Sitting of 8 July 1994

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

United Kingdom (Inequalities)
9.34 am
Ms Joyce Quin: I beg to move,
That this House expresses concern at the growing inequalities between richest and poorest in Britain today and draws attention to the recent report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled 'For Richer, For Poorer: the Changing Distribution of Income in the United Kingdom 1961–1991'; expresses its belief that gross inequalities contribute to economic inefficiency; draws attention to the inequalities which particular groups including the disabled experience; believes that a whole range of measures and policies are needed as well as a change of direction in existing government policy if the problems of inequalities and lack of opportunities are to be rectified; and calls on the Government to introduce urgent policies of a fiscal, economic, social and educational nature in order to bring such a change in direction about.
Having been given the opportunity to introduce a motion of my choice, there are two reasons why I decided to speak about inequalities in Britain, lack of opportunities, and the huge and growing gap between richest and poorest in our society.
First, recently, a number of excellent and telling studies on the subject have been published. My motion refers to one of them—the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled "For Richer, For Poorer", which received considerable publicity and attention when it appeared a month ago.
My second reason is more fundamental and is rooted in my role as a Member of Parliament. It relates to my experiences in my constituency in the area, where I was born and grew up and which I have represented 15 years—first in the European Parliament and, since 1987, in the House. Witnessing the growth in inequality and poverty in my constituency is the more fundamental reason for tabling my motion. I see more poverty and inequality today in my constituency than I remember at any other period in my life. Unemployment and poverty seem more deeply rooted now than at any time since the 1930s.
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are profoundly attached to their constituencies. That feeling can turn to anger and frustration if we feel that the living and working conditions in our constituencies, or in the country as a whole, are worsening.
Lady Olga Maitland: Perhaps the hon. Lady could set some parameters. What is her benchmark of poverty today, bearing in mind that living standards have increased substantially over the past 10 years?
Ms Quin: I have only just begun my speech, and I will answer that point later.
When one sees, as I do, constituents who are constantly finding it difficult to make ends meet, for whom the day-to-day business of living is financially difficult and who are never able to afford treats or extras, that is close
564
to poverty. The relentless grind that many people have experienced probably since the first recession in the early 1980s is difficult for them to tolerate. If, after I have developed my argument, the hon. Lady wants to intervene again, I shall be happy to allow her to do so.
The facts of the growth of inequality in Britain cannot be disputed. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report revealed that poverty has trebled during the years of office of this Government. It is described as a widening of the gap between rich and poor which is unprecedented in modern times. Inequality in the distribution of incomes increased dramatically during the 1980s, having previously fluctuated over only a small range since the early 1960s.
During the past 15 years, the richest 10 per cent. became almost twice as well off. The number of people in Britain with an income below half the national average more than trebled, to 11.4 million—one in five of the population. That occurred even though between 1961 and 1967 that category fell numerically and there was a drop in inequality in that particular era.
Perhaps not unexpectedly, there has been a growth in poverty among those out of work, especially among the long-term unemployed. When people are dependent on benefits which are then squeezed, their position becomes even more difficult. However, what has been most staggering during the 1980s has been the growth in poverty among those in employment. Many of us are deeply worried about that phenomenon.
The problem of low pay is well documented by various organisations with a remit to study the matter, such as the Low Pay Unit and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I commend their work. As we know, the global figures translate into local examples. Over the past two or three years, I have had contact with my local jobcentres to see what sort of jobs were available. What I discovered was quite alarming. For example, a year ago there was an advertisement for a security guard on a 70-hour week at a rate of £1.85 per hour. What sort of wage is that for anyone to keep himself on, let alone a family? The job of a security guard is often difficult, if not downright dangerous. I am not sure how many hon. Members would want to do such a job for such long hours and for such little pay.
Of course, it is not just the level of pay that is at stake; it is the difficulty that such people then have in trying to contribute towards a better future for themselves. I do not know how people in such employment can find the money to pay into a personal pension scheme. The problem is that not only is someone working for low pay here and now, but he has little financial security to look forward to in the years ahead. That greatly worries many of us. Another job advertisement in the same batch a year ago was for an assistant hairdresser—a 39-hour week for £35, which is less than £1 per hour.
This week, I took the opportunity to find out from the same jobcentre to see the current jobs on display and it did not appear to me that matters had improved. One of the advertisements, again for a security guard—although without experience—quoted a wage of £1.40 per hour. It was for full-time hours with night shifts to be arranged. Another advertisement for a security guard, on the slightly better rate of pay of £2.30 per hour, said that the guard would have to work throughout the north-east and that the duties included patrolling, gatehouse duties and retail shops. It said that the preferred age was 30-plus. Many of us do not like age discrimination in job advertisements.

565
Someone over 30 would be a mature worker, yet all that was being offered was £2.30 an hour. Such wage rates are unacceptably low, do not give people any job security and cannot be defended. I hope that they will not be defended by Conservative Members.
Those local examples are backed-up by the work of organisations such as NACAB, which has produced a series of brilliant reports over the past three years describing the problems of low pay and insecurity in employment. One report entitled "Hard Labour" was published in 1990; another entitled "Not in Labour" deals with the discrimination experienced by pregnant women in employment; and there is another, more general, report on unequal opportunities. All those reports would make excellent reading for hon. Members.
The "Hard Labour" report gives examples of various cases that have come to the attention of bureaux throughout the country. I shall cite two of them. The first is from a bureau in Yorkshire, which had a client who worked in a video shop from 10 am to 8 pm with no meal breaks. That contravenes the Shops Act 1950, but the woman was too scared to do anything about it in case she lost her job. That is a real threat, especially as the rules governing unfair dismissal are very much loaded against the employee who feels that he has been unfairly dismissed.
The second case comes from a bureau in Dorset. A supervisor in an amusement arcade was continuously on duty, without an assistant, for a shift of 13 hours. Not surprisingly, during that time he needed to use the toilet. While he was away a window was broken and his employer made a deduction of £40 from his wages, probably in contravention of the Wages Act 1986. When the NACAB client challenged the deduction, he was dismissed without notice.
It might seem incredible that those examples can be found in a civilised country, but they are really only the tip of the iceberg in that NACAB report. There have been some changes to employment protection since the report was published—I shall refer to those later—but nevertheless we know full well that the problems of low pay and sometimes appalling working conditions still very much exist, as is shown by the advertisements in my local jobcentre this week.
People on benefits and out of employment have also felt the pinch during the past 15 years. Pensioners, especially those who are entirely dependent on the state pension, have lost out because of the breaking of the link between pensions on the one hand and prices and incomes on the other—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are expressing disagreement, but it has been calculated that the Exchequer saved £5 billion from the breaking of that link.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: For the sake of accuracy, will the hon. Lady remind the House that, although it was a Conservative Government who broke the legal link between the two factors, it was the Labour Government who found themselves unable to honour their link? Is it not more honest to have a system that we can live up to and pay for rather than introducing a link to push pensions up and then having to break it? If the hon. Lady doubts the accuracy of my remarks, she will find that they are well attested.
Ms Quin: The purpose of my motion is to show that inequality in Britain has widened dramatically over the past 15 years. The Government sat back and allowed that to happen. I do not believe that a Labour Government would have presided over a growth in inequality such as there has been over the past 15 years.
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has to confront many articulate pensioner groups who know very well the records of both the last Labour Government and this Government and who feel that they have lost out dramatically over the past 15 years.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Does the hon. Lady think that pensioners were better off in the late 1970s when inflation was running at 25 or 26 per cent. and the value of their savings plummeted, which meant that many of them were left in abject poverty?
Ms Quin: Given the overall situation at the time, I think that pensioners were better off. The pensioners to whom I speak strongly confirm my impression.
Conservative Members are simply unwilling to face reality. I do not claim that all previous Governments' record on equality was excellent, but the growth in inequality has been flagrant in the past 15 years and it seems to have been pursued as a deliberate act of policy.
In many ways, people face a kind of nightmarish board game in their personal lives. A single, unemployed person might go three places forward on discovering that his local council has, after all, found him accommodation, but might go back four places when the Department of Social Security says that it cannot lend him any money for the basics that would enable him to become established in that accommodation. An old person might go forward three places on discovering that he is eligible for a bus pass and can travel around, but back four places because he is too frightened to go out. A parent might go three places forward on discovering that he has been granted access to his child at weekends, but back four places when he discovers that he simply cannot afford to see his child. That is particularly topical following our moving debates on the Child Support Agency and its effects.
Many young people find it difficult to enter full-time education. They might go three places forward when they are given a place on an education course, but back four places when they learn that no grant is available, that they will have to take out loans because of their straitened financial circumstances or that they will not have access to housing benefit. They may go back even further if they believe that a life of debt faces them, particularly as employment opportunities are so limited for many students.
The growth in inequalities in Britain has not been reflected in other European countries. The extent of the growth of inequality in Britain is well out of line with other countries. Earlier this year, an interesting article by Andrew Glyn of Corpus Christi college, Oxford appeared in The Guardian. It said that the years of Conservative Government in Britain had seen an increase in inequality which is striking not only in itself but which seems larger than in any other European country. He supported his argument with an interesting table comparing United Kingdom and European inequality in employment rates, unemployment rates, unearned to earned income change, the ratio of women's pay to men's pay—the gap is.

567
significant and larger than the European average—the definition of poverty according to Council of Europe standards and how that works out in terms of the percentage of the population, the top income tax rates and the changes in top income tax rates and in the share of the top 20 per cent. of incomes in the past 15 years.
Lady Olga Maitland: The suggestion that gross inequality exists in Britain compared with the rest of the European Community is extraordinary. Does the hon. Lady accept that this country has more people in jobs than any other European country?
Ms Quin: As part of my motion is about the poverty of people in employment, the hon. Lady's intervention hardly undermines my argument. Our unemployment rate between 1979 and today compares unfavourably with most European countries. Some countries, such as Germany, have experienced recession in recent years, but, none the less, in the past have had far lower unemployment than us.
Germany has undergone huge economic turbulence because of reunification with East Germany. Three per cent. of GDP was transferred from one part of Germany to another. The hon. Lady, if she is fair minded, will agree that we have not had to deal with such an economic transfer. Credit should be given to Germany for managing to cope with that.
The hon. Lady seems to imply that there are no data to back up my arguments comparing United Kingdom and European inequality, but I was quoting from a detailed article containing plenty of evidence by an academic at Oxford university. The hon. Lady may contest it if she wishes, but she would have to do so in as detailed a way as the article, which would not be possible in an intervention. I am not sure whether she will be able to do it if she wishes to speak later. The article contains a deltailed, worked-out argument with many references and it cannot be dismissed lightly.
Andrew Glyn concludes:
"But the greater inequality, apart from an appalling human cost, represented not economic efficiency but the systematic squandering of economic potentials manifested, for example, by unemployment, by the growth of low productivity employment encouraged by low pay, and by manufacturing industry failing to invest while dividends rocketed."
Those issues can be taken up later.
Wages differentials have widened dramatically in Britain, whereas they have remained constant or have fluctuated only marginally in other European countries. On many occasions in the House, we have been told about the tremendously inflated salaries that are paid to people at the top of the scale while a growth in low income has occurred at the bottom of the scale. So many examples are already well known, some of which—those involving chairmen and chief executives of privatised water companies—have hit the headlines.
Only yesterday in The Independent I read yet another couple of examples. The contract of John Bellak, chairman and chief executive of Severn Trent Water, was terminated this year, but he received £512,000 in compensation and pension contributions, according to the company's latest annual report. He also received £226,000 in share options and £230,000 as company chairman. Bob Thian, chief executive of North West Water, where some employees face cuts of up to £6,000 a year because of job restructuring, received £674,000 when he left the company recently.
Such examples will hardly encourage a belief among
568
people, particularly those on low incomes, that the Government are committed to wage equality and wage fairness. Ministers have failed to speak out against such irresponsibility and find it particularly difficult to speak persuasively against boardroom excesses which offend the British people's basic sense of fairness.
Many ex-Cabinet Ministers are among the beneficiaries of such decisions: Lord Tebbit, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, privatised British Telecom and he is now on its board; Lord Walker, who, as Secretary of State for Energy, privatised British Gas, is now on its board. There are many other examples, including Lords Young and Lawson and, indeed, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont).
In view of that record, it is very difficult for Conservative Members to speak out against such excesses, but I hope that some of them will do so because they set a terrible example to the rest of the country, especially when the Government are so keen to promote wage restraint, although some of the people at the bottom of the scale need immediate help in the short term instead of being subject to wage restraint or wage reductions.
At key moments, the Government have appeared deliberately to foster the growth in inequality. I well remember the public's reaction to the Budget introduced by Lord Lawson in 1988, which seemed to promote inequality through the huge tax relief given to people at the top of the scale. The British people's reaction was hostile. The growth in inequality was bad in itself, but the Budget was also disastrous economically because it helped to fuel an inflationary import-led boom and, I believe, bore a great share of responsibility for the recession into which we plunged before our European partners.
One glaring weakness in the Government's arguments over the past 15 years is that if deregulation, low wages and poor working conditions are prerequisites for economic success, how was it that, after 10 years of that unpleasant economic medicine, we were the first in Europe to plunge into a lengthy recession? That fact is all too frequently forgotten when Conservative colleagues extol the advantages of a deregulated, low-wage economy.
There is an extraordinary contradictory belief that giving people at the top more money will encourage them to work harder, but only by giving people at the bottom less money will they be encouraged to work harder. That is a logical absurdity, and one which most people appreciate.
The Government still appear to believe that the trickle-down theory works and that if the majority of people are better off, it will automatically help those at the bottom. However, the theory has been shown not to work. During the United States presidential campaign, when people fortunately recognised that the theory did not work, trickle-down economics were described as "voodoo economics".
I refer the House to another article by Andrew Glyn of Corpus Christi college, which also appeared in the national press. It was entitled
"Why an unequal Britain is paying the price for the 'efficiency' fallacy".
It is an important article which disproves the link between low pay and economic success. It refers to the fact that, across the industrialised countries as a whole, there is no macro-economic evidence to support the argument that greater equality is detrimental to efficiency. If anything, the article says, the opposite is true. It states:

569
"The fastest growing economies in the 1980s were also the more equal societies. We all pay for inequality—in higher taxes, poor health and high crime. From education to inheritance, from cradle to grave, inequality is a burden we cannot afford.… The problem is that while the medicine of inequality has been applied, the disease of economic underperformance has got worse."
Growth under this Government since 1979 was lower than that achieved under Labour in the 1970s.
Andrew Glyn's arguments are very telling. That we all pay for inequality is proved by the fact that so many people who are in work but on exceedingly low incomes can make ends meet only by getting support from the state. The state recognises that, but we all have to foot a substantial bill because many employers pay such low wages. In the end, therefore, such policies are self-defeating, or even worse.
It is absurd to continue to peddle the belief that Britain can compete only through deregulation and that cutting wages and removing social protection will enable us to compete on cost with low-wage economies such as China and India. I do not believe that such crude deregulation is the way to deliver a high-wage, high-skill economy, which is what I hope that we all want. Slashing prices by cutting wages, training and investment may appear to deliver some kind of short-term advantage, but only at the cost of long-term economic and social decline. Our economy has been described, rightly, as a "closing down sale in a bargain basement".
The United Kingdom is in danger of having the worst of both worlds—the worst of the high levels of unemployment currently to be found in Europe, but also the worst of the US-style low-wage employment and rising in-work poverty, which is why I believe the problem of inequality is so severe today.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady has tried to paint a dismal picture of this country's performance over the past 15 years and has produced a great many statistics to try to back up her argument. Surely, however, the real measure of success is the number of consumer goods that people have in their homes. Why is it that in 1979 only 39 per cent. of the bottom decile—or 10 per cent.—of the population had central heating, which is generally regarded pretty much as a bare necessity, whereas today a very respectable 69 per cent. of that bottom 10 per cent. has it?
Ms Quin: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman refers to heating in a debate on inequality, especially when the Government's decision—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Answer the question.
Mr. Streeter: Answer the question.
Ms Quin: It is true that many homes have central heating and regard it as a basic necessity, but I refer both hon. Gentlemen to the fact that, since the Government imposed value added tax on domestic fuel, many people can hardly afford to run their heating systems. If they would care to come to my constituency surgeries and listen to those who cannot pay their fuel bills, they might not take refuge in average figures. The Government's decision to charge VAT on domestic heating has a much worse effect in the less warm parts of the country. In my experience, the people who have most difficulty with heating bills tend to live in poorer, draughty accommodation, which makes the problem even worse. In some parts of the country, people
570
have to have their heating on for almost all the year, or certainly for nine months at the very least. No matter how many times hon. Members care to take refuge in average figures, I can assure them that there is an enormous problem in the country as a whole because people cannot afford to run their heating systems.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Lady accept, first, that fuel costs have been reduced because of privatisation and, secondly, that pensioners have had an increase written into their new pension rates for VAT on fuel?
Ms Quin: As the hon. Lady knows, the Opposition were keen to ensure that the measures taken to help pensioners and those on benefit should be as generous as possible. We do not think that they are. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that there is also a real problem for those who are above benefit level but who are still badly off, such as the people I have described today who live on low incomes and who find it extremely difficult to meet any increases in fuel costs. I should like the Government to do a great deal more than they have done in creating jobs in energy efficiency and in ensuring that so many of the draughty homes which are lived in by some of the poorest in the land are made much more energy efficient. That would mean that those people would not have to fork out the large amounts that they are trying to find at present.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Lady will give a warm welcome to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget in which he doubled the home energy efficiency scheme to help precisely the people whom the hon. Lady is describing—the poorest and pensioners who live in low energy-efficient households.
Ms Quin: I welcome any change, but I believe that the measures do not really meet the scale of the problem. Until they do, and until I no longer come across constituents who face the problems of high fuel bills in draughty accommodation, I will continue to raise the issues I am raising today.
The growth in unemployment and in long-term unemployment have contributed to real social divisions. I come from a part of the country where, at one time, a few staple industries provided employment for the majority of the working population in the area. Many of those industries have collapsed since 1979, particularly in the first recession which we experienced from 1980 to 1983. Although there was a kind of boom, a rather inflationary boom, after 1983, many parts of the country did not really benefit from that upturn in the economy. I refer particularly to the areas that were dependent on the older staple industries and where, although some new industries have come in—I strongly welcome that—there have not been enough new industries to take up the slack in employment opportunities.
In certain estates and certain urban areas, the majority of people have been out of work for 10 years or more. Children are growing up in households where there is no experience of employment. That is deeply worrying. It has contributed to the growth of what we call the underclass—an unpleasant term in itself. That lack of employment has contributed to the growth of certain types of crime. Before Conservative Members jump up and ask whether I am saying that the unemployed are criminals, I say that the answer firmly is no. I see too many unemployed people

571
who are the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators of crime. However, we all know that where there are deep social divisions, where there is high unemployment and where there is a growth in inequality, as can be seen in many countries across the world, one has a society in which, unfortunately, certain types of crime, such as theft and car crime, tend to flourish.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does not the hon. Lady agree that, far from people committing crimes because of poverty, crime is often related to factors such as greed and trying to fuel a drugs habit?
Ms Quin: The salaries and pay-offs to which I referred earlier illustrate the concept of greed rather more than do my comments about the least well-off in society. Although Conservative Members are always resistant to the idea of there being a link between crime and social divisions, that view is, fortunately, not universal. I remember reading a speech by Baroness Denton in which she said that there was a clear link between social division, social decay and crime levels. I welcome the fact that some Conservatives are prepared to look at the issues as they are rather than as they would like them to be.
An unequal society in which there are gross inequalities of income distribution generates ill-health, not just for the people who are least well off. As has been proved in various studies—I refer to the article by Richard Wilkinson—unequal societies are often more conflictual and more stressful societies. That adds up to a considerable cost to the health system.
It is depressing, but not surprising, that Britain has increasingly suffered from many of the American-style social problems that accompanied the rise in wage inequality in that country. We have rising drug-related crime and rising lawlessness in our inner cities, infant mortality rates higher than those in comparable countries and more spending on ill-health and crime prevention as a result. All those issues need to be taken very seriously.
I am not surprised that one or two hon. Members who have intervened have implied that I have been talking on a gloom-and-doom basis. I am rather surprised that no one his yet used the time-honoured words, which Conservatives so often like to use about the Opposition, that I am talking Britain down. I do not believe in talking Britain down, but I believe in looking the problem in the face. The problem is not that we are talking Britain down, but that the Government are letting Britain down. They are letting the people of Britain down by their actions and by the way in which they have allowed inequality to grow in the past decade and during the whole time in which they have been in office.
Recent decisions have made things worse. The Government's decision to abolish the wages councils, for example, has reduced wages in various sectors. The Low Pay Network, in a fairly detailed study accompanied by a survey, concludes that the abolition of the wages councils has resulted in a substantial drop in pay rates across various sectors of the economy. The study refers to the retail sector, hairdressing, the clothing industry and the hotel and catering industry. The Government must pay particular attention to that study if they are to do something about the problem of low pay.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Quin: I will not give way again to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). I have given way to her on four or five occasions. She seems to be a regular attender of Friday morning debates so she will, I am sure, hope to speak herself. In view of the number of interventions by the hon. Lady and the possibility, if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, of her being able to make a speech, she will have ample opportunity to make her views heard.
Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Lady has strikingly referred to her area as having once had a number of staple industries which provided a lot of employment. She said that they had declined and that they had been replaced, but not adequately. Can she explain to me, in terms of her motion, how what she is recommending would do anything to promote economic prosperity and more jobs for her region? What is the link?
Ms Quin: I am glad that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) made that intervention. I am coming to those points shortly.
I have referred to VAT on fuel, so I shall not make further reference to it. I also referred briefly to the Child Support Agency. After we had our debate on Monday, a constituent came to my constituency office. He is an example of a classic case in which the CSA has simply proved to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I implore the Government, therefore—we have here today the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who is the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security with special responsibility for the CSA—to listen to all the cases that we have brought to their attention and to realise that we are talking not about an isolated number of cases, but about a huge number of cases in which people really feel that the CSA is the last economic straw that they can bear. I am not surprised that not only have there been suicides, but many people have felt suicidal as a result, including a constituent who came to my office this week. He would want his case to be referred to as one that shows the kind of hardship that the CSA creates.
Inequality affects many different groups in Britain today. Inequality affecting the disabled has exercised the attention of the House on many occasions in recent weeks and it is possible that other hon. Members will want to refer to that issue again today. I repeat the frequent demands of Labour Members that the Government accept the private Member's Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, currently before the House, that they do not block it further and that they give the disabled, who have been subject to gross inequalities over a long time, some hope of Opportunity for the future.
There is also gross inequality between women's and men's average incomes, as I am sure all hon. Members recognise. That is especially true of many women in part-time and poorly paid jobs. Indeed, surveys show that if we continue moving towards equality for women's pay at such a slow rate, we shall almost be near the beginning of the 22nd century before it catches up with the average pay for men. I have also referred to the difficulties that men encounter in areas of the country such as mine. Indeed, in the intervention by the hon. Member for Monmouth,

573
reference was made to the fact that not enough new industries have replaced the older industries, which have declined in areas such as mine.
It is interesting to consider some of the industries that have come to the north-east, especially Nissan in Sunderland, which is close to my constituency. It has brought some welcome jobs to the area and I am encouraged by the fact that the management of Nissan do not accept the deregulated, low-wage approach of the Government. Indeed, in evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, Nissan said clearly that it believed that the low-wage, low-skill approach to the economy was the route to economic disaster. It is also greatly encouraging that Nissan believes that the provisions of the European social chapter would not present it with any difficulties, because, in all cases, it already exceeds its provisions.
There is a great deal of hidden employment as well, especially in an area such as mine. Many women would like to work, but do not register as unemployed because either they do not have the possibility of working, due to lack of child-care facilities or being unable to afford those facilities, or because they live in areas of high unemployment and the chances of employment are so poor that it is not worth registering.
Let me also refer to the discrimination and inequality experienced by people from ethnic minorities. It remains true that wages and unemployment rates among members of ethnic minorities are highly unequal. Unemployment rates for ethnic minorities are more than twice the rate of the white population and the wages of some minority groups are persistently lower. We must look at that problem closely.
I imagine that Conservative Members may well say that we must aim for flexibility of work. I strongly support flexibility in the workplace, as do many Labour Members, but we do not support the situation where flexible working practices—part-time working and so on—amount to a lifetime of penalty rather than a lifetime of opportunity. In the right circumstances, flexible working, part-time working and different work patterns can be a tremendous opportunity for people, but, all too often, especially in the constituency cases with which I have dealt, people in such new employment patterns seem to be badly paid. Indeed, they are not only badly paid, but, as I said earlier, have few pension rights and entitlements and little financial security to look forward to.
What should be done about this situation? One of the most important things to do is simply to recognise the extent of the problem. There is a real problem in Government circles of people failing to appreciate the scale of the difficulties that are experienced by people out there, across the whole country.
I well remember an impressive report prepared by the Church of England entitled "Faith in the City". It was greeted by the then Prime Minister as Marxist and its contents were dismissed. I believe strongly that those working in churches are in an excellent position to experience the extent of the problems of inequality in our society because they tend to be based in inner-city areas where they encounter such problems at first hand. It is not only a few turbulent priests in the Church of England who are criticising Government policies in that respect. Recently, the new president of the Methodist Church made
574
similar comments, as have members of the senior establishment of the Catholic Church. It is such a common pattern that it cannot be dismissed as the rantings and ravings of a few ideologically motivated clerics.
We also need a much bigger job creation package than anything we have seen up to now. [Interruption.] Indeed, it was extremely welcome that, after 10 years of saying nothing about full employment, we managed to get some kind of commitment to it from Ministers. That was a welcome change and we had not heard it for a long time from the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has, for example, called for a new environmental task force for young people which could combine training with environmentally based community projects.
I feel strongly about jobs in the environment. An enormous number of jobs can be created in environmentally related projects, partly in tackling pollution. It is sad that, despite the fact that the Government gave the privatised water companies a green dowry at the time of privatisation to bring our water standards up to European Community standards, there has been a failure to spend that money to bring the water quality up to the required standards as quickly as we would like and, more astonishingly, we have seen an attempt by the Government to repeal the European quality standards which they gave the privatised companies money to meet.
Lady Olga Maitland rose—
Ms Quin: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak later.
Therefore, jobs in energy-saving projects and jobs in producing environmental technological equipment are also important. One of the areas in which Britain is failing to create jobs is in trade with the newly democratic countries of central and eastern Europe. Trading between those countries and our country is miles behind the volume of trade that the Germans, the French, the Italians and even the Dutch have managed to build up with those new countries. One important area of work would be in helping those countries, in a kind of trade and aid package, to meet some of the higher environmental standards which they need to meet in future.
One almost needs an environmental Marshall aid plan to tackle some of the problems in those countries. Such measures could create jobs in Britain because, as we know, many firms are capable of producing environmentally friendly equipment, such as equipment to curb emissions from power stations. Government Departments, especially the Departments of Employment and of Trade and Industry and, perhaps, also the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, should look at that area together much more closely than they seem to have done.
We must make fairness the central principle and guiding light of social security and tax policy. The Labour party is committed to progressive taxation, which is important for the future.[Interruption.] We need a fairer tax system so that we can bring an end to pensioner poverty and discrimination and improve public services. It is—[Interruption.] I hear the cries that are so frequently emitted during debates of this sort.
Mr. Nicholls: How much?
Ms Quin: Exactly. Conservative Members want to know exactly how much money is involved, as if I, in

575
introducing a Back-Bench motion, could give a detailed account of a Labour Government's first Budget. Conservative Members know that such an expectation would be entirely unrealistic. I shall not get worked up about that.
Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way
Ms Quin: I merely say—
Mr. Nicholls: Just answer the question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Seated interventions are not helpful. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he should do so in the proper way.
Ms Quin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have given way on many occasions, it is rather difficult to put up with so many seated interventions. I have extended to hon. Members the courtesy of allowing them to intervene. I am anxious to bring my remarks to a close.
It is extraordinary that Conservative Members should ask where the money is to come from. When the Government took office, they enjoyed a tremendous windfall from North sea oil. Previous Governments had not received such revenue and did not expect it. None of us knew that that would happen. The Government have had huge opportunities, especially when they ran tremendous Budget surpluses—they have been frittered away—to put into effect many of the measures that we are calling for 15 years later. There have been 15 years of wasted opportunity when money was available. That is extremely frustrating for those of us who have been putting forward the policies that I have outlined for so many years. It is absurd for Conservative Members to talk about money not being available when they had money and failed to use it to tackle the problems that I am describing. Indeed, they have presided over a period when the problems have become much worse.
I have talked about the problem of poverty and work, low pay and poor working conditions. I admit, however, that there have been some improvements over the past two or three years. Almost all these improvements have come about because of commitments arising from European directives. There are European directives that give employees the right to a written statement setting out their terms and conditions. Although the Government tried to water down the directive on maternity rights, it has helped some women at work in Britain. There was the recent and very welcome court judgment that the Government's policy towards part-time workers unfairly discriminated against women. Some of the extraordinary and glaring inequalities that faced part-time workers must now be redressed. Those are three examples of improvements that have been made or are being made. That has happened or is happening because of our European commitments.
It is no coincidence that the Government, having been forced to sign directives and, having failed to implement them, want to escape from the European social commitment so that, presumably, they will not be forced to introduce modest improvements in future. That is a disgrace.
Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Quin: I am concluding my remarks, so I shall not give way again.
Mr. Streeter: I want to ask a question that arises from the hon. Lady's remarks.
Ms Quin: No.
There has been a great deal of rhetoric from the Government over the past 15 years. It has been designed to try to appeal to people. The Government have sought to persuade them that they are committed to a better society. We all remember the previous Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, who even compared herself to St. Francis of Assisi when she assumed office. The present Prime Minister talked about a country at ease with itself. He has talked also about a classless society. Yet after 15 years we have a growing and alarming crisis of inequality in our country. If the Government are not prepared to convert their rhetoric—it is entirely unconvincing in the light of their record—into reality, they should resign and give way to a Government who will.
10.33 am
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) on bringing the motion before the House. I do not make a point of being in the Chamber on Fridays, but it struck me that she had tabled an interesting motion, and a brave one. I congratulate her on choosing the subject in the first place.
I do not entirely accept the hon. Lady's conclusion. I am sure that that will be a relief to her and no surprise. I am pleased that she has brought the subject before the House so that we can debate it.
The logic that runs through the hon. Lady's remarks is that in some way inequality, which is avoidable, runs through our society and permeates it. She suggests that it is almost built into the very structure of society. I do not accept that analysis.
We have a Prime Minister who was brought up in circumstances of some poverty. He went to a grammar school, but did not go to university. My right hon. Friend is now the Prime Minister. Shortly, he will be joined, as it were, by a new Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—assuming that it is he—was public-school educated. Both men—I say this in an unpartisan way—will be holding their offices because of their conspicuous talent. The fact that they came from different walks of life did not hold them back in our society and prevent them from fulfilling tasks that matched their abilities. The idea that inequality runs through the whole of British society in some avoidable and structured way is one that I cannot accept.
I completely part company with the hon. Lady when she says that she believes passionately and sincerely that if we could only bring about total economic equality, we would suddenly have paradise on earth. She referred repeatedly to the gap that exists between rich and poor. She made the classic error of saying that the Government have given tax handouts to the rich. I know of no tax handout from the Government to the rich since 1979.
The Government have certainly enabled the rich to keep more of their own money than hitherto. The idea that taxing the rich by levying 89 per cent. income tax on earned income and 98 per cent. on unearned income—in one inglorious year the Labour Government imposed a surcharge, which meant that on the top slice of income the rich paid 104 per cent. income tax—benefits the poor is potty.

577
The hon. Lady does not have to take my word for that assertion. I am sure that she will not do so. I invite her to study the Inland Revenue's statistics, which show the proportion of the tax take that is contributed by the richest members of our society. The figures are straightforward. In 1979, the top 10 per cent. of rich people—the wealthiest 10 per cent.—paid about 35 per cent. of the total income tax take. This year, they will be paying about 45 per cent. There is no magic about that. If we tax people at punitive rates, they will avoid tax, go abroad or not work.
When I started my working life as a lawyers' clerk, there were some barristers who I would seek to instruct, only to be told, "Mr. So-and-So is not available on Thursdays and Fridays." In my youthful naivety, I asked why that was. I was then told, "Mr. So-and-So does not work on Thursdays and Fridays because it is not worth his while to do so. He works only on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays." That is what happens when you overtax the rich. The result is that the rich contribute less to the total tax take.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman becomes completely carried away with the problems of what the super-rich do with their money, perhaps he will explain why in the past 15 years the number of homeless people has risen, why the poorest 10 per cent. of households are 14 per cent. worse off than they were in 1979 and why 3,000 people sleep on the streets of London every night because they have no homes to go to?
Mr. Nicholls: As for the hon. Gentleman's last assertion, he well knows that it is not true. The rough sleepers initiative has cut dramatically the numbers of people sleeping rough on the streets of London.
Mr. Corbyn: That is because the Government stuffed them in hostels.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman always phrases his remarks in such eloquent terms. I shall leave that point for the moment.
I was dealing with the far more serious arguments that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East was advancing. She says that because the gap may have increased between rich and poor, that is a bad thing and something that bears down heavily on the poor. Some years ago, I was involved in a venture to ensure that a heart operation was carried out on a child from a third-world country. The father of the child was a naval commander in the navy of his country. He had an engineering degree. In terms of what that country had to offer, he was one of the rich people in it. In his country, the gap between that man's life style and the life style of those at the bottom of the heap was immeasurably greater than any gap in this country. The problem was that it was completely impossible to have a life-saving operation performed on his child in that country. He simply could not afford such an operation and there were no surgeons there capable of performing the operation anyway.
That man's child had to come to this country because, no matter how relatively poor one is in this country, there is a free national health service. It would have been complete nonsense to tell that man that the gap was in some way relevant to the welfare of his child.
Poor people do not have to use the gap to pay for the things that they need in their lives; they need money in
578
their hands. What matters to the poor is not the difference between the rich and the poor, but how much money the poor have. However one considers the statistics, the position of the poor in this country, relative to their previous position, has never been better. That is because sufficient tax is generated within our economy to leave an incentive for the rich to earn and pay their tax and to generate enough tax to be spent on social benefits across a wide range of necessary items.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) tried to make her case by referring to inequalities in respect of a security guard earning £1.85 an hour. That is obviously a low wage. However, a great many people know from experience that low pay is better than no job. Many people who experience a period of low pay move on to better-paid work in the end.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East must face up to the fact that some people who earn low wages of the kind she referred to simply do not have the talents to offer to earn more. Let me give the hon. Lady what I hope she will feel is a perfectly fair example. Like all of us in the Chamber, the hon. Lady receives a Member's salary of £30,000 a year. Some people would say that that is not a great deal of money, but to the sort of people who come to my surgery and who go to the hon. Lady's surgery, £30,000 a year is a staggeringly large sum.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East could certainly do a job which paid £1.85 an hour. However, I am not automatically or axiomatically convinced that someone earning £1.85 an hour could do her job as well as she certainly does it. That may seem a harsh and unkind thing to say, but it is realistic.
That leads me to another point. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East referred to the earnings link for pensions. She talked very eloquently about how the Government have broken the earnings link with regard to old-age pensions. She seemed to be holding out to pensioners the prospect that a Labour Government would one day produce an earnings link. However, there used to be such a link. It was introduced by the previous Labour Government—and what happened? In three of the four years in which the Labour Government had an opportunity to apply the link, they broke it.
When the Labour Government were criticised by their own Back Benchers for breaking that link, I recall that Lord Ennals, who was then Secretary of State for Social Security, was pinioned at the Dispatch Box for having failed to honour the legislation which his Government had introduced. He fell back on a statement which, even among us politicians, sounded lame in the extreme. He said, "My obligation in law is to consider the figures. My obligation in law is not to get it right." Honest politicians are led to that kind of subterfuge and double talk when, for the very best of reasons, they try to produce a structure which the country is simply unable to afford. That again is something which the hon. Member for Gateshead, East must face up to.
We live in a country where, under this Government at least, one recognises that inequalities will exist in the sense that talent is unequal. I think that I am right to say that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East has degrees from two universities. That is excellent and it says something about her academic attainments. I do not have degrees from a university. I did not go to a university. However, what

579
unites us both is that we have been brought up and live in a society in which, irrespective of our talents, we can make the most of them.
We can all think of particularly hard cases—and that is hardly surprising in a population of 55 million—among our friends, relatives and the people who visit our surgeries. We can think of cases in respect of which life seems to have treated people very unfairly. If one comes from a stable home, of course one has a much better start in society than someone who does not come from a stable home. All those hard cases do not for a moment alter the fact that we live in a society of which we should be proud.
We live in a society in which, from the cradle to the grave, we have universal health care. We live in a society in which, whatever we may think about its standards from time to time, we have universal education. We live in a society in which the poorest members have benefits provided for them at a level which would be unthinkable for many of the richest people in other countries. It is about time that we faced up to those facts and admitted that one of the reasons for all that is that we do not pretend that the equalisation of people, with a range of diverse talents, is something that can be achieved or, if it could be achieved, would benefit the people in our society.
One need only consider the situation that used to exist in the former Soviet bloc countries to understand what happens to the very poorest, the most inadequate and the least talented members of society when one tries to produce that kind of economic straitjacket. I do not accept the idea that inequality runs through the system in this country in a way that damages the poor and which could be prevented.
However, there is a sense in which there is inequality in our society. There is a paradox. The Government have been in power since 1979. They have done many things which people thought were inconceivable. It would have been remarkable if anyone had said in 1979 that the trade union movement could be confined to barracks and to those tasks it should perform instead of trying to take over the governance of this country, but that has happened. There has been an explosion of home ownership under this Government. Council house sales have taken off. For the first time in their lives, ordinary people have been given the ability to earn, to build up capital, to build up their own homes and have tax rates which give them an incentive to work and not to cheat. All that amounts to a remarkable transformation.
The Labour party's current pitch is no longer red in tooth and claw socialism. It is, "We are Toryer than thou." There can be no finer compliment for what the Government have achieved than the fact that the future leader of the Opposition is trying to convince everyone, to the terror of people like the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), whom I greatly value, that he is really a Tory at heart.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nicholls: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
There can be no finer tribute to the Government than that. The paradox is that, while all that has been happening on a national stage, the vice and cancer of political correctness has been beavering away. The inequality is that, in some peculiar way, the views, standards, decencies and common sense among the vast majority of people in
580
this country, which are never articulated, but exist none the less, are being subverted by a tiny group of people who take unto themselves the right to set a political agenda without any reference to what people want.
That inequality runs through many strands of our national life. We can see it in the way in which language is used. We are no longer supposed to refer to chairmen. It probably says something about the incipient sexism of the left that it thinks that the title "chairman", which actually links women to humanity, should be replaced by addressing them as a piece of furniture.
Even if we move beyond the nonsense of non-sexist manhole covers and the fact that the Equal Opportunities Commission has been described as having its base in Personchester, we reach a stage where, in respect of language, the views and attitudes of the majority are thought to be inferior and have to be replaced.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East referred to discrimination against black people as another example of the inequalities in society. An advertisement, placed I think by Greenwich borough council, appeared recently in a newspaper. It read:
"Black Social Worker
Specialist in Adoption.
The Adoption Team is seeking qualified and experienced Black Social Worker to contribute to the good Adoptive Services offered by the Agency."
I toyed with the idea, but in the interests of good order did not do it, of reading that advert out and using the phrase "white social worker", and then saying that I saw nothing improper in that, simply so I could then bask in the howls of indignation from the Opposition Benches. However, on looking more closely, I realised my error and saw that the advert referred to "a black social worker".
If anybody dared to place a newspaper advertisement calling for a white social worker, there would be an outcry, and the Commission for Racial Equality, as quick as a flash, would create absolute mayhem. Of course, it does not matter because the advertisement was for a black social worker. Can hon. Members imagine the damage that is done when the host community see such advertisements? What good does it do the ethnic minority to have fear inflamed among the host community?
Mr. Corbyn: What host community?
Mr. Nicholls: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
That inequality is far more dangerous than anything that we heard about from the hon. Lady.
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are becoming extremely offensive to a large number of people in this country. [Interruption.] I am not bothered personally, I just think that the hon. Gentleman is offensive to many others. Perhaps he would care to reflect for a moment. He used the term "host community". A large number of black people were born in this country. They are second or third generation of their parents or grandparents who migrated to this country. They would find it offensive that the hon. Gentleman uses terms such as "host community".
The hon. Gentleman should understand that local authorities of all political persuasions advertise for black adoptive parents because of the problems of racism, the alienation of black families and black communities, and the feeling that black people, when talking about adoption or black children, would like to be able to talk to a black

581
social worker. Is that really so wrong or so bad? Should not we at least recognise the depth of racism and the alienation that exists among people in those communities? The hon. Gentleman's arrogance seems to know no bounds.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is the genuine and uncleaned-up version of the unreconstructed left. All that he has to do on Monday is to read Hansard and substitute the word "white" for the word "black" and then wonder about the matter. Here we have the typical attitude of the left in trying to ban even the use of certain words. The hon. Gentleman criticised me for using the words "host community" because it might offend people of second and third generation. He must understand the damage that such an advertisement would cause in a country of perhaps 22nd-generation people, who know—and they are right—that if it said, "White social worker required", it would cause outrage. That is inequality, and it needs to be dealt with.
Let us consider what has happened in other ways. For example, I refer to the legislation which first decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting adults in private, which was introduced for perfectly decent and tolerant reasons—that what adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms which does not cause damage or offence to anybody else should be no business of anyone else. That was the aspiration, but what has happened since? We now live in a society in which even some Conservatives seem to be frightened of saying that a homosexual couple living together, be they male or female, are not in a normal, stable situation which is not in any shape or form comparable with a heterosexual marriage.
What sort of unequal society are we living in when a High Court judge can think it appropriate to grant custody to a lesbian couple who, although they represent themselves as a couple, both claim lone parent supplement? How can that contribute to equality in society when the views of the minority are imposed on the majority? I cannot think of a more unequal way of proceeding. It is very dangerous indeed.
For example, I now refer to the inequality that arises when what one might call minoritarianism is dumped on the country. What on earth is happening when 90 per cent. of people in this country who identify themselves as Christians—not card-carrying Christians; not people who are on social terms with the Bishop of Birmingham, but people who regard themselves as Christians—suddenly find that Christianity is to be taught in schools only in conjunction with the teaching of a number of other faiths? Yes, that is appropriate in certain areas, but why on earth have people in rural areas such as Teignbridge to be told that the faith which they have held dear and which their grandparents and forebears have held dear for hundreds of years are to be taught in the wilds of Devon, together with Buddhism, Sikhism and so on?
Mr. Donald Dewar: I find the hon. Gentleman's line of argument rather interesting and extraordinary, but I want to make sure what he is saying. He referred to the judge who made the controversial decision on what he thought was the best interests of a certain child. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the
582
interests of a minority should not be protected at law because they might be unacceptable or strange to the social customs of the majority?
Mr. Nicholls: If any society which has any confidence in itself, and this society should have sufficient—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might not agree with me, but I am sure that he will want to give me a hearing. A society should have sufficient confidence, in the way in which it rules and regulates its own affairs, to make certain judgments. This House exists to make certain judgments about the way in which we conduct ourselves. I will now answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly. I find it truly stunning that a lesbian couple should be treated as though they are running a unit which is equivalent to a heterosexual marriage. I find that deeply offensive, and the vast majority of people in this country would also regard it as bizarre. Not many people have this forum or my arrogance or confidence to make that point, but I have no doubt how people are thinking about that matter.
We need a number of things. We certainly need Ministers such as my hon. Friend the Minister who have the confidence to resist the siren move toward acceptance of ideas such as lesbian couples being completely normal. We need Ministers who, when working within the system, can make sure that they can resist the loving embrace of the civil service. We need hon. Members who realise that the standards of morality that they bring from their constituents, friends, relatives and supporters can be carried through into legislation. We need hon. Members who are prepared to articulate that interest.
We need police who have the confidence to believe that when they apprehend criminals those criminals will be treated properly. We must abhor the situation in which, years after the murder of PC Trevor Blakelock, when there were 200 witnesses to a murder that was committed by 12 people, the only people before the criminal courts in relation to that monstrous crime are the two policemen who investigated the original offence.
We need a society, a political system and a governing body with the confidence to say that we have been brought up in a fine, decent country which, even now, is probably the finest place in the world to live. We need the confidence to assert the standards of morality that enable us to savour that. That is the sort of equality that I look for, not the economic mishmash of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.
10.56 am
Mr. Denis MacShane: I am not quite sure of the protocol, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is to be a statement at 11 o'clock. Will I be able to resume my speech after that?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes. The debate will be interrupted at 11 o'clock for the statement, but the hon. Gentleman will then have the right to continue his speech thereafter.
Mr. MacShane: We have had an extremely interesting debate so far. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) for the terms of her motion, and I look forward to hearing a Conservative Member address the issues that she has raised. I look forward also to hearing the Minister, one of the rare Ministers who knows of life from north of Watford to Oxford, inform and entertain us.

583
I draw attention to page 4049 of today's Order Paper on which a motion stands in my name for debate in October. The subject of that motion is relevant to today's debate. Line 5 of the motion refers to a
"ballet of their non-managerial employees".
The correct word is "ballot". I am grateful to the Clerks for their help in wording the motion. Of course, ballots are dear to Opposition Members—they are the quintessence of democracy; they allow everybody to be equal in an organisation or before the law. Of course, Conservative Members are practised in and at home with ballet. There is a considerable difference between the two words. I hope that before the motion comes before the House it can be reworded.
I shall try to begin my speech by referring to the earnings dispersion league table in the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on employment outlook published in June last year. That showed a considerable increase in earnings dispersion in the United Kingdom since 1979—a date chosen by the statisticians of the OECD, who were unaware of any events that might have taken place in 1979. The OECD report shows that whereas in the United Kingdom there has been a dramatic increase in—
It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No.11 (Friday sittings).

Sports Council
11 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Sports Council of Great Britain.
On 9 July last year, I told the House that we were suspending proposals to replace the Sports Council with separate United Kingdom and English bodies while we took a fresh look at structures for the future administration of British sport.
We have reaffirmed the conclusion of our 1991 policy review that the combination of Great Britain and England functions in the current Sports Council hinders their effective development. We, therefore, intend to set up two new bodies to be called, respectively, the United Kingdom Sports Council and the English Sports Council. England will thus be in the same position as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The UKSC will consist of 10 members: an independent chairman, the chairmen of the four home country sports councils, one representative each of the British Olympic Association, of amateur non-Olympic sport, and of professional sport, and two independent members with strong sporting credentials, one from a professional and one from an amateur sporting background.
The UK Sports Council will be very different from what we rejected last year: different in its relationship to the home country councils, in its functions and in its size. On the international scene, it will represent the UK; it will seek to increase greatly the influence of the UK in international sport; and it will co-ordinate policy for bringing major international events to the UK. In national affairs, it will not have a supervisory remit, but it will oversee those areas where there is a need for UK-wide policy—for example, on doping control, sports science, sports medicine and coaching. Home country councils will, however, be responsible for the delivery of those policies.
We should like the UKSC, among its early tasks, to see whether it is sensible to identify possible further areas where sports policies may have application across the UK as a whole; where there may currently be areas of unnecessary overlap and duplication; and whether it may be sensible to administer, in consultation with the home country councils, grant programmes for bodies or policies that have a UK or GB remit. The Government also wish to see the establishment of an effective British confederation of non-governmental sports interests. We shall invite the UKSC to consult the various interests and to bring forward proposals on the subject.
As to the national lottery, the home country councils will be responsible for distribution, but the UK body will offer expert advice on applications of UK importance under the directions that Ministers have issued, or will issue shortly, to their respective councils under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.
A small permanent staff will provide a secretariat and lead policy working parties of home country representatives. Drawing in that way on the expertise of the home country councils, and resourcing them accordingly, I envisage a staff for the UKSC of about 20. That contrasts with the proposed staff of the abandoned UK Sports Commission of 180.

585
I now turn to the new English body. The English Sports Council will have 15 members: an independent chairman, five ministerial appointees from the regions, three representatives from the membership of the Central Council of Physical Recreation to represent an Olympic, a non-Olympic and a professional sport, and six independent members.
The present Sports Council spreads itself too thinly and operates in a series of areas more appropriate to other agencies. The new English body will have a sharper focus, concentrating its resources on an increased programme of direct support to the governing bodies of sport, to help the grassroots, and on services in support of sporting excellence, including the national sports centres currently administered by the GB council.
There will be a substantial redeployment of resources away from bureaucracy, and away from programmes that do not reflect the new focus. In particular, the new body will withdraw from the promotion of mass participation, informal recreation and leisure pursuits and from health promotion. Those are laudable aims, but they are secondary to the pursuit of high standards of sporting achievement. In due course, those changes will allow us to give much greater help to our most important national sports. It will be for the new body to decide those sports, but I would expect it to concentrate, although not exclusively, on about two or three dozen.
In return for greater financial support, governing bodies will be required to prepare clear plans with specific targets for the development of their sports, from grassroots to the highest competitive levels. Those plans must include programmes for strong and effective links with schools and youth organisations, to make the most of the talent of young people. That will reinforce the Government's wider initiative to re-establish sport in schools, and lay the foundations for future sporting success. We shall also seek to ensure that the bodies make strenuous efforts to involve private finance in their funding plans.
Reform is also needed in English regional organisation. We want to see continuing working relationships at regional level between the Sports Council, local authorities and other agencies. But the present structural relationship between the Sports Council's regional offices and the regional councils for sport and recreation—RCSRs—gives rise to confusion over roles and responsibilities, and to concern on grounds of financial accountability, bureaucracy and duplication.
The regional offices of the Sports Council should be more clearly identified with the implementation of national sports policy. It is also very important that there is a clear distinction between them and other regional organisations currently in membership of the RCSRs which may be applicants for national lottery funding. The present formal linkage with the RCSRs will, therefore, cease and Ministers will no longer make appointments to them. To secure the necessary regional dimension to the formulation and implementation of the policies of the English Sports Council, Ministers will appoint independent nominees in each region, as previously they appointed the RCSR nominees. Five of those ministerial nominees will be appointed in rotation to serve on the English Sports Council, thus strengthening the two-way flow of advice and understanding between the Sports Council nationally
586
and in the regions. I am sure that local authorities will still wish to develop wider regional leisure strategies with other regional interests, and will, therefore, want to set up such future machinery to this end as they judge appropriate.
I shall appoint consultants to examine the entire range of the current Sports Council's functions in the light of the broad policy framework that I have set out today, and to make detailed recommendations for the structure and staffing of the new bodies. In reviewing functions, I shall ask consultants to identify those that should be discontinued and those that are suitable for market-testing or contracting-out. We will take a decision on the precise timing of implementation in the light of those recommendations, but I should expect that to take place during the next financial year. The costs of new arrangements will be met within present planned provision.
The Secretary of State has today written to the chairman of the Sports Council inviting views on the proposals by 30 September. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I have also written to the British Olympic Association, the British Sports Forum, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the local authority associations seeking their views.
Mr. Tom Pendry: The Opposition breathe a sigh of relief that, at long last, a statement on the future of the Sports Council of Great Britain is being made. The sporting world has waited an almighty long time for it to be born; its gestation period beats that of an African elephant, which is a mere 22 months. The sporting world has waited three years for the delivery. Nevertheless, the Opposition welcome what the Minister has stated today.
We do not appreciate, as the House does not appreciate, that, once more, a statement on sport has been made on a Friday, interrupting an important debate, when many hon. Members from both sides of the House who care about sporting issues are on their way to, or in, their constituencies, oblivious of the fact that a statement is being made. I at once absolve the Minister of marginalising sport by both making the statement so late and making it on a Friday. It is more likely that his ministerial colleagues in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office are more culpable than he.
The Opposition start from the basic premise, and we are joined, I am sure, by the sporting world, that the time has come for a new sports structure. The present structure is ill-defined and in many ways confusing. Having said that, and before I refer to specific proposals, I think it right to compliment Sir Peter Yarranton and his staff at the Sports Council, who have undergone a difficult period and laboured in trying circumstances in the past three years. Morale must have been difficult to sustain.
The Opposition welcome the UK Sports Council. We have argued for one for many a long year. We may argue about its precise size, but we are certainly disappointed that the Minister chose to disregard the advice of the noble Lord Howell and myself that the Minister himself should chair the new council and give the necessary direction to that new body, not as a hands-on Minister but as a directional Minister who could ensure that the new council fulfilled the objectives set by him and by the House. What kind of chairman, in his absence, is the Minister after? We hope that he intends to appoint someone of international reputation. Will he be a professional? Will he be paid?

587
We are pleased that the composition of the English Sports Council will recognise the CCPR, Olympic and non-Olympic sports and, for the first time, professional sports. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that matter. Perhaps he will also elaborate on his point about the Sports Council spreading itself too thinly. We are pleased that the regions' role will be strengthened in his proposals.
In view of the poor track record of the Government on their appointments to non-governmental bodies, will the Minister assure us today that his appointees will be appointed on their merit and not on their political affiliation?
Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the role in the United Kingdom Sports Council of the doping control unit, the National Coaching Foundation and sports science expertise, which come under the current Sports Council? We should like to know how the Minister intends to avoid duplication in each of those matters, with home country sports councils running separate services.
Will the Minister state where the central policy unit will be housed? We believe that it is an important unit. Is the Minister satisfied that the good work of the current Sports Council in preparing for the distribution of the lottery funds will not be disrupted by his statement today and that an effective mechanism for the distribution of funds to sport will be in place by the end of the year? How many redundancies does the Minister envisage will result from his proposals? Will they be voluntary?
Does the Minister accept that his statement will be a great disappointment to those engaged in children's play? They were looking to him in his statement today to reinstate the importance of children's play and to reverse the downgrading of it by his predecessor some time ago.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will extend his consultation period beyond 30 September. After all, we have waited three years for a definitive statement and we are already in the summer holiday period. That makes it difficult for the sporting world in a mere 83 days to have a meaningful dialogue with the Minister in that period.
Finally, finally, Opposition Members welcome much of what was contained in the Minister's statement, but regret the missed opportunities that I have mentioned. I hope that, on reflection, the Minister will adjust his sights accordingly.
Mr. Sproat: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for the general welcome that he gave to so much of what we propose in this fairly radical restructuring of the Sports Council. As he said, it really was needed. I am grateful for the all-party support that he has given. Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman's views about making the statement on a Friday. The fact of the matter is that, as I am sure all hon. Members will understand, at the end of the summer term, when so many statements have to be made, I had the choice of making an oral statement on a Friday or not at all. So I thought it better to have a Friday statement than none at all.
The hon. Gentleman said that a long time had been taken for a statement to be made. It is almost exactly a year since Friday 9 July last year, when I announced the abandonment of the old UK Sports Commission. It has taken a year because I have used the intervening time to go round every sports region to speak to every member of every sports region, as well as to meet in my office the
588
British Olympic Association, the CCPR and so on. It has been a thorough review. I hope that we have used the time well.
I should like to say how very much I agree with the kind words spoken by the hon. Gentleman about Sir Peter Yarranton as chairman of the Great Britain Sports Council. He and his colleagues have done a marvellous job. I congratulate them on what they have achieved.
The hon. Gentleman asked what kind of chairman of the new UK and English Sports Councils we shall be looking for. We will look with an open mind at everyone whose name is put forward. As for the pay, which the hon. Gentleman properly raised, it is our intention to pay the chairman, as Sir Peter and his deputy are paid. We are certainly looking for someone who has a high-quality name, who will be recognised nationally and will help to achieve what I want to see. I want this country to be influential again in international sport.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned professional sport. He welcomed my putting professional sportsmen on both bodies. I believe that the time has come to do so. It is ludicrous, when professional sport is so dominant in Britain, that we do not have people on the boards who can specifically speak for professional sport. We have had one or two individuals before such as Trevor Booking, the chairman of the current eastern RCSR, but we want them on the bodies specifically to represent professional sport and the attitudes of those involved in it. That is an innovation which will be widely welcomed.
I believe that the Sports Council has spread itself too thinly in the past, partly because Parliament has laid too many different jobs on it. When one considers that the current spending of the Sports Council is about £50 million a year and that local government in England alone spends £1.25 billion, one can see that the Sports Council money is small by comparison. Therefore, it has to be concentrated.
The ministerial nominees will certainly not be appointed for political reasons. I have not the slightest idea how any of them votes. I have never asked them and I do not care. I want people who will drive forward the cause of sport in this country. The new UK Sports Council will examine sports medicine, sports science and coaching, because it is clearly important that they are co-ordinated across the United Kingdom and that there is no duplication. That will be a prime job of the new UK body.
The lottery will not be disrupted. The lottery part of the new GB Sports Council is already up and running. It will not be interrupted. It will continue into the English body.
The number of redundancies will not be known until the consultants have a look at the particular parts of the current GB Sports Council and what will be transferred to the new English Sports Council. I hope that it will be possible to make the redundancies voluntary.
Children's play is but one element of the work of the current Sports Council. We will consider whether its continuing role in the Sports Council fits in with the more sharply focused view that I want the Sports Council to take. Certainly many people say that the role of children's play is not suitable for the Sports Council, but we will look at it carefully in the light of what I have announced today.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to extend the consultation period. It will go up to 30 September for formal consultation, but, thereafter, we shall have further consultation on the points that are made by various bodies with members of the Sports Council and others.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. After those initial exchanges, I now look for brisk questions and for brisk answers from the Minister.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My hon. Friend's statement is a welcome clarification of the situation. He will be aware of the uncertainty felt, not only by staff of the Sports Council but by many outside—something which I am sure he has heard plenty about from Sir Peter Yarranton, to whom I also pay tribute. I am pleased by the leaner and fitter format that he has proposed, which is very welcome. I especially welcome what he said about the regional councils and regional sport—
Madam Speaker: Order. When we have a statement, the whole idea is that Members can question the Minister.
Mr. Tracey: On the national lottery, my hon. Friend said that the present work will continue. Can he guarantee to the House that it will not lack staff to deal with the many applications that will undoubtedly be made for national lottery funds? I hope that the Sports Council will be able to set an example to the various other organisations distributing national lottery funds, which will be considerable.
Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. Yes, the lottery division of the present Great Britain Sports Council will proceed fairly seamlessly into the English Sports Council. There will be no difficulty.
Ms Kate Hoey: I welcome very much the setting up of the streamlined United Kingdom Sports Council. Can the Minister clarify whether there will be any more resources for school sports associations, which are keen to get sport going among our young people? Why does he not think that the Minister should chair the new forum? That is the only way in which we will get it to be really accountable to this Parliament.
Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind welcome, which I very much appreciate. Her first question is very important. I said that we would be asking governing bodies to make absolutely clear in their business plans what proposals they have for links between schools, other youth groups and sports clubs outside schools, but in the community. We may be saying rather more about that if and when we make an announcement about sport in schools.
On the hon. Lady's very kind suggestion that I should be chairman, which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) also mentioned, without undue modesty I can say that the fewer politicians and ministerial nominees, the better. I look to the new chairman to provide firm and strong leadership for British sport.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that I am the president and chairman of two school sporting bodies, and that I took five coaching certificates and coached in five sports in addition to academic teaching for 23 years? I have a great interest in the field—all amateur, unpaid.
Will more top sportsmen come from schools and clubs as a result of my hon. Friend's excellent work—the Brian Laras and Sebastian Coes of this world—and will it give a special opportunity for all children to enjoy and take part in sport? Will he support the payment of teachers who
590
coach, as well as putting money into clubs to coach children, as the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts recommended two or three years ago?
Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend's qualifications are extremely impressive—I did not know the depth of the detail—and I will undertake to add him to the list of people I consult on the details of this statement.
As for more sportsmen coming through schools, that is my aim and I believe that it will be helped by the statement. I will consider my hon. Friend's third question.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I do not have a CV and I do not want to interfere in the love relationship that the Opposition Front Bench and the Department of Heritage have entered into this week. How will the six independent members of the Sports Council be appointed and whom will they be independent from?
Mr. Sproat: They will be appointed by the Government and be independent from the Government. They will also be independent of vested interests in sport. For example, the British Olympic Association will, quite rightly, have a member, and amateur non-Olympic sport will have another. By independent members, I mean people who are independent from those particular sections of the sporting community.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend referred to ministerial appointees. Does he plan to use their talent in particular ways and perhaps to use it more than it has been used in the past?
Mr. Sproat: That is a very interesting question. Yes, is the short answer. When I got this job, I was struck by the fact that I did not know what the ministerial nominees were supposed to be telling me, or what I was supposed to be telling them. When I went round the regions I was extremely impressed by their talents. As a minimum, first, I want to get five of them on to the English Sports Council, so that we have proper regional influence in that council at a national level and a two-way flow of information and experience. Secondly, I want to meet all the nominees in each region and also to meet all of them together at least once a year, so that we can have a two-way flow of advice.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Minister see, as a result of the changes, more money going to the regions for the provision of sporting facilities and involvement in sport? Does he see a role for the Sports Council in providing a replacement for Wembley stadium, which would provide this capital and the country with a national stadium worthy of the 21st century?
Mr. Sproat: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I certainly see more money going to grassroots sport in the regions. One of the troubles with the present Sports Council—terrific as it has been in so many ways—is that too much money has been spent on publications, pamphlets, conferences and seminars and too little has been going directly to sport. I want to change that and focus the money going to sport in the regions.
I have received representations about Wembley stadium. I will consider them and make an announcement on another occasion.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Can my hon. Friend explain whether national lottery funds will be available, through the new United Kingdom Sports Council, for both the revenue side and the capital side of sports projects?
Mr. Sproat: The money will be distributed not by the UK Sports Council, but by the English, Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish councils, but the UK Sports Council will obviously give expert advice on matters that have a United Kingdom-wide application.
On my hon. Friend's important point about capital and revenue, there will be an opportunity for revenue funding to come from lottery funds, as long as it is part of a capital project. There cannot be such funding from the lottery where no capital sum has originally gone into a project.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Last week, while you were enjoying the air at Wimbledon, Madam Speaker, I had to put up with the recorded version of that great event because I was at an athletics meeting in my constituency, where a very important question was raised which is appropriate to this statement. In my region, one of the concerns that have been expressed is that the previous body failed properly to evaluate the strategic needs within the regions and to identify areas where gaps in provision existed. Will the Minister confirm that part of the work of the new regional body will be to undertake that strategic review and fill in those gaps, wherever possible?
Mr. Sproat: Yes. The hon. Member makes a very good point. Almost the main reason why I want ministerial nominees to continue, but to be attached to the sports council for the region, is exactly that—so that there is a direct flow of information up to the national body from the grassroots about what is needed there and back again, to ensure that national policy is practised in the regions. That is a very good point and I hope that I have met it by what I have proposed.
Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his moves to re-establish sport in schools? It is certainly desirable that our children should be fitter, healthier and more competitive. Where will the headquarters of the new sports councils be located and where will the English Sports Council be located? Will he consider moving it out of London?
Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments on the importance of competitive team games in schools. The headquarters of both the United Kingdom and English councils will be in London—but in different buildings, so there will not be too cosy a relationship. My hon. Friend's interesting suggestion that the English Sports Council's headquarters might be moved out of London in future is certainly possible. I will look to the council to come forward with proposals, if it so wishes—provided that they are cost effective.
Mr. Edward Garnier: To whom or to what will the real estate and other properties of the present Sports Council be transferred?
Mr. Sproat: All the national centres in England will, as my hon. Friend would expect, go to the English Sports Council. The centre in Wales, at Plas y Brenin, will also go to the English Sports Council because of a complicated legal ownership arrangement. It will be up to the English
592
Sports Council to say in future that it does not want to run national centres but to privatise or sell them. It is up to the council to make proposals in due course.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that he will consider private finance in relation to the new councils' funding. How does he expect to ratchet in private finance to ensure the best value for every pound spent of public money?
Mr. Sproat: As my hon. Friend knows and emphasises by implication, we are extremely keen to attract private finance on every possible occasion. A good example is the current sponsorship scheme whereby the Government match pound for pound up to £3.5 million, grossing £7 million, to be pumped into sport. That is a paradigm of what we would like to see in the new body.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and on the proposal to reduce the number of bureaucrats in the new UK body from 180 to 20. Can he assure me that the money saved in that way will be pumped back into grassroots sports?
Mr. Sproat: Yes, I certainly can. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point which goes to the heart of our attempts to concentrate, target and cut out peripheral activities in leisure and recreation—important as they are—and concentrate on sport. We will cut the money out of bureaucracy and put it straight into sport itself.
Madam Speaker: Thank you all for your co-operation.

United Kingdom (Inequalities)
Question again proposed.
11.31 am
Mr. MacShane: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to rejoin this important debate. We heard a fine speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East, who constructively set out the problems that worry many Labour Members and which have certainly concerned me since entering the House two months ago. If I had to sum up the root cause of the pain and distress that come to my attention at my surgeries or in correspondence from my constituents, it would be growing inequalities in our country.
Next Thursday, 14 July, the French will celebrate the 205th anniversary of their revolution, which inscribed in world history the concepts of liberty, fraternity and equality. These days, I yield to no one in my admiration for attacks on political correctness, but perhaps we should use the word "solidarity" instead of fraternity.
The Government have been taking our liberties, destroying our solidarity and increasing inequality. We are all born unequal, live unequal and die unequal—but some are more unequal than others. For 15 consecutive years, it has been the Government's project to increase inequality. Some people—including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—may passionately believe that a fully equal society can be created on Earth. I do not share that opinion.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that God has clearly not been reading the socialist manifesto, as He continues to create people unequal?
Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman returns as regularly as we all should to the Book of Genesis, he will find a paradise created on Earth, which for thousands of years has set the guidelines for socialism and equality.
I share the view expressed earlier that Britain is a far richer and more productive society than ever before. Why are those increased riches and productivity so unequally shared? Why have other countries that have become richer and more productive in the past 15 years been able to ensure a fairer and more equal sharing of their increased riches?
Before the statement, I referred to the OECD report, which was a forerunner to the Institute for Fiscal Studies report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East, referred. That report, published in "Employment Outlook" in June 1993, shows that whereas there has been a decrease in earnings dispersal—a technical term meaning who has the cake and the butter in our society—in Japan, Germany and the Netherlands in the 1980s, the sharpest increase ever in OECD history was recorded in Britain. It is interesting and important to note that societies that set a goal of equality in their policy framework turn out to be high-performing economies.
The earnings of Britain's top 10 per cent.—the deciles, to quote the new word that has crept into economic discourse—between 1980 and 1992 increased 51 per cent., while the bottom one tenth, or poorest, saw their earnings increase just 11 per cent. That shows a 4:1 ratio between the top one tenth and the bottom one tenth, which is a clear statistical indication of growing inequality in Britain. Also in the 1980s, although the years do not match exactly, in Italy and Germany the gap between the bottom 10 per cent. and top 10 per cent. of earnings stayed constant or even narrowed.
It is not simply a question of economics. We must move the debate beyond statistical exchanges on deciles, poverty, absolute poverty, and whether or not more households have central heating. I am delighted that there is more central heating in the homes of Britain, but I remain worried about the one third of the population who are without it. I would find it hard to believe that any hon. Member has not seen constituents at his or her surgery who cannot meet their fuel bills. To have central heating in one's home but to be unable to afford using it is an expression of the inequality that worries Opposition Members. There is inequality also in education and in the absence of adequate nursery provision. We have the same number of people going to university as our leading competitors, but in the Netherlands—which produced Mr. Ruud Lubbers, the would-be President of the European Commission, according to the Prime Minister—49 per cent. of the work force have technical or craft qualifications whereas the figure in Britain is only 27 per cent.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have a chance to make a speech. Given that the statement and questions lasted 40 minutes, I do not want to take up too much time. I may give way later, but it might be more
594
helpful if I were to finish, to give other hon. Members a proper chance to speak consecutively, in joined-up sentences.
Korea and Malaysia devote 22 per cent. and 18 per cent. respectively of public expenditure to education, while the UK spends only 12 per cent. UK Government spending on education as a percentage of gross domestic product declined from 5.4 per cent. in 1979 to 4.8 per cent. in 1991. At the same time, Government support for private school fees increased from £3 million in 1982 to £76 million in 1992. That is an example of the growth in inequality in education.
There is inequality in the way that we are governed. There are now more Tory placemen and women appointed to Government-established quangos than there are democratically elected local councillors.
There is inequality in our very political structure. Long gone are the days when Conservatives sat for northern or industrial seats—the Minister, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is an exception—or, indeed, had any real knowledge of poverty and inequality. Gone are the days when service in the armed forces at least facilitated some contact between the ruling classes and the ordinary people.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred to the trade union movement as being confined to barracks. I am not sure whether he served in the armed forces, but that expression refers to a punishment—to a denial of rights because of some breach or dereliction of duty. Not a great deal of passion has been aroused in this debate, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that some of us find it deeply arrogant—and oh so typical—that the 7 million members of our trade union movement should be considered to be people on punishment parade, confined to barracks and not allowed to play a part as equal citizens in the labour market and the world of work.
The inequalities in our government, education and economic systems relentlessly feed upon themselves. We must deal with the important question of what produces inequality. Although I would argue—and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East correctly asserted—that, in part, it is a deliberate Government policy, some market, global and technological changes are also having an enormous impact. In 1992, 4,000 employees at the General Motors Vauxhall plant in Luton produced 170,000 cars. That is a doubling of output per worker since the 1980s, which I welcome. However, their wages have not risen by anything remotely like the increase in productivity.
In the United States—the figures are roughly comparable with those for the UK—productivity grew between 1980 and 1990 by about 4 per cent. per annum, but the real take-home pay of workers in the manufacturing sector decreased by 3.5 per cent. In theory, any decline in the wages of workers in industrialised countries should be offset by an increase in the wages—the purchasing power—of workers in the newly industrialised countries, especially in Asia. Investment and technology have poured into countries such as Mexico, but the purchasing power of Mexican workers has declined by up to 50 per cent. In Malaysia, a country which is rocketing up the productivity and output tables, the take-home pay of the industrial worker is stagnant or even declining.
That is an important point in the debate on inequality, because, throughout most of the 20th century, whether under Conservative or Labour Governments, there was a narrowing of the gap in equality because increases in productivity were matched by increases in pay. To put it

595
crudely, workers have been able to buy what they make or use the services that they provide. Now, the productivity-pay link has been broken, partly because of globalisation factors and partly because of technological change. As yet, we have not found a method to pay everyone in employment sufficient to sustain a decent standard of living.
I accept that this country has a lower level of unemployment than some of our competitors, but all the new jobs are part-time. [Interruption.] The majority of those jobs are part-time and at pay rates insufficient to sustain a full and normal family life. Indeed, I seem to recall that either the Secretary of State or the Minister made just that point in an important speech recently and said that the absence of a male breadwinner was having a serious impact on the quality of family life. We have to find the mechanisms to deal with that. It will be as great a problem for the next Labour Government as it has been for this Government, or should have been had they ever sought seriously to deal with it.
It appears to me that we tackle the problem of inequality through a mixture of policy, precept and example. The steel industry is of great concern to my constituents, who read with some shock this week that the chairman of British Steel has been awarded a 54 per cent. pay rise. That takes his pay this year to 33 times the average earnings of a steel worker. Of course, a steel worker gets reasonably good money—about £15,000 a year or £310 a week—but the Latin American ratio of 33:1, which is increasingly evident in pay rates, will corrupt and corrode the sense of community and relationship needed to make our work forces perform competitively and with team spirit and co-operation.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such pay rises give young people entering the industry the ambition to become the chairman of British Steel? Does he further accept that in his ideal economy such a large industry would be nationalised, whereas it is in fact in private hands and contributing to taxation and revenue to help the very poor people whom he says he wishes to help? Those nationalised industries that used to be a drain on the nation's resources are now contributors—the blood suckers have become the blood donors.
Mr. MacShane: I could enter into a debate about how to make a great deal of money in a very short time through contacts, knowledge—
Mr. Corbyn: And property speculation.
Mr. MacShane: I leave it to my hon. Friend to deal with the unpleasant remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in his assertions. In 1960, Italy's gross domestic product was half that of Britain. Since then, there has been wide public ownership in Italy while Britain has privatised its great industries. Italian GDP has now moved ahead of Britain, which is slipping down every international comparative league table for the rich, the middling rich, the-not-so rich and the poor alike.
As I said, the chairman of British Steel has had a 54 per cent. pay increase—bringing his earnings over the steel workers to the Latin American ratio of 33:1—while his employees have had to be content with 3 per cent. That
596
may encourage the one man or woman in a million who aspires to be the chairman of a great company, but it will do absolutely nothing for the thousands of people in Rotherham who would rather work in a small, middling or large company, have a good job, apply their skills and talents and have a wage sufficient unto their needs.
The figures for Rotherham are extremely stark. We are told that Britain is back in the middle of an economic boom and is out of recession, that Britain is leading the way and Europe is in the doldrums. Yet between May 1992 and May 1993 the number of income support claimants in Rotherham rose from 33,000 to 37,000. Children receiving free school meals—that necessary but unpleasant aspect of charity, as some boys and girls line up to be identified as the new victims of Tory policies—has risen from 7,000 in 1991 to 9,000 this year. No parent likes to mark their child out by claiming free school meals, but that is the record of growing inequality in just one constituency.
Rotherham has adopted an anti-poverty strategy and it has proved to be one of the most impressive in Europe.[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh and scorn, but their natural supporters in the chamber of commerce and business community of Rotherham—there were only 2,000 Tory voters in Rotherham at the last election, but that was an aberration; they will come back—support the anti-poverty strategy.
On a tiny budget of less than £250,000, the anti-poverty unit has been able to undertake a wide range of initiatives. It has set up a credit union, encouraging local savings and loans clubs in the poorer areas, and the Rothercard, a discount scheme which allows low-income households to benefit from high street shopping, low-cost sport and recreation. It has initiated community projects such as a newspaper in Canklow, a community advice centre in Ferham and a "community chest" fund in Dinnington in the constituency of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). It has taken redundancy action and other concrete, small-scale initiatives to help to combat inequalities in my constituency. I commend this approach quite seriously to the Minister.
Such problems will continue for many years, so I invite the Minister to organise a European conference to examine other and similar initiatives. I know that my friends in Rotherham would give the Minister a warm welcome if he would care to cross the Pennines to see an example of South Yorkshire initiatives in action.
It is a Rotherham problem and a national problem, but the debate must be set in a world context. The hon. Member for Teignbridge referred movingly to a man from the third world who had to bring his child to Britain for an operation, but his country might be able to afford its own national health service if its debts were cancelled and the banks took their fangs out of the third world and allowed it to develop properly.
If the third world were given fair terms of trade and encouraged to develop, more doctors and professionals would stay in their own countries, rather than many of them having to come to the north to find a good job and adequate income. Growing inequality will continue in our country while we have growing inequality in the world.
We need a social clause for the new World Trade Organisation so that world trade contributes to a win:win situation, enriching all those who participate, rather than, as world trade has for the past 15 years, increasing wealth

597
for the north with some increasing wealth for take-off countries, but worse inequality and poverty for many countries in the rest of the world.
We may not make the poor rich by making the rich poorer—I see smiles on the faces of the rich on the Conservative Benches—and the failure of communist countries proves that quite conclusively, but we can make the poor a lot less poor by making the rich accept that they are part of a community with equal responsibilities and equal duties even if they have unequal privileges.
Mr. Nicholls: We have already heard, and it is a well-known fact, that when tax rates are reduced, the amount that the rich contribute to the tax take increases. Surely what is important is the amount of money available, not the size of the gap. That is the case that the hon. Gentleman must answer.
Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech he would know that that is precisely the point that I am seeking to make. Every economy that seeks to keep the ratio between what the top and bottom earners as narrow as possible, such as Japan—
Mr. Duncan: Why?
Mr. MacShane: I shall answer that. The top executives of Sony, Nissan and other great Japanese companies earn between seven, 12 or perhaps up to 15 times as much as their workers.
Mr. Roger Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of recent economic papers on the effect of the Laffer curve on Japan and how it is believed in Japan that those penal rates of higher taxation are depriving the Japanese economy of a chance to keep ahead in the longer term of South Korea and Hong Kong, where tax rates are much more equal?
Mr. MacShane: What is worrying Japan is that, by the year 2020, about 40 per cent. of the population will be 60 or over. It is facing the problems of a maturing economy and demand for social provision. Less than one in five houses is connected to a mains sewer. Hon. Members who have visited Japan will know how crowded and inhospitable much of ordinary life is in Japan. That is what is concerning policy makers in Japan. I study Japan quite closely, but I have yet to see any strong evidence that anybody seriously involved in Japanese policy making is concerned about tax rates, which are lower than most of those in west Europe.
Perhaps the most dominant feature of Japan, Singapore, Korea and the successful economies of the past 50 years has been their much narrower ratio between the earnings of the broad mass of employees and the top bosses. It is a culture of fair pay and investment rather than the rentier culture which increasingly dominates our unequal society.
Mr. Duncan: As someone who lived in Singapore for two years, I can bear witness to how successful its economy is. We should watch it as we consider how to structure our own. The hon. Gentleman has already admitted that one does not necessarily make the poor richer by making the rich poorer, yet everything else that he has said today conflicts with that admission. Should not he be mindful of the fact that if the spontaneous order of a society
598
is interrupted and if equality is forced on that society, it inevitably reduces that country to poverty, as history shows? Perhaps he should remember that Shakespeare said
"untune that string,
And hark! what discord follows".
Mr. MacShane: I am also an admirer of much that has been achieved in Singapore—it is strong on discipline, clear about chewing gum, utterly opposed to smoking and very keen on short hair. They are all values which Singaporeans enforce with some vigour. Of course, Singapore is a society shaped by the great secretary of the Fabian society at Cambridge, Lee Kuan Yew. For some of us who know that country, we see it as a Fabian society on earth with slightly better food, but, alas, with a cultural and moral order with which I am not sure that Conservatives could live. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton managed to live there for two years, and I congratulate him on giving up his Toryism, his Englishness and his sense of spirit and fun. However, I know that Conservatives will go to any corner of the earth to earn money.
You asked me for concrete policies and pledges—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not being asked. I think that the hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten the rule.
Mr. MacShane: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard such calls from the Conservative Benches, and I refer them to my ten-minute Bill on page 4049 of the Order Paper. However, I suggest the following general remedies. Yes, let us copy countries that are currently more successful—
Mr. Streeter: Cuba.
Mr. MacShane: For God's sake, the hon. Gentleman is driving Britain to Cuba. There are parts of my constituency where I suspect that the quality of life is worse than in Cuba and certainly a lot less warm. As Conservatives create an unequal Britain, they may find that they are met by a revolt such as that which swept Mr. Castro, a friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, into power 30 years ago. Let us copy and learn the lessons of the most successful countries such as Germany, Japan and the dynamic Asian countries. In each of those countries, one finds that the notion of preventing inequality where possible is built into public policy.
Let us link the future of work and the time spent at work to the technology necessary to produce what our country wants. If we want to ensure that earned income provides the economic wherewithal for the majority of citizens, we need a new concept of pay, productivity and output. We should use the market as a servant, not a master. Taxation should be based on the ability to pay, but let us set a target for equality.
I was delighted to hear that, in a speech to the Trades Union Congress on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Employment, in what was otherwise a rather vacuous speech, referred to full employment as something which the Government should support. I invite the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security to join the Secretary of State and add equality to full employment.
Above all, we must avoid the Latin American road down which we are going, and even the north American road. In the cities of north America, as in Latin America, no one can walk the streets at night. Drug taking,

599
prostitution and criminality are the norm. We must also avoid the creation of a handful of super-rich and a middle class that often lives in anxiety and insecurity.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton quoted Shakespeare. In response, I shall quote Francis Bacon who some say may even have written the quotation used by the hon. Gentleman. Bacon said:
"Of great riches there is no real use, except it be in their distribution; the rest is but conceit."
Conservatives are arguing for inequality, presiding over a country growing more unequal; in inequality matched only by their conceit.
I conclude by joining in the hope expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East that there will soon sit on the Government Benches people who have learned the lessons of successful economies, and will put the building of equality back into public policy and make Britain a fairer, better and wealthier place for us to live in.
12.5 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: It is a pleasure to participate in this important debate. Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), it is refreshing for us to learn that even the gilt-edged face of the new Labour party speaks just as much nonsense and waffle as the old, unreconstructed face of the Labour party sitting directly behind him.
The hon. Member for Rotherham spoke of a target for equality. I look forward to that thought being developed by the Labour party in the next two years, but I stand before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a disappointed person this morning. Having read the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), which refers to a range of measures and policies that are needed and a change of direction in existing Government policy, I thought that we would hear from her a list of well thought-out, constructive proposals as to how we might deal with the problems facing some people in the country.
I place on record the fact that I accept that some people require help and that we should give that help with compassion and understanding. However, the important thing is not simply to stand up in forums such as this and utter fancy words; the important thing is to suggest proposals, policies and measures that can help.
I noted down carefully the five solutions that the hon. Lady suggested to help the people whom she described as living in deprivation and suffering inequality. She said that recognising the extent of the problem was the first step. I agree that the first step is always to recognise the problem, so let us give her that one for the purposes of a quiet life.
The hon. Lady's second solution was a job creation package, but what does that mean? What are her specific proposals? How much would they cost? Is she suggesting a programme to be funded by national Government out of taxpayers' income? What is a job creation package? She gave us no idea.
Thirdly, the hon. Lady talked about creating a new environmental task force, but she did not say who would fund it, how much it would cost, what it would do or how it would create jobs or help people on lower incomes. It was a fancy phrase with nothing behind it.
The fourth solution was to help south American countries more. She called for some kind of Marshall plan, but did not say how it would help the people of Britain. As one of my colleagues rightly said, such a programme
600
would surely cost us money and be a greater burden on our taxpayers, thus enabling us to do less for our people. It did not make sense.
The piece de resistance was the call by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East for fairness in our social security policies. She gave no specifics and she did not explain what she meant. She did not say how we could better target help or resources. I am afraid that it was the same old meaningless platitudes. We have not heard a single solution this morning.
Much of the speech by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East was a discussion of the whole issue of what she called "wage inequality". In other words, some jobs pay more than others. She did not tell us this morning who should decide how much each job should pay. What should we do about wage inequality? The market says that a certain job should pay a certain rate. What should we do to equalise that with other jobs which the market says should be paid at a lower rate? The hon. Lady gave us no answer.
Was the hon. Lady talking about direct Government intervention? Does she believe that we should say to an employer, "No, that is not the right rate for the job. You must pay more or less. You must be in line with other professions and other trades"? What was the hon. Lady talking about in terms of the solution to wage inequality? I am afraid that she did not say.
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government setting wage limits. How can Railtrack and the unions come to any agreement when the Government have interfered quite crudely in setting the wages that railway signal workers will earn?
Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that point is a world apart from what I have just described—the suggestion that the Government should intervene to decide what every job or sector of job should be paid. We are talking about the Government being prudent with taxpayers' money in insisting that public sector employees should not be paid more than they can earn in increased productivity.
Ms Quin: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the Government are prudent with taxpayers' money when they give so much of that money to people who are on such low incomes from their employers that they are forced to claim state benefits? Does he think that it is fair to subsidise employers who pay Scrooge wages?
Mr. Streeter: It was important that family credit and other forms of social security payments were put in place by this sensitive and caring Government to ensure that every person and every family who can at present attract only a low-paid job have their income made up to a reasonable level by the taxpayer. I consider that to be a reasonable and right response, which is far better than the response at which the hon. Lady hinted, although she did not describe it clearly, of a national minimum wage. Opposition Members must begin to live in the real world. A national minimum wage would undoubtedly cause unemployment for thousands of people because employers could not afford to increase their wages to that extent.
I place on record my strong support for the outstanding speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). In many respects, it was the speech that I had thought about making myself. He spoke about the great inequality being perpetrated on the majority of people

601
by tiny minority interest groups. The tail has been wagging the dog for far too long. We are now entering a time when the dog wants to respond. Over the past 30 years, the pendulum has swung in favour of those minority groups, who are a tiny fraction of the nation. The pendulum has swung too far and will return with interest.
Let us have no more empty rhetoric such as the motion. Let us have firm and constructive policies which seek to deal with some of the remaining issues. Over the past 15 years, our Government have a record of which we can be proud. Ordinary families on average earnings are now £83 per week better off than they were in 1978–79, after tax and inflation are taken into account. Real incomes are up sharply for vulnerable groups, including 40 per cent. real income increases for pensioners. As has already been said—this is important—the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers now account for 45 per cent. of the income tax take, compared with 35 per cent. in 1979. That is a record of which we can be proud.
The issues of inequality need to be addressed. I believe that the philosophical approach to the subject is as follows. We must put in place opportunities for people. We must remove barriers which might prevent access to that opportunity. We must encourage people to seize that opportunity, but then each one must decide for him or herself. We cannot live people's lives for them. What does this mean in practice?
First, in practice, we are talking about access to decent education. The Government reforms of the past few years have been striving to create an improved education service and there are now many signs that this important policy reform is beginning to bear fruit. The national curriculum is now widely accepted as improving standards. We have stressed the importance of assessing pupils at regular stages and the importance of parental choice. We have pursued the popular policy of allowing good schools to expand. We have delegated to schools the way in which they spend their budgets through LMS—local management of schools. We have pursued the important policy of grant-maintained schools which allow parents, teachers, governors and headmasters far greater choice and a far greater say in how schools are run. Access to education is improving under this Government.
Secondly, our reforms of health care are designed to improve access to health care free at the point of need. They are beginning to work. Some 1 million more patients are being treated than ever before. We all know that there is no bottomless pit of resources, yet demand for increasing health care is infinite. The Government are responsible in seeking to bring to the surface the costs of various types of treatment and in seeking to improve efficiency in the health service. Those are very necessary reforms which guarantee the survival of the health service free at the point of need. To go blindly on pouring in more and more taxpayers' money without reforms of efficiency and careful costing would lead to the service's ultimate demise.
The third point is access to a reasonable job. It is important for any Government to get the economic framework of the country right. How we rejoice, therefore, in the fact that, since December 1992, 300,000 people are now back in work. How important it is that the Government proceed with the reforms in industry and in business to deregulate, to improve competitiveness and to
602
continue the revolution with our supply side reforms. Those factors are important in creating jobs. Today, we can congratulate ourselves on our low interest rates, our low inflation and our competitive pound. We have in place an economic framework that is likely to produce the sustained economic growth which will be so important to people over the next few years.
Fourthly, there must be access to decent and affordable homes. Over the past three years, 170,000 new social homes have been created by housing associations. Housing associations are now the major provider of social housing and we are revitalising the private sector at the same time. For all those reasons, we have a record of which we can be proud in terms of offering opportunities to people. We have given them access to the things that they really care about—a job, a home, education for their children and health care in times of need.
There is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air this morning. The motion, which calls for greater equality, simply does not ring true. There is not much equality in Monklands district council. There was not much equality for pensioners in the late 1970s when roaring inflation at 26 per cent. ate into their life savings, forcing many of them to live in abject poverty. There was not much equality of opportunity for council tenants when the Labour party fiercely opposed the right for them to buy their own council houses, which was a great success. There was not much equality of opportunity in access to health care when the previous Labour Government had to cut their hospital-building programme when they ran out of money.
Fine words are simply not enough. What is important is that any Government run their economy efficiently and competently, creating access for their people to opportunities of housing, jobs, education and health care. In all those areas, the Government can be proud of their record. We, at least, have practical policies to enable our citizens to gain access to opportunity. How much more they respond to that than to the empty, meaningless platitudes which drift across the Chamber from Labour Members.
12.20 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) on moving the motion. There is no doubt that it raises issues of genuine importance which are, to be fair, although one would not guess it from some of the speeches, of concern to the whole House and, indeed, to the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East put her points with clarity, ability and sound sense.
The distinguishing feature of some of the speeches is their sense of unreality. There has been a lot of charging at windmills; setting up targets which are purely imaginary. I ought to make it clear that very few Labour Members—I shall not be dramatic and say none, but few individuals, certainly not the party as a whole—believe, as Conservative Members seem to think that we do, that we should have equality of income. Of course, there is no question that the Government should regulate everyone's wages so that everyone was paid the same or that that should even be the theoretical, desirable end to our economic life. There is no question of that at all.
Similarly, it is sometimes suggested that we do not believe in the importance of individual initiative or the duty of individuals to better themselves and, in doing so,

603
to help better society as a whole. Of course that is important, but we argue—it is closely related to poverty—that, if one looks round our community, one sees that we have created circumstances, and the situation has worsened greatly in recent years, whereby people cannot exercise individual responsibility because they are trapped, either financially or, very often, socially, in situations which literally destroy life chances. That means that people of genuine ability and aspiration cannot make progress in society. It is not an abstract argument about salary levels or resources in that narrow sense; it is an argument about opportunity in society and what happens when that opportunity is left to the unregulated market, when people cannot better themselves. I want people to better themselves. I am consciously struck almost every time that I am in my constituency by the number of people who do not have that opportunity, and it is against that lack of opportunity that myself and my hon. Friends are protesting.
Mr. Duncan: One of the concerns among Conservative Members is that the well-meaning beginnings of the hon. Gentleman's thinking convert into a practice which ends up malign. A fine example of that is in Labour-controlled local authorities, where one sees his kind of dogma put into practice. Would he therefore comment on today's Evening Standard, which cites an example of that dogma put into practice, about which the social services inspectorate has said:
"Children in care"—
the sort of people that the hon. Gentleman most cares about—
"were prey to paedophiles, pimps, pornographers and drug-pushers because of the political dogma"
in the local authority of Islington?
Mr. Dewar: No, I would not care to comment in any way on a caried story in the Evening Standard, which is a synopsis of a report I have not read. Of course, if there is abuse in any part of the public service, it is a serious matter and ought to be eradicated.
On the statement on the health service and the complaints procedure yesterday from the ombudsman, the Prime Minister fairly said that if there are problems and there are feelings, we ought to address them. The same applies in any other part of the service. In my local authority—it is typical of many—the struggle is not to create inequality, but to try to overcome it. It is a matter of trying to provide participation, mixture of tenure and opportunity for people who live not only in houses in the public sector, but often in poor housing conditions in the private sector.
I turn briefly to some of arguments that have been adduced. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has intervened, may I say to him—no, it was not him; I apologise. He will be terribly insulted and I fear that I shall him hurt him terribly because I have confused him with the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
Mr. Duncan: He is a good thing, too.
Mr. Dewar: Well, that is another disagreement that we shall pursue on another occasion.
It seems to be important to make the point that the fact that the present Prime Minister came from modest financial circumstances or that exceptional people in exceptional circumstances can move to the top is not a complete answer to the problems that I have been outlining and,
604
therefore, it is irrelevant to the main thrust of the argument. I do not want the debate to sink in a welter of statistics. To the credit of some Conservative Members—the hon. Member for Teignbridge is an example—who have spoken, may I say that there has been no real attempt to say that the gap between rich and poor has not been widening in recent years. That gap is self-evident to anyone who looks at the facts—and, strangely enough, there are people who still try to do so.
I remember a report of an interview in the Glasgow Herald on 4 March 1992 given by the Prime Minister. It lives in my memory and I have used the example on a number of occasions. He was asked specifically about poverty in Scotland, although no doubt his reply would have been the same about every part of the country. His reply was "Poverty, what poverty?" He went on to say—I hope that I am not presenting the argument unfairly—that, of course, poverty was relative, that the definition of poverty was shifting and that, as the Government increased income support and benefit rates, they increased the number of the poor. Therefore, the Prime Minister said that it was unfair to charge them with growing poverty levels because they were, in that sense, the victims of their own generosity. I do not accept that argument.
I heard the Prime Minister repeat that argument on "Channel 4 News" on—I think—8 June. It was put to him by the interviewer that, under his Government, the rich had got richer and the poor poorer and it was suggested that that was an inescapable conclusion from the facts. The Prime Minister showed every wish to try to escape from that conclusion and, indeed, described the evidence for such an assertion as very suspect. I have a little passing sympathy with that because, of course, most of the evidence comes from Government statistics. However, on the whole, I am prepared to accept them.
The Under-Secretary of State will be familiar with, for example, the annual survey of households with below average income, which his Department produces, which suggested that, if one took the bottom 10 per cent. of households—I am sure that he will deal with it and put his gloss on it—there was some evidence to suggest that there has been an income fall in real terms for the bottom 10 per cent. of households since 1979 after housing costs. It was a much more modest fall, but still a fall, if one takes the income figures before housing costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East properly referred to the evidence produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It suggested that there had been—the word is fairly used—a "dramatic" increase in the number of families whose income is less than half the national average. Even if we move away from the dramatic edge of poverty to mainstream Britain, that suggests that there are many people who have fallen back and are in a much less comfortable position than before.
If Conservative Members were defending a situation in which the gap between rich and poor had opened because of a genuine free market—for example, if individuals had shown exceptional ability and had capitalised on it without any artificial aid or assistance and had pulled away from the ruck—that would be one state of affairs, although we might wonder about the desirability of it. That, however, is not the state of affairs. The reason for many inequalities is the Government's deliberate fiscal policy.
We are talking about something that has been created as an act of policy and not as the natural order of events. Fiscal traffic has been moving in the wrong direction. That

605
suggests an indifference to the distribution of income at best, or possibly a malevolent interest in it. That is unfortunate. I shall not engage in a volley of statistics, but if we consider the direct and indirect tax take from the wealthiest 10 per cent. of people since 1979 as a percentage of gross income, it is clear that it has fallen. As for the bottom 10 per cent., the take has risen quite sharply.
It is right that income tax as a percentage of income has fallen, but that is not true in terms of total tax, even before the big hike of recent times—the dramatic reversal of election promises. Even before that hike, the tax burden as a whole had increased under the Government. It has increased disproportionately for those who were already at the bottom of the heap. That is unfortunate. That is not the natural order of Adam Smith economics; it is the result of a social policy that has had unfortunate consequences. That is why Opposition Members are entitled to protest.
Mr. Roger Evans: As the hon. Gentleman agrees that the top 10 per cent. of income tax payers are now paying more as a proportion—
Mr. Dewar: Less.
Mr. Evans: No. As I understand it, as a matter of income tax revenue, the top 10 per cent. of income tax payers are now contributing more revenue as a proportion of income tax to the public purse. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be self-defeating for any Government of any political persuasion to increase the 40 per cent. tax band? If he does not agree, will he explain why?
Mr. Dewar: I am much more interested in what we do about the bottom than about the top. The gap is an important factor, and I am interested in the social consequences of it. We should be worried about the additional burdens which have had to be faced by those at the bottom of the heap.
I have not heard the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) speak before, except for his interventions this morning. I suspect that he is interested in marginal tax rates. He will know that in 1993-–94, according to the Department of Social Security, there were 230,000 lone parents in work and 270,000 married couples who were paying 75p in the pound or more as a marginal rate in tax deduction and benefit loss. If I were to suggest that we should introduce a top marginal rate of 75p in the pound, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would be burning the pews in the Chamber and declaring the proposal to be one of the greatest political outrages committed by doctrinaire socialists that there has ever been. He is happy, apparently, to live with a system that imposes such a rate of taxation on some of the poorest in society as a disincentive to bettering themselves, which we all want them to have the chance to do. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should worry slightly more about that.
It is not the Labour party alone which is worried about these matters. I do not know the reading habits of the hon. Member for Monmouth, but I would guess—this is to his credit—that he reads the Financial Times fairly regularly. If so, I recommend to him Tuesday's leader—he may have read it—which was headed, "The wages of inequality". It refers to an excellent piece of research work that was undertaken by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. I apologise for the technical talk, but the institute took the 90th
606
percentile of the distribution of income and compared it with that of the 10th. It was found that the gap between the two had widened significantly.
Conservative Members may say that that does not matter, but the Financial Times believes that it does. I suspect that the Government are beginning to have some conscience about it. If so, that is to be welcomed. The Financial Times is suggesting that steps must be taken to do something about that problem. No doubt the hon. Member for Monmouth enjoyed the point made in the Financial Times that, in those circumstances, the Labour party's minimum wage proposals might become defensible. Perhaps we had better do something about the problem before the hon. Member for Monmouth has to embrace the minimum wage as a means of dealing with the issue. I know that the hon. Gentleman would find that ideologically uncomfortable, to say the least.
Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the House as though the Financial Times was some great Tory capitalist paper. He may recall that, at the last general election, the Financial Times called on people to vote Labour. It is not only pink in colour; it is often pink in its views.
Mr. Dewar: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure reads the Financial Times, does that only to know what the enemy is saying. His was an interesting theory. Whatever else the Financial Times is, it is a sensible and sophisticated commentator on such issues. I merely pray it in aid to suggest that the problem of the growing gap, and possibly even the growing absolute poverty, in this economy is not something which sensible people want to sweep away in the way suggested today.
The gaps are not just appearing in work. There is undoubtedly evidence, which I welcome, that retired people are on average now enjoying many more resources and a higher quality of life. That is largely because of the maturing of state earnings-related pension schemes and occupational schemes and because of such things as approved private pensions. It is not happening because of direct help from the Government.
As the Minister is aware, the basic state pension, as a percentage of average male earnings in November 1979, was 20.4 per cent. It was 15.9 per cent. in April 1993 and it is probably below that now. Even if there has been a general increase, sadly a large number of pensioners, probably about 1.6 million, are having to depend on income support, a means-tested benefit which is often resented, as a means of keeping body and soul together.
I sometimes think—and this may be a comment on me—that I have never had to do what so many of my constituents whom I meet have to do, and that is hope that I do not have an unexpected bill of £30, £40 or £50. My constituents just cannot find such sums. That is an inhibition and a cause for worry, the like of which I have been fortunate enough never to experience. However, I am aware of the fact that things that I would take in my stride as a minor inconvenience or irritant become towering problems for a large number of my constituents who are living, in that practical sense and applying that practical test, in the very shadow of poverty.
Lady Olga Maitland: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give us a benchmark to show what he means by poverty, bearing in mind that, up and down the country, people living on income support and benefits still

607
have microwaves, televisions, freezers and so on in their homes? Does he agree that it is a problem not so much of people living on a set income, but of how they manage their budgets? A person in one flat may manage perfectly adequately while someone else may not. Surely we need to teach people the art of household management.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady cannot rely on the fact that some people are feckless and do not manage a low income skilfully or that they are not graduates of the Micawber school of economics in the way that the hon. Lady would like.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that one could refer to a range of benchmarks, some of which are open to counter attack. We could refer to income support level and then say that we could raise income support which would bring more people into poverty. We could refer to half national average income, but national income changes and shifts and may be too generous. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam may think that this is odd, but I like to consider the drift. We must consider the problem in social terms.
With regard to income support levels, for a husband and wife with two children under 11, if we consider income support levels as a percentage of average earnings m this country, that family would be living on one percentage point above one third of average earnings. I believe that the figure is 34.2 or 34.3 per cent., according to the latest parliamentary answer that I have seen. The figure has been declining because, of course, it has been tied to the retail prices index and not to average earnings, which, on the whole, have been out-pacing it.
More than 15 per cent. do not reach income support level because they are repaying social fund loans or for a variety of other reasons. In my experience, that is a very tough level at which to live; it leaves very little room for comfort.
One worry—I am sure that the hon. Lady will worry about this matter when she thinks about the figures—is that several things that the Government are doing will make the situation worse for people who are living on benefit. One simple headline figure is incapacity benefit. Of course, some savings will come from excluding from benefit people would have received invalidity benefit under the old system. Even those who climb through the hoops and jump the hurdles and receive the new benefit will find that they have a much lower income level than they would have had in the old days.
We are not talking about pennies, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will know. There will be savings of £415 million in 1995–96, £1.2 billion in 1996–97 and £1.7 billion in 199–98. Those substantial sums are being taken out of the limited pool of resources for helping those who are not in work and who are certainly living in poverty. That is of considerable concern for me as a constituency Member.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?
Mr. Dewar: I shall press on because I must stop very soon.
My concern is not about playing the numbers game—many ingenious people play it better than I would and with considerably more staying power—but about the social fallout that I see around me. I pray in aid as evidence a speech that was made by someone whom I do not normally
608
call to my help on such occasions, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the Secretary of State for Social Security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): Hear, hear.
Mr. Dewar: I hear loyal noises from the Conservative Front Bench about the right hon. Gentleman's excellence and worth. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) might have been present when the Secretary of State spoke at the Birmingham diocesan conference on 20 June. He talked about social instability, in particular the breakdown of marriages, a subject in which he is particularly interested and about which he is particularly concerned. He picked out as the main economic cause of the problem the low wages that are now being earned by unskilled workers. Even people in work are now being forced on to a wage which I would regard as a very good definition of poverty if one of the consequences of it was that it produces such stresses and strains that it threatens the stability of marriage and of the family unit.
I cannot think of a better definition of damaging poverty than that if one is in full-time work and earning so little that it is reasonable to think that one will find it difficult to sustain one's family and the personal connections that are such an important part of a family unit. That is what the right hon. Member for St. Albans said at the diocesan conference in Birmingham the other day. It is remarkable testimony to the difficulties that we are in. They are not people on income support or benefit; they are above that, but are still in that position. Conservative Members have said what a wealthy society we have. That we have people in that situation tells us something about the social damage that has resulted from our fiscal and social policies.
I have with me a newspaper cutting—it is perhaps a little out of date—which I came across by chance when I was cleaning out some papers, and, knowing that I would speak in this debate, I kept it. It is a report in The Guardian of 6 January 1993. I do not necessarily endorse it, but again I remind the House of what others think. The article stated that Professor Brian Robson
"The Government's leading adviser on urban policy warned yesterday of a 'nightmare scenario' in which inner cities became ghettos of poor and disadvantaged people guarded by armed police while better-off neighbourhoods hired their own armed guards."
I do not endorse the language. If hon. Members say that when people like me draw attention to social dangers we are exaggerating, they should think of statements such as those made by impartial figures who are considered worthy of being placed in positions of importance and being made consultants by the Government.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: When the hon. Gentleman is devising his future benefits policy, will he target what will inevitably be limited resources specifically at groups in society who need those resources or spread them thinly among every conceivable group?
Mr. Dewar: I have made it clear in the past that I recognise that targeting is bound to be part of social policy. We cannot implement the policy in any other way. There are certain sectors where one does not target, except in a narrow sense—clearly, child benefit is targeted because people have to have children before they can receive it, but that is playing with words. I defend the principle of child benefit. I defend the principle of a universal state pension

609
as the foundation on which we should all build for security in retirement. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I would target for other special interest groups, of course I would. It would be silly not to do so. It is attractive to talk about a basic income for every citizen, but the arithmetic is harsh, and I do not think that many hon. Members would see that as a practical proposition.
Exciting changes are on their way, we understand. I suppose that it would be too optimistic of me to think that the Under-Secretary of State might give us a glimpse into the future. A barrage of briefings is taking place among the heavy press. The Secretary of State for Employment is committing the Government to full employment—a plank of policy that has been derided over the past few months when it has appeared on Labour party platforms. Last Sunday, The Sunday Times said that the policy was purely in response to the Labour leadership contest. If so, it shows that democracy in the Labour party has desirable spin-offs in other places.
We are also told—perhaps the Under-Secretary knows about this more directly—that, at a cost of about £1 million, family credit is to be extended to childless couples and single people. We are told that there will be wage top ups and wage subsidies. We are told that there will be changes in the national insurance contribution system that will do something about the weighting in favour of those who are better off currently built into the banding of the system. Those changes are designed to help those at the bottom of the scale.
Judging from what I have heard this morning, I know that such changes will come as a deep shock and will be anathema to Conservative Members. I hope that what we have heard is true, not because I endorse the proposals in principle and detail now—I do not know exactly what will be produced—but if the proposed changes constitute moves to tackle the sort of problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East has properly drawn to our attention, I welcome them. I look forward to receiving further details, and perhaps a few more tasters and trailers, from the Under-Secretary over the next few minutes. The subject is of great interest to us.
I am not concerned with deciding whether Mr. X, Mr. Y or Mrs. Z gets so much money. I want to get away from a definition of poverty that destroys life chances and leaves people with self-fulfilling prophecies of failure in terms of education and employment and which, on occasions, literally shorten life expectancy. It is no exaggeration to say that.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam may be interested to know that a year ago—the picture has not changed—a report from the Greater Glasgow health board, in whose area my constituency falls, stated that the mortality rate for males between 16 and 64 years of age in Glasgow was 20 per cent. worse than the Scottish average. The Scottish average is considerably worse than the British average. That is an historic fact, but we still have to live with it.
I found it startling that the chief medical officer was predicting that those differentials would continue to increase for the foreseeable future. We now have figures that we used to imagine would exist only in the old eastern Europe. The chief medical officer said that the figures were caused by deprivation, poverty and the financial climate in
610
which families had to live. I am tired of seeing such effects in my constituency. I am tired of kids—who I know are as able as kids who live two or three miles away down the road who, due to their economic circumstances and the encouragement that they receive, will go to university—leaving school at the first opportunity, never entering university and perhaps never even entering the job market. If there are signs that the Government are beginning to catch up with some of those problems, I shall be delighted. I hope that the debate will encourage the Government in doing that. However, I am cautious in my expectations because I have looked at the record and seen just how disappointing and perverse it has been over the past 15 years.
12.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I have enjoyed the debate so far because the subject was well raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), whom I congratulate on her choice of motion. Inequality genuinely concerns all of us. I am grateful for the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), the sensitive contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and for regular interventions from other hon. Friends. I am also grateful for the speeches that we have heard so far from Opposition Members. Some I had slightly more sympathy with than others.
I shall deal with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He rightly identified the dilemma not only for us in Britain but, I suspect, for many countries around the western developed world. In the midst of industrial progress, which has been remarkable in the 20th century, there are still in many countries which count themselves as wealthy, the leaders of which are meeting today in Naples, pockets of deprivation which are almost the same as 100 years ago, certainly in location if not in intensity. I listened with sensitivity to what the hon. Gentleman had to say.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) raised his banner for the industrial north. I am glad to support him in that. Rotherham and Bury have many connections, mainly through tremendous battles in the 1960s between our respective football clubs. Trips to Millmoor or Gigg Lane regularly resulted in scores of 4–5, 5–4 or 4-all draws. Tremendous stuff. My father and I and many people in Bury remember those matches well.
The hon. Member for Rotherham called for me to set up a conference in Rotherham. I am ahead of him. Part of my remit in the Department has been to look after matters related to low income and poverty. I have been as connected as I could be to Poverty 3, the European anti-poverty programme, and with anti-poverty groups working in the United Kingdom. My Department sponsored a seminar held in Manchester in March this year to consider the effectiveness of those strategies. I attended a similar conference in Bath two or three weeks ago at which we discussed with the statisticians how we might draw some better conclusions and targets for that work in the future.
The problem with Poverty 3 and probably the reason why it has not yet been extended into Poverty 4 is ensuring that it does a worthwhile job. The aims and aspirations are entirely well meaning, but, as several of my colleagues

611
have said, we need to do more than that. The conference was designed to do that. I have no doubt that, in due course, I will be back in Rotherham at some stage. It was kind of the hon. Gentleman to make the offer.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East. Her concern is plainly honest and sincere. Her rage at inequality arouses passion, but, ultimately, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, I was left dissatisfied. You know me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my concern about the issues that have been raised this morning matches that of any Opposition Member. I read New Statesman and Society, I am a member of Amnesty International and I am still a communicant member of the Anglican church—three institutions which are slightly leftward-leaning to a greater or lesser degree. I lean leftwards to a tiny degree within the Conservative party, but I am not a socialist, partly because of speeches like that of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East. Having been led so far up the hill, ultimately there is nothing there.
The hon. Lady did not give solutions to the problems. She dare not give the solutions because, although there are answers, they are not socialist answers.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East spoke of wage inequality, but dare she go further and commit herself—not her Front Bench or party, because I understand the position—to a minimum wage, and say how much it should be? She spoke of the link between pensions and earnings. Dare she go further and commit herself to a restoration of that link? I am afraid that unless one follows up one's concerns, one is left very much up in the air with the rest of us.
I am tempted to say that the policies of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East are rather like some of the lists that one occasionally sees in Private Eye. For example, "Labour policy on inequality: No. 1, become aware of inequality; No. 2, talk about fairness; No. 3, spend money; No. 4, er…; No. 5, that's it." Until we get a little more, that remains the feel.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East dealt with a broad sweep of economic and social policy and covered some other items. She clearly feels that income inequalities are a bad thing. But one man's income inequalities are another man's pay differentials. We used to hear a lot from the Opposition Benches and the trade unions about the need to preserve pay differentials and reward skills. At what stage does recognising one man's difference in ability stop being a good thing, which is a differential, and become a bad thing, which is inequality?
Bill Jordan, the president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, has made it clear that his union would oppose any "squeeze on differentials". He said:
"if the price of a minimum wage is wage restraint for higher paid workers, then our answer would be no".
I suspect that there is a measure of realism in that remark, as there was in the remarks of the hon. Member for Garscadden when he dealt with the subject. That demonstrates how hard it is to be precise and to tackle inequality realistically, and it is why our more practical approach is better.
Much was made of the report, which was published at the beginning of June by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, under the programme of studies on the distribution of income and wealth sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It examined changes in the distribution of incomes between 1961 and 1991. The House will not be surprised if I make a few comments on that and try to
612
provide, not a gloss, as the hon. Member for Garscadden suggested, but some greater clarification of statistics that are difficult to interpret.
Alongside that report, Dr. Stephen Jenkins of Swansea university published a further report on income in the 1980s. Both studies draw on the same data as the Government statistical service report on "Households below Average Income", published in July last year and covering the years 1979 to 1990–91. As the Central Statistical Office announced on 30 June, the new edition of those statistics will be published next week, on 14 July. That brings the comparison up to 1991–92.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies report indeed describes a widening of the gap between the top and the bottom of the income distribution in the last decade, as compared to previous decades, and discusses the factors behind it. The general thesis is not new, although the IFS has provided some useful new insights into what has driven the changes. Members on both sides of the House have given their views at length.
To my mind, the key finding in the report is not the change in income share of different population groups, but the massive increase in average earnings in the past decade, compared with the preceding 20 years.
Page 19 of the report shows that, in 1961, the average household income was £140. In the 10 years to 1971, it had crept up to £165—a growth of 18 per cent. In the decade from 1971 to 1981 average income, on that measure, grew even more slowly—by 13 per cent. From 1981 to 1991, however, average income soared to £258—a growth of no less than 39 per cent. in a single decade. Put another way, the report tells us that average incomes grew by more in the past 10 years than in the whole of the previous 20.
That is a significant achievement—the product of successful economic and fiscal policies. It is the context in which all the study's findings on changes in income distribution have to be seen. During a time when there was such a dramatic rise in average income, it should come as no surprise that the income of different groups grew at different rates. The Government make no pretence of that fact and do not try to hide it.
The report by Professor Stephen Jenkins, published alongside the IFS report as part of the same research programme, goes into more detail about incomes in the 1980s. It shows that average incomes grew in real terms for all types of family in the population. Growth was not confined to particular groups. Couples with children saw their income rise 34 per cent, while that of pensioners went up 38 per cent. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East was asked by one of my hon. Friends whether she really believes that pensioners were better off in 1979 than they are now. Loyally, she said yes—but in her heart, she knows that she is wrong. On average, pensioners as a group are 42 per cent. better off in real terms, and 54 per cent. better off after housing costs, than in 1979. Sixty one per cent. of all pensioners and 69 per cent. of recently retired pensioners have an income from occupational pensions. The life of pensioners has changed. One has only to travel around the country to see some of the things that pensioners are now able to do.
More telling is the fact that the bottom decile of income distribution 20 or 30 years ago included a fair whack of pensioners, but today they are moving out of it. That is not to deny poverty, but whereas 20 or 30 years ago we thought of the pensioner as a single unit—always poor and in difficulty—that is no longer true. That group has changed

613
dramatically and the distribution of wealth within it has grown significantly. Pensioners are a key group in terms of the past 20 to 30 years.
Unemployed families saw a growth in their income of 30 per cent. I repeat that last point. The independent research found that the incomes of families with no full-time worker rose 30 per cent. The incomes of less well-off pensioners and those in work with relatively low levels of pay have also gone up in real terms. An unemployed couple on income support with two children are better off in real terms by £22 a week than with equivalent benefits under the previous Labour Government.
I will expand on other aspects of the IFS report which the hon. Member for Gateshead East did not emphasise. The report is clear about the importance of the social security benefit system in reducing inequalities in income. It shows that the social security system in the 1980s contributed more greatly to reducing inequalities than in previous decades.
The report also recognises that information about incomes at the very bottom of the income scale is uncertain. I hoped to provide that clarification to the hon. Member for Garscadden, with whom I discuss so much. I am sorry that he is temporarily absent, but no doubt he will read my remarks and we shall discuss them next week. The difficulty of interpreting statistics at the bottom decile is at the heart of the argument. Determining the living standards of that group is particularly difficult, and there is some reason to believe that those low incomes understate true living standards. We have been making that point for some time.
Income alone is not an accurate measure of living standards. As the official "Households Below Average Income" statistics show, between 1979 and 1990–91 the possession of consumer durables among the least well-off increased dramatically—nearly three quarters have central heating, more than half have video recorders and almost one half have cars.
Both the HBAI and the Institute for Fiscal Studies point out that self-employed people who report nil incomes or losses are a significant factor in widening inequalities because they are heavily represented in the bottom decile. They also reduce the apparent level of income in the bottom 10 per cent of the population. If the self-employed are excluded, the income of the bottom decile is raised 8 percentage points.
The numbers in that group have risen dramatically since 1979 because of changes in employment, but the majority of that growing group with apparently no available cash are still able, on expenditure measures, to spend more than the national average. The picture is distorted. If one sets up a business, one may declare no income the first year, so the statistics show no income—but one's expenditure continues through normal drawings and everything else.
Who are the people in the bottom 10 per cent? Earlier this year, the authors of the IFS report gave a lecture brilliantly and imaginatively entitled, "Why Peter Lilley Was Right". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I commend that sentiment to the House. In that lecture, they gave illuminating figures about the occupations of people at the very bottom of the income scale. They showed that more than 100,000 of them were farmers, 40,000 were taxi
614
drivers and an amazing 12,500 were chartered accountants. That is just fantastic. It shows that if we extrapolate numbers from a small sample and multiply them across the country, we get the sort of distortions I mentioned. The figures for low income and their composition must be treated with caution. The one factor that people in those occupations have in common is the ability to control the presentation of their income.
The clear message in all the income analyses is that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom have enjoyed dramatic increases in their incomes since 1979. Incomes have grown at different rates, but that is consistent with a society that rewards individual endeavour and where everyone has the opportunity to do well.
There are some extreme examples of problems with that. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East referred to water board officials and one or two other cases. I do not like what happened. That is my personal view and it may not be shared by my colleagues. Some things give a sense of aspiration a bad name. Sometimes, something is seen to be so chronically unfair that it is hard to justify. That does not mean that a market society is wrong; that people should not have legitimate aspirations to do well; or that people in business, who sometimes operate under a high degree of risk, should not prepare a secure future for themselves and their families. Nevertheless, there are sometimes sets of figures that just do not make one feel right. I do not know much more about the case raised than what I have read in the newspapers, but it made me feel uncomfortable.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that people should be able to earn whatever is considered reasonable in the circumstances provided that their companies are successful, but that what are not acceptable are large severance payments where the companies under their management have actually declined?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend puts the point well and it is obvious that his sentiments are shared by many of our colleagues. It says a little more about the market system than does the case raised. Some people feel that the system has its boundaries.
At the beginning of my remarks, I said that I hoped I cared and felt as strongly about these issues as does any Opposition Member. How would I respond to the difficulties raised by the hon. Members for Gateshead, East and for Garscadden? Recognising the diversity of human talent and ability, I believe that it is right for societies to develop so that talent and ability are used for the good of all.
A proper system of reward for endeavour which benefits the whole of society inevitably means that people are rewarded differently. Therefore, a society that must be unequal in that sense is acceptable provided that, first, all people have the opportunity to take part in that society. There will be occasions on which Government intervention is necessary to ensure that those opportunities are provided. Secondly, all people should be able to participate in the increasing wealth of society, even if not equally. I am offended if the latter does not happen.
I believe in and support the sort of policies that the Government follow because we are determined to ensure that issues such as persistent unemployment, which deny people the opportunity to participate, are seriously and

615
genuinely tackled. It is because the Government's policies can tackle matters in the way that I have described that I believe we can do the job better than the Opposition could.
Let us consider what the Government have done and how they have tackled some of the important issues that are symptomatic of the problems raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East. Many of the income statistics quoted today reflect the damaging effects of the recession and, above all, the rise in unemployment. However, that is not a British phenomenon; it occurs in all OECD countries. Who is coming out best? Who is working hardest to overcome the problems? Our Government's economic policies are delivering growth and low inflation. Unemployment has fallen by more than 300,000 since 1992 and continues on a downward trend. Inflation is at a 25-year low. Interest rates have halved since 1990, helping industry and providing an extra £37 a week for the average mortgage-holder. We have created a flexible labour market.
Much was said about wages. The hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He would have no difficulty in lining me up on his side on that issue. At the same conference, Howard Davies, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, was asked to go through the issues that he felt were crucial to creating full employment and, of course, he tackled wages, saying:
"In the number three slot, the graveyard of English batsmen over the years, and perhaps the graveyard of this point, I put wages. As William Brown says 'hopes of full employment…are forlorn unless labour costs per unit of output can be kept in line with those of our competitors'. And even now, wages are rising more rapidly here than in most other developed economies."
The OECD also, crucially, raised wage flexibility.
I say to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East that that poses her party more problems than it poses us. We recognise that jobs count and that having a job is better than not having one. We recognise that, at difficult times, jobs might be created offering low wages as a lead on to something else. None of us wants a perpetual, low-wage economy—that is not Britain's future—but, if we are to fight off foreign competition and build a better society in which more people have a part, it is essential that the wage and job structure remains flexible to market needs. The sort of equality and help that the hon. Lady wants at the lower end cannot be produced artificially. It will be produced only by industries staying in business, doing better and giving more rewards to all their employees.
Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way. I agree with Howard Davies's statement, which he repeated at the Trades Union Congress conference on Tuesday. It was central to the argument that I advanced. Although wages from full-time employment in Britain in the 1980s rose far more dramatically than in other OECD countries, our unit labour costs rose far more significantly than those of our main industrial competitors. Baroness Thatcher introduced free collective bargaining, and, in the absence of pay policy, inequalities have risen dramatically.
Mr. Burt: I am not particularly sure what line the hon. Gentleman would like me to go down. I am not sure whether he is arguing for pay policy.
Mr. MacShane indicated assent.
Mr. Burt: There we are. We are beginning to build some planks of Labour's next election manifesto. Pay policy is back and I wait with bated breath for my long-time colleague, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), to give his version of the manifesto and to tell me how many votes he will give the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in the forthcoming election.
Artificial constraints on labour markets will not provide the sort of society that hon. Members want. The OECD highlighted the flexible labour market being pursued by Britain as one of the key policies that would contribute to growth in wealth in the next 20 or 30 years. We have sought to improve wage flexibility, to strike a balance between job security and the pressures of the market and to move from passive income support to more active measures to help unemployment.
Those matters are particularly within my remit and touch on some of the comments of the hon. Member for Garscadden, who looked for some chinks of lights from me on how the Government might develop. One sees more chinks of light on what our policy might be in The Sunday Times than we ever get from the Opposition of what they might do.
It is best to consider what we have done in the past two or three years in the benefit system to try to create the bridge between dependency on benefits and getting back to work. That is proving to be a key issue. I have noticed in my two years in this job that social security systems around the western developed world have been changing. They are no longer regarded in isolation or in relation to what they do to protect the poor at a particular time, but are considered increasingly in the light of how they bring people back into the economy and how they ensure that people do not remain excluded—a term whose use I fully understand in this context—from the rest of society. If the benefit net is something into which people sink and out of which they have difficulty in climbing to get back into work, we all have problems. It has been recognised in various countries, whether they have right or left-of-centre Governments, that it is a problem to be tackled. It has been part of our job in the past few years to tackle it head on, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has advocated such action.
A key objective of social security policy is now therefore to ensure that there is always a financial incentive to move into employment and that the transition from dependency on state benefits to financial independence is as smooth as possible. Maintaining work incentives in the benefits system is very much a question of achieving the right balance between providing for the most needy while not removing the financial incentive to work and between providing support for those working on low wages while also seeking to reduce dependency on benefits.
Our policies in recent years have been aimed at maintaining the correct balance. Before 1988, we reckoned that around 60,000 people were no better off in work than on income support—they were caught in the unemployment trap. The reforms and restructuring that we carried out then have ensured that almost everyone gets a return from work.
Since then, we have introduced a number of further measures to tackle this problem, including the restructuring of benefits paid to the unemployed and low-paid, especially those families with children. The cornerstone of those measures was the introduction of family credit. I regret the hon. Lady's reference to it, because it does not

617
depress wages. It is not paid to everyone, but only to those with families. It now helps to boost the incomes of more than 500,000 working families with an average award of £47 per week. Recent independent research showed that couples in work with family credit were on average £18 a week better off than when out of work, and lone parents were £30 a week better off.
However, not everyone is able or in a position to take up work. That is why the Government have spent millions of pounds protecting the incomes of the most vulnerable. Since the 1988 reforms, extra help worth more than £1 billion a year has been provided to low-income families with children and pensioners. Indeed, a typical unemployed family with children receiving income support has seen a real-terms increase of nearly 24 per cent. since 1979.
Ms Quin: The Minister said that he wishes to see a reduction in dependence on benefits, especially among people in work, but how does he envisage that happening, given the downward pressure on wages to which I referred? Some wages are as low as £1.85 an hour or even £1.40 an hour for security guards, for example. How does he believe that people in those circumstances can lessen their dependence on benefits?
Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but how are we to respond? If we were to remove family credit, for example, in those circumstances, I do not believe that such firms would suddenly offer higher wages. Firms will pay only what they regard as sensible, according to the sort of work in which they are involved. If we continually increase benefit levels and make it more difficult for people to move into even low-paid work, they become stuck. Improving benefit levels does not help with that problem.
Wages will rise as unemployment continues to fall and employers realise that in order to attract people to work they must pay proper wages. It would be a dereliction of our duty if we sought artificially to withdraw support and protection from people who need it. We find that family credit is working as a bridge to get people back to work. I did not hear an answer from the hon. Lady to that problem, and I do not believe that the answer that I suspect that she would favour—the introduction of a minimum wage—would do the job.
In conclusion, I should like to widen the debate slightly, as one or two hon. Members tried to do. Equality in British society is not merely a question of facts and figures and economics, although they are important. Governments must not stifle opportunity. To operate otherwise would mean imposing state controls and reducing choice which, ultimately, results in a levelling down of performance. Wherever there have been societies which have tried that approach—perhaps the hon. Member for Islington, North will be able to enlighten me if I am wrong—they have failed.
The report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is cited in the motion, makes some especially telling points about the impact of pay policy in the 1960s and 1970s on reducing growth.
How do we encourage the policies that will foster equality of opportunity? Education is one method. In the early 1980s, there was growing recognition that while the brightest of our youngsters were able to achieve more than those on the continent and in the United States, our average
618
and below-average children were not keeping pace with their European and world counterparts. This Government were determined to address that. We instituted the reforms in education which are designed to improve the abilities of all our youngsters and to help them to compete. What chance would there be of equal opportunity if those attempts had not been made?
We should remember that many of the problems could be laid at the door of the reforms of education in the 1960s when there was no measurement of what was actually achieved by pupils and thus a slow sliding down of the educational attainment of our pupils was accepted. The number of 15-year-olds who achieve five or more GCSEs increased by a quarter between 1989 and 1993. The number of 17-year-olds achieving two or more A-levels has almost doubled since 1980. A record 70 per cent. of 16-year-olds go on to further education compared with 27 per cent. in 1979. We all know what the expansion of higher education has been under this Government.
The hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned, fairly casually, that the OECD report said, that we now had as many people in higher education as other countries in Europe. In 1979, we definitely did not have. We were well behind and it is this Government who have addressed that. That is real equality of opportunity.
The education reforms have done well because, we understand, the hon. Member for Sedgefield is taking a keen interest in one of the grant-maintained schools. That must be good news. To the hon. Gentleman's great credit, he has also commented favourably on a number of reforms introduced by the Government.
When the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was leader of the Labour party, I always remember his being asked during an election campaign whether there was anything that the Conservatives and Margaret Thatcher had done that he admired. He said no. To his credit, the future new leader of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Sedgefield, has been honest enough to say yes, there are things that even he thinks are right. We think that there are a lot more. At least politics in this country is moving on if some Opposition Members recognise that changes have taken place for the good, produced by this Government. I am pleased by that.
One of the other things in which equality comes in firmly, which we have done right, but which was fiercely resisted by the Opposition, is the reform of trade union law. What equality was there when people stood in the car park and put their hands up to go out on strike? People who did not were watched, known, seen and handbagged with a bag of stones. We ensured that there were individual postal ballots which enabled the individual trade unionist to have as much power as the trade union leader. That is equality. Who fought for that? It was the Conservatives, not the Opposition.
It would be nice if the reform had been taken still further and if each Labour Member used one vote in the forthcoming Labour leadership battle. How many votes do they have? There is equality for some, but not for others. We have Jeremy "Five Votes" Corbyn and Denis "Four Votes" MacShane. That is not equality.
Mr. Dewar: That is a stupid point.
Mr. Burt: The hon. Member for Garscadden says that it is a stupid point. It is not. I reckon that if we are talking about equal societies, what is sauce for the goose is sauce

619
for the gander. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) has said that he feels that it is fair to use one vote. It would do much more for Opposition Members to espouse such views than to go on at us about inequality.
Mr. Dewar: I would be rather more impressed by the Minister's remarks if there were a wider franchise for the leadership of the Conservative party. At least we have enfranchised literally millions of people who support, and who are actively involved in, the Labour movement. The Conservative party has taken no such steps. Yes, it is possible that some people have more than one vote, but at least we have a democracy, unlike the Conservative party.
Mr. Burt: Like the Labour party, we have an electoral college. In our electoral college, there is one vote for each Member. That seems pretty democratic to me.
The debate has been extremely good. In its most serious moments, we have recognised that we deal with problems in our constituencies which worry us all and to which society, over the past 100 years, has not found the answer. We have not found the answer to the problem of how, as wealth increases for the majority, we ensure that some people do not miss out for a whole variety of reasons. This Government have sought, previous Governments have sought and future Governments will seek ways in which to ensure that everyone is included in society. We will keep working on that.
Most crucially, the Labour party has tried to use selective figures from a number of sources to paint a too-depressing picture of a divided British society. The facts do not support its pessimistic view. Through policies adopted by this Government, the vast majority of people have seen their incomes rise, the less well-off have shared in that prosperity and the vulnerable have been protected. That must remain the aim of a Conservative Government: to see as many as possible in work; to protect those who cannot; to strengthen individuals so that they are better able voluntarily to give their time to build communities; to develop an economy that is determined to recognise the real world—not hide from it—and to prepare their people through training and education properly and honestly for that world. Any arrogance or conceit that goes with wealth is not part of that philosophy, for we are all equal in the sight of God, nor is any artificial bar to the legitimate aspirations of families and individuals to prosper. It is because there are better answers to the problems illustrated by the motion of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East that, although I listened to her argument with interest, I failed to be convinced by it.
1.25 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Group of Seven industrial leaders are meeting today and over the next few days in Naples and I should like to think, although I suspect that it is a faint hope, that they will leave the conference hall for an hour or two to visit the slums of Naples, to see what inequality is about in what is supposed to be a successful western European economy. I also hope that, in their deliberations, they will think about some of the effects on the poorest people in other parts of the world of the policies pursued by a very small number of industrial countries—the way in which poverty is visited on sub-Saharan Africa by the GATT deal and the imposition of poverty wages on countries that are trying to get out of the debt crisis.
620
The debate is about inequality in Britain and I suppose that we have seen the two faces of the Tory party. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is a sort of Old Testament figure in political thinking. He positively glories in inequalities between the rich and poor in the country. Then there is the rather more sympathetic approach of the Minister. But the two faces add up to exactly the same thing, because they have supported a Government and their policies which have deliberately created further divisions in the country in the past 15 years. There is no mistake about that.
When I leave the House at the end of this debate, I shall go to my constituency, I shall hold my weekly advice surgery and I shall see a sense of desperation on the faces of those people who come to see me. Will they ever manage to get out of a one-bedroom flat where they are trying to live with three children? Will the council ever be able to offer them another flat? Will they get a transfer to a housing association place? Like councillors and others, I shall do my best to try to help them, but I know that, at the end of the day, the chances of many of them ever being able to get out of their problems are very slight because no houses are being built for rent. The private rented sector is simply closed to them because the rents have been decontrolled and a one-bedroom flat costs at least L150 a week in a poor area of London. They are in the ghetto trap; they are in the poverty trap.
In my surgery, I shall also be able, as could any other person, to look at the health inequalities which exist. Why do children from poor working-class families tend to have more bronchial problems than children from middle-class families? Why is the life expectancy of a company director 10 to 15 years greater than that of someone who sweeps the roads or who collects the refuse from our homes? Why is there a growth of inequality in our society? When I intervened earlier on the speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge on the question of the people sleeping on the streets of London, all he could say was that a lot of hostels are being built, so that those people may be taken off the streets of London. Frankly, it was due to the embarrassment of the Government that those people were taken off the streets of London—it was nothing to do with solving the housing crisis. We have a terrible housing crisis and a terrible sequence of inequality of living in our society at the present time.
There are other areas of inequality—not only in health or housing, but in education and expectations. Anyone who goes, as I do, around schools often, will meet children of eight, nine, 10, 11 and 12 years old who are full of optimism, hope, ideas and expectations. They want to be doctors, lawyers, vets, meteorologists, physicists, engine drivers, bricklayers or carpenters—they want to do all sorts of things in their lives. In other words, they want to achieve. Similarly, their parents want them to achieve. When these youngsters reach the age of 14, 15 or 16, they find themselves living in a community where at least a fifth of the working population is registered as unemployed and where many others are not even allowed to be so registered. It is then that the sense of despair and hopelessness begins to set in.
The ideas are formed that perhaps there will not be a job, that perhaps they will not be able to afford to receive a university or polytechnic education, that perhaps that sort of life will not be available for them. There starts the spiral of decline and despair. That is followed by a rise in crime

621
generally, drug addiction and prostitution. Anyone who lives or works in an inner city area, or represents one, is aware of that and understands it only too well.
The complacency with which the Government present their case is breathtaking. They are entirely out of touch with the reality of life for so many people, who are leading a worse and worse existence with higher and higher levels of unemployment.
What are the prospects for those who get jobs? They are faced with the deskilling of the economy. We have lost so many skilled jobs, including jobs in engineering, over the past 15 or 20 years. The privatisation programme has made British Steel a phenomenally successful private enterprise company. But who is paying the costs of unemployment? Who is paying the costs of redundancy? Who is paying the social costs? We all know the answer—the rest of the community.
The Government talk about incentives. Apparently, the heads of the privatised industries require phenomenal salaries to do their jobs. They need the incentive of being able to earn £300,000 a year plus share issues, performance bonus payments, a free car and a free home. They probably do not even pay their water rates. Such people need incentives to work and produce.
On the other hand, there are those who sweep the streets for a local authority, cook meals in a school canteen or old people's home and provide the necessary care assistance for disabled people. Apparently, the incentive of high wages is not for them. Instead, they face the stick of compulsory competitive tendering, which means that their job is sold to the lowest bidder—some spiv company—every four or five years, when local authorities are forced to put out their services to competitive tendering.
Conservative Members may smile and think that it is all rather funny. They should try to understand the feelings of someone who has given a lifetime of work in a local authority garden, for example, or tending a cemetery, looking after an old people's home or working in a hospital. Such people have given a great deal. Indeed, they meant to give a great deal. They want to continue to do so. Instead, they are told, "Sorry, you are dispensable. Your job is on sale. We shall see if anyone is prepared to do it for less than you." So the cycle of despair and decline continues.
How would Conservative Members feel if they had to suffer that indignity after they had given 20 years' service to a local authority or health service? It is an indignity. It is a disgrace. A disgusting process is being implemented. Incentives for the rich, sticks for the poor. That is the argument that Conservatives advance.
The Government tell us that high economic growth is achieved through a process of inequality. There is no evidence anywhere to sustain that argument. In Britain, employers pay less in tax and social contributions than most other employers in Europe. Wage levels are lower than those in most other countries in Europe and unemployment is high and rising.
Mr. Roger Evans: It is lower here than in most other European countries.
Mr. Corbyn: With 25-plus changes in the method of calculation of unemployment statistics, I am unsure
622
whether unemployment is higher or lower here than in other European countries. There is no common base for the measurement of unemployment.
I do know, however, that the attacks on trade unions, compulsory competitive tendering and the abolition of wages councils, along with the removal of any sort of wage protection and the introduction by the Prime Minister, when he was a Minister at the Department of Social Security, of the actively-seeking-work formula have meant that many people are forced to work in low-paid jobs. We know that 40 per cent. of the work force is now in either short-term contracts or in part-time jobs.
We do not live in a particularly health society. The knock-on effect of that is the current level of crime, misery, hopelessness and suicides. There have been 1 million recorded crimes so far this year in London alone. While I recognise that that is not all due to unemployment and to poverty, there is a cause and an effect. There is a link and it is about time that some people recognised that.
I find it baffling when the right argues that we can no longer afford the welfare state or to sustain the present level of state old age pension. In an attempt to unbaffle myself, I read an article the other day by the president of the Adam Smith Institute, a man who glories in the name of Dr. Madsen Pirie. The article was fascinating. Dr. Pirie writes quite well. He can spell and his grammar is excellent. The former Prime Minister would be proud of him. With regard to the welfare system, Dr. Pirie stated:
"There is one central problem which lies at the heart of the system. It is this: 'Anything you do to relieve distress will instigate more of the behaviour which caused the distress."'
In other words, if we have unemployment benefit, people will become unemployed to obtain the benefit. If we have child benefit, people will have more children to obtain that benefit. Presumably the same argument applies to disability and sickness pay. That is an extraordinary argument. Dr. Pirie then uses his argument to justify wholesale privatisation of the welfare state through the encouragement of private insurance and private pension schemes. That appears to be the strategy which the Government are following.
One might describe that strategy as successful if one believes in the objective behind it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, in the past 15 years the value of the state pension has fallen from more than 20 per cent. of average earnings to 15 per cent. According to the Minister, it will be at a nugatory level by the turn of the century. I assume that he means it will be below 10 per cent.
That drop has occurred because of the break with earnings that occurred in the 1980s and the rigging of the retail prices index. I wish that the previous Labour Government had achieved more on pensions. I wish that they had increased pensions much more. However, the Labour Government passed the 1975 legislation, according to which the state old age pension was to be linked to prices or earnings, whichever rose by the larger amount in that particular year. That is how the 1975 legislation was worded. It was not worded in the way described earlier. However, in his first Budget after the general election in 1979, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Howe, described breaking that link as his greatest achievement.
It is claimed that average pensioner income has increased by up to 38 per cent. The figure seems to increase by 1 per cent. whenever the Minister makes a speech. It used to be 33 per cent., but it has increased to 38 per cent.

623
in only a matter of months. I thought that the stock market had been declining, but that is the main source of the increase in the average income for pensions to which the Minister refers.
It is true that many pensioners have occupational pension schemes. Some have private pension schemes and some have savings. However, they are taxed on those savings and on that income. The Minister completely fails to appreciate the fact that many pensioners, particularly women pensioners, do not even qualify for the full state pension when they become eligible for a pension. Very few women, particularly older women pensioners, have access to occupational pensions. Desperation and poverty among older women pensioners are growing. Those pensioners are becoming more desperate.
The solution to the problem must be a much higher basic state pension. However, the Government propose to phase down continually the value of the state pension and of SERPS. They are spending £9 billion to promote private pension schemes through a process of subsidy and promotion. As a result, 1.5 million people have left SERPS and entered the private pensions industry. I am worried about the security of many of those private pension schemes and the lack of democracy in the way in which they are run; there is no democracy or guarantee in the way in which private pension schemes are run.
In addition, there has been the nonsense of the imposition of VAT on fuel. That obviously affects low income earners or low income households the greatest. It is another poll tax and it is totally unfair. The compensation system is unfair. It will result in deaths from hypothermia. It is a totally wrong form of taxation. The compensation system does not work. Two million people are signing yet another petition for the removal of VAT on fuel. I hope that they are successful in achieving their target number of signatures, and I hope also that they are successful in mounting a campaign to force the Government not to go ahead with raising VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. in this year's Budget, prior to abolishing it altogether. Frankly, it is wrong.
We must now consider what is happening to the welfare state. The Government suddenly say, I do not know on what basis, that we can no longer afford the present level of the welfare state, and that the economy is held back because of it. Such thinking was behind opposition to the social chapter, and it is that, in effect, we must privatise welfare by encouraging people to take out private insurance and private pension schemes and have two tiers of welfare.
The arguments that the Government use now about not being able to afford welfare are exactly the same as their predecessors used against the introduction of the state old-age pension in 1908, and they were probably used in opposition to the Poor Law before that. They were certainly used against the universal welfare state of the late 1940s. According to the Government's very own publication entitled "Containing the cost of social security—the international context", social protection expenditure by Britain is nowhere near the highest in Europe. There are much higher levels in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Germany. If we examine the sources of contributions to social protection expenditure, we find that employers' contributions are among the lowest in Europe, and they are seeking to make them even lower in future. The Government's argument is designed to break the universal welfare state to which we have become accustomed.
Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman referred to Europe. He will appreciate that almost all European Union countries are taking steps to cut their welfare states simply because they realise that they have grown too much.
Mr. Corbyn: The words "almost all" and "cut" are rather relative terms. They are not very precise and not very accurate, either. Nearly all other countries start from a much higher base. In Sweden, parents are allowed 60 days sick leave a year to look after children who are ill. That is regarded as very important for parents and children. Sweden has a much more advanced system of social security than this country. In Sweden, the proposed reduction in holidays is very small compared with the wholesale cuts that are proposed in this country. The same cock-eyed economic thinking seems to imagine that all that matters is reducing welfare expenditure and that, somehow or other, everything will be all right.
The main plank of what the Government have done in the past 15 years has been to lower rates of taxation for the very rich, to increase taxation for the poor and to promote inequality to an incredible extent. The richest are 65 per cent. better off and the poorest are 14 per cent. worse off than they were 15 years ago. The idea that the trickle-down theory works is peculiar and perverse—that is, the idea that if we allow the rich to become as rich as possible, they might employ more gardeners and maids and we will solve the unemployment problem. The Government have destroyed the economic manufacturing base that the wealth of this country relied on, in favour of the speculative and spiv economy.
We will not have a more equal society and a more equal world merely by promoting the idea of a market economy. We can do so only by providing a decent level of social protection and also decent housing, education and health services for the people of this country. Reports on the way in which the health service operates show that queues are becoming longer, the quality of service in many areas is becoming worse and inequalities in health are growing.
Housing inequalities are becoming worse. Various bits of housing legislation are designed not to increase access to housing but to reduce it. More and more people now live in ghettos of very poor quality housing from which there is no possible escape. We also have an economic strategy which apparently is that if it is making money, it is probably all right, never mind the quality or what it is doing. Such thinking led to the de-industrialisation of many areas of this country.
I hope that, instead of that, we can look forward to saying that we want to live in a society where all are equal. I make no bones about that. I should like to see much higher levels of taxation for the very rich in our society. They have had an easy ride for the past 15 years. I should like a society where not as many people did not have to pay tax because they were too poor to pay it, as at present. I should like much higher levels of social investment. I should like a society that planned for its future, rather than leaving everything to the vagaries of the marketplace.
We live in a crazy world where the poorest are getting poorer and the richest are getting considerably richer. The undoubted benefits of technology are not being passed on in the way of a shorter working week or an improved life style for the poorest people. Those benefits are being used to make a great deal of money, causing inequality and alienation in our society.

625
Those who preach such gobbledegook economic policies find that they do not work. There was plenty wrong with the political and economic systems of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, where plenty of mistakes were made and there were ludicrous degrees of centralisation. But those countries are now receiving, via the BBC Marshall plan for the mind and other such plans, the message that all that matters is a free market economy, with mass unemployment, beggars on the streets and high levels of prostitution. There has to be a more civilised way of organising life than the methods of the Government in this country and a number of other Governments.
Those of us who believe in equality do so because we believe in socialist values and ideas—we do not apologise for that. We believe in it because it is the only way to unlock all the talent. How many brilliant writers and scientists are wasting away because they did not get a chance at school or a college place and are living in poor conditions? The waste of talent, and human and other resources, which are used to control people rather than liberate them, is phenomenal.
Today's debate is welcome for the opportunity that it provides to discuss these issues. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East on promoting the debate and allowing us to place on record our belief that the inequalities of Britain must be removed if we are to live in anything resembling a happy and harmonious society.
1.47 pm
Mr. Roger Evans: We have just been reminded in clear and certain terms that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) represents the authentic voice of the Labour party. He said that there was plenty wrong with the economies of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I find it deeply morally shocking that the evil tyrannies of the east should be dismissed in such trivial language.
One of the most poisoned political ideas of the 20th century has been the concept that the state has a right to enforce equality of income or equality of wealth. Before the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), who introduced the topic with charm and effectiveness, wonders why I put that so strongly, I shall tell her. No doubt she would regard the inquisition as something to do with a bleak, dark age when the organs of the state and the church enforced similarities of belief with all the force of the state. She would deplore that. Those of us who stand for liberty reject also the idea that the state should use its power and force to confiscate incomes for no other purpose than a vindictive vendetta against one section of the community.
The answer to the debate has been spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). The statistics are clear. When we look at the proportion of the income tax take of the top 10 per cent., the top 1 per cent. or the top 5 per cent., now and in the late 1970s, we see clearly that the top 10 per cent. is now contributing 45 per cent. of the income tax take compared to 24 per cent. 15 years ago. That is a staggering statistic.
My hon. Friend the Minister explained that average earnings have risen. The top 10 per cent. is contributing a larger slice, and the freedom and opportunity now available to the self-employed—not just those employed
626
by large monolithic corporations, but small business men, professionals, those in enterprise companies who work hard and expect a return—have allowed them to prosper over the past 15 years. We now know clearly what the Opposition would have to offer them if the Labour party ever came to power again—political persecution based on some perverted doctrine of the community.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East said that the top tax rate of 40 per cent., which was introduced in the 1988 Budget, was wrong. She would not answer—understandably in her position—what rate she wished to increase it to. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who spoke on matters which were safe Labour party topics, avoided that vital and fundamental question. Apparently, no explanations will be given if they can possibly be avoided.
What would be the purpose of increasing the top tax rate from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent., 80 per cent. or the 93 per cent. rate imposed by the Labour party on what it used to call "unearned income"? The fruits of people's life savings, money saved rather than spent, the hard work of a lifetime were traditionally called "unearned income" by the Labour party. There can be no economic purpose of raising the top rate of tax. There can be no benefit to the Government and no benefit to those who benefit from the welfare state. If we increased the rate, we would simply reduce the amount of money that the Government had to spend on the welfare state.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of increasing the top rate of tax to the sort of rates that he described would be, first, to drive businesses and their executives offshore into other countries and, secondly, to encourage the wealth creators of this country to work less hard, and thereby pay less tax?
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. Those would be the inexorable consequences of such a foolish and short-sighted policy—a policy which Labour Governments have pursued ever since they have had the opportunity to pursue them. We have the spectacular consequence that the tax havens of this world, which are nice, respectable and rich and all enjoy the protection of the British Crown and the rule of British law—I think of places from Hong Kong to the Channel islands—have thrived and prospered on minimal top tax rates. I can tell the hon. Member for Islington, North, who did not seem to be aware of the wealth of learning that has now been made clear, that some people in America and Japan are concerned at the rise of the Pacific rim countries, where, for example, in Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea, top tax rates are much more favourable for enterprise than in Japan and certainly in Germany.
The gaping gap in the debate on the Opposition Benches is in any understanding of where wealth comes from. It apparently grows on the trees of the garden of Eden. They say that there should be more jobs, but doing what and for what purpose? Of course everyone wants to be rich or to have a well-paid job, but how does one get such a job? Who provides one? It is not the British state. It is not somehow the Workers International. It is not the trades union movement. It is individual businesses, which stay in business only so long as they provide goods and services which someone in the world is prepared to buy at a price.
If one puts up the price of something, be it a consumer durable or the price of labour, there is less money to be

627
spent and people buy less. The British work force has rightly had a noble tradition of valuing itself extremely expensively. That is part of the engine of driving up average earnings, but it has a social cost. It prices a section of the community out of labour. The hon. Member for Islington, North seemed to think that everyone should be paid exactly the same. That was the only socialist logic that I could discern from his description of the uncertainties of being a cemetery keeper or the managing director of a large company. If they are not to be paid the same, who is to decide what each should be paid unless it is the free market and the choice of the community? It is a community decision, whether people buy more of this or pay for less of that. That is what freedom is all about.
It is ironic that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) should have raised this particular argument. I have a copy, which I much enjoyed in childhood, of Newnes "Children's Encyclopedia of the World". It contained a graphic illustration of the eclipse of the sun of 1921 or 1922—I forget which. It depicted the eclipse as a glorious ray of sunshine across a section of northern England which it could properly describe as the richest place on the face of the earth. It was once the richest place on the face of the earth. The brilliance and success of the textile industry at that time, which was a result of enterprise, initiative and technical advance, have now been wasted. Some businesses prosper, others do not.
The motion is based on a political fallacy—the idea that the British state should control its subjects in such a way that equality would be the end. It will not work.
Ms Quin: Where is that in the motion?
Mr. Evans: The motion reads:
"To call attention to inequalities in the United Kingdom".
The hon. Lady should be drawing attention to poverty, welfare and all the important aspects of this debate that my hon. Friend the Minister and, in fairness, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Garscadden, dealt with.
Through the wording of her motion, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East interjected into a serious discussion of welfare matters some left-wing political nonsense about inequalities of income and wealth. She criticised the 40 per cent. top tax rate and that is why I am criticising the motion and why I say that it would not work.
Happily, we do not live in a world where one can impose socialism in one country. We live in a freer world, where trade moves around and where people can buy their goods from Singapore or South Korea and buy refrigerators from Italy. That is why such goods are cheaper than they were in the 1950s by substantial amounts in real terms.
Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman seems to claim that I am not in favour of free trade. I defy him to find anything in my motion that is against free trade.
Mr. Evans: Of course there is nothing in the motion that is against free trade, but it is the logical consequence of the hon. Lady's argument that this place should be concerned about income equalities at the top. If she is right, presumably we have to do something about it. She is presumably suggesting that the British legislature should increase tax rates for those on higher incomes. I am simply pointing out that in a free world, where there is free trade, and as part of a European Union, which increasingly has a single market, the British Government have happily lost the power to impose socialism in one country.
628
Although the motion has drawn attention to some serious matters, which the hon. Member for Garscadden certainly discussed, a fundamental political error of a very dangerous variety is at its heart
1.57 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and welcome the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) in causing it to happen.
I apologise for being unable to be here at the start of the debate, but I wish to introduce some information from my constituency, the London borough of Newham, where I had the privilege to be leader of the local authority for four years, until a couple of months ago.
In Newham, we suffer from poverty and the effects of inequality to a severe degree. The Department of the Environment's local conditions index, which was published earlier this year, placed Newham as the local authority area suffering from the highest urban deprivation. The local authority commissioned a report entitled, "Poverty on your doorstep" which was a poverty profile for the London borough of Newham and was published in March this year. I shall draw attention to some of its findings.
The research showed, not surprisingly, that the problems of poverty are closely linked with high unemployment. Between May 1990 and November 1993, there was a 72 per cent. increase in the number of unemployed people claiming income support in the borough of Newham. In November 1993, the official unemployment rate was more than 20 per cent.—a total of nearly 20,000 people registered as unemployed—which is 55 per cent. higher than the rate for Greater London and more than twice the rate for the south-east and the whole of the United Kingdom.
According to the 1991 census, 31 per cent. of the 16 to 24-year-olds were unemployed, so unemployment was particularly focused on that age group. Since 1991, the official unemployment rate has increased considerably. Members of the Asian, African, Afro-Caribbean and other ethnic groups in Newham suffer higher unemployment than the average for the community, which is a particular problem in east London.
Household incomes in Newham are considerably lower than for the capital as a whole. Fifty-five per cent. of gross annual household incomes were below £10,000, compared with only 40 per cent. for the rest of London. In November 1993, 47,800 people were claiming income support, and 37 per cent. of Newham children were entitled to free school meals in January 1993. The borough had 9,000 overcrowded households—twice the London average.
What do the Government think about inequalities and poverty on that scale? I believe that the view is held that they are a good thing because they drive people to work harder and drive the economy. Is that the view of Conservative Members? Are we being told that inequalities and poverty are a statistical error and do not really exist, because the people on lowest incomes are really chartered accountants? Are we to believe that the figures in the Newham, IFS and other reports are statistical flukes? Or are inequalities and poverty something which the Government want to change?

629
Is it Government policy that the gap between the richest and poorest in society should stop widening? Having listened to several speeches from Conservative Members, I have not heard those questions answered.
The Minister suggested that there is not a problem with poverty because the people who show up in surveys as being poor own video recorders and microwaves. The clearest refutation of that argument are investigations into the health of the poorest. The Newham poverty profile showed that 47 per cent. of children with long-term illnesses live in households where no one is in employment. That which we describe as poverty translates into poor health among not just the unemployed head of the household but his or her children. That is the clearest indication of real suffering and measurable poor health among members of the community who endure poverty and are the victims of inequalities.
The first step is to make it an explicit Government objective to narrow the gap between the richest and poorest and not allow it to widen. Are the Government prepared to acknowledge that policy objective? If so, we can move forward, to discuss how that objective may be achieved. I welcome the change of heart among Government Members in respect of full employment, which now appears to be an explicit and realistic policy objective. For many years, we were told that it was not. I hope that reducing inequalities will also be a Government objective—not their sole objective but part of the Government's intentions.
I enjoyed the Minister's speech. He drew attention to the Government's achievements in education and suggested that the introduction of the grant-maintained system would contribute to a reduction in inequality. I strongly disagree with that view and point the hon. Gentleman towards the example of Stratford school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). There is no doubt that the granting of grant-maintained status has led to a radical fall in standards, to the extent that that school's level of GCSE achievement last summer was the lowest of any school in London. When the school was maintained by the local authority, it had a much higher level of achievement.
I accept that that example might be extreme, but it clearly shows why the school should not have been given grant-maintained status. Indeed, it should have been closed, as the local authority wished, to meet the Government's objective of removing surplus places. Instead, there will be significant reduction in life chances for a large number of the pupils at that school who otherwise would have been pupils at other Newham schools with much higher levels of achievement.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said about his experience of large numbers of bright young people with enormous potential, optimistic and looking forward to the future, reaching their middle teens and seeing no opportunities ahead, losing their optimism and no longer looking forward to the future. That is a terrible indictment of Government policy over the past 15 years.
It should be a specific policy objective that the gap between the richest and the poorest should be narrowed, or at least should not be allowed to widen, as it has done inexorably over the past 15 years. Full employment should also be a policy objective. Until job opportunities are
630
provided, people will not be able to find a way out of poverty. There should be a minimum wage so that those in work can live at a decent standard.
Taking a parochial view, I must stress that east London needs investment. The local authority in Newham has developed partnerships with the Government and the private sector to work for the regeneration of our area. That has proved successful. I hope that soon the Government, consistent with their commitment to securing regeneration in east London, will give the green light to an international passenger station at Stratford on the high-speed rail link, towards which the local authority, private sector development companies and construction firms have been working for a couple of years. It will not cost the Government anything, but it will be the catalyst for the substantial new development, new jobs and new opportunities that east London so desperately needs.
There have been a number of references to the Labour party leadership election. I welcome the fact that throughout the country there is enormous interest in the issues that have been raised by that election. One effect of that is a growing revulsion towards the effects of narrow marketisation within our society. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that there are signs that the Government have a worsening conscience about what has been happening to our society. I hope that that is so and that we shall increasingly agree on the need to reduce inequality in the United Kingdom.
2.9 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: I have listened to the debate with tremendous interest, but, depending on whether one was sitting on the Opposition or Government Benches, one would have gained a completely different impression of Britain and of its role in the world.
I am fed up with Opposition Members bashing Britain and talking it down. The time has come for us to stand back and take a cool, calm look at where we are today and how society, across the board, has improved in terms of prosperity, standards of living and expectations.
The Opposition's talk about this country becoming "worse and worse" and their scaremongering bears no relation to reality. The striking point made in the debate that highlights the differing approaches of the Conservative party and the Opposition to social problems is that the Opposition seem to trade on the politics of envy and on resentment for one man's success. That is the most destructive element of their policies and is why I trust, hope and believe that the Labour party will never become a party of Government until it recognises that people are entitled to strive, achieve and gain reward for hard work.
In a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) made some telling points. She mentioned full employment and asked why we could not have a new environmental task force. Another spending pledge—that typified the Labour party. How much will such a scheme cost? Who will pay for it? It will be an artificial form of providing labour, which will not build the prosperity that we need. It simply would not work.
Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Lady Olga Maitland: I am sorry but time is short and I shall end my remarks shortly.
In a caring society, parents can know that their children will receive a proper education up to university level. I

631
applaud the Government for ensuring that one child in three goes on to higher education. That is a big advance on 10 years ago, when one child in eight did so. I applaud the fact that children are now better fed than ever. People might criticise junk food, but improved diets have made children healthier and fitter.
The health service is treating more people more rapidly using the latest technology and is making more investment. People are now expected to live longer; hence the problems that we shall face in coping with old age pensions in the future.
We have not dealt with moral poverty. We all face the problem of the breakdown of family life. Why do couples no longer believe that they can marry and make a commitment to each other that will last throughout their children's lifetime? A spin off from that was the establishment of the Child Support Agency to chase feckless fathers, the absent dads—the people who believe in the "I want to have it" society and the "I can then dispense with it" society. We must deal with that moral poverty with a great deal of energy and diligence.
We should be clear in our minds and condemn lesbians seeking special facilities from the health service for fertility treatment. That is moral poverty; it has nothing to do with building family values.
I found it depressing that the Archbishop of Canterbury this week launched a model religious education syllabus but downgraded the Christian input. Our children cannot grow up in a moral-free and value-free society. If there is one thing that we must do, it is to ensure that Christian beliefs, culture and philosophy are included in our children's education and that they are thus enriched.
2.14 pm
Ms Quin: This has been a very useful debate in that it served to highlight many of the issues which we all think important although we approach them from different viewpoints. In order to allow progress to be made with today's business, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn

Victims of Crime (Compensation)
2.15 pm
Mr. Michael Stephen: I beg to move,
That this House considers that:—
1.—(1) A court seeking to enforce a compensation order against a convicted criminal should have power to make a written request, signed by a Magistrate, for the following information in relation to the criminal:

(a) his place of residence;

(b) his place of work and the name of his employer;

(c) his income and capital; and

(d) his real or personal property.

(2) Any such written request should be addressed to any person or body whom the court making the request has reasonable grounds for thinking may be in possession of the information requested.
2. The Secretary of State should have power by regulation to establish an Agency to enforce compensation orders made in favour of the victims of crime by courts of criminal jurisdiction.
3. The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 should be amended:—

(1) to require criminal courts to assess compensation without regard to the ability of the criminal to pay, as is already the case in the civil courts;

(2) to overrule case law which puts a time limit on the period over which money may be recovered under a compensation order, and which exempts a criminal's house from seizure for the purpose of satisfying a compensation order.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) for withdrawing her motion. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in Parliament on behalf of the victims of crime, but I am disappointed that not one Liberal Democrat has bothered to turn up for this important debate.
I am as committed as anyone to the prevention of crime and I support everything the Government are doing in this respect, not only directly through the Home Office but in their housing, education, social security and other policies. Nevertheless, however successful the Government's policies, I fear that we shall never see the day when there is no crime and there are no victims of crime. Many of today's victims of crime are, and probably always will be, from the poorest sections of our community. We must keep faith with them and make it clear that, although we appreciate the problem, poverty cannot be accepted as an excuse for crime.
For many years, the courts have had the power to order a convicted criminal to pay compensation to his victim, but, all too frequently, payment is not made under the order, either because the criminal disappears and cannot be traced or because he has been economical with the truth when asked about his income and assets. Information about his whereabouts and assets is very often on the files of the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue, banks and buildings societies, but, when they are asked to disclose it, they say that they are sorry they cannot do so, because it is confidential.
I am delighted that we have a Home Secretary who is determined to roll back 30 years of libertarian attitudes towards crime and to put the victim first. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is a step in the right direction, but there is much more to be done. In Britain, we can be proud of the fact that anyone who suffers a serious criminal injury will be compensated out of public funds, but anyone who suffers a personal injury valued at less than £1,000 or who is the victim of a crime involving his property or money will not be compensated out of public funds. At

633
present, there is about £100,000 worth of unpaid compensation orders made in favour of victims in every magistrates court in the land.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point about outstanding sums. May I point out that Sutton magistrates court found that there is £143,000 outstanding in compensation payments?
Mr. Stephen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that figure, which confirms what I believe to be the situation throughout the country.
I tabled three new clauses to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill when it was in Committee in February and the substance of this motion is much the same as that of the new clauses. I was not a member of the Committee, so two of them were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on my behalf. The Government responded sympathetically, but did not commit themselves to doing anything about it.
Before I deal with those new clauses, I pay tribute to The Mail on Sunday for its excellent work in researching this topic and for drawing the attention of Members of Parliament and the public to the serious problem of non-payment of compensation orders. I refer to two cases that the newspaper has discovered. The first is a man in Bristol who went on a rampage of violence and caused £4,000 worth of damage to his victim's home. He was ordered to pay £3,855 in compensation, but he paid nothing. He went on holiday to Australia and failed to turn up in court where he was ordered to pay compensation. He claimed to be unemployed. His victim said:
"I think it is disgusting the way that victims of crime are treated. There should be a radical review of the compensation system. Victims should not be coming out at a loss. They don't ask for their homes to be damaged or to be attacked."
The second case was in Windsor in Berkshire. A criminal stole and wrecked a nurse's £1,100 moped. He was ordered to pay compensation, but he refused to pay. He was jailed for 28 days and the debt was written off. He said:
"I had the money, but decided to go to jail instead. It was my first offence and I don't think it was fair what they gave me."
The victim's view was:
"I work long unsociable hours to support my daughter and I see this criminal walking around doing nothing all day. He is a strong man who could work if he wanted to and he should be made to pay something."
The Government have not been idle on the matter and I give credit for their work in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the victims charter, which, for the first time, focused the attention of all involved in the criminal justice system on the needs of the victim. Hitherto, attention had always been on the needs of the criminal. However, there are still 28 agencies supporting criminals and only one supporting victims—the victim support scheme, to whose work I pay tribute.
The first paragraph of my motion incorporates new clause 30 which I tabled in Committee. It would require information to be given about the whereabouts and financial resources of criminals who have failed to pay compensation orders. Departments of state, banks and building societies will not disclose such information and say that it is confidential. They sometimes pray in aid the Data Protection Act 1984. I point out that the Act is the
634
"Data Protection Act", not the "Protection of Criminals Act". The Act should be changed so that the information can be made available to courts seeking to enforce compensation orders.
The civil rights lobby will say that it is an infringement of civil liberties to provide confidential information to magistrates courts. Of course, it is an infringement of civil liberties, but criminals are not the only people who have civil liberties. Victims have civil liberties, too, and they have every right, under law, to receive compensation from the criminal for the damage caused. If a criminal does not wish his civil liberties to be infringed, the remedy is in his own hands—do not commit crime.
It was said in Committee that it would be rather draconian to employ such a measure against motorists who had been ordered to pay compensation and who had not paid. I do not see why. In any event, enforcement is in the hands of the courts, which can decide how they wish to enforce payment. I do not see why a motorist who has not paid compensation to his victim should be treated differently from any other criminal who has not paid compensation.
In Committee, the Government suggested that legislation would not be necessary and that the objective could be achieved by non-legislative means. If that is the case, what are the non-legislative means? What precisely are the Government doing to use those means to ensure that the victims of crime are properly compensated?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I congratulate the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) on obtaining this short debate; I realise that the seconds are ticking away. A number of Opposition Members wholly endorse the principle that people who are trying to dodge their moral obligation to pay compensation should be pursued with vigour. We look forward with interest to seeing what the Government will do to ensure that compensation is paid to the victims of crime. The failure to pay compensation is an outstanding blot on our criminal justice system.
Mr. Stephen: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for his support. I am sure that his constituents are as concerned as mine are about the matter.
The second paragraph of the motion incorporates new clause 25 which I tabled in Committee. I believe that the courts are not well suited to the enforcement of orders. I often receive letters from people who say that they believe that the courts have gone to sleep after they have made compensation orders and that no real attempt is made to enforce them. People tell me—and it accords with my experience—that means inquiries in magistrates courts are rather like shelling peas, they are done so quickly. The whole thing is a farce. Magistrates do not have the time or the means to inquire rigorously into the income and the assets of criminals. That job requires an agency with specialised personnel and proper information technology to be able to chase the criminals. I know of the value of information technology in that area because I happen to be the parliamentary adviser to EDS-Scicon—a company working in that sphere.
The courts need to be reminded of the requirements of the victims charter. One of those requirements is that the courts must keep the victim informed of the progress of his case. Often, it turns into a dispute between the Crown and the criminal, and the victim is forgotten. In particular, the

635
victim should be given an opportunity to give evidence of the means of the criminal once a compensation order has been made. An elderly lady running a newsagents shop in my constituency knew perfectly well that the criminal who was ordered to pay her compensation had assets much greater than those to which he was willing to admit, but she was never given an opportunity to go to court and say so.
Sometimes, notwithstanding the 1988 Act, no compensation order is made because no application is made. I believe that the courts should normally award compensation, unless they are specifically asked not to. The prosecuting solicitors and barristers must also be reminded that, although they are formally representing the Crown in the proceedings, they have also have a duty to represent the interests of the victim and to ensure that they have the necessary information from the victim to be able to argue effectively for a proper level of compensation.
In the criminal courts, there should be the same measure of damages as there is in the civil courts. A Home Office study in 1992 suggested that awards, especially for personal injuries made in the criminal courts, are much lower than those in the civil courts. The measure of damages in either the civil court or the criminal court should not be related in any way to the ability of the criminal to pay. That is certainly not the case in the civil courts and should not be so in the criminal courts. Often, defendants in civil proceedings are people of moderate means, but that does not affect the measure of damages. Means are relevant to enforcement, not to the amount of compensation. The criminal's ability to pay will vary over time. On the day of the hearing, he may not be able to pay, but he may get a job the next week or next month, or he may be left some money, or he may even win the pools. If he subsequently has the ability to pay, he should be made to pay, and section 35(4) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 requires further amendment.
636
As for the argument that if we enforce compensation orders against criminals they will go out and commit further offences, I do not think that a civilised society could ever give in to such blackmail and any criminal who thinks that he can get away with that, has got another think coming. If a criminal does not have a job, if he cannot or will not work, work must be found for him so that he may pay the compensation that he owes. It is an affront to the public and the victim for the criminal to be sitting at home, drawing benefit and doing nothing to earn any money to pay his victim. If a criminal is fortunate enough, as some are, to sell their story to the press, the money should be confiscated and used to compensate the victim and any balance should be forfeited to Her Majesty—that is the effect of my new clause 56.
Also, courts should be reminded of their statutory duty to give priority to compensation orders over fines and they should never reduce compensation orders on the ground of the criminal's ability to pay if they are, at the same time, imposing a fine. Often, when the criminal is sent to prison, no compensation order is made. That is wrong because the criminal pays his debt to society, not to his victim, by going to prison. The courts should not send criminals who are in default of payment to prison quite so often. That is an easy option for an old lag. Compensation orders should remain in force, and if it takes 20 years to recover the money, so be it. There should be no time limit on the recovery of compensation orders. We should also repeal the absurd provision that makes it legally impossible to sell a criminal's house, if he has one, to compensate his victim.
I congratulate the Government on the efforts that they are making in the area of criminal justice. There is wide public concern. Much of it has been addressed by the Government, but much still remains to be done. We must consider the victims—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    FINE DEFAULTERS (RESTRICTION OF POWER TO IMPRISON) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    SALE OF GOODS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    TREASURE BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    RACIAL HATRED AND VIOLENCE BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Not moved.

    FAIR TREATMENT FOR WIDOWERS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    WATER (DOMESTIC DISCONNECTIONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    PUBLIC CONVENIENCES (NO. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    LAND DRAINAGE BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
    Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

    CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That at the sitting on Monday 11th July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Scottish Business not later than two hours after it has been entered upon; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion, which she may have selected, which may then be moved; and those proceedings may be entered upon or continued after the expiration of time for opposed business.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

  Rural Policing
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  2.33 pm
  Sir Keith Speed (Ashford): I make no apology for raising the problems of rural policing and rural crime. I do not disparage what has been happening in our towns and cities and I recognise the real problems of urban crime. Perhaps rural crime and rural policing have been less in the spotlight. I wish to focus briefly on some of the problems and opportunities.
  I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. He and I march together across the Sussex and Kent borders. I am sure that in his constituency he has many of the problems that are to be found in mine.
  The problems of policing generally and rural crime will be overcome only by good intelligence being available to the various law enforcement agencies. We should be targeting and seeking the criminal and not the crime itself. There are now police teams in rural areas in Kent to which one person is attached who is responsible for a specific rural area. That person must know the area. That is fine because, without the intelligence, we do not stand a good chance of catching the criminal and obtaining a conviction.
  The village bobby is a particular problem in rural areas. In the old days, every village had its policeman who lived in a police house. Today, for economic and social reasons, that is not possible. Quite naturally, policemen wish to buy their own houses. Therefore, police authorities have sold village police houses as there has been no demand for them.
  With the best will in the world, one cannot expect a village policeman to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Therefore, police teams and mobile forces are increasingly covering rural areas to prevent crime and to catch criminals.
  Experiments are being carried out with parish constables in different parts of the country, including in Tunbridge Wells in Kent. Parish constables are an answer to the village bobby problem. A parish constable must be a special constable. He or she must have the training and powers of a special constable so that that person can arrest people and enforce law and order. Parish constables are part of the community and can work extremely well with neighbourhood watch schemes, parish councils and others.
  I have a suggestion which may or may not be controversial. I accept that we should not pay special constables a full salary. However, we need more special constables, even in Kent where there are vacancies. We need to encourage people. Perhaps we should pay special constables a modest bounty at the end of each year's service in the same way that we pay members of the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Reserve. That would not be expensive. In fact, it would be cost efficient as it would tell people that we are prepared to reward them for the unsocial hours they work, for their dedication and for the voluntary duties that they perform, with a small tax repayment at the end of each year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that suggestion.
  Neighbourhood watches have been well established for many years. They are particularly useful in rural areas if they can work with the concept of parish constables, the local men and women who can look after a patch. Technology is also helping us. The Kent police authority
  640
  has introduced a radio system which enables headquarters to contact a policeman wherever he may be. Even if he is right out in the wilds or the sticks, there can be two-way contact. That is vital.
  Geography is a particular problem for rural areas. It is easy to get around in towns. If there is an incident in a town, people can get to that incident very quickly because they can use an A to Z guide. They will know precisely where they are going. It is not so easy in villages and rural areas. That is not just a problem for the police; it also affects the ambulance and fire services.
  For example, to be told that there is a problem at Bramble cottage in High Halden means very little. One could spend 30 minutes or an hour travelling around High Halden trying to find Bramble cottage. That problem arises for several reasons. In many rural areas, local authorities—no doubt for good reasons—do not erect street signs. There is also the problem that, in many villages, streets have more than one name.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with High Halden, which is on the A28 in my constituency. There is a street in High Halden called Man of Kent road. It is also known as American road, America road and Crompton House lane. Those are names for the same street. If there is an incident in that area, it is the luck of the draw how it is described by the person affected by that incident. It would be extremely difficult for the police car, the ambulance or the fire brigade to find that incident.
  In addition, many houses in rural areas do not have names or numbers or, if the names or numbers are shown, they are right by the front door and perhaps hidden from the main road. This is essentially a problem for local authorities. I do not know whether they could adapt postcodes. However, the Kent police have mentioned that problem to me. Perhaps the Department of the Environment and the Home Office could have a long hard look at it.
  Another matter might be helpful in dealing with the problem of rural crime. We have had a number of horrendous events in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that, a few months ago, there were 12 cases of arson in Kent, mostly in my constituency, and even in Sussex. Barns were burnt down. In fact, there were 12 cases of arson in one night. I regret to say that, so far, the culprit has not been found.
  Arising out of that and other matters, the leader of Ashford borough council and I decided to institute a series of meetings to take place perhaps every three to five months, involving the leader and deputy leader of Ashford borough council and two or three of its key officers, myself as the Member of Parliament, the local representative of the Kent Association of Parish Councils, representatives of the National Farmers Union, the local police superintendent and our chief inspector of police.
  Those meetings are structured in so far as we have an agenda, but they are very informal—no great papers are presented. We discuss informally the latest crime statistics, the problem of vandalism on farms, and perhaps teaching young people how to respect the land, footpaths and so on connected with the countryside. We can address the problems of towns or of the countryside and bring to bear our expertise and knowledge.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to my points. Crime generally and rural crime in particular are not just for the police. Whether it is the prevention of crime or the enforcement of the law, we are all involved—

  641
  farmers, school teachers, ordinary citizens and the police. That is true all over the country, but in villages and small towns there is a real sense of community. I hope that everyone realises that it is no good passing on the other side of the road and that if we enhance the role of the parish constable, neighbourhood watch schemes and communities working together, perhaps in the informal way as in Ashford in Kent, we may bring about a rather more peaceful and pleasant countryside in which people can go about their business without the fear of being mugged, without vandalism and without car theft. It is an important problem and I hope that my hon. Friend will respond constructively.
  2.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and on raising such important issues. As he said, our constituencies lie side by side along the Kent ditch. Were he or I to travel from Northiam to Newenden or vice versa, we would be able to meet each other on the border. The situations that my hon. Friend described apply just as much in Sussex as in the part of Kent which he represents, and indeed in much of rural England. My hon. Friend made a number of interesting suggestions. I shall talk in a moment about the parish constable initiative, and I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend's support of it.
  My hon. Friend gave a wonderful description of how partnership should work—people getting together with the police, local community leaders, Members of Parliament, farmers and others, working together in partnership to ensure that we can tackle crime as vigorously as possible on every front. My hon. Friend was right to talk about the importance of local intelligence. I know what he means about that intelligence helping to pinpoint houses. I understand entirely what he means about the difficulties of trying to find Bramble cottage down America road, America lane, or whatever else it might be called by local people. It is a problem to which we shall all pay attention.
  My hon. Friend also suggested a bounty for special constables. That idea has been raised before. A pilot scheme was tested by the Dorset constabulary last year and we are currently considering the outcome of that test. We shall, no doubt, have more to say about it in due course.
  The Government recognise that there is much concern among people living in rural areas about policing and the effect that crime can have on their communities. All too often, the attention has been on inner cities, which is where the media tend to focus. Crime has spread into rural areas, where it bites just as much and with just as devastating an effect. I shall say more later about Government action and how the Government encourage the public to take action. At the outset, I want to place my remarks in a suitable context by talking about our commitment to the police.
  The first statutory responsibility of the police is to prevent crime; that has been so ever since the formation of the police in 1829. The police have always needed the consent of the public and a partnership with the public to help them in the fight against crime. Since 1979, we have greatly increased the resources available to the police. After allowing for inflation, expenditure on policing has
  642
  risen on average by 87 per cent. since 1979 to more than £6,000 million. There are 16,000 more uniformed police officers in post and a similar number of additional civilians working for the police. When we consider the number of jobs that have been civilianised, thus enabling more uniformed officers to get out from behind their desks to undertake operational duties, we realise that progress has been considerable.
  Every police force has shared those increases, with an average county force tending to do better in terms of the percentage increase in expenditure than an average metropolitan force. For the current year, the total of police standard spending assessments has risen by 4.3 per cent. for the metropolitan forces, and by rather more than that—4.6 per cent.—for the county forces. On average, police establishments have risen by 8 per cent. since 1979, but some of the more rural forces have done significantly better. Kent has had an increase of 12 per cent. and Suffolk has had an increase of 13 per cent.
  The vast majority of forces are a mixture of urban and rural, and it is for chief constables to decide on the allocation of resources within the areas for which they are responsible. But we are continuing to do everything possible to help them to maximise the number of officers available for operational policing. Current initiatives aimed at cutting bureaucracy, reorganising management structures and employing more civilians will help to get yet more police officers into the front line against crime. From next year, detailed central controls on force strength will be removed as a result of the measures now going through Parliament. Chief constables will be able to decide for themselves how many officers they need within the resources available to them.
  I know that the Kent constabulary is well aware of the problems of rural crime that my hon. Friend described and is undertaking a number of initiatives to tackle them. The Thanet police are currently developing an intelligence-based proactive model that will be evaluated by the force and considered for use throughout Kent. It should bring advantages to my hon. Friend's constituency. The structure of area intelligence will take into account the unusual and sometimes unique nature of rural communities.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the new radio system to be introduced by the Kent constabulary. It represents an investment of £7 million and will offer enhanced communications to police officers in rural areas. The police are aware of the importance of working with the community to tackle crime. To that end, police officers working in rural parts of Kent will work as members of teams under dedicated leaders. Those teams will identify with specific parts of the rural area to allow the development of a particular local knowledge. That ties in with the reforms and the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill in terms of locally focused policing plans. The initiative in Kent will assist members of the community, in that they will be more directly aware of the officers responsible for tackling crime, but, ultimately, it must be the chief constable who decides how to deploy his resources.
  There is a danger when talking about crime, and the way in which the police and the public can work together, of concentrating on urban burglary and the like. As I said a few moments ago, that is what the media seem to concentrate on. Frequently, rural crime happens and does not make the headlines. But I know, and so do the police,

  643
  that a single criminal incident in a quiet rural area can have a simply devastating and disruptive effect on the way of life of the entire community.
  We are all aware of the nuisance caused to rural communities by the activities of new age travellers and other trespassers, and we are taking measures to deal with them. But other types of crime, which are also more relevant to the countryside, present their own particular problems: the rustling of animals, arson attacks, as my hon. Friend described, and the theft of agricultural machinery, which can create heavy losses. The attacks on, and mutilation of, horses in the southern counties have given a disturbing and horrific twist to our notion of rural crime.
  Another worrying development is the export from urban areas of some particularly nasty crimes that have rarely been experienced by rural communities such as the armed robbery of village post offices and rural petrol stations and the violent burglary of isolated homes. These seem to become increasingly common as criminals are squeezed out of some of their more difficult urban haunts arid go further afield. Of course, the professional villain can be in his car and half way across the country on the motorway network after hitting a pre-chosen target.
  Again, rural communities are often better placed to report anything out of the ordinary more quickly than can many urban or suburban communities. The police rely on seemingly innocuous pieces of information that might be essential in linking known criminals to these climes. Dealing with crime in rural areas is already a high priority for the police and for the Government. There is considerable activity across many Departments.
  My hon. Friend spoke enthusiastically about the parish constables initiative in the context of rural policing. He will know that our aim is to increase the number of special constables from 20,000 to 30,000. As I shall show in a moment, we hope that an increasing number of those special constables will become parish constables. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's parish constable initiative, which began less than a year ago, has quickly established itself as a valuable extra dimension to rural policing. I am very pleased indeed with the enthusiasm with which both police and public have greeted the initiative. There are now more than 80 schemes in operation around the country. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend hopes personally to launch the 100th such scheme later this summer.
  The success of the parish constable scheme clearly demonstrates the great interest that members of the public have in helping to police their own communities. That is what matters so much. They have that vested interest. The schemes are an excellent example of what can be achieved when police and public work together in that fashion.
  In practice, most of the small towns and villages taking part in the initiative have preferred the parish special constable model to the alternative parish warden model. In this kind of scheme, the chief constable agrees with the parish council or councils that a serving special constable should spend all his or her duty hours working within their area.
  The special constabulary in general is an excellent example of how ordinary men and women can volunteer to help the police. Ordinary men and women from other walks of life lend their help to the police. Special constables have full powers of arrest; they are trained and supervised by the regular police, but, none the less, they give their own time as volunteers.
  644
  Until the introduction of the parish constable initiative, specials were generally used on a range of duties. Now, whether they are existing specials or volunteers recruited specifically for the purpose, they can develop a sense of identity with their local area, patrol it regularly and get to know all the local people and all the local concerns. They provide a uniformed police presence in areas of the country which the full-time police sometimes find less easy to reach regularly.
  The Home Office is keeping track of the schemes. Four are being studied in detail so that we can identify good practice and spread that knowledge more widely. But for parish constable schemes to work as well as they are doing, everyone involved has to recognise that it is a locally driven initiative.
  In my hon. Friend's county of Kent, eight very successful schemes are already up and running, using a mixture of experienced specials with some years of service and new recruits supervised by local beat officers. The police in Kent have begun to recruit members of the public to work as parish special constables in the county.
  Those recruits will have to be trained and supervised to start with, but the chief constable of Kent has extended that imaginative approach, by ensuring that they will be trained in the parishes where they will be working, once they have completed training.
  As I have said, a formal progress report on selected schemes will be published later in the year, but informally we already know that there is high satisfaction with what has been achieved. The benefits of the scheme are obvious to many. They include support for the regular police, in terms of the intelligence information that is fed through to them by people who really know their area and can detect quickly signs of trouble brewing, strangers snooping around, and any build-up of tension.
  The benefits include a reassurance for local residents who may recently have felt somewhat out of touch. So often, reducing the fear of crime is just as important as preventing crime—both matter. In some areas, volunteers under the parish constable scheme have been active in keeping local police stations open and manned for some hours during the day when that might otherwise not have been possible.
  Parish special constables and the alternative—parish wardens—are positive, productive examples of the type of partnership between public and police on which policing, whether it is in rural areas or inner city estates, crucially depends to achieve all its aims. I am encouraged by the success of the initiative. I look forward to its increasing success throughout the country and hope that it will give us lessons that we could build on, even in the wider context.
  On other Government initiatives, I have been exploring the issue of rural crime with my colleagues on the ministerial group on crime prevention, which promotes co-ordinated action by Government Departments in the prevention of crime. The National Board for Crime Prevention is also giving the matter attention. Recently, I spoke at a conference in Gloucestershire on rural crime, with Crime Concern and other participants.
  In February this year, my hon Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside announced the rural challenge initiative. That is a competition run by the Government's agency, the Rural Development Commission, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford will be familiar. It is designed to stimulate

  645
  innovative approaches to social and economic development in less prosperous rural areas. One of the prize categories is action to combat rural crime.
  We are also determined to take measures to deal with those who trespass en masse with complete disregard for law-abiding citizens. I do not need to remind the House of the disgraceful events at Castlemorton common in the summer of 1992, which were subsequently repeated, albeit on a lesser scale, in other parts of the country. The disruption suffered by local communities, the fear caused to local residents by such mass gatherings and unruly behaviour, and the filth left behind by the trespassers are intolerable.
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is before Parliament, will strengthen existing police powers to deal with trespass on land and introduce new powers to tackle specific nuisances, such as unlicensed night-time rave parties on open land, which can cause untold misery to local residents, and trespassers who wilfully disrupt or intimidate others engaged in lawful activities on land.
  The proposed new powers will allow the police to take pre-emptive action to nip disorder in the bud, rather than leave them to deal with a serious problem once it has arisen.
  That comprehensive package of measures is necessary to protect the quality of life in rural areas and will be welcomed by law-abiding citizens throughout the country.
  Rural areas present a special kind of challenge to the police. The types of crimes that I have mentioned are less easy to prevent and detect because of the relatively isolated nature of the areas where they are committed. The response of the police to those incidents cannot always be as speedy
  646
  as they, or the public, would like. That is why there is a particular onus on rural communities to be the eyes and ears of the police and to work in partnership with them.
  The rural community is more stable than most other communities, however, and that is a strength on which we should be able to develop our initiatives. Tightly knit communities can easily spot outsiders. Those who live in close communities can find it easier to work together to fight crime.
  The police place considerable emphasis on dealing with crime in rural areas, both through prevention and detection. Cheshire constabulary, for example, appointed a dedicated wildlife and environment officer two and a half years ago. He has since developed a very effective county-wide strategy for dealing with rural crime.
  A great deal can be achieved when the police work alongside the public and other agencies. The partnership approach is the cornerstone of the Government's crime prevention strategy, and it is being developed on a broad front. Neighbourhood watch schemes are well known, and there are 130,000 such schemes in England and Wales.
  There has been a welcome proliferation of other watch schemes, many of which are relevant to rural areas—country watch, farm watch and horse watch. At the last count, there were 35 different watch schemes up and running throughout the country. They show that members of the public want to work with the police in the fight against crime and to help the police to develop a strengthened partnership at local level. That, in turn, will help the police to be more effective and responsive to the public's needs. I hope that my hon Friend agrees that, in that way, we will be able to deliver the kind of society in which we all want to live.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Unfit Properties
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish tables showing for each region and nation an estimate of the number of unfit

  Table 1: Unfit Dwellings: by Tenure and Region: England 1991

  Thousands of dwellings

  Standard statistical region

  Owner occupied

  Private rented

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Vacant

  Total

  Northern

  31

  32

  21

  4

  10

  99

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  85

  27

  31

  2

  11

  156

  East Midlands

  90

  19

  22

  0

  7

  138

  East Anglia

  34

  15

  11

  2

  3

  65

  Greater London

  127

  56

  69

  24

  25

  301

  South East

  119

  64

  26

  5

  26

  239

  South West

  57

  33

  14

  0

  18

  123

  West Midlands

  39

  39

  29

  0

  9

  117

  North West

  132

  47

  42

  3

  36

  260

  England

  715

  333

  265

  41

  145

  1,498

  Source: English House Condition Survey.

  Table 2: Mandatory and discretionary renovation grants: Approvals 1993–94 Numbers of grants

  Standard statistical region

  Mandatory

  Discretionary

  Northern

  2,750

  300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,240

  1,040

  East Midlands

  4,110

  1,040

  East Anglia

  1,420

  90

  Greater London

  4,500

  520

  South East

  6,300

  1,100

  South West

  3,610

  340

  West Midlands

  4,590

  370

  North West

  5,200

  420

  England

  36,710

  5,230

  Source: Estimated from reports by local authorities on the housing statistics return P1D.

  Juveniles (Publicity)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he has issued to local authority councillors in respect of using juveniles under local authority supervision for publicity purposes.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The only guidelines on local authority publicity which my Department has issued is the 1988 code of recommended practice on local authority publicity which does not cover the use of juveniles for publicity purposes. I have placed a copy of the code in the Library.
  326
  properties, together with the distribution of these properties by tenure, and the number of renovation grants committed in the most recent available year.

  Sir George Young
  The first table shows estimates of the numbers of unfit dwellings. The second table shows estimates of approvals of mandatory and discretionary renovation grants in England during the financial year 1993–94. Figures are provided for England. For figures for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I refer the Member to the respective Secretaries of State.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the figures for carbon dioxide emissions resulting from household use of energy in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990; and what is the(a) estimate and (b) Government target for 2000.

  Mr. Atkins
  The 16th edition of the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" shows that emissions of carbon dioxide from household energy use were estimated to be 42 million tonnes of carbon—MtC—in 1990, 44 MtC in 1991 and 43 MtC in 1992. Emissions in 1990 were relatively low because the year was particularly warm. The Government have not set a specific target for domestic sector emissions in 2000, although the measures announced in our climate change programme are expected to achieve a reduction of around 4 MtC below the underlying trend, which is currently expected to be about flat for the domestic sector.

  Climate Change (Insurance)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with representatives of Lloyd's insurance market on the risks associated with global climate change.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have had no such discussions, but the possible impact of climate change on the financial services industry, including insurance, is one of the issues that will be addressed in the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, and my department is providing financial support for one United Kingdom expert who has been asked to act as a contributing author on that issue.

  Housing Safety
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce new controls to improve safety standards in houses in multiple occupation.

  Sir George Young
  The Government are aware of the continuing concern about the number of hotels in resort areas which are operating as benefit hostels and of the wider concern about safety standards in all houses in multiple occupation—HMOs.

  Ministers share these concerns, but they are also anxious to avoid regulation unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such regulation is both essential and practical.

  Local authorities already have considerable powers to improve standards in HMOs, and to establish HMO registration schemes. They also have a statutory duty to ensure adequate fire safety standards in the larger HMOs. The issue of benefit hostels raises separate considerations and planning controls relating to the conversion from hotel to hostel use have recently been tightened.

  It is clearly necessary to consider carefully what more, if anything, needs to be done in both these areas. I have therefore instructed my officials in the Department of the Environment to begin immediate discussions with interested parties, on the case for a licensing system and how it might operate, with a view to issuing a formal consultation paper in the late summer. Full-scale licensing would require primary legislation and the paper will need to examine the scope for measures to tackle these problems both with or without legislation.

EDUCATION

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Secretary of State has not in the last 10 years directed the Department's accounting officer to award any contract against official advice.

  Special Educational Needs Conferences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many conferences his Department has organised to promote the new code of practice for special educational needs; when and where they are to be held; what is the cost for a delegate from a school to attend; and how much additional copies of the information packs on the code of practice will cost.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department, together with the Department of Health, the Welsh Office, the National Children's Bureau and the Council for Disabled Children, arranged six conferences to help disseminate the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. The conferences were held in London on 15 June, Manchester on 21 June, York on 24 June, Cardiff on 1 July, Bristol on 5 July and Birmingham on 7 July. The cost of attendance for each delegate was £94.328
  Delegates were given an information pack including a copy of the code, the guide for parents and a handbook. Additional copies of the code and the guide for parents can be obtained free; additional copies of the handbook cost £6·50 each.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Witnesses
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures are being taken by courts in Staffordshire to protect child witnesses, with particular reference to the use of screens and television link equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Both court centres in Staffordshire, namely Stafford and Stoke on Trent, have screens available, and Stafford also has live television link equipment and video playback equipment for use in the presentation of evidence by child witnesses. All magistrates courts have access to screens and the use of the television link equipment at Stafford, if required.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Never.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what progress has been made recently by(a) the United Nations development programme, (b) the Food and Agriculture Organisation, (c) the World Health Organisation, (d) UNOSOM—the United Nations operation in Somalia, (e) the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and (f) UNICEF in developing reconstruction and other services in north west Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Details of the activities of UNDP, FAO, WHO and the role of UNOSOM in north-west Somalia have been provided in answers to the hon. Member on 24 February at columns 398–99, 28 February at column 546, 1 March at column 631, 15 April at columns 303 and 329 and 14 June at columns 393–94.

  UNICEF activities in the region include: health—mother and child health programmes, immunisation, treatment and prevention of cholera, support for hospitals and health centres; education—construction of one Koranic school in Hargeisa, with 10 additional schools targeted for rehabiliation, training programme for koranic school teachers; and water and sanitation—emergency trucking of water, rehabilitation of shallow wells and hand pump installation.

  UNHCR has confirmed the completion of 148 quick impact projects—QUIPS—to assist the resident population and returning refugees. A further 216 projects continue

  329
  including those in the water, health, education, agriculture, livestock and income generation sectors. UNHCR has also made available US$2·6 million for demining activities and is involved in discussions with regional authorities on the repatriation of Somali refugees from Ethiopia and Djibouti.

  The United Nations development office is planning a multi-donor mission to Woquooly Galbeed region to take forward discussions with regional authorities on the priorities and conditions necessary for developing reconstruction activities and services to that region.

  Know-how Fund Projects
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each know-how fund project by country and date; and how much has been(a) committed and (b) spent on each project.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on 28 June at column 471. Such lists are placed in the Libraries of both Houses at regular intervals.

  Know-how fund expenditure in recipient countries to March 1933—detailed figures for 1993–4 are not yet available—is as follows:

  £

  Albania

  39,000

  Azerbaijan

  81,000

  Belarus

  26,000

  Bulgaria

  2,810,000

  Former Czechoslovakia

  14,599,000

  Georgia

  26,000

  Former German Democratic Republic

  502,000

  Hungary

  13,023,000

  Latvia

  350,000

  Lithuania

  486,000

  Poland

  32,722,000

  Romania

  3,823,000

  Russian Federation

  14,475,000

  Slovenia

  45,000

  Ukraine

  3,193,000

  Regional projects1

  4,969,000

  1For 1992–93 includes Environment projects.

  Palestine
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to the new Palestinian administration in Gaza and Jericho.

  Mr. Hurd
  In response to the urgent needs of the Palestinian authority, Her Majesty's Government have decided to provide an extra £5 million of bilateral assistance this year. A total of £3 million will be for immediate running costs, and £2 million for increased technical cooperation. Part of these funds will be for the Palestinian police. This will help meet the urgent requirements in the key area of maintaining law and order.

  The success of the new Palestinian administration in Gaza and Jericho is critical for the future of the peace process. Provision of start-up costs is an immediate need.

  Her Majesty's Government have previously announced their intention to contribute £70 million of assistance to the Palestinians and the peace process during 1994–95 and
  330
  1996–97, through bilateral and multilateral channels. Many programmes are already underway. Their focus is support for the structures of Palestinian administration: the police, for whom we are already providing training and equipment; the Palestinian Monetary Authority; legal structures and the judiciary; water management and health care. We are also providing assistance for the planned Palestinian elections.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the first grants to be made to charities by the National Lottery Charities Board.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This will be a matter for the board to decide.

  Electoral Law (Disabled People)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role will be played by his Department in the forthcoming consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination against disabled people in electoral matters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Disabled People, will be co-ordinating action on this front and will involve other Departments as necessary. We have no plans to produce a separate consultation paper.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions bicycles have been found to contain illegal explosive devices for the use of terrorists, on the mainland of Great Britain.

  Mr. Howard
  The available records indicate that there have been two explosions in Great Britain involving bicycle bombs: in 1939 an IRA bicycle bomb exploded in Coventry killing five people and in 1979 a bomb exploded in a mailbag on a postman's bicycle in Streatley, Berkshire. Since then there have been three occasions when Irish Republican terrorists are believed to have been responsible for bicycle bomb attacks elsewhere, twice in Northern Ireland and once at a British military installation in Germany.

  Computer Contracts
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current position of his Department over the award of the contracts for the processing of historical criminal records to(a) overseas based and (b) United Kingdom based processing companies; and whether members of the project team have visited processing facilities in the Philippines with regard to this contract.

  Mr. Howard
  After careful consideration of the competing bids, which included a visit by members of the project team to the Philippines, it has been decided to award the contract to PCL Group, which submitted the bid
  331
  which was judged to represent the best overall value for money to the taxpayer. The work will be carried out, under conditions of the strictest security, in Rickmansworth and Glasgow. The contract provides for the conversion of some 3 million records over 18 months, creating a database which will be of immense value to the police service in the investigation of crime.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what important factors his Department uses when determining the award of contracts involving computerisation of(a) criminal records and (b) general processing information of a sensitive nature.

  Mr. Howard
  The criteria for evaluation will vary according to the nature of the work to be done; the details are given in the announcement in the Official Journal of the European Communities which launches every substantial procurement. In the case of the current project to computerise the national collection of criminal records, the award criteria, other than price, were stated as"Proven ability to process the required throughput volumes, achieving the required quality and security levels, in the required timescale" (Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities, 25 November and 4 December 1993).

  Jersey
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make representations to the Government of Jersey concerning their refusal to allow United Kingdom citizens to gain residential and home ownership rights on the island.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Jersey is an internally self-governing dependency of the Crown, and by constitutional convention my right hon. and learned Friend does not seek to intervene in matters such as the island's housing regulations.

  Polling Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by his Department since April 1992 to make polling stations more accessible to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: We regularly remind local authorities about their obligation to choose, wherever practicable, buildings which provide access for the disabled. Advice on helping disabled electors provided by the Spastics Society was circulated to returning officers in April 1993. The guidance included a checklist for carrying out accessibility audits at polling stations. A further reminder about the needs of disabled voters was included in our guidance for acting returning officers at the European parliamentary elections earlier this year. My officials met representatives of the Spastics Society and the Royal National Institute for the Blind as part of the post-election review and their concerns have been reflected by the working groups which reported their findings in March. My officials have recently met representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the findings and will report to me in due course on the outcome of the post-election review.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what proportion of unfair dismissal claims have resulted in reinstatement in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many unfair dismissal claims have resulted in reinstatement in each of the last five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Only about one third of all unfair dismissal claims are heard by an industrial tribunal. The majority are settled or withdrawn, often as a result of conciliation by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The number of unfair dismissal claims where reinstatement or re-engagement have been ordered by an industrial tribunal and their proportion of all unfair dismissal claims is shown in the following table:

  1 April to 31 March

  Number

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  59

  0·33

  1990–91

  63

  0·32

  1991–92

  71

  0·28

  1992–93

  73

  0·22

  1993–94

  72

  0·17

  Gender Identity Disorder
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to reinforce the employment rights of individuals suffering from gender identity disorder.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no such plans.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to make it clear on the face of the application form for an industrial tribunal hearing that consent to having the case heard by a chairman sitting alone in chambers, once given, cannot be withdrawn.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Industrial tribunals are independent judicial bodies and such matters are for the presidents of the tribunals to consider. However, I understand that the tribunals' new explanatory booklet on procedures, which the guidance note on the application form asks applicants to read, will make it clear that once such written consent is given by the parties it cannot be withdrawn, although the chairman may exercise his discretion to sit with lay members.

  Gas Poisoning and Explosions
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many non-industrial deaths and serious injuries have occurred in each of the last five years due to gas poisoning and explosions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  333

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number of fatalities

  Explosion/fire

  6

  15

  11

  8

  31

  Carbon monoxide poisoning

  41

  34

  30

  33

  391

  Number of injuries

  Explosion/fire

  42

  67

  48

  63

  331

  Carbon monoxide poisoning

  94

  88

  131

  184

  1701

  1Provisional.

  The statistics, as gathered, do not differentiate between fires and explosions. Carbon monoxide poisoning is caused by the products of combustion escaping from an appliance into living accommodation. The gas supplied through the mains is not poisonous.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  British Library
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the reasons for the increase in the cost of building the new British library; and what steps are being taken to control the budget.

  Mr. Brooke
  A former Minister for the Arts, Mr. Luce, announced to the House on 5 June 1990, that the total cost of the project would be about £450 million. This cash budget has not changed, although it is likely to be exceeded temporarily while we deal with the commercial issues arising from the technical problems encountered recently. I remain determined to bring the overall project costs back to the cash budget set in 1990.

  An independent consultant carries out cost risk analyses for the Department of National Heritage at regular intervals to ascertain confidence levels that the project will keep within the overall budget and we take action, as necessary, if these raise any concerns. As a result of one such analysis during 1993, we reduced the cost of the two phases of the project, in full consideration with the British library.

  Monthly financial reports are produced for the department showing, for each element of the work, the amount spent and committed against budget. Quantity surveyors value the cost of the work as it proceeds and the management contractor and independent superintending officer each certify what has been done before we authorise payment. We also exercise strict control over contractual changes which have to be carefully examined and costed before we approve them, where justified.

  Pools Advertising
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from the advertising association regarding pools advertising on television and radio.

  Mr. Brooke
  The director-general of the Advertising Association wrote to me in November 1993 asking me to reconsider the ban on pools advertising on television and radio.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from the Pools Promoters Association on amendments to codes of practice of the Independent Television Commission and the Independent Radio Authority regarding pools advertising.
  334
  Mr. Brooke
  None.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what estimate he has made on the effect of the national lottery's turnover if the football pools were given equal access to advertising on television and radio;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the effect on pools turnover if a national lottery is permitted to advertise on television and radio and pools are not.

  Mr. Brooke
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Financial Assistance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of regional financial assistance was made available to each of the standard United Kingdom regions in each year since 1978–79(a) at current prices and (b) at 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 5 June 1992,Official Report, columns 676–78 for information on regional financial assistance since 1978–79. The latest information is regularly published in "Regional Trends". The GDP deflators to convert the expenditure to the 1978–79 prices are published in the public expenditure statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Energy Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to publicise and distribute copies of his first annual energy report; what has been the cost of publication of the report; and if he will make a statement on the degree and type of response he has received on the report to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  I launched volume 1 of the first annual energy report at a press conference on 15 June and mentioned it subsequently at the press conference for the International Energy Agency review of United Kingdom energy policy on 30 June. About 250 copies of the report have been sent out to relevant parts of the media. Volume 2—the Brown Book—had been launched, as usual by the end of April, to coincide with the offshore technology conference in Houston. Further publicity for the report will be provided when the "Digest of Energy Statistics" is published later this month. HMSO, as publisher and vendor of the report, has also carried out its own publicity initiatives. Over 1,500 copies of volume 2 have been sold to date.

  The direct cost of publishing the report was borne by HMSO. The cost of designing the new formats for the two volumes and of typesetting and proofing was about £40,000. The cost to the Department of official time

  335
  immediately involved in preparing both volumes of the report was about £120,000. In addition, officials in DTI and other Departments contributed to and commented on the report. This cost is estimated to be of the order of £10,000. The members of the energy advisory panel gave their time free of charge.

  I have had a favourable reaction to the report from the energy advisory panel. Further reaction is invited within the report itself.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effectiveness with which the Radiocommunications Agency is carrying out its functions in relation to interference problems in Tonge Park avenue, Bolton.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Radiocommunications Agency under its chief executive Jim Norton. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Peter Thurnham, dated 8 July 1994:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Question about the Agency's handling of an interference problem in Tonge Park Avenue, Bolton.
  The last investigation carried out by the Radiocommunications Agency in Tonge Park Avenue was in 1992, at which time residents reported an amateur radio installation as the source of interference to television and radio reception. Agency staff inspected the amateur station and in September 1992, following extensive tests, the amateur agreed to voluntarily restrict his power output. Apparently this cured the problem as no further complaints were received.
  However, you wrote to me on 28 June 1994 on behalf of your constituents Mr. and Mrs. Lever of 41 Tonge Park Avenue to say that the interference has re-occurred. I am sorry to learn of this. I have asked my local staff to carry out an up to date inspection of the amateur station and I will write again as soon as possible.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Insolvency Service executive agency for 1994–95.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Against the background of a declining number of compulsory insolvencies and a significant increase in the resources for 1994–95, I have set the Insolvency Service the target of reducing the number of its open cases to a level equivalent to approximately 12 months inpout. This will involve the service in closing 53,000 cases. I also expect the service to increase the number of proceedings taken for the disqualification of directors of failed companies where there is evidence of misconduct and, similarly, to increase the effectiveness of its investigative effort. To that end official receivers will be placing greater emphasis on disqualification and prosecution work. This will be aided by an increased use of private sector professionals and by the strengthening of the specialist's resources of the disqualification unit.

  In addition, I have set the service the following quality of service targets for 1994–95:
  to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within 8 weeks in at least 80 per cent. of all cases; and within 12 weeks in 98 per cent. of all cases;
  to hold the initial meeting of creditors within 12 weeks in at least 80 per cent. of all cases; and within 16 weeks in 98 per cent. of all cases;
  336
  to submit reports within 10 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases where there is evidence of criminality;
  to submit disqualification reports within 15 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases where there is evidence of unfit conduct by directors;
  to check and action at least 95 per cent. of payment requisitions within five days or by the due date.

  These targets are based on an assumption of 35,000 new cases and a requirement to operate within its agreed expenditure budget of £57·5 million for 1994–95.

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of the service to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Telecommunications Licences
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many telecommunications licences have been granted since the duopoly review in March 1991.

  Mr. Heseltine
  A total of 47 telecommunications licences have been issued since March 1991. In addition, I have now decided in principle to grant licences to Concert—the BT/MCI joint venture which has recently obtained clearance from the United States Department of Justice—and AT and T. Draft licences will be prepared and will be subject to consultation in due course. Public consultation is obligatory for all public telecommunications operator licences, such as AT and T's. It is not obligatory in the case of Concert's non-PTO application. However, I have decided that in this case it would be appropriate to give interested parties the opportunity to comment. The issue of the licences is subject to agreement on the detailed terms and conditions.

  Regional Support
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the planned expenditure and (b) the actual expenditure on regional support in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 28 June 1994]: The information on planned expenditure is published in the DTI's 1994 "Expenditure Plans, 1994–95 to 1996–97", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. Final figures on the actual expenditure on regional support in 1993–94 are not yet available. They will be published in the appropriation accounts in due course.

TREASURY

  Severe Hardship Unit, Glasgow
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which members of his Department visited the Department of Social Security severe hardship unit in Glasgow in April; what was the purpose of their visit; what recommendations they have made following their visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Treasury officials paid a visit to the severe hardship unit in Glasgow for discussions about the administration of income support payments to young people. Advice from them or from any other official to Ministers would be treated as confidential in the normal way.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General when and by whom the decision was taken to set up a committee to investigate the possibility that the Crown Prosecution Service might be privatised; who are the members of that committee and what other positions they hold; how many times the committee has met; what provisional date has been set for privatisation; what plans he has to publish a Green Paper and to consult publicly on the proposed privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I announced on 6 December 1993,Official Report, column 59, that consideration would be given to whether the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Treasury Solicitor's Department should become executive agencies under the "next steps" initiative. I further announced on 27 April 1994, Official Report, column 234, that prior options studies were being undertaken, to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. The Government's first report on the citizens charter, published in 1992, announced that privatisation is one of the options considered before an agency is set up. Other options include contractorisation and market testing.

  The prior options and agency studies for CPS and SFO are being overseen by an interdepartmental steering group which comprises officials from my own Department, CPS, SFO, the Lawyers Management Unit, Home Office, Lord Chancellors Department, Treasury and Office of Public Service and Science. The steering group has so far met on two occasions and is charged with reporting to me by late autumn this year. No decisions have yet been made nor will they be made until the process is completed. In my announcement on 27 April I invited contributions from interested parties. These continue to be welcome and should be sent to:

  Mr. S. Guy

  Crown Prosecution Service,

  50 Ludgate Hill,

  London EC4M 7EX

  Ms J. Rowe

  Serious Fraud Office,

  Elm House,

  10–16 Elm Street,

  London, WC1X OBJ

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) to what extent problems in the Child Support Agency computer system and the EDS application have contributed to the backlog in the agency's work;

  (2) to what extent the Child Support Agency office staff of clerical grade are finding difficulty in accessing, using and reacting to their computer system; and what assessment has been made of the effects of, and remedies for, the difficulties experienced by Child Support Agency staff;

  (3) to what extent the Child Support Agency has been hampered in its national operation by (a) downtime of the Child Support Agency computer system central IBM mainframe computer and data links and (b) the overrun of night-time batch processing into office hours;
  338
  (4) how many incorrect assessments, mis-identifying of absent fathers and other maladministration have been made due to mistakes involving the Child Support Agency computer system;

  (5) what proportion of those cases taken on by the Child Support Agency are being dealt with clerically without the aid of the Child Support Agency computer system; and how many of the assessments made by the agency have been made clerically;

  (6) to what extent the Child Support Agency has been hampered in the regional centres by non-availability of the centre's own server computers.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 8 July 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the Child Support Agency computer system.
  As with any large, new system, areas where improvements can be made have been identified. There is a continuous programme of improvements to the system including a planned quarterly enhancement to increase functionality. All relevant staff have been trained to use the system, and are generally doing so competently. Advice and support are available in the event of difficulty.
  You asked how many incorrect assessments had been made due to mistakes involving the computer system. Wrong assessments can occur because clients of the Agency provide incorrect information or because Agency staff make mistakes. Whilst this can cause incorrect data entry, the computer system is not known, with one exception, to have caused an incorrect assessment or misidentification of an absent parent. The exception occurred recently when, due to a programming fault, errors occurred on 789 assessments. These were identified within two days and remedial action is being taken.
  You were concerned about the effect of computer system downtime on Agency operations. Although non-availability of the system can have a disruptive effect, this cannot be measured precisely because the staff also perform non-system tasks which can be pursued during the course of any loss of service.
  You also asked what proportion of cases are being dealt with clerically; and how many of the assessments made by the Agency have been made clerically. Figures available for the year 1993–94 show that a total of 205,400 assessments were made by the Agency, of which 8,100 were assessed clerically.
  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many maintenance assessments have been wrongly calculated by the Child Support Agency since its establishment.

  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 Mr. Greville Janner, dated 7 July 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about maintenance assessments which have been wrongly calculated.
  The Agency routinely monitors maintenance assessments to ensure that they are accurate with regard to law, process, procedure and money to be paid. A composite accuracy rate is not available as such, but stringent procedures are in place to minimise the risk of inaccurate assessments.
  Additionally, adjudication decisions and appeals in Agency centres are regularly examined by the Central Adjudication Services, an independent body who annually provide the Secretary of State with a report on the adjudication standard of the Agency.
  339
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what average amount of money received from absent parents the Child Support Agency holds at any time pending the forwarding of those payments to parents with care of children;

  (2) how much interest the Child Support Agency has received to date from moneys received from absent parents prior to their payment over to parents with care of children.

  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 John T. Hughes to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 8 July 1994.
  In her absence the Chief Executive, Mrs. Hepplewhite, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about client funds temporarily held by the Agency.
  I can confirm that the Agency does not receive interest from the bank in respect of client funds temporarily held by the Agency. Instead, the Agency's bank charges are abated.
  During April and May this year, the average amount of money received from absent parents and awaiting onward transmission to parents with care at any one time was approximately £620,000. This is based on the average volume of daily receipts, the proportion attributable to parents with care and the clearance times of the different payment methods.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Lesbian Parents
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what maintenance payments are due from fathers of children born to unmarried lesbians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Under the Child Support Act and regulations, a parent with care who claims or receives income support, family credit or disability working allowance is required to give her authority for maintenance to be pursed from the absent parent unless there is a risk of harm or undue distress occurring to her or any child living with her. If benefit is not in payment it is a matter for the parent with care whether she seeks a child support maintenance assessment.

  A man who fathers a child has a responsibility to pay maintenance under child support legislation. This applies whether the mother lives alone or with a new partner. However, where a woman attends a licensed centre for artificial insemination by an anonymous donor the donor cannot be treated as the absent parent.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to lay regulations before Parliament to allow occupational pension schemes to reinstate former employees' protected rights as he announced in his statement to the House on 23 June,Official Report, column 359.

  Mr. Hague
  The Protected Rights (Transfer Payment) Regulations 1987 preclude the transfer of protected rights into an occupational pension scheme where the member is not employed by the contributing employer. Following representations from officials of the Securities and Investments Board and the occupational pensions sector, we have decided to remove this restriction and have today 340
  laid before Parliament appropriate amendment regulations. Reinstatement will remain at the discretion of the schemes' trustees in the light of their schemes' rules. However, the new regulations will enable schemes who wish to do so, to accept the transfer of protected rights even where the individual is no longer employed by the contributing employer.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am advised that there is no knowledge of any such directions being issued in my Department in the last ten years.

WALES

  Disability
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to ensure further education opportunities for young people suffering from muscular dystrophy; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Further Education Funding Council for Wales is responsible for ensuring adequate arrangements are in place to meet the needs of all students with learning difficulties or disabilities.

  The Council has built into its recurrent funding methodology a significant element to recognise the discrete costs of provision for students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities and to enable such students to access and integrate successfully in mainstream courses.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that full planning permission is required from county councils in order to construct any building, plant or machinery.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally. I am looking at how difficult it would be to obtain it and at what cost.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce approval of and the names of the chairmen and board membership of those trusts intended to commence their existence on 1 April 1995.
  341
  Mr. Redwood
  Decisions on whether or not to establish further NHS trusts in Wales are expected to be announced in the autumn following statutory public consultation. Announcement of the membership of any further trusts would be made as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those health trusts in Wales which(a) are and (b) are not achieving a 6 per cent. rate of return with respect to the financial year 1993–94 management accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  All but one of the 14 trusts expect to achieve a 6 per cent. rate of return for 1993–94. The rate of return for the South and East Wales ambulance trust may be marginally lower at around 5·7 per cent. The actual outcome will be known following the audit of the annual accounts for each trust.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the trusts in Wales with respect to the 6 per cent. rate of return on capital, with respect to rolling forward interest payments, or adjustment of the(a) 6 per cent. rate of return or (b) the valuation of capital stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have regular discussions with the chairmen of Welsh NHS trusts on a range of issues. Trusts have a duty to achieve their statutory financial targets.

  GP Referral Letters
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities and trusts in relation to the timing of the opening of letters from general practitioners to consultants marked urgent and very urgent for triage by(a) others or (b) the consultants themselves; and what analysis he has made of the impact of setting maximum periods for the opening of general practitioner's referral letters.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not discussed these matters with the chairmen of Welsh health authorities and trusts, nor have I considered assessing the impact of such targets.

DEFENCE

  Dispersal Programme
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate how many jobs in his Department, transferred to Glasgow under the dispersal programme, have subsequently been re-allocated elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  Some 1,400 jobs were transferred to Glasgow on dispersal in 1986. Of these, some 63 jobs in the directorate of contracts have been moved to collocate with the single-service directorates they support at Andover, Brampton and Bath.

  Official Service Residences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) of 1 July,Official Report, column 764, if he will state the latest valuation of the official service residences and the annual running costs of the residences.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is, of course, not feasible to value properties accurately without placing them on the open 342
  market. My Department does, however, assign estimated sale valuations where possible and the latest valuation for official service residences is approximately £34,000,000. This valuation covers 67 of the 77 residences in the United Kingdom and overseas. Not all properties have a valuation assigned to them as some are located within defence establishments and could not be sold separately, whilst others belong to foreign Governments. Annual running costs for individual residences are not held centrally, but the total maintenance and furniture and equipment costs for the last two financial years for all residences is approximately £5,000,000. The annual cost for domestic and household staff for all residences is approximately £5,000,000.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 10 March 1994,Official Report, column 401, and 22 March 1994, Official Report, column 174, which list the occasions when a formal direction has been given, five of which related to the award of a contract. The value of individual contracts is commercial-in-confidence information.

TRANSPORT

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the cost of conducting the public inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road which concluded in 1988;

  (2) what stage the 1988 Birmingham northern relief road inquiry reached; and what happened to the report from that inquiry.

  Mr. Key
  These questions relate to matters which are now the responsibility of the Highways Agency; the chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 7 July 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of conducting the 1988 inquiry into the Birmingham Northern Relief Road, what stage that inquiry reached, and what happened to the Inspector's report.
  The 1988 public inquiry costs have not been isolated from other costs incurred on the public sector scheme. The costs could only be identified by reference to individual accounts and as this would incur a disproportionate amount of staff time and cost to research, I regret I am unable to supply you with the information you request.
  The public inquiry into the publicly funded scheme closed in September 1988 after the Inspector had heard all the evidence. The Inspector's report of the inquiry was submitted to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport at the end of March 1989. As you know, it has not been released and the Orders to which it related have been withdrawn.
  343
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to publish the report of the public inquiry into the Birmingham north relief road in 1988.

  Mr. Key
  None. The draft orders which were the subject of the inquiry have been withdrawn and the report would not be relevant to the scheme now proposed.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, columns 632–34, if he will list each scheme for which an environmental impact assessment has been started.

  Mr. Key
  This question relates to the operational matters of the Highway Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 29 June 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary question about environmental assessments.
  An environmental assessment is carried out for each scheme in the national roads programme and an Environmental Statement is published for those schemes which are likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
  The environmental assessment commences at a very early stage in the development of a scheme. The Trunk Road in England 1994 Review identifies the schemes in the national road programme together with their priority.

  London Underground (Fires)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 478–80, what changes have been made in the method used to calculate confirmed fire incidents on London Underground in any of the years since 1990; and when these changes were applied.

  Mr. Norris
  The method of calculation has not been changed since 1990.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, columns 478–80, why no figures are available for confirmed fire incidents on London Underground before 1990.

  Mr. Norris
  Only figures from 1990 onwards are readily accessible from London Underground's database. Since 1988, Her Majesty's railway inspectorate has published some data on fires in its annual reports on railway safety, which are held in the House Libraries, but this is not in a format directly comparable with that already provided, and does not separately identify escalator fires.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with London Underground concerning fire safety precautions on London Underground rolling stock, how often checks are made on the fire safety of London Underground rolling stock; and if he will publish the content of those discussions.

  Mr. Norris
  I have regular meetings with London Underground to discuss a variety of issues, including 344
  safety. It is not our practice to disclose the content of such discussions, which are confidential to the participants. All London Underground trains are subject to routine maintenance procedures of which safety checks and inspections form an integral part. These include visual inspections of all fire extinguishers, emergency lighting, emergency exits and tests of train safety systems, such as passenger alarms, after every 24 hours of service. Further, more comprehensive, checks are made over longer periods.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, columns 478–80, regarding fires on the London Underground; if he will provide equivalent figures for British Rail, Network SouthEast to 30 March 1994.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. During the eight years of Network SouthEast's existence, accidents were reported, until about mid 1993, under BR regional headings, making direct retrieval of NSE data impracticable.

  National figures are available in the HM railway inspectorate's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, columns 478–80, how many of the confirmed fire incidents, for each of the years for which figures are available, involved rolling stock that was in use; whether any passengers were using the rolling stock during any of those incidents; and how many passengers were involved in each confirmed fire incident on London Underground rolling stock.

  Mr. Norris
  Summary information on the total numbers of rolling stock fires and of passenger injuries on London Underground is published in the annual reports of Her Majesty's railways inspectorate on railway safety, which are held in the House Libraries. However, London Underground has advised that the further information requested is not readily available.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 478–80, how many passengers were injured in fires on London Underground, in all categories; and how many staff were injured on London Underground in each of the years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  Summary information on passenger and staff injuries is published in the annual reports of Her Majesty's railways inspectorate, which are held in the House Libraries. However, London Underground has advised that a breakdown of the causes of such injuries to the level of detail requested is not readily available.

  London Underground (Passenger Satisfaction)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to London Underground of the passengers charter in each of the last three years; and what discussions he has held with London Underground about them.

  Mr. Norris
  Production and distribution of the customer charter cost London Underground £114,000 in 1992, £248,000 in 1993, and £130,000 in 1994, I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with London Underground.
  345
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish London Underground's customer satisfaction figures for 1993–94, indicating which targets were, and which were not, met; and when he last met London Underground to discuss the figures.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground met all its customer satisfaction targets for 1993–4, and the figures are set out in the following table. I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with London Underground.

  London Underground Limited: 1993–94 Customer satisfaction statistics

  Targets set for 1993–94

  Overall performance for year 1993–94

  Cleanliness of trains

  81

  85

  Cleanliness of stations

  89

  90

  Staff helpfulness and availability

  86

  88

  Information on trains

  86

  93

  Information on stations

  81

  83

  Ticket purchasing

  92

  92

  Source: London Underground Limited.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he had with London Underground about the passengers charter, published on 28 June; what consideration was given to including references to fire or accident safety on the London Underground; and what plans there are to include references to these matters in the charter.

  Mr. Norris
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with London Underground. Its 1994 charter includes a new target for customer satisfaction with safety and security.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London Underground about lowering ticket prices to encourage tourism and inward investment in the capital.

  Mr. Norris
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with London Underground. However I am not aware of any proposals by London Underground to reduce its ticket prices.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London Underground regarding the installation of help points at all London Underground stations; and by what year such installations will be complete.

  Mr. Norris
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with London Underground. The programme for installation of help points at underground stations is a matter for it, but I understand that no date has been set for all stations to be so equipped.

  Motor Vehicle Pollutants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the statutory controls currently applied to vehicle exhaust emissions;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the level of pollutants resulting from motor vehicle exhaust emissions;

  (3) what consultations his Department has undertaken concerning the level of pollutants resulting from motor vehicle exhaust emissions;
  346
  (4) what consultations he has undertaken with other European Union states concerning the level of pollutants resulting from motor vehicle emissions;

  (5) what plans he has to strengthen the controls currently applied to vehicle exhaust emissions.

  Mr. Key
  Regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1988 control the construction and "type approval" of new vehicles and the use of vehicles as regards exhaust emissions. These are largely derived directly from obligations under EC directives. Enforcement of in-use requirements through the MOT and roadworthiness test is effected under vehicle testing regulations made under the 1988 Act. A convenient summary of emission requirements to be met by new vehicles entering into service can be found in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (SI No. 1993 No. 2199).

  The Department receives regular representations from Members and from the public at large on the effects of vehicle pollutants on the environment and health. The Department is also liaising closely with the Departments of Health and Environment on studies which they have commissioned on these matters.

  The Department is actively involved with other member states and the European Commission in developing a range of measures at EC level to further reduce vehicle pollutants. Existing controls on emissions will be tightened in 1996 for all vehicles in use. Also in 1996, new heavy diesel powered vehicles will be required to meet more stringent emission standards, as will new cars and vans in 1997 under EC directives already agreed.

  The Department has also taken a leading role in the EU with a number of initiatives aimed at further improvements in vehicle emissions. These include improved in-service measures to reduce diesel smoke and particulate emissions; the adoption of "on-vehicle" emission diagnostic systems to promote rapid repairs and permit effective roadside enforcement and during the annual test; and new test procedures for new vehicle approvals, to be combined with reduced emission limits, to more adequately reflect actual on-road behaviour and to take maximim advantage of emerging vehicle technology.

  These measures form an integral part of a series being considered by the European Commission that will be applied to all classes of vehicle by the year 2000. In the light of the DoH and DOE sponsored studies currently underway, the Department will also be encouraging the Commission to propose emission standards in line with the advice given. Nevertheless, as a result of measures already in place, we are already set to see a marked and progressive decline in pollutants from motor vehicles that will extend well into the next decade.

  Metro Systems
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with other European Transport Ministers regarding the provision of safe and effective metro systems.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend regularly discusses a wide range of issues with European colleagues.

  Coventry Eastern Bypass
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for the maintenance of the verges of the Coventry eastern bypass.

  Mr. Key
  The Highways Agency is responsible for the general maintenance of the verges of the Coventry eastern bypass. This is carried out by Warwickshire county council as maintenance agent for the agency. Litter clearance is the responsibility of Rugby district council and Coventry city council.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of the DSA's service in the national network of driving test centres.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive Dr. S. J. Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from S. J. Ford to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 7 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive to reply to the questions you asked about the role of DSA's service in the national network of driving test centres.
  The primary aim of the Driving Standards Agency is to promote road safety by testing drivers and driving instructors fairly and efficiently. In pursuing this aim the Agency is expected to improve the efficiency and effectiveness with which it carries out the statutory functions of the Secretary of State for Transport in connection with driver testing. Driving tests are delivered through a network of driving test centres in Great Britain. The Agency aims to furnish a high quality of service to its customers. Ministers have confirmed that the preservation of the national network of centres is an important part of DSA's service, although a balance has to be struck between the cost of maintaining this network and the fees charged for tests.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory requirements or guidance exists regarding speed and distance limitations for reversing heavy goods vehicles involved in road maintenance or repair work.

  Mr. Key
  There are no statutory requirements governing the speed or distance of reversing vehicles. However, the highway code says that drivers should reverse with care, and if they cannot see clearly, they should get someone to guide them. This is particularly relevant for large vehicles.

  On road maintenance and repair work, as on other contract work, contractors are bound by health and safety legislation to assess the risk to staff and others of the work activities and to produce safe working procedures to minimise any risk. In certain circumstances, limitations may be placed under the contract on the distance which vehicles are allowed to reverse for operational reasons; and it is normal to have a maximum speed limit through the site.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to require heavy goods vehicles to be fitted with reversing alarms, reversing lights or be accompanied by a pedestrian look-out when reversing.
  348
  Mr. Key
  Reversing alarms may be fitted as an aid to safety on heavy goods vehicles over 2 tonnes gross weight and to other categories of vehicles where the driver's vision might be obscured by the size or shape of the vehicle. Reversing lamps are permitted on all vehicles.

  The prime responsibility for ensuring that reversing is carried out safely rests with the driver. The clear advice given in the highway code should be followed: drivers should reverse with care, and if they cannot see clearly, they should get someone to guide them.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he now envisages the crossrail project being taken forward; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In view of the fact that the private Bill originally promoted by London Underground and British Rail cannot now be progressed, I have agreed with the promoters that they should instead seek powers for the project under the Transport and Works Act 1992. They will start work on this at once. It remains the Government's policy that the project should be financed as a joint venture, with a substantial private sector contribution.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the figures for carbon dioxide emissions resulting from transport in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990; and what is(a) the estimate and (b) the Government target for 2000.

  Mr. Key
  The figures for carbon dioxide emissions resulting from transport are:

  Year

  Emission/MtC1

  1990

  33

  1991

  33

  1992

  33

  1993

  2—

  1Data from "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics (DoE 1994)

  Million tonnes of Carbon emitted by source.

  2No data as yet available.

  "Climate Change—The UK Programme" published in January 1994 sets out how the Government intend to fulfil their Rio commitments and return emissions to their 1990 levels by 2000. Measures were identified in the programme to reduce projected emissions in 2000 by 10MtC to meet this aim. In the transport sector emissions in 2000 were forecast to be 36·5 MtC; annual increases in fuel duty of at least 5 per cent. above inflation are expected to reduce this level by about 2·5 MtC.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Rail Disputes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he has had with the chairman of Railtrack and the Health and Safety Commission concerning the instituting of an independent testing procedure for non-signalmen or taking control of panel boxes during periods of industrial dispute.

  Mr. Freeman
  The duty to ensure the competence of employees to carry out safety critical work rests with the employer, under the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994.

  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has carried out checks to ensure that Railtrack, as the employer of signalmen, allows only competent persons to take charge of panel boxes during periods of industrial dispute. The railway inspectorate will continue to carry out checks, as necessary.

  Road Surfaces
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of the comparative costs of road resurfacing as between conventional asphalt surfaces and porous asphalt; what plans he has for a further use of porous asphalt in order to reduce road noise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: This question concerning road surfacings is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Howell, dated 7 July 1994
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in response to your question relating to comparative cost of porous asphalt and its use.
  The Highways Agency monitors the cost of porous asphalt on contracts. These studies indicate that, for heavily trafficked trunk roads, the comparative cost of porous asphalt can be between 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. more expensive than conventional asphalt surfaces. This relates to the cost of the material itself. There are additional costs for increased road thickness to compensate for the lower strength of porous asphalt surfacing and for provision of appropriate drainage. While there are also indications that additional winter maintenance will be needed figures are not yet available for this.
  The criteria for using porous asphalt were presented by the Minister to the House in the adjournment debate on 15 May 1992 and permit use where conditions are suitable and it is cost effective. They are set down more fully in Press Notice No. 204 issued on the 28 July 1992 a copy of which I attach. Porous asphalt surfacing is being considered for use on schemes within the criteria laid down.

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of Department of Environment typists used by the Highways Agency; and what is the total cost per year of this.

  Mr. Key
  As this is a matter for the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Lady direct.
  350
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 7 July 1994.
  The London offices of the Highways Agency make no use of DOE typists, and neither do the Agency's Regional Offices in Bedford, Birmingham, Bristol and Nottingham. The situation in Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle differs as follows:
  Manchester; the Agency meets the cost of 6 DOE typists for which we expect to pay £81,318 in 1994/95.
  Leeds; the Agency meets the cost of 3 typists plus half the costs of a typing manager which, for 1994/95 will be £55,731, and £11,773, respectively.
  Newcastle; the Agency has use of a DOE typing pool under a service agreement. The cost of this service for 1994/95, based on accepted usage patterns, will be £87,594.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish tables showing the current loan debt of each Scottish local authority in respect of their(a) general services capital programmes, (b) housing accounts and (c) other accounts, including those to which specific grant is paid; if in the case of (a) he will express this in terms of (i) total debt, (ii) annual repayment charges and (iii) annual cost to each eligible council tax payer; if in the case of (b) he will express this in terms of (i) total debt, (ii) annual repayment charges and (iii) annual burden on each tenant of that authority; if in the case of (c) he will specify the name of the account or programme and express the current fiscal situation in terms of (i) total debt, (ii) annual repayment charges and (iii) annual burden on each relevant individual; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The tables give the latest available information separately for general fund services—excluding domestic sewerage—housing revenue account, water and sewerage services. Footnotes to the tables explain the source and derivation of the figures shown. Loan charges on general fund services are taken into account in the distribution of aggregate external finance to individual local authorities and the level of each authority's debt on these services has little or no effect on the level of council tax.

  General Fund

  Capital debt1 outstanding at 31 March 1993 (excluding domestic sewarage) (£000)

  Loan charges2 1993–94 (excluding domestic sewerage) (£000)

  Scotland

  4,301,088

  652,406

  Borders

  77,820

  11,781

  Central

  127,988

  19,262

  Dumfries and Galloway

  93,410

  13,489

  Fife

  187,636

  27,392

  Grampian

  304,285

  45,652

  Highland

  181,661

  27,276

  Lothian

  423,144

  65,043

  Strathclyde

  1,268,029

  193,542

  Tayside

  177,980

  29,514

  Orkney

  0

  6,565

  Shetland

  0

  7,350

  Western Isles

  86,210

  14,061

  351

  Capital debt1 outstanding at 31 March 1993 (excluding domestic sewarage) (£000)

  Loan charges2 1993–94 (excluding domestic sewerage) (£000)

  Berwickshire

  3,631

  716

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  6,392

  917

  Roxburgh

  8,873

  1,186

  Tweeddale

  2,644

  444

  Clackmannan

  8,564

  1,166

  Falkirk

  23,595

  3,583

  Stirling

  23,644

  3,429

  Annandale and Eskdale

  4,256

  749

  Nithsdale

  10,516

  1,376

  Stewartry

  2,190

  354

  Wigtown

  5,149

  832

  Dunfermline

  11,200

  1,584

  Kirkcaldy

  16,021

  2,160

  North East Fife

  12,830

  1,772

  Aberdeen City

  62,914

  9,431

  Banff and Buchan

  8,443

  1,129

  Gordon

  9,788

  1,512

  Kincardine and Deeside

  6,894

  962

  Moray

  10,871

  1,736

  Badenoch andd Strathspey

  1,481

  184

  Caithness

  5,068

  786

  Inverness

  7,652

  1,173

  Lochaber

  6,425

  1,086

  Nairn

  1,703

  283

  Ross and Cromarty

  17,509

  3,024

  Skye and Lochalsh

  5,448

  864

  Sutherland

  3,864

  675

  East Lothian

  15,749

  2,706

  Edinburgh City

  237,430

  31,502

  Midlothian

  11,572

  1,830

  West Lothian

  22,021

  2,920

  Argyll and Bute

  34,917

  5,171

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  6,522

  1,065

  Clydebank

  25,500

  3,307

  Clydesdale

  8,614

  1,473

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  8,390

  1,191

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  8,426

  1,393

  Cunninghame

  29,948

  4,676

  Dumbarton

  13,759

  2,650

  East Kilbride

  6,622

  1,215

  Eastwood

  4,894

  656

  Glasgow City

  363,156

  42,632

  Hamilton

  25,864

  3,465

  Inverclyde

  38,278

  4,992

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  13,683

  2,031

  Kyle and Carrick

  18,081

  3,070

  Monklands

  34,801

  5,639

  Motherwell

  37,832

  5,779

  Renfrew

  35,247

  5,490

  Strathkelvin

  18,124

  1,842

  Angus

  7,778

  1,391

  Dundee City

  38,489

  7,452

  Perth and Kinross

  19,664

  2,828

  Sources: 1Capital debt outstanding returns (CDO 93)

  2Provisional outturns 1993–94.
  352

  Housing

  1Capital debt 31 April 1994 £ thousands

  1Loan charges 1994–95 £ thousands

  Rent burden per house 2per annum £

  SCOTLAND

  3,867,414

  503,170

  775·40

  Orkney Islands

  7,314

  912

  793·04

  Shetland Islands

  56,197

  5,535

  2,222·16

  Western Isles

  44,898

  6,426

  2,951·91

  Berwickshire

  9,795

  1,416

  667·92

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  15,898

  1,993

  571·22

  Roxburgh

  46,037

  4,755

  1,045·28

  Tweeddale

  5,139

  597

  497·79

  Clackmannan

  29,356

  4,448

  626·48

  Falkirk

  102,506

  15,091

  620·8

  Stirling

  49,912

  7,281

  774·62

  Annandale and Eskdale

  34,798

  5,114

  1,247·25

  Nithsdale

  37,304

  4,858

  789·95

  Stewartry

  15,746

  1,905

  943·44

  Wigtown

  23,774

  3,358

  936·66

  Dunfermline

  57,196

  8,576

  549·96

  Kirkcaldy

  80,951

  10,900

  577·84

  North East Fife

  26,546

  3,067

  573·27

  Aberdeen

  160,129

  19,902

  625·85

  Banff and Buchan

  54,850

  6,333

  655·18

  Gordon

  67,240

  9,004

  1,797·2

  Kincardine and Deeside

  37,691

  4,722

  1,421·82

  Moray

  52,058

  5,649

  670·19

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  9,411

  1,117

  1,210·40

  Caithness

  28,204

  4,504

  1,280·55

  Inverness

  48,981

  6,047

  1,017·67

  Lochaber

  34,762

  4,421

  1921·26

  Nairn

  9,370

  1,164

  1,177·14

  Ross and Cromarty

  60,880

  9,192

  1,719·35

  Skye and Lochalsh

  16,348

  2,143

  2,736·83

  Sutherland

  18,906

  2,534

  1,593·71

  East Lothian

  47,492

  6,649

  583·91

  Edinburgh

  258,192

  32,466

  914·46

  Midlothian

  22,226

  3,505

  395·64

  West Lothian

  61,178

  8,566

  522·32

  Argyll and Bute

  49,535

  6,995

  1,089·51

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  9,214

  1,384

  994·72

  Clydebank

  38,834

  5,701

  708·16

  Clydesdale

  21,675

  3,480

  447·75

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  15,307

  1,981

  616·37

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  27,267

  4,152

  514·44

  Cunninghame

  72,379

  9,329

  524·10

  Dumbarton

  50,102

  6,082

  647·63

  East Kilbride

  4,863

  603

  681·42

  Eastwood

  7,009

  885

  540·62

  Glasgow

  1,065,488

  133,328

  1,075·83

  Hamilton

  72,532

  9,988

  605·33

  Inverclyde

  93,900

  9,594

  643·20

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  52,142

  5,624

  420·41

  Kyle and Carrick

  61,700

  7,844

  618·86

  Monklands

  98,762

  14,712

  674·24

  Motherwell

  112,308

  18,033

  583·66

  Renfrew

  133,959

  15,501

  555·69

  Strathkelvin

  45,144

  5,250

  682·08

  Angus

  37,045

  4,949

  444·78

  Dundee

  117,143

  18,373

  688·28

  Perth and Kinross

  49,822

  5,232

  461·19

  Sources:

  1Housing revenue account 1994–95.

  2Loan charges divided by estimated housing stock 1994–95.
  353

  Water

  Sewerage4

  Capital debt1 outstanding at 31 March 1993 (£000)

  loan charges2 1992–93 (£000)

  Burden community water chargepayer per annum3 £

  Capital debt1outstanding at 31 March 1993 (£000)

  loan charges5 1992–93 (£000)

  Burden community chargepayer per annum6 £

  Scotland

  588,010

  78,879

  10·64

  669,979

  93,031

  11·65

  Borders

  12,531

  1,691

  11·35

  10,716

  1,925

  14·14

  Central

  28,002

  3,944

  5·51

  35,376

  5,186

  10·92

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23,326

  2,985

  12·36

  17,821

  2,388

  12·07

  Fife

  41,964

  5,443

  9·15

  42,292

  5,796

  10·06

  Grampian

  94,753

  11,935

  17·93

  83,112

  11,682

  12·15

  Highland

  24,339

  3,500

  12·03

  32,326

  4,455

  13·69

  Lothian

  111,440

  13,983

  11·89

  117,778

  15,433

  14·10

  Strathclyde

  203,134

  27,769

  8·09

  262,425

  36.001

  9·37

  Tayside

  39,784

  6,608

  11·33

  61,616

  9,196

  14·36

  Orkney

  2,763

  223

  6·37

  1,165

  75

  1·99

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  5,974

  798

  23·57

  5,352

  894

  25·77

  Sources:

  1Capital debt outstanding returns (CDO 93)

  2LFR 21 (water) returns 1992–93.

  3Domestic element of expenditure on loan charges divided by water chargepayers.

  4Includes domestic sewerage.

  5LFR 19 (sewerage) returns 1992–93.

  6Domestic element of expenditure on loan charges; divided by community chargepayers.

  Cancer
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure that nationally agreed protocols on cancer treatment are being followed by all doctors.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is expected that national audit projects currently being undertaken on cancer treatment will result in the production of additional clinical guidelines. These will be disseminated to clinicians to be translated into local protocols. Compliance with guidelines is promoted in postgraduate education and is monitored through clinical audit, through the purchaser/provider contracting process and through national outcome studies.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many specialist cancer units exist in Scotland; and what plans there are to increase the number.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are five specialist cancer centres in Scotland at present and there are no plans to increase this number.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cancer specialists of all kinds there are in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  At 30 September 1993 there were 11 consultants in medical oncology and 31 in radiotherapy working in the national health service in Scotland. The diagnosis of cancer and the treatment of cancer patients are also provided by consultants in palliative medicine and in many other medical and surgical specialties.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultants in medical oncology there are in Scotland; and how many are paid for by the national health service.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 July 1994]: There were 11 consultants in medical oncology in Scotland at 30 September 1993, the latest date for which information
  354
  is available centrally, of whom seven are in clinical academic posts. Four of the 11 have their salaries paid by the national health service.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the cancer survival rate figures collected by the Scottish cancer intelligence unit.

  Mr. Stewart
  In April 1993 the Scottish Office published a volume on cancer survival rates in Scotland. This publicatioin examined trends in cancer survival over time in Scotland for a range of cancer sites. The Scottish cancer intelligence unit is currently undertaking a further study into cancer survival in Scotland. Once this study is complete the results will be publicly available.

  In addition, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer has set up a working group to examine regional variations in cancer survival within Europe. Scotland has a strong representation on this group and a preliminary report is expected by the summer of 1995.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cancer operations were carried out in Scotland last year by(a) the 10 per cent. of surgeons who performed the highest number of such operations and (b) the 10 per cent. of surgeons who carried out the lowest number.

  Mr. Stewart
  In Scotland in 1993, 24,084 principal operations were carried out by the 10 per cent. of consultants performing the highest number of principal operations on patients with a preliminary diagnosis of malignant neoplasm. This accounts for 20 per cent. of the total surgical workload of these particular consultants.

  In the same year 107 principal operations were carried out by the 10 per cent. of consultants performing the lowest number of principal operations on patients with a primary diagnosis of malignant neoplasm.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many surgeons in Scotland carried out cancer operations last year.
  355
  Mr. Stewart
  In 1993, 1,068 consultants performed principal operations on patients with a primary diagnosis of malignant neoplasm in NHS hospitals in Scotland.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cancer operations were carried out in Scotland last year.

  Mr. Stewart
  In 1993 there were 45,661 principal operations performed in NHS hospitals in Scotland for patients with a primary diagnosis of malignant neoplasm.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of cancer patients last year was referred initially to a consultant oncologist.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the availability of chemotherapy for cancer patients.

  Mr. Stewart
  The clinical resource and audit group and the Scottish health management efficiency group set up a joint working group to examine the management of non-surgical cancer services in Scotland. The working group reported in April 1992 and its recommendations were commended to health boards. I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Scottish Cancer Co-ordinating and Advisory Committee which was established as a result of the working group's report is setting up focus groups on the commonest cancers with the intention of providing advice on good practice including chemotherapy.

  In addition the report "Quality Control in Cancer Chemotherapy" produced jointly by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Radiologists was circulated to all clinical oncologists, all medical oncologists and to the chief executives of NHS trusts.

  Birds (Protection)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider extending the acceptance of the evidence of one witness in criminal courts granted by section 36 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 to offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 beyond those involving egg collection; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Corroboration of evidence is an important safeguard in our system of justice and there are no plans to consider extending the acceptance of the evidence of one witness in criminal courts to other offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Ministry of Defence Clothing Organisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to attract the Ministry of Defence Clothing Organisation to Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Office officials are in regular contact with the Ministry of Defence on a wide range of issues.

  Prison Suicide
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) suicides and (b) attempted suicides have taken place in custody, including police stations, in Scotland in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of suicides in custody over the past 10 years is set out in the table. There are difficulties with the definition of attempted suicide and in any case such data are not collected centrally.

  Police custody

  Penal custody

  Total

  1984

  0

  5

  5

  1985

  1

  6

  7

  1986

  2

  7

  9

  1987

  1

  7

  8

  1988

  0

  7

  7

  1989

  2

  6

  8

  1990

  0

  3

  3

  1991

  0

  4

  4

  1992

  4

  9

  13

  1993

  1

  5

  6

  Timber
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government are taking to promote timber from sustainably managed forests.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In January 1994 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland launched the United Kingdom sustainable forestry programme, a comprehensive statement of the Government's policies for the sustainable management of the United Kingdom's forests and for helping other countries in the sustainable management of theirs.

  The Government have every confidence in the standards that are applied to the production of timber from British forests. Through its approval of plans of operations, the Forestry Commission is able to ensure that timber is grown and harvested in accordance with guidelines that are founded on the principle of sustainable forestry; The Commission, with the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, has published today a booklet describing the means we use to ensure that the felling and regeneration of woodland and the creation of new woodland is done with proper regard to the environment. The booklet will serve to assure buyers of products made from British timber that they can do so in the knowledge that our forests are managed responsibily. I have arranged for copies of the booklet to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Internationally, the Government will participate fully in efforts to promote sustainable forest management as we indicated in the United Kingdom sustainable forestry programme. Later this month the Government are hosting jointly with India an international workshop to help prepare for the 1995 meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development at which forestry will be a key theme. The main objective of the workshop is to develop possible formats for national reporting to the CSD on forestry issues to allow progress to be assessed on the implementation of the forest principles adopted at the UN conference on environment and development—UNCED—and the forestry aspects of agenda 21 and other UNCED agreements.
  357
  The Government are also taking forward the action points that were agreed last year at the European Forestry Ministers conference in Helsinki at which I represented the United Kingdom. One of the main aims of the follow-up is to develop standards for sustainable forestry which might form the basis for promoting international agreement.

  Seal Shooting
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a specific guideline has been given in the guidelines issued by his Department to chief constables relating to the issuing of firearms certificates with regard to permission to shoot seals in the vicinity of creels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: No specific guideline relating to the shooting of seals has been given to chief constables in guidance provided on the issuing of firearm certificates. The issuing of firearm certificates and any restrictive conditions imposed on them are operational matters for each chief constable.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Scotland what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The title pages of all news releases from the Scottish Office are of recycled paper. Percentages of recycled paper depend on the length of releases, which vary from day to day.

  No written answers to parliamentary questions are printed on recycled paper. The paper used, however, is from renewable timber produced on a full sustained basis and is bleached without the use of chlorine gas.

  The ministerial and official headed paper used by my Department is made from recycled paper.

  Health Visitors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the proportion of health visitors to children in each health board area in September 1992.

  Financial year

  Number of offers made

  Value £ thousands

  Number of offers accepted

  Actualrs expenditure incurred £ thousands

  Scotland

  1991–92

  69

  1,578

  51

  1,210

  1992–93

  103

  2,401

  95

  1,452

  1993–94

  87

  1,969

  72

  1,714

  Fife

  1991–92

  13

  285

  11

  50

  1992–93

  9

  223

  7

  191

  1993–94

  9

  223

  8

  121

  The European Commission and other Government Departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence are also actively involved in assisting projects which fall within their particular spheres of responsibility.
  358
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Health Visitors1 2 per 1000 children aged under 5: (Whole time equivalent as at 30 September 19923)

  Numbers

  Scotland

  4·3

  Argyll and Clyde

  4·2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3·6

  Borders

  3·8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3·1

  Fife

  5·0

  Forth Valley

  5·0

  Grampian

  4·6

  Greater Glasgow

  4·4

  Highland

  3·4

  Lanarkshire

  4·2

  Lothian

  4·5

  Orkney

  3·

  Shetland

  4·1

  Tayside

  4·5

  Western Isles

  4·2

  1Excludes combined duty nurses and health visitors in training. Includes field work teachers.

  2Grades G to I. These staff are assumed to be qualified health visitors.

  3Population figures used in the above calculations are based on estimates for 30 June 1992.

  Research and Technology Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number and value of Government and EC grants for research and technology offered to companies in Fife and Scotland for each year since 1991; and what was the actual take-up of grants by companies in(a) Fife and (b) Scotland in each of these years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: The innovation element of the regional enterprise grants scheme is the only company-related research and technology assistance for which my right hon. Friend has responsibility. The information relating to this scheme is as follows:

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to publish the reports on cross-border co-operation on public transport and other matters referred to in his statement of 17 June.
  359
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers were prepared to inform discussion at the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference held on 17 June rather than for publication. Details of discussions between Governments are confidential and I shall not be publishing the reports.

  Ballynahone Bog
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will designate Ballynahone bog as an area of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Planning permission for the extraction of peat Ballynahone bog was granted in 1988 on the recommendation of the Planning Appeals Commission following a local public inquiry.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is reviewing the conservation status of certain habitats which come within the ambit of the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. These include lowland raised bogs of which Ballynahone bog is an example.

  Hualon Corporation (Textiles)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he now has to review the decision to provide inward investment aid to encourage the Hualon Corporation to develop new textile facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Hualon project has been the subject of a detailed appraisal and scrutiny process not only by Her Majesty's Government but by the European Commission. I have no plans to review our decision to offer assistance in respect of the project.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the proposals to provide inward investment aid to encourage the Hualon Corporation to develop new textile facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I and my ministerial colleagues have received four recent representations concerning the Hualon project, including two from the textile industry.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations his Department had with trade associations and individual companies in the textile and clothing sector prior to the decision to provide inward investment aid to encourage the Hualon Corporation to develop new textile facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Department responsible did not consult with either any individual company or trade association before reaching its decision. It did, however, seek the advice of leading independent internationally recognised consultants in the textile and clothing sector.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he gave to the implications for existing textile producers prior to taking the decision to provide inward investment aid to encourage the Hualon Corporation to develop new textile facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
  360
  Mr. Tim Smith
  In deciding to offer selective financial assistance to this, or any other project, the Industrial Development Board is required to consider potential job displacement not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain. In this case the conclusion was that Hualon's products would compete principally with imported fabrics and therefore not cause any significant job displacement. This was also the conclusion of the European Commission which examined the project from a European perspective.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he gave to the recent conviction in Taiwan of senior officials of the company prior to deciding to provide inward investment aid to encourage the Hualon Corporation to develop new textile facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I have been fully aware for some time of the allegations against certain shareholders in Hualon Corporation in Taiwan but concluded that the allegations against certain individuals, which are currently unproven should not preclude IDB from offering assistance to a publicly quoted corporation with a long and successful commercial track record.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Bangladesh about the sentencing of a 13-year-old Brahmbanbaria girl for illicit sex; and what further steps he will take to persuade the Bangladesh Government that the sentence should not be carried out.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are aware of this case. We understand that the police are taking measures to prevent the sentence being carried out.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the major human rights issues that he takes up with the Government of Bangladesh.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We and our European partners regularly discuss with the Bangladesh authorities a wide range of human rights issues, including the freedom of expression and the treatment of minorities.

  China
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for United Kingdom policy of the granting of most favoured nation status to China.

  Mr. Hurd
  The British and Hong Kong Governments supported the renewal by the United States of most favoured nation status for China. Non-renewal could have severely damaged Hong Kong's economy. The best way to advance rights in China is through a policy of economic engagement, not isolation.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he last raised with the Chinese Government the continuing transfer of Chinese people into Tibet;
  361
  (2) what information he has received on human rights in Tibetan prison camps;

  (3) what recent representations he has made to the Chinese Government to restore the rights and freedoms of Tibetans in Tibet.

  Mr. Hurd
  We continue to receive reports from non-governmental organisations and other sources about human rights abuses in Tibet and threats to Tibetan identity, including population transfer. We and our European Union partners have repeatedly expressed our concern to the Chinese authorities, including at this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. In the Government's response of 1 July to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on relations with China we again publicly expressed our concern on all these matters.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the Chinese Government's adherence to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

  (2) what information he has in respect of reports of torture in detention centres and prisons in China.

  Mr. Hurd
  There continue to be disturbing reports of torture and other abuses in Chinese detention centres and prisons. As is made clear in the Government's response to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on relations with China, we urge the Chinese Government to implement fully their obligations under the convention against torture and the other conventions to which China is signatory.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken to encourage the Chinese Government to review its policy on freedom of religion.

  Mr. Hurd
  We and our European Union partners have repeatedly raised this and other human rights issues. The European Union, for example, expressed its concern in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights about the regulations concerning religious practice which had been promulgated in January.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relationship with China.

  Mr. Hurd
  We wish to develop a wide-ranging relationship with China. The future of Hong Kong is a central issue; as permanent members of the UN Security Council, we are in close touch on international issues; we conduct a dialogue on human rights; and we week actively to increase Britain's economic links with the fast-growing Chinese market.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to ensure that any product exported from China does not come from prison camp labour.

  Mr. Hurd
  The import of prison made goods is banned by the 1897 Foreign Prison Made Goods Act (amended 1988). HM Customs and Excise is responsible for enforcing the Act's provisions, in response to evidence supplied by others.
  362
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Chinese Government to undertake an urgent review of the death penalty.

  Mr. Hurd
  This issue was stressed in the report by Lord Howe's delegation which was published last year. The European Union has urged the Chinese authorities to restrict the use and the arbitrary application of the death penalty.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the number of prisoners held in forced labour camps in China.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have no precise information on the number of prisoners held in so-called "re-education through labour" camps. Estimates range from 1 to 10 million.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on nuclear weapon testing carried out in China.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have made clear that we regret the test carried out by China at its Lop Nor site on 10 June. The Chinese Government have however repeatedly stated their commitment to the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations in Geneva. We welcome their contribution to these negotiations.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees meeting in Geneva on 22 June at which Sri Lankan repatriation programmes were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The meeting focused on the bilateral agreement signed in January between Switzerland and Sri Lanka on the repatriation of rejected asylum seekers. The main purpose was to enable nongovernmental organisations to discuss how they might best monitor the cases of those returning to Sri Lanka under the agreement.

  Palestine
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the setting up of the Palestinian administration in the former occupied territories; and what consequent communications he has made to the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the appointment of members of the Palestinian authority, and the good start made by the Palestinian police. We have told Arafat that we will continue to provide practical support to the new Administration.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to the new Palestinian Administration in Gaza and Jericho.

  Mr. Hurd
  In response to the urgent needs of the Palestinian authority, Her Majesty's Government have
  363
  decided to provide an extra £5 million of bilateral assistance this year. some £3 million will be for immediate running costs, and £2 million for increased technical cooperation. Part of these funds will be for the Palestinian police. This will help meet the urgent requirements in the key area of maintaining law and order.

  The success of the new Palestinian Administration in Gaza and Jericho is critical for the future of the peace process. Provision of start-up costs is an immediate need.

  Her Majesty's Government have previously announced their intention to contribute £70 million of assistance to the Palestinians and the peace process during 1994–95 and 1996–97, through bilateral and multilateral channels. Many programmes are already underway. Their focus is support for the structures of Palestinian Administration: the police, for whom we are already providing training and equipment; the Palestinian Monetary Authority; legal structures and the judiciary; water management and health care. We are also providing assistance for the planned Palestinian elections.

  Antarctic Treaty
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedure for consultation with non-governmental organisations he intends to follow with respect to the preparations for United Kingdom participation in the inter-sessional Antarctic treaty consultative meeting on liability scheduled to take place in The Hague in October.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The German and Dutch Governments have very recently invited us to attend a group of experts meeting on liability from 7 to 9 November.

  We have not yet had an opportunity to consider what consultations may be appropriate before that meeting.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to promote the guidelines for visitors and expedition organisers to the Antarctic, agreed at the 18 Antarctic treaty consultative meeting held in Kyoto, Japan, in April.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The guidelines for visitors and expedition organisers have been published as part of Command Paper 2580 and were sent to the Association of British Travel Agents in May.

  We shall discuss with others, including the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators, how best to promote these guidelines more widely.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate the mechanism by which regional representatives are nominated to the European Committee of the Regions; and if he will also publish the names of representatives currently nominated by United Kingdom region and the term of office they have yet to serve.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Each member state nominates the number of members allocated to it in article 198a of the treaty, and an equal number of alternate members. Members and alternate members are appointed for four years by the Council, acting unanimously on these 364
  nominations. The term of office for United Kingdom members and alternate members runs until 25 January 1998. United Kingdom members and alternate members are as follows:

  Committee of the Regions

    United Kingdom Members of the COR
    England

    Councillor Simon Day

    Lady Elizabeth Anson, DL, JP

    Sir Peter Bowness, CBE, DL

    Councillor Colin Warbrick, CBE

    Councillor Christopher Penn

    Councillor Toby Harris

    Councillor Albert Bore

    Councillor Josie Farrington

    Councillor George Gill

    Councillor Dennis Pettitt

    Councillor Janet Silett

    Councillor Graham Tope

    Councillor David Belottie

    Councillor Roy Cross

    Scotland

    Councillor Charles Gray

    Councillor Rosemary McKenna

    Councillor Brian Meek

    Councillor Duncan McPherson

    Councillor Daniel Coffey, JP

    Wales

    Councillor John Evans

    Lord Lloyd Kenyon (Councillor)

    Councillor Eurig Wyn

    Northern Ireland

    Councillor Reg Empey

    Councillor Dennis Haughey

    United Kingdom Alternate Members of the COR
    England

    Councillor John Morgan, OBE

    Councillor Doreen Fleming, OBE

    Councillor Fraser Mitchell

    Councillor Elgar Jenkins, OBE

    Councillor Paul White

    Councillor John Battye

    Councillor Hedley Salt

    Councillor Kenneth Bodfish

    Councillor Ian Swithinbank

    Councillor Sally Powell

    Councillor Peter Soulsby

    Councillor Peter Cocks, CBE

    Councillor Tony Prior

    Councillor Milner Whiteman

    Scotland

    Councillor Keith Geddes

    Councillor Jean McFadden

    Councillor Marcus Humphrey

    Councillor Peter Peacock

    Councillor Clive Sneddon

    Wales

    Councillor Keith Griffiths

    Councillor Bill Hughes

    Councillor Jill Evans

    Northern Ireland

    Councillor Simpson Gibson

    Alderman Sean Neeson

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.
  365
  Mr. Jack
  From records currently available, I am not aware of any such instances. It is the Department's policy to let contracts on the basis of value for money.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities the Cabinet Office provides for the parking of bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him yesterday at columns 267–68.

HEALTH

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list her Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy and the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department which have a statutory basis.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following is the information:

  Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee;

  British Pharmacopoeia Commission;

  Clinical Standards Advisory Group;

  Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials;

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines;

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation;

  Medicines Commission;

  Standing Dental Advisory Committee;

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee;

  Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee;

  Standing Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee;

  Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are required to consult the Medicines Commission prior to proposals for legislation. They are not required to publish their response to advice from any advisory bodies.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department which are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  Mr. Sackville
  The British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Medicines Commission and the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the advisory bodies she has set up in her Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".
  366
  Mr. Sackville
  The Advisory Committee on the Registration of Homeopathic Products and the Effectiveness Review of Policy on Services for Drug Misusers.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list her Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. Sackville
  The British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, the Joint Planning Advisory Committee, the National Health Service Advisory Service and the Medicines Commission.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements exist to publish the national management letters on the national health service, referred to in paragraph 36 of "Accounting for Independent Audit", published jointly by her and other Departments.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Obstetric Cholestasis
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to fund research into the cause, detection and treatment of obstetric cholestasis and its epidemiology;

  (2) what is the current incidence of obstetric cholestasis;

  (3) if she has sought evidence from abroad as to any link between still births and obstetric cholestasis;

  (4) what the Government are doing to ensure that health professionals know about obstetric cholestasis.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The council is always willing to consider for support soundly based new scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  As to the incidence of obstetric cholestasis, the medical literature suggests that one pregnancy in 1,000 is affected by the condition. Some of the material on this subject has come from abroad, in particular the United States.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 22 June at column 198 for information for health professionals.

  Drug Addiction
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the change in the number of registered child drug addicts; and what plans she has to tackle the problem.

  Mr. Bowis
  Year on year changes in the number of registered drug addicts, and of registered child drug addicts in particular, should be interpreted carefully because, while changes in the figures may indicate that there are more young addicts, they may also indicate more coming forward for treatment or a higher rate of compliance with reporting arrangements.

  The Government will continue to develop prevention and publicity campaigns alerting parents and young people

  367
  to the dangers of drug misuse. Guidance issued by the Department of Health in April, EL(94)11 and subsequent letter, encouraged health authorities to review the needs of drug misusers locally and ensure that the range and choice of treatment services available included provision, where appropriate, for young people. Copies of the guidance and letter are available in the Library.

  Beta-agonists
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has conducted into the health effects of prolonged low-level consumption of(a) clenbuterol and (b) other beta-agonists.

  Mr. Sackville
  Clenbuterol is not a licensed medicinal product in the United Kingdom and the Department has not conducted any research specifically into the health effects of its prolonged low level consumption. A large number of beta-agonists are licensed for the treatment of asthma on the basis of evidence of quality, efficacy and safety assessed by the licensing authority. A working party of the Committee of Safety of Medicines was set up in May 1991 to review information on the safety of beta-agonists in the treatment of patients with asthma. Its findings were published in the bulletin "Current Problems no. 33" in February 1992, a copy of which is available in the Library. This concluded that beta-agonists are of value in the relief of symptoms of asthma and that the overall benefits of treatment with beta-agonists outweigh the risk of any side effects.

  Children
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the progress by January 1994 towards implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of children; and if she will give it a star rating.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is set out in the United Kingdom's first report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which was published in March. Copies are available in the Library.

  Children's Beds, East London
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 534, if she will list the NHS trusts and health authorities responsible for the provision of children's wards and beds in east London; and what arrangements are made for an overall regional perspective beyond the boundary of each unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Two health authorities, East London and the City and Redbridge and Waltham Forest, are responsible for arranging services to meet the health needs of people in East London. In-patient services for children are provided at the Royal Hospitals national health service trust, Newham Healthcare NHS trust and Forest Healthcare NHS trust in addition to the Queen Elizabeth hospital for children, Hackney.

  North Thames regional health authority is responsible for holding all its health authorities to account for the provision of appropriate services for their populations.

  Assessment (Consultants and GPs)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress her Department is making on assessment of(a) consultants and (b) general practitioners; and what are the reasons for the differences between assessment of these two groups.

  Dr. Mawhinney:
  Consultants and general practitioners are not at present subject to assessment. Assessment needs to be linked to a formal scheme of continuing medical education. These are issues explored in a consultation paper launched at a conference on 13 June chaired by the Government's Chief Medical Officer. The consultation period ends on 30 September. Copies of the document will be placed in the Library.

  Ex-service men
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority is given to ex-service men and women within the national health service; and what steps her Department takes to ensure that this is widely known throughout the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ex-service men and women do not normally have priority within the national health service. However, if they are war pensioners they are entitled to receive priority examination and treatment for the condition or conditions for which they receive a pension or received a gratuity. Health service guidelines (94)28 dated 16 May, which is standing guidance, reminded the national health service about this entitlement. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the people living in the family health service authority covering Hornsey and Wood Green are currently registered as national health service dental patients; and what is the figure for Britain as a whole.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As patients are free to register with a dentist outside the family health services authority area where they live the information requested is not available. At 30 April 1994 the proportion of the population registered with a dentist in Great Britain was 57·8 per cent.

  Health Care For People With Disabilities
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role will be played by her Department in the forthcoming consultation on disability; and if she will publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination in health provision and the health service.

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, will be co-ordinating action on this front and will involve other departments as necessary.

  The national health service provides services for everybody on the basis of their clinical need. A consultation paper on this will not therefore be necessary.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 152, on the NHS Supplies Authority, what

  369
  percentage savings in Supplies Authority purchasing costs was assessed by its consultants as achievable as at April 1994 for the divisions for whom benchmarking comparisons were carried out; whether such savings have been achieved across all divisions over each of the last six months; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested. For 1993–94 the National Health Service Supplies Authority was targeted to achieve purchasing cost savings of £57 million, or four per cent. of the value of all contracts negotiated in the year. The actual saving achieved was £71·65 million, broken down as follows:

  Division/Unit

  Savings (£ million)

  National Purchasing Unit

  36·55

  Central

  6·31

  North East

  6·50

  North Thames Anglia

  4·27

  North West

  6·45

  South and West

  5·96

  South East

  5·60

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice: she offers fund-holding general practitioners on how to reduce the cost of hospital treatment required by their patients;

  (2) to what extent she expects a fund-holding general practitioner to follow his patient's wishes with regard to the choice of hospital to which they are sent for treatment;

  (3) what advice she has given to fund-holding general practitioner's with regard to the number of hospitals they hold contracts with.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholders are able to purchase services on behalf of their patients and, in consultation with them, from whichever hospital offers the best quality care and value for money.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role she plays in exercising oversight of the operations of the World Health Organisation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Each year a Minister from the Department attends the world health assembly, the annual meeting of the World Health Organisation, at which the operations of the organisation are discussed. We also receive reports from the Chief Medical Officer on the meetings of the executive board of the World Health Organisation and the European Regional Committee meeting, and on all other major developments.

  Negligence Claims
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical negligence claims have been made against NHS hospitals and NHS trust hospitals in each of the last eight years; what was the cost of those claims for each year, including(a) compensation legal costs and (b) fees paid to doctors for medical opinions; and what was the average time taken from commencement of complaint to settlement.
  370
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 14 March at columns 537–38 and on 10 May at columns 84–85.

  Dementia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce a national monitoring system of those suffering from dementia.

  Mr. Bowis
  It if for each health authority to assess and monitor the health needs of their population including people suffering from dementia and, together with local authorities, to provide a range of appropriate services.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she intends to take to improve support for those suffering from dementia who live alone.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities and local authorities are required to assess the health and social care needs of their population and to make appropriate arrangements to meet those needs. Such assessments will identify additional care and support services needed by those living alone.

  Infertility
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to collect information from district health authorities regarding their policies on the purchase of in vitro fertilisation treatment, and the number of district health authorities who currently provide IVF treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to collect information centrally on the purchase or provision by district health authorities of in vitro fertilisation treatment.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the limiting by health authorities of IVF treatment to women of 34 years and under.

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions about the availability of IVF treatment are for individual health authorities. Advice is available to health authorities and clinicians in two publications drawn to the attention of the National Health Service in 1992:

  (a) The Effective Health Care Bulletin on management of subfertility, published for the NHS Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York universities and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  (b) The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists publication "Infertility—Guidelines For Practice".

  Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the effects on health experienced by couples unable to have children of their own;

  (2) what analysis has been made of the implications of childlessness upon marriage stability in infertile couples;

  (3) what information she has available on the effect on mental health in couples who are unable to have children of their own.

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been studies on the effects of childlessness in couples carried out by independent
  371
  researchers, some of which are referred to in the Effective Health Care bulletin series entitled "The Management of Subfertility". The position is summarised as follows:
  "There is some evidence that subfertility causes considerable emotional stress and distress in some couples, which effects many areas of their life. Subfertility may result in social handicap preventing fulfilment of social roles and realisation of personal and societal expectations for parenthood."

  The bulletin was made available to the national health service in 1992. Copies are available in the Library.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions in the last 10 years she or a Minister in her Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been no such occasions.

  NHS Trust Membership
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each national health service trust in the former Yorkshire region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: A total of 133 of the 150—89 per cent.—chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to a national health service trust within the former Yorkshire region live within the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated. The names of those who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed.

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trusts

  Mrs. J. Wesson

  East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. S. Smith

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dr. N. Varey

  Grimsby Health NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. Clarke

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals

  Mrs. E. Redfearn

  Mrs. L. Stone

  Scunthorpe Community Health NHS Trust

  Mr. B. Beaumont

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Walker

  Mr. C. Thomas

  Dr. G. Alderson

  Bradford Community NHS Trust

  Professor M. Schofield

  Huddersfield NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Dyson

  Calderdale Health Care NHS Trust

  Dr. I. Hughes

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching

  Ms S. Tate

  Professor G. Wistow

  372
  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. T. John

  St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust

  Miss E. Lorrimar

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each national health service trust in the former North East Thames region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: Ninety of the 168 chairmen and non-executive directors appointed to a national health service trust within the former North East Thames region live within the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated. The names of those who live outside the relevant district health authority boundaries are listed.

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Mr. O. Barnes

  Mr. W. Kirwan

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Smale

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Mr. M. Creeger

  Rabbi Julia Neuberger

  Mrs. S. Peters

  Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. W. Brown

  Mrs. S. Cooper

  Mr. I. Doherty

  Mr. A. Felix

  Mr. G. Griffiths

  Mrs. J. Higgins

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Bohrer

  Mrs. A. Killick

  Mr. E. Walters

  Mr. D. Walters

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. J. Jones

  Mr. P Woods

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  Lord Jenkin

  Haringey Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. H. Malcolm

  Mrs. M. Wakelin-Saint

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mrs. H. Aitken

  Mrs. G. Botwright

  Mr. G. Jennings

  Mr. I Kirkpatrick

  Mr. T. Williams

  Hospitals for Sick Children NHS Trust

  Sir Brian Hill

  Sir Robert Clarke

  Professor R. Levinsky

  Mrs. M. Bradshaw

  Mr. R. Horne

  Miss J. Laing

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Munro

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. H. Peppiatt

  Mr. J. Brighouse

  373

  Mrs. R. Gilmore

  Mrs. J. Goffe

  New Possibilities NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. Attwood

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. R. Walters

  Ms D. Williams

  Mr. R. Braithwaite

  Mr. S. Innes

  North Middlesex NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Dixon

  Mr. S. Hilliard

  Professor N. McIntyre

  Mrs. J. Ross

  Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

  Mr. M. Smith

  Royal Free, Hampstead NHS Trust

  Baroness Gardner of Parkes

  Mr. L. Licht

  Royal Hospital of St. Bartholomew, The Royal London Hospital and London Chest Hospital NHS Trust

  Sir Derek Boorman

  Mr. S. Gray

  Ms L. Knox

  Royal London Homeopathic Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Chris

  Mrs. M. Cooper

  Mr. R. Jones

  Mr. D. Maxwell

  374
  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Field

  Mrs. J. Flindall

  Mr. R. Franklin

  Mr. W. Grassick

  Mr. N. Proddow

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital NHS Trust

  Lady Butterworth

  Mr. S. Cox

  Mr. K. Gardner

  Mr. A. Dudley

  Mr. K. Stevens

  Dr. F. Thompson

  Southend Health Care NHS Trust

  Mr. D. Friend

  Mrs. M. Tucker

  Tavistock and Portman Clinics NHS Trust

  Mr. A. Vineall

  Mr. R. Morris

  Sir James Gowans

  Thameside Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mrs. J. Mee

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Sir Ronald Mason

  Baroness Dean

  Mr. P. Brading

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. C. Marks

  Mr. L. Rice