  Sutton

  3,168

  2,508

  1,563

  7,329

  0

  29

  1

  23

  7,292

  Waltham Forest

  2,473

  759

  79

  3,311

  0

  1

  10

  119

  3,441

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  560

  1,935

  72

  2,567

  0

  115

  0

  137

  2,819

  Westminster

  244

  351

  210

  805

  0

  55

  0

  988

  1,848

  Greenwich

  970

  248

  192

  1,410

  0

  75

  0

  16

  1,501

  Hackney

  637

  0

  2

  639

  0

  552

  2

  10

  1,203

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  579

  111

  685

  1,375

  0

  119

  0

  577

  2,071

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,947

  1,947

  Kensington and Chelsea

  758

  1,085

  177

  2,020

  0

  325

  3

  450

  2,798

  Lambeth

  623

  385

  377

  1,385

  0

  158

  0

  44

  1,587

  Lewisham

  1,042

  329

  160

  1,531

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1,534

  Southwark

  1,048

  39

  89

  1,176

  0

  548

  23

  412

  2,159

  Wandsworth

  2,317

  832

  426

  3,575

  0

  255

  74

  402

  4,306

  Tower Hamlets

  7,012

  6,157

  176

  13,345

  0

  3,736

  0

  22

  17,103

  Birmingham

  9,292

  3,546

  468

  13,306

  0

  889

  0

  312

  14,507

  Coventry

  2,591

  2,440

  191

  5,222

  0

  1,461

  0

  194

  6,877

  Dudley

  1,037

  2,958

  17

  4,012

  0

  2,518

  13

  124

  6,667

  Sandwell

  2,049

  522

  48

  2,619

  0

  78

  3

  40

  2,740

  Solihull

  801

  1,519

  26

  2,346

  0

  949

  2

  92

  3,389

  Walsall

  1,289

  805

  13

  2,107

  0

  107

  28

  205

  2,447

  Wolverhampton

  1,031

  1,047

  65

  2,143

  0

  155

  91

  242

  2,631

  Knowsley

  295

  129

  560

  984

  0

  252

  0

  61

  1,297

  Liverpool

  1,269

  909

  39

  2,217

  0

  156

  0

  104

  2,477

  St. Helens

  368

  4,054

  3

  4,425

  0

  2,534

  0

  125

  7,084

  Sefton

  1,697

  1,411

  5

  3,113

  0

  515

  0

  8

  3,636

  Wirral

  1,763

  2,714

  96

  4,573

  0

  2

  17

  38

  4,630

  Bolton

  699

  166

  17

  882

  0

  631

  0

  17

  1,530

  Bury

  389

  371

  261

  1,021

  0

  20

  44

  0

  1,085

  Manchester

  4,302

  1,280

  274

  5,856

  0

  684

  49

  318

  6,907

  Oldham

  1,261

  9,638

  0

  10,899

  0

  47

  0

  43

  10,989

  Rochdale

  1,492

  4,234

  21

  5,747

  0

  1,525

  72

  18

  7,362

  Salford

  670

  1,577

  9

  2,256

  0

  100

  0

  1,295

  3,651

  Stockport

  1,533

  799

  19

  2,351

  0

  201

  0

  0

  2552

  Tameside

  687

  545

  169

  1,401

  0

  276

  0

  272

  1,949

  Trafford

  1,718

  3,233

  26

  4,977

  0

  327

  19

  10

  5,333

  Wigan

  169

  4,848

  16

  5,033

  0

  219

  0

  70

  5,322

  Barnsley

  984

  623

  8

  1,615

  0

  295

  0

  0

  1,910

  Doncaster

  236

  133

  0

  369

  0

  1

  40

  0

  410

  Rotherham

  435

  729

  69

  1,233

  0

  76

  22

  0

  1,331

  Sheffield

  3,141

  2,190

  104

  5,435

  249

  366

  102

  150

  6,302

  Bradford

  2,448

  5,917

  122

  8,487

  0

  2,510

  3

  1,505

  12,505

  Calderdale

  696

  1,052

  0

  1,748

  0

  314

  0

  91

  2,153

  Kirklees

  1,974

  1,550

  7

  3,531

  0

  853

  7

  72

  4,463

  Leeds

  14,664

  3,685

  161

  18,510

  0

  1,854

  49

  16

  20,429

  Wakefield

  2,460

  796

  9

  3,265

  0

  27

  7

  0

  3,299

  Gateshead

  2,581

  1,161

  362

  4,104

  0

  942

  5

  27

  5,078

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,918

  932

  288

  3,138

  0

  132

  116

  1

  3,387

  North Tyneside

  333

  1,315

  139

  1,787

  0

  166

  0

  10

  1,963

  South Tyneside

  1,153

  2,633

  5

  3,791

  0

  608

  176

  9

  4,584

  Sunderland

  1,928

  718

  35

  2,681

  0

  1,387

  0

  155

  4,223

  Isles of Scilly

  42

  8

  0

  50

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50

  Avon

  7,511

  2,545

  364

  10,420

  0

  4,474

  43

  386

  15,323

  Bedfordshire

  1,098

  551

  132

  1,781

  0

  74

  15

  2

  1,872

  Berkshire

  4,575

  1,917

  367

  6,859

  0

  230

  207

  61

  7,357

  Buckinghamshire

  3,868

  5,441

  90

  9,399

  0

  2,860

  476

  577

  13,312

  178 179

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Total schools

  Polys

  FE

  Youth

  Other

  Total

  Cambridgeshire

  8,758

  11,929

  466

  21,153

  0

  1,356

  204

  0

  22,713

  Cheshire

  4,827

  5,976

  1,403

  12,206

  0

  3,354

  89

  816

  16,465

  Cleveland

  1,385

  939

  1,447

  3,771

  0

  941

  18

  224

  4,954

  Cornwall

  5,576

  3,339

  435

  9,350

  0

  1,787

  116

  182

  11,435

  Cumbria

  4,568

  4,749

  33

  9,350

  0

  391

  44

  315

  10,100

  Derbyshire

  2,454

  10,091

  225

  12,770

  0

  1,530

  101

  58

  14,459

  Devon

  19,370

  9,779

  763

  29,912

  0

  1,704

  88

  895

  32,599

  Dorset

  7,791

  4,199

  303

  12,293

  0

  548

  238

  116

  13,195

  Durham

  3,307

  2,690

  145

  6,142

  0

  688

  59

  270

  7,159

  East Sussex

  7,538

  8,091

  475

  16,104

  0

  623

  1

  547

  17,275

  Essex

  5,597

  9,132

  277

  15,006

  0

  6,388

  395

  2,203

  23,992

  Gloucestershire

  3,333

  5,364

  286

  8,983

  0

  944

  590

  52

  10,569

  Hampshire

  10,423

  10,200

  1,482

  22,105

  0

  2,729

  112

  67

  25,013

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,217

  4,782

  255

  9,254

  0

  825

  244

  333

  10,656

  Hertfordshire

  2,509

  4,519

  1,674

  8,702

  0

  3,815

  163

  1,411

  14,091

  Humberside

  4,447

  1,638

  304

  6,389

  0

  1,981

  182

  26

  8,578

  Isle of Wight

  2,224

  767

  136

  3,127

  0

  27

  24

  121

  3,299

  Kent

  9,509

  10,671

  273

  20,453

  0

  3,874

  104

  533

  24,964

  Lancashire

  9,776

  6,489

  454

  16,719

  0

  2,438

  606

  492

  20,255

  Leicestershire

  8,056

  2,283

  160

  10,499

  0

  1,551

  24

  469

  12,543

  Lincolnshire

  7,182

  9,141

  679

  17,002

  0

  756

  85

  620

  18,463

  Norfolk

  2,883

  1,542

  405

  4,830

  0

  1,252

  70

  0

  6,152

  North Yorkshire

  2,844

  1,676

  29

  4,549

  0

  731

  2

  178

  5,460

  Northamptonshire

  2,484

  7,076

  37

  9,597

  0

  1,226

  21

  0

  10,844

  Northumberland

  2,053

  1,000

  843

  3,896

  0

  43

  0

  27

  3,966

  Nottinghamshire

  2,534

  2,596

  349

  5,479

  0

  526

  168

  145

  6,318

  Oxfordshire

  2,106

  688

  180

  2,974

  0

  219

  13

  318

  3,524

  Shropshire

  3,000

  3,973

  155

  7,128

  0

  239

  17

  0

  7,384

  Somerset

  1,763

  2,559

  26

  4,348

  0

  578

  0

  844

  5,770

  Staffordshire

  3,433

  4,050

  43

  7,526

  0

  1,398

  53

  1,183

  10,160

  Suffolk

  2,736

  5,346

  436

  8,518

  0

  2,258

  146

  187

  11,109

  Surrey

  4,045

  8,594

  985

  13,624

  0

  2,303

  344

  1,095

  17,366

  Warwickshire

  1,496

  987

  156

  2,639

  0

  895

  68

  0

  3,602

  West Sussex

  6,374

  6,607

  555

  13,536

  0

  596

  249

  372

  14,753

  Wiltshire

  4,664

  1,577

  2,460

  8,701

  0

  685

  214

  409

  10,009

  Notes:

  1. 1991–92 is the latest year for which final outturn figures are available.

  2. Figures come from the Department of the Environment's capital outturn return forms.

  3. Nursery and primary figures cannot be disaggregated.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in relation to the cost-place multipliers used in relation to the basic need formula in determining annual capital guidelines for local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1991 we have received representations from a number of LEAs, the Association of Metrolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils about the level of the cost multipliers and our procedures for applying them to LEAs' bids in the basic need category.

  The cost multipliers are derived from an analysis of nearly 500 school building projects between 1987 and 1991 and include a mix of both new schools and extension projects to existing schools. The cost elements of the multipliers was based on a value known as the "target basic building cost", which represents a level of performance being achieved by about a third of authorities.

  For 1994–95 the cost multipliers have, in cash terms, remained broadly at the same level as 1993–94, when they rose in value by 9 per cent. on average over those used in 1992–93. This is at a time when building tender prices have shown a dramatic decline, by over 20 per cent. since 1990. This means that school building costs should have been falling and very competitive tenders should continue to be received.
  180

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Boswell
  There are no special advisers seconded to the Department from other organisations.

  Capital Guidelines
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment his Department has made in respect of each local education authority in determining annual capital guidelines for 1994–95 of anticipated capital receipts.

  Mr. Forth
  LEAs bid for annual capital guidelines in a number of categories, including projects to remove surplus places. The success of bids in that category depends on whether the projects meet our published cost-effectiveness tests. The latter take into account LEAs' own estimates of any capital receipts which may arise. But in no categories are LEAs' ACGs reduced or adjusted in the light of anticipated capital receipts.
  181

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make additional resources available to schools to allow them to offset the cost of fitting seat belts to their school transport.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter on which each local authority needs to assess its priorities for use of the resources available. The Government's proposals for the 1994–95 grant settlements allow local education authorities in England an increase of 2·4 per cent. for education over the previous year; that should allow them some latitude in view of the continuing fall in inflation.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will reply to the letter dated 22 November from the hon. Member for Pendle on the subject of seat belts in school transport.

  Mr. Forth
  An interim reply was sent to the hon. Member on 13 December, and I sent the hon. Member a final reply on 21 January.

  Taught Week
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in how many(a) secondary schools and (b) primary schools the taught week falls below the minimum acceptable level; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The minimum hours of taught lesson time per week recommended by the Department are 21 hours for five to seven-year-olds—key stage 1—23·5 hours for eight to 11-year-olds—key stage 2—and 24 hours for 12 to 16-year-olds—key stages 3 and 4. The numbers of maintained primary, middle and secondary schools in January 1993 reporting fewer hours per week than the recommended minima at each key stage were: 1,000 at key stage 1; 7,900 at key stage 2; 1,100 at key stage 3 and 800 at key stage 4. There may be some "double counting" in these results because schools generally provide for two and possibly three key stages.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on the subject of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Between April 1993 and January 1994 the Department of Social Security headquarters and the Child Support Agency headquarters received in the region of 10,750 written representations covering a range of views about child support policy and Child Support Agency operations.

  The number of written representations made to Child Support Agency centres and field offices could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the turnover of staff has been for each of the Child Support Agency centres in(a) England and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  182
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mrs. Llin Golding, dated 24 January 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for details about the turnover of staff for each Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC) in England and Wales.
  There are four CSACs in England, and none in Wales. Staff turnover is shown in the following table. The figures show the staff in post at each CSAC on 18 January 1994, and the number of staff who have left since the Agency began on 5 April 1993. They include casual staff and staff employed on fixed term contracts.

  CSAC

  Staff in post

  Departures

  Birkenhead

  592

  7

  Dudley

  614

  61

  Hastings

  690

  62

  Plymouth

  576

  29

  I hope you find this information useful.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff the Child Support Agency employs in (i) England and (ii) Wales.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mrs. Llin Golding, dated 24 January 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for details about the staffing of the Child Support Agency in England and Wales.
  At 1 January 1994, the Agency employed 3,413 full-time and 688 part-time staff in England, and 99 full-time and 25 part-time staff in Wales.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of providing office accommodation for the Child Support Agency in(a) England and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on 17 December 1993 at columns 1060–61.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 297, how many lone parents who were receiving no regular maintenance in April 1993 are now receiving maintenance as a result of action by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on Monday 24 January,Official Report, column 15.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) council tenants, (b) housing association tenants, (c) private tenants and (d) owner occupiers were in receipt of housing benefit for each of the London boroughs at the latest available date.
  183
  Mr. Burt
  The percentages of local authority tenants, housing association tenants and other private tenants in receipt of housing benefit in London, in November 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, were approximately 60 per cent., 50 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively. Information for individual local authorities and owner-occupiers is not available.

  Sources: Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information Statistics quarterly case load information for November 1992 and Department of the Environment tenancy statistics December 1992.

  Notes:

  (i) Owner-occupiers, in England and Wales have not been eligible for Housing Benefit—(rate rebates)—since April 1990 when community charge benefit was introduced.

  (ii) The quarterly case load figures include estimates for non-responding boroughs.
  184

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to compensate fully people with learning disabilities and their carers for the increase in their domestic heating bills resulting from VAT on fuel.

  Mr. Burt
  Our policy is to help poorer households, pensioners and disabled people on income-related benefits meet the extra cost of VAT on domestic fuel. A substantial package of measures was announced in the budget including increases above the normal uprating in invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and the disability premium in the income-related benefits.

  Disabled people, including people with learning disabilities, who are receiving these benefits will receive the above-inflation increases.
  185

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average payment per recipient per week of housing benefit for each year since 1985, and his projected figure for 1994–95 for private sector, housing association and local authority tenancies.

  Average amounts (£/week) of housing benefit1 in Great Britain

  Certificated/with income support

  2Standard/no income support

  All housing benefit

  Year

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants

  3Housing association tenants

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants

  Housing association tenants

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants

  Housing association tenants

  1985

  14·60

  17·20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  15·60

  19·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  16·50

  20·90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  18·16

  21·88

  —

  12·33

  14·47

  —

  15·85

  18·78

  —

  1989

  19·75

  25·14

  —

  14·00

  15·42

  —

  17·36

  21·06

  —

  1990

  22·60

  30·88

  —

  15·95

  18·72

  —

  19·80

  25·45

  —

  1991

  26·16

  37·20

  —

  18·37

  24·98

  —

  22·76

  32·57

  —

  1992

  29·88

  46·18

  35·35

  21·73

  30·92

  25·81

  26·45

  40·69

  32·24

  Sources:

  1985 to 1987 supplementary benefit quarterly statistical inquiry dated November/December.

  1988 to 1992 housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample dated May.

  1 For all years housing benefit has been defined as rent rebate and rent allowance.

  2 Information for standard/cases with no income support is not available prior to 1988.

  3 Separate figures for housing association tenancies is not available prior to 1992; until then the information is included with that of private tenancies.

  Notes:

  1. The average amounts are per benefit unit not per individual. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple.

  2. Projected figures for 1994–95 are not available.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who have ceased to receive benefit following changes to the benefit law in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on why individuals cease to claim benefit is not available. A comparison of estimates of the total number of current social security benefit awards at any one time shows an overall increase of around 18 million between 1979 and 1992–93.

  Rate of Unemployment Benefit for a Married Couple with two Children under 11 years

  Total UB

  Average Real Value of Benefit at April 1993 Prices over the Period

  Equivalent Value of Benefit at April 1993 Prices at Date of Uprating

  As a percentage of all adults average earnings

  November 1976

  27·50

  89·09

  92·00

  40·6

  April 1977

  26·50

  79·99

  81·52

  38·0

  November 1977

  30·30

  88·67

  89·68

  41·1

  April 1978

  28·20

  78·98

  80·38

  35·9

  November 1978

  29·20

  78·36

  79·98

  34·7

  April 1979

  27·20

  66·90

  70·43

  30·5

  November 1979

  33·35

  71·80

  77·82

  33·2

  November 1980

  35·90

  68·78

  72·65

  29·9

  November 1981

  38·00

  66·41

  68·68

  28·7

  November 1982

  41·05

  68·50

  69·82

  28·8

  November 1983

  44·05

  70·00

  71·46

  28·1

  November 1984

  46·00

  68·99

  71·11

  27·5

  November 1985

  49·25

  71·49

  72·19

  27·6

  July 1986

  49·80

  70·65

  71·80

  26·3

  April 1987

  50·85

  69·60

  70·23

  25·6

  April 1988

  52·95

  68·38

  70·37

  24·2

  April 1989

  56·10

  67·19

  69·01

  23·4

  186
  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Consultants
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on which occasions since 1979 his Department has employed the services of external consultants; and if he will give details of the purposes for which they were employed and the cost of employing them.

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

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of unemployment benefit for a couple with two children under 11 years in relation to prices and earnings since 1976.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.
  187

  Total UB

  Average Real Value of Benefit at April 1993 Prices over the Period

  Equivalent Value of Benefit at April 1993 Prices at Date of Uprating

  As a percentage of all adults average earnings

  April 1990

  60·40

  65·96

  67·88

  23·0

  April 1991

  66·95

  69·80

  70·72

  23·5

  April 1992

  69·70

  70·45

  70·60

  22·9

  April 1993

  72·20

  —

  72·20

  22·8

  Notes:

  1. Child dependency addition was abolished from November 1984

  2. Earnings are derived from the Employment Department's new earnings survey estimates of all adult earnings.

  3. The number of weeks between uprating dates is not always the same as the number of weeks between reference dates for the general index of retail prices (BPI). No adjustment is made for this.

  4. The average real value of benefit at April 1993 prices is calculated over the period between uprating dates (e.g. July 1986-March 1987).

  Source: Abstract of statistics for social security benefits and contributions and the indices of retail prices and average earnings.

  Benefits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated saving to his Department of delaying payment of the child dependant's allowance payable with incapacity benefit until the 52nd week of incapacity.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that there will be a net saving of £5 million a year as a result of the effect on entitlement to child dependency increases of the 52nd week qualifying period for long-term incapacity benefit.

  Note:

  Estimate expressed in constant 1993–94 prices, rounded to nearest £5 million and is net of offsetting changes and expenditure on income-related benefits.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of invalidity benefit are(a) in receipt of the higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance and (b) are currently over the age of 57 years.

  Mr. Scott
  On 4 April 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 726,000 people aged 57 or over receiving invalidity benefit1. Reliable estimates of the number of invalidity benefit claimants also receiving the higher rate of care component of disability living allowance are not available.

  Note:

  1 Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he intends to make the 80 per cent. disablement test for severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) claimed and (b) were awarded non-contributory sickness benefit (i) between April 1992 and April 1993, (ii) since April 1993 and (iii) in total since April 1983.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not routinely kept in the form requested. Information that is readily available is in the table. An estimate of the total since April 1983 will require researching of archived data. I shall write again to the hon. Member as soon as the figure is available. Information from April 1992 is currently unavailable.
  188

  Spells of sickness benefit which commenced in the statistical period as the result of an industrial accident or prescribed disease where the contribution conditions were deemed satisfied

  Statistical Period

  Number of sickness benefit spells commencing where the contribution position was deemed satisfied

  2 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  6,000

  1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992

  3,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. A spell of incapacity is a single period of sickness for which an individual may have more than one in the statistical period.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent the rules permitting therapeutic work will continue after April 1995 for(a) incapacity benefit and (b) severe disablement allowance; what will be the rules concerning limitations on (i) the amount of earnings which can be kept before benefit entitlement is affected and (ii) the hours per week which may be worked; and what other restrictions will be introduced.

  Mr. Scott
  Proposals contained in the Incapacity for Work Bill provide for the therapeutic work rule to continue both for the new incapacity benefit and for severe disablement allowance when work undertaken would be of benefit to a person's condition. We intend that current arrangements for limitation of earnings will continue—present level £42·00 per week—and that there should be a weekly limit of 16 hours.

  The Incapacity for Work Bill also introduces provision to allow all incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance recipients to undertake voluntary work for up to 16 hours a week with no effect to their benefit.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the two-year linking rule allowing claimants on disability working allowances to requalify for incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no such plans.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receive invalidity benefit following an award of non-contributory sickness benefit(a) between April 1992 and April 1993, (b) since April 1993 and (c) in total since April 1983.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not routinely kept in the form requested. Information that is readily available is in the
  189
  table. An estimate of the total since April 1983 will require researching of archived data. I shall write again to the hon. Member as soon as the figure is available. Information from April 1992 is currently unavailable.

  Spells of invalidity benefit, following an award of sickness benefit, which commenced in the statistical period as the result of an industrial accident or prescribed disease where the contribution conditions were deemed satisfied

  Statistical period

  Number of invalidity benefit spells commencing where the contribution position was deemed satisfied

  2 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  4,000

  1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992

  1,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. A spell of incapacity is a single period of sickness for which an individual may have more than one in the statistical period.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated saving of his Department of

  Value of Child Support1 for each child in standard rate tax paying families at April 19932 prices

  Date3

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11–15

  Children aged 16 and over

  1st child £

  2nd child £

  3rd4 child £

  1st child £

  2nd child £

  3rd4 child £

  1st child £

  2nd child £

  3rd4 child £

  April 1964

  8·62

  11·33

  12·13

  10·43

  13·13

  13·93

  12·33

  15·14

  15·85

  April 1965

  8·64

  11·30

  11·87

  10·54

  13·11

  13·77

  12·44

  15·01

  15·68

  April 1966

  8·35

  10·91

  11·46

  10·18

  12·66

  13·30

  12·01

  14·49

  15·14

  April 1967

  8·04

  10·60

  10·92

  9·89

  12·29

  12·91

  11·66

  14·07

  14·69

  April 1968

  7·75

  9·72

  10·31

  9·46

  11·42

  11·94

  11·17

  13·05

  13·64

  April 1969

  7·35

  9·61

  10·17

  8·97

  11·23

  11·79

  10·58

  12·85

  13·33

  April 1970

  6·96

  9·11

  9·63

  8·49

  10·63

  11·17

  10·02

  12·16

  12·62

  April 1971

  8·11

  10·28

  10·76

  9·37

  11·60

  12·10

  10·69

  12·87

  13·35

  April 1972

  7·63

  9·67

  10·13

  8·81

  10·91

  11·38

  10·06

  12·10

  12·56

  April 1973

  6·92

  8·67

  9·10

  8·19

  9·88

  10·30

  9·21

  10·90

  11·31

  April 1974

  7·94

  9·41

  9·77

  9·15

  10·51

  10·92

  10·14

  11·50

  11·92

  April 1975

  6·96

  9·62

  9·62

  7·94

  10·62

  10·62

  8·81

  11·51

  11·51

  April 1976

  7·30

  9·57

  9·57

  8·13

  10·41

  10·41

  8·88

  11·13

  11·13

  April 1977

  7·01

  8·03

  8·03

  7·72

  8·74

  8·74

  8·33

  9·32

  9·32

  April 1978

  8·36

  8·36

  8·36

  9·01

  9·01

  9·01

  9·55

  9·55

  9·55

  April 1979

  10·36

  10·36

  10·36

  10·36

  10·36

  10·36

  10·36

  10·36

  10·36

  November 1980

  9·61

  9·61

  9·61

  9·61

  9·61

  9·61

  9·61

  9·61

  9·61

  November 1981

  9·49

  9·49

  9·49

  9·49

  9·49

  9·49

  9·49

  9·49

  9·49

  November 1982

  9·95

  9·95

  9·95

  9·95

  9·95

  9·95

  9·95

  9·95

  9·95

  November 1983

  10·54

  10·54

  10·54

  10·54

  10·54

  10·54

  10·54

  10·54

  10·54

  November 1984

  10·58

  10·58

  10·58

  10·58

  10·58

  10·58

  10·58

  10·58

  10·58

  November 1985

  10·26

  10·26

  10·26

  10·26

  10·26

  10·26

  10·26

  10·26

  10·26

  July 1986

  10·24

  10·24

  10·24

  10·24

  10·24

  10·24

  10·24

  10·24

  10·24

  April 1987

  10·01

  10·01

  10·01

  10·01

  10·01

  10·01

  10·01

  10·01

  10·01

  April 1988

  9·63

  9·63

  9·63

  9·63

  9·63

  9·63

  9·63

  9·63

  9·63

  April 1989

  8·92

  8·92

  8·92

  8·92

  8·92

  8·92

  8·92

  8·92

  8·92

  April 1990

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  8·14

  April 1991

  8·71

  7·66

  7·66

  8·71

  7·66

  7·66

  8·71

  7·66

  7·66

  October 1991

  9·63

  7·81

  7·81

  9·63

  7·81

  7·81

  9·63

  7·81

  7·81

  April 1992

  9·78

  7·90

  7·90

  9·78

  7·90

  7·90

  9·78

  7·90

  7·90

  April 1993

  10·00

  8·10

  8·10

  10·00

  8·10

  8·10

  10·00

  8·10

  8·10

  Notes:

  1 The combined value of child tax allowance after clawback and family allowance/child benefit.

  2 Based on the movement in the general index of retail prices at April 1993.

  3 Child tax allowance ceased after the 1978–79 tax year and uprating dates are shown from 1979 onwards.

  4 And subsequent children.
  190
  delaying payment of the full rate of adult dependant's allowance payable with incapacity benefit until the 52nd week of incapacity.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that there will be a net saving of £5 million a year as a result of the effect on the payable rate of adult dependency increases of the 52-week qualifying period for long-term incapacity benefit.

  Note:

  Estimate expressed in constant 1993–94 prices, rounded to the nearest £5 million and is net of offsetting changes and expenditure on income-related benefits. Estimate takes account of other planned changes in the qualifying conditions for adult dependency increases of incapacity benefit.

  Child Support
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of child support for each child in a standard rate tax-paying family expressed in 1993–94 prices for each year since 1964.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. While child benefit helps all families with children, there is a comprehensive range of other social security benefits which can provide additional help for some families according to their circumstances.
  191

TRANSPORT

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will quantify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in the cost of cars for Ministers in his Department since 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government car service charges for 1990–91 did not cover the full cost of the provision of cars for ministers. Rates have since been increased by 12 per cent. from 1 July 1990 and again by 10 per cent. from 1 January 1991. Other factors are:

  (i) Value added tax on GCS invoices increased from 15 per cent. to 17·5 per cent. from 1 April 1991.

  (ii) The GCS introduced new charging arrangements from 1 April 1992 leading to greater use of the more expensive "Outside Core Hour" provision.

  Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider an addition to the transport supplementary grant to assist with the exceptional problems on the Isle of Wight and to improve and install additional highway damage drainage works.

  Mr. Key
  It is not possible to change the allocations that were given to local highway authorities, including the Isle of Wight, when the local transport capital settlement for 1994–95 was announced on 15 December. The island's council will have the opportunity to bid for resources to deal with current conditions on its roads when it makes its transport policies and programme submission for 1995–96 later this year. In the meantime, it has discretion to use its minor works allocation for 1994–95 on transport infrastructure of its choice. Resources allocated for structural maintenance on principal roads can also be used on any such road.

  Rail Travel, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of a child's fare for a return journey by rail from Lewisham to London for each year from 1975.

  Adult standard return

  Adult cheap day return

  Current prices £

  1975 prices £

  Current prices £

  1975 prices £

  January 1975

  0·32

  0·32

  0·24

  0·24

  May 1975

  0·36

  0·32

  0·25

  0·22

  September 1975

  0·40

  0·34

  0·26

  0·22

  March 1976

  0·46

  0·37

  0·30

  0·24

  January 1977

  0·56

  0·39

  0·35

  0·24

  January 1978

  0·66

  0·42

  0·41

  0·26

  January 1979

  0·72

  0·42

  0·45

  0·26

  January 1980

  0·86

  0·42

  0·55

  0·27

  November 1980

  1·12

  0·49

  0·70

  0·31

  November 1981

  1·20

  0·47

  0·76

  0·30

  January 1983

  1·40

  0·52

  0·80

  0·29

  January 1984

  1·40

  0·49

  0·90

  0·31

  January 1985

  1·60

  0·53

  0·90

  0·30

  January 1986

  1·80

  0·57

  1·00

  0·32

  January 1987

  2·00

  0·61

  1·10

  0·33

  January 1988

  2·20

  0·65

  1·20

  0·35

  January 1989

  2·40

  0·66

  1·30

  0·36

  February 1990

  2·60

  0·66

  1·40

  0·35

  January 1991

  2·80

  0·65

  1·50

  0·35

  January 1992

  3·00

  0·67

  1·60

  0·36

  January 1993

  3·20

  0·71

  1·60

  0·35

  January 1994

  3·40

  0·73

  1·70

  0·36

  192
  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the information requested is as follows:

  Child return current prices £

  Child return 1975 prices £

  January 1975

  0·12

  0·12

  May 1975

  0·13

  0·12

  September 1975

  0·13

  0·11

  March 1976

  0·15

  0·12

  January 1977

  0·18

  0·13

  January 1978

  0·22

  0·14

  January 1979

  0·23

  0·13

  January 1980

  0·28

  0·14

  November 1980

  0·35

  0·15

  November 1981

  0·38

  0·15

  January 1983

  0·40

  0·15

  January 1984

  0·45

  0·16

  January 1985

  0·45

  0·15

  January 1986

  0·50

  0·16

  January 1987

  0·55

  0·17

  January 1988

  0·60

  0·18

  January 1989

  0·65

  0·18

  February 1990

  0·70

  0·18

  January 1991

  0·75

  0·18

  January 1992

  0·80

  0·18

  January 1993

  0·80

  0·18

  January 1994

  0·85

  0·18

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of passengers travelling by rail from Lewisham to London and back in each year since 1975 were commuters travelling to or from work.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected by British Rail.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of a return journey by rail from Lewisham to London at(a) the off-peak rate and (b) the standard rate for each year from 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the information requested is as follows:
  193

  Network SouthEast
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was spent on(a) engineering improvements and (b) improving rolling stock on Network SouthEast rail lines for each year from 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  As Network SouthEast did not exist as an organisation until 1986–87, there are no figures available before that year. I understand that figures for subsequent years are as follows:

  Year

  Rolling stock (£s million-current prices)

  Other investment (£s million-current prices)

  1986–87

  26

  208

  1987–88

  140

  233

  1988–89

  160

  285

  1989–90

  139

  310

  1990–91

  88

  320

  1991–92

  142

  271

  1992–93

  323

  222

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people used Network SouthEast rail services for each year from 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the table shows the average daily number of passengers entering central London on BR services during the morning peak. Of these total figures BR estimates 6 per cent. of passengers would have arrived on InterCity services and 94 per cent. on Network SouthEast. I understand that some 70 per cent. of all BR passengers to London begin their journeys during the morning peak.

  Total numbers entering Central London by BR each day (07.00 to 09.59)

  Year

  Number of passengers

  1975

  402,913

  1976

  400,984

  1977

  400,325

  1978

  409,524

  1979

  420,903

  1980

  411,869

  1981

  393,912

  1982

  390,306

  1983

  383,908

  1984

  386,037

  1985

  400,972

  1986

  420,864

  1987

  449,072

  1988

  468,316

  1989

  472,583

  1990

  457,699

  1991

  425,718

  1992

  401,146

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) platform staff, (b) ticket sellers, (c) ticket inspectors, (d) cleaning staff and (e) train drivers were employed by the Network SouthEast rail division for each year from 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not available in the Department.
  194

  Train Crashes
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were killed in train crashes(a) in Britain and (b) on Network SouthEast lines for each year from 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of deaths resulting from all train accidents in Britain for each year from 1975 are as follows:

  Year

  Fatalies

  1975

  57

  1976

  18

  1977

  12

  1978

  22

  1979

  20

  1980

  7

  1981

  7

  1982

  11

  1983

  10

  1984

  30

  1985

  6

  1986

  27

  1987

  10

  1988

  40

  1989

  18

  1990

  4

  19911

  3

  1991–92

  11

  1992–93

  5

  1 From 1991 onwards the figures shown are for the period 1 April to 31 March covering the financial year. The statistics shown for the first quarter 1991 allow for this adjustment.

  These figures for fatalities include accidents to railway staff and contractors, passengers and other persons.

  The figures have been obtained from the Health and Safety Executive's HM railway inspectorate's annual report on the railway safety of Great Britain, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Figures for Network SouthEast lines are not available.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of train crashes(a) in Britain or (b) on Network SouthEast lines for each year from 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of train accidents, which include all accidents to trains and rolling stock, for each year from 1975 are as follows:

  Year

  Total train accidents

  1975

  1,310

  1976

  1,122

  1977

  1,056

  1978

  1,044

  1979

  1,035

  1980

  930

  1981

  1,014

  1982

  998

  1983

  1,255

  1984

  1,359

  1985

  1,240

  1986

  1,171

  1987

  1,165

  1988

  1,330

  1989

  1,434

  1990

  1,283

  19911

  242

  1991–92

  960

  1992–93

  1,152

  1 From 1991 onwards the figures shown are from 1 April to 31 March covering the financial year. The statistics shown for the first quarter 1991 allow for this adjustment.

  195
  The figures have been obtained from the Health and Safety Executive's HM railway inspectorate's annual report on the railway safety of Great Britain, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Separate figures for Network SouthEast lines are not available.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were injured in train crashes(a) in Britain and (b) on Network SouthEast lines for each year from 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total numbers of injuries resulting from train accidents for each year from 1975 are as follows:

  Year

  Major

  Minor

  1975

  62

  384

  1976

  14

  276

  1977

  20

  288

  1978

  14

  219

  1979

  26

  396

  1980

  38

  409

  1981

  21

  174

  1982

  18

  246

  1983

  21

  197

  1984

  42

  433

  1985

  53

  327

  1986

  77

  433

  1987

  25

  371

  1988

  84

  621

  1989

  58

  346

  1990

  22

  221

  19911

  38

  531

  1991–92

  30

  361

  1992–93

  13

  140

  1 From 1991 onwards, the figures shown are for the period 1 April to 31 March covering the financial year. The statistics shown for the first quarter 1991 allow for this adjustment. These figures are high due to the Cannon Street accident which occurred on 8 January 1991.

  These figures for major and minor injuries include accidents to railway staff and contractors, passengers and other persons.

  The figures have been obtained from the Health and Safety Executive's Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's annual report on the railway safety of Great Britain, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Figures for Network SouthEast are not available.

  Airports (Capacity)
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many listed buildings would be demolished or rendered uninhabitable if an additional runway were built as indicated in the report of the runway capacity in the south-east working group at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted.

  Mr. Norris
  RUCATSE stated that were runways to be developed as indicated in the report, the numbers of listed buildings demolished would be: 43 at Heathrow, 13 at Gatwick and 25 at Stansted. The RUCATSE report estimated that a further 55 listed buildings would be rendered uninhabitable in the case of development at Gatwick. No comparable figure is provided in the report for development at Heathrow or at Stansted.
  196

  Traffic (Schools)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria highway authorities are instructed to take into consideration when determining traffic speed limits in the vicinity of schools.

  Mr. Key
  Revised guidance was issued to local authorities in January 1993, setting out the general principles recommended in setting local speed limits. This places more emphasis on the environment, including for example the presence of a school, through which the road passes and less on the need for an accident record on the road in question. Trials are also being conducted on some trunk and local authority roads of variable speed limits outside schools, whereby the limit can be temporarily reduced at arrival and departure times; if these trials show that the variable limits are successful in reducing vehicle speeds and accidents, they may be introduced more widely.

  Cyclists (Accidents)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving cyclists were reported in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Key
  The Department collects data from personal injury road accidents. There were 25,042 injury accidents in 1991 and 24,962 injury accidents in 1992 involving pedal cyclists.

  Speedboat Regulations
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those regulations which apply to the use of speedboats in inshore waters surrounding the United Kingdom; how many prosecutions hav been brought by(a) individuals and (b) local authorities against owners or users of speedboats in the context of the breach of national legislation or local byelaws in each of the past five years; and what consideration is being given to additional restrictions applicable to the onwership or use of such speedboats.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no national regulations governing the ownership and use of recreational craft in inshore waters. Local authorities in England and Wales have powers to make byelaws under section 231 of the Public Health Act 1936 for the regulation of vessels used for pleasure purposes; under section 76 of the Public Health Act 1961, for the regulation of seaside pleasure boats; and under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972, for the regulation and suppression of nuisances by district and borough councils where no other powers are available. In Scotland, local authorities have powers under section 121 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to make byelaws in relation to the sea shore, adjacent waters and inland waters. Separate provisions exist for local authorities in Northern Ireland.

  Figures for prosecutions under byelaws are not collected centrally and no information is readily available on prosecutions by individuals.

  In its first report the National Maritime Safety Steering Committee has drawn attention to problems identified by the district marine safety committees with the making of effective byelaws to control recreational craft on inland and inshore waters. These problems are also considered in a consultation document published in October 1993 by the

  197
  Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office—"Managing the Coast—A review of Coastal Management Plans in England and Wales and the powers supporting them".

  The report of the NMSSC has also drawn attention to a number of recommendations referred to it by the DMSCs relating to the further regulation of recreational craft and their users in the interests of safety. These recommendations are currently under consideration by the Department.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what review he has undertaken of mandatory seat belts in coaches and in vehicles transporting school children; and what conclusions he has reached.

  Mr. Key
  We are currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of seat belts in all coaches and minibuses, not just those used to carry children. This review is not yet complete.

  Light Rapid Transit Schemes
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding has been made available from the private sector towards the development and implementation of light rapid transit schemes in(a) Manchester, (b) Birmingham, (c) south Yorkshire and (d) Leeds and Nottingham.

  Mr. Freeman
  The private sector contributes to the development and implementation of light rapid transit schemes in three ways: expenditure on bids in competitive tenders and associated design work; developer contributions to the construction costs of schemes; and concession payments for contracts to undertake any or all of the design, building, operation and maintenance of a light rapid transit system. Some or all of these types of contribution have been received or are planned in all of the schemes listed. The amounts involved are commercially confidential.

  Heathrow Terminals
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the distance between each of the terminals at Heathrow.

  Mr. Norris
  BAA plc has informed me as follows:

  The central terminal area comprises terminals 1, 2 and 3. Walking distances between the terminals using subway connections are:

  Metres

  Terminal 1 to terminal 2

  392

  Terminal 1 to terminal 3 (arrivals)

  680

  Terminal 1 to terminal 3 (departures)

  676

  Terminal 2 to terminal 3 (arrivals)

  590

  Terminal 2 to terminal 3 (departures)

  568

  The shortest journey from the central terminal area to terminal 4 is by the airside coach route from gate 80 to the transfer passenger point in terminal 4 and is some 3,379 m long. From landside in the central terminal area, the journey to terminal 4 would be about double—some 6,800 m.
  198

  Runway Length
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the length of the runway at(a) Gatwick airport, (b) Glasgow airport, (c) Edinburgh airport, (d) Manchester airport, (e) Luton airport, (f) Birmingham airport, (g) London city aiport, (h) Belfast international airport and (i) Belfast city airport.

  Mr. Norris
  The effective length of a runway depends on direction of use and whether it is being used for takeoff or landing. Takeoff run and landing distance are set out in the table:

  Aerodrome

  Runway

  Takeoff Run (metres)

  Landing distance (metres)

  Gatwick

  08R

  3,159

  2,766

  26L

  3,098

  2,831

  Glasgow

  05

  2,658

  2,658

  23

  2,658

  2,353

  Edinburgh

  07

  2,560

  2,347

  25

  2,560

  2,347

  Manchester

  06

  3,048

  2,621

  24

  3,048

  2,865

  Luton

  08

  2,160

  2,160

  26

  2,160

  2,075

  Birmingham

  15

  2,405

  21,34

  33

  2,405

  2,134

  London City

  10

  1,199

  1,199

  28

  1,199

  1,199

  Belfast Int.

  07

  2,777

  2,777

  25

  2,777

  2,777

  Belfast City

  04

  1,829

  1,737

  22

  1,767

  1,767

  Pedestrian Safety
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Serjeant at Arms and hon. Members about pedestrian safety at the junction of Bridge street and Parliament square; and what action he has taken to improve pedestrian safety at this junction.

  Mr. Norris
  The Serjeant at Arms and the hon. Member have made several representations regarding the timing of pedestrian phases within the traffic lights at Bridge street-Parliament square. Details were passed on to Westminster city council, which is the responsible highway authority. The city council has extended the pedestrian green phase at the corner of Bridge street and Parliament square and installed supplementary signals to assist pedestrians.

  Roads Policy
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the documents which set out his Department's policy on roads issued during the last six years and those sections of the documents which no longer represent Government policy.

  Mr. Key
  The two main documents setting out current roads policy are the 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" and the 1990 roads report "Trunk Roads, England into the 1990's". The aims of the Government's expenditure on roads can be found in the "Department of Transport Report 1993". I will write to my right hon. Friend shortly with a more detailed list of road policy documents.
  199

  Kingsferry Bridge
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the interruption of power to the Kingsferry bridge on the A249 trunk road between the mainland and the Isle of Sheppey and the announcement, later countermanded, that all road traffic could be delayed for hours to allow a ship to pass; if he will make it his policy to give priority to road and rail traffic in such circumstances; and if he will speed up construction of the second Swale crossing.

  Mr. Key
  On Thursday 20 January, because of a loss of power from the electricity suppliers, Seeboard Electricity, British Rail intended to use an emergency generator to open Kingsferry bridge to allow a ship to pass. The generator takes 20 minutes to raise and 20 minutes to lower the bridge.

  At the request of the local Sittingbourne police and after consultation with the British Transport police, BR decided not to open the bridge, because of the extensive traffic congestion this would have caused during the peak traffic period.

  The operation of Kingsferry bridge is a matter for BR in consultation with the British Transport police and the port authorities. They are best placed to judge the conditions prevailing at the time and the limitations placed on their powers to close the bridge for emergency maintenance.

  Public consultation on proposals to improve the A249 between Iwade and Queensborough, which include a second crossing of the Swale, ended on 7 January and we are now considering the response. Start of construction will depend on the completion of design work and the statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  Direct Flights
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which countries with which the United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations there are direct flights from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following are the states recognised by Her Majesty's Government, but with which we do not currently have diplomatic relations:

  Bhutan

  Iraq

  Korea (North)

  Libya

  There are no direct flights from the United Kingdom to any of these.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to restore diplomatic relations with Taiwan; when direct flights from the United Kingdom to Taiwan were resumed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan. EVA Airways and British Asia Airways commenced services from the United Kingdom to Taiwan in March 1993.

  We welcome the increasing development of business links and tourism with Taiwan.
  200

  Airline Regulations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which airline regulations relate to air passengers being handcuffed or bound by arm or leg restraints or a body belt during takeoff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: The only aviation legislation relating to the restraint of passengers is section 94 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 which authorises the commander of an aircraft in flight to take reasonable measures, including bodily restraint, against someone who jeopardises the safety or good order of the aircraft.

  National Air Traffic Control System
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to study the options for the privatisation of the national air traffic control system; and what is his timetable for the study.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: A working group of officials from my Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the Civil Aviation Authority are examining the options for transferring national air traffic services to the private sector. They are looking at the operational, legal, financial and other implications of the options and expect to report to Ministers at the end of February.

  British Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels there were in the British merchant fleet in 1964, 1970, and each year since 1980; and what was the total gross registered tonnage of the British fleet in each year.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: The table gives the information available for merchant—trading—vessels of 100 grt or above.

  Merchant (trading) vessels on registers of United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man

  100 grt or more

  Mid-year

  Number of vessels

  Gross registered tons (thousand)

  1964

  n/a

  21,900

  1970

  n/a

  24,896

  1980

  1,698

  26,070

  1981

  1,552

  24,417

  1982

  1,422

  21,447

  1983

  1,260

  18,148

  1984

  1,151

  14,860

  1985

  1,074

  13,339

  1986

  961

  10,572

  1987

  846

  7,490

  1988

  801

  7,211

  1989

  688

  6,413

  1990

  638

  5,564

  1991

  610

  5,266

  1992

  566

  4,916

  1993

  494

  4,804

  Source: Lloyd's register.

  Transport Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which it has
  201
  received responses regarding the consultation paper on new safety regulations for small passenger ships, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department issued over 1,000 copies of the consultation paper to shipowners associations, ship builders, ship repairers, classification societies and individuals. We received 128 responses from organisations and 11 responses from individuals. It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to which his Department sent, and from which it has received responses regarding the consultation paper on options for the future of ship survey and certification work, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department issued 233 copies of the consultation paper to employees' representatives, Members of Parliament and the House of Lords, shipowners, classification societies, consultants, insurers, equipment suppliers and individuals. We received 73 responses from organisations and seven responses from individuals. It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.

  Merchant Shipping Act 1993
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations to whom his Department sent, and from whom it has received responses, regarding the consultation letter on draft regulations pertaining to the Merchant Shipping Act 1993, together with the addresses of each such organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My Department issued over 200 copies of the consultation papers to trade associations, trading companies, trade unions, academic institutions and central and local government departments, and we received 34 responses —11 from trade associations, 13 from trading companies, one from trade unions, two from academic institutions and seven from central and local government departments. It is not our practice to identify those organisations or individuals who respond to consultation exercises.
  202

  Transport Schemes
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a full list of all schemes announced by his Department as having potential for funding by private finance which are still considered as having potential but which have yet to begin, together with the date on which his Department first announced that it would be inviting expressions of interest from the private sector for each potential scheme;

  (2) if he will publish a full list of all schemes announced by his Department as having potential for funding by private finance which are not now to be undertaken, together with the date on which his Department first announced that it would be inviting expressions of interest from the private sector for each potential scheme;

  (3) if he will publish a full list of all schemes announced by his Department as having potential for funding by private finance which have begun but have yet to be completed, together with the date on which his Department first announced that it would be inviting expressions of interest from the private sector for each potential scheme;

  (4) if he will publish a full list of all schemes announced by his Department as having potential for funding through public-private joint finance which are still considered as having potential but which have yet to begin, together with the date on which his Department first announced that it would be inviting expressions of interest from the private sector for each potential scheme.

  (5) if he will publish a full list of all schemes announced by his Department as having potential for funding through public-private joint finance which have begun, but have yet to be completed, together with the date on which his Department first announced that it would be inviting expressions of interest from the private sector for each potential scheme;

  (6) if he will publish a full list of all schemes announced by his department as having potential for funding through public-private joint finance which are not now to be undertaken, together with the date on which his Department first announced that it would be inviting expressions of interest from the private sector for each potential scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: The information is as follows:

  Dates are given for the invitation of expressions of interest from the private sector for each scheme:

  203

  (a) Public/private joint finance schemes

  (b) Private finance schemes

  I. Begun but not yet completed

  1. Jubilee line extension, announcement 26 July 1989, that it would proceed if developers' contribution forthcoming. Now being constructed.

  1. Second Severn crossing—28 July 1988. Being constructed.

  2. Heathrow Express agreement between parties—16 March 1993. Being constructed.

  2. Birmingham northern relief road—22 May 1989. Going to public inquiry.

  3. Ashford international passenger station—22 March 1993. Construction soon to begin.

  II Yet to begin

  3. Channel tunnel rail link—16 March 1993

  4. New Scottish air traffic control centre—30 November 1993.

  4. Crossrail—16 March 1993.

  5. Modernisation of WCMI—30 November 1993.

  5. Birmingham western orbital route—12 November 1992.

  6. New Tamar crossing—4 April 1990.

  6. Croydon tramlink, London Transport announced private sector interest—25 November 1991.

  7. Lower Thames crossing—4 April 1990.

  8. Mersey crossing—4 April 1990.

  9. A1-M1 Scratchwood link—4 April 1990.1

  10. Chelmsford-M25 link—4 April 1990.1

  11. Rayleigh-M25—4 April 1990.1

  III. Not now to be undertaken

  None.

  12. New motorway in Birmingham-Manchester corridor —22 May 1989.

  1 Subject to decisions on road programme review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Landmines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what controls currently exist on the export of landmines and their designs from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  Export from the United Kingdom of landmines and their designs is prohibited without a licence issued under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992. Landmines are controlled under head ML 4 of the order; technology—which includes engineering designs—for their production is controlledf under head ML 18, and that for their development or use is controlled under head PL 5027. Equipment for their development is controlled under head PL 5017, and software for their development, production or use is controlled under head ML 24. Any application for an export licence under these headings is subject to stringent checks.

  EC Feasibility Awards
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget of the European Community's BRITE/EURAM feasibility awards in each year since their establishment; and what proportion of this was granted to(a) the northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The European Community's budget for BRITE-EURAM feasibility awards since its establishment were:
  204

  Year

  Ecu

  (£)

  1989

  1,500,000

  (1,110,000)

  1990

  1,925,000

  (1,424,500)

  1991–94

  5,631,109

  (4,167,020)

  (a) Feasibility awards are not analysed by region so figures are not available.

  (b) (b) The United Kingdom as a whole won the following proportion of feasibility awards:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1989

  30

  1990

  17

  1991–94

  12

  Feasibility awards represent only 1 per cent. of the total BRITE-EURAM budget.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 11 January 1994,Official Report, column 175, by the Minister for Industry, what preparations his Department has carried out for the implementation of the chemical weapons convention in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department of Trade and Industry is preparing for the establishment of a national authority, to oversee the implementation of the chemical weapons convention in the United Kingdom. The national authority will be located within the DTI. The DTI is in the process of drawing up detailed arrangements for the operation of the chemical weapons convention in the United Kingdom.
  205

  Durham Coalfield
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the projected total annual cost for each year from 1994 to 2000 of the Durham coalfield inland pumping stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The costs of future pumping operations at these locations will depend on the use to which the land is put, the legal obligations of the owners, and any relevant decisions or policy of environmental regulatory bodies, in particular the National Rivers Authority.

  Collieries (Pumping)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the projected annual costs of pumping arrangements for each year from 1994 to 2000 for the Westoe and Wearmouth collieries.

  Mr. Eggar
  The costs of future pumping operations at these will depend on the use to which the land is put, the legal obligations of the owners, and any relevant decisions or policy of environmental regulatory bodies, in particular the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will publish a breakdown of the annual cost of pumping arrangements for each year from 1990 for the Westoe and Wearmouth collieries;

  (2) what were the total annual costs for each year since 1985 of the Durham coalfield inland pumping stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for British Coal.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to each of the regional industrial development boards.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The following is the information:

  North East Industrial Development Board

  Chairman

  Mr. R. F. Bishop CBE

  Members

  Mr. E. Bostwick

  Mr. I. R. Dewhirst

  Mr. C. J. Fleetwood

  Miss S. Guy

  Dr. R. Iley CBE

  Mr. D. R. C. Kelly CBE

  Mr. M. F. Leonard

  Mr. R. A. N. McKechnie MBE

  Sir Paul Nicholson

  Mr. P. Vassallo

  Miss S. Wilson

  North West Industrial Development Board

  Chairman

  Mr. D. L. Davies

  Members

  Mr. J. B. Ashworth MBE

  Mr. E. J. Billington

  Mrs. C. Coates

  Mr. G. N. Elliott CBE

  Mr. E. P. Foden CBE

  Mr. R. G. Ffoulkes-Jones

  Mr. A. Manning

  Mr. A. C. Pilkington

  Mr. A. K. Ruia

  Mr. I. C. Sellars

  Mr. D. Weir

  206

  South West Industrial Development Board

  Chairman

  Mr. R. J. Harris CBE

  Members

  Mr. J. I. Dodds

  Mr. N. C. H. Falls

  Mr. P. G. Fitzgerald OBE

  MR. P. W. Gregory

  MR. D. R. Hancock

  MR. M. J. Jordan

  Mr. A. Loze

  Mr. V. P. Parsons MBE

  Dr. G. S. Stirling

  West Midlands Industrial Development Board

  Chairman

  Mr. R. J. Dickens

  Members

  Mr. B. W. Baker

  Mr. K. D. Day

  Mr. S. A. S. Eccleston

  Mr. G. J. Green

  Mr. R. G. Hodgson, CBE

  Mr. T. S. Kelleher

  Mr. J. H. Millett

  Mr. M. J. Price, CBE

  Dr. A. J. Scanlon

  Mr. B. M. Sedghi

  Mr. M. W. Taylor, OBE

  Yorkshire and Humberside and East Midlands Industrial Development Board

  Chairman

  Mr. P. W. Barker, CBE

  Members

  Mr. J. Clarke

  Mr. J. R. Corrin

  Mr. E. A. K. Denison, OBE TD

  Mr. P. Flesher

  Mr. R. S. Lasseter

  Mr. N. H. W. Lee

  Mr. P. A. Lowe

  Mr. W. McCosh

  Mr. B. Ruffell-Ward

  Mr. A. B. Wilbraham, CBE

  Mr. D. K. Wilkinson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property comprises representatives of business, consumers and the professions. Membership of the committee, whose terms of reference are"to advise on industrial property matters",
  consists of organisations rather than individuals.

  The following organisations are members: the Law Society; the Law Society of Scotland; the Bar Council; the Institute of Patentees and Inventors; the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation; the Confederation of British Industry; the British Retail Consortium; the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers; the Chartered Society of Designers; the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents; the Institute of Trade Mark Agents; the Association of British Chambers of Commerce; the Consumers Association; the National Consumer Council; the Licensing Executives Society of Great Britain and Ireland; academic—university departments specialising in industrial property law, currently represented by university of London, Queen Mary and Westfield college; small firms —Federation of Small Businesses.
  207
  The choice of representative(s) at meetings is a matter for the organisation concerned, and varies according to the subject to be discussed.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Design Council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Current membership of the Design Council is as follows:

  John Sorrell (Chairman)

  Helen Auty

  Duncan Biggin

  Robert Bischof

  Mary Bromley OBE

  John James

  James Kincade CBE

  Michael Ryall

  Anthony Snow

  Barry Weaver

  Ivan Yates CBE

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Information Technology Advisory Board.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current membership of the Information Technology Advisory Board is as follows:

  Name

  Position

  Professor Michael Brady (Chairman)

  Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University

  Professor Malcolm Atkinson

  Department of Computer Science, University of Glasgow

  Dr. Keith Baughan

  Nokia Mobile Phones

  Professor Michael Cardwell

  Department of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics Aston University

  Professor Michael Denham

  Department of Computing, University of Plymouth

  Professor William Eccleston

  Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Liverpool University

  Mr. Geoff Hayes

  Head of Computer Security TSB Bank plc

  Professor Ronald Perrott

  School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Belfast

  Professor John O'Reilly

  University College of North Wales

  Dr. Ian Robertson

  Electronics and Informal ion, Technology Division British Technology Group Ltd.

  Dr. John Taylor

  Executive Director Hewlett Packard Laboratories

  Mr. Martyn Thomas

  Chairman Praxis plc

  Ms Jane Tozer

  Chief Executive Softwright

  Mr. Anthony Ward

  Head of ITSU British Aerospace

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Aviation Committee.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The current membership of the Aviation Committee is as follows:

  Chairman

  Professor J. L. Stollery

  College of Aeronautics

  208

  Cranfield Institute of Technology.

  Members

  N. V. Barber, Esq

  Chairman

  Aerospace and Defence Group

  Smiths Industries plc

  R. H. L. Clark, Esq

  Managing Director

  Flight Refuelling Ltd.

  A. C. D. Cumming, Esq

  Engineering Director

  British Airways plc

  C. C. Gustar

  Managing Director

  Westland Aerospace Ltd.

  D. L. Bernstein, Esq

  Joint Managing Director

  Monarch Airlines

  K. H. Coates, Esq

  Executive Chairman

  Meggitt plc

  L. A. Edwards, Esq

  Chief Executive, Dowty

  T. I. Group plc

  Professor K. Hayward

  Senior Course Tutor

  School of Social Sciences

  Staffordshire University

  Mr. L. Lynn

  Vice President

  Airlines and Aerospace Department

  Citibank, NA.

  J. E. V. Rose, Esq

  Director—Corporate Development

  Rolls-Royce plc

  F. Turner, Esq

  Managing Director

  Lucas Aerospace Ltd.

  R. W. R. McNulty, Esq

  President

  Short Brothers plc

  B. S. G. Tucker, Esq

  Director of Programmes

  GEC-Marconi Avionics plc

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Domestic Coal Consumers Council.

  Mr. Eggar
  The members of the Domestic Coal Consumers Council as at 21 January 1994 are:

  Mrs. Ann Scully (Chairman)

  Mr. Douglas G. Barrett, MBE

  Dr. Peter Clarke

  Professor Ralph T. Hart

  Mr. Noel Hunter

  Mrs. Juliet Jowitt, JP

  Mr. Brian G. Luker

  Mr. Donald J. Mockett

  Mrs. Nuala P. O'Loan

  Mrs. Winifred Parry, MBE

  Ms Rosemarie A. Pell, JP

  Mr. Lawrence I. Speare

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the British Overseas Trade Board.

  Mr. Needham
  The current members of the British Overseas Trade Board are:

  Sir Derek Hornby—Chairman

  HRH The Duke of Kent KG—Vice Chairman

  Sir Hugh Bidwell GBE—Chairman—British Invisibles

  G. J. Bull—Chief Executive Grant Metropolitan plc

  R. S. Burman CBE DL—Chairman and Managing Director—Teledictor Ltd.

  Sir Colin Chandler—Chief Executive—Vickers plc

  Sir Alan Cockshaw—Chairman AMEC plc

  209

  Mrs. H. M. Cropper—Chief Executive—F. I. Group plc

  I. L. Dave OBE—Chairman Dale Electric International plc

  H. J. Davies—Director General Confederation of British Industry

  Ms J. Hall—Chairman and Chief Executive—Coley Porter Bell

  Dr. A. Hayes CBE—Director (retired) ICI plc

  D. Lanigan CBE—Non-Executive Director—Marks and Spencer plc

  F. R. Mingay CMG—Director General Export Promotion, Department of Trade and Industry

  H. B. G. Montgomery—Chairman—Andy Montgomery Ltd.

  The Right Hon. Sir Michael Palliser GCMG PC—Deputy Chairman—Samuel Montague and Co. Ltd.

  D. Peake—Chairman—Kleinworth Benson Ltd.

  C. W. Roberts CB—Deputy Secretary—Department of Trade and Industry

  B. D. Taylor CBE—Executive Chairman—Medeva plc

  D. J. Wright CMG LVO—Deputy Under Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  W. B. Willott—Chief Executive—Export Credit Guarantee Department

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Industrial Development Advisory Board.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The following is the information:

  Chairman

  Sir Anthony Cleaver

  Members

  Mr. M. R. Bates

  Mr. P. Benton

  Mr. M. P. D. Bullock

  Mr. C. N. Davies

  Sir David Hardy

  Mr. J. Hewitt

  Mr. G. Mackenzie

  Mr. M. Taylor

  Mr. L. J. Weaver CBE

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Gas Consumers Council.

  Mr. Eggar
  The members and regional councillors of the Gas Consumers Council as at 21 January 1994 are:

  Mr. Samuel J. Cooper (Chairman)

  Mr. Graham E. Andrews (Regional Councillor)

  Mrs. Catherine Blight (Member)

  Mr. David T. Bowers (Regional Councillor)

  Mr. John. K. M. Gilbert (Regional Councillor)

  Professor Gerald J. Goodhardt MA (Regional Councillor)

  Mr. John K. Hosker (Member)

  Mrs. J. M. Lang (Regional Councillor)

  Mr. Stephen Macey BA (Member)

  Mrs. S. P. Matthews BSC (Regional Councillor)

  Mrs. Eileen G. Polgreen (Member)

  Mr. Alan P. Preece (Regional Councillor)

  Mr. Nicholas A. Ridley (Member)

  Professor (Arthur) John Surrey (Member)

  Mrs. Ruth K. Thorley (Regional Councillor)

  Mrs. Wendy Witter (Regional Councillor and Deputy Chairman)

  Mrs. Patricia Wynne OBE (Regional Councillor)

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Copyright Tribunal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current members of the Copyright Tribunal are as follows:

  Chairman

  Mr. Michael Bowers OBE

  Deputy Chairmen

  Mr. Brian Gill QC PHD

  Mr. Hugh Laddie QC

  Ordinary Members

  210

  Mr. Hugh Brett

  Mr. Paddy Cribb

  Mr. Laurie Farrington

  Mrs. Angela Howorth

  Sir Michael Lickiss

  Mr. Arthur Rayner

  Mr. Peter Sebastian CBE

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Innovation Advisory Board.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Innovation Advisory Board, as then constituted was wound up in September 1993. At that time the external members of the IAB were:

  Chairman

  Lord Chilver

  Chairman

  EEC Group plc

  Dr. Stuart Burgess

  Consultant

  Immuno International AG

  Mr. Richard Duggan

  Chairman

  Crosfield Chemicals

  Dr. Ken W. Grey

  Executive Chairman

  Thorn Software

  Mr. Len Weaver

  Chairman

  Jones and Shipman

  Sir David Cooksey

  Chairman

  Advent Ltd.

  Mr. Richard Freeman

  Corporate Chief Economist

  ICI Group

  Mr. Michael Henderson

  Chief Executive

  Ronar Services Ltd.

  Dr. Peter Williams

  Chief Executive

  Oxford Instruments

  Since its inception in 1988 the IAB had a widely acknowledged reputation as a strong and effective champion of innovation and a very valuable source of advice to DTI. However, taking account of the publication of the science, engineering and technology White Paper, "Realising our Potential" in May 1993, the advisory structures being established by the Office of Science and Technology and the steps DTI is taking to develop closer links with business my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade agreed with the Lord Chilver and members of the IAB that the role of the board should be reviewed.

  No decision has been taken on the structure of any successor arrangements.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the English Industrial Estates Corporation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The current members of the English Industrial Estates Corporation are as follows:

  Sir Idris Pearce CBE TD—Chairman

  Sir Kenneth Stowe GCB CVO—Deputy Chairman

  Mr. Reay Atkinson CB

  Mr. Euan Macfarlane CBE

  Mr. Ron Norman OBE

  Mr. Tony Pender CBE—Chief Executive

  Sir Norman Wakefield

  211

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations to which his Department awarded consultancy work in 1992 and 1993 together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultancy contracts awarded centrally by the Department of Trade and Industry to all organisations in 1992 and 1993 plus the total value of those contracts are as detailed in the tables. The values of individual contracts are commercially confidential.

  Organisations to which consultancy contracts were issued in 1992

  Name of company

  ABB Global Engineering

  AD Technologies

  AEA Industrial Technology

  Aegis Systems Ltd.

  Agniconsult

  Amp Computer Recruitment Ltd.

  Amp Systems Ltd.

  Amps Limited

  Andrew Irving Associates

  Annabel Jackson Associates

  Anshar Limited

  Apertus

  APM Ltd.

  Appleton Associates Int.

  Applied Electromagnetics Limited

  Aspen Business Communications plc

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Association of Print and Packaging

  Barton Marketing Services

  Beechcroft Commercial Systems

  Benchmark Research Limited

  Beta Technology Ltd.

  BHR Group Limited

  BIS Applied Systems

  BIS Information Services Ltd.

  BJM Research

  John T. Boyd Company

  Bradford University

  Brameur Ltd.

  Brantwood Consulting

  Bristol University

  British Aerospace Space Ltd.

  British Materials Handling BOA

  British Technology Group

  British Textile Technology Group

  Brook Street

  Building Services Research

  Burrups Limited

  Business Market and Research plc

  Business IT Solutions

  Business Management Promotions Ltd.

  Buxton Douglass Ltd.

  CAD-CAM Data Exchange

  Technical Centre (CADDETC)

  Cambashi Ltd.

  Cambridge Consultants Ltd.

  Cambridge Material Corrosion

  CAMINUS

  Capita Group plc

  Centre for Adhesive Technology

  Charles Barker Ltd.

  Cheshire Precision Shape Ltd.

  Chesterton Consulting Group

  Chris Makemson Consultants Ltd.

  Clearaway International Holdings Ltd.

  CMG Information Service Public Sector

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Compupro Limited

  Computer Consultants

  Computer Training and Education Centre (CTEC)

  Concorde Services Ltd.

  Concurrant Computer Corporation Ltd.

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Corinne Flemming Associates

  Cornwall County Council

  212

  Corporate Strategy Consultants

  Cranfield School of Management

  Croft Communication Consultants

  CSC Computer Science Ltd.

  CSS Software Solutions Ltd.

  Dataflex Service Ltd.

  Dataquest Ltd.

  David Perchard Associates

  Defence Research Agency

  Digital Equipment Company Ltd.

  DISC

  DRM Group Ltd.

  DP Support Services Ltd.

  DPP International Ltd.

  Energy Technology Support Unit

  Environmental Resourse Ltd.

  ERA Technology Ltd.

  Ernst and Young

  Essex University

  ETSU

  Evisa Systems

  Export Industries

  FI Group plc

  Findlay Publications

  FI Tech Inc.

  Forbes Partnership Ltd.

  Forman Computer Staff Ltd.

  Frazer-Nash Consultancy Ltd.

  Geoff Fordham Associates

  Glamorgan University

  Gordon Kirk Ltd.

  Halper and Woolfe

  Henley Computer Services Ltd.

  Hertis Information Research

  Hoskyns Group plc

  Ibis Information Services Ltd.

  ICL

  ICM Marketing Ltd.

  IFS Ltd.

  IFT Market Research

  Infologistix Ltd.

  Ingres Ltd.

  Innovation Research

  Interdisciplinary Research Centre University of Cambridge

  Intermatrix

  ISVR Consultancy Services

  IT World

  John Matchett Ltd.

  Keele University

  Kennedy and Donkin Power Ltd.

  Kent Technology Transfer Centre

  Kermon Ltd.

  Key Punch Girls Agency Ltd.

  Kings College London

  Kleinworth Benson

  KPG Computer Support Services Ltd.

  KPMG Management Consultants

  L. J. Associates

  Les Probert Associates

  Lesley and Page Services Ltd.

  Level 7

  Linguacubun Ltd.

  Lloyds Register Quality Assurance Ltd.

  Logica CES Ltd.

  London Business School

  London Regional Technology Centre

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  London School of Economics (OMIT)

  Lorien Computer Services

  Malcolm Associates Ltd.

  Manchester Design Technology

  Manchester University

  Manpower plc

  MAPP Computer Facilities Ltd.

  March Consulting Group

  March Systems

  Marchland Consulting Ltd.

  Marine Technology Directorate

  Marine Technology Support Unit

  Market Research Network

  213

  Market Improvements Group plc

  MBM Consulting Ltd.

  MDS Transmodal

  Meeting Deadlines Ltd.

  Metal Research Semi Conductors

  Metocean plc

  Metra Martech

  Michael Barrat Ltd.

  Michael Neale and Associates Ltd.

  Michael Shortlands Associates

  Microtron Systems Ltd.

  Microwave and Antenna Systems

  Microwave Consultants Ltd.

  Mike Griffith Asociates

  Millennium

  MITI Consulting Ltd.

  MMT Computing plc

  Morgan Clements Ltd.

  Multiple Access Communications Ltd.

  National Institute of Economic and Social Research

  National Physical Laboratory (OMIT)

  National Transcommunication

  Nesco

  Neville Way (Omit)

  Neville Russell

  Northern Development Company

  Norton Motors

  Nottingham University

  ODI Ltd.

  Optimat Ltd.

  Orsand Ltd.

  Oxford Innovation Ltd.

  P-Four Consulting Ltd.

  PA Cambridge Economic Consultants

  PA Consulting Group

  Palmlace Ltd.

  Parter International Inc.

  Paul A. Hill and Co

  Pera International

  Petroleum Science and Technology Institute

  Pieda Plc

  Pims Associates

  Pira International

  Polytechnic of Wales

  PPS Management Consultancy

  Praxis Systems plc

  Prest Manchester University

  Price Project Service Ltd.

  Price Waterhouse

  Private Service Corporation

  Pro Laser

  Profitstart

  Proned

  Purchasepoint

  P-E Batelas

  P-E International

  QLM Associations Imc

  Quality Projects

  Quantex Consultancy

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  Quotec

  Ralph H. Pickering and Associates

  Reed Posen Consultants Ltd.

  Repim Ltd.

  Ricardo Consulting Engineers

  Ricardo Hitec Ltd.

  Rolls Royce

  RPS Group plc

  RTR Management Consulting Ltd.

  Russell House Associates

  Rutherford Appleton Lab

  Salford University

  Saxton Bampfylde International plc

  SBS Ltd.

  Scientific Generics

  Sciotech

  Segal Quince Wicksteed Ltd.

  Select Training and Consultancy

  Sia-Langton

  Simplicity Computer and Network Ltd.

  214

  Sir Michael Kerry (Omit)

  Sira Limited

  Smiths Associates Ltd.

  Social Survey Gallup Poll

  Solent Regional Technology Centre

  South Eastern Regional Research Lab.

  Southampton University

  SRI International Europe

  SRU Ltd.

  Steer Davies and Gleave Ltd.

  Strategem Ltd.

  Strategic Sponsorship Ltd.

  Strategic Vision

  Stategy Group

  Strathclyde University

  Structural and Relational Systems Ltd.

  Sue Beardon Consultancy

  Survey Research Associates Ltd.

  Systec Consultants Ltd.

  Tamesis Partnership

  Taskforce Group plc

  Taylor Woodrow

  Taylor-Stewart Associates

  Technology Partnerships Ltd.

  Technopolis Ltd.

  Teknowledge

  Templetrend Ltd.

  Text Matters

  Thames Valley Technology Centre

  The Beacon Group

  The Management Consulting Group

  The UK Science Park Association

  The Welding Institute

  Tillinghast

  Tilly International Ltd.

  Total EC Computing

  Touche Ross and Co.

  Transcend Technology Ltd.

  Transslimina Ltd.

  Trellick Ltd.

  Trends Business Research

  Tyzack and Partners Ltd.

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Unived Technologies Ltd.

  University of Bradford

  University of Hull

  University of Kent

  University of London

  University of Oxford

  University of Surrey

  University of Wales

  University of York

  Urbed Development

  Vector Fields Ltd.

  Warwick Business School

  Worthy Associates

  WRC plc

  York Consulting Ltd.

  Zoom Production Company

  Total value of these contracts is £36,423,000.

  Organisations to which consultancy contracts were issued in 1993

  Name of Company

  Abacus Communications

  Acer Consultants Limited

  AEA Industrial Technology

  Aegis Systems Ltd.

  Agapiou

  Alpha Numeric

  Amp Systems Limited

  Andrea Foote and Associates

  Anshar Limited

  Apertus Limited

  Arkay Associates

  Aspen Business Communications plc

  Axsis Consultants Limited

  Barclays De Zoete Wedd Limited

  Barlow Lyde & Gilbert

  Beddows and Company

  Benchmark Research Limited

  215

  Berring Hine Management Consultants

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  Booz Allen and Hamilton International (UK) Limited

  Bournemouth University

  Bradtec Limited

  Brameur Limited

  Brantwood Consulting

  Bristol University

  British Market Research Bureau

  Brook Street Bureau

  BSRIA

  Burrups Limited

  Business and Trade Statistics

  Business Call Direct (Europe) Limited

  Business Design Group Limited

  Caci Limited

  Cambridge University

  Campaign Warfare

  Capita Group plc

  Careers Research and Advisory Centre Limited

  CCD Limited

  Centre for Adhesive Technology (CAT)

  Children's Research Unit

  Chris Makeson Consultants

  Clemdale Associates

  Commercial Union Risk Management Limited

  Commodities Research Unit Limited

  Company Reporting Limited

  Computer 2000

  Consensus Research International

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Coptic Films Limited

  Cornwall County Council

  Corporate Strategy Consultants

  Countrywide Communications Management

  County Natwest Limited

  CPL Scientific Limited

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  Crown Business Communications

  David Forsythe Associates Limited

  David Perchard Associates

  David Reay and Associates

  Design Council Midlands Office

  Disc

  DMR Group Limited

  DP Support Services Limited

  Durham University Business School

  Ecotec Research and Consulting Limited

  Entech Energy Consultants Limited

  Era Technology Limited

  Ernst and Young

  Ethos Management Limited

  European Industrial Forecasting Limited

  Eurostrategy Consultants Limited

  Findlay Publications

  Focus North West Limited

  Forbes Partnership Limited

  Go-Sat International

  Grosvenor Consultancy Services

  Halpern and Woolf

  Henley Computer Services

  Heriot Watt University

  Hertis Information and Research

  HMS Personnel Services

  Hull University

  Ice Ergonomics

  ICL

  IFS Limited

  Imperial College London

  Information Research Network

  Institute of Occupational Ergonomics

  Institute of Exports

  Intac Associates

  Intermatrix Limited

  International Training Service Limited

  IT Services (Group C)

  IT World

  J. H. Fenner and Co. Limited

  John T. Boyd Company

  Kermon Limited

  216

  Korea Business Services

  KPMG Management Consultants

  L. and J. Associates Limited

  Lamb Associates

  Les Probed Associates

  Level-7 Limited

  Logica-Ces Limited

  Mai Engineering Limited

  Management Consulting Group

  Manpower UK Limited

  March Consulting Group

  Maygrove Consulting Group Limited

  McAlpine Thorpe & Warder Limited

  MDS Transmodal

  Mediascene Limited

  Medical Research Council

  Meeting Deadlines Limited

  Merz and McLellan

  Metal Bulletin plc

  Metra Martech Limited

  Michael Shortland Associates

  MMM Consultancy Group Limited

  Morgan Clements Limited

  Morgan Harris Burroughs

  MORI

  National Society for Epilepsy

  Neville Russell

  Nottingham Polytechnic

  OHS Limited

  Optimat Limited

  PA Cambridge Economic Consultants Limited

  PA Consulting Group

  Pannell Kerr Forster Associates

  Pera International

  Perfect Recall Limited

  Peritas Learning Systems

  Personnel Training Services (PTS)

  Peter Saunders Associates

  PFA Limited

  Phillips Export Training Services

  Porter Burrows Design Limited

  PREST

  Price Waterhouse

  Prof-It-Strat Limited

  Protus Limited

  Purchasing and Supply Consultants

  Putnam Hayes and Bartlett Limited

  P-E International Management Consultants

  P-E International plc—Computer Services

  P-Four Consultancy Limited

  Quarto Consulting International

  Quotient Communications

  Quo-Tec Limited

  Radix Consultancy Limited

  Reynolds and Associates Limited

  Robert Fleming & Company Limited

  RPS Group plc

  Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

  Salford University Business Services Limited

  Sambrook Research International

  Saxton Bampfylde International plc

  Schofield Maguire

  Scientific Generics

  Scott Barrett

  SD Scicon

  Secure Information Systems Limited

  Segal Quince Wicksteed Limited

  Sensitive Systems Limited

  Sepsu The Royal Society

  Seguelogic Limited

  Service Limited

  Shreeveport Limited

  SIA Limited

  Simon Petroleum Technology

  Small World Connections Limited

  Smith Rea Energy Associates Limited

  Smith System Engineering Limited

  Solid Solutions Associates

  Sound Sense Training

  South West Productivity

  217

  SRU Limited

  Stareblaze Limited

  Steve Roberts Limited

  Stoker Associates Limited

  Stoy Hayward Consulting

  Sudbury Consultants Limited

  Sussex University

  Teknowledge Limited

  Text Matters

  Thames Valley Technology

  The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

  The Consultancy Corporation Limited

  The Corporate Intelligence Group Limited

  The Mail Marketing Company

  The Outhouse Marketing Company

  Thomas Howell Group

  Touche Ross & Co.

  TQM International Limited

  Transport Study Group—University College

  UK Cals Industry Council

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  United Technologies Limited

  University of Bradford

  University of Kent

  University of Edinburgh

  University of Keele

  University of Westminster

  Uni-Tech Limited

  Urbecon

  Verity Inc.

  Wardell Armstrong

  Warwick Business School

  West Wales Software

  World Wide Pictures Limited

  WS Atkins Consultants Limited

  X/Open

  Total Value of these contracts is £29,323,000.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 646, how many Christmas cards were sent at public expense in 1993 by his Department's Ministers; and how much this cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Minister for Trade sent out some 500 cards. They cost £385·14.

  Cyprus (Oil Sales)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the monthly sale of oil from United Kingdom registered companies to Cyprus in each month since July 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  Monthly exports of oil by the United Kingdom to Cyprus since July 1992 are as follows:

  Value of United Kingdom oil1 export to Cyprus

  £ thousand

  1992

  July

  202

  August

  116

  September

  131

  October

  187

  November

  107

  December

  89

  Total

  832

  1993

  January

  96

  February

  199

  March

  118

  April

  182

  218

  £ thousand

  May

  171

  June

  74

  July

  187

  August

  184

  September

  142

  October

  167

  November

  139

  Total

  1,660

  Overall Total

  2,492

  1 Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials; ie. Division 33 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  The figures relate to all United Kingdom exports of oil to Cyprus. Statistics relating specifically to United Kingdom registered companies are not available.

  Severance Schemes
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details of the severance schemes available to employees which were in operation immediately prior to the privatisation of the Thames Water Authority, including details of facilities to make early payment of pensions to staff under such schemes.

  Mr. Eggar
  This subject is a matter for the boards of the respective utilities companies. I have passed on this request to the chairmen of British Gas and British Telecommunications and to the president of the Electricity Association.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are two special advisers and one chief economic adviser with the status of special adviser in the Department. None is seconded from other organisations.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names and positions held of the members of the contact group which will be assisting the steering group on fire safety matters.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Membership of the contact group assisting the steering group for the review of fire safety at present comprises:

  Mr. Stewart Kidd

  Director, Fire Prevention Association.

  Mr. David Smith

  President, Institute of Building Control.

  Mr. William Yates

  Manager (Fire and Security) Shell UK Ltd.

  Mr. Alfred Thompson

  Chief Officer, Durham Fire Brigade

  Mr. Richard Saxon

  Partner, Building Design Partnership

  I intend to add a representative of the hotel industry to the contact group shortly.
  219

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive British Coal's fifth report on the administration of the coal mining subsidence damage repair and compensation scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have now received this report from British Coal and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Manufactured Food Products (Export)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value, for the most recent 12-month period available, of exports of manufactured food products to(a) Russia, (b) Hungary and (c) Czechoslovakia; and what are the corresponding figures over each of the previous three years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: Trade statistics have been available for Russia only since

  1989 £'000s

  1990 £'000s

  1991 £'000s

  1992 £'000s

  Soviet Union

  148,503

  155,089

  20,139

  97,748

  Hungary

  540

  920

  1,269

  2,079

  Czechoslovakia

  794

  1,191

  2,035

  2,822

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to announce those areas designated under objective 2 and objective 5(b); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 16 December 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 18 January, Official Report, column 517.

  Steel
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the meetings which he has held with British steel producers to discuss the December 1993 EC agreement on surplus capacity in the steel industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: I and my officials maintained close contact with the industry both before and during the 17 December Industry Council. Officials briefed the British Iron and Steel Producers Association on the outcome before Christmas, and I have since written to the chairman of British Steel.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the procedures established by his Department in order to monitor the implementation of the December 1993 EC agreement on steel capacity;

  (2) if he will make a statement on current progress towards the implementation of the December 1993 EC agreement on surplus capacity in the steel industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answers 24 January 1994]: On 17 December, the Industry Council gave its assent to proposals under article 95 ECSC to allow state aid towards the costs of restructuring six steel companies in four member states.
  220
  the beginning of 1993. Since the beginning of last year, separate figures have been published on the Czech and Slovak Republics to reflect the break-up of Czechoslovakia.

  The value of exports of manufactured food products —classifications 01–09 of the standard international trade classification, revision 3, which include cereals and cereal preparations—in the period from 1 January to 31 October 1993, were as follows:

  £ thousands

  Russia

  142,779

  Hungary

  2,657

  Czech Republic

  3,246

  Slovak Republic

  162

  The value of manufactured food exports to the former Soviet Union, Hungary and former Czechoslovakia for the three previous years are set out in the table:

  The monitoring of state aids approved under article 95 ECSC is primarily for the Commission, which will report to the Council; but DTI officials will maintain a watching brief on all six cases, including direct liaison with United Kingdom representatives in the relevant member states for news of their progress.

  Tours Direct
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps were taken by his Department to protect the public after Companies House struck Tours Direct off its register.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: This matter is for Companies House. I have, therefore, asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Nigel Griffiths, dated 24 January 1994:
  You tabled the following Parliamentary Question:
  "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what steps were taken by this Department to protect the public after Companies House struck Tours Direct off their register".
  As this matter is my responsibility as Chief Executive and Registrar of Companies House, I am writing to you direct.
  Section 652 of the Companies Act 1985, provides me with authority to dissolve companies which I have reasonable cause to believe are no longer carrying on in business or in operation.
  In the case of Tours Direct Limited, correspondence received from accountants acting on behalf of the company, indicated that the company was no longer carrying on in business or in operation. Accordingly, formal inquiry letters were issued to the company at its registered office in accordance with the requirements of section 652(1) and 652(2) of the Companies Act 1985.
  A director of the company subsequently confirmed that the company was no longer in operation and a notice was published in the London Gazette on 29 June 1993, of my intention to strike the company off the register at the expiration of 3 months, unless cause was shown to the contrary. A copy of this notice was placed on the public file and sent to the company on the same date.

  221
  In the absence of any objections to this action being received, the company was struck off the register on 10 October 1993 and dissolved by notice in the London Gazette of 19 October 1993. To date, I have not received any complaints concerning the removal of the company name from the register.
  As to the matter of protection afforded to the public, section 653 of the Companies Act 1985 enables any creditor of a dissolved company to petition the Court to restore the name of the company to the register. Once restored, a company is deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been struck off. In addition, the Court may also give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position, as nearly as may be, as if the company's name had not been struck off.
  I trust that I have interpreted the question which you have tabled correctly and that I have covered the points raised. Should you, however, require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Perjury Act 1911 (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions there have been under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 concerning fake declarations to the Registrar of Companies with regard to transactions covered by a company's articles of association; and who is responsible for initiating prosecutions.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: Our records are not kept in such a form that this information is readily available. No prosecutions have been brought by this Department in the last two years in the circumstances referred to in the question. Such prosecutions would normally be handled by this Department, but in some circumstances might be brought by other prosecuting authorities.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the objective of removing equal opportunities requirements from private contractors for government contracts.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 20 January 1994,Official Report, column 776.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Employees
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the disability organisations with which he has met to discuss the requirement upon employers to pay a contribution towards the purchase of special equipment and services for disabled employees enshrined in the access to work proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met representatives of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, MENCAP, the Spinal Injuries Association, RADAR and Deaf Accord to discuss several aspects of the new scheme access to work which he announced on 22 June 1993,Official Report, column 102.
  222
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement outlining how he intends to monitor the effectiveness of his Department's access to work proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A full evaluation of access to work will be carried out after its first full year of operation. The evaluation will consider the effectiveness of access to work in meeting its stated aims and will consider statistical information provided by placing assessment and counselling teams, as well as information provided through research.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many responses were received to the consultative document on the sheltered employment funding system; how many were(a) totally in favour and (b) totally against; and how many gave specific reservations;

  (2) how many fully funded places in sheltered workshops have been available in each of the past five years; and what are the expected figures for the next two years;

  (3) what has been the level of training grants allocated to sheltered workshops in each of the past five years; and what is the expected level for each of the next two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 25 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the responses received to the consultative document on the Sheltered Employment funding system, and the number of places available in and the level of training grants allocated to sheltered workshops.
  A number of changes to the current way in which we fund Sheltered Employment were proposed in a recent consultative document. The consultation on these proposals ended on 13 September 1993 and responses are still being considered. The 115 responses received were generally supportive, but none were totally in favour or totally against our proposals—we would not have expected this to be otherwise as the consultation process was intended to elicit comments. Implementation of changes will not take place, however, until we are satisfied that the interests of severely disabled people will be best served.
  The number of places we supported in local authority and voluntary body sheltered workshops over the last five years is:

  Number

  1989

  5,520

  1990

  5,476

  1991

  5,209

  1992

  5,060

  1993

  4,838

  Figures are for those supported on 31 March in each year and cover approved workers and trainees. Future plans are based on our supporting 4,900 workshop places in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Sheltered workshops are only one part of the Sheltered Employment Programme; this also includes help to people with disabilities through the Sheltered Placement Scheme (SPS) and Remploy. Whilst the number of people supported in sheltered workshops has declined over the period, the overall number of people helped through the Programme has been maintained. The figures below illustrate this:
  223

  Number

  1989

  19,276

  1990

  20,650

  1991

  20,777

  1992

  20,722

  1993

  20,386

  Future plans are to help at least 20,800 people through the Programme in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Training grants paid to sheltered workshops comprise payment of an employee's basic workshop wage for an agreed period plus a contribution towards the cost of fees for externally purchased training. Employees' wages vary from workshop to workshop and year to year. There is, therefore, no standard grant payable for this item. Payment of training fees is based on reimbursement of actual costs subject to a maximum of £1,400 per person per annum (£27·88 per person per week). This has remained unchanged over the last five years. The abolition of payments for training wages and fees from 1 April 1994 is one of the items being considered in the review of Sheltered Employment funding. A very small number of workshops claimed assistance for wages and fees and it has been proposed that the money set aside for this should be added to the overall money available to local authorities and voluntary bodies for helping all individuals assisted through the Programme.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Slaughter Industry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the slaughter industry in each year since 1985.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on employment in the slaughter industry is available only from the periodic censuses of employment and is as follows:

  Number of employees in employment in the slaughter industry1 in Great Britain, September of each year

  Year

  Number

  1984

  90,200

  1987

  92,500

  1989

  91,800

  1991

  95,100

  1 Group 412 of the standard industrial classification 1980.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the most recent residence-based unemployment rates for London by(a) borough and (b) constituency giving the figures overall and broken down for male and female; and what is the change in number of unemployed claimants in London by (i) borough and (ii) constituency for the same month in each of the last six years and the change since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At present, official unemployment rates are not available for areas smaller than the self-contained labour markets known as travel-to-work areas.

  Unadjusted data on the numbers of unemployment claimants for each local authority district and parliamentary constituency are available on a monthly basis from June 1983 onwards. The data can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.
  224

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of support will be available to Great Britain from the European social fund under objectives 3 and 4 from 1994 to 1999.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government welcome last Wednesday's announcement by the European Commission that Great Britain will receive approximately £2,500 million between 1994 and 1999 from the European social fund for expenditure under objectives 3 and 4 of the European Community's structural funds, outside objective 1 regions.

  Objective 3 is targeted at helping young people who are joining the labour market, long-term unemployed people and other people facing particular disadvantages in finding and keeping work. The Government value the important contribution made over the years by the ESF to helping young and unemployed people in Britain prepare or compete effectively for jobs.

  In the course of the negotiations on the reform of the structural funds last year, it was agreed that member states should be free to decide the balance of objective 3 and 4 in their respective countries. Objective 4 is targeted at workers still in employment. The Government's consistent view has been that the ESF should continue to concentrate first and foremost on helping unemployed people.

  The Government plan therefore to devote the available ESF resources for objectives 3 and 4 to helping unemployed people under objective 3 for the foreseeable future.

WALES

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details for the latest convenient date of all ambulance response times reported to his office.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The ambulance service classifications in Wales and their standards for emergency call response times are:

  50 per cent. within Minutes

  95 per cent. within Minutes

  South Glamorgan

  Population, density: more than 3 persons per acre

  7

  14

  Clwyd, Gwent, Mid and West Glamorgan

  Population density: between 0·5 and 3 persons per acre

  8

  18

  East Dyfed, Gwynedd, Pembrokeshire and Powys

  Population density: less than 0·5 persons per acre

  8

  21

  The latest available information, for the three months ending 30 September 1993, is shown in the table:

  225

  Percentage arriving within 50 per cent. Standard Response Time

  Percentage arriving within 95 per cent. Standard Response Time

  Clwyd

  63

  98

  East Dyfed

  60

  93

  Gwent

  52

  97

  Gwynedd

  55

  96

  Mid Glamorgan

  59

  100

  Pembrokeshire

  44

  90

  Powys

  45

  89

  South Glamorgan

  57

  94

  West Glamorgan

  58

  94

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what approval in principle he has given to schemes of rationalisation of the ambulance service in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 21 January 1994,Official Report, column 875.

  Discharge and deaths, by type of admission

  1989–901

  1990–911

  1991–922

  1992–93

  Non-psychiatric

  Elective

  257,698

  252,672

  286,000

  n/a

  Emergency

  231,153

  240,546

  250,000

  n/a

  Other3

  28,979

  27,264

  85,000

  n/a

  Total

  517,830

  520,482

  621,000

  650,000

  Psychiatric

  Elective

  n/a

  n/a

  4,000

  n/a

  Emergency

  n/a

  n/a

  11,000

  n/a

  Other

  n/a

  n/a

  2,000

  n/a

  Total

  16,000

  17,000

  18,000

  18,000

  1 Based on the hospital activity analysis system which was replaced in April 1991 by the patient episode database for Wales.

  2 Estimates based on incomplete database data, reconciled with aggregate hospital returns known to be more complete in coverage particularly in respect of day cases. The data are therefore not fully comparable with earlier years.

  3 Includes patients transferred from other hospitals and babies born in hospital. From April 1991 also includes maternity patients.

  n/a Not available.

  River Dee
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the flood defence embankments of the River Dee from Connah's quay to Saltney in respect of high tides; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am aware that these flood embankments were assessed as part of the recent sea defence survey undertaken by the National Rivers Authority and were considered to be in good order. This is due, for the most part, to the significant improvement works that have been carried out by the authority and its predecessors, in recent years. Much of this work has been undertaken with grant aid from the Department.
  226

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the total cost of employing managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in national health service hospitals in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) how many cars have been allocated to national health service managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in each of the last five years for which figures are available;

  (3) how many cars have been allocated to the managers, advisers and administrators employed by the national health service trust hospitals in each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Hospital Admissions
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many admissions to national health service hospitals for each of the last three years for which figures are available were elective admission and how many were emergency admissions.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the table:

  Dobshill Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Dobshill hospital, Clwyd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Nurses (Allocation of Cars)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cars have been allocated to NHS nurses in(a) the hospital service and (b) the community service in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  227
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Meadowsleigh Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Meadowsleigh hospital, Penyffordd, Clwyd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Housing Association Properties
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing association properties there are in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 1.4 of "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 13, 1993", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Minerals Planning Guidance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on minerals planning guidance in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To date, a total of 11 minerals planning guidance notes have been produced by the Welsh Office jointly with the Department of the Environment. A further guidance, "Treatment of Disused Mine Openings and the Availability of Information on Mined Ground", is to be published shortly. "Opencast Coal Mining" and "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales" are the subject of review.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of local authority houses currently under construction in each of the local authority areas; how many houses have been constructed in each of the years from 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the construction of local authority dwellings and housing association houses is published in "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 13, 1993", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Broughton Special Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future use of Broughton special hospital, Clwyd.

  £000

  Health authority

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  352

  354

  434

  512

  501

  East Dyfed

  220

  284

  222

  208

  165

  Gwent

  17

  13

  20

  107

  128

  Gwynedd

  178

  214

  216

  222

  133

  Mid Glamorgan

  45

  74

  114

  174

  212

  Pembrokeshire

  77

  105

  105

  99

  155

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  40

  23

  52

  67

  66

  West Glamorgan

  83

  97

  129

  159

  186

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  Pembrokeshire NHS trust annual accounts.

  Notes:

  1. The above data are only available by health authority.

  2. Consists of private in-patients—section 65—and accommodation and services provided under section 58 of the NHS Act 1977.

  3. Data for Pembrokeshire in 1992–93 relate to income received by the Pembrokeshire NHS trust and are an aggregate figure of private in-patients—section 65 —private non-resident patients—section 66—and accommodation and services provided under section 58 of the NHS Act 1977.
  228
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is currently a matter for the Clwyd health authority.

  Financial Assistance
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance his Department has provided to(a) National Children's Home (Wales) and (b) the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Wales) in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the support for child and family services scheme, the Welsh Office awarded grants totalling £105,459, £135,300 and £121,470 to NCH in Wales in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 respectively. No awards were made to the NSPCC.

  Warden-controlled Properties
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many warden-controlled properties for elderly persons there are in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities' housing strategies and operational plans for 1994–95 show that at 1 April 1993 there were 15,350 sheltered dwellings for the elderly which had the services of a warden.

  Planning Guidelines
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what differences of substance he has made in the provisions of the Welsh Office planning policy guidance note 6, when adapting for Wales the comparable guidelines drawn up by the Department of the Environment with particular reference to out-of-town supermarkets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Planning policy guidance note 6 "Town Centres and Retail Developments" was published jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office.

  NHS Beds (Private Patients)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give private bed income by health authority, and by hospital, or the smallest available unit, for each financial year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of private bed income by health authority for each financial year since 1988–89 was as follows:
  229

  Hospital Estate
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued for calculation of the percentage maintenance expenditure for the annual upkeep of the hospital estate in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidelines on the percentage maintenance expenditure for the upkeep of the national health service estate in Wales were issued in Welsh health circular (85)30. This required health authorities to commit at least 7·5 per cent. of their total allocations—revenue and capital—to the maintenance of assets, that is buildings, land, vehicles, engineering services, plant and equipment.

  Community Care Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is planned community care expenditure under his vote for each of 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 in both cash and real terms.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Government expenditure is planned in cash terms. Resources of £86 million in 1994–95, £124·4 million in 1995–96 and £149·6 million in 1996–97 are being provided through the local government revenue settlement towards local authorities' new responsibilities for community care. These amounts are in addition to local government spending on personal social services generally, and to certain specific grants including resources which may be made available through the mental handicap and mental illness strategies. It is for individual local authorities to determine how much in total they will spend on community care.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he issued the Welsh Office 1993–94 cash allocation letter to the health authorities; what further adjustments have been notified to Welsh health authorities; whether any further adjustments are planned before the end of the financial year; what proposals he has for alterations in the timings of such letters and adjustment notifications to health authorities in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 9 December 1993 to his previous question relating to the notification and subsequent adjustments of 1993–94 allocations to health authorities,Official Report, column 305. My right hon. Friend will announce the initial revenue and capital allocations for 1994–95 to health authorities shortly. The timing of subsequent adjustments to authorities' allocations will largely depend on when provision held in reserve for centrally funded developments is claimed by authorities.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the NHS planned expenditure in cash and real terms in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Planned net provision for the NHS in Wales in 1994–95 is £2,076 million; this is a cash increase of 5·1 per cent. over the comparable figure for this year.
  230
  Provision for 1995–96 and 1996–97 will be detailed in the Welsh Office departmental report, which is due to be published in March.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the proposed closure of the regional offices in Bangor, Carmarthen, Wrexham, Newport and Treforest.

  Mr. Redwood
  The location of its regional offices is a matter for the agency.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency in relation to contracting-out and privatisation proposals for functions of the agency; if he will list the agency functions proposed for out-sourcing in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  In common with other public bodies, the Welsh Development Agency is required to keep under review the efficiency and effectiveness of its organisation and to arrange for its activities to be contracted out where this represents value for money.

HEALTH

  Child Protection Committees
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the operation of the area child protection committees.

  Mr. Bowis
  Area child protection committees operate in every social services area in England to ensure close working relationships between social services departments, the police service, doctors, community health workers, the education service and others who share a common aim to protect children at risk.

  Osteopathy
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make osteopathy more widely available on the NHS.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make osteopathy more widely available on the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  We believe that the professional recognition and regulation of the profession will encourage those purchasers who want to refer their patients for osteopathy to do so.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of pharmacies will suffer a fall in income following the imposition of her Department's pay settlement.
  231
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Pharmacies are privately owned businesses, only part of whose income comes from the national health service. However, no pharmacy which dispensed more than 1,000 prescriptions a month of average value in 1992–93 should have its NHS income reduced in 1993–94. The NHS income of pharmacies dispensing less than 1,000 prescriptions a month will depend on a number of factors, not least whether they qualify for the essential small pharmacy scheme, which we have extended.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to update the targets in "The Health of the Nation".

  Mr. Sackville
  We are making good progress towards "The Health of the Nation" targets, most of which are for 2000 and beyond. They have been set to be challenging but achievable, and remain the right ones.

  Drug Education
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend drug education programmes; and what discussions she has had with local authorities on this matter.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are spending £5 million per annum on campaigns to raise awareness and prevent drug and solvent misuse especially by the young. We have just launched a major new campaign to encourage and help parents to talk to their children about drug and solvent misuse. Getting the message across involves co-operation with many agencies and my officials keep in close touch with local authorities on their contribution to fighting drug misuse.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the operation of the internal market in health.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The benefits of the internal market are clear; more patients are now being treated than ever before; people are waiting shorter times for treatment. National health service spending is also at an all-time high. Consequently, there are no plans to review the operation of the internal market.

  Child Care
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the way in which local authority social services are using their discretion in the treatment of children placed in their care, particularly with regard to the provision for trips abroad.

  Mr. Bowis
  The framework for treatment of children in care by local authorities is contained in the Children Act 1989, regulations and associated guidance. It is the responsibility of the elected members of each local authority to ensure that these are complied with and that the resources involved are properly spent. I have made it clear, however, that trips abroad for young offenders are inappropriate.
  232

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of establishing each general practitioner fundholder; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Each fundholding practice is entitled to the reimbursement of appropriate expenses incurred in the preparatory year to fundholding. The maximum level of reimbursement is £17,500 for a single practice fund and £20,000 for a grouped practice fund.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to monitor the impact of general practitioner fundholding on community care; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are responsible for monitoring the general practitioner fundholding scheme locally. They tell us that, as in other areas, GP fundholders are working with community health staff to improve the quality of care for patients.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of the practices which expressed an interest in 1992–93 in becoming fundholders the following April but did not do so will become fundholders in April 1994;

  (2) how many of the general practitioners practices which expressed an interest in 1991–92 in becoming fundholders the following April but did not do so subsequently became fundholding practices in 1993 or will become fundholders in April 1994;

  (3) how many general practitioner practices have received the start-up allowance for potential fundholders more than once.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. Regional health authorities manage the general practitioner fundholding scheme and are responsible for admitting practices to the scheme.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken to improve the amount of information available to national health service patients under the patients charter.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The patients charter gives patients a right to information on local health services. Health authorities are making this information available to patients in many ways, including local charters, through the local media, leaflets, posters and public meetings. All district health authorities also publish annual reports on performance against patients charter standards. Providers are also required to display details of performance. In addition in January 1993 a national freephone service—0800 665544—was introduced which provides callers with information about local national health service services, patients charter standards, common diseases, waiting times, how to complain about national health service services as well as health advice. In June 1994 the National Health Service Management Executive will be publishing national health service performance tables for the first time.

  Secretary of State (Travel)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list her travel arrangements, with costs, over the last 12 months.
  233
  Mr. Sackville
  Information to this level of detail could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Junior Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the implementation of the new deal for reducing the hours worked by junior doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am pleased to say that progress on implementing the new deal on junior doctors' hours has been very encouraging.

  Between September 1990 and September 1993 junior doctors' posts contracted for more than 83 hours a week fell from over 13,000 to only 91, a reduction of 99 per cent. That represents a remarkable achievement.

  I announced in December that we were giving priority this year to tackling hard-pressed on-call posts contracted for more than 72 hours a week. We are determined that junior doctors see real benefits from the new deal.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent to which measures to cut the working week of junior doctors have achieved their targets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We receive regular reports from regional task forces. Between September 1990 and September 1993 the number of junior doctors and dentists contracted for more than an average 83 hours a week fell from over 13,300 to 91, a reduction of 99 per cent. This is a remarkable achievement.

  From August 1992 to September 1993 the number of those working in hard-pressed on-call posts contracted on average for between 73 and 83 hours a week fell from over 10,200 to 7,800, a 24 per cent. reduction. In December 1993 we announced that eliminating the remaining posts in this category will be a priority in 1994.

  Asthma
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the treatment of asthmatic people.

  Mr. Sackville
  We attach high importance to the prompt and appropriate treatment of people with asthma. Last July the Department launched the chronic disease management programme, which is an organised programme of care run by general practitioners for people with asthma. And only last month the National Health Service Management Executive asked purchasers to reflect in contracts the professionally developed clinical guidelines produced by the British Thoracic Society on the management of asthma.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has recently received about the incidence of asthma in young people.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the last three months one representation has been received specifically about a young person with asthma.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work her Department is doing to secure a reduction in the incidence of asthma.
  234
  Mr. Sackville
  Officials of the Department have initiated discussions with experts in the field with a view to identifying priorities for research aimed at a reduction in the incidence of asthma.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in Britain have not applied for trust status.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A list of the directly managed units in England not awaiting a decision on national health service trust status is set out as follows. Information relating to Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Directly Managed Units not awaiting a decision on NHS Trust status

  West Midlands

  Wolverhampton Primary Healthcare1

  Sandwell Mental Health

  Trent

  Glenfrith Unit1 (Merger with Fosse Health NHS Trust in the 5th Wave)

  Grantham and Kesteven General Hospital

  Harlow Wood Orthopaedic Hospital

  Charles Clifford Dental Hospital

  North East Thames

  Homerton Hospital

  Essex Herts Acute1

  Essex Herts Community1

  City and East London Family and Community Health Services

  South West Thames

  North West Surrey Learning Difficulties

  Pathfinder (Wandsworth Mental Health)1

  Croydon Mental Health Unit (Warlingham Park)1

  Yorkshire

  Seacroft, Killingbeck and Wharfedale Hospital

  1 My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given permission for these units to submit applications in the fifth wave of NHS trusts.

  Hospital Trust Boards (Meetings)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trust board meetings have been open to the press and the public since 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Trusts are not required to hold their board meetings in public. Each trust is required to hold an annual public meeting at which it presents its annual report, audited accounts and any report made on those accounts by the auditor.

  Many trusts go beyond the minimum requirements on public access. Detailed information is not held centrally.

  Social Workers (Training)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing her review of the training of social workers.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are in the process of implementing the range of recommendations from the policy and financial management review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work—CCETSW. This includes proposals for improvements to the management structure of CCETSW and a review of the "Rules and Requirements for the Diploma in Social Work".
  235

  Mental Health Review Tribunal
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members currently appointed to the mental health review tribunal.

  Mr. Bowis
  A list of members of the English tribunals will be placed in the Library.

  Drugs and Alcohol
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received as regards funding for drug and alcohol addiction treatment centres;

  (2) what assessment her Department has made on the cost implications arising from shortfalls in service provision for treatment centres for drug and alcohol addiction cases;

  (3) what consultations she has had regarding provision of drug and alcohol addiction treatment centres; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) what monitoring her Department has done on the impact of the implementation of community care on independent providers of residential services for alcohol and drug misuse; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has received a number of representations about the funding of residential services for alcohol and drug misusers under the new community care arrangements. The Department consulted both providers and purchasers of services for this vulnerable group on the preparation of guidance to local authorities to ensure that alcohol and drug misusers receive proper attention within community care. This guidance, LAC(93)2, was issued in January 1993 and copies are available in the Library.

  We also commissioned Goldsmiths' college to monitor the impact of community care on residential services for alcohol and drug misusers in the first three months of community care and the report "Who Cares Now" was published in July 1993. A copy of this report is in the Library. A three-month follow-up report was commissioned by Alcohol Concern and the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse—SCODA—entitled "Vulnerable Services for Vulnerable People" and published in December 1993, copies of which will be placed in the Library. The Goldsmiths' reports make it clear that the numbers of people receiving care funded by local authorities have increased steadily over the first six months of the community care reforms, and that local authorities had specified budgets in 1993–94 totalling £20·59 million for the purchase of services for alcohol and drug misusers within community care.

  We shall continue to monitor the provision of services for drug and alcohol misusers within our general monitoring of community care.

  Acute Day Care
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of districts provide acute day care as an alternative to hospital admission.

  Mr. Sackville
  Patients are admitted as day cases within every district health authority in England.
  236

  Mental Health
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many districts have a register of the 300 or 400 most severely ill vulnerable people in their area; and how many have a care programme approach register;

  (2) how many districts have a suicide register to identify potentially vulnerable people.

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidance to be issued to district health authorities in the next few weeks will require them to ensure that providers of mental health services have in place from 1 April 1994 registers which identify those people with severe mental illness who may be at risk to themselves or to others. The number of mentally ill people to be included on these registers will be determined locally. The terms "suicide register" and "care programme register" are not in general use in the national health service, but all providers of NHS mental health services should already be able to identify all patients subject to the care programme approach.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many districts have a mental health service plan which targets and prioritises the severely mentally ill.

  Mr. Bowis
  All district health authorities are developing plans to achieve "The Health of the Nation" target to reduce the suicide rate of severely mentally ill people by at least 33 per cent. by 2000.

  Complementary Therapies
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the policy of the NHS on the use of complementary therapies where they are found to be cost-effective; and what criteria are in use to enable the medical professionals and the management to choose and judge;

  (2) how the NHS assesses the therapies it considers complementary.

  Mr. Sackville
  Our policy is that the national health service should assess interventions on the basis of their effectiveness in improving or maintaining health. There are a variety of sources of information on effectiveness, and we are seeking to make such information more readily accessible to managers and clinicians who need it.

  Independent Sector Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to independent sector homes of inspection by local authority arm's-length inspection units(a) per resident and (b) per year in total.

  Mr. Bowis
  The annual fee payable to local authorities by those running registered independent residential care homes for four or more residents is £41 per resident. Inspection by independent inspection units is among the costs reflected in that fee.

  Information about the total cost of such fees per year is not available centrally.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the prevalence of fraud in prescriptions issued free of charge.
  237
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Checks on eligibility for prescription charge exemption and charge remission under the national health service low income scheme indicate that the incidence of fraud is relatively low. The adequacy and operation of these checks are kept under review.

  Senile Dementia
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each district health authority and trust the total number of their continual care beds designated for perons diagnosed with senile dementia.

  Mr. Bowls
  National health services continuing care beds are not usually designated specifically for senile dementia.

  Hospitals, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds there are in the Greater London area per member of the population; what are the comparable figures under the suggestions made in the Tomlinson report; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average daily number of hospital beds in all specialties in Greater London per thousand of the population in the financial year 1992–93 is 4·9. The Tomlinson report looked only at acute hospital beds and focused on inner London. Professor Tomlinson gave three main reasons why the need for hospital beds in inner London would fall: (i) patients from outside London would be less likely to come into London for hospital treatment; (ii) changes in medical care will lead to more day surgery; and (iii) shorter hospital stays will contribute to increased efficiency in bed usage.

  Day Care Places
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of full-time day care places in day nurseries for under-fives provided in each local authority in Greater London.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest available information on full-time day nursery places in London is contained in the publication "Children's day care facilities at 31 March 1992, England". Copies are available in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 794, if she will give the planned expenditure for the present year under the community care expenditure under the provisions of the special transitional grant; and if she will give the actual outturn expenditure for the first half-year and for each of the first three quarters.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have made available for 1993–94 a special transitional grant of £565·4 million, which must be spent entirely on community care. Authorities will be required to account for their expenditure at the end of the financial year.
  238

  Patient S
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what drugs and treatment were given to Patient S, who recently died following the withdrawal of food and drink, between the time when the feeding tube was removed and his death on 16 January.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not hold confidential personal information of this nature.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a post mortem report has been commissioned in the case of the death of Patient S on Sunday 16 January; whether an inquest will be held into that death; and if she will make it her policy to publish any medical, pathological and other reports compiled in respect of this case.

  Mr. Sackville
  We understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that a post mortem report has been compiled and that an inquest will be held. The decision whether or not to release information put in evidence at an inquest rests with the relevant coroner.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the NHS planned expenditure in England in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are honouring in full their pledge to increase year by year the level of resources committed to the national health service in real terms. Government expenditure on the national health service in England is planed to rise to £30,669 million in 1994–95, a cash increase of 5·6 per cent. over plan, or 1·6 per cent. in real terms. Details of the Government expenditure plans for 1994–95 to 1996–97 for all the Department's programmes will be published in March in the departmental report.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many hospitals and other units will start operation as NHS trusts in April.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  To date we have given approval to 99 hospitals and other units to become operational as national health service trusts from 1 April 1994. We will be considering further applications shortly and will make a further announcement then. An updated list of the status of all fourth wave applications has been placed in the Library.

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of qualified nursing staff by specialty for each region in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 6 December 1993]: This information will be placed in the Library. The total number of qualified nurses and midwives working in the national health service has risen by 6,490 in the period September 1989 to September 1992.
  239

  Meningitis
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Health what proportion of children are now immunised against HIB meningitis.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Immunisation against Haemophilus influenae type b was added to the routine childhood immunisation programme on 1 October 1992. Preliminary figures for England and Wales show that 90 per cent. acceptance for the full course of three doses of vaccine is already being achieved.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to resource the creation of rapid response units, nationally, to combat child meningitis fatalities.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: Children with meningitis are most appropriately treated in
  240
  paediatric intensive care units. A report, "The Care of Critically Ill Children", by a working party convened by the British Paediatric Association has recently been published and copies are available in the Library. This includes recommendations on how a more accessible distribution of paediatric intensive care facilities can be achieved.

  We are about to issue the report to purchasers of health services for children, with the request that they ensure any planned increases in paediatric intensive care facilities proceed and that they review immediately the current level of provison in order to develop a strategic plan for the purchasing of paediatric intensive care within the overall development of children's services. Regional health authorities will oversee this process and submit an interim report on action under way to the National Health Service Management Executive by April.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
Baroness Willoughby de Eresby— Sat first in Parliament after the death of her father.

Iraq: Human Rights
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to ensure that the Government of Iraq carries out UN Resolution 688 concerning human rights in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we will maintain pressure on Iraq to observe Security Council Resolution 688 and other resolutions and to cease repression of its civilian populations, including Kurds and Shia. We, the United States, France and Russia made a démarche to Iraq on 5th January protesting about Iraqi behaviour. The Security Council also took Iraq's failure to observe Resolution 688 into account when it decided on 18th January that there were no grounds to lift UN sanctions.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is she aware that the Iraqi UN representative has begun a "charm offensive" on the other ambassadors in the United Nations in order to obtain the lifting of Resolution 688? Can my noble friend assure us that the Foreign Office has no intention of being charmed by that evil tyrant and will not allow that sanction to be moved until Saddam assures the safety of the Kurds in the north and the Shias and marsh Arabs in the south?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, like most women I have learnt to recognise the so-called "charm offensive" and not to be taken in by it, from whatever source it comes. But, more seriously, the only guarantee for the needy people of Iraq is for them to concentrate their efforts on the defeat of the dictator, Saddam.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that Saddam Hussein gets away with blue murder? He ignores United Nations resolutions; he does exactly what he wants to do and we are given to understand that our Government can do nothing. Is that really the position? Can we not amalgamate with America, France and Russia to prepare our air forces so that we can say to Saddam Hussein, "If you do not do what you are told, you will get it"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should like to think that we could follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. I regret to say that the international community, which imposed severe sanctions and does
876
not intend to lift them, does not have a large number of options at its disposal. I was interested to read that the Iraqi National Congress managed to produce in Baghdad a newspaper under the name of Saddam's newspaper, Babil, which led the people of Baghdad to rejoice because they thought that some moves towards the overthrow might be beginning. I believe it is within Iraq that we must encourage the defeat of Saddam. Bombing of Iraq by allies will achieve nothing and harm many thousands of innocent people.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as a woman, can the noble Baroness tell the House what was meant by her phrase, "maintaining pressure"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we take every opportunity in the United Nations to bring Iraq to book for all the atrocities that it continues to commit. Much as I should like to see Saddam removed—as I am sure would the noble Baroness and all other Members of your Lordships' House—from his position as dictator in Iraq only the Iraqi people can do that. I do not believe that we have the capacity to go further than the United Nations is already prepared to go; that is, to operate sanctions against Iraq.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the overthrow of the dictator must be accomplished by the Iraqi people themselves, what specific measures have the Government taken to help the Iraqi National Congress and other democratic forces in Iraq?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, specific measures have been taken to help the Iraqi National Congress with its "Operation Provide Comfort" for the Kurdish people in the north. We maintain good contacts and links with them. We talk to and advise them when they ask for it, but we do not have a right to interfere. That is one of the problems that from time to time commentators in this country lose sight of. However, we shall continue to help the Iraqi National Congress to achieve democracy, which is what its members want.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has any money been given to them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords. But I do not have the figures to hand.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can my noble friend say what objection there could be to a decision by the United Nations to apply some of Iraq's sequestered assets to the building of a power station in what is, after all, northern Iraq?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not see that there could be any objection, but the Iraqis have not helped their own population, which they are perfectly free to do, because they have failed to implement Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712, which permit Iraq to export the oil. There are many other ways in which the Iraqis could help their own people but they have failed to do so and now they are not even continuing negotiations on that possible implementation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, are the Government worried by the developments in Russia which seem to indicate that the extreme nationalists and the communists are seeking to sway the Russian Government to back off from their support for the United Nations resolutions?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have indeed heard similar accusations but I do not know the veracity of them. I do not think that they are widespread among those in charge of Russia's overseas affairs but I shall certainly look into what the noble Lord said because I share his concern.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, although the Minister does not have the latest figures for aid I thank her for the fact that Britain has a larger aid programme for that part of the world than any other part of Europe.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is only the figures for the Iraqi National Congress that I do not have to hand. I am grateful for what my noble friend has done and for his efforts with the Kurdish people in northern Iraq and for Miss Nicholson's efforts with the Shias in southern Iraq.

Single European Act
2.45 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the working of the Single European Act.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes, the overall working of the Single European Act is satisfactory. It has brought a number of benefits including completion of the single market and improved foreign policy co-operation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it is not clear to me how the noble Baroness can be content given the huge variation in VAT and duties. I speak as someone who is in favour of the single market being effective and indeed of the Maastricht agreement, but will she accept that it is quite impossible for the single market to succeed while the VAT and duty rates are so widely varying? For example, on whisky the French have half the rate that we do. In those circumstances, what does she plan to do to make sure that the single market really works?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, who knows far more than I about VAT and duties, having levied such high ones when he was at the Treasury many years ago, is probably in a very good position to give me some helpful suggestions. But he has not done so. We are aware that distortions can come from these duties; but that will be resolved over time and it is not something that can be done immediately. There are many other aspects of the single market which are working very much in Britain's favour.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that at the time of the passing of the Single European Bill, my noble friend Lord Stoddart
878
and I were told by the Government, and indeed by some members of our own party, that unless the Single European Act came into operation, all kinds of dire consequences would follow and that unemployment in Europe would rise, as evidenced by the Cecchini Report of that time? Is she further aware that the more the Single European Act appears to be in operation, the worse economically Europe as a whole and our own country seem to have become as a consequence?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I really do not think even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, can blame the Single European Act for those social costs which have been imposed heavily by many of the individual countries on their nations. We who have sought not to impose such heavy social costs on industry are the country coming first out of recession and most strongly.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are still some important gaps in the working of the single market? One of them is the rules regarding public procurement, particularly in the telecommunications field. If the Government could use their influence to make progress on that, it would be to Britain's benefit.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is just indeed what we intend to do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness will remember, as my noble friend Lord Bruce pointed out, that the Cecchini Report said that if we did not have a single market, there would be economic difficulties; and that if we did, 5 million jobs would be created. What has happened is that we have had the economic disaster and we have lost 5 million jobs. Is it not a fact that the working of the Single European Act is going awry because many non-tariff barriers are being put in the way of our exports, particularly by France and Germany? My organisation, the Campaign for an Independent Britain, published a pamphlet before the passing of the Single European Act. It was called Single Market or Double Cross? We now know of course that we were double crossed.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are few times when I feel a little annoyed by the noble Lord, but this is one of them. I shall say why. Without the Single European Act this country would have lost many more opportunities. I wonder how often people realise just how much investment has come to this country because we are a member of the European Community and because we have participated fully in the Single European Act and were in fact one of the first to do so. When the noble Lord speaks about a level playing field and non-tariff barriers, I say to him that, yes, there have been individual problems, but they are minimal compared with the successes which we have had as a country in competing with others. Where better enforcement of the single market legislation is needed, we have a special unit in the DTI to deal with that. We shall continue using that unit for Britain's best future.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend know the amount of foreign investment in this country compared with the rest of Europe and whether that is related to the fact that we are in the Common Market?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the figures are very strong. Some one-third of Japanese and US investment in the European Community has come to this country as opposed to going to others, for the very simple reason that we are offering the best opportunities for those countries in the European Community.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate what the Government are doing to stimulate industry to take advantage of the new opportunities in the single market? Whereas a year ago the DTI was conducting a very high profile campaign to this effect, its efforts in that direction have subsequently diminished. Is that correct?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the effort of the 1992 campaign was obviously to make every business in the country well aware of the open market which commenced at the beginning of 1993. I do not believe that any business which is looking to the future—most businesses have increased their export markets—could possibly be in any doubt about the opportunities. The DTI has special offices in each region to deal with business both within the Community and now in the wider economic area which the applicant countries to the European Community are fully engaged in.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, further to the noble Baroness's answer to the supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Barnett, will she confirm that the rates of VAT now levied by this Government are more than double the rates which were levied when he was at the Treasury?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, so far as I know, rates throughout the Community have varied. While ours have gone up, if we are to meet what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said a moment ago, then we must work towards—although we may not quickly reach—common levels.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it was kind of the noble Baroness to agree (as indeed she had to) that VAT rates are higher now than they were when my noble friend was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Since she could not resist the temptation of taking a swipe at the social attitudes and policies of other member states, apart from the United Kingdom, what is going to happen now when social policy is to be discussed? Under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, are we to leave the room and leave the discussion on social policy to the other members or are we going to sit there supine and say nothing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I firmly believe that we shall participate so far as we are able. But for the sake of Britain, we negotiated the opt-out from the social chapter. We shall not participate in the final decision if it is working against Britain's interests. That is why we had the opt-out. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord say what he did at the beginning of
880
his question. I have to conclude from that that if he is in agreement with his noble friend Lord Barnett, then he would be putting up VAT rates still further.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the Government have had 15 years in which to reduce the VAT rate which I imposed, but they have done nothing about it. The question I was really asking was this: if the single market is to be effective (which I want) what are the Government doing to harmonise the rates? As I understand it, VAT harmonisation will not come until 1997 at the very earliest. So what are the Government doing about it? Has the noble Baroness seen the KPMG consultant's report—I am sure she has because she is smiling, and I am charming her now—which shows that 48 per cent. of exporters have seen no benefit from the single market?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with the KPMG report. The noble Lord may know that I am a former market researcher. This is a survey which, on a self-selecting basis, got only a 5 per cent. response. While the company may have been satisfied with that, I, as a market research fellow, would not be. Neither would I be happy not to know what happened to the 52 per cent. which the noble Lord did not mention. When he speaks about VAT, we are going quite wide of his original Question. I remind the noble Lord that we have retained unanimity on all matters of taxation. That will enable us to prevent undesirable Community legislation if we so find it. We shall be working to find the best way to resolve taxation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Dormand of Easington: —that we are very concerned that such a pleasant lady should be so annoyed about what has happened, particularly when she is not normally like this? On a wider point, can she have words with her Chief Whip to say that it is really time that we had a full-scale debate on what is happening in Europe? I know that I am right in saying that in another place they have a full-scale debate every six months. It really is time that we did the same in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that my noble friend heard all that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, had to say.

The Mentally Ill: Care
2.57 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in response to representations that there seem to be widely conflicting views within the professions concerned about appropriate care for mentally ill people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government are taking a range of actions to

881
improve professional working within the mental health service through the task force launched on 1st January 1993, joint training schemes, support groups, Open University courses, working with the royal colleges and the King's Fund and through the production and use of the mental illness handbook.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply which goes some of the way. Does she not agree that it is most unfortunate that psychiatrists are unhappy about the way in which the social workers interpret the code of practice for handling the mentally ill and that, vice versa, in many cases social workers are unhappy about the way the psychiatrists interpret the code? Arising from what my noble friend said, does she agree that it does not seem that the question of bringing the two together and making sure that both know what the rules really are is being pursued as actively as it should be?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's first comment that it is essential that all the professions work together, not only nationally but at local level. But I do not agree with my noble friend's second comment. The Government are actively pursuing this matter through the measures which I outlined in my Answer.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is well versed in these matters. Does she agree that they cannot be fully considered without publication of the Reed Report concerning special hospitals? Can she explain why, after quite a few months, the report has not yet been published? Will she say when it is to be published?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is very anxious that the report should be published, and so are we. But there is still more work to be done on it. Once that is completed we shall publish it.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are satisfied that, before any mentally ill patient is discharged from hospital, there is an adequate community care programme arranged for them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is essential that that is the case. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State introduced a number of measures in August and December of last year and again in January to ensure that the guidance given is followed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that organisations and people dealing with this problem challenge what the Minister has said? Is she further aware that the people dealing with the problem and trying to operate the discharge of mentally ill people into the community are distressed at the increasing frequency of mentally ill people, having been discharged from hospital and sent out into the community, appearing very quickly on the list of homeless people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is why we intend to introduce legislation to ensure that the most difficult and vulnerable patients who have a history of repeated admission to hospital receive the aftercare that is needed. The Government recognise the need for a legal framework and we intend to introduce it as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Housing Corporation and housing partnerships are becoming sceptical about helping mentally ill people discharged from hospital because they are failing to receive back-up from the Department of Health and the local authorities? Therefore, it ill behoves us to criticise if the housing associations cannot fulfil their part of the bargain struck when mentally ill people leave hospital.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have involved the Housing Corporation in these schemes because we recognise the points that the noble Baroness makes. Housing is an integral part of discharge arrangements. We have also introduced short-stay hostels. Five are already open. Five multi-disciplinary psychiatric teams have been established in London to ensure that people who are discharged are well supported.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as my noble friends' questions have demonstrated, there are a number of concerns about the operation of community care for people discharged from hospital? Is she certain that the legislative proposals of her right honourable friend will be tight enough? Is there not a need for resources to back the guidelines rather than just having guidelines on their own?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the resources that have gone into mental health have been considerable over the past 10 years or so. We have seen an increase in the number of community psychiatric nurses, consultant psychiatrists, mental illness day hospital places, local authority residential places, local authority day centre places and voluntary and private residential provision. All have increased substantially. I am convinced that there are sufficient resources. I am not convinced that the methods being used now are foolproof. Indeed, we are trying to introduce measures to ensure that, in most cases, we will be able to cover the situations mentioned by your Lordships today.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that local social service departments have sufficient numbers of qualified social workers adequately to be able to cover the discharge of patients from mental hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is under review. At the moment, we have no reason to suppose that there is a shortage.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, perhaps we should move on now to Question No. 4.

Bosnia: NATO Summit Decisions
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the continuing shelling of Sarajevo and the intervention with civilian aid convoys, what steps are being taken to act on the decisions of the NATO summit announced on 11th January 1994.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the NATO summit reaffirmed the alliance's decision taken last August on airstrikes. The summit sent a clear signal to the Serbs, which reinforced the warning that the UK and US had already given Milosevic. Shelling fell last week to the lowest level for many weeks. But all sides are responsible for horrific actions. We unreservedly condemn the shelling which killed young children in Sarajevo and Mostar this weekend.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the. Minister for that Answer. I should like to express our congratulations to the Foreign Secretary on his courage in personally visiting central Bosnia to see what has been happening. In view of the Minister's Answer and the fact that only two weeks ago Mr. Koljevic, the vice-president of the Bosnian Serbs' so-called state which has no official standing at all, objected to the reopening of Tuzla Airport; in view of the fact that civilian aid convoys are still being regularly interrupted and that civilians, including innocent children, are still being shelled, I should like to ask the Minister whether the decision that was made at the NATO summit can now be activated with real action and real efforts to try to make the work of UNPROFOR effective?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the visit of the Foreign Secretary was indeed important. The UN has been asked, and is currently drawing up plans, for both Srebrenica and Tuzla under the new UN Secretary-General's Special Representative Mr. Akashi. The UN's plans will be put to us as soon as they are available. I very much agree with the noble Baroness about the reopening of Tuzla Airport. She may remember that it is now more than 15 months since I advocated that. Unfortunately, it is only recently that we have had the full support of our allies in wanting to go ahead with that. I can assure your Lordships that we shall leave no stone unturned to get aid to that area. The results of the aid that has been delivered are very creditable.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does my noble friend share the sense not only of disquiet, but perhaps of shame, that many of us feel that, after so many United Nations resolutions and so many NATO and European Community statements, no effective action has been taken to deter the continuing Serbian aggression? Does she not feel that perhaps we are getting close to the time when some such action may be necessary?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, one must realise that it is not only the Serbs who are committing
884
those horrors. They are being committed by Moslems and Croats as well. Whatever action we take—and UNPROFOR, particularly BRITFOR arid our own ODA personnel, are carrying out extraordinarily good work in getting the aid through—it is important to remember that if we should have to take military action, almost inevitably those aid deliveries will cease. Having seen for myself the situation on the ground, I have to say that. I hope that we shall never have to take that action, but if we should have to, we shall.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that the British Foreign Secretary is now probably one of the best informed statesmen in the world, cannot the Government make it clear to the United Nations that we are not prepared to sacrifice. our soldiers or those of any other country? There must, however, be massive action by the United Nations because if the UN fails it will mean total victory for the anti-democratic and fascist regimes.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The only way in which the conflict can be ended is through political efforts. I find the efforts that are being made by the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative, Mr. Akashi, very creditable in these early days of his work in Bosnia. We shall give him all support. Of course, we shall play our role, but with others, in the political process and not only in the giving of aid or, should it come to it, in the bombing of those positions which are preventing the aid being delivered.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's recent vacillation over our commitment to the UN forces in Bosnia will encourage further aggression by all parties in that country? Does she accept that the withdrawal of French and British troops could precipitate a bloodbath far worse than the terrible loss of life that we have already seen in Bosnia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that there has been no vacillation by Her Majesty's Government, but the troops cannot continue indefinitely without political progress and co-operation with the aid effort from parties on the ground. The decision that we took on 18th August 1992 to put troops into Bosnia was to help the aid to be delivered. It was not for other reasons. The security of UK troops and of our aid workers must remain a key concern. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the conflict will end only through the political process, and we must work at that as well.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Restriction of employers' right of recovery]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert
("(1) In section 158(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (recovery by employers of amounts paid by way of statutory sick pay) paragraph (a) shall be repealed and replaced by a new paragraph (a) as follows—
"(a) entitling, except in prescribed circumstances, any employer who has made one or more payments of statutory sick pay in a prescribed period to recover an amount equal to the amount by which such payments exceed a specified percentage of the employer's contributions payments for the same period by making one or more deductions from his contributions payments and" ").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in my name and that of two other noble Lords from the Front Benches opposite. That indicates that the amendment which I foreshadowed in my speech on Second Reading has attracted a wide measure of support. As well as the two noble Lords who have added their names to my amendment, the proposal which the amendment embodies is supported firmly by the CBI; it has the tacit support—I have to say—of the Institute of Directors; and it has the support of the British Payroll Managers' Association, and I shall be referring to that organisation later. I am told that none of the employer representatives on the Department of Social Security's employers' panel on SSP is opposed to the amendment. I believe that my noble friend the Minister will wish to take note of that as he listens to the debate.
Put simply, the purpose of the amendment is to provide a better targeted relief for small firms against the cost of exceptional sickness absence. Under the Bill, the Government propose to give relief to small firms, first, by identifying the firms which come—if I may put it this way —within the charmed circle: those with annual national insurance bills of under £20,000; and, secondly, by paying 100 per cent. of the SSP for any individual employee's period of sickness of four weeks or more.
I rehearsed briefly on Second Reading the disadvantages of that proposal, and this may be the moment to look at them in rather greater depth. First, the concept of the charmed circle: the idea that there is a cut-off point. Any firm below that point qualifies for the relief, while any firm above it is outside it.
Here I must draw the Committee's attention to an interesting document entitled Deregulation Task Forces Proposals for Reform. Page 1 states:
"Proposals affecting several or all Departments".
The heading is, "Small Businesses", and it states (right at the top of the first page):
"The representatives of small businesses on the Task Forces met as a separate group and unanimously agreed the following proposals which were subsequently ratified by all the Task Forces.
1. Do not create exemptions, barriers and thresholds for small business regulation. Regulate only where essential—and then universally".
886
Yet, within days of the proposals of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover being presented to the Government, we are debating precisely a measure providing for a threshold.
Any threshold is bound to be an arbitrary cut off. It must inevitably create unfairness, and so, at the margin, undesirable incentives. Inside the charmed circle, a firm will receive 100 per cent. of the relief for sickness of over four weeks; outside, it will receive nothing. My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree suggested on Second Reading that that situation might be dealt with by a taper, but I agreed with my noble friend the Minister that tapers make the matter infinitely more complex. We are looking for simplicity for employers and for the people in the department who have to administer the scheme. That is the first flaw in the Government's scheme.
The second flaw is that the scheme fails to provide relief if a large number of staff are off sick for periods of fewer than four weeks; for instance, if there is a 'flu epidemic or a bus accident. Let me give an example of a firm of contract cleaners whose workers reach their place of work in a mini-bus. They travel together, and the mini-bus is involved in a serious accident in which all the workers are injured. They may all be off sick for three weeks. The total level of sickness is far in excess of the average. It is no fault of the employer. The employer is liable to pay them SSP, but under the Government's scheme there is no reimbursement to that employer because no one is off for more than four weeks.
I shall describe what the figures might be in such a case. Let us suppose that those cleaners earn about £100 per week, and they have a supervisor who earns twice that sum. The employer has a monthly national insurance bill of about £410 and a monthly turnover of about £5,000. The 1 per cent. cut in national insurance contributions saves that firm about £40 a month. It is a worthwhile saving for average sickness. The employees then have their crash and are off work for less than a month—let us say three weeks—and the firm has to pay SSP totaling £1,291. The employer will obviously have to find substitutes for the people off work, because he has to fulfil his contract. He has to hire temporary staff to do that, and yet he receives no help under the reimbursement scheme. It is the type of situation in which one would have thought the employer should be helped: it is something out of the ordinary which gives rise to a substantial bill for the employer. But, lo and behold, he receives nothing. In those circumstances, that business might face considerable difficulties.
Thirdly, even if there is a firm which is within the charmed circle, which would qualify for relief, it can receive considerable relief when common sense would say that it does not need it. One can take at the other end of the scale a small professional firm with a few highly paid employees and a substantial turnover which may run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Because it is small, its national insurance bill is lower than £20,000 and therefore it is within the charmed circle. If that firm had a member of staff off even for as long as 12 weeks SSP would amount to £630 and it would receive back

887
£420. That is ludicrous for a firm with a turnover running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is one of the effects of the Government's scheme.
As well as conflicting with the Sainsbury recommendation by having a limit of £20,000, the government scheme does not give help in ordinary cases —they may be exceptional, but they are easy to understand—where help is clearly needed. Yet the scheme shells out substantial sums of money to firms which do not need it.
Those three objections arise because the government scheme is targeted on the wrong target. It targets small firms as such and the individual length of sickness of the individual employee. What is needed is a system targeted to protect firms against exceptional sickness. It is the exceptional sickness which should trigger the relief and not whether the firm is of a particular size or an individual employee is off sick for a given number of weeks. What is looked for is compensation where the bill to the firm comes to substantially more than the relief offered by the 1 per cent. reduction in national insurance contributions.
The amendment proposes that each month—it is a simple system—a firm tots up its total national insurance contribution payments. It has to do that anyway, because it has to pay them. It then totals its SSP payments for that same month. If the payments amount to more than a given percentage—for the moment we have been talking about 5 per cent.—of the national insurance contributions, there should be full reimbursement of the excess. In that way, the target of exceptional sickness is hit—I was going to say fairly and squarely—accurately and effectively.
It does not depend upon a firm being within a charmed circle. It will therefore have the approval of the Sainsbury Report. There is no cut-off point, but common sense dictates—I touched upon this point on Second Reading—that almost by definition it is only relatively small firms which will have a significant number of people off at any one time. To have five members of staff out of a firm of 10 would not be unusual during a 'flu epidemic, but 500 out of 1,000 would be wholly exceptional. Perhaps, as I said, if there were an incident such as Bhopal and a large number of people were seriously injured in a massive explosion, the Committee might feel that some relief would be appropriate. However, it is mostly the small firms that would receive it. In short, the scheme is a universal form of disaster relief.
I said earlier that the CBI has come round to supporting the scheme. Perhaps I may quote from a letter which I received this morning. It states:
"Our members welcome your amendment, designed to provide more effective assistance for smaller firms who may experience excessive sick pay costs, for example, in the case of a 'flu epidemic. The proposal should provide help for those companies which really need it, without setting thresholds which create disincentives for small companies to employ more people".
As regards the example I gave of members of a small firm involved in a minibus accident, under the Government's scheme the firm will receive nothing. However, under the scheme proposed in the amendment, if the firm's monthly national insurance
888
contribution is, say, £410—a figure which would be perfectly reasonable—and eight employees were off work for three weeks, its statutory sick pay would come to just under £1,300. Instead of receiving nothing it would receive about £1,270 back. That incident would be a disaster, and it would need disaster relief. Perhaps we may take the example of those employed in the highly-paid professional firm with one employee off for 12 weeks and the government scheme paying £420 to a firm with a turnover of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Depending on where the percentage figure is pitched the firm might receive something back but I suspect that it would be so small that it would not bother.
I turn to the cost of the amendment, because with a proposal of this kind one must have some idea about that. Members of the Committee will have seen that I tabled a string of parliamentary Questions to by to obtain the information on which we could do the sums. My noble friend and his officials have done their best but, surprisingly, the department does not have the information I seek. Therefore, out of kindness and an anxiety not to disappoint, my noble friend has answered a whole lot of different questions which I did not ask and which may or may not be helpful. I am reminded of the case of the examination candidate who was asked to describe the principles of the Archimedes pump. He said, "I know nothing about the Archimedes pump but here is a list of the kings of Israel and Judah".
My noble friend's answers are also obscure and inconsistent with some of the information we have been given. The Government have always argued that average sickness records may be four or five employees out of 100 off sick at any one time. When asked to give the figures for the estimated average number receiving benefit at any one time we were told that it was 330,000 people. The employed population is 24.2 million, which gives a figure not of 4 or 5 per cent. but of 1.3 per cent. One is left with doubts about how much value one can place on these figures. Other questions aimed at quantifying the cost of the Government's scheme have produced answers which cannot be reconciled with each other, and so with reluctance I have had to abandon them.
I take instead the figures provided by the Forum of Private Business. In my experience it knows what it is talking about and some reliance can be placed on what it says. If one assumes that average pay of a firm's employees is £1,000 a month—that is £250 a week, which technically would be the "mean monthly salary" —a 5 per cent. trigger for the reimbursement would not be activated until at least 11 people out of 100 were off for a full week, or half that number for two weeks. The figure of 11 can be compared with the figure of 1.3, derived from the Written Answer to which I referred a moment ago.
If one is dealing with lower paid people with a mean salary of, say, £600 per month the trigger level is lower because the monthly national insurance contributions are lower. A 5 per cent. trigger would be activated if 4.5 per cent. were off sick in any one week for a full week. That is still well above the figure of 1.3 per cent.

889
But there remain uncertainties and the amendment therefore leaves the percentage figure to be fixed by order. My noble friend, with the resources at his disposal, will, I believe, be able to ascertain the figure which produces a fair compensation for exceptional sickness without imposing a burden he would be unable to persuade his colleagues in the Treasury to accept.
Is it all practical? On Second Reading my noble friend gave a number of reasons why he thought there may be difficulties. I conclude by quoting from the letter I received from the British Payroll Managers' Association. That is the professional body of those who will be responsible for implementation and who operate SSP. It states that,
"there is certainly much to commend the scheme you put forward. It would certainly be simple to operate, requiring only one calculation per accounting period. The proposed Government scheme would require an individual calculation in respect of each potentially qualifying period of absence".
The letter mentions another point. My noble friend has been good in listening to us since Second Reading. He raised the problem of the time constraint because of the late Budget and the short timescale. On this the association states that,
"the imposition of a bad scheme on the pretext of time constraints is not an acceptable basis for rejecting a potentially good scheme".
We may need regulations to prevent abuse; for instance, employers shifting the claim from one month to the next so as to bring them within the 5 per cent. trigger, or whatever the figure may be. However, it cannot be beyond the wit of my noble friend's department to do that. Yes, it will have to move fast because the legislation is due to take effect from the beginning of April. I refuse to believe that with good will it cannot be done. A measure of support has piled up behind this vastly improved scheme compared with what is currently in the legislation. That is a good incentive for my noble friend and his officials to make the effort. The scheme targets relief where it is needed: exceptional sickness—not long individual spells —among employees of small firms. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Perhaps I may remind the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Earl Russell: I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, not only on his speech but also on winning the race to be the first to put his name to the amendment. Often we find amendments in search of Peers. Since Second Reading it has been clear that we have had Peers falling over each other to put their names to this amendment. The noble Lord succeeded, and I congratulate him. He has presented the case well. I have little to add.
Those Members of the Committee who are aficionados of election results may be familiar with the name of Dixville Notch in New Hampshire. Dixville Notch announces its election results for a presidential election at one minute after midnight on the day polls open. So everyone wanting to see which way the vote has gone waits anxiously for the results from Dixville
890
Notch. But if, as often happens, all 12 voters of Dixville Notch happen to vote Republican that does not prove that the Republicans will get a landslide vote. It does not even prove that they will win. And if, unusually, the vote turns out to be 11 Republicans to one Democrat that does not prove that the Democrats will win. The inhabitants of Dixville Notch are not a statistically significant sample. That is the basic principle with which we are dealing in this amendment—
Lord Carter: The noble Earl said that the town announces the result one minute after the polls open. Surely he means one minute after the polls close.
Earl Russell: No. That is, in fact, correct. The inhabitants of Dixville Notch go to the polls en bloc one minute after they have opened. Since there is a 100 per cent. poll there is no need for further waiting. But it does not tell us what the results will be.
One can do anything with a small sample. I once proved that in a department of which I was then a member one's chances of admission were trebled if, as an entrance candidate, one's surname happened to begin with "W". I do not believe that that is evidence of bias. In the same way a small businessman may have either exceptionally high or exceptionally low levels of sickness. It will not prove anything about your competence as an employer. It may prove something about the nature of your business, and thought should be given to that. For example, if you own one fishing trawler and you happen to hit a tremendous freak wave off Land's End, you can easily have all your crew laid up and unable to carry on earning at all. In that situation, some form of relief is rather important.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is surely right. What matters is not the size or the number of employees of the firm but how exceptional is the level of the sickness bill. I agree that this provision will apply normally to small businesses, but that will not always be the case. I have known of businesses whose staff have been affected by infections carried in the air conditioning ducts. Where that happens an exceptional level of sickness can occur in a large firm. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that such a case could be seen to be worthy of an exceptional level of relief.
As the noble Viscount said on Second Reading, it is true that this proposal will involve work in the contributions agency—record keeping and monitoring —which is not of itself desirable; bureaucracy never is. But the alternative is that we shall take away the relief from firms with an exceptional level of sickness. That will mean that the cost will come all at once, thus creating cash flow problems. We should not forget that aspect. It may cause business bankruptcies.
We have here a straight question of priorities. We have record keeping and paperwork, which are undesirable, or we have business bankruptcies which, in my opinion, are more undesirable. As a country we need to earn our living. It is our businesses, large and small, which do that. Everything else is built on the backs of the profits which they make. Because the avoidance of bankruptcy is the highest priority, this amendment is right and I very much hope that it will be accepted.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. When I read it I had the feeling that we had been here before. We all remember the debates that we had on the 1991 Act when we attempted, with some success, to introduce amendments, which were eventually accepted by the Government, to protect small businesses. When we dealt with that legislation we felt that eventually the Government would return with another Bill, although at the time they said that they thought that that was unlikely.
Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, the amendment applies to any employer, it is likely to have the greatest effect on small businesses because, as the noble Lord explained so well, an abnormal level of sickness hits a small business much harder and, indeed, has a disproportionate effect. We know also that most absences due to sickness are for fewer than four weeks. I believe that 76 per cent. to 78 per cent. of absence is for fewer than four weeks, as was shown in a very useful paper produced by the Commons Library.
This is an ingenious approach. I congratulate the drafters of the amendment on it. The argument has been largely made so that there is no need to speak at length. A similar approach was adopted in 1991, and again with the help of the formidable Mr. Mendham. I hope that on this occasion the Government will be able to accept the amendment or at least take it away and come back with their own version of it. I hope that the Minister will not say that there is not enough time because I am sure that his department will be able to find an answer to that problem. There is an interesting article in this week's edition of The House Magazine by Sir Robert McCrindle, a former Member of another place. In it he says:
"Take the ongoing debate on the degree to which the State should look to the private sector to provide welfare benefits. The City is distinctly cool other than in areas where money can be made, which does not include those who are likely to be ill frequently".
That makes the point extremely well. There is a need for the protection which is sought by this amendment. The scheme will be easy to administer. It involves a specified percentage. The matters can be implemented by regulation. We shall await with interest the Minister's reply, but I hope that he will not say that there is insufficient time for the implementation of this measure, because it can be dealt with by way of regulation. I believe that this is an ingenious approach to the problem which deserves the support of the whole Committee.
Lord Reay: Smaller firms will always be more vulnerable to sickness and to the need to make sickness payments than larger firms. As Members of the Committee have already pointed out, in a small firm it is quite possible either for none of the workforce to go sick or for 50 per cent. or more to go sick at one time. The larger the firm, the less likely it is either to gain or to lose disproportionately. Therefore, with most sickness occurring within the four-week period, the reduction of the reimbursement rates from 80 per cent.
892
to zero for the first four weeks of sickness harshly exposes small businesses to the risk of large statutory sickness payments.
The amendment has the merit of setting a cap on firms' liability to pay SSP, based not on the length of individuals' sickness leave but on the total cost of sickness payments for a firm expressed as a percentage of total national insurance contributions. The smaller the firm, the greater the likelihood that that percentage will be high.
I think, and the CBI thinks, that that is a fairer method of protecting small businesses than that provided in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding pointed out, the amendment has the further merit of dispensing with the need for the national insurance threshold above which firms would abruptly cease to be eligible for relief. Such a threshold would surely have an effect, on the margin, of discouraging firms from expanding their workforce, in particular if firms consider themselves exposed to having to make sickness payments.
The amendment leaves it to the Government to set the percentage of national insurance costs to which SSP payments should amount before firms become eligible for reimbursement. The CBI accepts that the Government may have only a certain sum of money available for the relief of small firms. If that is the case, it suggests that the Government should select a percentage which results in a cost to the Government equal to that of the proposal currently contained in the Bill.
I do not see why the proposals contained in the amendment should be considered to be too complicated, although I have heard them so argued. The calculation which firms will have to make seems to me relatively simple and straightforward. It may well be simpler than the scheme currently in operation which is modified by the Bill and which involves firms in tracking the cumulative total of their individual employees' absence before making a claim. That has apparently proved too complicated for many small firms. In any event, many small firms, to judge from what their representatives say, seem generally to prefer the solution embodied in the amendment.
Nor do I see why there should not be time to incorporate this alternative scheme into the Bill. In 1981 the SSP reimbursement rates were reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. The Government then introduced the small business relief, which we now have. That was designed to persuade noble Lords to accept the reimbursement rate reduction which they had previously rejected. That small business relief was proposed in February, to be implemented in April. Perhaps the Minister will remind his officials of their sterling efforts on that occasion and ask them kindly to repeat them. I hope that my noble friend will indicate in his reply a readiness to continue to explore that avenue.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I have much sympathy with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. It seems to me to have many attractions. Above all, it provides a direct link as regards the amount of sickness, the number of employees sick and full reimbursement of statutory sick pay. As. my noble friend

893
and other speakers have stressed, it would give particular help to small firms suffering from exceptional sickness due, for example, to a flu epidemic or an accident in a minibus which affected a large proportion of the workforce in a factory. Indeed, many other examples have been given.
However, it seems to me that the proposal does not get away from a threshold or a trigger. The Forum of Private Business has suggested that the figure might be 5 per cent. of national insurance contributions. In his amendment, my noble friend has left the percentage to be specified by order. As I see it, there is one difficulty here in that there is no obvious trigger. Moreover, I suspect that there is insufficient information available for a meaningful figure to be given. It would be largely a matter of judgment. If the trigger was fixed too low, it could well mean that some small firms which benefit from the existing scheme would be excluded. On the other hand, if the figure was fixed too high, the scheme might well become more expensive than would otherwise be the case and might let in the employer who really does not need such reimbursement.
The latter seems to me to be a critical practical weakness in a scheme which otherwise appears sound in principle. It would also of course be new and unfamiliar to employers and, as a result—despite what my noble friend said—I suspect that the cost of administration, of record keeping and of monitoring the scheme so that abuse is prevented, would be somewhat higher than the administrative and other costs involved in the existing scheme. Therefore, on balance, I believe that the scheme as improved in the Bill is preferable to the amendment moved by my noble friend.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, took us to New Hampshire. I rather thought that he would explain what would happen when all his 12 voters came down with the flu. But, instead, he used the situation to explain a statistical point. I shall seek to use his argument to explain why I believe that the Government's proposed scheme is statistically better. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that it is an intriguing amendment. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has made a strong case. Of course, I expected nothing less from someone so closely connected with the SSP scheme.
No one could deny that employers are in trouble when a large part of the workforce goes sick, however rarely that might happen. The cost of paying SSP may seem a trifle compared with the problem and cost of replacing absent workers, but any cost is unwelcome in such circumstances. My noble friend's amendment seeks to compensate those employers when SSP exceeds a prescribed percentage of their monthly national insurance payments. That seems an attractive idea. I have considered the proposal carefully but have reluctantly concluded that it would not work as presently drafted. I will try to explain why.
There are three main flaws in what is proposed. The first is the scope it would create for unscrupulous employers to abuse the new scheme. They could delay
894
their SSP payments so as to build up a larger sum to pay in a later month. That larger than usual sum would have a better chance of crossing the threshold for compensation. There is an argument that employers would not find it worth their while to fiddle the figures in that way, but I am afraid I cannot accept it. Either the compensation is worth having or it is not. I take it that my noble friend thinks it worth while, otherwise he would not have tabled the amendment. If it is, it could attract some employers to concentrate as much of their SSP as possible into one payment so as to maximise their chances of getting compensation.
We could not prevent that abuse by requiring employers to pay SSP always in the month in which the employee falls sick. Payroll systems could not cope with last minute adjustments to take account of sick spells occurring towards the end of the month. Such eleventh-hour adjustments would delay wages payments beyond the end of the month to no one's advantage. Instead, pay records are adjusted in the following month to take account of those absences. That is a sensible procedure which we would not wish to change.
To counter the risk of abuse under the scheme proposed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, we would have to require a separate and complex exercise whereby employers who wish to claim compensation would have to apportion SSP paid each month between the months in which the relevant sick absences occurred. Compensation would be payable if the total SSP paid for the month (as opposed to in the month) exceeded a prescribed percentage of the monthly national insurance bill.
I believe that many employers would ignore the compensation scheme, preferring to forego compensation than adopt such a cumbersome procedure, especially as it would benefit them only rarely. For those employers who altered their pay systems and performed the necessary calculations, there would be the further burden of additional checks by the Contributions Agency which would quite properly wish to establish that the employers had recovered the compensation payment correctly.
We would also have to consider the risk of employers deliberately reducing their national insurance contributions. The lower the national insurance payments in a particular month, the easier it would be for SSP to cross the compensation threshold proposed in the amendment. Employers paying more than the average SSP in a particular month might delay that month's salaries until after the last day of the month. Delaying salary payments is not unheard of, especially when employers find themselves in difficulties at the end of a financial year. I fear that it could become more widespread if employers were attracted by the new compensation scheme.
The amendment's second problem is the timescale envisaged. It is frankly impossible for all concerned to implement the arrangements in little more than two months from now. Employers would not be able to adapt their pay systems and train their staff to operate the new procedures. Payroll firms which we consulted told us that they could not rewrite payroll software in

895
time. We do not have the statistics that we need in the form that is necessary to implement the proposed scheme. A special data collection exercise would be needed which could not be completed in time for introduction this April. My noble friend has no doubt noticed my struggle to answer his Written Questions. We do not have the data in the form that he requires.
The third important drawback is that the amendment could encourage employers to cut back their occupational sick pay. The less occupational sick pay they provide, the lower their national insurance contributions for the month and thus the easier it would be for their SSP payments to cross the compensation threshold. It is not for the Government to lay down how much employers' own schemes should pay when an employee is sick. But we would not wish to give a perverse incentive to business to reduce or abandon existing occupational schemes which have become so widespread that over 90 per cent. of employees work for employers that provide them.
We should not forget that we already have a scheme for helping small employers. Members of this Chamber persuaded the Government to adopt it in 1991. Employers paying £16,000 or less in contributions in the previous tax year get full reimbursement of any SSP paid after six weeks' illness. We have undertaken to enhance that help by making more employers eligible and giving full reimbursement sooner. Once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament, we will lay regulations to raise the threshold defining eligible employers from £16,000 to £20,000. In addition, full reimbursement will be available after four instead of six weeks. About 750,000 employers will thus be brought within the scope of the scheme.
My noble friend has pointed out that the present system of small employers relief was crude. Crude it may be, but it is simple and certain, unlike the plan embodied in this amendment. Better, I believe, to improve what we have and be confident that it works rather than to rush into the dangerous uncertainties of a completely new approach without all the data and statistics that we need.
Indeed the National Federation of Small Business opposes this amendment precisely because it prefers the existing system of helping small employers. It also opposes the amendment because it is intended to cost no more than the existing small employers relief scheme which it replaces. But as the new system, as proposed by this amendment, would not be confined to small employers and covers a different set of circumstances, without spending more money, some small employers would lose out. Not surprisingly, the federation sees improving the existing system as the best way to help small business.
As I have explained, I cannot support this amendment. But I recognise the anxieties that have prompted my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding to move his amendment. This amendment seems attractive at first sight but fails on closer examination. In practice, it would be a burden. It could not be implemented in the time available. It gives employers a perverse incentive to reduce occupational sick pay provision. The Government plans improve the present small employers
896
relief scheme. Added to the financial gains flowing from the cut in employers' national insurance contributions, enhancing this help is the safest, simplest means of protecting small employers. Should our monitoring and contacts with employers reveal problems, we are always ready to consider.
If, having listened to my serious concerns, my noble friend still thinks his plan is practicable, I would be more than happy to discuss any further thoughts he may have between now and Report stage. However, I hope my noble friend will understand that we have serious anxieties that the scheme proposed in the amendment is simply not workable.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, replies to the amendment, I wish to say a few words. I thank the noble Viscount for the spirit in which he has answered this amendment. His answer was helpful in spirit and was, I believe, informed by a real desire to get at the truth. I shall try to reply to him in the same spirit. There are two sets of argument here; one is technical and concerns means; the other concerns priorities. I wish to think aloud about both of them and perhaps be put right if necessary.
I understand the argument about the danger of abuse through delay in reporting of sickness. Am I correct that that is limited in scope by the fact that one cannot delay reporting sickness until one has the sickness to report. and therefore that at least the scale of that risk, even if not its fact, is perhaps rather less than it might be? As. regards priorities, the proposed scheme might be abused. If it is to be brought in, we must do everything we can to prevent it from being abused. However, the question is about priorities. Suppose we were in the government of Albania, where until recently the motor vehicle was effectively illegal, and people proposed to bring it in, it might well be argued that it should not be brought in because it might be abused in that it might be driven dangerously and that it might cause accidents. I think we might decide in those circumstances that in spite of the truth of those arguments, it was better to bring it in nonetheless for the sake of the greater good. When we consider the risk of business bankruptcies, I wonder whether we might consider that there is a case of this sort to be made in favour of this amendment.
I take the point of the noble Viscount on the difficulty of making last minute adjustments to payrolls and the problems of apportioning sick pay between month and month. I can see the problems of that; but we are dealing at the moment with absences of longer than four weeks, and even if there were to be some retreat on that principle of four weeks, I believe that we would still be dealing with absences long enough to require certification. There will be a date on that certification. That is already a record. Doctors do not normally sign documents without putting dates on them, assuming at least that one can read those documents. If a date is recorded, is it possible that we might be able to use that to apportion the statutory sick pay to the month in which the sickness happened? Is there any way forward in this direction?
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, I must inform the Minister that I either misheard or did not understand a point which he made in his reply. I believe the Minister said that salaries could be delayed—to fiddle the system, as it were. I have a contract of employment with the employees of the companies I am involved with which states they will be paid monthly in arrears. Is the Minister suggesting there will be a mass outbreak of breaches of contract to fiddle the proposed system?
Viscount Astor: No, I am not suggesting that. What I was saying was that if an employee is off sick on the last day of the month for example, the employer will probably not make an adjustment to the pay until the following month. Therefore, under the terms of the amendment that is proposed, employers would have to adjust the pay of the specific month when the sickness occurred, whereas what actually happens is that someone looks back to a previous month and then adjusts the pay.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the risk of abuse was reduced by the requirement to report sickness as it happens. However, it is not a matter of the scope for abuse but rather when sickness benefit is paid. I should make the point—this is an important point and I have already mentioned it briefly—that not all employers' organisations support this amendment. Some of them have reservations about it. However, the most important point I should make is that we have not really consulted the industry on this intriguing amendment as there has not been time to do so. I do not believe that we should take this radical departure from the existing scheme without seeking employers' views. We cannot risk getting this matter wrong especially as we already have a scheme to help small employers which works and which we plan to improve.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I cannot say I am over-enthusiastic with my noble friend's reply. As he knows, I have been Secretary of State in the department which he now graces and I am familiar with the, in some senses, admirable tendency of officials to try to block every conceivable loophole. There is an ever more common view that as government and, inevitably, life become more complex, such a tendency is not the right way to prevent abuse. A much better way of preventing abuse is to let everyone know that there will be a few rigorous, statistically significant checks—that is to say, there will be enough checks for them to count—and that anyone who is found fiddling the system will suffer some condign penalty. That is a much cheaper way to tackle the matter.
It is quite obvious that the penalty for this kind of abuse should be no reimbursement for a period of years. If someone has cheated the system, he should be placed outside it. The vast majority of employers in this country comply with the complicated law on PAYE and with the complicated laws on employers' and employees' national insurance contributions in a perfectly honest way. I do not believe my noble friend would deny that. I suspect that in the contributions
898
departments officials know—under the rules which allow an exchange of information with the Inland Revenue—where the risks lie.
I believe that we need to explore the matter further. My noble friend said at the beginning that the amendment would not work as presently drafted. I take that as an invitation to have another go. I believe that we need to look at the question of abuse. It is suggested that it would require a massive new system of record-keeping by employers. That is not my advice. The advice that I have received is that it would be simpler than the present scheme. I take issue with my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree who seemed to think that it would be more complicated. It would not. It would be simpler, involving two calculations which employers already make—their national insurance contributions for the month and their statutory sick pay for the month. There is no question of having to deal with individual employees and calculating how long each employee has been off sick. That is what employers have to do under the Government scheme. Therefore, I cannot accept that argument.
I accept that the Government will need to fix a figure. It is not beyond the wit of man to be able to arrive at a sufficient degree of accuracy in order to do that.
To return to the point with which I opened, my amendment hits the target, which is exceptional sickness. The Government's proposal hits some of it but misses at both ends. It misses, as my minibus example shows, in that a small employer suffering a serious accident can receive nothing because nobody is sick for more than four weeks. On the other hand, a wealthy employer with few employees can be entitled to reimbursement of a sum which is wholly inconsequential in relation to the total turnover of the firm. That does not seem to be a sensible way of proceeding.
The amendment has attracted a great deal of support. Of course the Bill has not attracted the support of small businesses. As my noble friend knows, the federation is totally opposed to the Bill. It wants none of it and is highly suspicious of the Government's good faith in maintaining the 1 per cent. cut in the national insurance contribution. If the scheme set out in the amendment became part of the law there would be built-in protection against a change in the national insurance contribution. Therefore, it seems to me that that argument can be turned on its head. The benefit of the reimbursement would remain and the national insurance denominator in the fraction would be changed.
I shall come back to my noble friend, as he invited me to do. I shall return to the matter at Report stage. With support in all parts of the House and from most major organisations, as my noble friend Lord Reay said, I do not believe that we should let the matter go. We must find ways round the difficulties and persuade my noble friend that there are ways round the difficulties. I believe that that can and should be done. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("cease to have effect") and insert ("continue to have effect with the substitution of the words "75 per cent." for the words "80 per cent." ").
The noble Earl said: State relief for sickness has always been one of the pillars of the welfare state. At Second Reading the noble Viscount rather pooh-poohed the idea that any dismantling of the welfare state was involved here. He pointed out, perfectly correctly, that employees are still supposed by law to receive statutory sick pay. Whether they will receive it is another question, to which I hope to return on the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. In putting that argument the noble Viscount will not have given any comfort to employers, and I have never been one of those who believed that the welfare state was not supposed to be of any benefit to employers.
When the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said that the proposals in this Bill were not targeted he hit the nail on the head. The national insurance relief is across the board. It has nothing to do with levels of sickness or with times of sickness. It does not spread the risk. In fact, here the risk for the employer is concentrated at the one moment when the sickness happens. That is an instance where private insurance cannot match national insurance. It cannot spread the risk as widely. In actuarial terms it cannot do as well.
I also have very profound doubts about the objective of reducing sickness absence. On many occasions that may actually serve to increase sickness. Coming into the office with flu is an obvious case. Coming into work which involves heavy lifting with a back injury is another. If we could reduce sickness that would be very welcome indeed. But reducing sickness absence, which this taking away of the relief tries to encourage, is not likely to reduce sickness. For that reason it will produce more people who are not capable of being employed. For that reason also it will cost the state more because people with long sickness records will be concentrated on benefit and will become a charge on the Exchequer when they could perhaps, with a little sickness absence and with a decent recovery, have got back into work.
I suspect that the noble Viscount may be preparing to say that the amendment is a rather bigger one than he is happy to see. Members of the Committee may remember an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—who was in his place a few moments ago—proposing to leave out Part I of the football supporters' Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, may on some occasion tell us that we would have saved him a great deal of hard work had we been sufficiently courageous to carry that amendment when we had the chance to do so. That amendment was no smaller than this one. It was one that we could have carried. It is one that I wish we had carried. If we do not carry this one I expect in three or four years to be standing here saying what a pity it is that we did not. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: A reduction in the reimbursement rate to 75 per cent. instead of abolition for all but small employers in prescribed circumstances would considerably reduce employers' incentives to improve the well-being and motivation of their employees. It is widely accepted that we have one of the worst sick absence rates in the EC. Research proves that.
900
Absenteeism through sickness costs British industry anything between £9 billion and £13 billion annually. The Government believe that employers need to be prompted to help themselves by cutting that cost. SSP reimbursement of 80 per cent. or even 75 per cent. of employers' SSP costs, as proposed in the amendment, acts as a disincentive to them to improve the well-being, motivation and attendance records of their employees. As my noble friend Lord Reay said during the Second Reading debate, there is widespread acknowledgment that the Government's case has merit. That includes support from organisations such as the CBI and the Institute of Directors, which do not oppose the abolition of the 80 per cent. reimbursement rate. They have welcomed the Government's proposals to offset employers' extra SSP costs by an even higher reduction in their national insurance contributions liability; so much so that employers as a whole will be well over £100 million better off as a result of these reductions. All employers will be able to benefit from the reductions, but employers who respond positively to the incentive to improve sick absence levels will be better off still.
If the amendment were to be accepted, and I hope that I have explained why it should not succeed, the Government would seriously have to consider whether to proceed with the proposed reductions in employers' national insurance contributions. Those reductions are clearly associated with and are intended to compensate employers for the extra SSP costs arising from the abolition of the 80 per cent. reimbursement rate. The Government could not reasonably be expected to continue to fund the lion's share of SSP costs while at the same time reducing the national insurance contributions by some £800 million during the corning year. We believe that the SSP and national insurance contributions reductions package—and I have to tell the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is a package—is a generous one which has been welcomed by employers and their representative organizations. Employers will make substantial savings from their contribution reductions and could save even more by improved control and monitoring of sick absence rates where they are above average.
The amendment does nothing to help employers improve sick absence rates in British industry. I do not believe the argument that it will help those who are sick and sick absence rates, as the noble Earl suggests. That distinction is not valid when one considers the importance of employers improving the sickness absence rates of their employees, improving conditions and being more responsible.
It is important that British industry retains the advantage over our foreign counterparts which we shall continue to have if the Government's overall statutory sick pay and national insurance contribution reductions proceed as planned. Therefore I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. He will hardly be surprised that the points about sickness absence do not appear to me to be entirely persuasive for this among other reasons: employers are

901
not doctors. If they start trying to discipline absence on grounds of sickness, they will often not know whether they are dealing with an actual back injury, a genuine case of depression—something very hard for a layman, and often a doctor, to recognise—or malingering. The effect of the proposals will be to cause people to go to work when they are not well. I do not believe that that is a good thing.
I heard what the noble Viscount said about the CBI. The CBI's brief is not quite as unhesitant as he suggested. I also read the brief sent by the CBI on the subject in 1991. I found the 1991 briefs entirely clear and persuasive; and I still do.
I listened to what he said about the advantage to employers as a whole. But, of course, no individual employer is "employers as a whole".
The noble Viscount may remember that in the Bill in 1991 there was originally a clause which would have allowed the department to bring in this change by regulation. That would have deprived us of the opportunity to vote on it. It is a change of such substance that it would have been wrong to deprive us of the right to vote on it. Having sweated blood to preserve that right, I should like to exercise it. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 153.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Healey, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Barnett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bath, M.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hooson, L.

Birk, B.

Howell, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hughes, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L.

Judd, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kintore, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Listowel, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lytton, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Eatwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ezra, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkender, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falkland, V.

Mayhew, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fitt, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Peston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gregson, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

902

Rochester, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Russell, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Serota, B.

Whaddon, L.

Shepherd, L.

White, B.

Stallard, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Addison, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harvington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hayter, L.

Alport, L.

Henley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Arran, E.

Hood, V.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Bellwin, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beloff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Knutsford, V.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Long, V.

Braybrooke, L.

Lucas, L.

Brookes, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Burnham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Cadman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marsh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chalfont, L.

Middleton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Morris, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nelson, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Norfolk, D.

Davidson, V.

Norrie, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Derwent, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peel, E.

Dormer, L.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dundonald, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Elles, B.

Prentice, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Forbes, L.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Renwick, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodney, L.

Granard, E.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

Haig, E.

Shannon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

903

Skelmersdale, L

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Stewartby, L.

Torrington, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wakeham, L [Lord Privy Seal.]

Swansea, L.

Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
(" except where an employer is liable to make a payment of statutory sick pay to an employee who has in the preceding two years been entitled to receive sickness benefit or invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit, when sub-paragraph 158(1) (a) (ii) shall continue to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I am not confident about the wording and if, on behalf of the Government, the Minister feels that there is merit in the proposal, we would be delighted to take the amendment back and submit a subsequent one. The proposal touches on a real problem presented by the Bill. Put simply, larger firms now have to pay 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay and that means that in future, anyone who is out of the labour market and who has a record of disability or ill health will find it that much harder to be employed. The amendment tries to address the problem that the changes in the statutory sick pay presented by the Bill mean that someone who is disabled will enter the labour market with a negative dowry, so to speak, in the perceptions of employers.
In his speech on the Bill in another place, the Secretary of State made much of the fact that the measures would act as a positive incentive to employers to promote employees' health. However, in practice, as the Conservative Party briefing shows, the primary reason for it is disciplinary. It is stated that in Britain absence from work due to sickness is relatively high compared with other European countries. The Government presume that that is evidence of malingering and they are therefore encouraging employers to strengthen their policing role vis-à-vis sick employees by giving them a clearer financial interest to do so.
The belief behind that and behind the incapacity Bill, which is currently going through the Commons and, I imagine, will arrive in a few weeks at your Lordships' House, is that the sick, the chronically sick and the disabled must be assumed to be fraudulent in their ill health and in their claims for right to benefit unless proven otherwise. As the Disablement Income Group has said, that represents a character assassination of the disabled.
We have already heard at Second Reading—and we shall return to this with the final amendment today—that people fear that one of the side effects or consequences of the Bill will be the dismissal of staff in employment who become sick. As we shall report, the CAB already has well attested cases to that effect. No one in this
904
Committee—and certainly not on our side of it—countenances fraud. But it is clear that British employers are already overzealous in removing their chronically sick from the labour force. We believe that they are already over-hesitant about re-employing anyone with a disability history and taking them back into employment.
That evidence is well attested to by several quite sturdy research reports on disability—commissioned by the DSS longitudinal studies of recipients of disability allowances. Those studies show that three-quarters of employers now do nothing to keep someone who is suffering sickness or disability in work. They do not offer lighter work or more flexible hours and they do not modify their equipment, even though in a third of cases for those employees their illness, sickness or disability was caused by or contributed to by their work situation. The employers walk away from it. When, as well, we have recently heard that employers will in future be required to pay 50 per cent. of the costs of equipment for disabled members of their staff who have been employed by them for six months, we regard it as yet another inducement by employers to sack the sick.
All the evidence suggests not only that British employers are quick to sack the sick but also that they are extremely reluctant to re-employ the disabled once they have left work. Once, out of the labour market, the chronically sick or disabled find it hard to re-enter. In an Answer to a Parliamentary Question only a couple of days ago, we were told that most firms could not meet their quota of 3 per cent. registered disabled. Only the Department of Employment manages to do so; local authorities and public bodies have as much difficulty in meeting the quota as do private companies. Yet, something like 22 per cent. of the disabled are unemployed—three times the average for those who are fit.
Why would anyone wish to employ someone with a dubious health record? I know, and the Minister may tell us—and he would be right to do so—that most disabled people who return to work are conscientious to a fault. But employers who have dismissed someone because they were sick, or released someone because they were disabled, would not believe that. When employers consider whether to take on someone with a disablement history, they are likely not to do so, especially because the vast majority have fluctuating and therefore unpredictable health records.
For example, of those whose invalidity benefit ended because they were fit to work, only 12 per cent. were able to find work, even though all the research shows that they were attached to the labour market and were flexible in what they sought in terms of wages, skills, hours and closeness to their homes. Only 12 per cent. could find work; and of that 12 per cent., two-thirds who returned to work could only do so with their previous employer. In other words, if employees are fit to return to work and their previous employers not take them back, almost no one else will.
The Spastics Society's research quoted last night in another place showed that employers are six times as likely to turn down for interview a person with

905
disabilities as to turn down persons without such disabilities, even though they have identical qualifications.
We shall soon see the purpose of the Bill. At the very time when the Government are requiring disabled people to be available for any work for which they are functionally competent, with this Bill the Government are increasing disincentives for employers to employ or re-employ the disabled. All the evidence shows that the main growth in the invalidity benefit is not because there are more claimants but because people are staying on the benefit longer because they cannot get off it in order to re-enter the labour market. When they do re-enter it, they cannot get work because they are disabled.
Disabled people, as I said, already have three times the unemployment rate of the able-bodied. They are seldom retained by their employers and unless their existing employer re-employs them they will almost certainly otherwise never find work. With this Bill we are making the situation even harder for someone with a history of disability to re-enter the labour force and find work. The Bill requires larger employers to meet the whole bill, and it therefore adds to the negative dowry, if I may use that phrase, that the disabled already carry when they seek to re-enter the labour market.
Already, 95,000 of those who would have got invalidity benefit, we are told, will not be eligible for incapacity benefit next year, rising to something like 190,000 people. It looks as though there may be something like 200,000 people who will lose invalidity benefit because they are fit to work but who will not perhaps be eligible for unemployment benefit or income support because they are not fully available for work.
If the Government are right in saying that disabled people have a better work record—and I believe that that may well be true—then the refunding of the cost for anybody who comes into the labour market with a history of invalidity benefit during the last two years will be trivial. It will be a cost that we can well afford to pay. However, if the Government are wrong and a person's health or disability remains a real obstacle to steady work, it is even more important that we and the Government should help disabled people and employers, who cannot be expected to act charitably in the circumstances, to bring people back into the labour market even though they may then go on to seek disability working allowance. After all, we shall be saving one and a quarter billion pounds in year two of the incapacity Bill currently going through the other place.
To accept this amendment would cost, I suspect, very little money indeed. But it would help the disabled to re-enter the labour market. The problem over disability, as we know, is not the problem of the disabled and their motivation. The problem lies with the employer and his perception, and also with the Government and their statutory disincentives as carried by this Bill.
The Secretary of State said yesterday in another place:
906
"I want those who are fit enough to work to be helped back to work by the benefits appropriate to them". [Official Report, Commons, 24/1/94; col. 36.]
Precisely. That is why we are moving the amendment today.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: In supporting the amendment, I declare an interest. I once had three months off work as the result of a back injury. The medical advice I received was that I had a straight choice: either I took three months off work and enjoyed a complete and permanent recovery or I returned to work and the effects of the injury would recur for the rest of my life. Your Lordships will therefore see why I am so concerned. It is a mistake to confuse reducing sickness absence with reducing sickness.
Having a generous employer, I took the advice I was given and remained for three months flat on my back. In a period of about 30 years—touch wood—the effects of the injury have not recurred. If, as the noble Baroness put it, I had come before an employer under the conditions of this Bill I would have been carrying a form of negative dowry. I would have a label on me saying "This person is expensive to employ: be careful of him". I may be in error, but I believe that if I had been looking for a new job with this Bill in force my chances of being re-employed would have been very much diminished. I cannot help believing, possibly mistakenly, that that would have been a pity.
The points made by the noble Baroness about the disabled are also simple and clear. I think we are all agreed that the disabled have a better record than the rest of us as employees. Of course, that does not prove that employers perceive the fact. There is a great deal of reason to believe that they do not. There are certain beliefs so ingrained in public consciousness that they are capable of surviving a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Let me take, for example, the belief that the Conservatives are a low-tax party—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the noble Earl for saying that.
Earl Russell: I support the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness said. There is a lot to be done in encouraging companies to behave better towards the disabled and those with long-term ill health, but I would say that statutory sick pay has very little to do with the reasons why employers do not employ such people. The reasons are based in the disruption that employers believe such people cause. To take an example, if you are looking at employing a teacher with multiple sclerosis, £50 a week possible sick pay is neither here nor there. What you are concerned with is the effect on the children of the teacher's absences on days when he has not the energy to work fully. What you are concerned with is the cost of £100 a day that is needed to get a supply teacher. However much I agree with the overall arguments of the noble Baroness, I feel that the change the Government are making will not have any effect on those employers who take the right attitude towards employing the disabled.
Lord Carter: If there are people with the attitude that has been described, it is our job to persuade them that they are wrong. I have been involved in disability issues for a long time and I can assure the noble Lord opposite that the attitude he speaks of is held by a few people. However, it is remarks such as those he has just uttered which make people feel that those views are held by a large number of people.
Viscount Astor: I think that my noble friend Lord Lucas was explaining that while we all have concerns about the employment of disabled people, the amendment does not help them. That is a fair argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, claimed that the incapacity Bill, I believe she said, charges that the chronically ill are fraudulent unless proved otherwise. That is a massive distortion of the incapacity Bill which had its Second Reading in another place yesterday. She quoted my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is a pity that she did not bother to quote the following sentence where he said that it is wrong to give people who are able to work benefits which can eventually lead to their becoming unable to work because of unfamiliarity, lack of motivation and the staleness of skills caused by their being on benefits for some time.
We will have a chance to discuss the aims of that Bill when it comes to your Lordships' Chamber. I am sure that all your Lordships will want to look at the Bill closely. I listened carefully to the reasons given by the noble Baroness for introducing the amendment. I have to tell her that the complexities of administration which would follow for employers operating different reimbursement rules for different employees, depending on whether they had been sick and in receipt of an incapacity benefit such as sickness benefit or invalidity benefit, would be extremely daunting.
However, I want first to address the important issues that the noble Baroness raised about the effect which abolition of the 80 per cent. reimbursement rate will have on an employer's willingness to recruit people with disabilities or those with a poor health record. The noble Baroness claimed that as a direct result of the proposals in this Bill employers will be reluctant to employ such people. If this were true, I should also be concerned. But I have to say that the Government believe that that is not the case.
Similar charges were levelled at the SSP scheme when it was first introduced more then 10 years ago and again three years ago when the reimbursement rate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. Those fears proved groundless and we believe the result will be no different this time.
We do not expect there to be any changes in the pattern of employment of people with disabilities as the result of the abolition of the 80 per cent. reimbursement rate. People with the right attitude to work and who have the necessary skills will always be attractive to employers because those attributes are more important than their disabilities or their past health record. I do not believe that employers' recruitment practices are determined, or even influenced, by whether or not they
908
receive 80 per cent. reimbursement for their SSP costs when an employee goes sick. There is no evidence to support such a suggestion.
Recent research reveals that employers see the costs of sick absence more in terms of lost production and the cost of employing a replacement worker than either their actual SSP costs or even their occupational sick pay costs. If employers were concerned about their potential SSP costs for people with poor health records they would have changed their hiring policies or would have instigated action to reduce their SSP or occupational sick pay costs. That has not happened and the Government do not believe that the April 1994 SSP changes, accompanied as they are by the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, will have any knock-on effect on the employment prospects of people with disabilities or poor health records.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As this is the Committee stage, will the Minister be kind enough to comment on the two pieces of research evidence I put forward—one coming from the DSS research and the other from the Spastics Society. According to the DSS research, only 12 per cent. of those who come off invalidity benefit and are attached to the labour market can find jobs. According to the Spastics Society, six times as many people with disabilities are not called to interview as those without disabilities but with the same qualifications. That makes it six times harder for them to gain access to an interview. How does the Minister explain that if what he is saying is correct?
Viscount Astor: I have not seen the research to which the noble Baroness refers. But even if I had, I am sure that it does not affect the reimbursement of SSP. The noble Baroness is talking about statistics that affect people with disabilities for employment, adding that to the reimbursement of SSP and making a connection where we believe there is none.
The existing scheme already has a provision which protects the state benefit entitlement of those people with recurring bouts of sickness who take up employment while at the same time ensuring that employers do not have to take on the responsibility of having to pay SSP if that employee falls sick again within eight weeks of a previous sickness spell. The Government believe that eight weeks is a reasonable period after which an employer should become liable to pay SSP to a new employee who has previously been entitled to sickness or invalidity benefit.
The practical effects of operating the system proposed by the amendment would result in the imposition of an elaborate and costly scheme for the exchange of information between the Benefits Agency, which administers the state incapacity benefits, and individuals; between individuals and their employers, and even between employers themselves where the individual has changed employers during the period concerned. That seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. It would add significantly to employers' costs and could act as a deterrent to the recruitment of those workers which the amendment is aimed at helping. Even if

909
employers were not deterred from recruiting such employees, the system would stigmatise them as people with poor health records.
It will also complicate the reimbursement arrangements. Each month when the employer paid over his national insurance contributions and income tax to the Inland Revenue he would have to calculate the SSP payments which attracted the 80 per cent. recovery rate and those payments for which no reimbursement was due. In some cases, he could find himself having to apportion monthly payments of SSP during a month for a specific employee between that part of the payment for which he was due 80 per cent. and, if he was a small employer, that part on which he could revert to 100 per cent. recovery.
The amendment is unnecessary for protecting the employment prospects of those less healthy people who may be more prone to sick absence. It would also result in an administrative nightmare and add to the costs of administering the scheme without helping the employees it is intended to help; it could even damage their job prospects.
We are all concerned with the employment of people with disabilities; there is no disagreement on that. But the amendment does not help them; it does not aid their case.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. No one is suggesting that the amendment will transform the situation of someone who is disabled from being among the least eligible in the labour market to being among the most eligible. We are saying that somebody who has been disabled in the past couple of years—has had disability, invalidity or sickness benefit—enters an already difficult labour market situation with even more of a burden.
The Bill makes it even less attractive for employers to employ somebody with a poor health record. That is undeniable. If, in future, an employer will have to pay 100 per cent. of the Bill whereas in the past he paid only 80 per cent., it stands to reason that it will be less attractive to him to employ somebody with a question mark over their health. I do not say that that would be the sole or main reason; but it is a reason for not employing somebody. I make no bigger claim than that.
If the Committee accepts that argument—that it is a reason for making it less likely that a disabled person will be employed—then we can meet and address that situation today.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to interrupt. I do not believe it is accepted that that is a reason for employers not to employ people with a disability. That is not the case. The noble Baroness is making a case based on a false premise.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Neither of us has hard evidence. But the evidence we have that comes from the DSS report—I am sorry and disappointed that the Minister did not acquaint himself with it—together with
910
the research evidence from the disability associations, shows that it is one factor. It is not the main factor but it is a factor that is presented by the Bill.
This is not the place for a widescale debate on disability. However, it is common sense that if an employer has to pay the full costs of someone's ill-health then, all things being equal, he will not employ somebody with a record of ill-health over somebody with a record of good health. That is obvious. I cannot understand why the Minister challenges that. That is what the Bill encourages.
Given that the position of the disabled in the labour market is so precarious, as we know from the Government's own research, and if the Bill makes their position even more precarious—as it undeniably does —then we should seek to remedy it. The cost will be trivial. We know that disabled people are extremely conscientious, though fluctuating conditions of sickness may produce a different pattern. But if we can help the disabled to enter the labour market and come off benefit, and if we can encourage the employer to employ such people, we should do so. That is what we are asking.
The procedure is simple. The amendment provides that somebody with an existing record of benefit can carry that, so to speak, as a passport, if they wish, into work. That would therefore trigger the possibility for the employer to reclaim sickness benefit for that person. We have passports of benefits across the whole realm of social security, so why not here for a few people who carry an immense burden on re-entering the labour market? I suspect that the costs will be trivial, certainly compared with the savings that will come from the incapacity Bill. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. But even if it helps an employer to only a modest degree to employ somebody with a disability record so that he is not taking a financially bad risk, that must be sensible; that must be humane and it must be civilised.
Before I sit down, is the noble Viscount—in the light of my comments—willing in some way to reconsider his answer? Will he take the matter away and address the position? I am not interested in winning or pushing or pressing a point; I am interested in seeing whether, together, we can help the disabled not to be further penalised by the clauses of the Bill. That is all.
Before I sit down, I invite the Minister to say whether he feels he can take the amendment away, in a worthwhile sense, with a view to helping the disabled not to carry a further burden on re-entering the labour market.
Viscount Astor: I am very keen to help the disabled enter the labour market but this amendment does not do that. I am happy to discuss with the noble Baroness at any time proposals she may have to help those people with disabilities enter the labour market. However, I have to make it clear to the noble Baroness that I cannot accept the amendment. I cannot consider the amendment because I do not believe that it achieves her very laudable aim. I am quite happy to discuss any points the noble Baroness has, but I must make it clear that I do not believe that the amendment achieves her aim.
Earl Russell: Does the Minister accept that it is a basic principle of market economics that if you increase the cost of something you create a disincentive to using it? Therefore, if you increase the cost of employing those with a long sickness record, you create a disincentive to employing them.
Viscount Astor: I believe that employers look at the whole picture when they employ someone. They look at the person, they look at his record, they look at his abilities and they look to see whether they are employing the right person for the job. Those are the most crucial factors that employers look at.
Baroness Hollis of Heigharn: I am extremely disappointed. I had hoped that the Minister could have accepted that there must be some connection between asking firms to pay the entire bill of statutory sick pay and their willingness to re-employ someone with a history of poor health. That is our assertion. I am not saying that it is the overriding explanation of whether or not they will employ someone but it is a contributory factor. We should not be weighting the scales against them.
The Minister said that he was not willing to consider the amendment. Those were his words. I did not want to press it but if the Minister is not willing even to consider it he has left me with no alternative but to seek the opinion of the Committee.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble Baroness sits down, if I had said to her that I was willing to consider the amendment that would have been giving her some encouragement that I would bring forward my own amendment at Report stage. I said to the noble Baroness that cannot do that. I cannot offer to bring forward an amendment at Report stage on that basis. I said that I would be very happy to discuss between now and Report stage any ideas that she has. It would be a little unfair of her to push me too hard because if I said "consider" she would be quite rightly expecting me to come forward with my own amendment at Report stage. She must realise that I am not in a position to do that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I heard the Minister perfectly well. I understand and appreciate the candour with which he has put his position. He is willing to help the disabled in general but not in particular; he is willing to discuss them in general but not in particular. In the light of that, I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Airedale, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Barnett, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Bath, M.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

912

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Eatwell, L.

Milverton, L.

Ezra, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkender, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ogmore, L.

Fitt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Foot, L.

Plant of Highfield, L

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Glenamara, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Hanworth, V.

Russell, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Healey, L.

Serota, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Judd, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kintore, E.

White, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Addison, V.

Dormer, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Downshire, M.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dundonald, E.

Alport, L.

Elibank, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Arran, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Forbes, L.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Boardman, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Borthwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goold, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Goschen, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Granard, E.

Brookes, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Burnham, L.

Haig, E.

Butterworth, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cadman, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Harvington, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Henley, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Holderness, L.

Chelmsford, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Chesham, L.

Hood, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Howe, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Huntly, M.

Colwyn, L.

Ironside, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cranborne, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Crathorne, L.

Knutsford, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Denham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Long, V.

Derwent, L.

Lucas, L.

913

Lyell, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rodney, L.

Mancroft, L

Romney, E.

Marlesford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Marsh, L.

Seccombe, B.

Merrivale, L.

Selborne, E.

Mersey, V.

Sharples, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Moyne, L.

Strange, B.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Nelson, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Norrie, L.

Swansea, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Orkney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Torrington, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Trumpington, B.

Peel, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Vinson, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vivian, L.

Prentice, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pym, L.

Wise, L.

Radnor, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may hasten to reassure the noble Viscount that I am not attempting to remove the clause. I have had one bite at that cherry already. But as the noble Viscount explained extremely clearly to us a moment ago, we are dealing with a package involving statutory sick pay and national insurance. I understand that the national insurance changes are coming before us by regulation. It seems that this is a convenient opportunity to address some of the elements in that package and to consider whether in fact we have got the proposals right.
If I had spoken in this House some 70 years ago, and I had said the words "three weeks" I believe that I would have been taken to be referring to what was then a very famous novel describing a love affair of the most sensational intensity, capable of being described as the experience of a lifetime. Maybe we are not speeding up so much as we think we are because nowadays the job takes 9½ weeks. Three weeks —even if that may be long enough for the experience of a lifetime—is not long enough to be able to qualify one's employer for reimbursement for statutory sick pay. Earlier on, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, gave us some figures for the facts which we all know—that is, that the vast majority of sickness lasts fewer than four weeks. That means that even for the small employer the vast majority of sickness will not be reimbursed. Where one has an epidemic a very high proportion of the workforce may be ill for a shorter period than four weeks.
914
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, suggested at Second Reading the possibility that the Government may be prepared to consider being flexible about this period of time. He suggested the possibility that they might be asked to consider two weeks. I am using the opportunity of clause stand part to raise that possibility now and to ask the Minister whether he has given this matter any further thought since Second Reading and, if so, what his thoughts are.
My second point is raised as a question and not as an answer and concerns the future of self-certification. I do not necessarily want to insist that every sickness should be certified by a doctor. It would be extremely inconvenient for me if that were necessary every time I had flu. I can imagine what my GP would say to such a proposal. Therefore, the argument here is not all on one side. But we are dealing with arguments which have been put forward on the Government's side of the House for labour discipline and the management of absence. That necessarily must mean some invitation to take disciplinary action or at least warning action, against those absent on the ground of sickness.
There will be inevitably some cases where employers will clamp down on people who were absent for medical reasons or for those kinds of reasons which count as health reasons even if they are not illness—for example, drink problems which are very often unknown to the employer. If employers are to be invited to exercise this kind of discipline over those who are sick, it may be a good idea for them to know that the people they are dealing with are actually sick. I do not see how they can possibly know that except by having the opinion of a doctor. So although I can see a strong argument against this proposal—which I imagine the noble Viscount will develop and he may say things with which I agree—there is an argument on the other side as well. I want to take the chance and invite the Committee to consider it.
The third point that I wish to raise is one that I shall not develop at length because the noble Viscount has very kindly agreed to arrange a meeting. In that regard he has been extremely helpful and I would like to thank him for it. I refer to the question of the right of employees actually to obtain statutory sick pay. The noble Viscount was insistent that an employee's right to get statutory sick pay is undiminished. The problem is how to make that right effective. There are a number of cases where the employers do not pay it, or where they only pay part of it or where they pay it only for a shorter period than that for which it is due. There is another case where they say that they do not pay it for anyone on shift work. These cases are legion. We need some further form of discipline to deal with that.
The noble Viscount will of course say that people may go to the benefit office; they have a legal recourse. That is true, but in the general atmosphere of labour discipline which we are now getting, especially for people in part-time jobs, on short-term contracts and possibly not enjoying employment protection the fear of dismissal is a very real one. I understand that there is a case before the Appellate Committee of this House at the moment involving employment protection which I

915
shall not pursue because it is sub judice. It is a cold breath at the back. It is not a good world in which to be dismissed from one's employment at the moment.
So there is a very real risk of people not getting their statutory sick pay and simply not feeling that it is safe for them to go ahead and make a claim. I was encouraged by what the noble Viscount said as regards Amendment No. 2 today. He said that he regarded the employer's national insurance relief and statutory sick pay as part of one and the same package. In fact, the relief to employers as regards national insurance is pretty well a contractual obligation to go with pay and sick pay.
I suggested at Second Reading that since this is a contractual obligation and a mutual one, if the employers do not discharge their side of it and do not pay statutory sick pay, I do not see why they should get national insurance relief which is designed to finance it. The Minister did not reply to that suggestion at Second Reading. He may well have felt, very properly, that he needed to take advice on it. If he has taken such advice, I should be grateful to know the result of it on the technical question of how and in what procedural form could this question be addressed. Does it need to be a Motion to resolve on the regulations on national insurance or is there any way in which it can be brought within the Long Title of the Bill? Does the Minister see any practical advantages or disadvantages in doing that? On the practical side, I shall listen to what he has to say very carefully. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise also to oppose the Motion that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. This is the clause that imposes the whole burden of statutory sick pay upon employers. Although we had what I might call some "hopeful" exchanges on Amendment No. 1 in regard to the possibility of there being an alternative scheme for small employers, nevertheless, as it stands, the whole burden is to be imposed upon larger employers anyway.
On Second Reading, we went into the history of statutory sick pay when the obligation was first imposed upon employers. My own doubts about what was imposed at that time were somewhat stilled because of the guarantee about full reimbursement. Worries that employees might not get their sick pay entitlement were set aside because of that guarantee. Then we had the 1991 Act which reduced the guarantee by 20 per cent., with some protection for small businesses following protests in this House. Now we are back again—and this time round the guarantee has disappeared altogether.
We face the total privatisation of what is essentially a social benefit. There are a number of reasons why my noble friends and I regard that as unacceptable. First, there is the concern that employees may not get the sick pay to which they are entitled. A number of instances were quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Second Reading, from a briefing provided by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to the effect that many people are not getting their entitlement now when there is 80 per cent. reimbursement. Indeed, NACAB said:
916
"Many employees do not receive the full amount of sick pay and some do not receive any sick pay at all. In many cases, the employees will have no other form of income as they are not always eligible for other benefits".
The briefing from NACAB quoted a number of cases to prove the point.
The Minister may say that that happens in only a small minority of cases, but we need legislation to protect the minority. There is no need to legislate for good employers. They will provide occupational sick pay schemes because that is the right thing to do and often will do so as a result of union negotiations. It is the job of legislators to protect the vulnerable.
There is also the possibility that people who are more vulnerable than others—people with a poor sick record, those who are disabled, those who have been injured or perhaps even those who are older—may find it harder to get employment because they will be regarded as a sickness risk, a risk which employers will now have to bear in full. We had some discussion of those issues on Amendment No. 3, moved by my noble friend Lady Hollis. I regret very much the fact that the Government did not see fit to accept that amendment.
It was suggested on Second Reading that discrimination against the more vulnerable was unlikely since it was well known that disabled people were better risks in relation to absences than more fit employees. However, as we have heard, the Spastics Society says that the level of unemployment among disabled people capable of, and willing to, work is 22 per cent. That has recently been confirmed by government figures. If employers are now more willing to give disabled workers a chance, that is not showing up in the figures. I do not believe that this Bill will help.
There is also the question of the cost to employers. We dealt with that point at some length earlier. As is clear from the brief of the Confederation of British Industry, employers are concerned about what the Bill represents. I have a letter from the CBI dated 24th January stating its concern that the Bill shows that the Government are withdrawing more and more from social provision and leaving it all to the private sector.
Employers received assurances that their full SSP costs would be met. They are now to be given some form of incentive not to make too much fuss about the Bill through a decrease in the amount of national insurance contributions they will have to pay. But for how long, they ask, will that continue? Can they be sure —can the Minister give any assurances—that the Government will not remove that incentive in some future piece of legislation? Can employers be sure that they will not be asked to bear the cost of other social benefits, such as maternity pay and industrial injury benefit? Clearly, the CBI sees the Bill as setting an unfortunate precedent and employers are likely to feel dubious about government assurances in that direction. I should like to hear from the Minister what assurances the Government can give employers on these very important issues.
In case the Minister seeks to chide my noble friends and myself on the ground that we have not previously concerned ourselves with employers' costs, let me say that we are very much aware of them, as is the TUC which has raised the same point. The Government are

917
loading the costs onto employers in a way that did not occur under Labour governments. There is not only this Bill; other costs which are also in the pipeline represent a tax on employment. We have been advised, for example, that there will be a tax on insurance premiums. All employers must carry employers' liability insurance. In future, premiums for that cover will carry a 3 per cent. tax. That is an employment tax if ever there was one.
Employers are now being asked to bear the full weight of SSP on the grounds that somehow or other that will enable them to manage sickness absences better. I share the views of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he opposed the Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill. Even if absence records are higher than they used to be, the causes of such absences cannot be dealt with simply through the administrative procedures set out in this legislation. The causes of absence often go very much deeper.
I welcome the assurance that the Minister will look again at this provision in relation to small businesses although he was not terribly precise about it. However, this is such an unacceptable measure that we have no alternative but to oppose the Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This clause embodies the whole purpose and effect of the Bill. The Committee has discussed it for some hours, so it is not necessary for me to add more than a word. However, I should like to point out to certain noble Lords who have spoken that whereas in one way a burden is placed on employers, the placing of that burden coincides with a very substantial reduction in the national insurance contributions they will pay. On balance, as I understand it, employers will benefit quite considerably. That is a very important point. I appreciate that there may be exceptional and difficult cases. Your Lordships have explored the possibility of covering some of those. I refer, for example, to whether the period of four weeks is sacred or whether a shorter period might be contemplated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also touched on the question of whether the same principle of transferring the direct burden to employers while relieving them of some of their general payments is likely to be applied in future in respect of maternity benefit. I hope that that is not the case. The situation is totally different. I do not believe that it would be a wise, humane or sensible thing to do.
On the main issue as embodied in the Bill, Clause 1 puts it into effect and I hope that we shall put it into law as soon as possible.
Viscount Astor: My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is absolutely right when he says that employers' extra statutory sick pay costs will be more than offset by the accompanying reduction in their national insurance contributions liability. Those reductions will be worth about £800 million in 1994–95, rising to almost £1 billion a year in 1996–97. The
918
reductions will exceed employers' extra SSP costs by well over £100 million, and business as a whole will not be out of pocket.
Businesses need to plan for any eventuality; for example, normal sickness rates. They can do so by taking out insurance. Firms with low sickness absence rates—many small companies fit into that category—will have the extra cash from their national insurance contributions reductions to meet the cost of that insurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made much of fears that we might increase employers' national insurance contribution rates in future years. No government can give guarantees about the future levels of those rates, but we can point to an impressive record from which employers can draw their own conclusions. In 1979, employers' contribution rates were 13.5 per cent. They now range from 4.6 per cent. to 10.4 per cent. They will be reduced to 3.6 per cent. and 10.2 per cent. respectively from next April. Some of those reductions were made in 1991 when the SSP reimbursement rate was reduced to 80 per cent. The reduction has held, and the process of reduction will continue next April.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, used the debate to ask about small employers' relief. That was probably the only way we could discuss that matter in the context of the Bill. He asked why we will not give full reimbursement after two weeks. Giving full reimbursement after two weeks reduces employers' incentives to tackle high sickness absence rates. That is perilously close to 100 per cent. reimbursement immediately. That is not in keeping with the Bill's main objectives. Abolition of the 80 per cent. reimbursement rate in no way affects the rights to SSP of individual employees. They will continue to be entitled to a prescribed minimum amount of sick pay provided that they are sick and absent from work for at least four days in a row, and provided that they satisfy the other qualifying conditions. In fact, the vast majority of employees will have their SSP topped up to full pay by occupational sick pay.
Reports recently have highlighted some examples of where employers have failed to pay SSP when it appears to have been due, or where they have threatened to sack the sick employees. We should put those examples in perspective. I condemn such practices, as I said on Second Reading. An employee who considers that he has been wrongly denied SSP, or is not being paid the correct amount, can seek a formal decision from the adjudication officer at his local DSS office. Where an employer fails to comply with such a decision within the prescribed time, the responsibility for payment passes to the department. Therefore the employees' SSP rights are protected fully if the matter is brought to our attention.
The noble Earl asked me also about self certification. Employees were allowed themselves to certify short absences in 1982 before the introduction of SSP. That change was made on the advice of the BMA which pointed out that it was nonsense to clog up doctors' waiting rooms with people wanting certificates to the effect that they had the flu. However, employers are not required to accept employees' certificates if they have grounds for suspicion. Equally, if an employee is not

919
happy with the employer's refusal to pay SSP, he can seek independent adjudication at his local DSS office. When it comes to self certification, we should be careful to take the BMA's concerns seriously.
The noble Earl offered an interesting idea about denying the reduction in national insurance contributions to an employer who had wrongly denied SSP to an employee. I am afraid that the idea would not work. National insurance rates are announced and implemented for the year as a whole. It would be impossible to unpick those arrangements in the year and to police whether the new rules had been applied correctly. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the Minister sits down, will he give an assurance of the kind for which the CBI is asking, and which I mentioned: that the Bill will not set a precedent for transferring statutory maternity pay in the same way as SSP is being transferred? It is a matter of grave concern.
Viscount Astor: We have issued a consultation document on statutory maternity pay which gave two options. We are presently studying all the replies that we have received. When we are ready, we shall make an announcement about our proposal and, of course the matter will come before this place.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Transitional and other supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(" (3) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations made under subsection (1) shall be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment requires that any statutory instrument should be brought before this place under the affirmative resolution procedure. The Committee will appreciate that this is a sensitive subject, because during discussion on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill 1991, which reduced reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. it was this place which defeated the Henry VIII clause which would have allowed the Secretary of State to have reduced that 80 per cent. to 70 per cent., 60 per cent., 50 per cent., down to today's nil figure, without the Government bringing primary legislation before this place. Had it not been for the defeat of that clause then by this place, today's Bill would not have been necessary. That is why the Committee will understand that this is something of a sensitive issue. Behind it lies a wider concern that too much social security legislation is targeted, fixed and determined by regulation and not by primary legislation. The tendency we have seen is that the shorter the Bill, the more discretion it tends to give to the Secretary of State to make regulations on matters intimately affecting the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people.
Whereas with primary legislation we can oppose, amend or delay clauses, and invite the other place to think again, we have no such powers, as I understand it,
920
in respect of statutory instruments, whether affirmative or negative. Convention does not allow us to reject them. We have no powers to amend them. All we can do is scrutinise them. That is why it is so important that, wherever possible, Parliament's intentions should be brought within the framework of primary legislation rather than for it to be left to departmental policy to be handled by regulation. When it comes to this Bill, as was noted in the other place, words such as, "savings", "transitional" and "consequential" all need to be defined. In particular, as the Bill stands, it apparently gives the Secretary of State power to make by regulations such savings as he considers necessary or expedient for the operation of any enactments repealed or amended by Clause 1. Those are wide-ranging powers, but at least the affirmative resolution procedure requires the Minister automatically to bring such powers to this place for scrutiny, for discussion, so that the views not just of Members of this place but of the wider pressure groups intimately associated with disability can be heard.
But with negative resolutions, the onus is largely, but not invariably, on Opposition Members to draw such resolutions to the attention of this place, but to do so within a time limit of 40 days. We have to do that without the resources that the Minister has: four civil servants in the Box and a whole department behind him. Our Box is usually empty. That is why we seek, wherever possible, to ensure that the Secretary of State's powers should be determined by primary legislation and not by statutory instrument. Where they are to be determined by statutory instrument, they should wherever possible be by affirmative resolution, so that the onus is on the Minister to bring them forward, explain them, and seek out consent to them, rather than by the negative procedure which means that we put up the trip wire so that we have an opportunity to discuss them.
Traditionally the Government's position is that controversial propositions require the affirmative resolution procedure and that non-controversial propositions require the negative resolution procedure. The Government have suggested that such transitional arrangements as are contained in the Bill are non-controversial. The Minister may be right. We do not know. We cannot tell. That is why we preferred the affirmative resolution procedure. The Minister may suggest that the regulations caught by the negative resolution procedure are trivial. Again, he may be right. Again, we do not know. Again, we cannot tell. We do not have the resources continually to put in place the trip wires to ensure that they are properly scrutinised if, heaven forbid, the Minister has misjudged.
The Minister may say that this is an onerous procedure for small issues. But on the assumption that the major and controversial issue will in any case be caught by the affirmative resolution procedure and must be brought before this Chamber there is no problem of attaching to it other instruments which may be trivial and non-controversial but which allow us all to review them collectively and en bloc, and thus to scrutinise the progress of this procedure. That has been our experience in other areas such as local government.

921
We seek the Minister's agreement that such changes which are to be carried by resolution, by statutory instrument, come under the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative procedure. Otherwise this Committee will find its control of social security legislation incrementally whittled away. That has been the history of the past decade. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My approval is almost always in favour of parliamentary control of delegated legislation. However, after studying carefully what the noble Baroness said and the terms of her amendment, I believe that it goes too far. Members of the Committee will see that it applies to:
"any regulations made under subsection (1)".
That is any regulation, however trivial and minor it may be. There is a danger of piling on additional obligations to apply the affirmative procedure to minor regulations. The problem is that if we overload our list with Motions for the approval of minor and trivial proposals we shall blur interest in the important issues which can arise under certain regulations, some of which are of great importance.
I shall listen to what my noble friend the Minister says. However, after listening to the noble Baroness my first reaction is that the amendment goes too far, that it is unnecessary and will add many unimportant matters to the list of business in this Chamber and thereby perhaps distract attention from the more important ones.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, argues that we should refrain from invoking the affirmative procedure because we are not certain what kind of regulations we shall have. That point may well be used as an argument for the other side of the case. The regulation-making power arises in Clause 2 (1) which states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional and consequential provision, and such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient".
I cannot help remembering my favourite quotation from W.S. Gilbert:
"Is gentle music rolls in the melody of souls",
which is pretty, but I do not know what it means.
It may be that regulations made under this power are trivial. It may be that they are far-reaching. However, the clause is worded so generally that this Committee cannot tell. For that reason the noble Baroness was correct to table the amendment. When we debated the Henry VIII clause in the 1991 Bill we were given the most urgent and earnest assurances that the department had no present plans to do what it is now doing. I believe that those assurances were genuine at the time they were given but I cannot help wondering whether the present Bill was just a twinkle in the Treasury's eye—or maybe I should say a chink in the Treasury's pocket. I do not know what may be coming to this Chamber.
I heard the remarks made on the Friday before last by Mr. Michael Portillo. He expressed a great dismay about those who diminish respect for Parliament. I share his dismay in diminishing respect for Parliament. But respect for Parliament depends on what Parliament may
922
do. It depends on the belief that Parliament can make the law and can control the Executive. The use of the regulation-making power, especially in this Chamber, diminishes both those aspects. It diminishes our power to control the Executive and the increasing use of the regulation-making power—I shall not mention other Bills, I am sure that Members of the Committee know what is in my mind—tends to cast doubt on the principle that Parliament makes the law. If Parliament gives way on those two crucial issues it will diminish respect for itself. I, for one, would regret that very bitterly indeed. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Earl sits down, will he note that the passage which it is proposed to delete refers to "any regulations"? I agree that we are dealing with important regulations but surely the phrase "any regulations" is carrying the matter to an extreme, which means that the whole procedure becomes somewhat discredited.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is right about the pressure on our business. I am well aware of that. However, I do not see how we can make the distinction in relation to the amendment until distinctions are made in the regulation-making power which allows us to address that. If the Minister will offer to withdraw the clause and to redraft it so that we can distinguish between the major issues which need an affirmative power and the minor issues which do not I should be delighted to go along with that. I do not see how I can do so without the Minister's help.
Lord Carter: Subsections (2) and (3) make it clear that any regulation is subject to the negative procedure unless there is a requirement for the affirmative procedure. Members of the Committee have always rejected that approach and prefer that all the regulations shall be affirmative unless the Government produce a requirement that it shall be negative. As the Bill stands, it is within the power of the Government to ensure that all the regulations, however important, are subject to the negative procedure.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am generally strongly in favour of the affirmative resolution procedure as against the negative resolution procedure. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is that the negative resolution procedure frequently involves no scrutiny in the other place because time has flowed out before the time for a review of the regulations. Secondly, with the affirmative resolution procedure one has a much more orderly debate. The Minister opens, explains the purpose of the regulations and debate ensues. In the negative resolution procedure the debate is generally ragged with various Members feeling their way and the Minister replying at the end.
But having said that, and having expressed a personal predilection of my own, we must remember that we have now, in the face of some opposition, the scrutiny committee. That committee has adopted an extremely sophisticated approach. It does not adopt a general view in favour of one procedure or another. It discriminates very closely, according to the importance of the regulations. In my view it is extremely important that

923
when the scrutiny committee gives a clear signal, as it did on the Railways Bill and, in the current Session, on the Local Government (Wales) Bill, we should pick up that signal and vindicate the committee's view.
On the other hand, in the present case the scrutiny committee has found nothing to complain of at all. It seems to me that with all that has been said in favour of the affirmative resolution procedure here, we should blur the impact of the scrutiny committee if we adopted this amendment, although the reasons for it have been persuasively argued by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. In view of that, and subject to anything that the noble Viscount may say, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment to a Division.
Viscount Astor: I can assure the Committee that it is normal practice for statutory instruments which give effect to the detailed non-controversial provisions consequential to the main changes proposed in primary legislation to be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. The Government's proposals in this piece of legislation do not differ from those normally included in the social security legislation which comes before this place. Indeed, the last major piece of statutory sick pay legislation with which this place had to deal—the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, which Members of the Committee will recall reduced the reimbursement rate from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent.—contained a provision similar to that provided for in Clause 2(3).
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is normally a strong proponent of the affirmative resolution procedure but he explained clearly why the amendment goes too far. I do not believe in this case that there is any diminution of Parliament's power, as was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, also agreed that in this case, because there have been no comments from the scrutiny committee on this clause, there is no need for the affirmative resolution procedure.
Having heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I could rest my case and sit down. However, in a spirit of helpfulness to Members of the Committee opposite, perhaps I may give an example explaining the circumstances in which the negative resolution procedure is intended to be used. The main purpose of this legislation is to end the right of an employer to recover 80 per cent. of the SSP paid out to his employees from their remittances of national insurance contributions with effect from 6th April. But we need to provide clear and workable instructions to employers on just how the change will operate in practice. We need to be able to tell them what effect the change will have on the recovery arrangements in respect of those employees who are already sick and entitled at about the time of the change.
The Government's intention is to provide that employers will be able to continue to recover the appropriate amount of SSP paid for days of sickness up to and including 5th April 1994, even if the employer cannot actually recover the amount due until after that date. Only SSP due for days of sickness occurring on or after 6th April will be affected by the ending of the 80
924
per cent. reimbursement rate. That is in line with what industry will expect at the change-over date. It follows the practice adopted in April 1991 when the reimbursement rate was reduced. All SSP due for days immediately before that change was recoverable at 100 per cent. The reduction to 80 per cent. applied only for days of sickness falling on or after 6th April 1991. That is a typical example of how the Government propose to exercise the power contained in Clause 2(3). It simply provides a power for the Secretary of State to implement non-controversial transitional and consequential changes promptly without the need for further lengthy debate.
Employers rightly expect to know as soon as possible the nature and detail of the changes that they will have to administer from next April. This amendment will only delay the issue of clear and definite instructions to employers and will only confuse matters for employers who have to administer the SSP scheme. Without clear and comprehensive instructions delivered in a reasonable time, they will not be in a position to introduce the changes smoothly.
In the light of that and in the light of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, are right to say that the business of this Chamber should not be cluttered up by discussing trivial matters of detailed regulations. However, there are important issues which require the proper scrutiny of this place. On these Benches we all wish to see a full debate of those statutory instruments which are important and significant, but we do not wish to take up the time of this place in debating that which is trivial.
That is fine. But our problem is that we do not know which is which. We have no way of knowing that in advance because this clause gives total power to the Minister, rather than this place, to determine which is which.
I have every confidence in the Minister's integrity, but I remind the Committee that it is the same department, if not the same Minister, which only a couple of years ago tried to persuade us to accept a Henry VIII clause which would have allowed the Minister, by regulation, to change at will primary legislation and thus reduce reimbursement from 80 per cent. down to any figure that he saw fit. I am quite sure that at that time the Minister—I suspect that it was the noble Lord, Lord Henley—told the House that there would be plenty of opportunity to scrutinise the matter; that the affirmative resolution procedure was unnecessary; and that any such changes were trivial. Fortunately at that time the House, in its considered and wise judgment, disagreed with that and insisted that any such changes should be made in the form of primary legislation, the Minister notwithstanding. The House was entirely right to do so.

925
The Minister said that we should not accept the amendment because it would introduce further and lengthy debate while such regulations are discussed. That is precisely our problem. Some issues require some debate and some do not. We have no way of knowing in advance which do and which do not. Therefore, we are dependent upon the integrity and honour of Ministers in that regard.
I accept that we now have the scrutiny committee to assist us in that judgment. Nevertheless, the Minister is continually placing a responsibility on the Opposition to put in a trip wire rather than bringing rafts of statutory instruments, which have the force of law, before the law-making Chamber.
I do not propose to press the amendment this evening. Obviously we wish to consider the matter further. I believe I am right in saying that the DSS is more remarkable than virtually any other government department of which I am aware in furthering its policy aims by regulation. If I am right, it behoves this Chamber to have even more urgent powers of scrutiny and to put the presumption on the Minister by going for the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. After all, 20 million people in the country are the clients, customers or recipients of the benefit procedures of the DSS. On their behalf, it behoves us to be stringent and scrupulous in our vigilance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Annual report on effect of Act on disabled people
. The Secretary of State shall annually publish a report on the effects of this Act upon the employment of people with disabilities and that report shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment again deals with the employment of people with disabilities. Members of the Committee will be aware from the debates in another place and from debates on previous amendments of the concern expressed about the possible effect of the Bill on the employment of people with disabilities. We are told by Disability Alliance that its rights workers receive numerous calls for help from people who have had problems obtaining their statutory sick pay or, worse still, have been dismissed as a result of a long spell of illness.
The flaw in the argument heard from the Government from time to time regarding the employment of disabled people is that it does not deal with the healthy or fit employee who develops a serious condition during his employment. Again, Disability Alliance points out that its rights service regularly comes across people who have been refused statutory sick pay or who have been dismissed during a protracted spell of illness.
We know that two out of five people with disabilities work for small firms whose record in terms of employment practice tends not to be all that good. Therefore, in that sense disabled people are likely to be even more vulnerable than the average person. We know also that only one-third of disabled people remain
926
with their employer after the onset of disability and that the unemployment rate of disabled people is three times that of the able bodied.
We are not asking in the amendment for any special arrangements which will cost the Government money or any payment arrangements, disbursements or compensation. We are merely asking for a report to be laid before Parliament which will give the facts and the evidence to Parliament and thus enable a conclusion to be reached about the effects of the legislation on the employment of disabled people.
I am sure that the Minister will repeat something we are always hearing; namely, that the average attendance record of people with disabilities in employment is better than the average of able-bodied people. That is true, but it only applies to those in work. The essential point is the number of disabled people who find it hard to find employment either because they are already disabled or because the onset of disability occurs in the course of their employment. As I said, the unemployment rate for disabled people is three times that of the able bodied.
If the Government are confident—and they keep saying they are—that the Bill will not unduly affect disabled people, what have they to fear from accepting the amendment? This Chamber has a long record of expert all-party concern over issues of disability. In the light of that expertise and concern, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept at least the principle behind the amendment. I repeat. There is no cost to the Government other than that of preparing the report. It would at least enable Parliament to obtain the facts and the evidence and thereby enable it to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the fears of those who feel that the legislation will have a deleterious effect on the employment of people with disabilities is well grounded. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: The amendment is worthy but aims at achieving something which is impossible. How can anyone hope to tell what the effect of this measure will be on the employment prospects of those with disabilities? Surely we need comprehensive information on the employment prospects of the disabled which examines all the factors affecting them. At the very least the Government should ensure that when we ask such questions we are not told that the information is not collected centrally or that it is not collected in such a form. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us some comfort in that respect.
I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that if two-fifths of disabled people are employed by small firms, that does not say that they are more vulnerable as a result: it says that small firms have a better record of employing disabled people than larger firms. That is to their credit.
Viscount Astor: While I understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I do not wholly agree with the claim that people with disabilities who have poor health records have suffered since the SSP scheme was first introduced and on subsequent occasions when changes were made to it. As I said previously, we do not accept that the abolition of

927
the 80 per cent. reimbursement rate will lead to discrimination against people with disabilities or poor health records. Nor do we expect that there will be any changes in the pattern of employment of people with disabilities as a result of the change. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, agrees that the evidence suggests that people with disabilities make very good employees and often have a more reliable sickness absence record than other employees.
We believe there are many other factors of far greater importance in determining job opportunities for disabled people. Both this department and the Department of Employment have developed policies to promote the employment of people with disabilities. The disability working allowance which we introduced in April 1992 promotes greater opportunities for employees with disabilities by providing them with financial support while in employment.
It has been the endeavour of successive governments to increase awareness that disabled people are good employees and have a valuable contribution to make. The Government share the aim of ending any possible discrimination against disabled people and believe that the best approach is by a programme of education and persuasion. The Prime Minister has asked my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People to work with the all-party disablement group to identify areas for further action where discrimination could be eliminated at little or no cost Moreover, "access to work" will provide a wider range of help to a greater number of people. That new, more flexible, provision has been widely welcomed by organisations of and for disabled people. I am aware that employment Ministers are carefully considering all the representations made to them by disability and employer groups. They will be mindful of those views when reaching decisions on outstanding issues. Moreover, the employment of people with disabilities is already governed by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958. In addition, people with disabilities have the same employment rights and protection as everyone else under employment protection legislation. That is an important point.
However, we shall be monitoring the effects of the change in the course of the routine visits of the Contributions Agency to employers and by other means such as the feedback we receive from employers, employees and their representative organisations. The groups representing people with disabilities are quick to come to us and explain their concerns. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will see that it would not really be appropriate for a special report to be laid before Parliament. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I have given him the reassurance that we are certainly doing a great deal to help people with disabilities to gain employment.
Lord Carter: We are not engaged in a debate about what the Government are, or are not, doing to help people with disabilities obtain employment. The amendment deals specifically with the effect of the Bill on the employment of people with disabilities. That is the purpose of the amendment. I repeat. We are
928
continually told that people with disabilities make good employees, that their average attendance at work is good, and so on. As I said, that is fine but only if they are in work. The rate of unemployment among people with disabilities is three times the unemployment rate of able-bodied people. Those who are in work are extremely good employees but the problem is that three times as many disabled people are out of work as able-bodied people.
The Minister said that the Government did not expect, any change in the prospect of employment for disabled people as a result of the operation of this Bill. I am sure that is correct but—it is only fair to mention this—if there was evidence to the contrary, the Government would no doubt wish to take action. If the Government discovered from their monitoring that there was evidence that the Bill affected the employment of people with disabilities, they would wish to take action. All we are asking is why should the Government not find out about that. Why not ask for a report to be submitted to Parliament each year to answer the question? We would be delighted if the Government were correct about this matter.
I know from long experience that many groups of disabled people and groups representing disabled people approach the Government and explain the problems. However, the problem is that the Government do not always listen. I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment at this stage, but this is a point to which we shall wish to return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6, as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, not moved.]
6 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Annual report on effect of Act on women
The Equal Opportunities Commission shall annually publish a report on the effects of this Act upon the employment of women and that report shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends. We have been seeking, in discussion on this Bill, to protect the most vulnerable. Clearly, disabled employees come into that category. The rate of unemployment among the disabled is already unacceptably high and the position is unlikely to improve as a result of the Bill. However, it might perhaps not be thought necessary to write in any special protection for women.
The noble Viscount will probably remind the Committee that employment among women has increased. That is true, but that employment is mainly in part-time and in low-paid jobs. It is noticeable that many of the cases mentioned by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux of employees who even under the present system are not getting their entitlement involve women working in low-paid employment. Often such employees are so grateful to have any kind of job that they do not make a fuss when they do not get their sick pay. Examples of this are referred to in the

929
NACAB brief. The situation of such employees may well become worse as a result of the legislation that we are now debating. Furthermore, women have special problems and many of these are connected with their reproductive function. There are already provisions in law in regard to maternity leave and maternity pay. I wish to emphasise at this point—as I did earlier—the concerns of the CBI and other employers' organisations that they may eventually be landed with responsibility for statutory maternity pay. I hope that the noble Viscount will take seriously the representations that have been made on that point.
There are other conditions connected with maternity which can cause sickness absence. Some of these conditions are not life threatening and therefore perhaps are not treated all that seriously. However, they can give rise to absences, as can stress-related illness to which many women are prone as a result of having to look after a family and carry out some form of outside employment. The amendment suggests that the Equal Opportunities Commission be asked to monitor the situation and to publish a report,
"on the effects of this Act upon the employment of women".
This Bill is a new departure. For the first time employers are being made fully responsible for the whole of a particular social benefit. It seems to me that we are right to be wary of it and to want to see how it affects employees who seem to us to be most vulnerable. By writing into the Bill a role for the Equal Opportunities Commission, we will signal to women, who may feel particularly vulnerable, that there is a body prepared to watch over them and to look after their best interests. I beg to move.
Baroness Seccombe: I always follow new legislation that affects women very carefully. I have no evidence to hand, but I think I am right in saying that women are reliable, regular attenders at work. That applies particularly to women who are returning to work after a break. I believe that this amendment would constitute a bureaucratic and expensive way of monitoring when it could be done simply in the way that was suggested earlier by my noble friend Lord Astor.
Earl Russell: I am happy to support this amendment. One reason why women are particularly vulnerable in this situation is that a high proportion of them, often for obvious reasons, are in low-paid, part-time employment. They have sometimes been in that employment for a short period of time and they enjoy employment protection much less often than men. We have here a special problem and I hope that the Minister will pay it some attention.
Viscount Astor: There is no evidence to suggest that measures such as the introduction of the statutory sick pay scheme in 1983—and subsequent changes to the scheme made since then—nor the introduction of the statutory maternity pay scheme in 1987 have had any adverse effect on the employment of women. Between 1979 and 1992 the number of women employees as a percentage of all employees grew from 41 per cent. of all employees to 47 per cent. As the noble Baroness
930
said, these figures include both full-time and part-time employees. But, even if we compare the numbers of full-time women employees in 1984 with the numbers in 1992, the growth rate is around 15 per cent. The corresponding rate from 1987—when the statutory maternity pay scheme was introduced—until 1992 is around 10 per cent. There is no evidence there that either of these measures has affected employment prospects.
Women already have statutory employment rights, including protection against discrimination and unfair dismissal in legislation governing equal treatment and employment rights. The Government are confident that the changes in this Bill will have no adverse impact on the employment prospects of women. On the contrary, all the evidence suggests that the employment opportunities for women have steadily increased and will continue to do so. There is no evidence to suggest that they have been or will be affected by measures such as the availability of statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay.
In any event this amendment is unnecessary. Under Section 56 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 the Equal Opportunities Commission is already required to publish an annual report on its activities during the year. Each annual report shall include a general survey of developments during the period to which it relates, in respect of matters falling within the scope of the commission's duties. I hope that with the explanation that the amendment is unnecessary because of the requirement on the Equal Opportunities Commission to publish an annual report already, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It is not my intention to press the amendment this evening, but I am rather disappointed with the noble Viscount's response. Of course I am well aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission has to issue an annual report. I was a member of the EOC for some six years. However, it is a general report. It covers the whole spectrum of what has happened in the preceding year. This amendment seeks to give the EOC a specific role because this Bill constitutes very much a new departure. For the first time employers are being given the total responsibility for a social benefit.
As we have already heard when discussing various aspects of the Bill, categories of employment in which many women are engaged such as part-time and casual work, are the very categories in which the individuals concerned do not often succeed in obtaining the rights that are available to them now. If the employers are responsible for all rights, it seems to me doubtful that the employees that I have mentioned will continue to obtain their rights in the future. As I have said, I will not press the amendment this evening, but this is a matter which we may return to on Report as I do not feel that the Minister has dealt with the anxieties that we on this side of the Chamber have expressed in moving the amendment. However, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for a period of 10 minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.9 to 6.19 p.m.]

Student Awards and Loans Regulations
6.19 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That the Education (Mandatory Awards) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993, 2914) and the Education (Student Loans) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993, 2915) shall not come into force until the right to claim housing benefit and income support during the long vacation has been restored to students.
The noble Earl said: I fear that the House may feel that I am farming the bowling. On the other hand, if one looks at the matter from my point of view, I did not introduce the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, and I did not introduce these regulations. It seems to me that the Government are bowling at my wicket no matter at which end I may be standing, and if the ball is bowled at my wicket, I have to play a stroke.
During the course of the debate, the noble Baroness may wish to draw attention to the difference between the wording of this Motion and of the Prayer moved by my honourable friend Mr. Foster in the other House. The explanation for that is purely in the difference between the procedure of the two Houses. It is much easier to do here what I am doing now, and this Motion is put down with the full prior approval and encouragement of my honourable friend Mr. Foster. The Motion represents party policy. On the other hand, the evidence that I am using and therefore the judgments that I make on it are based entirely on my own personal experience as a university teacher. Therefore those must be individual.
I must declare an interest in my capacity as a university teacher and also in my capacity as a parent.
The noble Baroness may perhaps wish to raise the question whether this is a fatal Motion. It is not a fatal Motion. It is a commencement Motion. It attempts to lay down a conditioned precedent for the commencement of these regulations. If the Government wish to accept that condition, then the regulations can come into force as proposed. However, if the Government were to say that they would sooner be dead than accept the condition, then one might argue that the regulations were rather felo de se than killed as a result of this Motion.
I shall take this point lightly. The noble Baroness offered us a promise in 1990 when we debated the student loans Bill that the grant would be maintained in cash terms at its 1990–91 level. We have had four years. I suppose that that is not a bad run. However, it confirms the great wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in insisting in 1990 that before the Government could go beyond 50 per cent. grant and 50 per cent. loan they must have primary legislation. We
932
may yet be very glad of that. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for ensuring that that is the case.
The change from grant to loan does not seem to me a very wise one in the present situation. First, it will tend to increase the public sector borrowing requirement in the medium term. I should have thought that that was at least unnecessary because if one looks at the figures set out in the White Paper Top-up Loans for Students in which it was argued that until 2007 the net effect of introducing the loans would be to increase public sector borrowing and not to diminish it and one calculates the money forgone, the interest forgone arid the administration costs, that is actually worse for the public sector borrowing requirement than it would be to pay out the money as grant. I thought that we were trying to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. If the Government are now determined nonetheless to increase it, I should like to know for what motive.
Secondly, the Government are risking a public opinion disaster. We can say about student grants what Mrs. Rumbold once said about child benefit—it is deep in the culture. In 1990 I heard a number of noble Lords say that without the student grant they could not possibly have been here. That sense of attachment to the principle of grants is strong, and challenging it is risky.
As regards the effect of the change to loans on educational practice and experience, I do not believe that I was right and I do not believe that the noble Baroness was right. The person who was right in 1990 was the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I see is no longer in his place. I talk to every one of my pupils and advise them to take the loan. Over and over again I meet the deep horror of going into debt which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, invoked and, in one or two cases, a sense that borrowing money is absolutely wrong in principle. That is why there has been such a low take-up rate of student loans. A great many people prefer to take paid employment during term, to the great detriment of their work, rather than take up these loans. The educational effects of that are serious.
Although I believe that the change to a further element of loans is a mistake, I do not believe that it is the biggest mistake that the Government have made. The biggest mistake of all was that the total package they offered in 1990 was too small by a very large amount. I say that in my capacity as a parent as well as in my capacity as a teacher.
The immediate effect has been a rush into paid employment. That is doing a great deal of harm to the quality of our education. Noble Lords may say that in other countries people take jobs and work their way through college and seem to survive it. I have taught in the United States, and I would agree with that. However, the difference is that south of the Border in this country we have a three-year degree course which is the shortest anywhere in the advanced world. One simply cannot do that and maintain an adequate standard unless people are able to do academic work full time during term and to do a substantial amount in vacations. Considerable parts of a university course, my own special subject class being a case in point, simply cannot he done unless people are able to do large chunks of work during the

933
vacation. I had to tell my special subject class yesterday that they were doing less work than any other class of that sort that I had taught in the past 20 years. I do not know whether I blame them or the Government or if both—as I believe to be the case—in which proportions. I do not like having to blame my students for the Government's misdeeds.
I reckon that the average amount of work done by undergraduates has been approximately halved since I came back from the United States in 1984. That must diminish the quality of the product we are turning out. If the noble Baroness wants to quote statistics about the proportion of first and second-class degrees, I believe that most of us have a feeling, which I certainly share, of repugnance at penalising our undergraduates for what we believe is not their fault. I believe that more than before we are marking on the quality of mind rather than on the quantity of work. The amount of work needed to gain an upper second degree is imperceptibly but quite rapidly diminishing. That cannot be good for the international recognition of our degrees.
The key point of the Motion is to restore the right to benefit—housing benefit and income support during the long vacation—before this change to a further element of loan can come into force. That is I think proper, first and foremost because it is a citizen's right. It is clear—the noble Baroness herself admitted it when we debated the matter last year—that divided over the full number of weeks, student support is below income support levels. Mr. Scott admitted it again in 1990. Anyone who is below income support level as a citizen should be entitled to income support. If they are not, one has second class citizens. In this country we have not believed in that concept for a long time.
Because the basic package is not enough, at present of the sample of people whom I teach this term to my certain knowledge 25 per cent. are taking paid work for more than 12 hours a week. I believe in the right to silence. Therefore if 25 per cent. are known to me, I presume that more than 25 per cent. are actually doing so. We are reaching a situation where the quality of a degree depends more on the parental bank balance than on the quality of the undergraduate. That is not right.
Perhaps I may cite a few individual cases. One of my present pupils is a mature student. He states:
"For my first 52 weeks"—
note the 52 weeks my Lords—
"almost half … my expenditure was either borrowed or transferred from savings… I did not seek part-time work during my first year, since I wished to establish myself academically. (Expensive though it may have been, I believe this policy has been successful.)".
And he is right about that. He continues:
"Sadly, since I was forced to borrow so heavily during the long vacation, it will not be possible to devote all my working hours to study for the remainder of the course".
He is now working in paid work for 16 hours a week. If I need to change his tutorial because I have to go to a meeting—as happens in academic life—it is difficult to find a time.
With the problem of the vacation—and the man, having left home 10 years ago, feels he cannot go back and live off his parents—it is a case where one needs
934
social security. The point about social security is that it deals with anomalies. That is what the safety net is for. Since life is full of anomalies, we need a safety net.
Let us take another case. A pupil at the end of her first year succeeded in getting a job for the long vacation. She thought that she was all right, but she had a cyst and worried, as one does. It occurred to her that it could possibly be malignant. She asked me what she would be able to obtain to live on if it were to prove malignant. She could not have social security because she was a student. She could not rely on her parents because her parents' business was failing. Indeed, her last parental contribution cheque to the grant had bounced. For that reason, her bank would not allow her any help. The only thing I could tell her was that if it proved the worst, she would have to withdraw from the college, become eligible for social security, and apply for readmission another year. Mercifully, the worst did not happen in that case; but it illustrated a real gap in our arrangements.
I am dealing with another case at the moment. A student had a job with the Student Union for six hours a week. The union needed to economise and she lost the job. She has reached the limit of her bank overdraft. Just when she was beginning to search flat out for employment, she was knocked over in a crowd. Someone stepped on her with a heavy boot close to the elbow of her left arm. She happens to be left handed. Nevertheless, she is doing her level best to find jobs that she is capable of doing. But, again, that is precisely the situation which social security is designed to deal with.
The Minister may tell us, as she has before, that student levels of support are higher than they were. Can the Minister produce a single, live student who passed through the financial changes of 1990 who will agree with her that that is the case? If her argument contradicts universal experience, I will ask her to consider whether her figures might possibly be misleading. In fact, I must remind her of the regular 17th century maxim: "The prince may not say that is for the people's good which they see and feel to their hurt." I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the Education (Mandatory Awards) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993, 2914) and the Education (Student Loans) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993, 2915) shall not come into force until the right to claim housing benefit and income support during the long vacation has been restored to students.—(Earl Russell.)
6.35 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with great interest. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will pay close attention to the particular examples which he gave because although the Government have to concern themselves with the broad brush, the big figures, nonetheless what is happening to individuals can show us weaknesses in the system. We ought to pay close attention to them to discover how we can improve what we are doing and to avoid the problems outlined by the noble Earl.
However, I do not agree with his main thesis. The noble Earl seems to me to be saying that he finds the principle of loans wrong and concludes that as a broad

935
experience we are not supporting students sufficiently. I disagree on both counts. First, on the concept of student loans, it seems to me that it is a thoroughly reasonable arid respectable thing to ask students who are likely personally to benefit greatly from higher education to make some contribution towards its cost. It is a concept that is widely supported on these Benches and in the report of the National Commission on Education which states:
"The only way is to seek a contribution from individual students in Higher Education".
The concept is supported by the Labour Party in the chapter which it excised from its Green Paper. A debate in another place showed that the Labour Party refused to deny that it will continue with student loans. It is really only the Liberal Party which has no interest in continuing with this principle.
We are asking students to borrow to invest in their future. The parties opposite regularly ask the Government to do that, but when that principle is applied to individuals it suddenly becomes anathema.
As to the level of support, we support students generously. I quote again the National Commission on Education:
"The United Kingdom has the highest expenditure of all on student welfare and support".
That conclusion is backed up by the continuing increase in the number of students benefiting from higher education. There is no evidence that a lot of people are being held back because of the financial constraints under which they have to operate for those three years. The Government have greatly increased the level of support over the past few years by about 30 per cent.—in the current year by 4 per cent., comfortably ahead of inflation.
The point has been well made by the National Commission on Education and others that there is a problem in attracting children from deprived backgrounds into higher education. But surely the problem is that those children in general have received a poor education in their early years. If they were achieving better results in GCE, then surely they would have higher expectation and ambitions and would be going into higher education in greater numbers. It seems sensible not to add to resources in an area where we are already the best but to concentrate them on areas where they are needed, where clearly we are doing a lot worse than many of our competitors.
I believe that the noble Earl's case for additional support fails. Even if it did not, I cannot see that a general change to the benefits system is the best way of adding to student support. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government in opposing the Motion.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, during the past 12 months I have more than once raised matters concerning the financial and other difficulties which currently face university students. Consequently, I am very much in sympathy with the noble Earl's intentions. We are all indebted to him for the, to my mind, very convincing account that he has given of the difficulties faced by the students with whom he is in regular touch professionally
936
every day of the week. Whether the rather roundabout procedure which he suggests is the most desirable way of improving matters, I am not entirely sure. I remain to be convinced because his intentions are of considerable importance and value.
I am naturally concerned very much with our position in Wales. Only last week an interesting survey was shown in the local press, the Western Mail headed:
"University applications rise despite fall in places".
That is interesting, because if students show an increasing intention of trying to go into university education, they do not seem to be entirely discouraged, though they may not be fully acquainted with the present proposals of the Government in relation to grants and loans. At the University of Wales in Cardiff, which is rapidly growing, there has been an almost 20 per cent. increase in applications. However, there is a decline of about 200 places out of 9,000. That is not a large number but nevertheless it is a decline in the number of places likely to be available. At the university at Aberystwyth in mid-Wales applications have increased by more than 30 per cent. In Bangor, in North Wales, there is a slight decrease, while a slight increase is expected at the University of Glamorgan, which is a former polytechnic.
The estimates do not allow for second thoughts should prospective students become aware of what their position may be under the present proposals. One must guard against misrepresentation. I do not know how many noble Lords realise that this year, for the first time, prospective students have been allowed to name up to eight possible universities on their application form—the UCAS application form—instead of the previous limit of five. Therefore, most of the apparent additions are less than they seem. If students may apply to eight universities which are shown on the list of applications, plainly a good many of those do not really represent greater confidence than before.
The extra numbers are not necessarily a guide to extra student confidence, although from time to time certain noble Lords opposite like to insist that they are. In any case, we are informed that, owing to the cuts proposed by the Government, there are likely to be up to 10,000 fewer places available in the next academic year. Some people will be disappointed, whatever happens.
The noble Earl was absolutely right—students are deeply perturbed at the thought of running into debt. That is particularly so for what, in the old days, we would have called "good working-class families", who did not get into debt. I know that that is not the philosophy of the generation represented by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or by the social class to which he belongs. Students are keenly aware that, despite the possible postponement of repayment, they will be overshadowed by the thought of being in debt. They can see before them the current generation of students, many of whom seemingly face endless searches for worthwhile jobs. We surely all know families where the parents are now deeply concerned as to what their graduate son or daughter will be able to do with the education for which they have struggled.
Yet the Government have drastically cut down—I make it by close on 10 years—the period during which

937
student grants and loans would gradually, more or less, be made to balance. It has to be done much more rapidly. Meanwhile, the so-called access funds are hardly to be increased at all. Furthermore, students will become liable for the domestic fuel tax which we discussed last year in this context in the House. We then commented on the high cost of adequately warming student lodgings, particularly those in substandard houses with the threat to health which that can entail.
Finally, the difficulty of finding vacational work or fitting it in with the modularisation of courses—which is a new problem—complicates matters further. I shall not detain the House any longer, beyond saying that surely this is not the best time to make more students feel even more insecure.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the Motion before the House. There is even greater hardship among a significant group of students than before. My noble friend the Minister will quote the, I have to say, opaque and even somewhat misleading picture put forward on the basis of a sample of 1,264 younger students and 451 mature students by the RSL survey on student income and expenditure published in December. Less than 40 per cent. of the sample actually provided the details required.
The survey shows that those students who receive a proper family contribution and do not come from a poor background are not badly off. That is good. We are, however, concerned with the poor; those who have no family resources, who are on their own. I know, from my own Junior Common Room at Somerville, that for those who are living out, the rent, payable for 52 weeks in the year, absorbs the whole of the present maintenance grant. At an average of £45 per week—without counting heat and light—that rent is £2,340 in Oxford, against a basic grant of £2,265. Eighteen per cent. of undergraduates in their final year in college are having to work to earn money through the Christmas and Easter vacations, in some cases doing both a night and a day job. In the North-West, a quarter of students work in term simply to survive.
That is the most absurd and criminal waste of higher education. The effect on academic work can only be appalling. Can we afford that, as a country? Most of those poor undergraduates are forced—since they cannot conceivably live on the student loan alone, especially the lower sum available in the last year—also to borrow from banks. Few of them have overdrafts of less than £100; many may borrow up to £400. And, of course, they apply to the access funds—still insufficient —where the biggest grants are between £100 and £500. The last figure is an absolute maximum.
Students in the North-West, Liverpool, Lancaster and Manchester are in equally dire straits, though rents are lower. The maximum income available to them is £3,065, including an £800 student loan. But the University of Manchester estimates the actual cost of living to be £5,655. Graduates leave the university owing money, both to the loans scheme and to the banks. I wonder whether they, or indeed the
938
Government, realise that by 1997 their compulsory monthly payment, spread over five years, is likely to be between £60 and £70?
For someone with a salary of 85 per cent. of, say, £14,000 or less who borrowed the full loan and who will presumably have take-home pay of about £700 to £750 per month, this will be just about 10 per cent. of that take-home pay. Medical students, repaying five years of loan over seven years, will have to face even more daunting figures. Already, to judge from the evidence given by the department and the loan company to the Public Accounts Committee, there are 2,400 defaulters, 842 cases have been transferred to litigation, and legal expenditure is about £23,000, or £27 a case, going up to £50. I find it ominous and difficult to understand that the company operates on the basis that,
"the legal expenditure is recoverable from the borrower."
How is it possible to extract this from people who already cannot meet their debt? It is difficult to understand.
It is even more interesting that the chairman of the company, when the question of the costs being incurred by universities in administering the scheme came up —costs which are, at £7 per student, nearly double the sum paid to them by the student loan company of £4 —said that he had neither heard nor read of the statement made in this House on the 29th March last year that the Government were committed to meeting those costs. He went on to say that he,
"really did not feel that he could get involved in the discussions between the Earl of Caithness and the House of Lords".
Fortunately, the department is clear that it is accountable to Parliament. It is less reassuring to learn that the accounting officers, in a memorandum to the Committee,
"would not wish to underwrite the extra costs incurred where less than efficient practices are adopted."
The company, for its part, believed that processing a student's application takes only 12 minutes; so the institutions are really doing very well in terms of income. Presumably they think that each of these processes will be done consecutively. That would produce a very interesting situation. In fact, as one of the members of the Public Accounts Committee pointed out, the CVCP survey showed that the institutions are subsidising the scheme to the tune of £1.5 million, which could and should have been spent on education.
I have dwelt on all this because it is all part of the same climate of unreality that characterises many of the judgments made, in the best of faith, by the Government about student poverty and about market choices. They are proud, rightly, of the fact that there are more students wishing to enter higher education—that is good, although it has now been slowed down—and more students taking up the loans. As one member of the Public Accounts Committee said of the loan take-up, it has nothing to do with efficiency; it has to do with desperation.
I beg my noble friend the Minister to think long on this issue. The Government have created a future generation who will have a heavy load of debt. They will either default and become a living negative equity in society, or they will feel obliged, in order to pay, to enter as lucrative a job as possible as soon as possible.

939
Where shall we then find our teachers, social workers, public servants, doctors and lawyers? I do not oppose loans, but I believe that the present system of repayment is likely to backfire. Moreover, for the next few years at least—for although I believe in the country's recovery, unemployment of graduates is still a serious problem —they may well have to take poorly paid jobs that will neither allow them to repay nor to use the education that they have had to the full. In any case, as I have said, I have grave fears about what the unremitting financial pressure and anxiety will have done to their academic progress. I believe the Government should also remember that students, their families and their teachers, all have votes.
Let me return to the survey which I quoted. What are we to make of a society in which, according to the survey, student expenditure on books is subsumed into a section on the tables which also includes equipment, stationery, photocopying, field trips and other course-associated travel, and which amounts annually to a princely sum on average of £230? The average course textbook costs £20, and as many as five may be needed in one term. Even bought secondhand, they will not be less than £5 each. Libraries are starved of funds and so it is not easy to count on access to library copies. In any case, there are many textbooks which are needed for regular reference and textual work.
The conclusion must be that students are not able, on such figures, to afford the most basic tools of their trade. The single most heavy item of expense and anxiety is housing, so far as students are concerned. In nearly every institution they must expect to pay rent in the private sector over a whole calendar year for at least one year of their course. Housing benefit is means tested and therefore will only be available to those in need. Students can no longer count on vacational work to repay overdrafts, still less to pay rent; and so they cannot help themselves as they once did. May I urge the Government to weigh things up and recognise that there is a positive financial advantage in restoring housing benefit, because it will free students to work as they should; it will ensure value for money from their university education and it will thus free them to work well? It will also, incidentally, be a most valuable contribution to the difficulties of postgraduate students.
It is difficult in any case to understand the reasoning which requires students to pay the community charge, which allows them to vote but excludes them absolutely from all benefits, even where the need is demonstrable and urgent. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister whether the new financial package for students will contain an element for VAT on fuel.
I reiterate once more that there is a real, demonstrable and urgent need for some relief to be given to those students whose parents, especially if unemployed themselves, cannot contribute to their maintenance and cannot afford to feed and house them during vacations if they are themselves on income support? Students themselves receive £500 less than they would if they were on income support. The best, the simplest and the fairest measure would be the restoration of housing benefit. I would also plead for the vacation hardship allowance to be given in extreme cases of need. Do not
940
let us see good education wasted because the recipients are too busy working in bars and supermarkets to do the academic work they are there for to the highest standard which should be the norm. These students are our investment for the future. We have a national interest in freeing them to learn.
I have tried not to bombard this House or indeed my noble friend the Minister with statistics. I realise that she, and others, may accuse me of that heinous crime in the academic world: the anecdotal approach. I can only say that we are talking about young, vulnerable and valuable human beings known to many of us, and we all know too many who are in trouble. Let us listen to them and try to advance their needs.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in view of—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend wishes to speak in the debate.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I shall detain the House for only a moment or two. There are one or two questions that I should like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister and I indicated through the usual channels that I might wish to speak in "the gap". I really want to follow very briefly the excellent speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and also that of my noble friend Lord Russell by asking just two or three very quick questions of the Minister before she responds to the debate.
The first question concerns consultation. It seems that the period of consultation in respect of these regulations was extremely short, and that most of those who expected to be consulted were unaware of the quite substantial changes being made in the regulations. My understanding is that the date by which consultations were concluded was well before it was realised that these substantial changes were going to be made. Perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to say something about why there was not fuller consultation with those concerned, especially given the information that we have had in the debate already about the very considerable hardship faced by many students because of the very "bare bones" nature of the grant and loan provisions at the present time.
Secondly, I should like to ask whether I am correct in understanding that the group which has the heaviest involvement in loans is that of married, mature students with dependants. That group, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend have pointed out, is particularly subject to the kinds of contingencies such as the loss of a job by a member of the family or some additional need by a dependant which puts them in a very grave position in terms of trying to continue with their courses. It is not economic for students to break out of courses because they cannot afford to maintain the cost of staying on them. I think that this is one area where I very much hope that the noble Baroness will look again at the problem.
Thirdly, the point was made by my noble friend that some kind of provision with regard to the heavy costs of housing, where the grant and loan provisions are unrealistic in terms of the cost of housing, particularly

941
in the South of England, needs to be reconsidered in terms of the eligibility of students for housing benefit. My noble friend's proposal is eminently sensible. It allows for the fact that means will be tested before grants are made, on the same basis as for any other citizen.
Approximately one third of all students entering traditional universities, and a higher proportion of students entering establishments which have become universities, come from homes where it is highly unlikely that the parents will be able to help them. It is in the interests of this country that the talents of these young people should be allowed to be taken through the courses that will qualify them for professions to which they can make a major contribution.
My final question concerns the wider issue of the possibility of income contingent loans. I do not believe that the Government have thought through with any great care the switch that is now taking place from grants to loans. I do not want to detain the House by raising the principle, about which many of us would have a great deal to say. But the system applies in many other countries where there are extensive provisions for scholarships. For example, in many American private universities some 40 to 60 per cent. of all students have scholarships for part or all of their fees and outgoings —something that simply does not obtain in this country in the same way. We are therefore not for a moment comparing like with like. That means that in the period in which we make the changeover, whether or not we approve of it, some consideration of income contingent loans should be entered into.
Finally—I echo what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in this respect—where will we look for those who will go into public service, school teaching and many other professions which are relatively badly paid? All the pressure on them to repay loans is likely to mean that they will try to move into areas of relatively high pay at the earliest possible stage and that could have a serious effect on the quality of our public services.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the whole House will agree that it is good that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was able to intervene in the gap. It was a characteristically cogent and pertinent intervention. I hope also that the Minister will be able to take seriously the points made both by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend Lady White; they speak with immense authority on this subject. In view of the professional work which I undertake in the sphere of higher education I should, at the outset, declare an interest.
We on these Labour Benches are at one with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his concern. But we go further in remaining totally opposed to the loan scheme altogether. As Bryan Davies, Labour's spokesperson on higher education, pointed out from the Front Bench in the other place last week when speaking against the regulations, we are dealing with appalling legislative proposals which will make life more difficult for students in higher education and which will reduce the
942
opportunities for students to enter higher education. Bryan Davies described them as a response to the £50 billion public expenditure deficit and an attempt to restrict expansion which the Government have come to regard as out of control.
Those observations reflect more general acute anxiety in higher education circles at the wider implications of the Government's recent Autumn Statement. On 10th January, in a letter to governors—of which I am privileged to be one—the director of the LSE underlined that,
"universities will suffer a cumulative real terms cut in public resource per student of 10% by 1996/7, while they will also be made to bring to a halt by then the government's previous policy of expansion in full time home/EC undergraduate student numbers, on pain of as yet unspecified financial penalties".
On 31st December, in its editorial, The Times Higher Education Supplement summed up the situation even more starkly. It said,
"The outlook for higher education in 1994 is bleak. For the first time in a decade cuts in real terms are being made in government money for universities. This contrasts with the squeeze of recent years when the total spend went up but slower than student numbers, producing cuts in per capita funding but overall growth. Now expansion is being brutally curtailed and hope, imagination and optimism blighted".
On 30th November the chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals had already indicated his dismay. He said,
"The government is attempting to halt the expansion of higher education by making it financially unattractive to universities to recruit more students … Having stoked up the aspirations of young people, and encouraged them into further education, the government is now attempting to deny them the opportunity for which so many are clamouring".
On the specific issue before us the 1988 White Paper —Top Up Loans for Students —was categorical. Paragraph 3.9 stated:
"The maximum grant and the average contribution will be maintained at the 1990–91 cash level".
It was estimated that that meant the grant and loan would broadly equalise in the year 2007–08. And during the passage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill the Minister opposite herself said,
"The grant will be maintained in cash terms at its 1990–91 level".—(Official Report, 19/3/90; col. 57.)
It is entirely understandable that, in exasperation, the National Union of Students recently said,
"In bringing forward the expected date when the grant and loan will be broadly equal by 10 years … the government have signalled an abandonment of a policy they were committed to only five years ago. Indeed, it must now be open to question whether a further commitment in the 1988 White Paper that 'The government does not propose to remove the existing maintenance grant' can now be relied upon".
Let me emphasise that I am glad—and let me stress this—to acknowledge, indeed to commend, the expansion in the numbers enjoying higher education which we have seen over the past decade. We on this side want to see that trend continue. In a civilised society we believe that access to education and personal intellectual, cultural and academic fulfilment should be available throughout life. We also believe, as the National Commission on Education argued so well, that further and higher education are a critically important investment in the future of the United Kingdom. It is precisely because of the exhortations and past policies of the Government—so well expressed in their last election manifesto when they said,

943
"We will continue to expand the number of students in higher education"—
that there is such widespread dismay at this crude reversal; this highly disruptive U-turn. Just less than a year ago the Minister said in this House,
"I believe that we have reason to be proud of this country's flexible and relatively generous student support arrangements. They are all of a piece with our wider achievements in higher education".
What a contrast to the spirit of those words the realities of the Autumn Statement provided.
Let me anticipate the somewhat repetitive argument of the noble Baroness—we heard it last week on nursery education —that we must all face the fact that not everything can be afforded. First, if that is the case—and of course in a sense it is—the Government should be far more careful in their public pronouncements. The crisis of confidence in the political system is directly related to the repeated contradiction between the sales talk and the action of this administration. And it is a shame if that corrosive condition is now to affect higher education of which, I believe, those opposite potentially have a certain amount to be proud.
Secondly, if the past system of funding cannot be afforded —in itself a devastating commentary on the effectiveness of the simplistic market dogma to which we have all been subjected since 1979—the Minister and her colleagues must spell out, and fast, a clear alternative strategy. What is totally unacceptable is a regime of improvised financial tactics, the "go-stop" approach which plays havoc with long-term planning, sound development and effective use of resources, not to mention literally destroying dedicated academic and administrative staff and inflicting acute hardship on too many students.
We have it on the authority of the CBI itself, reported in this month's CBI News, that,
"The UK is on the verge of a funding crisis in higher education as a result of increases in demand".
It goes on,
"Ways of raising this amount must be found if higher education is to expand without reducing the quality of provision".
The CBI then suggests that there are four options. First, more government funding; secondly, a bigger contribution by employers; and, thirdly, action by the higher education institutions themselves. On that the CBI point out that the institutions have already achieved 5 per cent. so-called efficiency gains (whatever that means in the realms of quality and originality so essential to higher education) in each of the past five years, and to squeeze them yet further, the CBI argues, will still not produce the £1.5 billion needed to increase the percentage of young people entering higher education from 33 per cent. to 40 per cent. by the year 2000.
The fourth option offered by the CBI is the students themselves. In this last respect the CBI argues that students of higher education are estimated to earn between 6 per cent. and 25 per cent. more over their lifetimes than those who have not participated and that therefore it is reasonable that students should shoulder a larger share of their costs. The article examines several options for student contributions and highlights the Australian income tax related scheme which it claims has not deterred access.
944
Will the noble Baroness enlighten us today? Does she agree with the CBI on the developing crisis, or does she not? If she does, will she clarify whether or not the Government are prepared to extend their own financial support? If not, as sadly seems to be the case from the regulations before us, why not, and what is their real alternative strategy? Where do they stand on the CBI argument that there are really only four options'? Where does it leave their loan scheme? Which do they select, or indeed, which combination do they favour?
What worries us is the absence of strategy, the introduction of short term ad hocery while, as the leader of my party has put it:
"student loans policy is clearly failing and damaging students' ability to study in the process".
He has rightly said:
"Students should not be forced to live in poverty whilst they are studying and then carry a heavy burden of debt with them for years afterwards".
In July a survey by Barclays Bank demonstrated that already four out of every five students would end the academic year with an average debt of £1,672–22 per cent. more than the year before. Now we find the discredited loan scheme being accelerated; and against a background, as eloquently spelt out by the noble Earl, of the withdrawal of eligibility for income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit. Quite uniquely, with the introduction of the new arrangements, the amount of loan available for students was to be assumed as income for social security purposes and for assessing entitlements to free NHS services, regardless of whether or not the loan was taken. It is incredible: students compelled to borrow to finance the welfare state! And what now of the additional burden of VAT on domestic fuel?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that the recent explosion in student numbers has revealed as ridiculous the fears that the student loan scheme might deter students from poorer families. But where is his evidence? The higher education expansion I have commended is made up of a higher proportion of women, part-timers, mature students and students from ethnic minorities. That is all excellent, but there is no indication that there is a significantly higher proportion of students from lower socio-economic groups. in 1991–92, 6,377 extra full time students were accepted into the old university sector from social classes I and II but only 1,406 from social classes IV and V. The Autumn Statement will not do anything to put that right.
Amidst the profound worries surrounding these regulations there is one which concerns a potentially sinister dimension —yet another step in the repealed and systematic onslaught on the quality of democracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to it in her intervention. Previously, the DFE has consulted interested bodies in the autumn on the awards package for the following year. Written comments arid proposals have been invited. There would then be meetings with organisations to discuss their submissions. The awards and loans regulations, for example, would then be drafted and laid before Parliament in the summer, to come into force in September. This year changed all that. In a letter dated 1st October 1993, to a number of interested bodies, the DFE. indicated some possible

945
changes to the awards regulations on which it wished to consult—minor technical points on the whole—and stated that these were offered,
"entirely without comment on our part",
and that,
"Ministers have not yet seen or considered it".
The end date set for the consultation was 12th November. There was absolutely no indication of substantial changes to the regulations. Eighteen days later, a mere 12 working days, the 1994 regulations were laid before Parliament. Those announced far-reaching changes. How can this reassure us about the working of our democracy? It patently cannot.
As on recent education Bills, it makes a mockery of consultation. It underlines the arrogance of the Whitehall complex. It invites the question as to whether the regulations were not in fact prepared before 12th November. If not, there must have been an extraordinary rush, with no opportunity for further consultation. To take one very human example, students over 50 years of age are not eligible for loans. They have suffered a 10 per cent. cut in 1994–95 with no compensation. By 1996–97 the aggregate loss for them will be 27 per cent. of the 1990–91 grant level. With consultation, could not this anomaly have been avoided? I cannot believe that the Government would have resisted if it had come up in consultation. If the regulations are agreed by Parliament now there will be no opportunity for amendments until they are scrutinised again for the 1995–96 academic year.
This is a sorry story. The loan system was seen to be bad before it started. It has now been proved to be bad; and these regulations make bad worse. As the Times Higher Education Supplement put it in that powerful editorial of 31st December:
"For universities and colleges of higher education—those who study in them, work in them, manage them—the new year prospect could hardly be more depressing. Those who have invested time, enthusiasm and energy in attracting more students and adapting courses to new demands have every reason to feel snubbed. There has been much talk in recent years of low morale but much evidence of enthusiasm and commitment. Now morale really is at risk with those who have been most enthusiastic feeling most brassed off".
The proposals by the noble Earl, although in all humility I suggest, as my noble friend argued, a little obscure in their technique, would at least for the time being ameliorate the damage.
7.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, for a country that has the most generous support system for students and, indeed, now has allowed record numbers of students into higher education—certainly compared with 1979 when the ratio was a mere one in eight of the young population: the ratio is now one in three—this has been an extraordinary debate. The discussion has ranged quite widely around the area of student support.
It is this Government's firm belief that support for students should be channelled through the educational maintenance system and not through social security benefits. The benefits system exists to support those in
946
involuntary difficulty—a description which does not apply to students who have made a conscious decision to follow a course of higher education.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness telling me that students are never in involuntary difficulty?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl could wait to hear out my speech. If I miss that point I shall either come back to it or write to the noble Earl.
That is a decision to invest in one's future, rather than enter employment straight away. Financial support for full-time students should come from the one source designed specifically to cater for such support.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggests that students have faced hardship as a result of the withdrawal of the general entitlement to benefits in 1990. But the fact is that the introduction of the loans scheme in 1990 more than compensated the majority of students for any loss of benefits. The value of the grant and loan together is more than 40 per cent. higher in cash now than grant alone four years ago; and for 1994–95—under the regulations we are debating today—the main rates of support will rise by a further 4 per cent. Our student support system remains one of the most generous and most envied in the world. There should be no need for students to have to rely on social security benefits during the summer vacation.
Some have claimed that the level of student hardship is increasing. The reasons for this claim appear to be two-fold. On the one hand, it is suggested that the substitution of grant by loan has itself created hardship. But that clearly cannot be right: students do not have to pay a penny back until after they have left their courses and have a reasonable income.
On the other hand, it is suggested that the total value of student support has not kept pace with rising costs. But again, that simply is not true: since the introduction of the loans scheme the value of the grant plus loan package has more than kept place with inflation. Indeed, the recently published student income and expenditure survey—funded by my department and steered by a committee including representatives of the National Union of Students—found that total Government support had increased by about one-third in real terms compared to grant and benefits in 1988/89 where students took out a loan. By and large, the total income of a typical younger student had held steady since the last survey where loans were taken out. That some students chose not to take up all the resources which were available to them does not alter those facts. The money was available if they wanted and needed it.
Of course, certain groups of students are in a vulnerable position, financially. That is why we have allowed these groups—including disabled students and those with dependent children, as well as all part-time students—to retain their eligibility for housing benefit and income support on the same basis as before. Allowing these groups access to benefits reflects our recognition of the additional financial burdens they may face. Housing benefit and income support also remain

947
payable to partners of full-time students, as do other social security benefits including council tax benefit and family credit.
Despite these generous provisions, there will of course always be a minority of students who get into financial difficulty. In such cases institutions can use the access funds to help. For 1994/95 we have increased the access funds by 10 per cent., bringing the total to some £21 million in England. That is a very substantial increase, as I am sure the House will recognise.
Some noble Lords criticised the student loans scheme. The fact is, whatever noble Lords opposite would like to have us believe, that the loans scheme is a success. A million loans have now been issued and this year we expect about half of all eligible students to take advantage of the scheme. The Student Loans Company, too, is working extremely effectively. Its unit costs—already low—are falling rapidly. Its collections performance must be the envy of many a commercial organisation—only 4.1 per cent. of borrowers are currently in default. The company's independent assessor did not receive a single customer complaint last year.
Some noble Lords criticised our decision to shift the balance between grant and loan. It has always been our intention to replace grants progressively with loans until the two elements are broadly equal in value. Our success in bringing down inflation means that we have now decided to accelerate that process. We shall reduce the level of the main rates of grant for the next three years and make corresponding increases in the loan rates. That should bring the two elements broadly into balance in 1996/97.
But that does not amount to a cut in student support: quite the opposite. The support available to students next year through the main rates of grant and loan will be 4 per cent. higher than this year. And the supplementary allowances payable to older students, disabled students and students with dependants will also be increased by 4 per cent. The average value of the loan facility will he increased by 44 per cent.
So long as they choose to take out the loan available, the money students receive will be at least the same in real terms next year as it is this year. As I have already mentioned, they need pay nothing back until after they have left their course and their income is higher than 85 per cent. of average earnings, currently around £14,000 a year. And we have undertaken to keep repayment terms under review to ensure that repayments for those earning over that amount are manageable.
What these new arrangements will do is share the balance of student support more fairly between taxpayers, parents, and graduates. It is graduates, after all, who are the main—though of course not the only—beneficiaries of higher education. There is a growing consensus that they should be expected to make a greater investment in their own future. The Government agree. My understanding is that there is a serious debate going on in the party of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about just that issue.
Other noble Lords have claimed that the extension of the loans scheme would damage access to higher education, particularly for students from less well-off
948
backgrounds. But that prediction clearly does not square with the experience of the past few years. Since the loans scheme was introduced in 1990 there has been a huge rise in the numbers entering higher education. The participation rate has risen by some 60 per cent. Last October over 30 per cent. of young people entered higher education for the first time. It has taken us just two years rather than the predicted seven virtually to reach the manifesto target of one-in-three participation rate. The student income and expenditure survey found that students entering higher education from less well-off backgrounds have shifted from being the minority in 1988 to being the majority now. That is hardly compatible with claims that the loans scheme deters access.
We on this side of the House are proud of the record of this administration. It is this administration which has enabled more people to go to university than ever before. It is this administration which has put in place an efficient, straightforward loans scheme to finance that expansion. And it is this administration which has ensured that our young people will continue to benefit from one of the most generous student support systems in the world.
I shall now touch on some of the individual points raised during the course of the debate. As I have said, the settlement for higher education—contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said—provides for an increase of some £270 million in the available recurrent funding between 1993–94 and 1994–95. That is a rise of 6.7 per cent., or 2.6 per cent. in real terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was concerned about breaching commitments. As I have said, the loans White Paper of 1988 made it quite clear that the real value of maintenance grants and parental contributions would gradually be replaced by loan. But we have decided to accelerate that process which, because of our success at controlling inflation, would otherwise have been rather slow.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted my remarks from Hansard in 1990 when I said that the Government provide an adequate level of support for a student to be maintained without work during his or her course of study. That remains the case. If students freely choose to work during term time and/or the vacation, that must continue to be a matter for the individual student.
Much has been made of surveys. There has been the most expensive and reliable survey of its kind anywhere since the last expenditure survey of 1988–89. Average income from public funds, grants, loan, access funds and benefits, for those who took up student loans rose by 31 per cent. in real terms. The average income for all students from public funds showed a small, real terms increase even though less than half of all students took out a loan. If all students took out the loan, the survey says, the average real terms increase in support from public funds would have been 24 per cent. since 1988.
The average expenditure for students who took out a loan is higher than the last survey. Term time and vacation earnings remained broadly the same in real terms as in 1988–89. Borrowing from commercial sources and overdrafts increased by only 6 per cent. in real terms and withdrawals from savings declined by

949
about 55 per cent. For mature students the average income from public funds varies widely according to circumstances; from about £3,000 for a married student with a partner in work to about £6,000 for a single parent. Single mature students spent about 31 per cent. of total expenditure on housing; 7 per cent. on food and 10 per cent. on entertainment. For the younger single student, housing accounts for 34 per cent. of total expenditure; entertainment, 15 per cent. and food about 14 per cent.
Mature students, too, are likely to be entitled to additional maintenance allowance such as the older students allowance, dependence allowance and the two homes grant. These have been uprated in line with inflation for 1994–95. Those who get into real difficulties can apply for help from the access funds. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that students were badly affected by the withdrawal of benefits. Again, changes to the benefits system as it applied to students, were not made in isolation. They coincided with the introduction of additional resources in the form of student loans and the access funds. As I have already said and made clear, the introduction of the loan scheme more than compensated most students for the loss of those benefits, but those in vulnerable groups retain their eligibility for benefits. I must advise the noble Earl that I am not aware of any public statement by the Minister of State in another place that student grants and loans are below social security benefit levels.
The noble Earl referred to a particular case and my noble friend Lord Lucas sympathised with it, as we all did. I am aware of the anomalous position of students who temporarily suspend their studies through ill health. I believe that the number of students in that category is quite small. Nevertheless, I understand that the Department of Social Security is considering the issue and is in consultation with my department. I shall, of course, keep the noble Earl informed. However, I am surprised that the noble Earl's institution did not resort to access funds to deal with the problem of that young student if the problem was temporary. I have already given the figures for access funds which I believe are quite impressive.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, was concerned about compensation for the introduction of VAT on fuel, as was my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. Many students live in halls of residence, where they should not be affected directly by the imposition of VAT on fuel. For those who are, the 4 per cent. increase in the main rates of grant and loan—which reflects the Government's forecast of how much the price of goods and services in the economy will rise in the 1994–95 financial year—should compensate them for any additional living costs, including increased fuel bills.
I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady White, who asked me about the reduction in the numbers in higher education. The explanation is that because the population of young people is falling, maintaining participation means a small reduction in the number of new students admitted to higher education next year and the year after. However, the same proportion of young people as this year—and that is a record proportion—
950
should find places in higher education. Overall, the Government's plans allow for an increase in student numbers of 90,000 or 10 per cent. between this financial year and 1996–97. That is a sizeable growth. To allow for the continued growth in numbers, public funding for higher education in England and Wales will increase by 6.7 per cent.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth was also concerned about commercial debt. The student income survey showed that the amount of debt has not changed significantly. Indeed, there has been an insignificant increase ranging from £8 to £147 in students' interest-free overdrafts. That is not surprising. Student loans offer a good deal for those who wish to borrow, including generous deferment provisions. It makes no sense for students to borrow commercially with a requirement to pay the debt back quickly when they can borrow at very favourable rates without having even to consider paying back the loan until they are financially well placed to do so.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth was also anxious about the size of debt faced by students. A number of noble Lords shared that concern. As I have made clear, the repayment terms for loans are extremely generous. Borrowers need not pay a penny back until their income reaches 85 per cent. of national average earnings. That is around £14,000 this year. For those whose income exceeds that threshold, repayments are spread over five years—or seven for those with longer degree courses. And loans are indexed to inflation, so borrowers repay in real terms only what they borrowed. The average level of repayment of somebody earning £14,000 or more is currently £11 a month. I cannot possibly regard that as onerous.
The Government have been accused of breaking their promise to meet institutions' administrative costs. Again, the Government gave an assurance that institutions' reasonable costs would be met. I see no evidence that reasonable costs are not being met. Setting the precise level of the fee is a matter for the Student Loans Company. However, certification is generally a quick and simple process. Of course, some cases require more consideration, but the company pays higher education institutions £4 for each correctly completed eligibility certificate. That should fully meet the costs of an efficient college, bearing in mind the increasing level of take-up.
Again, my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth was concerned about the cost of accommodation. Of course, housing costs can vary considerably from one part of the country to another. The grant plus loan should be sufficient to cover those costs in the vast majority of cases. Where students do get into real difficulty—as they do—they can apply for help from the access funds, which are targeted on areas with the highest accommodation costs.
It is probably better to talk in weekly terms when considering the amount that students are receiving. If one talks in terms of 52 weeks in the year, a student in London living away from the parental home receives the equivalent of £75.67—that is for every single week in the year. If one talks about an average academic year having 38 weeks, that figure rises to £103.55. For other

951
parts of the country, the comparable figures are £61.35 for all 52 weeks or £83.95 given an academic year of 38 weeks. For students living in the parental home, the amount is £48.65 per week for 52 weeks or £66.58 per week for the academic year.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth was concerned about student hardship in the summer vacation. I understand that it is not true that the withdrawal of the vacation hardship allowance in 1991 subsequently contributed to student hardship in the summer vacation. That benefit was withdrawn because it was no longer needed. Very few students ever claimed the allowance before it was withdrawn and the Government's arrangements for student support made more resources available to compensate for the withdrawal of the benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked about consultation. Consultation on regulations is not a once-a-year exercise. My department receives suggestions from a wide range of sources on possible changes to the regulations all year round. They are considered on their merits. Invitations to comment on our proposals for change were sent to the National Union of Students, the bodies representing local authorities and the higher education sector on 1st October, eight full weeks before the new regulations were made. That should have given adequate time for any objections to be voiced. Responses were received before the regulations were made from all those who were invited to comment. Those comments were taken into account when drawing up the regulations.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, also asked about income-contingent repayments. Repayments are already income-contingent. As I said, borrowers pay nothing unless their incomes exceed 85 per cent. of national average earnings after they have left college. For those whose income is higher, the level of repayments should be manageable. We are not convinced of the merits of introducing a more finely tuned income-contingent scheme. Collecting repayments through the tax or national insurance system, as that would imply, would not be straightforward. In particular, it would pose real problems for employers in collecting and accounting for payments from graduate employees. I believe that the scheme's proponents have underestimated the difficulties of that system.
I think that on these occasions I tend to sound rather aggressive, but it is a subject that concerns Members on all sides of the House. The welfare of our students and their success in higher education is absolutely crucial not only to the well-being of those individuals, but also to the well-being, health and wealth of the nation as a whole. Therefore, this is a subject on which I hope that we shall continue to give air to a vigorous debate in this House. It is right that there should be downward pressure on the Government to make sure that all these issues are properly considered and that real concern is shown. I can give your Lordships an assurance tonight that my department takes this subject seriously. The regulations offer a new deal. They provide for the cost of student support to be shared more equitably between taxpayers, parents and graduates. The regulations are necessary. It is our view that they are generous and fair.
7.38 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her concluding words. I can assure her that we shall debate this subject again. I know that she thinks that this package of student support is adequate. Therefore, I should like to ask her why everybody else who knows anything about this thinks otherwise. I know that we all make mistakes, but why does she think that we all make the same one?
The Minister made one technical point as regards which I have an answer. She asked about the Minister who said that student support was below social security levels. That was stated in a letter—no wonder she could not find it in the official record—from her right honourable friend, Mr. Nicholas Scott, on 20th April 1990. I have quoted it before and I shall probably quote it again. I hope that it will be recognised next time.
The Minister asked why one of my pupils had not gone to the access funds. I did not hear to which one she referred. In one case the access funds for the year were exhausted; in the other, she has, but accompanied by many other people, in equal or more probably more severe difficulties, of whom probably only 10 per cent. are likely to be helped. The access funds are disproportionate to the scale of the problem.
The Minister talked about the most generous system of support. If that is so, I have tried to explain that it is because we have a different system of education: we have a table d'hôte three-year degree; other people have an àa la carte education which can be taken over a much longer period. Unless the Minister means to concede an extra year on the degree course, it is necessary that our system should be more generous, because our system of education is different.
I know that the Minister also believes that the system of student support is more generous than it was before 1990. Again, I wonder whether she could consider why no one else with any experience of the change believes that. I think that she knows that everyone else believes that the RSL survey 1988–89, upon which she relied, grossly underestimated the amounts students were receiving from social security before the change. Since the Government knew that that was a matter of general criticism, I am rather surprised to hear RSL employed again.
I see why the Minister says that the benefits system is not the ideal system. But if there is not enough in the existing system one has to go somewhere. This is doing so much educational damage that it will end with our degrees not being recognised in other countries. Before, rather than after, we reach that point, I should like to ask the opinion of the House.
7.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bath, M.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

953

Falkland, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Selkirk, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollick, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Tordoff, L.

Judd, L.

Whaddon, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wigoder, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cranborne, V.

Addison, V.

Cross, V.

Arran, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Astor, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Barber, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boardman, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Borthwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dormer, L.

Bradford, E.

Downshire, M.

Brookeborough, V.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Cadman, L.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goold, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Goschen, V.

Chesham, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Greenway, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Haig, E.

954

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Norrie, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harvington, L.

Parkinson, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Peel, E.

Henley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Holderness, L.

Prentice, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Reay, L.

Hood, V.

Rees, L.

Howe, E.

Renton, L.

Huntly, M.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ironside, L.

Rodney, L.

Jeffreys, L.

St. Davids, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Selborne, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Shannon, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Lindsay, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stewartby, L.

Long, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas, L.

Strange, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Teynham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Torrington, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Middleton, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vivian, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Moyne, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Munster, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.

  HEARSAY RULE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
  HEARSAY RULE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
  BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS RECORDS: LEGISLATION
  BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS RECORDS: LEGISLATION
  CROATIA-BOSNIA: CONFLICT
  CROATIA-BOSNIA: CONFLICT
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 24 JANUARY
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 24 JANUARY
  VIDEOS: CONTROL AND CLASSIFICATION
  VIDEOS: CONTROL AND CLASSIFICATION
  VIDEO RECORDINGS ACT: ENFORCEMENT
  VIDEO RECORDINGS ACT: ENFORCEMENT
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIAN ASYLUM SEEKERS
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIAN ASYLUM SEEKERS
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 1989: REPRESENTATIVES
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 1989: REPRESENTATIVES
  MURDER OR MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTIONS: SENTENCES
  MURDER OR MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTIONS: SENTENCES