Sitting of 29 November 1994

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

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Careers Guidance
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to increase the effectiveness of careers guidance.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): Thirteen careers services are now operating under contract after competitive tender, and tenders for 51 more in England and Wales are being considered. We have set demanding specifications for a high standard of impartial advice from ages 11 to 18.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Sheffield careers service on winning its investors in people award, the first service in the region to do so? What are the Government doing to ensure that best practices are maintained in the careers service?
    Mr. Paice: I congratulate Sheffield careers service on receiving its investors in people award, as I congratulate all the 1,000 or so businesses and organisations that have won that award. My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on the need to spread best practice, which is why we are working closely with the Department for Education. The two Departments recently produced a booklet called "Better Choices", which lays down a suggested framework for schools, colleges, local education authorities, training and enterprise councils and careers services to work together.
    Mr. McCartney: While the Minister is congratulating himself, will he give us some information about the career guidance that he will give the 11,500 jobcentre staff in London who have been asked to take an unpaid Christmas holiday due to the administrative pay budget shambles, or the 750 workers who have today been sacked by Severn-Trent water company? Those job losses are in addition to the 900 job losses already announced by Severn-Trent, although its chairman has been given a £173,000 pay rise and a £500,000 pay-off on leaving the job. Is not John Maples absolutely right about the
    1060
    Government—that Ministers are incompetent and that there are record levels of sleaze and greed? It is no wonder that there is no national feel-good factor.
    Mr. Paice: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position, but he is obviously so intent on making his mark that he has not read the question. His question had nothing to do with careers guidance, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) asked. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would take comfort from the fact that unemployment has fallen by 450,000 in the past two years, as a result of which there is less need for quite as many Employment Service staff.

    Take-home Pay
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the relative levels of take-home pay in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): British workers' average take-home pay is among the best in the European Union, better than France, Italy or Denmark and comparable to western Germany.
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer provides further evidence of a remarkable combination of low personal taxation, high take-home pay and low overall labour costs? Does he further agree that that proves the success of the Government's economic policies and gives the lie to the Labour party's claims about the dangers of a sweatshop economy?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to do away with the myths. Wages in Britain are relatively high and taxes are low, so take-home pay is high. In addition, the Government are extremely careful hot to impose costs, burdens and inflexibility on employers that would make them uncompetitive. Of course, the Labour party is committed to the social chapter—[Interruption].—and to making sure that those costs are higher so that jobs would be lost in Britain. As I said that jobs would be lost in Britain, Labour Members cried, "Hear, hear."
    Mr. MacShane: On take-home pay, is the Secretary of State aware that a pay-slip handed to me in Rotherham last weekend showed a pay rate of £1.80 an hour, which amounted to take-home pay of £99 for a 53-hour week? That is an national disgrace. At the party that he is organising to celebrate his 10 years in Parliament, will he ensure that the cleaners, servants and the people serving the champagne—of which that rate of pay would buy four bottles—will be paid a decent wage?
    Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman is worried about pay today, I hope that he will at least congratulate the Government on the massive improvement that has occurred during our term in office. Pay in real terms for the bottom 10 per cent. of full-time workers has increased by 23 per cent., whereas, under the previous Labour Government, their pay fell in real terms. He should be concerned about the Opposition parties' proposals for a minimum wage, which would destroy those people's jobs. It is better for people to be on the ladder of progress with a job than to be put out of work by a minimum wage and to have no job at all.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon

    1061
    Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that the way forward in solving the unemployment problem is to borrow more money, to get more people into public service jobs and to ignore efficiency, or does he agree that British workers should be climbing the technology ladder for a high-wage, highly efficient economy in Britain?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. That was the second major contribution by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to the national economic debate. On the first occasion, he admitted that a minimum wage would cause a shake-out—a euphemism for saying that it would destroy jobs. He has now applied his mind to the unemployment problem and believes that the remedy is for inefficient public services to employ more people and that that, somehow, will bring down unemployment. It would mean, of course, higher taxation on the wealth-creating sector and it would damage incentives and destroy jobs. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing those two arguments from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to the House's attention.

    Employee Rights
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to improve the rights of employees at work and protection against unfair or arbitrary dismissal.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The Government recently introduced a number of extended and enhanced rights for employees in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. It is now automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee for taking certain specified types of action on health and safety grounds, for seeking in good faith to assert a statutory employment right or for reasons connected with pregnancy or childbirth.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What advice would the Minister give a constituent who came to her surgery and who showed prima facie evidence of unfair and arbitrary dismissal but who had been employed for less than two years? What remedy to that wrong would she suggest to her constituent?
    Miss Widdecombe: Certain automatic rights are available to all employees, regardless of hours worked. It is important that a balance is struck between undue burdens on employers and the protection of employees. The two-years' policy strikes the right balance.
    Mr. Butterfill: Many people, particularly hoteliers in my constituency, think that rights are already loaded against them and that industrial tribunals' decisions prevent them from operating efficiently. If the social chapter were introduced in this country, would not many jobs be destroyed and our unemployment level be the same as that in Spain and France?
    Miss Widdecombe: I agree with my hon. Friend's latter point. To maintain that balance and to ensure that we do not overload employers with unreasonable requirements, we have strongly resisted paternity leave, the part-time work directive and other measures that militate against employers employing and that destroy jobs. The most
    1062
    important protection that a worker can have is to be able to get a job; the Opposition would ensure that he would not have it.
    Ms Eagle: Almost nine months ago, the Government lost a case before the European Court and were told to equalise the rights of part-time and full-time workers. Since then, we have heard nothing but a deathly silence from them. When will they bring part-time workers' rights into line with those now enjoyed by full-time workers?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady confuses the European Court with the House of Lords, which I should not have thought was easy to do. The Government will announce their conclusions in due course.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those leaving youth training today do so having gained qualifications; and what was the figure two years ago.
    Mr. Paice: Seventy-two per cent. of young people completing youth training gain a qualification or a credit towards one, and the percentage of trainees gaining higher level national vocational qualifications is increasing year on year.
    Mr. Clappison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the modern apprenticeship scheme has been well received in Hertfordshire? Will he join me in congratulating Hertfordshire training and enterprise council on the excellent lead that it is taking in the manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Paice: I shall, indeed. Hertfordshire training and enterprise council has taken the lead in the engineering and manufacturing sector and must be congratulated on that. Eighteen prototype modern apprenticeships are up and running and 40 more are expected next year. When they are fully in place, 70,000 people a year will be qualifying at NVQ 3 level through modern apprenticeships, which is a step change in the skills supply of this country.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: But does the Minister accept the concern that we do not have enough trained technicians—a fear shared by industrialists and expressed to me only last week when the Esso energy lecture prize was being given? Are he and his colleagues trying to improve that situation?
    Mr. Paice: All the studies show that it is at NVQ level 3—the technician/junior management level—where our skills problems are most severe by comparison with our competitors. That is why we introduced modern apprenticeships and why the White Paper proposed the concept of accelerated modern apprenticeships for those who have stayed on in further education beyond the age of 16. We are very conscious of the fact that there is a problem, and those two measures, in addition to the changes to the funding mechanism for TECs, will encourage far more skills to be gained at that level.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Can my hon. Friend give some indication of the improvement in the staying-on rate for 16-year-olds?
    Mr. Paice: Yes, I can tell my hon. Friend that in the past 10 years the percentage of that age group staying on has doubled: 93 per cent. of 16-year-olds are now in education, training or work.
    Mr. Barron: Where did the Minister get his misleading statistics about the qualifications gained by people on youth

    1063
    training? This month's Employment Gazette states that two years ago, in July 1992, 37 per cent. of people leaving youth training received a qualification or a credit towards one. In July 1994, the figure was only 41 per cent., not 72 per cent., as he claims. I am quoting the Government's own statistics. Why do we constantly hear fiddled figures from the Department of Employment about our crisis in training? In view of the very small growth in youth training, why have the budgets of TECs been slashed every year for the past five years?
    Mr. Paice: Seventy-two per cent. of youth training completers in the year to January this year gained a qualification or a credit towards one—[Interruption.] I am talking about those who complete youth training. They are the statistics with which the House should be familiar. As for funding, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer.

    Labour Statistics
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current percentage of unemployment in Southend-on-Sea; and what was the figure last year and in the previous year.
    Miss Widdecombe: On the unadjusted basis for October, claimant unemployment was 10.2 per cent. in 1994, 12.3 per cent. in 1993 and 11.9 per cent. in 1992.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I greatly welcome the improvement, but is the Minister aware of the resentment in Southend that areas with lower unemployment receive loans, grants and subsidies for job creation? As the committed Conservative that we all know her to be, will she and her colleagues at the Department endeavour to get rid of the absurd distortions in the labour market and try to establish a level playing field so that Southend gets a fair deal?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have to say to my hon. Friend that, for one moment, I thought that he was about to ask for equalisation for Southend by getting some European moneys. However, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, even without such moneys, Southend is doing very well. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 12 per cent. since last year. Youth unemployment has fallen by 15 per cent. Retail opportunities are creating more than 600 new jobs. Vacancies are up by 4.9 per cent. and placings are at their highest level since November 1990. Good old Southend is doing quite well.
    Mr. Foulkes: But is the Minister aware that there is one forecast redundancy in Southend, East which I would greatly regret? It would be most unfortunate if the Tories kicked out the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and deprived us of the opportunity of doing so at the next election.
    Miss Widdecombe: I forecast no further redundancies immediately in Southend.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest employment figures; and if he will make a statement. .
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): The summer
    1064
    1994 labour force survey shows just over 25 million people in employment in Great Britain, an increase of 226,000 since summer 1993.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: I welcome those figures. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the combination of the pursuit of low inflation and further measures to promote productivity offers the best hope for jobs in the future?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Employment is rising and unemployment is falling in Britain far faster than in the EC as a whole, especially in countries with minimum wages, such as France and Spain, where youth unemployment is two and three times the British rate respectively.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that one in three jobs offered to young adults is paying below subsistence level? Is he also aware that those under 18 often get as little as £45 a week? Could he live on that? Could he plan a future, get a mortgage, get married and bring up a family on that? Will he tell us how he could do those things on poverty-level wages?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady totally ignores the fact that under this Government pay at all levels has risen sharply; that is so for the low-paid as well. A single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has seen take-home pay increase by almost a quarter more than inflation under this Government. The hon. Lady may like to know that that same person would have seen his pay fall under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend please help me? In 1990–91, with unemployment going up in my constituency, I had the papers on to me every month asking what would happen about unemployment and what the Government intended to do about it. In the past two years, and in the past 18 months in particular, unemployment has dropped substantially. We are now down to a figure of 2,000 unemployed, which is well below the national average, yet the papers have not been on to me once. What should I do about it?
    Mr. Oppenheim: It is the old adage that good news often is not news whereas bad news is news. We have a lot of good news in the British economy. Exports are at record levels, productivity is rising by 6 per cent. a year and manufacturing output is up by 5 per cent. a year. That is the best way of ensuring not only more jobs, but more high-paid, high-skill jobs in the British economy. That is what we are now getting.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to help the long-term unemployed find work.
    Ms Gordon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to help the long-term unemployed find work.
    Mr. Portillo: The Government's economic policies aim to create low inflation and sustainable growth, which will lead to more reductions in unemployment and more job creation. For some time, my Department's priority in helping to achieve that has been to give special help to people who are long-term unemployed. Long-term unemployment is now less than 1 million, the lowest figure for two years.
    Mr. Pickthall: Unemployed people will have heard what the Secretary of State said and, I guess, will have believed it almost as much as he did. Does he recognise that 38 per cent. of total unemployment is long-term unemployment? In Skelmersdale, in my constituency, long-term unemployment is as high as 44 per cent.—more than 1,000 adults have been unemployed for over 12 months in one small town. Why do his Government refuse to consider schemes such as national insurance holidays or tax rebates to encourage employers to take on the long-term unemployed in order to relieve a town such as Skelmersdale of the social tragedy that long-term unemployment forces on it?
    Mr. Portillo: Unemployment is west Lancashire is down by 25 per cent. from the peak. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that long-term unemployment in this country is about 35 per cent. of total unemployment; the average for the European Union is 42 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman looks around Europe and finds a socialist Government, he will find higher unemployment, higher long-term unemployment, higher youth unemployment and that unemployment has not been falling as it has been in this country. If there were a socialist answer to this question, presumably socialist countries would have delivered it.
    Ms Gordon: Does the Minister agree that this country needs not only job seekers but job finders and that a change of name, another fiddle of the figures and another cut in benefits for which people have paid national insurance contributions for years will not solve the problem of long-term unemployment, especially for older people? Does he agree that the only solutions are effective Government job-creation policies, such as releasing the capital receipts of right-to-buy sales and other strategies outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall)?
    Mr. Portillo: No, the hon. Lady is wrong. The real answer is sustained economic recovery, which requires our pursuing vigorous and determined economic policies. I am sure that we shall see some more of that from my right hon. and learned Friend in his Budget this afternoon. Of course I believe that we should give special help to long-term unemployed people. That is why 1.5 million different opportunities are provided for long-term unemployed people during the course of the year. The hon. Lady is absolutely wrong to say that the solution to this problem is yet more borrowing and yet more Government spending. Her Government and Governments around Europe tried that, and it resulted in higher unemployment. We have pursued a sustainable recovery and unemployment is falling in this country.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private finance initiative is now the best way for us to create more jobs in providing the infrastructure that this country needs? Will he state why he thinks that private
    1066
    companies should invest in inefficient public services—a policy that appears to be advocated by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?
    Mr. Portillo: It is quite extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East should have made such a suggestion. The inefficiency of the public sector has to be paid for by taxpayers and there is no reason why taxpayers should pay for inefficiency. It is not a good way to create employment. The way to create employment is to have sustained recovery. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the private finance initiative can play an important part in providing infrastructure and I expect that the Chancellor will make some comments on that subject.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Would not the all-important morale and self-confidence of those out of work be greatly improved if Her Majesty's official Opposition adequately recognised the reduction in unemployment over two years of almost 455,000, if they recognised adequately the high level of employment in this country, by comparison with most other European countries, and if they stopped denigrating the employment and training programmes, which are providing 1.5 million places this year, as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, it must be very dispiriting to those who are looking for work to find that the Opposition are determined not even to acknowledge the fall in unemployment and to recognise, for example, that the Opposition have always opposed the creation of our youth training programmes. Indeed, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the new Labour spokesman, was busy criticising those programmes again the other day.
    It is a massive deceit on the British public for the Labour party to pretend, as the Leader of the Opposition was doing the other day, that it can spend its way out of unemployment. We cannot spend our way out of unemployment. We can reduce unemployment if we follow a policy of low inflation and sustained recovery.
    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that fewer than one in five of the long-term unemployed who complete a training for work programme are able to find work and remain in it? Does he agree that it is time for a radical working benefits programme with benefits transferred to a training subsidy to ensure that unemployed people are given the high skills that they need to find productive and stable jobs?
    Mr. Portillo: I agree that we should be flexible in our thinking about those matters, and I share the hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction with the present level of achievement of training for work. If we are going to spend that much money from taxpayers' sources on training for work, we should be able to ensure that more people get jobs. The principal purpose of training for the long-term unemployed is to get them into jobs. We shall need to reorient our programmes to reflect that.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend noted that, notwithstanding the Government's strenuous efforts to address the problem of long-term unemployment, 59 per cent. of men aged between 55 and 64 remain out

    1067
    of work? Does he consider that, in the circumstances of today's labour market, the terms of the jobseeker's agreement should be different for different groups? Is there not a risk that the requirement on those for whom work is not available to go through the motions of actively seeking work will become a somewhat humiliating feature of the claiming process rather than a contribution to the functioning of the labour market?
    Mr. Portillo: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend, on this basis: I believe that it is absolutely wrong to give up on any section of the population below the age 65 which has the opportunity to move into work. There is a fair amount of discrimination against those people and that is why I encourage the Employment Service to take particular steps to help some of the older men and women who have been out of work for a period of time. However, I believe that those people should be kept in touch with the labour market, and that the jobseeker's agreement is an important way of handling that.
    Ms Harman: Does the Minister accept that many of the long-term unemployed lack the skills that they need to get a job? Is he aware that the Government's survey—"Skill Needs in Britain"—reports that a growing number of companies are complaining that they cannot expand because they cannot find the skilled workers that they need? When we have, at one and the same time, unemployed people who cannot get jobs because they lack skills, and businesses complaining about skills shortages, would it not be madness to make further cuts in the training budget?
    Mr. Portillo: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and I look forward to continuing our fruitful partnership. However, I do not believe that her analysis of the question is as close to the mark as that of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), speaking from the Liberal Benches.
    One of the problems with training for work is that we are getting quite a few people with qualifications, but we are not succeeding sufficiently in getting those people into work. If the hon. Lady thinks about it, I am sure that she will agree that the principal purpose of training long-term unemployed people is to give them jobs. That is the focus that I want to apply. Skills for those people are a way of getting them into work. We should not be satisfied just with giving them skills; we should concentrate on getting them jobs. That is what they want.

    Young People
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of young people in the United Kingdom are either in education or training; and what was the figure 15 years ago.
    Mr. Portillo: Eighty-four per cent. now compared with 54 per cent. in 1984—the first year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the significant contribution provided by economic improvement, education and training have played an important part in reducing the number of unemployed people? For example, they have reduced unemployment in my constituency by 17 per cent. since
    1068
    October 1994. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that education and training and the improvement of job skills are a vital ingredient in continuing to provide opportunities for jobs?
    Mr. Portillo: I agree absolutely. My hon. Friend's question stands in sharp contrast to the question that the hon. Member for Peckham asked a moment ago. Education, as well as training, is important. The Government's reforms have ensured that more people stay at school longer and leave school with better qualifications.
    We know perfectly well that the Opposition have opposed the national curriculum, they have opposed testing and they have opposed league tables in schools. When the Labour party left office there were 7,000 youth trainees; there are now 277,000 youth trainees. When it was in office, the Labour party was content to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to live on benefit. That is the party which now advocates the minimum wage—a policy which in Spain has created three times as many young unemployed as there are in this country.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that an advertisement for a job in this place, paying half the salary of a Member of Parliament, attracted 600 graduate applicants? Is he aware that an army of education system success stories remain unemployed? Will he, for once, give a straight answer to a straight question and tell the House what proportion of young people were in full-time work in 1979 compared to the present?
    Mr. Portillo: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a number, but I can say that, under the Conservative Government, youth unemployment is 13.1 per cent. In France, youth unemployment is 23.2 per cent.; in Italy it is 32 per cent.; and in Spain, which has had a socialist Government for the past 10 years, it is 35.4 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman wants to mix it with me, let us do so on the European comparisons.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the educational and training opportunities for young people in this country have never been better, with more A-levels, more vocational qualifications, job training and the new apprenticeship scheme? Should we not be exalting those opportunities for our young people, which enable them to get good jobs?
    Mr. Portillo: Today, 80 per cent. of 16-year olds are in education. Under Labour, the figure was 58 per cent. Today, 26 per cent. of 17-year-olds get two A-levels or more. At the end of Labour's term in office, the figure was about 14 per cent. Any indicator that we care to take shows that we are providing better education for our young people.
    The Labour party not only let young people down when it was in office but now wishes to impose a minimum wage to make sure that they cannot get jobs.

    1069
    I will not let that happen; there will be no minimum wage while I stand at the Dispatch Box. The Labour party would introduce a minimum wage and destroy jobs for young people.

    Unemployment, Blyth Valley
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of when unemployment will fall in the Blyth valley.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Unemployment in the Blyth valley has fallen by 11 per cent. this year and is 26 per cent. down on the peak in 1987.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that unemployment in the Blyth valley is still 2.5 per cent. higher than the national average? Is he also aware that a worrying trend in the Blyth valley is the number of long-term unemployed, which has increased by 24 per cent. over the past five years? Is he further aware that there are many job losses for the area in the pipeline? With the demise of Swan Hunter, highly skilled design workers have had to leave the area. Five hundred science and development jobs will be lost from British Gas and 400 jobs will be lost from Northern Electricity. Will the Minister get off his backside, get some jobs for the north-east and help the people of the Blyth valley?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that job vacancies in his travel-to-work area have been rising very rapidly. I agree with him on one point: we all accept that unemployment is still too high. It is too high all over Europe and throughout the developed world.
    In this country, the level of unemployment is falling and employment is rising far faster than it is in the rest of Europe. As the hon. Gentleman has wilfully provoked me, I remind him that when his party was in power the number of unemployed in the north doubled and rose at a far faster rate than it has under this Government.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What does my hon. Friend think would be the unemployment in Blyth valley if the social chapter and the minimum wage were adopted, both of which policies the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) supports?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I will just quote no less a person than Lord Healey, who recently said on Radio 4:
    "Don't kid yourselves. The minimum wage is something on which unions will build differentials. … Therefore, the minimum wage becomes a floor on which you erect a new tower."
    The minimum wage would replace low pay with no pay. The minimum wage would create unemployment in Britain, just as it has done in Spain and France.

    Young People
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what fresh initiatives he intends to take to motivate young people toward training and employment.
    Mr. Paice: The competitiveness White Paper sets out proposals for better careers advice and work experience which, together with more vocational routes, should motivate young people to maximise their talents.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister realise that his reply will be as boring to young people as the Minister was
    1070
    obviously bored in giving it? Does he not realise that giving opportunity is the best way to motivate young people? Will he say specifically what he will offer? What opportunity will he offer the 106,000 young people aged 16 and 17 who do not have a job, who are not in a training opportunity and are not in full-time education?
    Mr. Paice: If the hon. Gentleman is going to bandy about statistics, I suggest that he finds out the truth behind those statistics. He will find that the supposed figure of 106,000 includes people who are in full-time education, whom we have never considered to be unemployed. It includes all those who are disabled and on special programmes. It includes a range of people who are not classified as unemployed. The Government have done more to provide alternative options for young people than any previous Government. With national vocational qualifications now providing vocational opportunities, and the development of general national vocational qualifications, modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships, there is plenty of opportunity for young people.
    Mr. Gallie: If we accept the figure that was given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and if one in five of those in youth training fail to find jobs, does it not mean that there is an 80 per cent. success rate? If that is the case, is it not a good position from which to go forward?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The reverse of any negative is a positive. Eighty per cent. of young people completing youth training, further education or training have a job within six months. That is a high success rate. We are aiming for even more. With the development of youth credits and of modern apprenticeships, we are opting for even better than that.
    Dr. Reid: The Minister's platitudes will carry little encouragement for young people. I remind him of one statistic about the long-term unemployed, many of whom are young people. In 1979, before the memory-retention span of the Secretary of State for Employment, 340,000 people were long-term unemployed. This year, 1 million people have been unemployed for longer than one year. I know that the Government do not want to rush into anything, but, after 15 years, how long will it take to reach anywhere near the level of long-term unemployment which they inherited 15 years ago?
    Mr. Paice: For the 16 to 25-year-old group—the group which the substantive question is about—we have now put into place a range of opportunities. For those in that group who are long-term unemployed, we are running pilot programmes called 1–2–1 and Workwise, both of which so far have demonstrated considerable improvements in the ability to obtain work. That is satisfactory progress which we are monitoring extremely closely.

    Workfare
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce schemes related to workfare.
    Mr. Portillo: My priority is to get unemployed people into jobs, and we have over 1.5 million opportunities to help them do so. But unemployed people must themselves make every effort to get work and it is right to require them, if necessary, to undertake appropriate action to do so.
    Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend will know that my constituents were delighted by the drop of 10.1 per cent. in unemployment in Blaby last month. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] Will he consider extending the programme of community action, which can restore self-confidence and pride in the unemployed where it has been lost, assist the unemployed—especially the long-term unemployed—to get back to work and allow them to do something useful for society in community and environmental projects?
    Mr. Portillo: The early part of my hon. Friend's question drew the cheer that it deserved. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the achievement of the community action programme. It has succeeded in keeping the long-term unemployed in touch with the labour market and has given them the opportunity to show their skills. I reassure my hon. Friend that I will do whatever I can, within the budget that is made available to me this afternoon, to continue the programme.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Maddock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Maddock: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his Government will treat any vote on reducing VAT on domestic fuel as an issue of confidence—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that VAT on fuel has been approved by the House on several occasions—I think from memory on four occasions. It was introduced two Budgets ago, and clearly it would be
    1072
    a very important vote if a fresh vote were manufactured on the issue. But it does not fall into the same category as the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gillan: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to listen to the interview yesterday with the chairman of Rentokil—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order. This is using very valuable time.
    Mrs. Gillan: The Opposition find one of the most successful businesses in the UK amusing. The company was awarded a most respected award in a Management Today survey last week. The chairman of Rentokil said that, in his experience, our low inflation, low costs and record exports were unprecedented. Is that not the real story and the background to today's Budget statement?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that business men and business women around the country recognise that we have the best combination of economic circumstances for many years, and my hon. Friend is quite right to say that that is the background to the Budget. There is no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will sketch out further details shortly.
    Mr. Blair: Is it true, as some Back Benchers were saying this morning, that in exchange for their support last night they were offered by Ministers a referendum on further European integration?
    The Prime Minister: I made clear my views on that to the House in May, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary echoed those views only last Friday. They have not changed.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: In his busy day, has the Prime Minister noted the visit of the Speaker of the National Assembly of Kuwait, and his colleagues? Would my right hon. Friend now like to endorse the integrity of Kuwait's sovereign border and the need to keep Kuwait alone, intact and in power as a state?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do as my hon. Friend asks, and I think that that would be the overwhelming view of every hon. Member. Recently, when it seemed as though—yet again—the integrity of Kuwait's border was threatened, British troops and aircraft were there to defend it. That would of course be the position were that to happen again.
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Byers: Will the Prime Minister confirm that last year his Government spent £355 million on management consultants? Is he aware that such a sum of money would have paid every pensioners' bill for VAT on fuel? Does

    1073
    the Prime Minister not feel that the time has come for his Government to get their priorities right and to put the needs of pensioners before the profits of City consultants?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, substantial sums of money have been made available to assist pensioners with their value added tax on fuel bills. Very large sums have been made available and there is no relationship between that expenditure and expenditure on management consultants to help improve the efficiency of the Government, to release resources, to keep taxes down and to help ensure that there is money available to assist pensioners and others.
    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread disappointment that Norway will now not be alongside us in our battle against a federal Europe and a single currency? In view of the immensely strong ties that exist between our two nations, will he and the Government do their utmost to ensure the continuation of the European economic area, which is such a beneficial arrangement for Norway and the whole of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I am extremely sorry that the Norwegian people decided not to join, but of course we respect their decision in that. Norway would have been a net contributor to the European Union, and on many issues, but perhaps not all, it would have been a valuable ally for the British point of view in Europe. I am, however, delighted that Austria and the other EFTA states have decided to join.
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Hodge: Now that he leads a minority Government, will the Prime Minister break the habit of a lifetime, stick to at least one of his election pledges and scrap the proposed rise in VAT on fuel?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will have heard me say just a few moments ago that the House had debated that matter on four separate occasions.
    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency alone hundreds of children from less well-off families benefit from the assisted places scheme? Is it not a shame that the Labour party wants to deprive children of that opportunity, especially when some in its leadership have had the benefit of a similar opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the assisted places scheme. The whole purpose of that scheme and, indeed, of the education reforms generally, is to give children opportunities that otherwise they would not have had. I regret very much that many of those opportunities seem to attract the opposition of the Labour party. One of the more
    1074
    distasteful sides of politics is seeing those who have climbed up the ladder of opportunity kicking it away from other people.
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rendel: What moral difference does the Prime Minister see between what we all agree is wrong—Members of this House accepting payment to ask questions—and a party which accepts payment from the tobacco industry in return for vetoing a ban on tobacco advertising?
    The Prime Minister: There is no relationship between the two facts.
    Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will remember the speech that he gave last Thursday at the staff college at Camberley. We know how well the students there received that speech. In it, he referred specifically to Bosnia and said that we could not impose peace on those who did not wish to accept it. He said that if we tried to do so we would leave many hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Will the Prime Minister give us all an assurance that those troops—British, French, Dutch and all the others who have served in Bosnia—will be our first priority and that, if need be, he will make sure that they come out of that mess safely?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to my hon. Friend that I reject totally some of the lurid and misplaced criticism of the United Nations protection forces that have been made in some American newspapers in the past few days. The protection forces in Bosnia are not a combat force; they were never intended to be a combat force; they are not equipped there to be combat force. They are there on a humanitarian mission, and that mission has saved the life of hundreds of thousands of Bosnians.
    I very much wish UNPROFOR to continue its humanitarian work, as long as it can do its job without there being unacceptable risks to the United Nations troops that are there. However, I have to say to the House that if the parties to the conflict make the humanitarian task of UNPROFOR impossible, if they intensify the war rather than seek a peaceful settlement, they could create the conditions in which the United Nations would have no choice but to withdraw. I do not wish that to happen, but I have to say to the House that that could happen.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: When the Prime Minister was first elected four years ago, he set himself the aim of creating a nation at ease with itself. In the light of last night, at which of the following does he think he has been more successful—creating a nation at ease with itself or creating a party at ease with itself? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to hon. Members on the Labour Benches for suggestions as to how I should reply to the question from an hon. Member on the Liberal

    1075
    Benches. Given the fact that one can find a different Liberal policy from each Liberal to the next, and a different Liberal policy from each door to the next, each street to the next and each constituency to the next, I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at his own party before he criticises mine.
    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent survey of every household in my constituency, more than 90 per cent. expressed themselves satisfied with the national health service? That is reflected in other surveys. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those newspapers that continually talk down one of the finest health services in the world?
    The Prime Minister: I will happily join my hon. Friend in that. There is no doubt about the affection for the national health service and, although we often hear a great deal of generalised criticism of it, that criticism tends not to come from the people who have just had treatment in the national health service. They tend to be very supportive of it, and rightly so, because of the treatment that it offers and the service that it gives.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me in congratulating Customs officers, including those based at Holyhead in my constituency, on their efforts to combat drug smuggling. Does he agree that those efforts would be severely damaged if reports are true that 4,000 Customs officers are to lose their jobs as a result of an announcement today? How will that equate with the fact that the Prime Minister has announced the war on drugs? Will it not blow a gaping hole in his policy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the importance of the battle against drugs; hence the domestic and international initiatives that we have taken and the work set in train by the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. Whatever may happen to the budgets to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can assure him that the battle against drugs will not suffer.
    Sir Peter Emery: In welcoming Senator Dole to this country, will my right hon. Friend point out that the United States Congress has many friends on both sides of the House, but that that friendship has been built up by Members of Congress and of the Senate fully understanding the work of their allies?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly look forward to meeting Senator Dole tomorrow, and I know that he is also meeting my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of
    1076
    State for Defence. We have a wide range of matters to discuss, and I am sure that those discussions will be fruitful and productive.
    Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Anderson: Will the Prime Minister confirm reports that the President of the Board of Trade is looking again at the privatisation of the Post Office?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should not be in any doubt that we think that the right decision, when we have a majority in the House, will be to privatise the Post Office.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving to the shareholders of privatised utilities greater powers to decide the salaries of their directors in advance, rather than reading about them months after the event?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an ingenious suggestion, which I shall be happy to consider.
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKelvey: The Prime Minister appeared to be somewhat ambivalent on the question of a referendurn on European Union affairs. Could we have a referendum in Scotland so that we can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the country how we wish to be governed?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that there was a referendum on that issue some years ago. The hon. Gentleman knows, and in their hearts most people know, that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament would be immensely damaging both for Scotland and for every other part of the United Kingdom. It may well be Labour party policy, and we shall test to what extent over the weeks ahead, but it is not a thought-out policy, it is riot a policy in the interests of Scotland, or of the people of Scotland, and it is not a policy in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
    Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
      TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
      That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Bates.]
      SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES
      That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, Ste.—[Mr. Bates.]

      INCOME TAX
      That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Azerbaijan) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
      That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malta) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
      1078
      That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Republic of Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
      That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Spain) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Bates.]
      Question agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Budget Statement
  Relevant document:
  The unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by HM Treasury on 22nd September and 14th October, relating to excessive deficit in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that at the end of the Chancellor's speech copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
  3.31 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The "Financial Statement and Budget Report", with a number of press releases filling out the details of my proposals, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I have sat down.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Chair has already said that.
  Mr. Clarke: I was making sure that I had the hon. Gentleman's attention. I congratulate him on his alertness.

  INTRODUCTION
  I have three priorities in my Budget this year. The first priority is to keep the economy on track to achieve the great prize of sustainable growth. This recovery offers the best prospect that the British people have faced for many years to enjoy the benefits of growth that does not pass through illusory boom to painful bust.
  My second priority has been to use this recovery wisely to encourage the creation of more jobs, particularly for people who have been out of work for some time. We must combine greater prosperity for the majority of our people with measures to prevent the emergence of a deprived underclass, excluded from the opportunity to work and dependent on welfare.
  The third priority is to strengthen the economy in the longer term. We must aim for a modern economy in which the growth of enterprising companies will give people a greater sense of confidence in the flow of new jobs that will always be required to replace the old jobs eroded by technology and competition.

  INTRODUCTION

    UK ECONOMY
    The background to this year's Budget is the healthy growth in output that we are seeing in Britain and overseas. The recovery has been under way at a modest pace for over two and a half years. It is now stronger and output has grown by over 4 per cent. over the past year. That is easily the fastest rate of growth of any of the major European economies. The forecasts I am publishing with this Budget show the economy expected to grow by 3¼ per cent. next year.
    As the recovery has got stronger, growth has come increasingly from exports. Over the last year, British exports have grown by over 8 per cent. Investment in plant and machinery has grown by over 5 per cent. Consumer demand has increased by a more modest 2 to 3 per cent. That is a very healthy shape for this stage of the recovery and bodes well for our long-term future as a competitive industrial economy.
    1080
    Our exporters have been able to take advantage of the pick-up in growth overseas, by keeping their costs down and raising their productivity. Our producers have succeeded in improving their performance in domestic markets, so that while exports continue to rise, imports are little changed. Overall, I expect our balance of payments on current account to improve by over £6 billion this year.
    An improving balance of payments is remarkable for this country at a time when the economy is growing stronger. More encouragingly still, inflation has remained low.
    Underlying inflation has fallen to levels that we have not seen for a generation. Indeed, only about one third of the adult population of this country have ever experienced such low inflation during their adult life. The other two thirds are still finding it difficult to adjust to the change to a low-inflation economy. [Interruption.] They are not going to adjust back under the Labour party, either.
    Unemployment is on a clear downward trend, having fallen by over 450,000 since December 1992. The United Kingdom, as I have already said, is the only major economy in Europe where unemployment has fallen over the past year.
    The unemployment rate in this country is lower than the average for the European Union. And the number of people in work is rising. The "Labour Force Survey" shows an increase of 226,000 in the number of people in work in the last 12 months. That means real new jobs for people up and down the country.
    We are seeing strong output growth, strong export growth, falling unemployment, an improving balance of payments and low inflation. That combination is almost unique in this country since the war.
    But let us be under no illusions. Those promising conditions have to be sustained if they are to deliver higher living standards and secure jobs for men and women. And these promising conditions have arisen at all only because of the difficult decisions that the Government have been prepared to take in recent years.
    We must not now throw away the gains that have been made by turning to some short-term dash for yet faster growth. Growth will be sustained only if we keep the lid on inflation, get public borrowing down further, and push ahead with measures which strengthen the industrial economy. That is the way to convert growth into prosperity and jobs.
    That way lies the virtuous circle of improved competitiveness, rising productivity, economic growth, low inflation, and more jobs. We must not change our minds now for the sake of short-term popularity. [interruption.] Those who bask in their short-term popularity and neglect the need for sound economic measures will live to rue the day hereafter. Only by keeping our nerve and sticking to the determined policies that we have put in place over the past couple of years will we be able to enjoy the full fruits of improved economic performance in rising prosperity and lower unemployment.

    INFLATION
    Let me deal first with inflation. Low inflation creates a climate of stability which encourages savings and investment in the future of this country. Nothing would

    1081
    be more damaging than if we let inflation off the leash again only to have to take another dose of bitter anti-inflationary medicine.
    The British experience is that high inflation has brought economic recovery to a halt three times over the past 20 years. That.is three times too often for my liking. And while we have succeeded in bringing inflation down to levels that were last seen when England won the World Cup, we must never take that for granted. Before that game I had lived in a low-inflation' economy. After that game came Harold Wilson, in political terms.
    I live in a low-inflation economy again now and am glad to say that our inflation rate is now well below the European average. We need to keep up that performance if we are to be a competitive manufacturing nation enjoying the living standards of the best in future. I will therefore continue to set interest rates to meet our objective of keeping underlying inflation in a range of 1 to 4 per cent., and in the lower half of that range by the end of the present Parliament. That is a tough target by Britain's recent standards, but not by those of some of our best competitors.
    To make sure that we achieve that target, I have backed good intentions and resolve with a number of important decisions over the past year that have strengthened the framework of policy.
    The Bank of England's quarterly inflation report is now fully independent of the Treasury. The Governor decides the precise timing of interest rate changes. And, most importantly, I decided in the spring to publish the minutes of my meetings with the Governor. As a result, we in Britain now have one of the most open frameworks for monetary policy-making in the world. This will stand us in good stead in keeping inflation permanently low; but it will most certainly not avoid the need to take tough decisions at times.
    In September the Governor and I agreed that, with the recovery strengthening at home and prices rising abroad, there was a sufficient risk of inflation picking up here to justify raising interest rates by half a per cent. By acting before retail price inflation itself picks up, we will aim to nip inflation in the bud.
    I expect inflation to rise slightly over the next year, reaching a temporary plateau of around 2½ per cent., as a result of higher commodity prices and stronger profit margins in our very buoyant manufacturing industries. But continuing competitive pressures will ensure that producers and retailers keep costs under control and pass on the benefit to consumers. I expect that underlying inflation should then resume its downward trend.

    GILT MARKET REPOS
    Before I turn to the public finances, I can announce an important further development of the gilts market. The Bank of England is publishing today a consultative document on the establishment of an open sale and repurchase—a so-called repo—market. This should improve both liquidity and efficiency, reducing yields and hence reducing the Government's debt interest
    1082
    costs. Each reduction in yields of just one basis point—one hundredth of 1 per cent. —will eventually save more than £25 million a year of public expenditure.

    PUBLIC FINANCES
    I turn now to the public finances.
    Last year, I continued the process started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). I announced measures which cut the public sector borrowing requirement by 1¼ per cent. of GDP by the end of this Parliament. Combined with the healthy growth in the economy that we are now enjoying, those measures have helped to bring the public sector borrowing requirement from £45½ billion in 1993–94 to an expected £34½ billion this year. My objective remains the same: to balance the Budget over the medium term. We remain on course to eliminate Government borrowing entirely by the end of the decade. By 1996–97 borrowing will be approximately equal to the Government's net capital expenditure.
    About half my own cuts in public borrowing last year were achieved through cutting public spending plans. But, because of the length of the recession, my right hon. Friend and I also had to raise taxes to meet the objective of healthy public finances.Delay and failure to act would have caused, since then, intolerable additional pressures to raise interest rates faster and to raise taxation still further. We would not have had strong and sustainable recovery now if we had failed to cut spending and raise taxes last year.
    For that reason, the public spending cuts and the tax increases that I announced last year remain, of course, quite essential to the strategy of achieving economic recovery. We have restored confidence in our ability to achieve sustained recovery by the process of taking firm measures. We would damage that confidence again if we now seemed to falter, or even to go back on any of the measures that we have already put in hand.

    VAT ON FUEL COMPENSATION PACKAGE
    I am able to improve the package of help that I announced last year to cushion the effects of VAT on fuel on all pensioners and on vulnerable groups—enormous though that package was when I announced it last year. Last year I doubled public spending on the very effective home energy efficiency scheme so that, for the first time, everyone over the age of 60 became eligible for a grant. This has been a huge success. Soon over a million people will have received grants to improve the insulation of their homes, reducing their excessive heating bills and improving their comfort. That is still not enough. Therefore, on top of last year's doubling, which will of course be carried forward each year, I am now adding another £10 million a year to the resources to fund grants. Soon British homes will at last be a match for the British weather in every part of the United Kingdom, especially for the elderly.
    Cold weather payments were set at £6 each week only two years ago. I now intend to increase them to £8.50 each week in order to reassure people that they will get help with their bills when spells of freezing weather occur.

    1083
    Furthermore, next year, 1995–96, there will be an additional £52 for single pensioners and £73 for couples built into all retirement pensions as compensation for VAT on fuel.
    From April 1996 there will be £68 extra on the single pensioner rate and £96 extra for pensioner couples. That is more than the whole of the VAT on fuel bills for a significant number of them.
    In addition, electricity prices have been falling for many people. Gas prices are to be raised for the first time since 1991, but this will be coupled with discounts for prompt payment which will reduce many peoples' bills.
    The House should appreciate that, so far, including the first stage of VAT—the 8 per cent. already in payment—both gas and electricity bills have fallen by 1 per cent. in real terms over the last two years. That real-terms fall is for everybody, before taking into account the package of help for pensioners so far in payment.

    The full burden of the tax is, of course, only borne by people of working age who are not receiving means-tested benefits. I have made it quite clear that people of working age cannot expect tax cuts or a reverse of previously announced tax increases this year.

    PUBLIC SPENDING
    I would like to turn now to the Government's new plans for public spending.
    Last year's Budget set a new milestone in the control of public spending. We managed to reduce the control totals that had been set in the previous spending round, by £8 billion over three years, and we reduced general Government expenditure by £15 billion over the same period.
    That was a measure of the success of the new system of public expenditure control that we first introduced in 1992. Last year saw the first fruits of the programme of fundamental reviews of all Departments.
    The reaction to that new approach was predictable. A welcome from the Government side of the House, criticism and alarmist nonsense from the Labour party and scepticism from the so-called experts who doubted whether those plans could be delivered in practice. In fact, for the current year, 1994–95, the first year after last year's announcement, we expect to do better than the plans that were set and we expect to underspend by more than £1 billion.
    At the start of this year's survey, the Cabinet decided that we should also keep within last year's planned totals for 1995–96 and 1996–97 and allow no more than 1 per cent. real growth for 1997–98.
    The plans I am about to announce deliver that remit. But it has not been easy. Last year's settlement was extremely tight. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for his skilful handling of what has been a difficult spending round.
    We have been guided by four basic principles this year. First, we have taken advantage of the welcome fall in inflation since the last Budget. Thanks to lower inflation, the price levels that we will be facing in 1995–96 will be 2½ per cent. lower than we expected when we decided on spending plans last year.
    1084
    We have not let that feed through into a higher level of real resources for Government Departments. We have reduced our cash plans for almost all programmes. Lower inflation needs to be matched in the public sector by lower cash spending.
    The second principle is that we have built on the increasingly important role played by private finance. All Government Departments are now looking actively at private finance options for their capital expenditure.
    Thirdly, we have focused our search for savings on administrative and running costs, cutting the back office and protecting the front-line delivery of our key public services. Our aim has been to provide a better output of public services, for fewer inputs.
    Fourthly, we have taken a close look at the Government's own spending priorities. We have looked for savings on some programmes so that resources can be channelled into the services and policies to which the Government attach most importance.

    PRIVATE FINANCE
    The right hon. Member for Kingston upon East (Mr. Prescott) reacted to my mention of private finance. Privatisation and private finance for capital investment are rapidly becoming the chosen method for raising the quality of public services in the majority of countries in every continent in the world. They started in this country. Although the political debate here has been transformed since I first became a Minister, an irritating amount of post-socialist resistance still persists. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will welcome the news that, fortunately, the Government's private finance initiative remains alive and well and is growing rapidly.
    Last year, I announced that a number of transport schemes would go ahead under the private finance initiative. Significant progress has been made— £370 million of private capital has been invested in transport projects in the past two years, with a further £760 million already committed. In addition, £3.5 billion of projects are currently out to competition and the value of contracts placed will steadily build up from a stream to a significant flow. The right hon. Gentleman does not look so cheerful.
    The private finance initiative, however, runs wider than transport. There are now more than 50 health projects either approved or completed, bringing more than £100 million of new capital into the national health service. Bids have been received for the first two privately financed prisons and more than £1 billion of information technology projects are now following or considering the private finance route.
    In higher education, universities now receive approaching a third of their revenue from the private sector and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 31 October new proposals to make it easier for local authorities to form joint ventures with the private sector.
    New projects are constantly emerging as the initiative breaks new ground. Today, I can announce that we are on course to let contracts in 1995 under the private

    1085
    finance initiative, leading to around £5 billion of capital investment. We said that we could do it, we introduced it and we are doing it.

    TRANSPORT
    The growing importance of private finance has helped us to find significant savings for the taxpayer in the transport programme. In recent years, there has been a huge increase in public expenditure on the trunk roads and motorway programme which has risen by one half in real terms in the past 10 years. That was essential to tackle traffic bottlenecks and to reduce costs on British industry seeking to get goods to markets at home and abroad.
    Now that the main need of the economy is control of public spending and borrowing, we cannot carry on pumping in the same amount of taxpayers' money. We have, therefore, significantly reduced planned public spending on trunk roads and motorways. Even so, public spending on such roads—without taking account of the expected contribution from the private finance initiative—will be considerably higher in real terms than the average level of provision in the 1980s. Rapid progress with private finance of design, build, finance and operate roads will take provision still higher and the first four DBFO schemes will shortly go out to tender.
    Private finance will also now play an increasingly major role in London Underground investment. In particular, I am pleased to report that the private finance competition for the provision of a new Northern line train service has proceeded rapidly. My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be able to announce a decision very soon.
    That, together with future deals, should improve the quality of London Underground investment as well as its quantity. In addition to the contribution from private finance, the plans in the Budget imply total investment in the underground network next financial year of around £1 billion. The Budget also takes account of the key effects expected to arise from rail privatisation, not least the privatisation of Railtrack within the lifetime of this Parliament, as announced by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Transport last week.
    As has been the case with other privatisations, rail privatisation will bring benefits to passengers from more efficient management bearing down on costs and being more responsive to passenger needs.

    RUNNING COSTS
    Private finance will play an increasingly important role in financing better infrastructure for public services in coming years. I now turn to the need for firm control of the Government's current, as opposed to their capital, spending.
    One of our key objectives this year has been to intensify the search for savings on administrative and running costs. My right hon Friend the Chief Secretary joined the Treasury team from the Ministry of Defence, where he played last year a lead role in preparing the defence costs study. That experience served him well.
    1086
    The success of the defence costs study is just one example—a very successful one—of how key programme objectives can be protected by bearing down on the administrative costs of delivering them. The outcome has been a substantial benefit for the taxpayer and for the front line.
    The defence plans in the Budget fully cover the costs of the important equipment orders that the Secretary of State for Defence announced in his statement to the House in July. Indeed, taking account of the changes in inflation since last year, these plans actually allow a slightly higher real terms level of spending than implied by the plans last Budget, accommodating the costs of military redundancies associated with the defence costs study.
    Improvements in the efficiency of delivering services is a policy that must apply throughout the public sector. The plans in this Budget reflect the results of a rigorous scrutiny of the Government's own administrative costs. It must be right for modern government to modernise their own management structures and to get their own overhead costs down.
    As last year, we have maintained the policy that the pressure from pay and price increases should be met by greater efficiency or other economies. This has already allowed public services to achieve very reasonable pay settlements that reflect low levels of inflation and allow modest increases in real earnings. It is ridiculous to describe this long overdue and sensible practice as a pay freeze.
    But, in total, the plans in this Budget are for central Government running costs not to rise in cash terms over the four-year period from 1993–94 to 1997–98 taken as a whole. That represents a real-terms reduction in those running costs of more than 10 per cent. in the cost of government. It is consistent with the civil service White Paper expectation that total civil service staff numbers will fall significantly below 500,000 over the next four years to their lowest levels since the war.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES
    It is only right that local government should follow central Government and take a similarly tough approach to containing its costs. The Government's proposals for local authorities have been set on that basis. The 1995–96 total standard spending in England will be 2.2 per cent. higher than this year, including provision for community care. That is perfectly reasonable after a year in which provision was far better than local authorities had expected or planned for because of the Government's success in reducing inflation.
    As in central Government, local authorities will need to pursue opportunities for savings rigorously. Local authorities have substantial scope for improvements in efficiency, and for other economies. By that means, and by concentrating on their priority areas, they will be able to protect key services. The Government will use their powers to cap excessive local authority budgets should that prove necessary.
    My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will announce the details of the local authority government settlement on Thursday.

    HOUSING
    We have managed to find savings in housing capital expenditure, in particular that of the Housing

    1087
    Corporation. The Government will comfortably exceed their election manifesto commitment on the provision of new social housing up to 1994–95. The new plans will still allow a substantial social housing programme to continue, assisted by the corporation's success in levering in private finance.

    EMPLOYMENT
    Against the background of steadily falling unemployment, it has also been possible to make economies in the employment programme while still improving the quality of the programmes that are provided. A. major reform of training for unemployed adults, based on payment by results, will seek to ensure that more trainees get jobs when they finish their courses.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    As a result of the announcements in last year's Budget, we are already down the track of a thoroughgoing reform of the social security benefits system. We intend to ensure that it is better targeted on today's real needs and we intend to make it simpler and less susceptible to abuse.
    Legislation to reform statutory sick pay and to introduce a new incapacity benefit was enacted in the previous Session. This Session will see the passage of the Jobseeker's Allowance Bill and a major Pensions Bill to modernise the framework for both state and occupational provision.
    Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce the details of the next phase of this programme of reform. I wish to mention now three of the initiatives that he will announce, from which I expect substantial public spending savings to flow.
    First, there is housing benefit. My right hon. Friend will announce tomorrow a reform of the arrangements through which the general taxpayer subsidises local authorities' payment of housing benefit to the tenants of private landlords. The effect of this will be that authorities will not be fully reimbursed if they pay housing benefit on rents that are significantly above the average for the area and the type of property. Local authorities will, therefore, scale back the benefit they actually pay in line with the new restriction on central Government subsidy. They will, however, retain discretion and have some funding to pay the full rent in individual circumstances which they consider justify it.
    The previous arrangements meant that neither the landlord nor the tenant usually had any incentive to negotiate a lower rent because housing benefit would usually pay the rent in full—[Interruption.] This has had the inevitable effect, as seems to be acknowledged, of driving up rents and public expenditure—[Interruption.] I see that that is a welcome reform. At the moment, the social security budget sometimes pays the rent in full in cases where the rent is far above the average rent for property of that type in the neighbourhood. In future, people on housing benefit will have an incentive to make the same judgments about what they can afford as people who have to pay all their own rent. The system will no longer be a prey to the unscrupulous landlord. The reform will take effect from October 1995. Existing claimants remaining in the same property where they live now will not be affected.
    1088
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be glad to hear the encouraging response from Opposition Members—[Interruption.]
    Let me see how far I can take the Labour party down the process of social security reform. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce tomorrow further measures to limit support for mortgage interest through the income support system to constrain the cost to the taxpayer and to minimise the distortion to work incentives.
    Most people are readily able to insure their mortgage interest payments, if they wish, against periods of sickness or unemployment and many people already do so. For new mortgages taken out by people of working age after October 1995, support will not normally be available for the first nine months, although my right hon. Friend will consult on the precise arrangements, including different treatment for circumstances in which insurance might not be available. There will also be some scaling back of support for existing borrowers.
    One reason why insurance has not become more widespread is that the taxpayer has picked up the interest bill too readily in too many cases. This change will give more borrowers an incentive to ensure that the mortgage costs of people who are temporarily unable to keep up with their payments will be met by the borrowers themselves and by lenders, rather than by the taxpayer.
    Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will also announce a major intensification of the war against fraud in the social security system. We are already saving £700 million a year from existing efforts. The further measures on fraud, which include a major project to pay benefits in post offices by electronic means rather than by paper transactions, will, at a cost of £300 million, save another £2½ billion over the next three years.
    The Government know that firm control of public spending and reduced public borrowing are essential to sustained recovery, prosperity and jobs. We will also show that strong control of public spending overall can be combined with improvements in key public services selected as Government priorities.

    EDUCATION
    The Department for Education provision will increase in real terms by almost 1 per cent. next year. The Government are intent on extending their significant achievements in education, and we have also managed to find savings in parts of the education programme. Almost one in three young people is going to university, compared with one in eight in 1979. That is a remarkable achievement. A period of consolidation to secure quality and standards is now required after a period of very rapid expansion. However, the overall package of student grants and loans will once again increase in line with inflation. There will be continued growth in student numbers in further education, again to record levels. The new plans also allow for further growth in the number of grant-maintained schools and for additional capital spending in our schools.

    HOME OFFICE
    The Government continue to attach high priority to spending on law and order. The new plans for the Home Office increase provision for the police by 3 per

    1089
    cent. in 1995–96. Major efficiency improvements from the Sheehy proposals will enable more police officers to be released for front-line duties. The reforms to be implemented next year will give chief constables much greater freedom to manage their own increased resources and to respond more effectively to the public's priorities.

    SINGLE REGENERATION BUDGET
    As a former Minister with responsibilities for the inner cities, 'I am pleased to say that within the single regeneration budget we have found extra resources to support new projects in our rundown urban areas and elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be providing for more projects under the current bidding round and he will be able to conduct a second round of bidding with funds starting in 1996–97. In all, there will be more than £800 million for new regeneration projects over the next three years.

    HEALTH
    That brings me—finally, on public spending—to the Government's plans for the health service. With inflation so much lower than expected this year than last, it would have been perfectly possible for us to reduce our previous plans for health and still to meet our manifesto commitment to real growth in resources for the national health service each year. Due to the high priority that we give to the national health service, we have decided not to claw back the unexpected provision in this way. Instead, the health service will keep the unplanned bonus that it has had this year from lower inflation. I shall spell out what that means. Next year, spending on the national health service will grow by £1.3 billion. That is 1 per cent. growth in real terms against the ½ per cent. increase that we originally allowed for in last year's Budget. It will come on top of a real increase of 3¾ per cent. this year because of the drop of inflation.
    So, in addition to the extra money from the taxpayer, the health service continues to benefit from the improvements in performance flowing from the Government's reforms. Further improvements in efficiency are expected to release at least £600 million extra for patient care next year. All those savings, including gains from rationalising management and administration costs throughout the Department and throughout the national health service, are ploughed back into patient care. Those extra funds, on top of the extra provision that I have announced, which are achieved from savings coming from a variety of measures, have only one thing in common. All those savings— therefore all the extra funds—have so far been opposed by the Labour party.
    All this—the extra provision and the savings—means that next year we shall all benefit from an even better financed health service, which has seen real increases in spending on it by the taxpayers in every year since the Government took power. It will be delivering even better standards of patient care, with further improvements in patients charter standards, and more progress in reducing waiting times.

    HELPING PEOPLE BACK TO WORK
    At the beginning of this speech I said that the combination of healthy growth and low inflation we are now seeing is virtually unprecedented in Britain's recent past. Few doubt the strength of the recovery. But everyone in touch with the real world knows that the benefits of recovery have yet to feed through to many people in this country. Unemployment remains far too high.
    Thanks to the labour market and trade union reforms of the 1980s, unemployment did start falling at a much earlier stage of this recovery than it had in recent previous recoveries and, unlike other European countries, we have resisted pressures to add social costs on top of wage costs for our employers.
    Unemployment will, of course, fall further as the economy recovers. But I have long believed, as my panel of independent forecasters points out and as is now widely recognised, that demand expansion on its own is not enough to produce a sufficient fall in unemployment. We have to do more to reduce unemployment in ways which are consistent with sustained growth and low inflation.
    I have been making speeches on this and giving lectures ever since I became Chancellor on the need to ensure that we do not have recovery without jobs. As well as giving speeches, I have already done something about it. In my last Budget, I did three things.
    I announced measures to make it harder for people who are quite capable of working to stay on benefit without looking for a job. That is at the heart of the job seeker's allowance. I made it easier for people with children to take jobs, by introducing a child care allowance into family credit. I made it cheaper for employers to give people work, by cutting the lower rates of employers' national insurance contributions by a full percentage point.
    In this Budget I want to do more on all three fronts. We must get people back into work and out of dependency on benefit. We must reduce—not increase—the cost to employers of employing people who have been out of work. I aim to ensure that we do not have a class of people in this country who are excluded from economic activity.

    INCENTIVES FOR EMPLOYERS
    The first step is to encourage employers to look more favourably on people who have been out of work for some time.I can announce, therefore, a wholly new incentive to encourage employers to take on more people who have been unemployed for two years or more. In future, employers will get a full national insurance rebate for up to a year after taking on such a person. That will provide employers with an important new reason to give a second chance to someone who has been unemployed for some length of time—[Interruption.] Yes, but the Opposition were very late on the scene on which we have been working for a long time and they have got most of it wrong. I am going to announce a package which will show the Opposition how to do it.
    This first whole-year national insurance contribution holiday will run from April 1996. More immediately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment intends to develop new pilots under the

    1091
    Workstart scheme. This offers employers a grant to recruit people who have been unemployed for over two years. There will be around 5,000 new job opportunities. Experience with existing pilots that we have been running suggests that the scheme helps to break down the prejudice which can blight the long-term unemployed.
    I know that some employers will still won-y that people who have been unemployed for a long time may have lost the habit of working. We introduced the work trials scheme to counter that. It allows unemployed people to try out a new job for three weeks, without losing their benefit. They will keep their benefit entitlement. It costs employers nothing for those three weeks and it lets employers see for themselves whether the people they take on can be relied on to hold down a steady job. The record so far is impressive. A large number of people are kept on at the end of the trial period. So I propose to expand the scheme to provide 150,000 job opportunities over the next three years.
    In addition, I propose a further cut in the lower rates of employers' national insurance contributions for every employee. From next April, they will come down by another 0.6 per cent. This will reduce the cost to employers of providing lower-paid jobs by another £230 million in 1995–96, on top of the reduction of £940 million carried through from 1994–95. It must make sense to keep on cutting the burden on employers who create jobs and in particular on those employers who provide jobs for less skilled people. The Labour party keeps wanting to go in the opposite direction by increasing the costs on employers with a minimum wage and a social chapter.

    INCENTIVES TO LOOK FOR WORK
    I need to match these incentives to employers with measures to ensure that people get the rewards to which they are entitled when they move from unemployment into work.
    First, we need to ensure that people are kept in touch with the labour market and do not stay on benefit unnecessarily. The job seeker's allowance will reinforce the link between claiming benefit and looking for work. It will be supported by an unprecedented range of measures to help the unemployed.
    One of our existing measures, Community Action, was due to finish next year. My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has decided to extend the scheme in revised form. It will provide work experience and a route back to jobs for around 40,000 long-term unemployed people each year.
    We introduced Restart when I was Minister of Employment in 1986. That required people who had been on benefit for a long time to come in for an interview and advice to help to get back into work. It gave positive help to many people and got many back into work. It also revealed that some could not be bothered to come for the interview. They lost benefit.
    For young unemployed people, we have been experimenting with similar schemes called Workwise and 1–2–1. We propose to extend them nationwide.

    HELPING EMPLOYEES WITH THE TRANSITION TO WORK
    But it has to be worth people's while to take jobs. I also intend to introduce new measures to ensure that
    1092
    people are not deterred by genuine, short-term financial problems when they try to move from unemployment into work.
    Anyone moving from benefit into a low-paid job is likely to be better off, but it may not seem like it to the man or woman concerned. The first thing that happens when a person takes a new job is that income support disappears, and with it all help with the cost of housing and their council tax. In due course, the person in the new job may be entitled to family credit and housing benefit. But at the moment it can be hard to find out how much that will be, or when it will come.
    In the meantime, the person concerned has all the expenses of getting to work — buying clothes or tools, travelling to work, and so on. Time and time again, I have had people tell me that this is a major deterrent to taking a job and that they really cannot afford to take a job because of these gaps in the system. I have a number of measures to help.
    I propose to speed up the payment of family credit, so that anyone who takes a job can be sure of getting the benefit to which they are entitled, and getting it quickly.
    I propose to enable people who take a job to go on getting the same help with their rent and council tax as they had on income support, for their first four weeks in the new job. I propose to speed up the payment thereafter of housing benefit, so they can be quite sure where they stand at the end of the four weeks.
    I propose to exempt from tax the back-to-work bonus which my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced in October. That will give people who have been unemployed, but have managed to do a bit of part-time work while receiving their benefit, a lump sum when they leave benefit and take a job.
    I also propose to expand the number of grants available to people who take jobs, to cover their start-up costs. These are known as jobfinder's grants. I propose to make available around 25,000 grants of an average of £200 for those who have been unemployed for more than two years.

    FAMILY CREDIT
    Family credit has been an important and effective way of encouraging lone parents and couples with children to take employment. By providing top-up benefit for those in work it makes it worth while to give up unemployment and benefit dependency. At the moment it helps half a million people. Last year, I improved family credit by announcing the new child care allowance which was introduced in October.
    I now intend to give low-paid and unemployed people with families an incentive to take full-time work. The existing structure of family credit strongly favours part-time rather than full-time working. But the majority of the people who have been unemployed long term are people who need to find full-time work.
    I therefore intend to introduce a £10 a week premium for full-time workers on family credit to give a new incentive to take full-time work rather than stay on benefit. This will also give a substantial boost to the incomes of 345,000 low-paid families with children.

    1093
    But childless couples and single people account for two thirds of the long-term unemployed. These people, of course, cannot, at present, claim family credit. I would like to examine whether introducing a new in-work benefit for childless people would be effective.
    This is obviously a very big step and I have agreed with my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that we should try it out on an experimental basis. We intend to test run a new benefit through a pilot scheme covering 20,000 people. If the pilot shows that the benefit helps to get childless couples and single people back into work we will then consider introducing a national scheme.
    I have also been impressed by an imaginative scheme pioneered by the training and enterprise council in Lincolnshire. This helps people build up full-time work by parcelling together a number of part-time jobs. The scheme is known in Lincolnshire as Jobmatch. I propose to extend it to help up to 3,000 people a year.
    Overall, these measures constitute an extremely important and carefully thought-out package of support for unemployed people. It is no longer credible for some people to campaign for reductions in long-term unemployment and to reduce benefit dependency without having effective policies to deal with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?] It comes into effect steadily from this Budget. The details will be announced by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Social Security. There will be a social security statement, in the usual way.
    The days of priming the pump to cut unemployment are long since past. The Government are building reforms on reforms to remove at last the distortions and anomalies from the benefit system which discourage so many unemployed people from taking jobs.
    This package aims to lift people from dependency into work and to smooth the transition from out-of-work benefits to modest in-work benefits. The measures will work because they are carefully put together and they are affordable and because they are being introduced at a time of strong economic recovery based on our sound economic policies so that more jobs are becoming available.
    They are a set of effective policies to tackle the big problem of structural unemployment which faces the whole western world, and I believe that we are ahead of other countries in tackling it. I am sure that they will eventually gain widespread support—even from those who have no practicable ideas of their own. [Interruption.]
    Opposition Members—I hear from their interruptions—still do not understand. If we look to the minimum wage, if we look to the social chapter, if we load costs on those employers who might otherwise create low-paid jobs, we will make matters worse. We are giving incentives to create jobs and making the transition from unemployment to work easier. We started work before the Borrie commission. We have come up with better recommendations and the Borrie commission and the Labour party have a long way to go before they even understand how the system works.

    TAX
    Let me turn now to my proposals for taxation. Happily, in this year's Budget, I have no need to raise revenue overall in order to secure the public finances. The action in last year's Budget, combined with a firm approach to public spending, will see to that. Nor—as I have already made clear publicly—are significant tax cuts justified this year. But I do have a number of proposals to ensure that we raise the necessary revenue in ways which do least damage to the economy while helping vulnerable groups.

    ANTI-AVOIDANCE
    I am delighted that there now appears to be a wide political consensus in the House on the need to close loopholes and to prevent the artificial avoidance of taxation. There is, I have to say, in some quarters a tendency to exaggerate the extent of tax avoidance by including proposals, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) always does, that would actually impose extra taxes on legitimate business under the guise of a crackdown on so-called loopholes.
    I have said before and demonstrated before that we are no friends to the tax avoidance industry. Last year, I announced a number of measures to close genuine loopholes, raising £2 billion over three years.
    This year, I intend to go further by tackling the artificial avoidance of VAT on property transactions and share issues, by stopping the purchase of companies simply to make use of their surplus management expenses and by preventing tax avoidance through operations with discounted securities.
    In total, the anti-avoidance measures in this Budget will yield an additional £1.5 billion in the next three years. We will continue to close down genuine loopholes wherever we may find them.

    VEHICLE EXCISE DUTIES AND VAT ON CARS
    I have some major proposals on vehicle excise duty this year. Few things annoy honest motorists more than knowing that many people still drive without a tax disc and waste the time of police and the authorities in trying to track them down.
    Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government intended to move to continuous licensing. That means licensing on possession rather than use of a vehicle. We will be issuing a consultation paper setting out how we intend to do this. The move is designed to combat evasion and help fight crime by enabling the police accurately to check the ownership of vehicles.
    I can, however, reassure the House that we will not seek to disadvantage those motorists, including classic car owners, who do not pay vehicle excise duty now because their cars are genuinely off the road.
    I also intend to bring up to date the system of concessions and exemptions from vehicle excise duty. The existing highly complex arrangements go back, in some cases, to before the second world war and have little relevance to the modern world.
    The number of different concessionary classes will be reduced from 132 to nine, a simplified and sensible handful. This will come into effect from 1 July 1995 and will yield about £30 million a year.

    1095
    But the House will be pleased to hear that special treatment will still apply to cars for disabled drivers and emergency vehicles. Moreover, I have also decided that accessories for the disabled fitted in company cars will no longer be taxed as a benefit-in-kind from next April.
    I propose to increase the rate of vehicle excise duty for cars—the tax disc—by £5, to £135. But to avoid adding to industry's costs, lorry duty rates will again remain unchanged.
    I propose to introduce a significant change to one part of VAT relating to cars. Since 1992 taxi and car hire firms, unlike most businesses, have been able to recover the VAT on their cars. In response to industry's concerns about market distortion, I propose to extend this to cars bought by any business wholly for business use. This will mainly affect leased cars, with consequential changes to their VAT treatment when sold or leased on. The change should be revenue neutral in the long run, but will cost £140 million in the first year.

    FUEL DUTIES
    In my last Budget, I announced that road fuel duties would increase on average by at least 5 per cent. in real terms in future Budgets. This year, I intend to stick to that commitment. It is an essential part of the plans that I set out last year to deliver healthy public finances as quickly as possible and it forms an important part of the Government's strategy to return carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 level in the year 2000. From 6 pm tonight petrol taxes will therefore go up by 2½P a litre for both leaded and unleaded petrol, taking into account the effect of VAT.
    In recent years there has been a small differential between the duty on diesel and the duty on unleaded petrol. The differential is becoming difficult to justify in economic, health or environmental terms. I therefore propose to tax diesel at the same rate as unleaded petrol. This means an increase of about 3p a litre on diesel.
    I also propose to increase the duty on gas oil and fuel oil by ½p a litre, which will raise £70 million a year. I propose, however, to freeze the duty on road fuel gases.

    TOBACCO
    I turn next to duties on tobacco. The Government are committed to reducing smoking. I continue to believe that higher tax is the most effective and fair means of doing so.
    Last year I said that I intended to increase tobacco duties by at least 3 per cent. in real terms on average a year. I intend to stick to that commitment today.
    Tax on cigarettes will therefore increase by 10p on a packet of 20 from 6 o'clock tonight. Duty on other tobacco products will go up by a similar proportion.

    ALCOHOL
    The single European market has brought real benefits to British industry, through an expanded market for business, increased competition, reduced bureaucracy at frontiers and cheaper transport costs. These have all greatly benefited our consumers. But one of the most
    1096
    widely publicised other effects of the single market has been the increase in legitimate cross-border shopping in alcohol and tobacco, and in smuggling.
    Both of these have inevitably meant some loss of duty to the Exchequer, pressures on the British drinks industry and some damage to British business. No Chancellor can remain unmoved in the face of this, but nor can any Chancellor simply adopt popular measures to cut taxes on alcohol which would threaten the Revenue and require taxes on other goods to be raised.
    In the longer term, the solution is for the Government to work with our European partners to bring duties more in line. The forthcoming review of Europe-wide minimum excise duties gives us the opportunity to make a start on that. This year, pending that, I have once again listened to the concerns of the industries. I propose no increase in the duties on beer, table wine and spirits. This will mean that the proportion of the cost of an alcoholic drink represented by tax in this country will continue to fall. Ten years ago 37 per cent. of the price of a pint of beer was tax. Today it is only 30 per cent.

    BETTING AND GAMING DUTIES
    The Government also intend to modernise and deregulate betting and gaming. This process is, in my opinion, welcome and much overdue. The coverage of taxation must also keep up to date with the modern world. I therefore propose to widen the coverage of gaming machine licence duty to cover amusement machines such as arcade video games. It is anomalous that we should tax amusement machines with prizes, but not those without. I am sure that this measure will be welcomed by many parents, although perhaps not by all children.
    Gaming machine licence duty has been increased only once since 1987. I propose to restore its real value to the 1987 level, but at the same time to allow payment by instalments. Those measures will raise about £60 million in a full year.
    In 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames announced a reduction in pools betting duty of 2½ per cent. Since then, this has helped to fund the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and I have now reviewed the reduction. We have agreed that it should continue for a further five years, provided that the pools companies also continue to fund sport and the arts at their present level. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Many of my hon. Friends appreciate, as I do, that the foundation continues to support a number of worthwhile projects to encourage participation in sport and the arts. I am delighted that the pools companies have generously reaffirmed their commitment.

    BUSINESS TAXES
    A strong and thriving business community is the only way to ensure a strong and thriving economy. The Government have a record of achievement in developing the tax system in ways which improve competitiveness, sharpen incentives, simplify administration and encourage the small and medium-sized businesses which are so important to the future development of the economy.

    1097
    I should like to announce a package of measures today which will add further to the strength of British industry. Decisions on many of the measures that I shall be announcing today have been informed by the industrial finance initiative undertaken last year by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and his predecessor.

    CORPORATION TAX AND CAPITAL ALLOWANCES
    First, I should like to say a few words about corporation tax and capital allowances. We have one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the industrialised world. Low tax rates are good for incentives. They mean that businesses can keep more of their profits to use as they, the businesses, want. Since 1984 we have cut the main corporation tax rate from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent., while scaling back capital allowances to a level broadly matching commercial depreciation.
    I have considered again all the calls for increased allowances to encourage investment. They have a simplistic appeal. But I remain firmly of the opinion that increasing capital allowances would distort investment decisions and would not encourage the high-quality investment needed to improve economic performance. A narrower tax base would jeopardise our ability to maintain the low tax rates which have helped to transform British industry over the last decade.
    The change from high capital allowances to low rates of corporation tax has been very successful. I propose to maintain that emphasis on low rates for the successful rather than high allowances for all in our system of business taxes. I also have no changes to announce on the rate of advance corporation tax or the value of the tax credit on dividends.

    BUSINESS RATES
    I would now like to deal with business rates. We are about to implement the first five-yearly review of valuations of properties for rating purposes. Without those five-yearly reviews the rate base would become hopelessly out of date. The property market has changed a lot over the past five years with wide regional variations. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has gone down."]
    As a result of the review, many properties in the south of England will begin to see reductions in their rates bills. Some businesses in the midlands, the north, Scotland and Wales will benefit as well, but others will discover that up-to-date valuations will raise their liability.
    I am glad to say that I will be able to continue to find resources to help businesses through this new transition period in the same way as we have been helping business through the transition from the last revaluation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will announce details of the scheme later today.
    But I can tell the House now that increases in bills will be limited to 10 per cent. in any one year for large properties, once adjusted for inflation. Small business properties account for three quarters of those receiving protection.
    1098
    We have decided to limit real increases for such properties to 7½ per cent. This protection will in part be financed by limiting real reductions in rates bills for large properties to 5 per cent. and for small properties to 10 per cent.
    But the revenue from limiting gains is not enough to help those businesses which find themselves worse off as a result of more up-to-date valuations. I have therefore decided to provide assistance of £605 million next year to finance the transitional relief. That is similar to the amount that we are spending on the former transitional relief scheme this year.

    ECGD
    I laid stress at the beginning of my speech on our improved export performance. We need to build on this and not become complacent. Strong export growth will be essential if healthy recovery is to be sustained.
    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have taken a closer look at the services provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. We have agreed that a reduction in premiums of around 10 per cent. on average is possible while still protecting taxpayers' interests. This will improve our competitiveness, building on the premium reductions in the past two years.
    Furthermore, we have agreed to increase the amount of ECGD cover available to many important developing markets by £300 million for 1997–98. Those measures will provide an added incentive for British exporters to play an even greater role in the most successful and rapidly growing economies in the world.

    LANDFILL TAX
    As I said earlier, one of my main objectives for the tax system is that it should raise revenue in ways which do the least possible damage to the economy. In some cases, taxes do some good, by helping markets work better and by discouraging harmful or wasteful activities.
    Taxes can play an important role in protecting the environment. One major problem is the disposal of waste. I would like to make an announcement today to help tackle the problem.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will issue shortly a consultation paper setting out details of a new tax to be collected by Customs and Excise on waste disposed in landfill. We propose that a new landfill tax should come into effect in 1996. It should raise several hundred million pounds a year.
    But I am determined not to impose additional costs on business overall. I shall therefore be looking at ways to offset the impact of the new tax by making further compensatory reductions in the level of employer national insurance contributions when the new tax is introduced. In brief, I want to raise tax on polluters to make further cuts in the tax on jobs.

    SMALL BUSINESSES
    I have more measures to help small businesses in particular. The need to focus on smaller firms with growth potential has been an extremely important theme of the industrial finance initiative. It is absolutely

    1099
    essential that we have a healthy and vigorous small firms sector for the future economic well-being of the country and to achieve higher levels of employment.
    One important way in which we can help small businesses is by encouraging the venture capital industry. A flourishing venture capital industry plays a key role in promoting job creation, innovation and growth. The British venture capital industry has been growing in recent years and I am determined that that growth should continue.
    In my Budget last year, I announced the introduction of the enterprise investment scheme and I announced consultation on a possible new venture capital trust scheme and an extension of capital gains tax reinvestment relief. All three measures were aimed at encouraging equity investment in small companies. I want to build on them today.

    ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SCHEME
    The new enterprise investment scheme is now in place, offering tax relief for investment in unquoted trading companies. Over 40 per cent. of the schemes set up so far involve so-called business angels, who want to invest their expertise, as well as their money, in a small, growing business.
    That is a good start, but the scheme has some complex rules and I have decided to simplify them. I am also extending capital gains tax reinvestment relief to the enterprise investment scheme, which should increase greatly its attractiveness.

    VENTURE CAPITAL TRUSTS
    I have consulted widely on venture capital trusts and the response has been very positive. I have accepted suggestions for change on some details and I propose to implement the scheme in full. I want to go further by making investment in risk capital even more attractive than I originally contemplated when I announced the consultation period. Investment up to £100,000 a year in new shares in a venture capital trust will offer 20 per cent. up-front income tax relief and capital gains tax reinvestment relief, in addition to tax-free dividends and capital gains. I believe that venture capital trusts will make a successful contribution to filling a gap in our enterprise economy by encouraging more people to become venture capitalists.
    The cost of the new scheme is expected to be £150 million next year, rising to £290 million in 1996–97. Of course, those costs have to be based on an estimate of the take-up, but we expect considerable take-up. It could mean that funds of £21/2 billion might be raised over the next three years, providing much more investment where it is most needed in our small, growing, technologically advanced and innovative companies.
    My proposals go significantly beyond what I first set out 12 months ago. They now put in place an effective and imaginative set of measures aimed at generating equity investment in dynamic, innovative growing businesses. They should be widely welcomed by everyone who understands how a modern free market economy works and how new jobs are created in the modern world. Unlike some hon Members, I do not describe tax reliefs of this kind to stimulate investment in business and enterprise as tax loopholes, which they are usually identified as by the Opposition.

    INSOLVENCY REFORM
    During the recent recession businesses, particularly small businesses, were too often being closed down by their creditors and jobs lost before rescue options had been properly explored. Following consultation, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will shortly issue a paper setting out the Government's main conclusions on company rescue procedures in future.
    To give management more time to reorder their affairs, we will introduce a 28-day moratorium binding upon all parties. This will give companies a breathing space to assess rescue prospects and come to an arrangement with creditors. We are also consulting further on a mechanism to help substitute equity for debt of firms in administration or receivership. I hope that those measures will contribute further to the creation of a rescue culture, discouraging the needless and wasteful liquidation of businesses that could become sound.

    LOAN GUARANTEE SCHEME
    The impact of the 1993 changes to the loan guarantee scheme has been encouraging, but its rules are still quite rightly being criticised as too complex. Together with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I intend to review those rules with a view to making the scheme simpler and more attractive.

    LIFTING BURDENS ON BUSINESS
    The tax system not only imposes a financial burden on business that pay tax, but a regulatory burden and an overhead cost as well. I want to reduce those burdens on businesses. Simply running PAYE and national insurance contributions is difficult for many small businesses. From next April, I propose to increase by more than 30 per cent. the threshold for businesses to make quarterly rather than monthly payments to the Inland Revenue.
    That will benefit around 100,000 employers at a one-off one-year cost of £75 million. That means that nearly two thirds of all employers in the country will now be able to make quarterly payments on their PAYE. I also propose to consult on a move towards annual VAT payments for small traders and to further simplification of VAT accounting.
    Furthermore, I intend to improve the administration of the tax system by encouraging closer working between the two revenue departments, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, as well as closer co-operation between the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency. This will all be directed at improving the service offered to businesses seeking to comply with their tax obligations.
    I would also like to make some progress towards closer alignment of tax and national insurance. From next April, clearances given by the Inland Revenue concerning non-taxable expenses will also count for national insurance purposes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will give details of this and other measures in his statement tomorrow.
    I also intend to raise the registration threshold for VAT to £46,000 tomorrow in line with inflation. This will help a number of the smallest businesses.

    1101
    Finally, I turn to self-assessment. I am publishing today for consultation some details of the remaining legislation for self-assessment. The Inland Revenue has been consulting widely on the changes. The response has been positive and it is a worthwhile reform for which to aim. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I intend to go ahead with our proposals and aim to keep any burden placed on employers as low as possible.
    Taken together, this latest extensive package of tax reliefs and deregulatory measures provide a substantial package of support for the business community. They aim to strengthen British businesses not by intervention, but by easing cashflow problems, cutting back red tape and providing targeted help for small businesses. That is how we maintain our improved business performance, help to sustain the recovery and help to create more jobs.

    SAVINGS
    Higher savings also have an important role to play in helping sustain growth, by providing additional resources for investment.— [Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the Budget contains extremely serious proposals to help small businesses, to cut unemployment and to produce all the real improvements in the economy that the people of this country want.
    I have already announced measures to encourage savings into unquoted companies. There are two further measures I would like to announce today.

    PEPS AND CORPORATE BONDS
    personal equity plans have been very successful since their introduction in 1986. Over £15 billion has been invested in over 4 million plans to date. They have widened share ownership and played an important role in providing finance to industry. I want to take that success further and in particular to widen the type of finance available to industry through PEPs.
    I propose that, from next year, people will be able to invest through PEPs in a range of corporate bonds, convertibles and preference shares, and not simply equities. This change is expected to cost £10 million in 1995–96 rising to £40 million in 1997–98.

    TESSAs
    When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister introduced tax exempt special savings accounts—or TESSAs, as they came to be called—it was understood that tax-free interest would be allowed to build up over a five-year period. For some of those accounts, the five-year period will soon be coming to an end.
    I have had to consider whether this tax exemption for savings should be extended. TESSAs have been very popular, allowing many people to catch the savings habit and build a nest egg for their future. Over 4 million people have invested over £20 billion since they were first introduced.
    Given their success and popularity, I have decided that all or part of the capital accumulated in a TESSA at maturity can be reinvested straight away in a new
    1102
    TESSA. Anyone who wants to continue to save tax-free will therefore be able to do so up to an overall limit of £9,000. This measure will cost £150 million in 1996–97.

    INCOME TAX
    Finally, I turn from taxation to income tax.
    The lower, basic and higher rates of income tax will remain unchanged in 1995–96. However, we can at last begin to benefit from our steady return to healthy public finances. This means that I can fully index the personal allowance, the threshold for higher rate tax, and the income limit for the age-related allowance.
    I have been able to provide some additional help in two important areas. First, I want to do a little bit more for pensioners. I propose to increase the age-related personal allowance by more than indexation. The allowances for everyone aged 65 and over will be increased by £430. Nearly 3 million pensioners will gain from this, at a cost of £200 million in a full year.
    Secondly, I also propose to widen the 20p lower band to £3,200. That increase is twice the amount necessary for indexation for inflation. One in five of all taxpayers will now only pay tax at the lowest rate of 20p.
    The tax measures that I am announcing in this Budget—all the tax measures that I have described—reduce revenue by £1 billion in 1995–96, but that is because I have had to provide £605 million, as I have said, for the transitional relief for business rate payers. I have said many times that I would like to go further and that I will in due course go further. Conservative Members are tax cutters by instinct. But I have also made it clear over and over again that tax cuts can come only when we can afford them and when it is in the interests of our industrial economy that we should make them.
    That means two things. We have to continue to improve further our long-term economic performance. That is why in my Budget today I have introduced numerous measures—boring the hon. Member for Bolsover—to strengthen the economy and make sure that recovery is sustained and that we become a powerful manufacturing and industrial economy.
    The second requirement is firm control of public spending.

    PUBLIC SPENDING AGGREGATES
    All my efforts to help businesses and help the unemployed will be to no avail if I did not keep a firm grip on public spending.
    I have already dealt with spending by each Department. But I have not yet described what will happen to public spending overall as a result of our decisions. Last year's spending round delivered substantial cuts in overall public spending. This year's has not been easy because of that.
    Public spending control is not only about controlling costs. It is about choice of priorities. That is the language of politics.
    Within this year's settlement, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I have succeeded in producing real increases in resources for priority programmes such as the national health service and the police service.

    1103
    We have also managed to protect the delivery of public services generally by focusing our search for savings on administrative costs.
    We have avoided our tight settlement last year being turned into a wasteful one by ensuring that success in lowering inflation does not simply increase the volume of spending on programmes.
    I am glad to tell the House that that approach has allowed us to make overall savings which are even greater than those achieved last year.
    Last year, we managed to reduce the control total by £8 billion over the three years. This year we have done a bit better—not 10, not 15, not 20, but another £24 billion off the control total over the next three years on top of last year's reductions.
    Last year we reduced public spending plans so as to reduce general Government expenditure by £15 billion over a three-year period. This year, on top of last year's reductions, we will reduce general Government expenditure by £28 billion. That is a total reduction in Government expenditure over the four years covered by my two Budgets of £43 billion.
    Those savings have allowed me to reduce my projection for the public sector borrowing requirement. Taking into account the tax and public spending measures, I now expect to be able to reduce borrowing from £30 billion to £21½ billion in 1995–96, from the previously forecast £21 billion to £13 billion in 1996–97, and from £12 billion to £5 billion the year after that. This reduced borrowing should provide an added stimulus to business confidence, strengthen the recovery further and give us the healthy public finances that we need to put our economy and our economic policy on course.

    CONCLUSION
    This Budget keeps Britain firmly on track for real economic growth that can last. This Budget concentrates on strengthening British businesses. This Budget will help to create more jobs. And it will lay the foundations for sustained rises in prosperity. I commend it to the House.

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

    (a) Tobacco products (rates) (motion No. 6);

    (b) Hydrocarbon oil (rates) (motion No. 7);

    (c) Vehicle excise duty (rates) (motion No. 12)—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means Motions), and agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled "Amendment of the law". It is on that motion that the unified Budget debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week, and they will then be decided without debate. After the Finance Bill has been brought in, the House will be invited to dispose of proceedings on a motion dealing with public expenditure, which will have been debated along with the Budget resolutions.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

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

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

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

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

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

  4.57 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: I intend to deal with my response to the Budget in three parts: first, its effect on living standards; secondly, the degree to which it reduces social injustice and cuts unemployment; and, thirdly, its impact on the long-term economic strength of the country'.
  We have seen the reaction—the cheers—from hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, but I suspect that there will be two distinct views on the Budget. One will be the Conservative politician's view and the other will be the view in the homes, workplaces and streets of this country, because whatever is said by the Chancellor, this Budget will go down in history as the VAT-on-fuel Budget.
  Let me deal straight away—[Interruption.] It only shows how out of touch the Conservative party' is if Conservative Members do not think that the question that people are asking, and will be asking tonight, is, why did the Chancellor not take the chance to live up to his election promise.
  Let me deal straight away with the Chancellor's compensation proposals. Let us just see how generous they really are. As I understand it, there are only two parts. First, there are the social fund cold weather payments, which will apply, of course, only when the temperature is very low and only to certain groups of people. There are many groups to whom that payment will not apply at all.
  As for the home energy efficiency scheme, let us make it clear exactly how much it amounts to. It amounts to £10 million, to be set against the £2.7 billion that the Chancellor is raising from value added tax. Furthermore, he announced what he described as very generous retirement pension help. I think I am right in saying that that is only the normal indexation to the retail prices index, plus the compensation already announced. Even the extension of help for old-age pensioners which the Chancellor announced earlier amounts, on average, to about 10p a week, or £6 a year. How can that possibly compensate for the enormous rise in VAT?
  Next April, everyone's fuel bills will increase by 10 per cent., on top of the price rises and the 8 per cent. VAT already levied. Let us remind Conservative Members—indeed, we will not cease to remind them—that they

  1105
  fought the last general election on a specific pledge that they would never raise VAT. They have broken that pledge, and they will never be trusted on tax again.
  Let me tell Conservative Members that the Opposition will provide the House with a chance to speak for the people of this country. When we table an amendment allowing hon. Members to vote on the VAT rise, we will challenge all members of the Conservative party—both Conservative parties—to keep the promise to the electorate on which they were elected. If they break that promise, the country will have been warned that the Conservative party imposed VAT on fuel and power when it promised that it would not, and that it cannot be trusted not to impose VAT on food, children's clothing, books and papers if it is ever elected again.
  That, however, is not the end of the tax rises that the Chancellor did not mention in his Budget. Next April, mortgage tax relief will be cut to 15 per cent., which is another breach of a specific manifesto pledge; moreover, the married couple's allowance is to fall. The Chancellor did not mention that either. Car and home insurance taxes are to rise—and all that will come on top of last year's and this year's taxes. In two years, the average British family will have experienced a "sting" amounting to nearly £1,000 a year—7p on the standard rate of income tax. That is the betrayal that the British people will never forget.
  In many of the interviews that the Chancellor has given recently, in what used to be described as Budget purdah, he has been honest enough to confess that he has "delivered very little to Mr. and Mrs. Smith up and down the country." I believe that that is a reference to what Conservative central office calls "the elusive feel-good factor", which was mentioned in the now notorious Maples report.
  I shall tell Conservative Members why there is no feel-good factor. I shall tell them why Mr. and Mrs. Smith do not feel good. Mr. and Mrs. Smith feel bad about what the Government have done. They feel bad because the mortgage tax relief has been cut by a Government who promised that it would not be cut; they feel bad because it costs more to drive, to insure their car or home and to take a holiday; they feel bad because they must pay the VAT on fuel, and they feel sickened that their elderly relatives must pay it, too.
  There is a real world out there, and it is a mile away from what the Chancellor described. It is a world of mass unemployment, temporary contracts and enforced part-time working. That is the world in which people live, and these are the tax rises that will hit them next year. It is a world in which one job is often not enough to make ends meet—a world in which living standards will fall as a result of this Budget, in which crime and the fear of crime have risen, in which the transport system has ceased to serve people and in which the national health service has been sacrificed on the altar of the free market. As living standards have fallen, people have seen the results of social decay and injustice all around them.
  Let me now deal with the Chancellor's so-called "Budget for jobs" measures. Let us analyse them, and see just how much they amount to when balanced with the problems. The Chancellor talked of a deprived underclass; I believe that many people hold the Government responsible for the 15 years in which that underclass has
  1106
  come into being. He claimed that his measures were very generous. Let me tell him that his national insurance holiday—after two years of unemployment—is what the Opposition asked for, but we asked for it to be granted after one year.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Labour welcomes it.
  Mr. Blair: Of course we welcome it, but why did the Chancellor not adopt the other alternative that we proposed—a proper tax rebate on national insurance, and one for employers, which would have allowed us to return a substantial number of the long-term unemployed to work?
  The Chancellor said that there had been a big expansion of community action. I understand that 57,000 people are involved in the scheme this year and that next year the number will be reduced to 40,000. The only increase is on last year's plans. Furthermore, I think I am right in saying that the unemployed people who will be assisted will be assisted from a reduced budget. A press release has just been issued by the Department of unemployment—I mean the Department of Employment—[Laughter.] That was, I think, an entirely justifiable slip. The press release states:
  "We will increase the number of unemployed people who get jobs as a result of the programme from a reduced budget".
  The Chancellor's generous help does not appear, on analysis, to be quite as generous as he said. On any basis, the problem of the long-term unemployed will remain.
  The Chancellor says that he cannot find more money to deal with that problem. Let me tell him one or two things that he could have done. He said today that he could deal with certain loopholes—the loopholes that he used to dismiss so abusively in years gone by. Now, he can suddenly find £1.5 billion over three years—I think that that was the figure.
  Let me tell the Chancellor about some of the other loopholes that he could have closed. Why could he not act against the abuse of executive share options? Why could he not withdraw tax relief for private medical insurance, into which £100 million goes each year? Let me tell the Chancellor—this illustrates the choice that must be made between the two parties—that that in itself would have been enough to kick-start a proper programme such as the one that we have described for the long-term unemployed.
  Because of offshore trusts and the abuse of inheritance tax, ordinary families are being penalised while those at the top of the income scale are not. The same applies to abuses in the privatised utilities. The national grid was valued at £1.5 billion; it is now worth £4.5 billion. That increase has not been earned. It is a windfall increase, of the same order as the current salary increases at the top of the income scale.
  At the bottom of the heap, owing to long-term unemployment, are families with children who are becoming so poor that in certain areas mortality rates are rising. Some of our children are suffering from malnutrition. We believe that, while there exists a single possibility of raising money properly by ending abuses, it is intolerable for the Budget to leave gross abuses of the tax system unchecked, or to refuse to ensure that its burdens and advantages are more fairly distributed when families are living on or near the breadline.

  1107
  The injustice, however, is not just at the expense of the poor. One of the most interesting reports published in the past couple of weeks was produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and it dealt with the impact of tax changes on ordinary families between 1985 and 1995. Using that period is being generous to the Government, because it leaves out the VAT increases that the Government introduced in 1979 in breach of their promise not to do so.
  What is shown by the 10 years, 1985 to 1995? That is what we have made all the sacrifices for. It shows that the bottom 40 per cent. of the population have lost as a result of the tax changes and a further 20 per cent. have barely gained. So, a majority have either lost or stayed still and it is only the top 10 per cent. who have gained substantial sums of money. They have gained over five times the amount of the next percentage down. That is what has happened, despite the huge proceeds from the sale of oil and assets which, taken together, amount to £8,000 per family in Britain. That money could have been given to families and could have been put in the building society and they would have done better than they have done out of the Government.
  What of the final test—the long-term economic strength of the country? It is true that some of the economic indicators look up. I must tell Conservative Members that I do not believe that anyone in the country gives them much credit for any recovery that there is, but even this Government could not keep the country in recession for ever.
  It is true that borrowing is substantially down, but let us not forget who put us in financial chaos in the first place. Now is the time to look at the Government's record in perspective. After all, they have had nearly 16 years—not 16 weeks or 16 months—to get it right.
  At the start of the 1980s, the Conservative party's economic promise was based on four elements: first, it would cut unemployment; secondly, it would deliver competent economic management; thirdly, it would improve public services through privatising and commercialising; and, fourthly, greater wealth at the top would trickle down to the rest and reduce poverty. Some Conservative Members still believe in that, but the country does not believe in it any more.
  Sixteen years on, let me give the Government some inescapable facts—what might be called killer facts. Unemployment is up, we have had the two worst recessions in living memory, public services are weaker and people are fed up with privatisation. Although there have been massive gains for those at the top, middle income Britain faces a 7p rise in the basic rate of income tax, and poverty and inequality have hugely increased.
  The economic strategy for the future is not that which they have pursued in the past. The real test of the Budget is how we rebuild our economy, equip our people and our industry and give them the security and confidence to prosper. The Budget was silent on how to invest in our people at school and at work, to motivate them, extend their potential and treat them fairly as proper partners in the enterprise.
  We must expand and modernise our industry, renew our infrastructure, harness and use for all the country the benefits of new technology, regenerate economic activity in areas such as the inner cities, the coal communities and shipbuilding communities, which have been hit by
  1108
  structural change, reduce inequality and provide a more unified and cohesive society. That is the agenda of the 1990s. It is an agenda not of crude market dogma but of partnership for the future. That is what the people of the country want the Budget to do. They want help with the problems that they really face in the real world, not what Conservative politicians say.
  We can now see ever more clearly the dividing lines on which the next election will be fought—Labour as the party of people against the Tories as the party of privilege; Labour as the party of investment against the Conservatives as the party of waste and high unemployment; Labour as the party of social justice against the Tories as the party of social decay; and Labour as the party of strong public services against the Conservatives as the party of privatised dogma. Those are the choices that the country faces and, after today's Budget, more than ever before people will turn to Labour.
  5.14 pm
  Sir David Knox: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on his second Budget speech. I am afraid that I cannot extend my congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition. At his party conference recently, he had a great deal to say about new Labour. This afternoon, we heard nothing more than old Bolsover from him. There is nothing very new about the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
  Like last year's speech, my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech was commendably brief. No doubt, to some extent his speech will be condemned by the media as rather dull, but I believe that it was right in the circumstances. I must confess that I like some of the measures that he introduced more than others. None the less, his basic Budget judgment has been right and is sound.
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced further help with VAT for those on state benefits. That is the additional help that he promised last year. We will, of course, have an opportunity to look at the detail tomorrow, but as my right hon. and learned Friend said, it means that those at work will be paying VAT on fuel and the pensioners will not.
  There has been great hypocrisy about this issue. The effect of VAT on domestic fuel has been grossly exaggerated. During the past 12 months, the retail prices index has increased by less than it has for many years and that index includes the effect of the increase of VAT on domestic fuel.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir David Knox: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman at this stage.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point, please?
  Sir David Knox: Yes.
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman supports the Government's decision to impose VAT on fuel, but he is making no comment about the fact that VAT is imposed not just on the cost of the fuel but on the standing charges as well, which have been increasing dramatically. So, by paying VAT on the standing charge as well as on the cost

  1109
  of the fuel, pensioners are having to pay a double tax. That is leading to some pensioners having to pay more on standing charges and VAT than the cost of the fuel itself. What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do about that?
  Sir David Knox: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman for an intervention, not for a speech. He knows as well as anyone else that it was always intended that VAT would be imposed on the whole bill. The hon. Gentleman also knows that, if it did not happen that way, the whole system would be open to abuse. We would probably find that if VAT had not been put on the whole bill, the standing charge would have comprised most of the cost on fuel bills.
  Before being interrupted, I said that the effect of VAT on domestic fuel has been grossly exaggerated. I said that the retail prices index has gone up by less in the past year than it has for a long time and includes the effect of VAT on domestic fuel. I understand that the Labour party wants to impose some sort of tax on domestic fuel at some stage. I cannot really see the difference in effect between the Labour party's tax and VAT.
  I was pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals to help the unemployed. I have always taken the view that the principal help for the unemployed is through sensible demand management. However, demand management is not enough on its own and other measures are undoubtedly needed, particularly to help the long-term unemployed who have specific problems in returning to work.
  I welcome also the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend chose not to increase the duties on beer, wine and spirits. I should have preferred it if he had managed to reduce the duties. Many publicans and others in this country face real problems with people bringing in cheap alcohol from other European Union countries, creating unfair competition for British publicans and others. I hope, therefore, that European Union negotiations to equalise rates throughout the Union will be pursued with great vigour in the months ahead.
  I am not so sure about the petrol duty increase which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. Like many other hon. Members, I represent a rural constituency and people there are heavily dependent on their cars. The constant upping of the petrol duty imposes a heavy burden on many of my constituents.
  After the dust of the Budget has settled, it will be judged, not on its detailed proposals but on its effect on the British economy in 12 to 18 months' time. In my view, the eventual judgment on the Budget will be that my right hon. and learned Friend's caution was exactly right in the circumstances.
  It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to present his Budget in more favourable economic circumstances than have obtained for a long time. Usually, a Chancellor faces a situation where either fast economic growth and falling unemployment are accompanied by rising inflation and a deteriorating balance of payments, or low inflation and an improving balance of payments are accompanied by low or negative growth and rising unemployment. Today, possibly uniquely, all the economic indicators point in the right direction. We have fast economic growth, falling unemployment, low inflation and an improving balance
  1110
  of payments. Although the present economic position is extremely good and the outlook is favourable, there is no room for complacency. As we have found out to our cost so often in the past, economic problems are never permanently solved.
  It will be extremely difficult to keep economic growth, unemployment, inflation and the balance of payments moving in the right direction, ensuring that expansion neither gets out of hand nor slows down. In performing that balancing act, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is not helped by the media or by many commentators, particularly those from the monetarist school, whose views are dominated by the short term. I get tired of reading articles written by supposed economic experts who tell us that inflation has been cured and that, consequently, the Chancellor no longer needs to bother about it. We have heard that before. It has always been wrong before and it is wrong again today.
  The consequences of any economic decision, be it of a monetary or a fiscal nature, take from 12 to 18 months to become effective. The task that faced my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor today was to introduce measures to deal with what he considered would be the position in 12 to 18 months' time. Because inflation is low today does not mean that it will be low early in 1996. A wrong decision in this Budget could well spark off a bout of inflation then. Indeed, it was because my right hon. and learned Friend considered that inflation might be a problem then that he rightly increased interest rates about two months ago.
  In his Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend has taken further steps to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement to ensure that economic expansion does not get out of control. I have always believed that the Budget should be used in that way. In times of recession, the Budget deficit should be increased. In times of boom, the deficit should be reduced or even eliminated. That is sensible, counter-cyclical economics.
  Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend will not get every economic decision right. No one ever has and no one ever will. After all, economic forecasting is a notoriously inexact science, as he said in the debate yesterday. By looking ahead to try to anticipate the situation, as he has done since he became Chancellor, and as he has done again today in his Budget speech, he has a much better chance of being right than any of his predecessors, whose policies have all too frequently been no more than a response to the current position.
  More damage has been done to the British economy by responding to monthly or even quarterly economic statistics, which in any event are invariably wrong, than by anything else. My right hon. and learned Friend has broken clear of that. It is important that he should not revert to such bad habits, however tempting it may be and however strong the media pressure may be for instant action.
  One of the great successes of the current economic recovery is that it is largely based on higher exports. At the depth of the recession, there was great concern that the recovery would be accompanied by a deterioration in the already serious balance of payments position. After all, a worsening balance of payments has been a feature of all past recoveries.

  1111
  This time, as we moved out of recession, exports have risen much faster than imports. As a result, there has been a considerable reduction in the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments. That improvement must continue, as we are still in substantial deficit. It can best be achieved by maintaining a competitive exchange rate without inflation, which means that interest rates must not be increased by too much and that fiscal policy as well as monetary policy should be used in the battle against inflation. Today's lower public sector borrowing requirement forecast is a step in the right direction.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor did not reduce taxes in the Budget. It would have been ridiculous to do so when some tax increases in the pipeline have yet to be effective. Moreover, tax cuts would have increased the PSBR and that would almost certainly have upset the financial markets and perhaps necessitated higher interest rates. The Budget will ensure that steady economic growth will continue. It is important that it should do so, for it will be possible to reduce unemployment to an acceptable level only if growth continues.
  The reduction in joblessness of almost 500,000 in the past two years is welcome, but unemployment at about 2,350,000 is still much too high. I never cease to be amazed at the complacency throughout the country about the much higher level of unemployment that has obtained in the past 20 years. I emphasise the past 20 years because unemployment did not occur only under this Government. Throughout that period, unemployment has been more than 1 million. In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, it was around the 3 million mark.
  Unemployment at those levels is not inevitable. From 1945 to 1974, we had full employment. The number of people out of work fluctuated, but it rarely exceeded 500,000. In 1955 and again in 1965, it was as low as 1.1 per cent. of the working population, about an eighth of what it is today. That shows how far we have moved from the high level of achievement in the 30 years after the war. We must aim to return to those days as soon as possible, for unemployment is a social scourge and is divisive. It is impossible to have one nation if one in 12 of the working population is out of work.
  Unemployment is also economically wasteful. If we are not using all the available labour in the country, we are not maximising national output and that means that the nation is forgoing wealth that it could otherwise enjoy. The task facing my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is, therefore, to ensure that demand is at such a level that the potential supply of labour, capital and enterprise is fully used. That will bring economic success and social harmony to our country and I know that that is my right hon. and learned Friend's aim.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) praised the Chancellor, but, in doing so, gave a magnificent indictment of the previous 15 years of Conservative government, although the Government have, apparently, at last got it right.
  The Chancellor clearly wished to give the impression of solid caution, prudence and steadiness at the helm and that we are on the road to long-term recovery; the reality is that no one believed him. People know that he is taking more taxes out of our pockets today—seven additional
  1112
  taxes in the current financial year totalling more than £6 billion—and that he intends to hang on to them to cut tax in advance of the next general election. Today's prudence is to pave the way for financial profligacy before the election. The idea that it is laying the foundation for solid and sustained growth does not square with the Government's record of the past 15 years or with the Chancellor's attitude.
  The hon. Member for Moorlands referred to inflation. Everyone welcomes the low inflation that we have had for 18 months, but most of the reduction in inflation had little or nothing to do with Government policies but more to do with a highly competitive economy clawing its way out of recession, the effect of world recession and low world commodity prices. Those factors are not under the Government's control and could always change direction. Indeed, as the world economy recovers, they are likely to do so. The Government could then want to introduce tax cuts just at a time when it would destroy sustained economic recovery. We all know what happens in those circumstances: money is clawed back immediately after the general election, once the public have been conned into voting a certain way. The people of Britain will not be taken in so readily again.
  We are already hearing reports of capacity constraints in industry. Investment in industry, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is at a historical low. That is not the foundation for sustained, long-term recovery; it is an indication of a manufacturing base too much reduced to provide the platform on which growth must depend.
  The Chancellor has reaffirmed his commitment to taking the extra tranche of value added tax on fuel, despite the fact that he had enough room to manoeuvre within the Government and gave back sufficient revenue to have wiped out that increase at no net cost to the Exchequer. He did not do so because he was determined not to give people the response that they were seeking—the recognition that it was an unfair tax—but instead to hang on to the money to finance future tax cuts.
  Interestingly, however, the Chancellor did not take the same attitude when he suggested the possibility of a new tax—the landfill tax. He told us not to worry because it is an environmental tax that will immediately be ploughed back in tax cuts elsewhere but not, apparently, in respect of the imposition of VAT on fuel. That is testimony to the fact that VAT on fuel was not, is not and never will be an environmental tax; it is merely an unjustifiable raid on our pockets by the Chancellor. To tell those of us who live north of the border that the increase is not a burden when our heating bills are up to two thirds higher than average is to add insult to injury.
  We need borrowing discipline, but the Chancellor should not expect us to be fooled by the fact that he was able to announce falling borrowing. Anyone who has presided over this particular stage of the economic cycle would expect borrowing to fall; it could only be the result of irresponsibility if it did not.
  The Chancellor also suggested that he had made enormous savings, but he was able to do so only because he got the forecast wrong last year and the outturn has been better than anticipated. In those circumstances, the forecasts that he has made for the next three years are not to be relied on because, if anything goes wrong with the forecast of GDP, growth or inflation, he will be knocked off course and will not have the necessary money to play with.

  1113
  One or two of the Chancellor's proposals need clarification. There is no commitment to long-term investment, which the country needs to sustain the Government's commitments. Cuts have been made in the roads programme with no corresponding investment in, for example, public transport, as the Liberal Democrats would have wished. Cuts have also been made in the housing programme, despite the increasing problems of homelessness in many parts of the country, and in local government expenditure, and despite the fact that, at least in Scotland, local government is facing the cost of a reorganisation that nobody wanted. The Government are effectively passing the buck to local authorities, on whom they load more responsibility but from whom they expect more restraint.
  The forecasts have been wrong in the past and they might be wrong in the future, so we need to investigate the claims that the Chancellor made in the Budget. He said that he hoped to secure £5 billion of extra investment under the private finance initiative, but he did not tell us how much of that £5 billion will come from the private sector. I think that we should be told. On the strength of the record to date, I suspect that it will not be very much, and it will not be very much unless the Government are prepared to offer a more attractive deal. It is a sensible way to unlock private funds, but not as practised by the Government to date.
  Housing benefit reform is long overdue. The Government in effect provided private landlords with a charter to rip off the homeless and people who did not have access to the housing market or to local authority housing because it had been sold. Those landlords were paid out of taxpayers' money. Interestingly, the Government are now reintroducing rent control by the back door, and not before time.
  Perhaps the biggest insult of all is to be found in that part of the speech where the Chancellor poured forth a profusion of words, which is always a sign of little substance. I refer to the part of his speech that contained a plethora of gimmicks and gizmos to deal with the problem of unemployment. In the end, it amounted to very little. The number of long-term unemployed might be reduced by 5,000, according to the Government's own forecast.
  I cannot think of anything more insulting to someone who has been unemployed for two years than to be told that the Government have a plan for him that involves a national insurance holiday for his potential employer, which he will be able to claim in 18 months. The Government's commitment in this respect falls not within the framework of the present Budget but the one after. It is no solution at all. The Chancellor says that he has been able to tackle such problems, but he has not told us how.
  In summary, the Budget contains nothing new. It is a standstill Budget from a Chancellor who is anxious to hang on to all the extra taxation that he can and who does not understand the meaning of the phrase "long-term investment". It must be recognised that stop-go cannot be sustained in the future any more than it has been in the past.
  If we are to prevent inflation from taking off, and if we are to get people back to work and keep them there, we need to invest in industry now, but there is nothing in the
  1114
  Budget to promote investment now, when it is needed. If we fail to invest, and as the recovery continues and our competitors become sharper as their recovery begins to gather momentum, we shall find that the old problems of capacity constraints, skills shortages and rising inflation will take hold again.
  We need to improve the skills of our people so that we can innovate and compete and ensure that we have the products and services that will enable this trading nation to pay people at a higher rate and sustain long-term tax cuts rather than short-term tax cuts intended to get one party through a general election. The Government got away with it once; they will not do so again. The Budget will fool no one. It does not provide the necessary investment now or the justification for tax cuts at any time before the next election.
  5.38 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: I am always glad to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I shall miss his presence on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which he was an amiable and agreeable member. His speech, however, was strong on rhetoric, but a little thin and vague on detail. I am no wiser now about precisely what the Liberal Democrats would do than I was before. We shall, no doubt, hear more detail from Labour Front-Bench speakers.
  The hon. Member for Gordon is a little cheeky to say that we have improved the competitiveness of industry, that the recession is over, that things are looking up and that we are coming out of the recession, but that it has nothing to do with the Government and is all to do with world events. Whenever we pointed out that the recession was a world recession, he would, say that it was not and that it was all the fault of this wretched Government. He cannot have it both ways.
  I believe that it is sensible to join the Budget with the public expenditure round rather than to have them at different times, although that poses certain problems, which were well highlighted in an article in The House Magazine by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). He pointed out the difficulties of getting representations properly made and considered before the Budget. What seems to happen nowadays is that we have a long recess, we then roar into the Queen's Speech and before we know where we are, we are engaged in the unified Budget. That probably provides insufficient time for people to make representations to us and for us to discuss fully with the Chancellor and his team what our views are.
  I am still old-fashioned enough to believe in a period of purdah, which served this country well. The Chancellor and Treasury Ministers simply listened silently to what people said and then made up their minds, rather than initiating matters by flying kites all over the place, causing some uncertainty in the financial world. Having said all that, however, I think that we must stick with a unified Budget.
  The Budget will be widely welcomed by those involved in the serious business and industry of this country. The one message that I got, more than anything else, was that, for heaven's sake, what we want is some degree of stability. We want to know where we stand on taxation. We hope that we have a stable currency. We want to know where we are on all the provisions made by the

  1115
  Government for business and industry, and we want reasonably stable interest rates. The Budget can be commended on those grounds.
  Throughout my parliamentary life and before, I have taken an interest in Budgets on two particular grounds. First, I have been a long-term advocate of wider share ownership throughout our community. We have seen ups and downs. The reason why I have argued strongly for wider share ownership is that I believe that it is in the interests of freedom and democracy that people should own a stake in the country, whether in property or in shares in industry and business. I judge a Budget on those grounds as well and I commend the Chancellor for improving the PEP—personal equity plan—provisions. This has been a useful and helpful way in which to encourage savings.
  Secondly, we should recognise that there are 1 million more small businesses than there were in 1979. They have probably suffered more than any other sector in the recession, but they are sufficiently resilient and they will recover most speedily. I welcome the measures taken to encourage small businesses through schemes such as the venture capital scheme. I also welcome the raising of the ridiculously low VAT threshold, which will now start at £46,000. I have always argued in favour of a higher level because small businesses do not have the time to fiddle around with endless bureaucracy and taxation. The Government are to be commended not only for that change, but for the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which will be a very great help. Likewise, small businesses need stability and they need to be able to get on with their business.
  There is some very good news all around. We have low inflation, low interest rates and rising exports. I point out to the hon. Member for Gordon that one of his distinguished colleagues, Lord Jenkins, introduced a Budget after another devaluation. One thing that he advocated more than anything else was that recovery should be export led. That is exactly what is happening now and it is extremely good news.
  Today some of us on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry met construction industry exporters. The construction industry is having a difficult time at home, but exporters are doing extremely well and they are anxious to do better on Britain's behalf. They were critical of the Export Credits Guarantee Department provisions, especially in respect of new markets in third-world countries. They said that the present provisions were too tight and too bureaucratic, and compared unfavourably with the provisions in France, in Germany and elsewhere. I am glad that that has been recognised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I welcome and praise his provisions concerning the ECGD, which will make it more amenable to exporters. I hope that there will be good results from that.
  Exports are up by 10 per cent., productivity is up by 5.5 per cent. and investment is up by 6 per cent. Altogether, it is good news, but why is that fact not percolating through to the ordinary man in the street? Why do our constituents not seem to see things in the same way as business and industry? Here, I give a note of caution to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I do not believe that the message will get through until there has been some recovery in the housing market. Negative equity and the absurd boom and bust we have suffered recently have left the worst possible taste in the
  1116
  mouths, minds and hearts of many people. The reason why they do not have the confidence to invest in property or to acquire property is the fear of unemployment and the fear of redundancy, which strike hard. On that score, I believe that we are moving in the right direction.
  Unemployment went down by 400,000 last year. The concentration on small firms is immensely important because we shall not get new employment out of the great firms of this country; it is only through the growth of small firms that unemployment will be reduced. That growth will take quite a time and, meanwhile, we must make it clear that the housing market is stable and we must encourage the construction industry to develop.
  Nobody wants to go back to the absurd situation of house prices going through the roof. People started up small businesses in the vague hope that the houses in which they lived would provide future capital. That is madness and we do not wish it to happen again; it should never happen again. We want, however, to get the housing market on the move again. I tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that that depends on interest rates being reasonably stable and I hope that he will always have that in mind.
  Inflation is, of course, a menace that must be watched all the time. As commodity prices have increased by about 25 per cent., I anticipate that further rises in interest rates may be necessary at some time in the future. Having said that, they must be carefully applied. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor always to recognise two factors: first, the need to contain inflation and, secondly, the need to restore confidence at all levels, from the lowest upwards. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend appreciates that because it is the most crucial matter for us to consider now and in the future.
  I sum up by congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on helping savings and on maintaining stability for industry. Industry wants stability and a period of calm. The Government have not gone berserk over taxation, and nobody wants that. I have not had a single letter asking for a reduction in taxation. The odd eccentric has asked for taxation to be put up—usually rather well-heeled eccentrics, and there are not many of them. By and large, business, industry and the public want stability so that they can plan for the future. On that ground, I believe that the Budget passes the test of the time and I very much commend it to the House.
  5.49 pm
  Dr. John Marek: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) has been a Member of the House for many years. I distinctly remember him taking his part in cheering Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was when she was Prime Minister, during the period when easy money was flowing out of everybody's ears and bumping up the price of houses. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is reaping a bitter harvest as people are now acutely aware of what happens when, due to mismanagement of the economy by the Conservative party, interest rates shoot up to 14 or 15 per cent., as they did, plunging countless householders into negative equity. Indeed, many people are still in that situation.
  Sir Anthony Grant rose—
  Dr. Marek: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as I mentioned him by name. It is true, however, that there

  1117
  was no dissent among Members on the Government Benches in 1985, 1986 and 1987 under Lord Lawson and Mrs. Thatcher, the then Prime Minister. The Conservative party now has to live with the fact that the electorate has rumbled it and will not vote for it again.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I accept my responsibility for having supported Budgets and, indeed, encouraged the reduction in interest rates at the wrong time. But so did the Opposition, more so than I ever did. As I subsequently pointed out, the panic throughout the world after black Wednesday or Thursday or whenever it was in 1987, when everybody was in a panic and Finance Ministers all over the globe suddenly reduced their interest rates, was a very great mistake.
  Dr. Marek: I accept the hon. Gentleman's generous comment as he takes his share of the blame in supporting Budgets in the 1980s, but he cannot say that Opposition Members did. I remember that we were incensed by some of the Budgets when free handouts were given to the very wealthy through executive option schemes and through a lower top rate of income tax—some of which was deserved although, of course, it has gone too far.
  The problem with this Budget was not what the Chancellor said, but what he did not have to talk about at all—the decisions which were taken before and which will come into effect next year. Principally, of course, I am referring to VAT on fuel, which is going up by 9.5 per cent., as has already been mentioned. I do not apologise in any way for repeating the proposition that the public have rumbled the present Government. They will not vote for the Government again because they realise that the Government cannot be trusted. It was made very clear before 9 April 1992, by Government Members, the Prime Minister and everybody else, that they did not intend to impose value added tax on any of the tax-free sectors of goods. As soon as they won the election, of course, VAT on fuel was proposed.
  The Budget was forecast to be dull and dreary, and to a large extent it was. Perhaps for that very reason, however, I found today's Budget less repulsive or repugnant than previous Budgets. Measures for job seekers are all right as far as they go, but they will not necessarily create the jobs needed. Industry has to create jobs. It is a subsidiary matter to ensure that the jobless are encouraged to apply for jobs and to train and retrain, and what the Chancellor announced in that area had my support. However, that will not create jobs in the first place.
  I was disappointed about proposed measures for job creation as there is to be no change in corporation tax and no incentive to invest. I firmly believe—there is a clear difference between me and the Government here—that it is through investment that we shall create jobs. The Chancellor could have gone for taxing dividends, which would have been an incentive for companies to put more of their profit into investment rather than shelling it out as dividends. Unfortunately, there is nothing like that in the Budget and no changes in advanced corporation tax.
  Business rates are to go up. The Chancellor made great play of that. They are to increase by up to 7.5 or 10 per cent. Business rates, which companies have to pay, are among the biggest banes of society. They are huge and they set our country apart from what goes on elsewhere
  1118
  in the European Union. The greater scope that the Export Credits Guarantee Department will have to cover, including different risks, will help. I am not sure about venture capital trusts, but no doubt a little help will be given there. It will cost £150 million only, which is not very much.
  At the end of the day, the Budget will not create jobs and start the engine of the economy. It is only by starting the engine of the economy that we shall create jobs, more people will be able pay income tax and public expenditure will fall because fewer people will have to rely on the state through income support or family credit.
  I would have been delighted for the country if I could have said that the Budget would create jobs, but I am sorry to have to say that it will not. Indeed, we shall be again stuck with public spending restrictions. Any real increases in the funding of the national health service will be illusory. No doubt, in the support rate, at which I have not had time to look, there will be efficiency savings in the own resources that the health service already has, which will be taken into account in the figures. Any half per cent. increase will be swallowed up, of course, because the rate of increase in funding demanded by the NHS is always higher than the retail prices index, for well-known reasons. The medical index is always higher.
  The Chancellor took great pleasure in saying that overall savings will be £24 billion over the next three years. I do not understand that at all, because the country is crying out desperately for investment in our infrastructure. The railway service is falling to pieces. In my area, trains are regularly half an hour or 45 minutes late and today a train carrying some visitors of mine broke down at Crewe. Timetables are not integrated. There is no doubt whatever that the railway system is in desperate need of investment and new equipment. The sense of professionalism and morale, which the staff have always had, is under great strain.
  The Government are not going to help that at all. They are more interested in privatising Railtrack, which I think that the Opposition will be able to thwart. When we form a Government, we shall be able to set maximum prices for access charges to Railtrack. If our Front-Bench spokesmen make it clear that we intend to do that and make it clear that we shall call in any planning applications for speculative development gain on city-centre railway car parks and not allow those gains to take place, I suspect that, with a little luck, we may save the nation from the disaster of Railtrack being sold to the private sector. Instead of infrastructure development and infrastructure renewal, however, we are to save a further £24 billion overall in the next three years.
  The real Budget, of course, was the Budget that the Chancellor did not talk about—VAT on fuel being increased to 17.5 per cent., the married person's allowance being reduced, mortgage tax relief being reduced and the other taxes which have been introduced, such as that on insurance and travel by aeroplane. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, it is equivalent to an increase of 7p in the pound on income tax. That was what the Budget was about, but the Chancellor did not have to say a word about it because the increases had been announced previously, to take place in the 1995–96 financial year.
  The Chancellor could have tackled tax abuses by increasing the number of tax inspectors and not sacking 4,000 Customs and Excise officials, which is the plan. A

  1119
  few years ago, each tax inspector collected about £77,000 in unpaid taxes and the figure is probably a lot higher now. Each tax inspector would be worth his or her weight three or four times over—not in discovering loopholes found by people who do not want to pay taxes, but simply in chasing unpaid taxes, which would be paid immediately the tax inspector called on the person who had not paid his or her taxes. Why did the Chancellor not mention that?
  The Chancellor could have introduced a stamp duty on share transactions after 1996. That would have realised £1 billion. For dogmatic political reasons, however, the plan is still to get rid of stamp duty on share transactions, which will create the very type of economy that we had to suffer in the 1980s when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister—short-termism. No one thought about what was going to happen tomorrow. If a company's analysts said, "Sell tomorrow", it did not matter if people were going to lose their jobs or what the company itself thought about what would happen when its pension fund or shares were sold. If the analyst said "Sell" in respect of the pension fund, that is what happened.
  Our rip-roaring economy ended in disaster. We badly need a dose of long-termism and fiscal policies designed to make people think in the long term rather than the short term. Stamp duty on share transactions achieves that, of course, and it would keep £1 billion per annum, but for dogmatic reasons the Chancellor is prepared to do away with that.
  I want to reflect on what has happened in 16 years of Conservative government. I shall not be able to mention all the statistics, but I will refer to a few. What happened to manufacturing output between 1979 and 1994?
  Mr. Charles Hendry: It is at record levels.
  Dr. Marek: I do not think that that is a proud record. Manufacturing output was just 9 per cent. higher in the second quarter of 1994 than it was in 1979. If the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) thinks that that is a record, it is a pretty poor one. In 16 years, we have been able to increase manufacturing output by only 9 per cent.
  Mr. Hendry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman noticed last week's announcement to the effect that manufacturing output is now at all-time record levels. Will he contrast the fact that manufacturing output has risen over the past 15 years with the fact that between 1974 and 1979 it actually declined?
  Dr. Marek: Those points are well known. We had the oil crisis in 1975–76— [Interruption.] It certainly was not very funny when we had that crisis. I was talking about percentages. Of course the level will be the highest ever, because we are getting richer as a country, but our relative rate of becoming richer as a country is rather poor.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Marek: I will give way in due course, after I have responded to the hon. Member for High Peak. As a member of the European Union, our relative increase in manufacturing output is rather poor. As I said, the
  1120
  increase has been 9 per cent. over 16 years. That is not a record; it is a rather poor and dismal performance by anyone's standards.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has not acknowledged the fact that manufacturing output declined between 1974 and 1979 as a result of trade union militancy, which all but wrecked manufacturing industry in this country. This Government's trade union reforms have allowed manufacturing output to rise to an all-time high, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) rightly pointed out.
  Dr. Marek: I shall not repeat the point. Manufacturing output may be at an all-time high, but that has nothing to do with the Conservative party. It has to do with the general prosperity in western Europe, of which we have partaken to a much smaller extent than at least nine of the other 11 countries in the European Union.
  The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) is aware that the Benelux countries, France and Germany overtook us years ago in terms of standard of living. Italy overtook us in that respect a few years ago and Spain is going to overtake us. I suspect that it will not be long before Greece, Portugal and Ireland overtake us.
  Manufacturing output has increased by only 9 per cent. in 15 years, despite £123 billion of accumulated revenues from North sea oil. Has manufacturing output increased by only 9 per cent. because we have been paying for unemployment? The answer to that must be yes. Between 1974 and 1979, about 1 million people were claiming unemployment benefit. Since 1979, however, although the unemployment figure has gone up and down, it has never been below 1.5 million. The average has been about 2.5 million, and that is despite the 30 fiddles and changes to the statistics perpetrated by the Government.
  The most telling point is revealed in the table of taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product. That table always appears in the Red Book and it is a nice big table this time. Between 1974 and 1979, the maximum tax as a percentage of GDP was 363/4. By 1981–82, it had risen to 391/4 and it was never been below 363/4 until 1992–93. That was the effect of our catastrophic recession.
  Labour is the party of low taxation—[Hox. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If Conservative Members had been listening, they would realise that they cannot challenge my figures. The figures are probably in an annexe to chapter 4 of the Red Book. Before Conservative Members laugh, I respectfully urge them to examine the Red Book to see whether I am right. I believe that they will discover that my comments are pretty accurate.
  United Kingdom manufacturing investment is still poor. It is about 80 per cent. of what it was in 1979. In addition, the Government have had getting on for £60 billion in privatisation receipts. A very interesting table of gross fixed capital formation gives the figures for 1979 through to 1992. For every year that the Government have been in office, in terms of gross fixed capital formation the United Kingdom has been below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, below the average of the European states of the OECD and below the average of the European Union countries. That is telling. It is not just for one or two years: it is for every year from 1979 until the present day.

  1121
  The Government have been unable to increase investment to get our country going, to charge the engine of the economy and bring unemployment down. That has not been possible; nor do I think that the Government wanted to do it, despite what the Chancellor said earlier.
  The Chancellor said that lorry duty rates will be unchanged while vehicle excise duty on cars is to increase by £5. That is very disappointing. It is no use having taxes on dumping rubbish in holes in the ground and trying to be environmental while being anti-environmental elsewhere by increasing not the price of petrol, but vehicle excise duty. I am also against the proposals because, by and large, according to the Government's figures, cars cover their track costs by two and a half times. Some lorries, however, and especially some of the big articulated lorries, do not cover their track costs even on the Government's own figures, which do not include environmental costs.
  The Chancellor's proposals in that respect are very regressive. I accept that nothing can be done about it now that the Chancellor has made his announcement, but he cannot get away with being thought of as a green Chancellor or a Chancellor who worries about the environment. He has a long way to go and I suspect that he could probably take lessons from any Opposition Member in that regard.
  My next point concerns duty on alcohol and tobacco. The Chancellor very carefully said that he was going to increase tobacco duty by 3 per cent. plus inflation so as to discourage smoking, as we all wish—there can be no doubt about that. However, he then said that a great deal of smuggling and bootlegging occurs across the channel and that, for that reason, he would not increase the duty on beer, wine or spirits. The problem is that tobacco produces the real gain for the bootlegger and smuggler because the volume is so much less. I suspect that the Chancellor was trying to pull the wool over our eyes when he made his comment. I will give a simple example. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is considering this difficult subject at the moment and I do not pretend to have the solution. However, the Government have a problem. A packet of hand-rolling tobacco costs £1.78 in Belgium and £7 in the United Kingdom. That is a huge price difference. As a result, bootlegging or smuggling accounts for about 20 to 25 per cent. of the hand rolling tobacco market in the United Kingdom.
  The Government must do something to remedy that situation. Yet there is nothing about it in the Budget speech. We need more Customs officers; yet the Government plan to sack 4,000 of them. Where is the sense in that? The only solution is long-term harmonisation. I understand that we face problems in this area because the tobacco industries in some European Union member states are state owned and, unlike the United Kingdom Government, their Governments do not get their cut from tobacco taxation. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will adopt my suggestion: harmonisation is the only solution.
  When I was shadow spokesman in this area, I remember Ministers and Paymasters General saying, "Oh no, we don't believe in harmonisation; we want nothing to do with it". But the chickens have come home to roost: 25 per cent. of the hand-rolling tobacco industry is already
  1122
  in the hands of bootleggers, there is criminal activity in the north-east of England, and bootleg cigarettes and, to a smaller extent, alcohol are making inroads in Government revenue. The Government have a chance to confront this problem now and they must take that chance.
  The Budget does nothing for the average working man or woman and very little for the average unemployed man and woman. I have conceded that it contains a few measures which will make it easier for the unemployed to assess whether they will be better off in employment, but that will not create jobs. The Budget will not do anything of substance for the British people; it is an opportunity missed. That should not surprise Opposition Members because, at the end of the day, the Conservative party has always been the party of the rich and the privileged who feed off the rest of the country.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) exemplifies the old-fashioned failed politics of envy. Let us get back to the real issues of a strong Budget which will create jobs, cut unemployment and prioritise the expenditure of taxpayers' money on the national health service, the education system and law and order.
  I was delighted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, delivered this afternoon, and its stress on increasing resources for what the electors want: a strengthened health service, better resources for law and order and improved education facilities. I was particularly pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the underlying strength of the economy, which has allowed him to increase spending on those three priorities.
  The figures show that British exports have grown by 8 per cent. and investment has grown by 5 per cent., while consumer demand has grown by only 2 or 3 per cent. It is particularly important to note that underlying inflation has fallen to its lowest level for a generation and that that strength has ensured a continuing fall in the level of unemployment— a decrease of 450,000 since December 1992. I have no doubt that our continuing economic strength over the next few years will mean that people will no longer need to look over their shoulders in fear of losing their jobs and that the feel-good factor will be restored to the economy.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said, we are the only country in western Europe in which unemployment has fallen in the past year. At the same time, according to the national employment survey, the number of people in employment has increased by 226,000.
  My right hon. and learned Friend is correct to ensure that the Budget strategy continues to concentrate on keeping down the rate of inflation. We all remember the terrible economic disasters perpetrated by the last Labour Government. It is no use Labour Members trying to rewrite history and blame the oil crisis of the mid-1970s for their manifold sins and wickednesses. Trade union militancy destroyed the British manufacturing industry and it was Mrs. Thatcher's trade union reforms of the 1980s which secured our present record levels of manufacturing output. We shall maintain those reforms, and we have won the battle of ideas to such an extent that

  1123
  the Labour party now says that it will not try to reverse them. The measures are crucial to the Chancellor's continuing sensible economic management system.
  Mr. Clive Betts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In the face of that economic miracle, will he explain to the House why between 1948 and 1979— a Labour Government were in power for half that time— the British economy grew at a rate of 2.7 per cent., yet since 1979, the average growth rate has been 1.7 per cent., which is 1 per cent. lower than for the previous 30 years?
  Mr. Hawkins: It is because previous Labour Governments were not quite as ridiculous in their economic mismanagement as the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979. The hon. Gentleman is the former leader of a city which, under his leadership, mismanaged its economy by wasting vast amounts of money on stupid ideas such as the world student games. One would think that the hon. Gentleman would have learned from his mistakes, but it appears that he has not.
  The Chancellor is right to continue a policy of eliminating Government borrowing entirely by the end of the decade. It is essential that we concentrate on that valid objective.
  I was particularly pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend announced extra help for pensioners. As the Member of Parliament with the greatest number of pensioner constituents, I know that the people of Blackpool, South will welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to increase help for pensioners over and above indexing for inflation.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No. I have given way previously and we must make some progress in the debate. As a result of the Budget, pensioners in my constituency will see not only an increase in their benefits but a substantial increase in cold weather payments as well as further increases over and above the likely inflation rate to be introduced in April 1995 and 1996. Everyone who receives an old-age pension will get that additional help, which I have no doubt will be widely welcomed.
  Further steps will be taken to expand the private finance initiative in future years, especially in transport. This will benefit the British people enormously. Private financing of rail projects will feed the future development of our transport infrastructure.
  If the hon. Member for Wrexham wants to see proof of the success of private investment in transport, he should look to the United States and the development of station premises such as Union station in Washington DC, where private sector funding has provided much better facilities for the travelling public. He could look at similar examples in other countries which have involved the private sector in their transport infrastructure. In only a few years' time, he will see precisely the benefits of that policy to this country.
  I sometimes wonder where Opposition Members think that investment in capital projects comes from. It comes from profits that are made by the private sector. It does not come from Government subsidy, which is an appalling waste of taxpayers' money and a mistake that Labour Governments have always made.
  1124
  I welcome the Government's steps to move from direct to indirect taxation. The move from taxes of compulsion to taxes of choice is widely welcomed by British taxpayers. Before the last election, the Opposition proposed to increase taxes of compulsion in excess of anything that we have seen from the Government, so it ill behoves them to criticise the Government for reluctantly imposing taxes. The Government will return to their tax-cutting tradition in years to come. Labour Members have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. They will continue to put forward ever-greater plans for taxes of compulsion that they will waste on subsidies. That is the lesson that the Labour party will not accept.
  Ms Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman supports indirect taxation, which, in relative terms, bears much more heavily on the incomes of the poor. That is why successive British Governments have resisted VAT on vital items such as food and children's clothing. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when he lauds indirect taxation, he lauds a system of taxation which, in relative terms, hits the poor hardest?
  Mr. Hawkins: I do not accept the hon. Lady's specious figures. I am very much in favour, and I will remain in favour, of taxes of choice rather than taxes of compulsion. I repeat what I have said: Labour Members will never learn the difference between the downside of taxes of compulsion and Government subsidy as opposed to taxes of choice. That is the mistake of political philosophy that they always make.
  Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No. I have been generous in allowing hon. Members to intervene, but I must make progress, as many hon. Members want to speak.
  I am particularly pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend has stressed the importance of spending not only on education but on training, especially for the young unemployed. I want an even more accelerated fall in the number of unemployed. I am concerned that, in the drive for greater efficiency, we should not allow disproportionately greater unemployment in certain areas such as my constituency and the surrounding area in the north-west.
  I inject a note of caution. My right hon. and learned Friend correctly drives for greater efficiency in the civil service. However, there are areas, one of which is my constituency, where the civil service is an important part of the local economy. That point must be borne in mind when considering measures such as those that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced.
  My constituents welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to announce increases in resources available for the single regeneration budget. It is right for me to mention that my constituency has a bid under the single regeneration budget scheme, which I will discuss with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the next week or two and which I hope will succeed.
  I have mentioned my interest in the increase in education provision. It is welcome that, under the Conservative Government, the rate of young people going on to university has increased from one in eight to one in three. It is important to continue to expand resources for education.

  1125
  I very much welcome the 3 per cent. increase in resources for the police in 1995–96. It will go down especially well with everyone that more police will be released for front-line duties and that chief constables will have greater freedom to decide the allocation of their resources.
  I welcome many of the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced in relation to the various benefits that will be available to get people back into work, in particular the changes to family credit and the further measures which have followed the jobseeker's allowance. I take great pleasure in the further cut in national insurance contributions, which will help employers with small businesses.
  Once again, I inject a slight note of caution in relation to my right hon. and learned Friend's concerns about the smuggling of tobacco and the different duties that apply in the United Kingdom and in continental European countries. I want those duty differentials brought down to zero. I want more measures to cut the smuggling of tobacco. It is a serious problem in my constituency, and large amounts of tobacco are being smuggled through Manchester airport. On behalf of my constituents, I recently had a meeting with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury about that matter.
  Also, I wish to express some concern about the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced in.relation to gaming duty. The last attempt to set gaming duty rates was several years ago. Nevertheless, the responsible nature of many amusement arcade owners has been shown by their great contributions to charities in recent years. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to take account of the legitimate side of that industry while clamping down hard on rogue operators in years to come.
  I broadly welcome the Budget as a Budget for jobs and a Budget which rightly concentrates priorities on matters that are important to the British people, such as education, law and order, help for pensioners and the NHS. I support the Budget.
  6.24 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: Calling the Budget a Budget for jobs is like calling a vampire a blood transfusion expert. I suppose that the public should be grateful that the governing party has taken time off from its continuing civil war even to produce a Budget. Conservative Members have accused Opposition Members of propagating the politics of envy. On the contrary, the Conservative party is a slave to the politics of envy. Far too many members of the Cabinet envy the Prime Minister's job. We have a lacklustre, stand-still Budget presented by a Chancellor who is saving his money for cynical pre-election tax cuts and saving his energies for positioning himself to succeed the Prime Minister.
  A Conservative Member said that ordinary people would not believe in the recovery unless there was an upturn in the housing market. That is absolutely true, especially in respect of London and the south-east, an area that I know well. However, the sad news is that an upturn
  1126
  in the housing market will not happen. I refer hon. Members to page 24 of the Red Book, the Government's own document, which states:
  "Housing market turnover increased strongly in 1993 but has fallen back this year. House prices have moved erratically with no pronounced trend up or down. In October they were at much the same level as a year earlier."
  The Government should leave to one side all the things that they have inflicted on the British people—people have suffered from the housing boom and the reckless financial deregulation of the late 1980s. If no one else, the people in London and the south-east who are burdened with mortgages that they can hardly repay, who have been the victims of repossession and who are stuck with negative equity, will never forgive the Government for their economic incompetence. Conservative Members are right; people will not believe in the recovery, particularly in London and the south-east, unless there is an upturn in the housing market. The Government's figures, and their own statement, make it clear that such an upturn will not happen.
  Of course, under the Conservative Government, the state of housing is a very sad story. For all their gimmicks and all their professed interest in homes and home ownership, the Government's record on building houses for the British people is deplorable. Since 1979, gross housing investment in England has fallen by 56 per cent. The victims of the Government's appalling record in the provision of private or public sector housing are ordinary people and the homeless.
  The Budget will not turn matters round. The Red Book makes it clear that there will not be an upturn in the housing market. Home owners will be badly affected by cuts in mortgage interest tax relief. People looking for social housing or housing in the public sector will have their hopes dashed by the reduction in housing corporation capital provision.
  Let me dwell for a minute on cuts in housing corporation finance. The Government, having savagely slashed local authorities' capacity to build social housing for rent, have made much of their commitment to the housing association sector. What they have done to that sector is particularly cruel. They have encouraged it to expand and encouraged new housing associations to develop, but many people in properties in those developments—particularly in London and the south-east—are dependent upon housing benefit. Cuts in the Housing Corporation budget have forced new associations to charge higher and higher rents, and they are less able to house the very people whom the housing association movement was meant to serve. The cuts in Housing Corporation capital provision are a tragedy for the housing association sector, and a betrayal of the hopes, which the Government encouraged, that that sector would provide social housing.
  Then, of course, there are the cuts in housing benefit. It comes ill from a Government who took away rent controls to complain about landlords exploiting tenants. It also comes ill from a Government who have used housing benefit as a means of allowing people access to housing now to turn round and cut the benefit. We have yet to hear the details of the cuts in the benefit, but I believe that the consequence will be many more homeless people who are unable to gain access to housing and many more people in housing misery.

  1127
  We also see in the Budget that the housing revenue account subsidy provision is to be reduced, and that local authority credit approvals for housing renovation are to be cut. What is the Budget saying on housing? It is saying that the housing market will remain flat and that people who have a mortgage will have their tax relief cut. It is saying that housing associations will be forced to charge even higher rents, and that they will be unable to build more property. It is saying that councils will be unable to renovate their huge stocks, some of which are in an appalling condition.
  The Budget is certainly not a Budget for jobs, and nor is it a Budget for housing. I represent one of the poorest areas in the country, and housing problems form 60 per cent. of my case load. Few things cause more misery and damage to family life—which the Government are supposed to be in favour of—than the misery of homelessness and poor housing. Far from doing anything about that, the Budget continues Government policies, which undermine people's access to decent housing, whether in the private sector, the housing association sector or the local authority sector.
  A key feature of the Budget is that it is supposed to be a Budget for jobs. The Chancellor, with his normal bravura and bravado, listed a whole series of measures which we are supposed to believe are earth-shattering means of getting people back to work. The things which one must watch in this Budget, as in all, are the figures. We must look not at the grand descriptive phrases or at what the Budget is supposed to be about, but at what the Red Book says. It states that the Department of Employment's spending will go down. I want to know how, if the Budget represents a great leap forward in helping the unemployed back to work, the Department will help in that with less money.
  What the Chancellor announced today is a whole series of gimmicks, many of which are not even new. They are old gimmicks which are proving to be not terribly effective. Family credit will be increased, payments of.housing benefit are to be accelerated—how the Government are going to accelerate payments of housing benefit when it is local authorities who are responsible for administering it I do not know—and family credit will be paid to people without children. There is also community action, work trial, jobfinder's grant, Workwise, 1–2–1, jobmatch and Workstart—a positive alphabet soup of gimmicky measures.
  The unemployed want not gimmicks but a Government who are genuinely committed to the return of full employment, which this Government are not. Even in their own terms, there is something deeply unpleasant about the Government seeking to put people back to work by forcing them—whether by changes in disability allowances or by the increasingly stringent benefit arrangements—back into the labour market to work for poverty wages. If there is a theme to the gimmicky ideas for getting people back to work it is that they are about subsidising poverty wages.
  1128
  It is old fashioned, and Government Members will sneer, but I believe that if one does a decent week's work, one ought to be entitled to a living wage.
  Mr. Stephen Day: Is the hon. Lady saying that she would prefer that people stayed on benefit for the rest of their lives? I hardly think that that would be a happy experience for anybody.
  Ms Abbott: The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not know that it is a burden on the economy to keep people unemployed. The level of unemployment is almost entirely responsible for the growth in the public sector borrowing requirement. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish—I did not interrupt him.
  In the long run, it is better for individuals, for society and for the economy that people get a decent living wage from doing a week's work without having to be dependent on handouts and benefits. It is degrading for men and women who have worked for a full week still to have to look to the state for handouts. I believe that the Labour party's policy of a minimum wage—on which we fought the election and on which we shall sincerely fight and win the next election—is not just a humane policy, but one that tends towards social cohesion.
  Why should women work in menial jobs, such as cleaning in the service industries or in supermarkets? [Interruption.] The House hears from the millionaire hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Evans). He does not care about people who are living on poverty wages—no doubt he made his money out of paying poverty wages.
  The Government talk about putting people back to work, but they are concerned only with coercing people to work for poverty wages. That policy will not in the long run build a strong economy and create a cohesive society.
  Although we heard the long list of schemes, and although the Chancellor tried very much to boost and promote his little package of gimmicks, we must look at the Red Book and at what the panel of independent forecasters have said. The panel is forecasting not a drop in unemployment but that unemployment at the end of this year will be 2.5 million, and that there may possibly be a drop in 1995 of about 250,000.
  It is easy to forget that the figure of 2.5 million is a gross underestimate of the total who are unemployed. Since 1979, the Government have changed 12 times the way of counting the unemployed, to make people disappear off the employment figures. So when the independent advisors say that they are looking to levels of unemployment of 2.5 million in the near future, that is an underestimate of the level of unemployment with which people are living.
  The shadow of unemployment haunts every family in the land, as well it might. It costs Britain £9,000 to keep someone unemployed for a year, and it costs every family £1,000 a year to keep somebody on the dole. The gap between the highest and the lowest-paid workers is larger than at any time since 1886, and more people in work are reliant on means-tested benefits than ever before. The Government ought to be ashamed of those facts, but they seem to think that they are some sort of benefit.
  Since 1979, the number of long-term unemployed has more than doubled. It is a bit late for the Chancellor and his cohorts in the Treasury team to weep about the long-term unemployed. They are the Administration who have doubled long-term unemployment in their period in

  1129
  office. Let us be clear that long-term unemployment has not doubled following a fit of absent-mindedness on the part of politicians. Mass unemployment was a deliberate economic weapon of the Government to keep wages low and, as it transpired, to curb the trade unions. No one is fooled when the Chancellor and his colleagues belatedly express concern about high unemployment.
  This is not a Budget for jobs, and it is certainly not a Budget for housing. It is a standstill Budget introduced while the Government bide their time until the appropriate moment to introduce what they believe will be election-winning tax cuts in the run-up to an election.
  Of course, what worries people, particularly at this time of year as winter approaches, is the rise in VAT on fuel. Conservative Members claim to prefer indirect taxation, which they call taxes of choice, to direct taxation. I ask Conservative Members what choice pensioners have about turning on their gas fire or central heating when it gets cold. The problem with VAT on fuel and the reason why it strikes the public as particularly unfair is that most people have absolutely no choice about expenditure on heating. The rise in VAT is wrong because indirect taxation bears more heavily on the income of the poor. It is wrong that the poor, the disabled and people on benefits should have to bear the fiscal burden of the Government's economic incompetence.
  The Budget offers no hope to the jobless or to my constituents in Hackney. I believe that it will be dismissed by the public as merely a blip, when the important story is the on-going civil war in the Conservative party. Ministers on the Treasury Bench should be ashamed when they look around them and see the destruction and human tragedy that they have wrought with their divisive and ultimately ineffective economic policies.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) down all the many byways that she explored, but I shall make one observation to her. During the past generation, unemployment has risen throughout Europe. Wherever there are left-wing socialist Governments within the European Union, unemployment is much higher than in Britain. In socialist Spain, for example, almost a quarter of the work force is out of work. We have had five Labour Governments in the history of Britain. Unemployment has risen in all five. Nothing that the hon. Lady had to say convinced me that if we ever had the misfortune to have a sixth Labour Government, the same would not happen again.
  I intend to spend three or four minutes on the fiscal position before devoting the main part of my speech to monetary policy. This was an excellent Budget. The overwhelming requirement was for the Government to tackle the overweening level of Government borrowing. That is exactly what the Budget has done so much to achieve. Borrowing is an evil which crowds out private sector investment and leaves a burden for future generations. It is remarkable that the colossal fall in borrowing has been combined with several well-targeted measures directed at those genuinely seeking work, the more vulnerable members of the community and, above all, small businesses, in which most new jobs are generated.
  1130
  In international terms, we are close to the bottom of the league of borrowing as a percentage of gross domestic product. Our total national debt represents only about six months' GDP. The Budget will go still further and move us, I hope before too long, from second place among the 20 countries listed in this morning's paper to the top.
  We have been able to reduce Government borrowing, not because of fisticuffs behind the bike sheds between Treasury Ministers and spending Departments but because of a series of well-crafted policies. Many of us on the Conservative Benches were delighted to hear that the housing benefit scam, under which the landlord and the tenant can connive to take large sums of money from central Government, sometimes without the local authority even showing any concern, is to end.
  It is right that we should crack down on mortgage benefit, although I hope that the Government will focus the policy firmly on people taking out new mortgages. Some people with existing mortgages who are in financial difficulties face distinct problems. The reduction in mortgage benefit is a good thing because it will discourage building societies and banks from lending to people at the margin who should not take on the commitment of a mortgage, with the taxpayer underwriting it. I also welcome, as I am sure all Conservative Members do, the greater involvement of private capital in capital projects, which again will help to ease the burden.
  I have only one negative point to make on the fiscal side. It will not surprise my hon. Friends, but I feel bound to make it. Once again, we have seen a further squeeze on defence spending in the new third year of the programme. Even indexed against the retail prices index, which is not a realistic index for any form of Government spending, because wages and salaries follow living standards rather than the RPI, there has been another small 0.4 per cent. cut. We have much smaller armed forces now. We reduced them for a good reason, but we must provide them with the money to be adequately equipped and trained. Nevertheless, I commend my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget for achieving a remarkable balance between a massive and welcome cut in Government borrowing and a series of well-crafted policy changes.
  That brings me to monetary policy. An interesting thing is happening in monetary policy at present. We have a clear divorce between the advice from the Bank of England which, even more strongly in its off-the-record briefings than in on-the-record material, is clearly in favour of another rise in interest rates and the clear advice of the independent panel of forecasters that we should hold steady for a while on interest rates.
  I have an interest to declare once again. While other people have been rushing out to buy their lottery tickets, I have just doubled the bet that I have on the money market on interest rates. I firmly believe that the Government should hold interest rates for some time yet. Let me tell the House why.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: Because the hon. Gentleman wants to win his bet.
  Mr. Brazier: The question that the hon. Lady should ask is why I have just placed the bet. Only one serious economic danger faces us today. It is not a danger that we should underestimate. The danger is that we could underestimate how successful we have been in curbing

  1131
  inflation. First, if one compares this recovery with the three previous ones, the monetary profile is so different that it is difficult to exaggerate. Monetary growth in broad money as the last recovery developed was between 15 and 20 per cent. Monetary growth in broad money this year—calculated by annualising the past six months—is a mere 2.5 per cent. We have never before during this century had an economic recovery in which the banks have had serious difficulties lending their money.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the one thing that manufacturing industry in Britain does not want is another rise in interest rates, which would deter any further investment? Although there has been a rise in investment, it is from a low base. We want more investment in manufacturing industry. That certainly will not be achieved if there is another rise in interest rates.
  Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend has just anticipated almost my next sentence. The second major difference between this recovery and the last one is where recovery comes from. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor alluded to the important role of exports in this recovery. Another major difference is the fact that the output of investment goods has grown so much more quickly than the output of consumer goods. Indeed, in the last quarter it has grown at double the rate of growth of output of consumer goods. Investment is occurring now. There is some difficulty in sorting out the figures. There are various different ways of measuring investment, but it is clearly there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) rightly said, if interest rates rise further, investment could be jeopardised.
  The fourth big difference between the current recovery and the previous one, to which several hon. Members alluded, is in the housing market. The fuel of our last three inflationary booms has overwhelmingly been monetary growth driven by large quantities of inflation and tax-assisted borrowing, driving up house prices. Today, house prices are, at most, level in money terms; they may even be falling in money terms, and the level of transactions is definitely falling.
  As I represent an east Kent constituency, I am especially conscious of the fact that there is an enormous overhang of empty property in north-west France. Not only are second home owners selling their leafy cottages in my part of the world and, I suspect, in other parts of England, to buy cottages for a third of the price in France—now advertised by estate agents in England—but a growing number of retired people, including two sets of friends of mine in the past 12 months, are taking the opportunity to move to France and realise a huge capital gain.
  All those factors illustrate how dramatically different the monetary profile of the current recovery is from the previous one. If we allowed officials in the Bank of England to persuade us to fight this war in the way that it was fought the last three times and increased interest rates now against the current background, we could seriously damage a tremendously healthy export-led and investment-led recovery.
  I shall quickly dispose of the three opposing arguments produced principally by the Bank of England "school of thought". The first is the rapid growth in narrow money. I do not go quite as far as Professor Tim Congdon in
  1132
  believing that that measure is always a waste of time; it has some value. However, there is an especially good reason for distrusting it now.
  If there is a big transfer of employment, resulting in a much greater proportion of people being in low-paid part-time work, and large numbers of people enter the work force for the first time who are low paid, many of those people are paid in cash, not simply because of the black economy but because they do not have bank accounts. That is bound to mean that the small proportion of the overall broad money figure that represents notes and coins increases. It does not have a macro-economic inflationary knock-on effect, however.
  The second argument that is frequently mentioned is based on business surveys. Astonishingly, the most prominently mentioned of those is the dreadful purchasing managers' index. As a former statistician, I ask, how could anyone take an index that has operated for as short a time as three years—it has been in existence for less than half an economic cycle—as a serious measure showing which way the economy is going?
  The third and final major argument concerns the capacity issue. As a monetarist, I am always inclined to be slightly suspicious of the capacity argument, because I believe that inflation is principally a monetary phenomenon, but capacity issues are, anyway, principally concentrated in manufacturing. Whereas the service sector is 60 per cent. of the economy, manufacturing is only about 20 per cent., and new capacity can be put in more quickly than it used to be a few years ago. We have a good level of manufacture of investment goods. Plenty of empty business property remains available. Factories can be equipped and brought on stream much more quickly than they used to be, and the greater use of shifts, and so on, can assist in doing that.
  The current recovery is quite different from previous economic recoveries. I have put my money where my mouth is; instead of buying lottery tickets, I decided to invest a bit of the Brazier finances on a bet that we shall not need to increase interest rates as fast as the markets believe that we should.
  The current recovery is different from the previous one. It is a healthy recovery; it is an export-led recovery; it is an investment-led recovery, and this is an excellent Budget to cap it.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) along the monetary theme that he developed, because many of my constituents do not have enough money to talk about betting on interest rates; they have problems finding the means to afford a reasonable standard of living.
  I was interested to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he intended to lift the personal allowances for tax payments on some pensioners. Obviously, I shall wait with interest to discover how that will affect pensioners throughout the country, especially in my constituency.
  Earlier this year, I received a letter from a pensioner couple who advised me that they were getting
  "a rent rise of £3 in April".
  That was the result of the Government's insistence that councils increased their rents greatly in excess of inflation—and I am speaking of properties for which

  1133
  people pay much more than the economic rent. At one time, Conservative Members used to say that people should pay an economic rent. Council house rents greatly exceed economic rents.
  The couple advised me:
  "At the same time our pensions are going up approximately £2.20p, so we shall be 80p worse off"—
  that is 80p worse off before value added tax was added to energy costs—
  "as the prats in the government say we get £4 a week interest on every £1,000 over £3,000, that is 25 PER CENT",
  for which reason they receive less housing benefit than they should.
  I wonder what the attitude of Conservative Members will be to that development, whereby pensioners who have savings to help them through their retirement are being told that on every £1,000 savings exceeding £3,000 it is estimated, for benefit purposes, that they receive 25 per cent. interest. Only fools would say that that is a fact, but that is what happens as regards interest payments on pensioners' savings.
  I wish that the Chancellor would listen to some of the problems that many of the retired people throughout the country experience. Recently, a chap called Hunter, who lives in Sharlston in my constituency—you must know the district quite well, Mr. Deputy Speaker—came to my surgery. He received an increase in his British Coal pension of £1.55 per week. His housing benefit was reduced by £1.09 and his council tax by 50p per week. That pensioner, after receiving his pension increase, is £4 per week worse off. He also suffers from the increase in VAT on fuel.
  I also know of a widow whose state pension increased by 15p per week. Her housing benefit was reduced by 26p per week. The lady says that that has happened for years—the increase in pension has been absorbed by the reduction in housing benefit. The Government's policy of reducing housing benefit when pensions increase is adversely affecting a substantial number of people who are on pensions and who rely on pension increases to try to improve their standard of living.
  A family of three live in the area of Ossett in my constituency. The father and son are disabled; the son is physically disabled and incontinent. The mother and wife has to be the carer, looking after the two other members of her family. The son reached the age of 25. He has a mental age of eight, but the family lost £4 per week in housing benefit because he reached the age of 25. Government rules say that housing benefit is cut when a lodger reaches the age of 25, because Ministers allege that that person makes a contribution to the household.
  There is no question of tolerance in such a position. There is nothing in the Budget to help the families whom I have described. There is nothing to help them to avoid the poverty trap. We are talking of the most vulnerable people in society—the mentally and physically disabled—yet the Government attack them by reducing their income and their benefits. During the Chancellor's lengthy speech, he made no mention of any help for them.
  The people whom I have described have to pay the increase in VAT on fuel charges. Indeed, they will suffer the most from that increase. Age Concern, in a parliamentary briefing, said that it believed that

  1134
  "VAT on fuel should not be increased to 17.5 per cent. But, if the increase goes ahead, we are concerned with the way the compensation package will be implemented."
  Every hon. Member should share that concern.
  The Government promised to compensate people on benefit for the increase in VAT. On 27 October, I put a question to the Paymaster General, who replied:
  "The House decided to implement VAT on fuel bills in two stages. It did so in the knowledge that a generous compensation package gives extra help to all pensioners and widows, disabled people"—[Official Report, 27 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 994.]—
  who qualify.
  In the main, it is those who are in receipt of income support who qualify. Ministers—in this case, the Paymaster General—give misleading information. They seem to be under the impression that all pensioners receive the hand-out to compensate for VAT on fuel. That is not the case. When the Secretary of State for Social Security speaks in the Budget debates, he should clarify the position for those who are denied the extra benefit to compensate for VAT on fuel.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition analysed the increase proposed by the Chancellor and showed that in real terms it would amount to about 10p a week for a single pensioner. I hope that there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to vote on such a pernicious tax. It shows beyond any shadow of doubt that those who will suffer and be hurt the most will be those who can ill afford the extra cost imposed by the Government.
  The Chancellor missed the opportunity offered by the Budget to redress the problems faced by many pensioners. It is not just the cut in housing benefit or the VAT on fuel bills—in the early years of the Conservative Government, following the 1979 election, the Government took away the concessionary television licence from a substantial number of pensioners. That concession had been promoted by the Labour Government. I hope that Ministers will deal with that problem.
  Mr. David Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the last Labour Government failed to pay the pensioners' Christmas bonus in two of their last four years in power?
  Mr. O'Brien: I remind the hon. Gentleman that since 1979 this Government have not increased the Christmas bonus by the rate of inflation and are therefore denying pensioners £55.70. I shall take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on the matter, because the bonus is £10 now and it was £10 some 15 years ago. Had it been uprated in line with inflation, it would now be worth £65.70.
  I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1979 a single pensioner received a pension of £23.30 per week. In 1994, he is receiving £57.60 per week. Had the pension been uprated in line with inflation, it would now be worth £76.70. The hon. Gentleman should remember that pensioners have not been robbed just of their pension. He voted for VAT on fuel; he supported the withdrawal of concessionary television licences; and he supported the reduction of housing benefit. If he has any shame, he should feel ashamed of what has happened to pensioners since the Government came to power. When the opportunity arises for the hon. Gentleman and others to support the pensioners on the question of VAT on fuel, I hope they will join us in voting down the proposed increase. Last night, I presented a petition on behalf of

  1135
  1,000 of my constituents asking the House to vote down the increase to 17.5 per cent. next April. I hope that my constituents who signed that petition will receive the support of the House to stop the VAT increase.
  Because of the Government's policies, in 1994 local housing authorities are making a profit, for the first time, for the Government from housing rents. Local authorities pay net housing subsidies to the Treasury. The Government have a new tax—on council house rents. We are all aware that the Government have increased rents well above the rate of inflation.
  Now, council house and housing association rents are not economic rents but what we term "market rents". But the people who set the market rents are the Ministers who stand at the Government Dispatch Box. Councils are told what rent increases they must make, not because those increases will pay for other benefits for council house tenants but because the Government will benefit from them. It is another tax that people have to endure because of Government policy.
  Again, the Chancellor had the opportunity to redress that situation and to be fair and honest with tenants about the levying of rents and housing benefits. For tenants not on housing benefit, the increase in rents above the rate of inflation is totally unfair. It is undemocratic because those people have no vote on the rent increases. For tenants on housing benefit, a rent increase above the rate of inflation drives them further into the poverty trap and becomes a greater and more serious problem. For tenants on a partial rebate, the rate of taxation is probably higher than in any other sector of the community.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer missed a golden opportunity today. He could have helped millions of people who are in the poverty trap, losing housing benefit and have no way of escaping the policies that the Government introduced. Local authorities and housing associations face tremendous difficulty in improving their properties and providing affordable housing. Because of the Government's restrictions, they may not spend their money to develop new housing and improve the housing stock. Some council houses have only one electric plug in the kitchen. Local authorities want to improve on that and carry out improvements, but because of the policies outlined by the Government, they are denied the opportunity to do so.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the home energy efficiency scheme, yet in properties in some local authorities, the heating is provided by boilers, and by other means, that are 20 years old. Those local authorities want to take out those old boilers to improve their heating efficiency, yet, because of Government policy, that is not permitted. Therefore, in addition to VAT on energy, many people are living in houses that are uneconomical because of the heating system.
  I put it to the Ministers on the Treasury Bench that what we have witnessed today is an opportunity lost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had the golden opportunity to bring into practice some of the policies that would have helped the people to whom I have referred.
  Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friend is talking about local authorities and local government. If he just casts his eye around the Chamber this evening, he will see behind him our hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), the former leader of Coventry city council. In front, he will see our hon. Friend
  1136
  the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, (Mr. Betts), the former leader of Sheffield city council. On the Whips' Bench, he will see our hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), who was leader of his council. Will my hon. Friend just think for one moment about all the local authorities that dispose of their waste and put it in a big hole? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will tax every local authority in Britain that actually empties every dustbin. No local authorities incinerate their waste; they put it in a big hole.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point.
  Mr. Stott: For the first time in 15 years.
  Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. The fact that we are threatened with a tax on waste for landfill sites in 1996 has not gone unnoticed. The Chancellor said that a consultative document would be published on that matter. We are waiting with bated breath to see what is in it.
  It is true that we will witness a further tax on people who have no alternative but to have their waste disposed of by their local authorities. The Secretary of State for the Environment, in a written answer to a question which I tabled, said that no assistance is given by his Department to people who want to dispose of recycled materials. He said that it was for the market to decide.
  As I said earlier, market rents do not help people on low incomes. They do not help the people whom I want the Minister to help. I hope that he will take that into consideration when he replies, and I hope that some amendments will be made to help the people who will suffer worst under this Budget.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing a Budget for growth, recovery and sound finance.
  It is profoundly depressing to listen to Opposition Members simply regurgitating old ideas from the past. We recognise that the debate must be very difficult for them,.because, increasingly, they are not allowed to talk about policies: their leader cannot decide whether he wants to have them or not. He will have one policy on one day and will trim and change it the next, according to what he thinks may be popular with the electorate. Opposition Members are left like some old record stuck in a groove, regurgitating the ideas that they have peddled in the past.
  Mr. Bill Etherington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hendry: I should like to make progress, but I will certainly give way later.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—sadly, she could not remain to hear the speech that followed her own—about how the housing recovery will not happen. It must be difficult for her to find things to be gloomy about these days. Not long ago, Opposition Members were telling us that the recovery would not happen and that it would not last. They then told us that inflation would not come down and that it would not stay down. They then told us that the trade deficit would not fall as we came out of

  1137
  recession. They kept on telling us that unemployment would not come down. They increasingly find that they are short of things to complain about.
  Mr. Etherington: I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is even more depressing for Opposition Members to hear Conservative Members constantly reiterate the benefits of policies which have failed for most of this century but which we keep on getting.
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman, sadly, did not recognise that manufacturing output and exports are now at their highest level. We have the most favourable circumstances in terms of inflation, interest rates and business confidence that I have seen in my lifetime. The hon. Gentleman may be a good number of years older than me, but it is a shame that he has not learnt a bit faster.
  Conservative Members have to listen to Opposition Members peddling the same old mistruths about how things are bad, yet all round the country we find them getting better.
  We listened, too, to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who talked about manufacturing industry. How sad, I thought, for businesses in his constituency, which are doing their very best to win new markets, to produce.the best goods at the best price and to train their workers,.to find their own Member of Parliament talking them down. Why cannot Labour Members be like my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Day), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or other hon. Members who fight every inch for their manufacturing industries because they believe in manufacturing and want to help them to do better and win new markets?
  We then had to listen to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I fully accept his sincerity, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) pointed out, the Labour Government not only did not pay the Christmas bonus twice, but did not index it according to inflation. Opposition Members still say that we should have done that.
  Ours was not the party that delivered inflation at 27 per cent. and ours was not the party that cheated pensioners of their savings, which became less valuable every year because of the inflation rate. We take no lessons from the Labour party about pensions, given the way in which it has dealt with them.
  Mr. William O'Brien rose—
  Mr. David Evans rose—
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Member for Normanton has had his opportunity, but I happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield.
  Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in 1978, under that lot over there, inflation was running at 27 per cent.? Never mind about pensioners' savings; at that rate, they were devalued.
  Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  Every Labour speaker has spoken of Labour's wish to cut £2.3 billion of Government revenue over the next year, but has any of them said how the cut should be paid for?
  Mr. O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Hendry: Hear me out.
  Have Labour Members proposed the imposition of a single tax? Have they proposed the saving of £2.3 billion elsewhere? We know that they will not do so. They are merely going for the media soundbite—the little slot on the six o'clock or the nine o'clock news and the opportunity to issue a little press release in their local newspapers. They have not the decency to tell the House how they would make up the shortfall that they would create.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I hate to contradict my hon. Friend, but one promise that Labour seems to have made is to tax higher earners. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to tell us how much income we might expect that to produce. Would it cover the extra spending?
  Mr. Hendry: It is always hard to tell. I imagine, however, that if we asked the Leader of the Opposition—who is married to a very high earner—he would be able to give us a good deal of information, and I hope that he will declare an interest when he comes to talk to us about that.
  Let me return to the subject of pensioners. I particularly welcome the raising of thresholds for their payment of tax. In my submission to the Treasury, I stressed that I wanted those thresholds raised to make a bigger difference between those who have saved to contribute to their pensions throughout their lives and those on income support. The pensioners whom I find it hardest to talk to are those who have done all we that asked of them—who have saved in order to take up pensions, and who now find that if they had spent the money on an extra holiday or a slightly higher living standard they would be almost as well off. I commend my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to ensure that such people receive the benefits of their savings in their lifetimes.
  I also commend the measures to encourage people to return to work. I declare an interest, as an unpaid director of a training charity dealing with young long-term unemployed people. I welcome the initiative to allow a year's break from national insurance contributions for employers of those who have been without work for two years or more, which will make it significantly easier to encourage them back into work and will make it a realistic possibility for them to take jobs.
  I am pleased about the expansion of the constructive schemes. It is sad that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington should describe those measures as gimmicky; they do not seem gimmicky to someone who is on such a scheme—someone who has been unemployed for some time, and then finds that the Government have introduced a scheme designed to help him to gain a new skill, try a new job and find a way back into work. That is not a gimmick; it is someone's life. It is demeaning and condescending in the extreme for Opposition Members to be so cruel and hurtful to people who are doing their best to return to work.

  1139
  I want to say a little about the Housing Corporation budget. I am joint chairman of the parliamentary all-party group on homelessness, and I know that any cut in Housing Corporation funding will be viewed with concern, but I think that we should look at the proposal in context. We must take into account a Conservative manifesto commitment to build 153,000 social houses for rent over the three years after the election—a target that will be comfortably met. We must also take into account the lower building costs produced by building companies that are anxious to find work, and the lower interest rates which mean that housing associations can borrow from the money markets.
  We should, however, go further and make it possible for the Housing Corporation to give grants to private developers so that they can build social rented housing as well. Again, I declare an interest as chairman of a company that deals in private rented accommodation—not that it would benefit, but builders should be entitled to put in bids to show that they can build better and more cheaply, and let at lower rents, than many housing associations.
  I hope that we shall also encourage housing associations to recycle their money by providing their tenants with a right to buy, and that we shall enable the smaller housing associations to have a bigger slice of the cake: they tend to be leaner, and more directly connected with the issues in their local communities. Above all, we must try to encourage the Housing Corporation to put its funds more directly into refurbishment. There are 700,000 empty houses in the country, and it is ridiculous to claim that every year we need to build 100,000 or 200,000 new houses.
  Every time the Government build more houses, Shelter says, "That is not enough: we must have more." If the Government built the 100,000 houses that Shelter wanted last year, Shelter would say, "We did not want 100,000; we really wanted 200,000." Shelter is the only organisation that can call one month of bad figures a trend and, when presented with two years of declining homelessness figures, say that it is still too early to predict the true position. We must enable the Housing Corporation to make better use of existing stock.
  This Budget is not about short-term solutions; it is about getting the long-term economic structure right. It proposes measures that will build on the recovery that is so clearly already in place. In my constituency, businesses that are working to gain new markets, employ new people and lower our local unemployment rate faster than the national average will welcome many measures in the Budget. They will be delighted by the measures to control the growth of business rates; they will be delighted by the proposed extension of the export credit guarantees; they will be delighted by measures that will help them to employ new people, especially those who have been unemployed for some time; and they will be delighted by my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to a rescue culture.
  For too long, we have been concerned about the fact that the banks seem ready to pull the plug before they have had a chance to see whether businesses might have a long-term viable future. As we emerge from recession, fewer companies will be in that position, but all Conservative Members will welcome the Budget initiative.
  1140
  This is a Budget for recovery, a Budget for sustained growth and a Budget that my constituents will welcome.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I am interested by the litany that I have heard today from Conservative Members. I think, however, that. I should begin at the point where the Chancellor began. He said that inflation was last at its current level during a certain World Cup; but, as we know, a Labour Government were in power then.
  Conservative Members have made much of the so-called misdemeanours and mismanagement of Labour Governments. Let me remind them that it was not a Labour Government, but a Tory Government, who created the three-day week. A Tory Government, too, could not manage the OPEC negotiations when oil and petrol prices started to rise.
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Mr. Cunningham: I see that the hon. Gentleman is keen to intervene, but a Tory Government were undoubtedly involved. Their actions, certainly in the 1970s, led to a Labour Government eventually having to approach the IMF. Conservative Members keep throwing that at us, but would we not like to return to the days of Labour government in the 1960s and 1970s—the days when only about 300,000 people were unemployed? Would not we like to get back to the days when more houses were being built than ever before—that was considered a terrible record for a Labour Government—and when homelessness was at a minimum? Would not we like to get back to the days when more hospitals were being built and more doctors and nurses were being trained?
  Conservative Back Benchers would like to brainwash us into believing that the Government's economic policies are working. I have heard Conservative Members say that this is the right Budget every time this Government have introduced a Budget, yet no Budget has been right.
  I want to deal with the areas that concern me and my constituents. Some hon. Members have mentioned invalidity benefit, for which, under the new arrangements, about 200,000 people will not qualify. A vast number of people will lose out on the jobseeker's allowance. More important, if an individual is given a card to go for a job but does not get it, benefits officers can ring the employer to find out how he got on. If the employer says that the individual did not try very hard, he may lose his benefits.
  I want to show how vindictive the Budget really is. Hon. Members have touched on housing benefit. Many families on the poverty line rely on housing benefit:. A short time ago, some Conservative Members said that housing benefits were being abused in Coventry. An investigation took place, but in only a few cases could any abuse be demonstrated.
  The Government are reneging on their promise to first-time buyers. What happened to the Government's slogan about a home-owning democracy? Many young people who have taken out mortgages over the past two or three years will find themselves confronted once again with another reduction in the help available for mortgage repayment.
  Mr. Duncan: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, the way in which housing benefit has operated

  1141
  guarantees that private sector rents will rise to meet the level of housing benefit that is set. The greatest guarantee for someone wanting to start on the mortgage ladder is a regime of low interest rates, which we now have amidst the sustainable recovery that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor outlined so well today.
  Mr. Cunningham: It is not for me to defend the housing benefit system that the Government introduced, particularly in the context of the abolition of rent controls. The Government abolished rent controls on the basis that a fair rent should be charged and that market forces should determine its level. I am showing that the changes will have a regressive effect on the poorer members of society. They will affect many people in my constituency.
  Once again, local government will have a sledgehammer taken to it. The Chancellor's speech emphasised the need for efficiency in local government. We all want to encourage efficiency in local government, and some of us do, but before the Government start preaching about efficiency in local government they should become more efficient and set a good example. I have not seen much efficiency from central Government.
  The Government have made much of the fact that there will be a 3.5 per cent. increase in funding for the police. Let us look at what they have not funded. They have not put much money into funding for safer cities and they have cut legal aid. I could go on and on.
  In reality, the Budget must be judged against last year's Budget. It is designed, once again, to make the poorer members of society pay for the Government's follies. It should have been based on need rather than greed. That is how I would sum up the Budget.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: The headline in a Conservative party brief that I have just looked at suggests, in a rather defensive tone, that this may be a "steady as she goes" Budget. This has indeed been a "steady as she goes" Budget and I welcome that. It is exactly what we need at this stage. I welcome three particular aspects. There was help for the long-term unemployed, more help for small companies—we have done a great deal to help them in recent years—and a continued reduction in the level of public spending and public borrowing.
  The experience of the Conservative Government in the early 1990s shows how difficult it is to keep public spending under proper control. We all know that Conservative Governments believe in keeping public spending down. Sadly, we allowed it to go up to unsustainable levels and that is one of the most important reasons why the Government have had some serious economic difficulties in the past few years. The key thing for this Budget was that the recovery should be nurtured and sustained.
  The headline in a recent issue of CBI News said:
  "Recovery in progress: Do not disturb."
  That probably sums up more than anything else what we needed from this Budget and that is exactly what we have got.
  The Red Book shows that the Government are forecasting growth of about 4 per cent. in 1994 and of about 3.5 per cent. in 1995. The London Business School
  1142
  has forecast that manufacturing production will grow by an annual average of 4.3 per cent. between 1994 and 1998. That is extremely encouraging and I hope that the forecast is accurate.
  Inflation is 2 per cent. now and in his speech my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said that inflation will be going up next year. In years gone by we might have expected him to say that it would go up to 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. What he said was that next year inflation is forecast to rise to 2.5 per cent.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the damage has already been done with inflation? What about the thousands of people who have lost their homes or had to give up their jobs because of inflation? You have had 16 years to deal with inflation and you have inflicted misery and injustice on the people of this country. You will not be forgotten because you are still inflicting that misery with—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing me.
  Mr. Riddick: I know that you are a powerful figure, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was not aware that you were responsible for all those things.
  I accept the admonition of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). It is deeply regrettable that we allowed inflation to get out of control and that at its height it reached 11 per cent. However, that contrasts with inflation of about 26 per cent.—
  Mr. Duncan: It was 27 per cent.
  Mr. Riddick: Yes, as my hon. Friend said, inflation was 27 per cent. when the Labour party was last in office.
  We must not forget that inflation went up to high levels in the early 1990s because of our involvement in the exchange rate mechanism and Lord Lawson's efforts to prove to the then Prime Minister that we should join the ERM. As a result of those efforts he lost control of monetary policy. The Labour party wanted us to join the ERM. At the time it was calling for interest rates to be lowered still further, which would have made the inflation problem even worse than it turned out to be.
  Returning to today's economic position, interest rates are at competitive levels. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said, investment in plant and machinery is increasing by about 5 per cent. British exporters are expanding in existing markets and winning new orders in new markets.
  Earlier this year, I led an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament to India. Yesterday, I talked at a Sino-British trade fair in Harrogate. It is interesting that British companies are doing much more business in both those countries than they have done before. They are exporting more goods and services to India and China and to many other countries throughout the world. They are setting up companies in those two countries, in many cases joint venture companies. It is extremely good news that the recovery is export and investment led.
  The most important point is that the fall in unemployment is the result of all those favourable economic indicators. Unemployment has fallen by 450,000 since the end of 1992. Last month, it fell by 330 in my constituency of Colne Valley—the biggest monthly

  1143
  fall in unemployment there for more than six years. The number of people who are unemployed in Come Valley is now at its lowest level since June 1991. That is obviously extremely good news, but more needs to be done. I hope that the downward trend in unemployment in my constituency and in the country will continue.
  I welcome the specific measures in the Budget to help people who have been unemployed for a long time and the measures to help people on low pay. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has introduced measures that exempt employers from national insurance contributions for the first year and that cut the national insurance rate for employees earning less than £205 per week by 0.6 per cent.
  My right hon. and learned Friend rather lost me when he talked about the expansion of job schemes to help people back into work. He talked about job finder's grants, work trials, Workstart, Workwise and 1–2–1 schemes. I am sure that all those schemes will play a useful part in helping the long-term unemployed. I welcome the fact that the Government have shown their terrific commitment to getting people back to work. I also welcome the extra help that my right hon. and learned Friend announced today for small businesses. The venture capital trust scheme will be useful in attracting new investment into small firms.
  Exporters will welcome the extra cover that the Government will provide through the export credits guarantee scheme and the fact that guarantee premiums will be 10 per cent. lower. The Government, however, can only do so much in terms of specific measures to stimulate enterprise and to help generate wealth. They need to create the right economic environment. We have that now, as we had in the mid-1980s. It was a tragedy that, because Lord Lawson played around with interest rates to prove his point about the exchange rate mechanism, we lost control of the money supply and suffered from everything that flowed from that.
  The right economic environment is now in place. Monetary policy is firmly under control. Inflation is low. Companies in this country want, more than anything else, long-term stability. That is what they need to have the confidence to plan for the future. Those plans must not be knocked off course by sudden changes in Government policy.
  The Government must ensure that we have reasonable personal tax rates, so that people have incentives to work, and reasonable corporate tax rates, so that companies are encouraged to make profits. Where necessary, the Government must make supply-side changes, as they have done in the past. They reformed trade union law so that trade unions operated in a responsible way as opposed to the irresponsible way in which they operated in the 1960s and 1970s.
  The Government have privatised a number of firms, including British Airways, British Gas and British Telecom. Many of those companies have improved their performance as a result of being taken away from the control of politicians and bureaucrats, which I welcome.
  Deregulation is another matter on which the Government must act. We have made some strides on that front, but more must be done. Too much Brussels-inspired regulation is still being introduced and the Government must do all that they can to ensure that unnecessary regulation is resisted.
  1144
  I suppose that the most important point is that the Government must allow companies to run their businesses without unnecessary impediment. The British people are entrepreneurial, innovative and hard working. We should let them get on with it. In the past two years, they have gone out and done so because the Government have created the right economic conditions. As a result, those companies have gained market share, won export orders, generated more wealth and created more jobs.
  Government can be destructive. Policies that harm British businesses and that destroy jobs may be introduced. I fail to understand why the Labour party continues to be so wedded to the social chapter and to the minimum wage, particularly when it hears clear evidence of the results of the minimum wage in other countries. Unemployment rates for young people and unskilled people are much higher in France and Spain than in this country as a direct result of the minimum wage.
  It is interesting to compare job-creation achievements in the United States of America with those in the European Community. In the past 20 years, about 30 million new jobs have been created in the USA as against 5 million new jobs in the European Community. Most of the new jobs in the EC were created in the public sector. The reason for the gap is that the American companies operate in a much freer market system and labour market than do British and European companies, which are shackled in unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy. The key point is that continually improving productivity is crucial to companies retaining competitiveness.
  A recent manufacturing bulletin published by the Confederation of British Industry shows clearly how productivity in this country has improved in the past 15 years. A graph in the bulletin shows that, since 1979, the British worker's average output has increased quite markedly compared with that of the German worker. In 1979, the British worker's output was about half that of the German worker. Now, however, it stands at about 90 per cent. of that of the German worker. More needs to be done, but that is a significant improvement that I obviously welcome.
  Britain is now an attractive country with which to do business and in which to invest. As we know, inward investment has played a large part in creating new jobs here in recent years. In its recent annual report, Ihe Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association states that in 1993–94 38 overseas companies invested in the region, as a result of which nearly 6,000 jobs were created or safeguarded. Those companies would not have come to Britain if we had had all the regulation that the European Community wants us to impose on companies.
  The British economy has made sound progress in the two years since we left the exchange rate mechanism. Further progress needs to be made so that we can get more people back to work and create more wealth so that our standard of living rises. The Budget has made an important contribution in that respect, and I am happy to give it a warm welcome.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I shall deal with the three key issues in the Budget: the economic prospects for this country and the general economic situation; taxes; and public expenditure. They are the three issues on which the Chancellor also concentrated.

  1145
  Listening to the Chancellor and to the Conservative Members who have spoken since the Budget announcement, one could believe that there was nothing wrong with the British economy, that we have nothing but success and that everything is going in the right direction. I wonder whether Conservative Members talk to the majority of their constituents who have to face the problems of everyday life in Britain in 1994. Conservatives Members must be the only people in the country who believe that everything is going well; most of my constituents believe that the country is going rapidly downhill while the Government simply sit and watch and take no effective action to solve the problems that they are experiencing.
  We have heard the Government praise themselves for how they have brought about economic recovery, a recovery from high inflation, from even higher unemployment and from a £46 billion public sector borrowing requirement. There is little mention of the fact that they created the problems in the first place. Indeed, having created problems of such dimensions, it is hardly a great achievement if they manage to make a modest improvement.
  The Chancellor and Conservative Members give us a snapshot of the current situation, but we do not get a longer-term perspective on how the economy has been performing. Our economy went into recession sooner than that of our economic competitors in Europe; that recession was the deepest since the war; and Britain came out of recession first only because we went into recession first. It is, therefore, hardly surprising if, judging by some short-term and immediate indicators, we are currently seen to be performing better than some European countries. However, if one looks back over the past 15 years, a different picture emerges.
  The Chancellor said that inflation was back to the level of the 1960s, but he did not say that unemployment was not back to the same level. It is hardly an economic miracle to get inflation down to 2.5 per cent. when unemployment still stands at around 2.5 million even on the Government's own figures, which they have adjusted so many times since 1979. Indeed, it would be a source of amazement if inflation had not come down, given the fact that the unemployed had paid the price for it.
  What should surprise us is that while unemployment still stands at around 2.5 million the Government are already talking about the economy overheating. They are already admitting that there are bottlenecks in the economy and constraints of capacity, which mean that the recovery has to be slowed down to the point that interest rates are being increased. The reason is that productive capacity of the economy is now so small in relation to the number of people who want jobs that we cannot provide all the jobs that they require.
  I have visited firms in my constituency and I admit that they now say that things are better than they were a year ago. Yes, there are more orders, one or two firms are taking on more employees and certainly those in the export markets have seen improvements, but I cannot visit the firms that no longer exist. Britain has lost many firms and jobs but not because those firms were bad and could not produce the goods. Many were squeezed because they had taken the initiative and invested only to find that,
  1146
  because of the lack of real opportunity for venture capital in this country, the price of borrowing increased and they went out of business.
  Mr. Day: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the phenomenon of unemployment and companies going under in the recession was peculiarly British?
  Mr. Betts: I am saying that, in the 15 or 16 years that the Government have been in power, the failure of Britain's economic performance has been comparatively much greater than that of the developed economies in the European Union and elsewhere. I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with some figures if he will be patient for a moment.
  One of our problems is our past failure to invest in our infrastructure and industry. Our failure to invest in our people has produced a shortage of capacity and a lack of skills, which is all too evident on the ground and shows in international comparisons.
  Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that, in recent years, the north-east, Scotland and the north-west have suffered least from the recession, simply because of the investment in roads and industrial building already made under the Government's regional development policy?
  Mr. Betts: That is incredible. It cannot be said that the north and Scotland did not suffer, but the reason why the south suffered more in the latest recession was that the recession hit the service sector hardest and that sector had developed to a greater extent in the south-east. That does not mean that constituencies such as mine and cities such as Sheffield have not suffered, too. We have lost manufacturing jobs in the past few years, but we also lost jobs in our service industries. The north suffered more in the recession of the early 1980s, but we were also hit by the recent recession, with the result that the capacity no longer exists for recovery. That is highlighted in the longer-term figures, although Conservative Members may want to dispute them.
  The British economy grew by 2.7 per cent. in the 30 or so years between 1948 and 1979. The Labour party was in power for half that period. Since 1979, the economy has grown by 1.7 per cent., or 1 per cent. less. That is the reality of the economic miracle that Conservatives mention so often. They also talk about other economies having similar problems, but, on average, the economies of the Group of Seven countries grew by 2.4 per cent., or 0.7 per cent. more than the British economy. In other words, had the British economy grown at the same rate as those of our G7 competitors, we would have a 10 per cent. larger capacity than we currently have. Those figures highlight the failure of the past 15 years. They are not my figures; they are the official figures accepted by the Government.
  It gets worse if we examine the current position. Let us not talk about the current 4 per cent. growth, which represents only a snapshot; let us talk about the fact that, in the five years from 1988–93, the British economy grew at a rate of 0.5 per cent. That is an abject failure by comparison with any of our overseas competitors. Investment as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 18 per cent. in 1979 to 15.5 per cent. today and investment in plant and machinery has fallen by 28 per cent. since 1990. They are the problems facing our economy, but the Budget does not contain one proposal to tackle them.

  1147
  The manufacturing capital stock of our country is 0.5 per cent. higher than it was in 1979–0.5 per cent. higher after 15 years of Tory Government. In France and the United States, the figure is 20 per cent. higher; in Japan, it is 65 per cent. higher. That is a great difference. How can we create decent jobs that pay decent wages with such a level of investment in our economy and such an economic performance?
  Since 1979, we have lost 3 million jobs in manufacturing industry; one third of the jobs have gone. That is a higher percentage than is the case for our industrial competitors. Where are the Government's economic policies in the Budget to arrest that decline and do something to create the jobs that people want, certainly in my constituency? In reality, the jobs around are part-time jobs, often in the service industries, which pay far lower wages than the jobs we have lost in steel, engineering and coal. That means a lowering of living standards for many people. There are real problems for people which, again, the Budget did nothing to address.
  The Government have talked about the 400,000 reduction in unemployment. In the same period, we have lost 400,000 jobs. There is a problem out there which has not been addressed. The 400,000 reduction in unemployment is not matched by an increase in jobs. There are real difficulties out there which, again, the Budget does nothing to address.
  On the standards used by the world economic forum on competitiveness, Britain came 18th out of 23 OECD countries. It is no wonder that our living standards are falling and it is no wonder that people do not feel better off when, having had average living standards above those in the European Union in 1979, we are now only above Spain, Ireland and Greece. For how much longer will we remain above those countries?
  There is a theory prevalent among Conservative Members—the Governor of the Bank of England reflects it on occasions—that all we have to do is to get inflation down. It is believed that somehow, by some miraculous process, higher growth and more investment will follow. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not think that the German economic miracle, to which Conservative Members constantly refer, shows that either. It is more the case that if one has constant, long-term growth, improvements in real living standards and increases in real wages and profits, one takes inflationary pressures out of the economy. By sorting out investment and growth, one will then deal with inflation. Dealing with inflation may be admirable in itself. However, if, as the Government have proved to us, it is done at the price of the unemployed and if there are no mechanisms for working from low inflation to growth, because it is believed that it will happen of its own accord, we shall get nowhere in improving our long-term prospects.
  There were tax increases today. The increase was £10 a week for the average family in April and it will be another £7 a week next April. That is the tax increase in the pipeline. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly said, for the majority of people out there, the Budget will be remembered as the Budget that acknowledged and nodded through the second instalment of the imposition of VAT on fuel, unless Conservative Members have the courage to vote next week for an amendment that will give them an opportunity, once again, to reject the second increase and to do something
  1148
  for the pensioners, the disabled and the poor in our society. Those people will have to pay far more of the cost than is the case for other sections of society.
  Today, the Chancellor announced help for people with the VAT increases. That was little short of misleading. He added the promises of compensation for pensioners already given into today's figures. There is no new money for pensioners in the overall compensation figures; the Chancellor merely restated what had been said before.
  One of the only two new initiatives was the increase in cold weather payments, which only apply to some pensioners. The way in which they are administered leaves much to be desired and they are paid only if the weather is cold enough. They do not go to help with the general increase in fuel bills. The other new initiative, the home energy efficiency scheme to help people with their heating bills, amounted to £10 million out of a total tax take from VAT on fuel of £2.5 billion. That is little short of insulting to the people who will suffer the real damage from that VAT increase. There is no change there in Government policy, but there will be a real change next April in what ordinary families have to pay for their fuel. Damage will be done to their living standards.
  The changes in mortgage tax relief next April, which had been announced previously, will hit living standards as well. I am in favour of the changes in mortgage tax relief. I would like that relief to be abolished and I do not believe that it does anything to improve housing conditions and living standards. However, I would have liked the money to have been used to deal with the real housing problems and not to have gone simply to fill the black hole that the Government have created through their problems with the public sector borrowing requirement.
  The Government claim that they are all in favour of tax cuts and that the Conservative party is the party of tax cuts. Why do they not address the reality? In 1979, 34.3 per cent. of our gross domestic product went on tax; in 1995–96, the figure will be 37 per cent. Once again, a party that claims to be the party of tax-cutting has failed to deliver its promises. It has failed completely to address the real issues that have faced the country in the past few years.
  We can recognise the basic unfairness of the tax increases that the Government have introduced. The people who benefited from the tax reductions at the end of the 1980s were the richest sections of our community. The people who have felt the biggest impact of the tax increases, especially VAT on fuel, are the poorest sections of our community. There have been broken promises on VAT and broken promises on the Government's overall tax take. It is no wonder that when we talk to people outside the Chamber, we find that they have no confidence in the Government. They are still frightened for their jobs and for their homes, and they are frightened because of the tax increases they have had and the tax increases still to come.
  The Government's public spending record does not bear examination. The reality is that public spending is 44 per cent. of our GDP, which was exactly its level in the last year of the previous Labour Government. The difference, of course, is that social security spending has risen from 22 per cent. to 31 per cent. In return, investment in the public sector has fallen. The Government have transferred public sector investment in long-term benefits for this country into payments for the

  1149
  waste of unemployment. That is what has happened to public sector spending while the Government have been in power.
  It is interesting, in view of his record of involvement with housing, that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now sitting on the Government Front Bench. He cannot be proud of a Government who have cut expenditure on housing in the public sector by 57 per cent. during their period of office. Social house building has fallen from 131,000 properties to 37,000, a cut of 72 per cent. The further reduction today in money for housing associations is a disgrace alongside the reduction in credit approvals for local authorities.
  I do not know who comes to the surgeries of Conservative Members. I know that the biggest number of people who come to my surgery—other Labour Members have the same experience—are people who want housing and who cannot get a home. They include homeless families and young couples living with their parents and in-laws. The social tension that that causes is alarming. Conservative Members behave as if there were no problems there. They seem to believe that there would be enough houses if only we managed to get rid of vacant properties. Most vacant properties are in the private sector or are owned by Government Departments.
  The cuts today are a disgrace, especially when set alongside the backlog of disrepair. The local authorities produced an excellent booklet last week in which they calculated a £50 billion backlog of disrepair, only £10 billion of which was in the local authority sector. The real disrepair is found in homes owned by the poor and the elderly, and in older housing. Even to deal with the mandatory grants currently lodged with local authorities would require £500 million extra spending each year for the next three years. That is the amount required to deal with the worst unfitness in the private sector, not the total backlog of disrepair. What do we have? We have more cuts in the credit approvals, which means even longer waits, even for the mandatory grants given according to the Government's own standards.
  The Government's proposals on housing will seriously damage people in very real ways. Of course, the poverty trap needs attacking. Of course, the way in which housing benefits are withdrawn is wrong. At present, when people earn an extra pound, they lose 97p in council tax and housing benefit. The same applies to pensioners with a small occupational pension. That is a disincentive to work. However, the proposals today to leave people eligible for housing benefit for four weeks after they get a job does not address the fundamental problem. After those four weeks, many people will still lose because of the interaction of income tax increases and benefit loss. There is no proposal to date to deal with that. Instead, we have a further proposal to take money out of local authority rent accounts. In my view it is immoral to ask local authority tenants to pay for the benefits of other local authority tenants, when other benefits in our society, including benefits for private sector tenants, are paid for by all taxpayers. That is discrimination against one sector of the community, which is wrong. All that the Budget does is to worsen it.
  It is surely the hallmark of the Government that they create problems for the community, then blame the community for those problems and introduce penalties to
  1150
  punish the community for those problems. That is exactly the position in the private housing sector, which the Government deregulated and encouraged to create market rents. Those rents have now risen and, due to people being on income support or housing allowances, the Government have seen the cost of funding those benefits rise. The Government then say that the people who are to blame are either the local authority staff who are administering the Government's own scheme of support to housing, or the tenants who are going into properties with such high rents. Why do not they accept that what is to blame is their deregulation of the housing market, which created those rent increases in the first place? It has not produced more homes to rent. It has forced rents up and the Government are paying the price. Their solution, of course, is to make local authorities or the tenants pay the price, either by the tenants losing their homes or by local authorities paying the cost, which means cuts for other services under finance capping. That is the reality of what the Government are proposing.
  Then, there are measures relating to income support for people with mortgages. Again, what an appalling position in which to put people. Did not the Government recognise that some people on income support who have a mortgage will simply not be in a position, if they get a job, to take out insurance? It is quite possible that they will be denied insurance or that insurance will be at such a high premium that they will not be able to pay it. The people who I am thinking of are those who get a new mortgage today, when they are in a job. They may lose their jobs and go on to income support. They may then be offered the possibility of a temporary job, which are the norm for many people today when re-entering the labour market. Who would provide insurance for someone with a temporary job to insure their mortgage payments? No insurance company would give someone with a temporary job that sort of facility. What will happen is that the individual will say, "I am not going to go back into work on a temporary basis if it means that the next time I become unemployed, after losing my temporary job, I have no insurance and the Government will not cover, through income support, my mortgage payments. I might as well remain unemployed so that my mortgage payments are being covered." That is a major disincentive to people going back to work and it is time that the Government addressed it and halted the stupid proposal that they have made today.
  The issues of real concern in the Budget include the local authority settlement—a 0.9 per cent. increase. It is not an increase of 2.2 per cent. because that includes the community care grant. For local authorities, that means cuts of more than 1 per cent. on top of the cuts that they have suffered, or their communities have suffered, in past years. All of us can see the real problems today in every local authority. There are increases in class sizes. Class sizes are up to 35 students—up to 38 in my constituency. We can all see the inadequate funding of community care. We can all see people coming out of institutions—rightly in most cases—to find that there is inadequate support to enable them to live in the community safely from their point of view, as well as that of their neighbours. The under-funding is chronic in local authorities of all political complexions.
  The Budget will not address those problems. It will squeeze local authority spending further and it will increase class sizes. Conservative Members should not

  1151
  talk of increasing the education budget, because if local authorities have not got the money, it will not go into schools. It is as simple as that. The Government know it and they should stop being dishonest with the people of this country in pretending that it will. Once again, local authorities are being used as scapegoats because it is easier to pass the problem on to someone else.
  Conservative Members should not lecture people about partnership initiatives. The Government can claim the credit for one or two initiatives, but local authorities invented partnership initiatives. That is where those initiatives began in the 1980s. Why have they stopped? They stopped because of part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which introduced so many restrictions on partnerships that it effectively killed them off. The Government are now having to bring in proposals to rectify the damage that they did to partnership initiatives through that legislation.
  No doubt, next year, or perhaps the following year, the tax cuts will arrive as the bribe for the election to come. For every individual who will accept that those tax cuts, when they come, are the result of the Government's economic success, 10 people will see them for what they really are—a cheap election bribe, which the public have already paid for out of their own pockets. It will simply deepen the whole community's distrust in the Government.
  On all the tests that the Government have set for themselves in improved economic competitiveness, there is not one figure over the past 15 years which justifies their claims. Claiming to be a party of taxation cuts, it has broken its promises since the previous election. Since 1979, taxes in this country have not been cut. They have been altered, they have been made more unfair, but they have not been cut. Conservative Members claim to belong to a party which cuts public expenditure. They have failed. They have cut investment and the real benefits to be gained from public expenditure. They simply transfer that expenditure on to the waste of subsidising the unemployment that they have created. They have failed to improve economic performance, they have failed to cut taxation, and they have failed to cut public spending. They have failed by their own tests and their own standards. The Government have failed the people of this country and it is time that they went.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Stephen Day: Before I come to the main part of my speech, I must respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). He said an awful lot. His speech contained some very instructive comments if one listened carefully. The first half of his speech was a grave criticism of the Government for increasing taxation. He then went on to list a whole number of issues on which he thought that the Government should be spending more money. There lies a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's thinking, which is at the heart of the Labour party's present difficulties. It is easy now, two years from an election, for Labour to hide behind that facade. Come the election, however, Labour Members will have to square that circle, and they will not be able to do it. Come the next election, it will be very different from what the hon. Gentleman seems to think will happen. If I were him, I would not count my chickens until they were hatched. I remember Labour politicians doing that before.
  1152
  We were also accused by the hon. Gentleman of being totally out of touch and of not speaking to our constituents. I certainly speak to my constituents as, I know, do the vast majority of my colleagues. I live right in the heart of my constituency, in the same sort of house as the vast majority of my constituents. I visit the local pub, I visit the local clubs, and I know the exact difficulties that people are facing. The question is how one deals with them.
  This Budget is part of a long process of dealing with the problems felt by average people. I readily recognise that the Government, and therefore myself, are highly unpopular. But that does not mean that one should abandon the policies that one believes are right, just because one believes oneself to be unpopular. In politics, one should also have conviction, and it is my conviction that this is the right Budget for this country and this economy at the present time.
  I shall comment on a couple of the main provisions in the Budget which I know will bring great joy to small businesses, certainly in my constituency—the constituency which has small businesses to which we never talk. Not far from my constituency in Knutsfordoutside the boundaries of Cheadle, but quite near—there is an organisation called the Forum of Private Business. A meeting was organised in the House last week, at which a large number of Conservative Members were present. We were briefed on the problems of small businesses, in relation especially to the question of insolvency and the way in which banks deal with small businesses in those circumstances. Indeed, I have met area management representatives of banks to plead with them to take a very different and more tolerant line towards many small businesses, especially in the depths of recession through which we have gone through and in which small businesses have suffered.
  I am delighted that the Government have taken on board the problems experienced by small businesses. The 28-day moratorium will help deal with the problems that we debated in the meeting upstairs with the Forum of Private Business. These small companies, which are basically sound trading organisations, may well be in difficulty on a short-term basis because a larger company has not paid a bill on time. I am pleased that the Government have announced something that will help those businesses enormously.
  I am also pleased about the proposals to help people back into work. Getting back into work is another of the problems that my constituents—who I never talk to—raise with me at my surgeries. A constituent recently told me that he could not afford to take a job simply because he would lose his benefit and would have to work a month without receiving any money. It is an obvious disincentive if someone is willing to work, and wants to work, but that person must experience a month in which he cannot cover his costs because he has no income until the monthly cheque arrives. The Government have accepted that difficulty, and the proposals will definitely help my constituents to ease themselves out of dependency on benefits and into a job. I welcome that as a practical step forward in terms of defeating the scourge of long-term unemployment.
  The nation has had to address the Budget deficit in general, and I applaud the Government for the way in which they have addressed it and the speed with which they have brought the projected Budget deficit down.

  1153
  Despite the pressure, political problems and unpopularity that that has created for the Government, we have still managed—the Opposition never give credit for this—to increase funding for the national health service. We have done that year after year. I seem to recall that the amount of new money announced for the NHS a few years ago actually exceeded the amount that the Opposition were demanding, but even then they accused the Government of underfunding the NHS.
  I take great pride in being able to say that I do not belong to a private scheme and rely totally on the NHS. I have been lucky enough to have good health and not to be a great burden on the NHS. However, many people are not so lucky as I am. Thank God, because of the success of the NHS many people are now alive who would not have been alive 10 years ago. Happily, people are walking around today who would not have been with us 10 years ago. They have had costly operations which have rightly been provided by the NHS.
  The Government have never backed away from a commitment to increase NHS funding. No Labour Government ever matched the increase in NHS funding in real terms provided by this Government. I welcome the Government's continued commitment to the NHS by the further increase in funding. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that he thought that the extra money would somehow be lost in efficiency savings, as though that was a crime. Why should we not have efficiency in the NHS? It is taxpayers' money that is being spent and they deserve to have it spent efficiently. So long as the money that is saved by removing inefficiency is directed to patient care, which is what has happened within the NHS under the stewardship of the present Government, we should welcome and applaud that. We should certainly not denigrate it, as the hon. Member for Wrexham did.
  The Leader of the Opposition rounded off his speech in his usual way by saying how he felt that he identified with the feelings of the people. According to him, the people feel that the Government are not exactly their best friend. He agreed with that, and it was easy for him to do so. He recounted a list of things that he believed that people wanted. He said that they wanted fair taxation and a fair national health service. He always says things like that, but he never tells us how he would deliver such things. That brings me back to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Attercliffe. At some time in the future, those points must be addressed.
  I took particular offence when the Leader of the Opposition said that the Conservative Benches represented privilege while the Opposition Benches represented the people. As one who was educated at a state school and proud of it, I find it hard to take someone who has had the privileges and advantages of a private school—and good luck to him—making such comments about my party and me, and many others like me on the Conservative Benches, who did not have the advantages that the right hon. Gentleman has enjoyed in life. As a general election approaches, the people will not accept such bland statements as proving the real differences between the two parties. Such statements are, indeed, manifest nonsense.
  1154
  We have also heard criticism of the Government's approach during their 15 years in power. In a way, I am glad that Opposition Members raised that point because, as they were allowed to raise it, I believe that I can respond to it. One does not often have an opportunity to talk about the 15 years of Conservative rule, of which I happen to be very proud. It will take more than a soundbite from the Leader of the Opposition to convince me that this country is anything other than far better off than it was when we came to power.
  There are many reasons for that. I do not believe that everything that the Government have done is correct. No party could get everything right. Parties comprise human beings, and human beings make mistakes. On occasions, I have accused the Government of making mistakes—
  Mr. Wray: Are you saying that you are proud of what you have sold off? Are you proud of all that public ownership that you have sold off? Are you proud of the privatisation of the water industry in England? Are you proud—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not have to repeat this more than once. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that he must address me and not direct his remarks directly to the hon. Member concerned.
  Mr. Wray: Is the hon. Gentleman proud of all the people who lost their homes as a result of the high interest charges? The Government encouraged people to buy their homes when interest rates were at 7 per cent. and 8 per cent., but two years later people had to pay 16 per cent. and two years after that they lost all that they owned. Is the hon. Gentleman proud of that?
  Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman has referred to many things and I am very proud about the vast majority of what he listed. I will respond directly to his points.
  With regard to the privatisation of the state industries, most of them have been a great success. No one can convince me otherwise. British Telecom is providing a service in competition with other companies. It has improved service to the consumer beyond recognition. British Steel used to employ many people, but unfortunately they were manufacturing steel which no one wanted and at the wrong price. Standing up, waxing lyrical and crying crocodile tears about people losing their jobs does not save those jobs or secure their future. What secured the future for the steel workers was creating a company in the private sector, which we are now proud to call British Steel, which sells steel around the world that people want and which provides real secure jobs. There may not be as many jobs as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and I would like. I would like to see more jobs in British Steel, but we shall not obtain such jobs by resorting to the old way of politicians—the last people in the world who should do so—deciding where money should be invested.
  Mr. Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Day: I will give way in a moment. British Leyland is a classic example of why politicians should never be allowed to decide which companies receive investment. State control of British Leyland proved a disaster. The cars became a joke, no one wanted to buy them and the company was riven by strikes and restrictive practices. If the hon. Member for Provan is asking the country to go

  1155
  back to that state of affairs, I hope that he will say so regularly on public platforms up and down the country. If anyone is out of touch with the real issues, it is the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) referred to the privatisation of various utilities. There are certainly steel firms in the private sector. One in my constituency of Sheffield is extremely successful. But the company has a big problem with the privatised monopoly in the electricity industry, which last year effectively increased prices to stainless steel producers by 20 to 40 per cent. The regulator proved powerless to stop those increases. Is that not a problem that the Government have created, but which they are doing nothing to resolve?
  Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman has reminded me that I want to talk about water, which was mentioned specifically. The privatisation of the gas and electricity industries has produced real benefits for the consumer. Gas prices have fallen. I am not trying to mislead anyone: I accept that the imposition of value added tax has wiped out the reduction in prices to a considerable extent, but a price advantage to the consumer remains even after VAT is imposed to the full limit. Both industries are far more responsive to customers' needs now than when they were state owned.
  The Government are looking to introduce more competition in the supply of gas. That competition is overdue and should have been sought when we first privatised the industry. I would believe Opposition Members when they criticised the Government about privatisations if they also made the commitment to reverse them if, God forbid, they ever came to power. Despite their rhetoric, however, they will not reverse those privatisations because they know deep down that the benefits of privatisation are indisputable.
  I recognise also that what I say is not accepted easily in the country—it is probably not recognised by many of my constituents, who would vociferously disagree with me—but I believe that what I say is right and it will take more than sniping from the Opposition to make me change my mind.
  Water was mentioned specifically. The privatisation of water is unacceptable to many people because they believe that water is God-given and free. It is certainly God-given, but it was never free. Water must be supplied. Great benefits have accrued to the people of my constituency, and to Stockport borough in general, from the massive investment that has been made to replace lead pipes and to create a new sewerage system. The sewers in Stockport and south Manchester were collapsing because the public system had let the public down. We are now seeing long overdue investment. There is no point in Opposition Members grumbling about privatisation. When they were in power they did not provide the money to spend on those utilities. That is why the sewers in my constituency were crumbling. However, a private water company has invested money to provide the water service that we should have had years ago. That is the reality of the situation, whether the Opposition like it or not.
  When hon. Members think about the Budget, they should consider how we have arrived at our present economic position, which the Opposition would love to inherit after a general election. But it will not be that easy. If Opposition Members came to power, they would find
  1156
  one of the best economic situations ever seen in this country. They know that that is true, but they will not get up and say so. As they will not say it, I have said it for them. It is what they think, but it is not what they say.
  The Opposition cannot deny that this country's true economic situation is reflected by the magic figures of low inflation and greater inward investment. Whatever Opposition Members say, I do not believe that the British people will throw away those advantages at the next general election. If they were to elect the Labour party, its policies would destroy everything that has brought about our economic improvement.
  The Labour party would immediately bring in a minimum wage and sign us up to the social chapter. It would immediately increase spending. When we look at the tax proposals in the Budget, I ask hon. Members to think—
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: They would put up taxes.
  Mr. Day: Exactly. I ask the whole country to think about where we would be if a Labour Government had been elected at the last election. In addressing the budget deficit, the Labour party would have increased taxes to the same extent as we have done. But they would have gone beyond that. The public would have been paying taxes to deal with the budget deficit, plus taxes to pay for all the spending promises that the Labour party made. Opposition Members talk about the Government's failure to deal with the budget deficit—that is nonsense in itself—but the idea that somehow the deficit would be smaller under a Labour Government is preposterous. That is at the heart of the difference between the Conservative and Labour parties.
  I have no doubt that this Budget is right for this year. If the Government were playing politics with the finances of the nation and introducing tax cuts just to win favour with the populace before an election, it would be much easier to sustain the argument politically if we had cut taxes this year. Then Opposition Members could not have said, "Oh, you are cutting them just before the election so that you can get votes". That would have been the easy option. If we had done that, Opposition Members might have been right to say that we were playing politics with tax policy and the Budget. But we have not done that and they are wrong. I commend the Budget to the House.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: One of the problems with a debate such as this is that one does not have time to reflect on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement before one is required to speak about it. On that basis, my speech may be a knee-jerk reaction. It is also good to read other people's views and widen one's knowledge on the subject before speaking in a debate, but that is not always possible.
  Like many others, I welcome the economic recovery which the Chancellor graphically spelt out—at perhaps inordinate length—this afternoon. However, I do not welcome what I perceive to be the effect of the economic recovery on society in general.
  There have been two recessions since 1979 and, therefore, there have been two economic recoveries. Both of those recoveries led to increased unemployment and a widening of the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

  1157
  We are told that unemployment is decreasing—although there seems to be a problem with the equation, because as unemployment comes down, jobs are disappearing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has pointed out, that is a puzzle.
  Although one welcomes a decrease in unemployment., what is not welcome is the nature of many of the jobs being created. I am not one of those who say, "Jobs at any cost" Since the Government came to office, the difference between wages in the north-east and those in other parts of the country has caused us to drop from third out of eight to second-last out of eight in wage rates. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) for obtaining those figures. One problem is that if reasonable, decent jobs are replaced by part-time low-paid jobs, although in numerical terms it might appear that there has been a decrease in unemployment, the relevant area loses revenue. That has knock-on effects for the whole region.
  One thing that the Government cannot claim is that in this, or in any other Budget since 1979, they have done anything to eliminate regional disparities. There has been a total, absolute and dismal failure on that front, and nothing that I have heard today implies that that will change.
  Much has been said today, as it has been for many weeks, about the problem of VAT on fuel. The matter relates mostly to pensioners and others on various forms of income support. I agree with my hon. Friends that the compensation on offer is inadequate. The Chancellor said that those people are not as badly off as they might have been because there have been price reductions in certain fuels or because prices have not gone up for four or five years. That was a poor argument, and unworthy of this place. Everyone has had that benefit, not just pensioners and others on income support.
  Another group of people who receive scant mention in this Chamber are the relatively badly-off, who do not claim any benefits whatsoever and who are just above the poverty line. They will not receive relief from the increased VAT on fuel, and they represent many millions of people. Taking their families into account, they are a sizeable proportion of the population. They are being neglected. It is all very well the Chancellor pointing out what is being done for one section of the poor. He omitted to mention that nothing is being done for another section which is perhaps not quite as poor but is still very badly off.
  On VAT in general, since 1979, the Government have systematically reduced direct taxation and systematically increased indirect or regressive taxation. Financial pundits call it regressive taxation because it redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. That is the problem. I do not pretend to state present Labour party policy on the subject, but the country would have been better off and there would have been less inequality if income tax had been 7p in the pound more. The wealthy would then have made a more viable contribution to society. They obtain the most benefits from it, so it is only right that they should make the biggest contribution. Instead, we have had the reverse, which has led to many millions of people being made worse off. That problem promises to go on because there is nothing in the Budget to address it. There will be much of the same.
  1158
  We are told that everything is successful and that we shall continue to build on it. However, although I said that I welcomed the economic recovery, it was an economic recovery from a very low base. A 4 per cent. improvement sounds good, but 4 per cent. of what? It is certainly not as good as the relative figure for our European competitors. They started in a much healthier position than we did.
  I was rather surprised at the way in which the Chancellor jumped from subject to subject. We are talking about a £5 increase in vehicle excise duties, but not for commercial vehicles. That was also the case last year. I take exception to that. I have long held the view that commercial vehicles are already heavily subsidised in several ways. That is why operators have been able to corner the goods market, and that is also why rail transport has had such a poor time, not just since 1979 but since the mid-1950s. I should have liked the vehicle excise duty to have been done away with altogether. It is a form of service charge. Why not impose that duty on fuel?
  I am a great believer in the theory that those who use the roads the most should make the biggest contribution towards them. That can sometimes lead to some heart searching. I know people who live in rural areas, and the only way that they can travel to their work, which is not very well paid, is by way of an old banger—an old motor car—and an increase in duty will affect them. There will always be such anomalies.
  It would be good if all taxation for transport were raised from fuel. Commercial operators who use great quantities of fuel, who use the roads 24 hours a day, seven days a week, would pay the proportion which they should pay for their use of the roads network. People will say that that will put up prices, but what about competition? The Government wax lyrical about competition, but, to be effective, competition must be fair. For almost half a century, our railway system has suffered from the disadvantage of having to fight a competitor which is being subsidised by motorists and taxpayers generally.
  I trust that the Government—I hope that they are not in office long enough to make the decision—will consider the problem in the light of what was said in the recent report of the Royal Commission on pollution. Unless we do something, we shall end up with more environmental damage and more road crises. In the two and a half years since I was elected to Parliament, I have noticed that conditions from the north-east down to London have worsened dramatically.
  The Chancellor's speech stresses doing everything for employers and relieving the burdens on them in every possible way, notwithstanding the fact that they are advantageously placed compared with employers in many of our European neighbours. Corporation tax is a good example of that. There was no mention of the people who need help—the deserving poor—whom the Government seem to have forgotten altogether. We hear about targeting benefits, but very little was said by the Chancellor about that group.
  I give some guarded welcome to the proposed freeze on alcohol tax. I welcome what the Chancellor had to say about trying, in the next few years, to harmonise that tax with those of the European Union in general. That is fine, and no one would disagree that each country should compete on an even basis. I only hope that, in the few

  1159
  years that that is likely to take, we do not see a drastic reduction in our capacity. That is happening at the moment, and we are suffering from unfair competition.
  I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the word "smuggling". It almost defies belief that the Government would allow people to take large vans over to France, fill them full of liquor and bring them back saying that it is for their own personal consumption. Presumably if they are caught again in five years, someone will ask questions. That situation seems to be rather ridiculous, and it is very much a case of bad legislation. We have seen much of that.
  I am concerned about the proposals on tobacco tax. I do not think that there is any history of punitive taxation working. Most smokers will pay the extra tax, and I do not think that the proposals will do anything to cut consumption. That will result from education, public opinion and informing children of the disadvantages of smoking. I ask only one thing. I should like the extra revenue produced from that source to be used for the purposes that I have just mentioned, including educating people and preventing the advertising of tobacco. It is not a simple subject and it will require more than one initiative to bring about the change that I am sure the Chancellor is looking for.
  As I have said, I believe that many of the Chancellor's proposals regarding help for employers will exacerbate the problems of part of the low-wage economy. Many proposals have been put forward encouraging employers to pay even less, and for many of them—particularly in my part of the country—that is the last encouragement that they need. They are quite capable of doing that anyway. As I said, that encouragement has disparate effects in different parts of the country.
  I noticed that, as always, the Chancellor was lauding the benefits of privatisation. I ask the Government to consider how, in the long run, we are to benefit from cutting public expenditure and putting all the services in private hands when, in the end, those services have to be paid for from taxpayers' money. My view is that privatisation will come home to haunt the Tory Government because, eventually, only two things can happen—it will either cost more for the same services, or the services will need to be reduced. We are already beginning to see that in the railways, and I fear that we shall see it in many other utilities as time goes on.
  The Chancellor also mentioned spending a small amount of money on improving the standard of insulation in houses. I do not want to be churlish, but that was always going to be too little, too late. The finest way to reduce carbon and other emissions from heating houses is by high standards of insulation. We do not have those high standards, and for many years we have lagged behind other countries with not dissimilar climates. A much larger sum of money, and much more urgency, is required on a project that would at least provide much-needed employment.
  Much has been said about the housing benefit constraints. I spoke on this issue—not at any great length—last week and, although I do not wish to go over the same ground, some things need to be repeated. The Government's policy of reducing housebuilding—particularly social housebuilding—led to the private sector growing. If that is coupled with the deregulation of
  1160
  rents, one has on the one hand a shortage of housing and on the other a deregulated private landlord system, which is a recipe for rising rents.
  Anyone could have seen that. One did not need the experience of Treasury Ministers and their financial advisors to understand it. A 10-year-old child at school could have understood it if it had been pointed out to him. Apparently, however, the Government do not understand. They say that they are paying too much in housing benefit, and that that must be curtailed.
  As a matter of simple common sense, is there anyone in the Chamber—I am willing to give way—who actually believes that anyone who lives in rented accommodation is in a position to bargain with his landlord to get a reduction in rent? Does anybody believe that? There are no takers. The Chancellor said that that is what would happen, but, apparently, no Government Member is prepared to back him.
  It is absolutely scandalous that we are moving in this direction in housing. We hear talk about keeping up with what was stated in the Conservative manifesto, but the number of houses being built is paltry. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe mentioned the deteriorating state of the homes of the two thirds of the population who own their own homes. Somewhere along the line, that will have to be paid for, and there will then be a bigger housing shortage.
  There has been much debate tonight about whether h on. Members listen to their constituents. I do not know what the position is among Government Members, but between 60 and 70 per cent. of the queries which I deal with in my constituency surgery, through correspondence and through telephone messages, involve problems of housing. Yet, according to the Government, we are building plenty of houses and there is no problem.
  The problem has been exacerbated by the sale of council houses which have then not been replaced. That means that councils are struggling to deal with all the problems resulting from a reduced housing stock. The Housing Corporation and housing associations—admirably though they try—are unable to stem the tide.
  Mr. Day: Since hon. Members began holding surgeries, has not housing always been one of the majority of subjects on which there are requests to see a Member of Parliament? I do not quite follow the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Housing has always made up a big percentage of the matters with which hon. Members deal.
  Mr. Etherington: I can only refer to the two and a half years that I have been a Member and to what I was told by the previous hon. Member representing my constituency. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It may be the case in his part of the world—it may be the case generally—but it is certainly not the case within my constituency.
  The point I am trying to make is that it is a worsening situation, and it is worsening because of the shortage of housing. One of the commonest problems now is where a family splits up, and the wife and children perhaps go to live with her parents. When they then try to get rehoused in their own right, they find great difficulty. With so many marriages breaking down, one would assume that those in power would understand that if that is not curtailed, there must be additional housing. There is no other answer to the problem.

  1161
  I was disappointed that we did not have much more radical transport policy proposals from the Chancellor. We have all read in recent weeks about various ideas which are being considered, and perhaps the Budget has come a little bit too early to include those things. The problem is not being properly addressed. As long as we say that we will allow market forces to prevail—when those market forces are not in equilibrium—we will never make progress, and we will never do anything to improve the environment or the quality of people's lives.
  The Budget follows all Budgets that I have heard since 1979, in that everything is based on trying to curtail public expenditure so that eventually there will be adequate money for proper and adequate investment. There has been, as was pointed out, tremendous curtailment of public expenditure just to allow the social security budget to function and to deal with the unemployed. In real terms, if one takes the social security budget out, there has been a disastrous reduction in public expenditure.
  As was pointed out, public expenditure remains at about 44 per cent. of GDP, but what is the GDP? Perhaps it is not as good as we have been led to believe. Over the past 15 years, all of the privation that has been created—all of the people who have been put under the European threshold of decency—has not brought about a significant increase in investment. There is a reluctance to invest. I should have thought that after 15 years when the Government's measures have been seen to have failed, the Government might tackle the problem and perhaps consider other methods of achieving proper investment in industry.
  Although I am not a conspiracy theorist, I sometimes have a lurking suspicion that, as the Government are an extension of the City and financial interests—that is how I, and most of the public, see them—it suits them to have a low-wage, low-investment economy. Until such time as I start to see real change in this country, I shall continue to believe that. I sometimes think that there can be no other reason. Why are people in Britain less willing to invest than our European competitors? They get a good return on their investment—better than in most other places—but it seems that what comes first is short-term expediency, maximum return on capital in the shortest time and minimum investment of capital, as we have seen in the public utilities since they were privatised.
  The Chancellor was proud to mention that one in three children now go on to some form of university education whereas one in eight did so in 1979. That is excellent news, but when such figures are quoted, it would be interesting to know what money was put into the university system in real terms and whether it had increased in line with the increase in the number of people educated. I am told by various people whom I know within the university industry, if I might call it that, that nowhere do the resources match the additional requirements placed on those who work in the system. When that happens, it is only a matter of time before the additional burden catches up and a crisis begins. I hope that we do not reach that stage.
  The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who has left his place and who kindly gave way to me earlier, said that he was pleased about the £430 rise in the tax threshold for old-age pensioners. I am not, and I shall explain why. My views on the subject are almost exactly
  1162
  the opposite of those of the hon. Gentleman. There are some wealthy pensioners. Many pensioners are fairly well off, but the majority are not. There is a great divide among pensioners. If anyone doubts that, admirable information is available from the Commons Library on the subject. Although it might be dated now, it impressed me a great deal when I read it about a year ago.
  Three million pensioners will be better off as a result of the raising of the threshold. That means that 6 million will be either no better off or worse off. I suggest that they will remain in the same position. I accept that my calculation is rough because we do not have the figures before us. I assume that a single pensioner paying 40p in the pound tax will gain about £3.25 a week and a married couple will gain £6.50, and that a single pensioner on the standard rate of tax will gain about £2 a week. If the Government were so keen to help pensioners, rather than doing it in that way, why did not they do what they always say that they want to do and target resources to the poorest?
  The Government have targeted resources to the best-off pensioners, who do not need help. Those who pay tax are usually reasonably well off. The vast majority-6 million—pay no tax. If money is available, why do not the Government make it available to those pensioners rather than using a populist measure which looks good and might impress a certain number of Tory voters among pensioners? That question needs to be asked and I look forward to hearing the answer, if there is one, in the reply to the debate.
  The Chancellor also said that he intended to close tax loopholes. I am sure that everyone welcomes that. If one tenth of the effort that is expended on prosecuting people on social security benefits were directed at dealing with various tax frauds in high society and business, a fair amount of cash would come in. The Chancellor says in the document distributed following his speech that a number of artificial schemes for avoiding tax will be stopped. I understand that "a number" can mean anything. It can mean all, none or part. If the Chancellor had stated that artificial schemes for avoiding tax would be stopped, I would have had more faith. The written word tells it all.
  One thing that the Chancellor did not mention, although I have no doubt that it will be mentioned later in the debate, was that extra funds for science and overseas aid would be made available. I can well understand that the Chancellor might not want to mention that, because every citizen should be ashamed of our foreign aid record. It is deplorable, and I can well understand that, as it is so insignificant, the Chancellor did not even consider it to be worth mentioning.
  I am disappointed in the Chancellor's speech. It seems as though all the problems from which we have not learnt will continue, and there will be an ever-increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor. We have no guarantee that the economic recovery will do anything about the disparities in society, and in many ways I regard the Chancellor's statement as being as big a damp squib as I have ever heard.
  Mr. Day: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I omitted to declare, at the beginning of my speech, the fact that I am a parliamentary consultant for Unison. I apologise to the House.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, East—
  Mr. Etherington: Sunderland, North.
  Mr. Coe: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
  I agree with one important thing that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said—it is always difficult to comment shortly after a Budget. He is right to say that we must avoid knee-jerk reactions and slogans—the tabloid trail. I have long been aware that Budgets that have tended to end with Order Papers, bells and whistles have often taken a 180 deg. about-turn in the next 24 hours. This afternoon's Budget was a Budget of substance, and I believe that it will be seen in that light.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North on the subject of smoking. I think that hon. Members in the Chamber share the widespread anxiety about the growing incidence of smoking despite our health promotion strategies. The continuing resistance of some young women to getting the message about reducing smoking should worry hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North about one aspect. As a board member of the Health Education Authority for much of the 1980s, I have to say that punitive levels of taxation on cigarettes do have an effect: price increases have dramatically reduced smoking. There is information and evidence to support that in this country, throughout Europe and in the United States of America.
  If I may digress for a moment, I should like to go a stage further. I should like changes with regard to generic packaging, and so on, and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North is right to mention the need for an educative programme. That is all part and parcel of it. Nevertheless, price increases have a significant effect and I know that the Health Education Authority, in its fight against smoking, will welcome the increase which was announced today.
  I was interested in some of the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who is not in his place at the moment. He was a political inspiration to me in Sheffield. He and some of his colleagues who ran Sheffield city council during much of the 1970s and the greater part of the 1980s probably influenced me, more than any other single factor, to stand on the Conservative side of the Chamber. They used the city very much as a Stalinist experiment en route to greater things in this place, and I was interested to hear the new moderate tones, "all red-rosed and filofaxed". It was impressive. That is a terrific transformation.
  I feel vaguely brave this evening, in opening my remarks, in welcoming the announcements this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage of generous support and funding for the arts. I feel especially brave in saying that because my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)
  1164
  is not here to intervene on me at every moment in the next few minutes—he being one of the country's great arts patrons.
  Mr. Ken Purchase: The hon. Gentleman has seen his programmes on television.
  Mr. Coe: I have, indeed, seen his programmes on television.
  Sensible support of the arts was announced this afternoon—an extra £7 million in each of the next two years, made up of an increase of £5.15 million per year for the next two financial years. Also very welcome in that package is the increase of £750,000 in the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which has been so successful in matching private sector sponsorship in the arts. That will mean support amounting to about £1.5 million over the next two years.
  I also welcome the maintenance of existing funding for the Sports Council over the next couple of years. That is allied to some structural changes at the Sports Council, such as upgrading the status of the regions where, frankly, they know best where to spend sporting money, whether it be on revenue funding or on capital programmes. There is to be an increase of 12 per cent. in the budget for the business sponsorship incentive scheme, from a planned £3.3 million to £3.7 million each year. That recognises how successful Sportsmatch has been in putting so much needed funding in place.
  I should be remiss if I did not comment on something that slipped through my right hon. and learned Friend's speech without great comment. I have fond memories of sport, so I welcome his support for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. His predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), reduced the pools betting duty by 2.5 per cent. on the basis that, at that time, the pools industry supported unsponsored art and sport by that amount. There cannot be an hon. Member in this Chamber tonight whose constituency has not had sponsorship in one form or another for either sport or the arts. I say that with some pleasure because, of the funding that has come to Cornwall, some 40 per cent. has found its way into my constituency. Right hon. and hon. Members should be pleased when former experiences serve them well when they come to the House.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was right to flag the real and permanent advances made under his economic stewardship. I unashamedly take this opportunity to repeat and affirm them. We know that inflation is at its lowest level for a generation. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred to the difficulties faced by the elderly on low incomes. I remind him that there is no greater hardship for anyone on a low income than being confronted by inflation, which for many years was out of control. It is the most debilitating and destabilising economic phenomenon to confront any community.
  Mr. Peter Butler: Does my hon. Friend accept that in 1989 some 1 million pensioners were in receipt of supplementary assistance from the state wholly by virtue of the fact that the value

  1165
  of their savings, and therefore their subsequent income, had been wiped out by years of high inflation under the Labour Government at the end of the 1970s?
  Mr. Coe: My hon. Friend is right and he makes a salient point. Contemporary history and some of the points of conflict throughout the century show us that a destabilised economy fuelled by inflation has led to many issues which, as a European nation, we never want to confront again.
  I also welcome the serious reduction in the level of unemployment, particularly in the past year. I come from a constituency where unemployment is still too high and where there are deep pockets of resistance. The package of measures announced this afternoon by my right hon. and learned Friend meets the needs of many of my constituents. It probably would not excite some areas in the United Kingdom where the job market is relatively flexible, but where people are unfortunate enough to be unemployed, they manage to get back into employment remarkably quickly.
  Unfortunately, there are still areas in my constituency where being unemployed for a year and a half or two years is not that uncommon. The moratorium on national insurance contributions for employers taking on the long-term unemployed must be welcomed, as must the general reduction in national insurance contributions for employers taking on extra labour.
  My right hon. and learned Friend was also quite right to mention experiences that he has had in his surgeries and in discussions up and down the country. He knows, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House, that, on far too many occasions, we are confronted by constituents who look us straight in the eye and say, "It doesn't pay me to work. It is easier for me to be on benefits." Some of the transitional proposals about which we heard this afternoon, including the £10 family credit to encourage people to go into full-time jobs rather than into the part-time sector, are absolutely vital. It is not surprising that hon. Members look at those parts of the Budget that impact and impinge on their constituencies and their constituents in greatest measure.
  The health and vibrancy of the Falmouth and Camborne constituency are based on the small business sector. In the whole of Cornwall, we have only one multinational company. The largest employer, aside from the docks in Falmouth, is Compair Holmans in the north of the constituency, which employs some 350 people. The overriding pattern of employment in my constituency is of small groupings. That is why I welcome—I know that the small business men to whom I speak regularly will welcome them—the package of measures that my right hon. and learned Friend put to the House this afternoon. If he has done little else, he has obviously listened to the needs and aspirations of the small business community, because I know that many of their wish lists—we all have wish lists before Budgets—were met, and in full.
  Let me mention some of the issues that will confront the House in the next year. We know from previous speeches this evening, and certainly from the bulk of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech this afternoon, that if I, or any hon. Member, had talked in the Chamber a year ago about a growth rate in the economy of 4 per cent. and said that inflation would be at its lowest level in a
  1166
  generation—for 13 consecutive months it has been under 3 per cent., matched, I believe, only before 1964—and said that interest rates would remain stable for so long, and if I had talked about the dramatic increase in exports and said that they would not be matched by a dramatic rise in the number of imports, which has been the bête noire of our manufacturing base for so many years, with reasonable rationale, Opposition Members would have intervened and questioned my sanity.
  We have had a remarkable transformation in the fortunes of our economy in the past year, and that has been under the steady, enlightened stewardship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. There was nothing dramatically exciting in his speech, but it had three important qualities: it was considered, thought through and of substance. In days to come, as hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber debate some of those measures, they will recognise that.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: I have listened carefully to Conservative Members. From their speeches, it would be thought that the present Opposition had caused the problems, but let us not allow them to get away with having made a mess of the country for 16 years, creating instability and poverty. They talk of 4 per cent. growth—what a price to pay!
  If hon. Members go down the road, they will see people living in cardboard boxes. That is the society that the Government have created. While Conservative Members sit in their consultancies receiving two or three wages as well as their parliamentary salaries, my constituency remains one of the poorest in Britain. I hoped that the Chancellor would do something for the poor and would alleviate the misery that the Government have created.
  Let us consider what the Government have done to the national health service, to the homeless and to students who receive loans, not grants. Young people aged 16 or 17 are begging on the streets because the Government took away their benefits. No, we cannot allow the Government to get away with it: they must be put out, and the sooner that happens, the happier I shall be.
  I regularly visit my "elderly forum" in my capacity as a constituency Member of Parliament. When I last did so, those elderly people asked me whether I thought that the Chancellor would show sympathy for the old and the poor and remove the VAT on fuel. Who suffers from that VAT? The poor, the unemployed and the disabled, who must stay at home a wee bit longer than the able-bodied.
  We have watched Conservative Members weep crocodile tears, but we do not accept what they have said. We wanted constructive action that would clear up the mess, but we were given nothing of that kind today. I hoped that some of the children in the deprived part of Glasgow that I represent would be given an opportunity. I thought that education might be given a substantial lift, so that children in deprived areas could be given the verbal stimulus that would allow them to take their place in society. They have suffered, seeing only the closure of schools.
  Plowden said—I heard an Education Minister repeat it one day in the Chamber—that we must give priority to children in deprived areas, because their fathers and mothers before them had suffered and were living in terrible housing conditions, with some 600 or 800 people

  1167
  to the acre. They suffered, and now their children are suffering in educational terms; they suffered through unemployment, and now their children are suffering.
  I have never seen the like of the crime that is now being committed in the streets. It is like Dodge City in my constituency. People have guns, and every weekend people are killed; the number of drug addicts makes the morgue a commonplace. Is the Chancellor giving those people a chance? No—he does not even know what is happening.
  Yesterday, I heard the Chancellor talk of fraud in Europe. He blamed the media and Opposition Members for the bogus figure of £6 billion. I was a member of the European Legislation Committee. I went to Luxembourg and asked the Commissioner at the Court of Auditors how much fraud there was. I was told that £6 billion was a conservative figure. That is where the figure came from, not from Opposition Members. It was reported back to the House at that time by the Committee Chairman. We asked the Chancellor to do something about the fraud because of concerns about the payments being made. The Chancellor said that only seven inspectors were looking after the 12 member states.
  When we visited Customs and Excise, we discovered that the people working there had no training in the subsidies going to other countries. One ship that was at sea had a cargo of what was supposedly prime beef with a subsidy of £2.5 million. When we asked the person in Customs and Excise about that, he said that there was a subsidy of £5,000 to £7,000. That is what the Government have allowed to happen. It must not continue. We must get the Government out.
  The Government tell us that the country is in the best state that it has been in for decades. They talk about 4 per cent. growth. Think about all the poor people. Many people were encouraged by every Tory local authority up and down the land to buy their own homes. They were told that it would give them security. When they bought their own homes, interest rates were 6, 7 or 8 per cent. but, two years later, they rose to 16 per cent. Those people are still paying and still suffering. They lost their homes and their cars. They lost everything. Do not tell Opposition Members about the 4 per cent. growth because it will never clear up the mess that the Government have left behind. That is the annoying thing. The biggest percentage of growth has been in the electrical industry and engineering, but the Government have destroyed the construction and manufacturing industries.
  The Government have some training schemes. They train youngsters and then throw them back on the dole. The restart schemes simply involve asking stupid questions. Men of 40 have to spend an hour in a room with about 15 other people, many of whom are smoking. It is even unhealthy.
  The Government think that privatisation is really working and that worries me. One of the Conservative Members talked about water privatisation. Surely, the Government should have learnt the lessons from the privatisation of water in England. The parasites took away public land and set up subsidiary companies. They sold off all the prime land and property and cut off the water from thousands of people. The profits they made from the high charges imposed on the poor were never invested in water or drains, but were invested in building, cars, insurance and many other things.
  1168
  We will not listen to this trash about private enterprise making everything in the garden rosy. We do not want any privatisation or any water being cut off in Scotland. The people of Scotland will let the boards know what to do. The pro-fluoridation crowd has been subsidised by the Government. We have had a referendum in Scotland which has said that we do not want the fluoridation of public water supplies because we are right and they are wrong. The Government have spent millions of pounds. They even introduced the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 to breach the civil liberties of the individual.
  Under the Water Act 1945, directors of water companies and of public local authorities are employed to treat water and to make it wholesome for drinking. They are not employed to treat people who drink the water. It is said that there is nothing wrong with the substance that the capitalists and the drug companies want to put in water to make a profit of about £3 million or £4 million and to get rid of poisonous waste, which is expensive to dump. The Government should be looking at waste and other issues.
  I am going a meeting tomorrow to combat the pro-fluoridation campaign of Dr. Beal. I have always said that, if fluoride is a medicinal product, why does not it go before the Committee on Safety of Medicines? Section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968 defines a medicinal product as a substance that is mixed with another substance and given to an animal or a human being, irrespective of the way in which it is given. I am concerned about that sort of issue. The Government are not worried about the waste of money and they continue to do the things that they do.
  The state of the health service that the Government have created should be looked at. Fundholding practices are another mistake. Our people, the people most in need, are suffering. I am worried that the leprosy of fundholding practices in England, where semi-companies have been set up which sell medical instruments to themselves, will contaminate Scotland. We do not want fundholding practices. We want people to go to their practices and to be treated for their disease. We do not want the practitioner to think that he will not make a quick buck if he spends a lot of money and runs out of funds.
  Compulsory competitive tendering is another disaster—we have seen that time after time in local authorities up and down the country. It is easy for a rogue firm to put in a cheap tender when it pays cheap wages. We need the minimum wage to stop those parasites. Some Conservative Members are consultants for those companies, which pay wages as low as £1 an hour. We want that to be eradicated.
  I am concerned about the gas and electricity industries where someone can receive a wage of £470,000. I would not make such a person a member of a community council. That is the sort of issue that we are worried about. All those big bucks think that they are a wee bit better than the rest of us, but the people down below are suffering hard and fast. They are dying for lack of attention, lack of compassion and lack of care from an uncaring Government.
  The Prime Minister has lost his credibility. He should resign and take all his Cabinet along with him. I shall be happy when we get socialism back in this country, for the people, of the people and by the people.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. George Mudie: I fear that I shall sound rather downbeat after my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Wray). Anyone who speaks five hours after the Chancellor has sat down deserves a medal—some would say for courage, but I think for foolhardiness.
  The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) rightly said that Budgets might be greeted with great applause on the day, but after a few days, when the newspapers have been read and the Red Books examined, they might turn out to be something different. Having qualified my remarks with that defence, I shall proceed to take up only a few moments of the House's time.
  The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that it was a steady, no-surprise Budget, which fitted in with the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). He said that he broadly welcomed the Budget, which I regard as a qualified response—the Chancellor might appreciate the Budget being "warmly welcomed" but "broadly welcomed" has ominous undertones or overtones.
  I do not have the time or the inclination to follow the train of thought of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who refought the political battles of the past 15 years. It would be easy to fill in time refighting those battles—who was to blame for what and how good or how bad things were in the 1970s—but that is not the issue here. The fact is that the Budget is very disappointing. In fact, I would say that it is a bad Budget for many people. That can sometimes be necessary, but I am not sure that it was today.
  The Red Book shows that the economic situation has improved dramatically in terms of Government receipts and expenditure. Here again, we could refight an old political battle. The Chancellor said that exports were very good but did not mention the disastrous retreat from the exchange rate mechanism. We could argue about whose party supported the ERM at the time, but there is no point in doing so.
  Financially, things are good, or at least improving, but it still seems wrong to spend money on certain things. We see from the September increase in interest rates that the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor are worried, even at this stage, about the economy overheating. One can sympathise with the Chancellor not being willing to spend but it is clear that he has money to spend, so, we have to ask, why is he not spending it sensibly on things that will not cause overheating or inflation?
  The answer lies in the speeches made today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and by my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor during the debate on the Queen's Speech. They charged the Prime Minister and the Government with putting the Conservative party before the country. The serious issue is whether the Chancellor is being dull and steady this year because it is the right thing to do or because he wants to take no chances and save all that he possibly can so that he can have a marvellous tax-cutting Budget a few months before a general election in the hope—the vain hope—that the country will have forgotten his party's promises on tax at the previous election.
  1170
  I know that at least one other hon. Member wishes to speak so I shall quickly deal with three issues on which I believe the Chancellor could and should spend money, although to do so would not cost anything. We are about to balance the books more quickly than was foreseen last year. Last year, the judgment would have been that we would come in on a slightly longer plane. I guarantee that when we read the figures next year, we shall find that they have changed anyway. Against that background, the Chancellor will wish not to spend in some areas although he will be willing to spend in others.
  The first area with which I shall deal does not come under the heading of expenditure, but under the heading of receipts. What is unforgivable for people throughout the country is the increase in VAT. There is no financial reason, as the Red Book proves, for the second tranche of VAT being necessary. If I were a Conservative Member, I would contrast the cowardice of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the political albatross of VAT on fuel with the courage and political sure-footedness of the previous Chancellor and the present Prime Minister in dealing with the political albatross of the poll tax. The previous Chancellor and the Prime Minister moved quickly, whatever the cost, to remove the poll tax.
  The Government have not moved to remove VAT on fuel despite the fact that they have the money. I think—and I am sure that you do, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of the harm that the Government are causing, especially to pensioners. If the Chancellor thinks for one second that the compensation that he has put on the table is enough, he obviously does not understand how pensioners in particular respond to quarterly fuel bills. The Chancellor cannot have been in pensioner households, as I have, for if he had he would know of the fear that the quarterly fuel bill causes in them.
  I remember a pensioner constituent of mine whose gas was cut off because of some damage to his fire. I got him an electric fire and I went back the next day to make sure that everything was all right. I found him in bed, covered with blankets. I thought that the fire was not working. It was working, but the pensioner thought, "I am taking no chances. I cannot not afford to use the electric fire." He stayed in bed, covered in blankets. If the Chancellor does not understand how the VAT increase will affect the lives of elderly people on the estates who are petrified by fuel charges, he is totally out of touch.
  There was no reason and no financial need for the increase. The Chancellor could have stopped the imposition of the second tranche. We shall watch the efforts of the Government, who have to cope with parties within their party, to find constitutional reasons to prevent us from tabling a motion next week that will enable us to vote on the VAT increase. We will table such a motion and we shall see whether a Conservative rebellion is like sunshine in winter.
  Other areas about which a sensible, long-sighted and caring Chancellor should be concerned are training and employment. The Chancellor made great play of the training schemes and said that this was a Budget for jobs. From looking at the press release, it is clear that training for work has been not so much increased as focused more sharply. The Government focused invalidity benefit more sharply, which meant that the benefit was stopped for

  1171
  thousands of people. If unemployed people are being promised that training for work will be focused more sharply, they should look for cover.
  The Chancellor referred to Community Action. Is there an increase? My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield dealt with that point in his speech. There is no increase. The scheme is a continuation of a programme that the Government had intended to end this year, as is admitted in the press release from the Department of Employment.
  I am sure that the note for editors on work trials will have them filling their front pages with news about work trials. Do hon. Members know how long the work trials last? They last for three weeks. In three of the four wards in my constituency, there is unemployment of 28 per cent. to 30 per cent. The unemployed are hardly going to be chuffed about work trials that give them three weeks' work. The trials will cover 150,000 people and the small print of the press release states that they will be phased in over three years.
  The key to this caring, considerate, long-sighted Chancellor is in the financial figures. In cash terms in the previous year, the Budget represented £3,461 million; next year, this Budget for work, this Budget for unemployed people will represent £3,483 million—an increase of £22 million.
  That would be good news if it were true, but the press release states that those are real-terms figures. In other words, this year the Government will spend £3,286 million and next year, under this Budget for the unemployed, they will spend £3,227 million—about £60 million less. Why is the Chancellor not spending more money in the Department that is responsible for employment training?
  The same sleight of hand is evident in education. I should like editors of the financial papers to look closely at the figures. Apparently, a 4 per cent. increase is proposed, but it is really a 1 per cent. increase in real terms. Apparently, £470 million is to be spent on education in cash terms, but in real terms the figure is £80 million. That £80 million is to be spent among all our universities, further education colleges and schools.
  I suggest that Treasury Ministers should visit a school or further education college and meet those who have no skills but who we are trying desperately to train so that they can compete. The problem can be traced back to the classes of 30 pupils, to the lack of books, to the inadequate resources and to the state of school buildings. I shudder at the thought of sending children in my constituency to such buildings. That is the reality of education nowadays, yet the Government are spending £80 million on additional funding, spread across the country and including funding for their dogmatic schemes for colleges and so on, under which they take money from the state sector to give to their friends in other sectors. It is a disgrace.
  We face skills shortages and it is feared that we shall not be able to sustain a recovery because we shall run out of skilled people. The Government have money available, which they dare not give away in this Budget, and one would have thought that they would sensibly invest it in areas that would allow us to make that sustained recovery a thing of the future, but they have not done so. One has
  1172
  to ask why. Do they not care? I should have thought that the answer was self-evident from the past 15 years, if I may be allowed to enter this political-historical war.
  Yesterday, someone quoted the words of T. S. Eliot, who wrote:
  "it is the greatest treason to do the right thing for the wrong reason."
  Are the Government saving money because it has to be saved? No, they are doing so because they want to try to hoodwink people at the next election, as they did at the previous one.
  9.48 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I begin by reassuring the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Muclie) that I, indeed, warmly welcome the Budget. I congratulate him, because, of the many hon. Members to whom I have listened, he seemed to be the only one who had the vaguest grasp of what the Chancellor had achieved and was planning to do. It was a shame that, thereafter, he proceeded to spoil all that knowledge by going back down the old-fashioned line of all the old socialists by suggesting increasing public expenditure—not recognising that the key to this Budget is, in fact, our success in controlling public expenditure, which will mean that the economy will grow and be infinitely stronger than it has been. I will not go into the arguments of the past 15 years.
  The other thing that amazed me while listening to the speeches of Labour Members was that they never appeared to move past last year's Budget. No Opposition Member grasped what we were saying today. No one had any feel for the achievements created by last year's Budget which have allowed us to build on that for the coming year. In that respect, I warmly congratulate the Chancellor on the help that he is giving to small businesses and people in long-term unemployment.
  Persuading people of the value of the sound money that we now have will be a lengthy process. I am reminded of "The Forsyte Saga" and Old Jolyon complaining about 5 per cent. on consuls. That was about the last time that we could rely on sound money for any great length of time. Sound money brings with it a completely different attitude to spending and saving. It provides a much stronger base on which to build an economy. As a result of the many generations in respect of which we built in an inflation psychology, we must still explain to people the virtues of sound money.
  The supply-side measures, which will help small businesses enormously, are too numerous and have been welcomed by too many of my colleagues for me to repeat them. However, I particularly commend the moves towards improving conditions for venture trusts. Many of us have faced business people in our constituency surgeries who were desperate to find investment of between £50,000 and £500,000. That is the missing amount of equity. The venture trusts will fill that gap very well and I am pleased that the Chancellor has gone down that road, particularly by encouraging business angels.
  It is also helpful that the Chancellor is moving the thinking in insolvency business from loan debt to equity as a way of stabilising businesses. The more we can encourage businesses to concentrate on equity as a means of investment, the more we will be able to get away from the debilitating reliance on overdrafts which has caused so many problems in recent years.

  1173
  I very much welcome the simplification of the loan guarantee scheme, which has been a nightmare. It was very difficult for businesses to benefit from that scheme. Businesses will also be grateful for the changes in PAYE and national insurance payments from a monthly to a quarterly basis, for annual VAT returns and for the changes in the uniform business rate, quite apart from the pleasure—we hope—of getting the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency working together instead of, as so often happens, against each other.
  An area of immense hope for the south-east in particular was the change in the emphasis on roads building. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) told us of the problems that he faces when he drives down from the north-east to London. He probably completes that journey marginally quicker than. I travel down to Hastings. I do not want to repeat a very old argument, but we have a great need for better infrastructure and better roads. If the Department of Transport begins to move towards investment in smaller projects in respect of which accidents and congestion are the criteria, I would welcome that for my constituency.
  The subject that I would like to talk about at great length is that of smuggling. Coming from the constituency of Hastings and Rye, which has been historically notorious for smuggling, I am conscious that the re-emergence of the problem is causing tremendous difficulty, not just in the south-east but throughout the country.

  Although the actual evidence is difficult to find, I have anecdotal evidence—many of the representations from Customs and Excise to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee back this up—that the areas around ports, the big cities and, increasingly, the smaller towns are being affected by the ease with which one can buy smuggled alcohol and tobacco. A constituent told me of buying from a tobacco kiosk in central London a packet of cigarettes which came without polythene wrapping and without a health warning, indicating clearly that it was smuggled tobacco. It was not even sold by the back door; it was on sale to the public in the centre of London.
  The proprietors of every pub, restaurant and cafe and every tobacconist in my constituency say that someone has knocked on their back door and offered them cheap alcohol and tobacco. Local tobacconists tell me— this is borne out by figures from Rizla, which is the principal supplier of paper for hand-rolled tobacco— that sales of tobacco paper have shot up, while sales of tobacco have disappeared. Rizla says that, while there has been an 11 per cent. decline in hand rolling tobacco sales, its sales have increased by 16 per cent. over the past five years. That is an indication of the scale of hand rolling tobacco imports.
  Tesco has produced evidence to show that Kent, London, Anglia, south-western Wales, the midlands and Yorkshire— the geography is interesting— have been affected by a loss of beer sales. It is accepted that there has been a long-term decline in the sale of many alcohol and tobacco products, but the scale of that decline is quite dramatic.
  1174
  I personally abhor tobacco. I am not a smoker and I would not do anything to encourage the industry. I have always believed that there should be a very high tax on tobacco. However, as I come from an area where smuggling was prevalent in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, I have done some research into how smuggling came to an end in that part of the world.
  While prevention played a part, the history of the end of smuggling was tied entirely to a reduction in duty. In 1745, the duty on tea was four shillings per pound and the product was smuggled heavily. When Lord Pelham reduced the duty to one shilling per pound, the trade disappeared. I wish to quote from a very useful book entitled "The Smugglers", which says:
  "When commodities in great demand with all classes were weighted with duties so heavy that few persons could afford to purchase those that had passed through His Majesty's custom-houses, two things might have been foreseen: that the regularised imports would, under the most favourable circumstances, inevitably decrease; and that the smuggling which had already been notoriously increasing by leaps and bounds for a century past would be still further encouraged to supply those articles at a cheap rate, which the Government's policy had rendered unattainable by the majority of people".
  I would not for a moment say that we cannot afford to buy alcohol and tobacco, but when products are offered at a fraction of the price at which they appear on our shop shelves it is very tempting to buy them.
  I turn to the cost of prevention. In the 18th century, the cost of prevention was considerably more than the cost of the articles that were recovered. The answer that I received to my parliamentary question on the subject said that approximately 240 staff— most of them excise verification officers— are employed in the area of prevention. Their annual employment costs are about £30,000, which makes a total of £7.2 million. The revenue value of seized goods in the 20 months to August 1994 was approximately £4 million. It seems to me that, yet again, prevention is not working and we need to consider very closely how we will deal with the excise case. I accept, of course, that we cannot and would not wish to reduce excise duty in the Budget; that would be most inappropriate. However, we cannot rely on our European Community partners raising their duties to our level. We need to make the practice unprofitable. I hope that, in the long run, the Treasury will deal not with the harmonisation but with the closeness of excise duties so that the problems of smuggling can be brought to an end.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Matthew Taylor be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Nigel Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

PETITION

  Third-world Trade
  10 pm
  Mr. John Denham: I present to the House a petition containing 3,000 signatures which has been collected by members of various church youth organisations throughout the country who are concerned about the impact of unfair terms of trade on developing countries. It is a very healthy sign today, when we are concerned with our own national economy, that many young people are worried about other young people in developing countries. The young people declare that
  "the way world trade is carried out at present causes unnecessary poverty for many people in Third World Countries."
  The petition goes on to state:
  "The petitioners, therefore, ask that the House of Commons makes every effort within its power to ensure:
  a decent and fair price is paid to Third World Producers for products and raw materials imported into Europe and the United Kingdom,
  a lowering or removal of unfair tariffs and taxes on Third World imports to the UK which force up prices paid by consumers and make Third World products more difficult to sell,
  agreement, at an international level, of a set of standards and rules governing the way transnational companies deal with Third World producers".
  To lie upon the Table.

Car Boot Sales
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity of raising this important issue, particularly on such a significant day. At the outset, I state that I am, always have been and always will be a deregulator. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, this year I sat on the Committee which considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I was delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), my hon. Friend's predecessor, in his role as Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, in pushing through the Bill and ensuring that more of our businesses had rules, regulations and red tape cut away from them. It was a good start, and I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister bringing forward further initiatives to assist small business with deregulation.
I abhor unnecessary rules and regulations which stifle initiative and enterprise. Some of the things that I abhor most about the European Community are the unnecessary rules, regulations and directives that seem to emanate from Brussels, whether they pertain to our farms or to how long a banana should be and what its curvature should be. All such regulations are unnecessary and should be done away with. Rules for rules sake, I can do without.
Nor am I a killjoy. I appreciate that, each week, 1 million people visit car boot sales. They are the enshrinement of Conservative philosophy. They are the free market bringing buyers and sellers together. An excellent editorial in The Times of 4 January 1994, entitled
"Keeping the car boots open"
states:
"If anyone doubted that the entrepreneurial spirit thrived in Britain, evidence can be seen in almost every city, town and village each weekend. Thousands of people turn up at their nearest sale to buy, to sell, to trade and sometimes just to browse. Every item has its price, often as little as 5p, and bargaining ensures as perfect a market as any economist could dream of.
Ordinary citizens can offload the contents of their attic or rid themselves of the clothes, toys and equipment that their children no longer need. Buyers can pick up bargains galore. Because there are no overheads—no rent, wages, advertising or marketing—everything is far cheaper than in the shops. And who can resist fantasising about finding a picture for £1 that turns out to be the work of a famous artist?"
I could not put it any better than that editorial. Frankly, car boot sales are fun—unless one happens to live next door to one, that is.
That is the basis of my request for the debate this evening. What was the origin of car boot sales? People genuinely want to offload their possessions in a relatively cheap way. Others want to pick up cheap items and bargains, and browsing in an assiduous way is an art form for some—picking up a jigsaw, wondering whether the 50p asking price is fair, wondering whether all the pieces are there and, if not, might not that add to the attraction of trying to put the jigsaw together? Car boot sales are a jolly good day out for many people.
Many charities benefit from car boot sales. Church groups, schools, scouts, brownies and even Conservative associations in the beautiful constituency of Brecon and Radnorߞflattery may get me somewhere this eveningߞ

1177
have been known to hold car boot sales. No one can have any objection to an occasionally held car boot sale on behalf of those organisations. Those sales are not regulated and I do not believe that they should be. I have attended such sales myself, and they are harmless fun.
During the past five years, we have witnessed a massive growth in the number of car boot sales. Rural areas tend to be magnets for them and many farmers are earning additional and much-needed funds thanks to them. I have no objection to that either. We must make a distinction between the small and amateur car boot sales, and the commercial car boot sales which are able to operate for 14 days, thanks to the Town and Country Planning and General Development Order 1988, without any planning permission.
After all I said about the beautiful constituency of Brecon and Radnor, I must say that I happen to represent the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom—75 per cent. of it consists of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Let us think for just a moment about some of the sleepy villages and hamlets around the UK which are invaded, invariably on a Sunday, by car boot sales.
One of the local authorities in my constituency, Ribble Valley borough council—it covers most of the rural area—feels that it is powerless to control or prevent the sales, even with the array of rules and regulations which my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt list for me to demonstrate that no more needs to be done.
Two villages have experienced tremendous problems with sales—Whalley and Gisburn. I shall refer first to a sale at Brookhouse farm in Whalley. Cars are parked there without concern for road markings or footways, and also on grass verges. It is not a matter of the police or the highway department dealing with it—they cannot get through the traffic in the first place.
The event takes place in a fairly rural area, but there are houses and residents suffer from the congested roads which are unable to take the volume of traffic, noise and pollution. Litter is another problem. I welcome the controls within the Environmental Protection Act 1990, but litter is sometimes dropped outside the field at the farm and local people are unable to control the litter problem. Another problem is that the route that leads towards the car boot sale is the only road which people can use to get from A to B. Because the car boot sales are attracting so many motorists, one is simply unable to get through without adding perhaps 40 minutes or so on to one's journey. Consideration should be given to the effect that that has on residents in sleepy rural villages. The inhabitants of a village must put up with so much traffic five or six days a week, but, when they want to rest on Sunday, they find that they are invaded by vehicles going to the car boot sales.
The argument is used that the police are able to regulate car boot sales if they so wish, but the police may find it extremely difficult to police all the other things that we are asking them to do these days. There is massive pressure on police time. It would be wonderful if we could assist the police in allowing local authorities to have some control over car boot sales.
Gisburn is another area which has suffered greatly because of the sales. We have famous the Gisburn races, which attract many motorists but happen only once a year.
1178
The Gisburn car boot sale happens Sunday after Sunday, and heavy traffic is passing through Gisburn on those days. We are all crossing our fingers and praying that, at some stage in the near future, we will get the Gisburn bypass to relieve that heavy traffic. Why should they be condemned to suffer even further because there are no controls over car boot sales?
I reiterate that I am a free marketeer. There is nothing wrong with the concept of car boot sales. The problem is their placement and local authorities' lack of sufficient powers to control them. I know that they have article 4 of the Town and Country Planning and General Development Order 1988. It is constantly cited as an adequate tool for controlling sales, but I believe that local borough councils should be empowered under planning legislation to withdraw permission for car boot sales or at least tightly control them. I have talked to local authorities elsewhere in the country which also believe that they lack control over car boot sales.
Under existing legislation, anyone who has a field or open piece of land can hold 14 markets a year provided that he gives the local council one month's notice under section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Markets can take place even if the site is unsuitable, for example, if it has poor road access or is near or within a residential area. That figure is far too high. I am not against such events so long as they are held in the right places. I want local councils to have the power to control car boot sales to ensure that they do not cause problems for local residents. Local councils are in the best position to make decisions about car boot sales because they know their areas best.
One reason why councils do not wish to implement article 4 is that they fear that if they refuse planning permission they will have to pay compensation to those who organise car boot sales. Recently, the chief legal officer of Ribble Valley council, Paul Timson, stated to me in a letter that that was one of the major reasons why local authorities were fearful of refusing permission. They fear that if the matter goes to appeal time and time again, they will end up paying massive compensation. Local authorities simply do not have the resources to meet such compensation payments.
Another problem with article 4 of the Town and Country Planning and General Development Order 1988 is that it gives permission to hold up to 14 markets a year on open sites. In a rural area such as the Ribble valley, there are dozens of potential sites. That gives rise to insuperable problems of control. As soon as a market operator exhausts his 14 days on one site he can simply switch to a neighbouring site.
As for other controls, section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 is a useful provision as it enables the local authority to have knowledge of forthcoming events. However, it is of limited value because in most instances the local authority has no power to prevent the event or even impose conditions.
I am fully aware that North Yorkshire county council has introduced its own measures to control the problem of car boot sales and to deal with the fear that some of the goods may be stolen. I welcome those measures. I should encourage other authorities to examine what North Yorkshire county council has done and perhaps introduce similar measures. The council's private Act is good news for the police. It enables them to check on stolen property

1179
and monitor traders. However, I believe that the vast majority of people who trade in car boot sales are as honest as the day is long. It a myth that car boot sales are packed with people offloading stolen goods. It happens, just as it happens in pubs and clubs. No one suggests that we close pubs and clubs simply because they have that problem.
Local authorities have the power to send their trading standards officers to car boot sales to ensure that certain standards are met. That has to be welcomed, but the matter goes back to cost. Not every local authority can afford to pay overtime to trading standards officers, particularly on Sundays, to monitor the many car boot sales that may take place in their area.
I asked one local authority why it did not use the battery of rules and regulations available to it. It felt that control would be more cast iron if the authority could place conditions on the larger, professional car boot sales. Such conditions might include controls on access and egress for traffic, noise and litter. In genuinely unsuitable areas car boot sales could be stopped without fear of the local authority having to pay compensation. It wanted all those controls to be provided in one car boot sales Act.
I am realistic about the issue and I am not asking for draconian measures so that local authorities can meddle in a sector that is currently free from overall control. However, I ask that all the powers are revealed which appertain to car boot sales.
Does the Minister think that it would be more simple and straightforward if control and supervisory powers were brought together under planning regulations? If that were done, we could achieve what, surely, we all want. Entrepreneurs would continue to be able to hold car boot sales, sellers would be able to sell their goods and buyers would be able to browse in search of bargains, but we would pay more regard to people who live in rural districts—the people who have to put up with the inconvenience that is caused when, Sunday after Sunday, cars invade rural areas without controls.
I seek a balance between the two groups, so that entrepreneurs can continue to hold their car boot sales and people can genuinely enjoy going to them, as they do, but so that people who live in those districts are at least able to appeal to the local authority if they feel that the sale are being held in the wrong place. I hope that a balance can be struck.
I shall listen carefully and hopefully to the Minister's reply. I hope that he will be able to help my constituents to look forward to a peaceful and quiet summer in 1995.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for raising the matter and also for his support, as he has expressed it, for the Government's deregulation drive. I have listened to his speech with great interest and I think that he is entitled to claim a first, because I think that this is the first time that car boot sales have been the specific subject of a debate on the Floor of the House. I am glad to have the opportunity to set out the Government's view of what is a comparatively recent phenomenon, and one on which I know that feelings can run high.
1180
Car boot sales began, like so many phenomena of our times, in the United States and spread to this country in the mid-1980s. They were originally a means whereby people could dispose of the unwanted contents, as my hon. Friend said, of their attic, or raise money for charity, or perhaps both. They were small, neighbourly events where most of the people knew one another and professional traders were conspicuous by their absence. They were no more regulated than the average church bazaar, which they often resembled, and there was no reason why they should have been.
Now, as my hon. Friend rightly said, all that has changed. It may be an exaggeration to describe car boot sales as big business, but business they certainly are. Their number has grown almost exponentially, they have become bigger, and it is probable that throughout the country the amount of business in professionally organised sales now predominates over that in amateur sales. New as well as second-hand goods are on sale, and car boot sales now attract such inevitable accompaniments of the British leisure scene as ice cream vans, hot dog stalls and even bouncy castles. They are held in every conceivable variety of venue—fields, commons, schools, airfields, car parks, warehouses, even the grounds of hospitals. Many are held regularly every week.
Car boot sales have grown to the stage where they make a measurable contribution to activity in the economy. Precise figures are lacking, but several thousand car boot sales are held every week, some of which attract more than 1,000 vehicles. Total turnover can only be guessed at, but it could be as much as £2 billion a year.
It is hardly surprising that that dramatic expression of the enterprise culture should have brought forth demands for regulation, as my hon. Friend outlined. I fully recognise that car boot sales can bring problems in their wake, many of them of the type that my hon. Friend mentioned. A trader at a car boot sale is probably anonymous and he is certainly highly mobile. It is often impossible to tell whether he is a professional trader or an amateur, and whether the goods that he is selling are of poor quality, unsafe, counterfeit or stolen. In such circumstances, whatever the position in law, the consumer's chances of redress are not high.
Policing car boot sales is not easy, not least because they are usually held at weekends, as my hon. Friend said. The concern on this score, which has been expressed individually by a number of local authority trading standards departments, is understandable. That concern his been echoed by their co-ordinating body.
Nor are objections to car boot sales confined to the quality or provenance of the goods on sale. Not everybody appreciates a car boot sale next door disturbing the peace of his Sunday morning, whether in the Ribble Valley, Brecon and Radnor or any other part of the country.
Many complaints have been made about noise, litter and traffic congestion. Doubts have been expressed as to whether all traders at car boot sales are wholly honest with their tax returns and the suspicion has been voiced that car boot sales are used by persons on benefit to provide an undeclared supplement to their income. Whatever the truth of those allegations, there is an image of car boot sales as a means of enabling villains to sell rubbish in conditions of squalor. It is therefore unsurprising that there are calls for them to be more strictly regulated, if not banned altogether.

1181
That is one point of view. I should like to consider the matter for a moment from a rather different perspective. Car boot sales have grown in number because they are popular. They are a response to demand—both from those who trade at them and from those who patronise them. People enjoy car boot sales, whether because they see in them a chance of picking up a bargain—whether one priced at 5p or the rare painting to which my hon. Friend referred—or whether they just see them as an inexpensive afternoon out with the family. It has been suggested that for some people the availability of cheap goods at car boot sales has made a real difference to the family budget.
Nor should the perspective of the traders be forgotten. For many people, car boot sales have come to make a significant contribution to their income. Some traders, I have no doubt, make their living solely by going from one car boot sale to another. I suggest that we should be very cautious about regulating—and, by implication, restricting—an economic activity for which there is clearly so strong a demand and on which an increasing number of people have come to depend wholly or partly for their livelihoods.
Against that background, let us consider the criticisms that have been made. Some people have suggested that goods may be of poor quality, and so they may be—but I suggest that most people go to a car boot sale with their eyes open and do not expect the level of quality or service that they would get at a normal retail outlet. If they buy a television set for £5 and it works, they have a bargain. If they buy a television set for £5 and it does not work, that is the chance that they take. It is not for the state to intervene in that sort of transaction.
More serious are allegations that goods may be unsafe or stolen. In the case of unsafe goods, in particular, I accept that it is not enough to invoke the spirit of caveat emptor; this is an area where the public have a right to expect protection. But controls do exist. It is as much an offence for a trader at a car boot sale to sell unsafe goods as it is for anybody else to do so. I accept that enforcement can be a problem, but we have to ask ourselves whether any of the controls that have been proposed would contribute to resolving that problem. Short of banning car boot sales altogether, which is not a solution that we should seriously contemplate, I do not believe that they would. Requiring car boot sales to be licensed would do nothing to control the type of trader attending them or the quality of the goods sold. Requiring individual traders to be licensed might make identification easier, but there would be a price to be paid in the cost of the licensing system—somebody would have to pay for it—and the bureaucracy that it would involve. The Government are not convinced that that would be justified by the extent of the problem.
Similarly, in relation to stolen goods, there is little evidence of car boot sales being used as outlets for stolen goods, although common sense suggests that they are likely to be from time to time. However, the police already have powers of search and seizure where necessary and I have had no suggestions that a licensing system would be an effective way to strengthen them. Of course, it can be argued that a trader who was convicted of selling stolen or, indeed, unsafe goods could have his
1182
licence revoked, but that would be a severe penalty and one easily evaded—the trader might simply start up again using a member of his family or a friend as a front.
I turn now to the objections that have been voiced regarding car boot sales as a phenomenon, as opposed to the objections that have been voiced regarding the behaviour of individual traders. I should make it clear at the outset that, for the reasons that I have already outlined, the Government do not regard car boot sales as somehow a bad thing which ought ideally to be regulated out of existence. Although we recognise the arguments of those who have pressed for greater controls, we take no stand of principle either for or against car boot sales. If people wish to gather at weekends to buy and sell new or second-hand goods, the Government do not see it as their business to deny them that opportunity.
That is not, however, to deny the very genuine concerns that have been expressed regarding what might be called the environmental effects of car boot sales, and it is that area to which my hon. Friend directed so much of his remarks. Car boot sales are generally exempt from planning permission, provided that they are not held on the same site on more than 14 days in any one year. The Government have no plans to change that. To reduce or abolish the 14-day exemption represents a serious restriction on the freedom of people to do as they wish with their own property. Of course, there is a balance to be struck here between the freedom of the landholder and the effect of the activities on the amenity and the environment. The balance here has been struck at 14 days, and I think that that is probably about right. It would in any event be wrong to shift that balance simply because some people object to car boot sales.
My hon. Friend may be aware that organisers of car boot sales have evaded the requirements of the planning legislation by simply shifting to a different field once the 14-day period had been used up. That point has yet to be tested in the courts, but the Government's view is that the controls apply to the relevant planning unit and that a farmer, for example, could not evade them in that way. It is, however, up to individual local authorities to decide whether to challenge such behaviour.
Then there is the question, again addressed by my hon. Friend, of litter, traffic and general nuisance. I am doubtful whether more than a small minority of car boot sales cause significant problems in those areas, although my hon. Friend referred to difficulties in his constituency. To the extent that they do, however, local authorities have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to take appropriate action, as my hon. Friend said. I therefore do not see that additional controls are necessary.
Finally, car boot sales have been criticised as somehow constituting unfair competition to existing retail outlets. Although I can understand the feelings that have been expressed in this matter, I have to say that the Government do not regard the objection as well founded. Government, including, of course, local government, exercise a degree of control over retail outlets through the planning mechanism, but this is a question of planning, not of competition. When it comes to competition, the Government express no preference for any one form of retail outlet over any other. If people wish to take their chance at a car boot sale rather than take advantage of the greater security and comfort of a high street retailer, that is entirely a matter for them and not one in which the

1183
Government would wish to intervene. In general, it is the Government's policy to encourage competition, not to restrict it.
My hon. Friend referred to the system of licensing of traders of second-hand goods under the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991. I offer no criticism of that Act, which, indeed, seems to work well, albeit not without some cost both to traders and to enforcers. However, I am not persuaded that it is necessarily a suitable model for the country as a whole. Trading standards departments vary widely in their outlook, their resources, the type of area in which they operate and the problems that they face. What is suitable for North Yorkshire may not be suitable elsewhere. Moreover, the fact that North Yorkshire has had little trouble with its system may be due to the fact that the more dubious traders avoid the area. That, of course, would no longer be the case if the system became nationwide.
To sum up, the Government accept that the growth of car boot sales has brought problems in its wake, but we remain unconvinced that there is a need for additional controls to address those problems. Such controls would necessarily have to take the form of some sort of licensing, either of car boot sales themselves or of individual traders, or of both, and such a system would
1184
add to bureaucracy without necessarily curing the mischief at which it was aimed. Licensing of car boot sales themselves would be ineffective unless it was used as a covert method of cutting down on their number, which the Government would not necessarily wish to see. Licensing of individual traders would be complex and difficult to administer. There would need, for example, to be some sort of exemption for those who take a stall at a car boot sale not to trade but to dispose of unwanted household goods, and such an exemption would be difficult to police. For reasons that I have already suggested, withdrawal of a licence might not be an effective sanction. It is in any event the Government's policy to reduce the burden of regulation on business, not to increase it.
I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend's speech and I recognise the genuineness of the concerns that he has expressed. I also listened to the suggestions that he put forward for new legislation or controls in that area, but I have to tell him that I do not at this point believe that additional controls represent the right way forward. For that reason, although I note his remarks, I cannot promise him any further regulation in that area.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  State Property Inventories
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the dates on which state property inventories have been checked since 1980.

  The Prime Minister
  Departments are responsible for maintaining records of property which they hold for their specialised or operational use. Property Holdings maintains a record for the common user office estate. No central record is kept and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what evidence he has to support the public statement of Mrs. Stella Rimmington that MI5 had assisted in the tracking down and issue of warrants for the culprits of the Lockerbie crime; and if he will place in the Library the report of the conduct and knowledge of MI5 about terrorist threats against airliners in October to December 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  The greater part of the Security Service's efforts is directed to countering terrorism.

  As I made clear in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), on 14 July Official Report, column 712, it remains the Government's policy not to provide information on the operations of the security and intelligence agencies. I have, therefore, nothing further to add to what the Director-General has already said.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

  Zoological Society
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the conduct of the council of the Zoological Society of London in respect of its adherence to its constitution and its performance of its objectives; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Zoological Society of London is an autonomous body operating under a royal charter. Ensuring adherence to the charter is not a matter for the Government.

  Government
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister how many members there are of his Administration, including Whips,(a) in the House of Commons, (b) in the House of Lords, (c) in neither and (d) in total; and if he will provide comparable figures for November 1989, November 1984 and May 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter of public record. The information requested can be obtained from the Library of the House.

  Ministers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the number of Ministers in Her Majesty's Government in each year since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter of public record. The information requested can be obtained from the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prevention of Terrorism Acts
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the exclusion orders placed upon those people under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, with particular reference to John Matthews; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government hope that the day is approaching when exclusion orders will no longer be needed but we are not prepared to lower our guard prematurely. There are currently 61 orders in force which I or my predecessors have made and I keep the need for them under review.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce legislation to regulate those who seek to clamp vehicles parked on private land.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following the consultation process completed last year, the Government are considering what action it would be appropriate to take in respect of wheel clamping on private land. Our aim is to ensure that any measure introduced to prevent or deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheel clamping on private land does not prevent sensible measures being taken to control genuine parking problems.

  We will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  National Criminal Intelligence System
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total costs involved in the integrated national criminal intelligence system project; which computer company provided the equipment; and what consultants were employed.

  Mr. Maclean
  From the project's initiation in autumn 1989 to its termination in February 1993 total costs involved in the integrated national criminal intelligence system were £1.447 million. No computer equipment was provided as the project did not proceed beyond the design stage. The private sector firms engaged as consultants
  553
  were Computer Sciences Co. Ltd. Grafton Database Associates Ltd, Hoskyns', PA Consultants, Software AG and World Quality Systems.

  Airports (Immigration officers)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those United Kingdom airports receiving scheduled flights from abroad which do not have permanent, full-time immigration service staff stationed at the airport.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The airports are Belfast (International), Teeside, Humberside, Biggin Hill, Eastleigh (Southampton), Exeter and Kirkwall (Orkney). At six of these locations arrangements exist to provide immigration coverage from the nearest permanently staffed port or office. The exception is Kirkwall where immigration coverage of scheduled flights is provided by customs officers under the provisions of paragraph 1(1) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.

  Probation and Community Service Orders
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of unexecuted warrants(a) for breach of probation orders and (b) for breach of community services orders in each probation service area in England and Wales, and in total in England and Wales in (i) 1991, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1993 and on the latest date for which figures were available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available centrally.

  Selection Panels' Lists (Total = 686)

  Home Secretary's Lists (Total = 342)

  (a) Number

  (b) percentage of 686

  (c) Number

  (d) percentage of 342

  (e) percentage of (a)

  Women

  192

  30

  73

  21.3

  38

  Ethnic Minorities

  52

  7.6

  23

  6.7

  44.2

  Voluntary Sector

  35

  5.1

  10

  2.9

  28.6

  Businessmen

  262

  38.1

  167

  48.8

  63.7

  Educationalists

  114

  16.6

  30

  8.8

  26.3

  Lawyers

  23

  3.4

  10

  2.9

  43.5

  It is not possible to calculate a total figure, as many of the candidates fall into more than one of the categories listed.

  Hunt Saboteurs
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been given to the police in relation to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in particular in relation to their treatment of hunt saboteurs.

  Mr. Maclean
  On Royal Assent, we issued to all police forces a circular and introductory guide on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Copies have been put in the Library of the House. The information provided is explanatory rather than interpretative. The application of the provisions in respect of the offence of aggravated trespass is an operational matter for chief officers.

  Camera Surveillance
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance is issued to(a) local authorities and (b) police authorities regarding responsibility to display signs warning of the existence of camera surveillance when it is used to monitor on-street activity in city or town centres;

  (2) what guidance is issued to (a) local authorities and (b) police authorities regarding the preservation of privacy for domestic and office premises within CCTV field of vision, where closed circuit television is used to monitor on-street activities in city or town centres.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government issued good practice guidelines to local authorities and police authorities on the use of closed circuit television in public places earlier this month. Where cameras are not place prominently the guide recommends that there should be clear signs indicating that a CCTV system is in operation. The guide also recommends the development of local codes of practice for each scheme so that due attention is given to issues of privacy.

  Police Authority Membership
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those submitted by the independent selection process for nomination as independent members of English police authorities were(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities, (c) from the voluntary sector, (d) businessmen, (e) educationists and (f) lawyers; and what proportion (i) of each group and (ii) in total remained on the list after the Home Office review of the suggested names.

  Mr. Maclean
  Nominations have been received in respect of 36 of the 37 English police authorities. The Home Secretary has considered 35 of these, and the information is as follows:

  Adoption
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many babies adopted by British residents in Romania and in India have been(a) granted or (b) refused admission; and how many appeals against refusal have been (i) rejected and (ii) successful in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Statistics relating to children entering the United Kingdom with a view to adoption are not collected centrally.

  Firearms
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost to police in operating the firearms licensing system in respect of each of the categories of firearms fees listed in the table in his answer of 21 July,Official Report, column 282.
  555
  Mr. Maclean
  The estimated costs1 for each category for the year 1993–94 are as follows:-

  £

  Firearm Certificate Issue

  593,000

  Shot Gun Certificate Issue

  1,303,000

  Shot Gun Certificate Renewal

  3,460,000

  Registered Firearm Dealer Issue of Certificate

  20,000

  Home Office Club Approval

  21,650

  1 Costs vary from year to year according to the number of certificates issued.

  2 No certificates for Home Office club approval fell due for renewal during 1993–94.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the best practice costs detailed in the 1991 guidelines issued to chief police officers for(a) the issue and renewal of a firearm certificate, (b) the issue and renewal of a shot gun certificate, (c) the issue of a certificate to a registered firearm dealer and (d) Home Office club approval.

  Mr. Maclean
  The models of best practice for the administration of the firearms licensing system issued to chief officers of police in 1991 do not include costings.

  Costings of best practice are contained in a subsequent study undertaken in 1992 by the independent consultants Ernst and Young. The costings identified, for both uniformed and civilian staff, are as follows:

  Uniformed Procedure

  Civilian Procedure

  Firearm Certificate

  Issue

  55.57

  36.18

  Renewal

  12.12

  10.23

  Shot Gun Certificate

  Issue

  44.11

  28.92

  Renewal

  11.18

  9.08

  Registered Firearms Dealer

  Issue of Certificate

  124.52

  77.72

  Home Office Club

  Approval

  92.26

  57.64

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the rates for re-offending for those aged under 21 years within(a) two years and (b) four years in each year since 1990 for those punished

  Two year reconviction rates1 for those aged under 21 at commencement of probation and community service orders and for those aged under 21 when sentenced to a custodial sentence by type of original offence2 based on samples of offenders commencing order or discharged during 1990

  England and Wales—percentages and numbers

  Disposal

  Theft of a motor Vechile5

  All offenders

  Assault3

  Criminal damage4

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary of a building

  Theft from a motor vehicle4

  Theft from shops4

  Probation

  Reconviction rate

  81

  70

  48

  64

  76

  79

  73

  64

  Number in sample6

  446

  3,653

  321

  475

  402

  534

  492

  1,161

  Community service

  Reconviction rate

  75

  67

  66

  65

  67

  75

  65

  73

  Number in sample6

  196

  1,603

  205

  172

  147

  229

  245

  310

  556
  with each of the possible sentences listed in his answer of 20 July, Official Report, columns 267–68, for offences of assault or criminal damage;

  (2) what are the rates for re-offending within four years for those aged under 21 years in each year since 1990 for those punished with each of the sentences listed in his answer of 20 July, Official Report, columns 267–68, for the offences of (a) burglary of a dwelling-house and (b) burglary of buildings;

  (3) what are the comparable rates for re-offending within two years for those under 21 years in each year since 1990 for those convicted of (i) theft from shops, (ii) theft of a motor vehicle and (iii) theft from a motor vehicle by a sentence of (a) absolute or conditional discharge, (b) fine, (c) bind over of parent, (d) supervision order, (e) attendance centre order, (f) community service order, (g) probation order, (h) combination order and (i) detention in a young offender institution;

  (4) what are the rates for re-offending within two years for those aged under 21 years in each year since 1990 for those punished with each of the sentences listed in his answer of 20 July, Official Report, columns 267–68, for the offences of (a) burglary of a dwelling-house and (b) burglary of buildings;

  (5) what are the rates for re-offending within four years for those aged under 21 years in each year since 1990 for those punished with each of the sentences listed in his answer of 20 July, Official Report, columns 296–68, for the offences of (a) theft from shops, (b) theft of a motor vehicle and (c) theft from a motor vehicle.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information on re-offending is on the rate of reconviction for offenders who commence probation and community service and for sentenced prisoners who are discharged from Prison Service establishments. The latest available information relates to a two-year period following the commencement of an order or the discharge from prison during 1990.

  The table gives two-year reconviction rates for those aged under 21 at commencement of their order or aged under 21 when sentenced to a custodial sentence.

  These comparisons do not make allowance for the different nature of offenders, with different risks of reconviction, who receive different sentences nor for the fact that for those commencing community penalties there is a greater likelihood of being convicted in the early part of the follow-up period for offences which were committed before the period started. These issues will be addressed in a report in preparation—"Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis", a Home Office research study.
  557

  Two year reconviction rates1 for those aged under 21 at commencement of probation and community service orders and for those aged under 21 when sentenced to a custodial sentence by type of original offence2 based on samples of offenders commencing order or discharged during 1990

  England and Wales—percentages and numbers

  Disposal

  Theft of a motor vehicle5

  All offenders

  Assault3

  Criminal damage4

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary of a building

  Theft from a motor vehicle4

  Theft from shops4

  Young offender institution

  Reconviction rate

  89

  72

  57

  60

  77

  83

  75

  81

  Number in samples6

  528

  5,932

  722

  764

  825

  600

  546

  970

  1 Reconviction rates are for offences on the 'standard list'. These include all indictable offences and more serious summary offences. A definition of standard list offences is contained in Appendices 4 and 5 of "Criminal statistics England and Wales 1993" (Cm 2680).

  2 The most recent standard list offence recorded in the period up to and including the commencement or discharge date. This may on occasions not be the offence for which the sentence is passed.

  3 This consists of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm or to resist apprehension, wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (inflicting bodily injury with or without a weapon), assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault with intent to resist apprehension or assault on a person assisting a constable and assault on a constable but does not include common assault as all but a few rare subclasses of common assault are not standard list offences.

  4 On account of the relatively low numbers for some of the disposals in the samples for offences of criminal damage, theft from a motor vehicle and theft from shops the quoted figures are based on pooling samples over the period 1987 to 1990.

  5 This consists of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance.

  6 The number in the samples are given for information. The reconviction rate based on the smallest sample (ie. that for community service and the offence of burglary in a dwelling) could range by chance by about plus or minus 8 percentage points. The rate will be generally more accurately determined as the numbers sampled increase.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of 10 to 16-year-olds found guilty or cautioned for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of 10–16 year olds found guilty or cautioned1 for all offences 1981–1993

  England and Wales

  Year

  Found guilty

  Cautioned1

  Found guilty and cautioned1

  1981

  118,260

  108,237

  226,497

  1982

  110,018

  112,684

  222,702

  1983

  100,445

  115,437

  215,882

  1984

  93,271

  119,848

  213,119

  1985

  82,631

  134,567

  217,198

  1986

  62,630

  113,496

  176,126

  1987

  53,597

  114,401

  167,998

  1988

  46,850

  101,375

  148,225

  1989

  40,373

  96,627

  137,000

  1990

  37,255

  112,081

  149,336

  1991

  32,544

  105,662

  138,206

  1992

  29,006

  112,867

  141,873

  1993

  29,260

  99,870

  129,130

  1 Excludes motoring offences.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department employs two special advisers.

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

  Prisoners (Drugs and Alcohol)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities there are for treating those with drug or alcohol problems who are being held in prison in the United Kingdom.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 29 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on what facilities there are for treating those with drug or alcohol problems who are being held in prison in the United Kingdom.
  All prisons within England and Wales provide prisoners with access to education, treatment and counselling services for substance misuse via the prison health care centre, the probation service or outside drug agencies. Some but not all of the facilities are already used by both alcohol and drug misusers.
  As part of the new Prison Service drugs strategy, to be launched during January 1995, all prison governors will be required to develop and implement local drug strategies which will form part of their contract with their area manager. The local strategies will include provision for education, treatment and throughcare services for prisoners who misuse, have misused or are at risk of misusing drugs.
  The Prison Service will also be launching the first phase of the implementation of a range of treatment programmes throughout Prison Service establishments during 1995. The different programmes will be evaluated.
  The Scottish Office and Northern Ireland Office will be able to provide information on the provision of treatment programmes for prisoners with drug or alcohol problems in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of those with drug or alcohol problems currently being held in prison in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  559
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 29 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on the number of prisoners with drug or alcohol problems being held in prison in the United Kingdom.
  During 1993 the Home Office Addicts Index was notified of 3,764 drug addicts identified by prison medical officers within the United Kingdom. Prisoners addicted to alcohol addiction are not reflected within this figure.
  There are currently no central records of the number of alcohol addicted prisoners in England and Wales.

  Secure Training Centres
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has received to support the need for the creation of secure training centres; and if he will publish these reports.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office commissioned two pieces of research on persistent young offenders, both of which confirmed the existence of a small number of young people who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

  The first was a survey of police forces undertaken by the Home Office during 1992. It is contained in annex B to the memorandum of evidence submitted for the sixth report from the Home Affairs Select Committee, Session 1992–93: HC441-II, "Juvenile Offenders".

  The second was commissioned from the Policy Studies Institute and is entitled "Persistent Young Offenders". Its findings were published in February 1994.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what bids he has received for the running of the secure training centres.

  Mr. Maclean
  Twenty-five organisations have indicated an interest in tendering to finance, build or refurbish, operate and maintain secure training centres. We expect to receive firm bids in response to invitations to tender, the first of which will issue within a few weeks.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances the new criminal records system, Phoenix, will hold personal data which relate to individuals who have been acquitted, or who are not prosecuted; and if he will make a statement on how long such data are retained.

  Mr. Maclean
  Data relating to acquittals and to cases discontinued without a caution will be deleted from the Phoenix system within 42 days of the date of notification, save for certain exceptional cases in which the data will be retained for a longer period. Rules closely defining these exceptional cases are currently being produced by the police service in consultation with the Home Office and the Data Protection Registrar, and I shall make an announcement once they have been finalised.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation which relates criteria for the retention of personal data which describes the analysis of DNA samples, fingerprints and criminal records to the seriousness of the offence; if he will list the current retention criteria; and on what statute the retention criteria is based.

  Mr. Maclean
  Legislation relating the retention of fingerprints, samples used for DNA profiling, and national 560
  criminal records to the seriousness of the criminal offence already exists. Under section 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, fingerprints may be retained where the offender has been convicted of a recordable offence, and criminal convictions may be retained in national records where the offender has been convicted of such an offence. Recordable offences are defined in the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 1985. Records of convictions for offences which are not recordable may be held in local police collections. Under section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a sample taken from any person for DNA profiling purposes may be retained if it was taken in the course of an investigation as a result of which a person was convicted of a recordable offence. Samples from persons not convicted of an offence cannot be used in evidence against the person or for any investigation. Their retention is for technical, administrative and legal reasons.

  The current practice is that criminal records for recordable convictions are retained by the National Identification Bureau for 20 years, provided that there have been no subsequent convictions; if, however, the conviction involves either homicide or terrorism, the record is retained indefinitely; and if the conviction involves indecency or illicit drugs, or a custodial sentence was imposed, or the record reveals mental illness, the record will be retained until the subject reaches 70 years of age.

  Fingerprints are retained until the whole of the associated criminal record is deleted. Rules for the retention of criminal records on the Phoenix application of the police national computer will comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act and are being developed by the police service in consultation with the Government and Data Protection Registrar. Detailed rules for the retention of samples taken for DNA profiling within the statutory framework set out above are currently being prepared, but the work is at an early stage.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department made of the legal status of anabolic steroids in Spain before he made his announcement of 2 November.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, on whose recommendations the Government's proposals are based, made no specific assessment although were aware of the controls on anabolic steroids in the European Union member states and in a number of other countries. We understand that in Spain, as currently in the United Kingdom, anabolic steroids are subject to the law governing medicines and may be supplied lawfully only on prescription.

  Automated Facial Recognition
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's research into automated facial recognition from photographs.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department's work aims to ensure that the police are able to make maximum use of both images and eye witness reports in the investigation of
  561
  crime. The first stage will be the provision of images to accompany the textual information on the Phoenix criminal justice record service.

  Operational trials have shown that photographs which have been coded by reference to physical features can be retrieved during the interview of a witness significantly more successfully than uncoded photographs. But manual coding is a very labour intensive process and my Department is therefore investigating automatic coding methods. It is also working with facial identification practitioners to establish standards for the analysis and presentation of facial identification evidence to the courts.

  Conviction rates and average sentence length (months) given for the offence of theft and handling stolen goods and all offences in the Ashton-Under-Lyne and South Tameside Petty Sessional Divisions by age groups, 1989–1993

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  All offences1

  10–17

  18+

  All ages

  10–17

  18+

  All ages

  1989

  Ashton-Under-Lyne PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  71

  62

  64

  78

  79

  79

  Average sentence length (months)

  (1.6)

  (2.4)

  (2.4)

  (2.2)

  2.7

  2.6

  South Tameside PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  (76)

  64

  66

  76

  78

  78

  Average sentence length (months)

  (2.3)

  (1.7)

  (1.8)

  (3.3)

  2.3

  2.5

  England and Wales PSDs

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  72

  66

  67

  71

  78

  77

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.1

  2.6

  2.7

  3.4

  2.9

  3.0

  1990

  Ashton-Under-Lyne PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  74

  61

  63

  78

  76

  76

  Average sentence length (months)

  (4.0)

  (1.9)

  (2.0)

  (3.3)

  2.5

  2.6

  South Tameside PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  (67)

  57

  58

  77

  79

  78

  Average sentence length (months)

  (3.2)

  (1.9)

  (2.1)

  (2.4)

  2.5

  2.5

  England and Wales PSDs

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  70

  65

  66

  69

  76

  76

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.0

  2.5

  2.6

  3.3

  2.8

  2.9

  1991

  Ashton-Under-Lyne PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  74

  65

  66

  72

  78

  77

  Average sentence length (months)

  (2.5)

  (1.3)

  (1.4)

  (3.0)

  2.1

  2.2

  South Tameside PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  (95)

  66

  70

  75

  79

  79

  Average sentence length (months

  —

  (2.0)

  (2.0)

  (2.5)

  2.9

  2.9

  England and Wales PSDs

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  66

  63

  64

  65

  73

  73

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.0

  2.4

  2.5

  3.3

  2.8

  2.9

  1992

  Ashton-Under-Lyne PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  83

  65

  68

  75

  73

  73

  Average sentence length (months)

  (1.8)

  (1.9)

  (1.8)

  (2.3)

  2.4

  2.4

  South Tameside PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  (84)

  67

  69

  67

  72

  72

  Average sentence length (months)

  (2.0)

  (2.5)

  (2.4)

  (3.3)

  2.9

  2.9

  England and Wales PSDs

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  62

  62

  62

  60

  72

  71

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.2

  2.4

  2.5

  3.4

  2.8

  2.9

  562
  These standards may eventually be embodied in a computer system.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing(a) the rate of conviction and (b) the average sentences for cases heard by (i) Tameside South magistrates court and (ii) Ashton-under-Lyme magistrates court in relation to (i) all crimes of theft, (ii) all juvenile crimes and (iii) crimes of theft committed by juveniles, for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1989 to 1993 information is given in the table.
  563

  Conviction rates and average sentence length (months) given for the offence of theft and handling stolen goods and all offences in the Ashton-Under-Lyne and South Tameside Petty Sessional Divisions by age groups, 1989–1993

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  All offences1

  10–17

  18+

  All ages

  10–17

  18+

  All ages

  1993

  Ashton-Under-Lyne PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  (64)

  76

  76

  (49)

  70

  70

  Average sentence length (months)

  (3.0)

  (2.3)

  (2.3)

  (3.0)

  2.9

  2.9

  South Tameside PSD

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  76

  67

  69

  72

  68

  68

  Average sentence length (months)

  (2.0)

  (3.3)

  (3.2)

  (3.1)

  3.3

  3.3

  England and Wales PSDs

  Conviction rate (per cent.)

  62

  63

  63

  58

  70

  69

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.9

  3.0

  3.1

  3.8

  3.2

  3.2

  1 All offences—Indictable, summary non-motoring and summary motoring.

  ( ) Percentage based on less than 50 defendants and average sentence length based on less than 50 offenders aged 14–17 sentenced to immediate custody.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission research to investigate the effect of violent crime on victims and their families, assess the extent to which families suffer post-traumatic stress and identify the support which should be provided to such families.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: Research of the kind proposed already exists. I have arranged for a copy of Home Office Research and Planning Unit Paper 80, "The long-term needs of victims: A review of the literature", to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ex-gratia payments were made in each of the last three years to date to special constables or their dependents for being killed or injured on duty; which police authorities recommended ex-gratia payments he made; and what payment was made in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]:This information is not readily available and comprehensive figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost. As a policy, all reasonable recommendations are approved. The records available show that three payments were approved in the last year. The largest was for £2,439 to a special constable in Hampshire.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his officials have made in amending current regulations to enable police authorities to provide non-contributory insurance cover for special constables who are injured or killed in the course of their duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: Adequate arrangements exist under regulations to cover any special constable killed or permanently disabled in the course of his or her duties. As far as injury or illness are concerned, the majority of specials are adequately provided for under the regulations and police authorities are free to recommend an ex-gratia payment in any case in which they consider the regulatory cover to be inadequate. But I have asked officials to review the current regulations to identify ways in which they might
  564
  sensibly be improved. These may include the provision of personal accident insurance cover.

  Non-payment of Debts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what indication he has of the number of people imprisoned over the last year for(a) non-payment of debt and (b) non-payment of court fines; what is the trend over recent years in respect of (i) the numbers in each category and (ii) the length of prison sentences for the people in both categories; what is the average cost of keeping an individual in prison; what are the average debts and fines over which the person was imprisoned; and what proposals he has to end or reduce terms of imprisonment for those involved in relatively small cases of debt or fine.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: Provisional information shows that some 23,000 persons were received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for fine default in 1993 and about 17,500 between January and September 1994. A total of 2,020 persons were received for non-payment of debt in 1993 and about 1,330 between January and September 1994. Information for the previous 10 years was published in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1992", tables 6.3 and 7.1 Cm 2581, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Information for 1982–92 on the length of time served by fine defaulters and debtors is also published in "Prison Statistics", tables 6.5 and 7.1. The average net operating cost per prisoner per week is published in the "Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts, April 1992-March 1993", table D, volume 2, Cm 2385, and was £494 at 1992–93 prices.

  The Government believe that wherever possible fines should be enforced by the range of other measures available to the courts without recourse to imprisonment. They have no plans at present, however, to remove imprisonment as final sanction for offenders who have failed to respond to other methods of enforcement.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of financial and manpower resources is envisaged for the obscene publications branch

  —S01 (4)—for the year 1995 following recent changes within the Metropolitan police; and what has been the

  565
  comparable level of such resources allocated for 1994, 1993, 1992 and 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: Staffing levels for the obscene publication branch in 1995–96 are still under consideration. Manpower levels and costs for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and current 1994–95 levels are as follows:

  Police

  Civil staff

  1991–92

  1 Detective Superintendent

  1 Higher Executive Officer

  1 Detective Inspector

  4 Executive Officers

  8 Detective Sergeants

  6 Administrative Officers

  8 Detective Constables

  Total cost: £883,606

  1992–93

  1 Detective Superintendent

  1 Higher Executive Officer

  1 Detective Inspector

  4 Executive Officers

  10 Detective Sergeants

  4 Administrative Officers

  9 Detective Constables

  Total cost: £1,083,628

  1993–94

  1 Detective Superintendent

  1 Higher Executive Officer

  1 Detective Inspector

  3 Executive Officers

  7 Detective Sergeants

  3 Administrative Officers

  8 Detective Constables

  Total cost: £987,040

  1994–95

  1 Detective Chief Inspector

  2 Executive Officers

  1 Detective Inspector

  4 Administrative Officers

  7 Detective Sergeants

  6 Detective Constables

  Total cost: Not available

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made of which method of decommissioning nuclear power stations is most compatible with the principle of sustainable development as defined at the Rio earth summit agreement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether a method of decommissioning nuclear power stations exists which is compatible with the principle of sustainable development.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultation document, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", published by the Department of the Environment in August, considered a variety of decommissioning strategies. Responses are being considered and a statement will be made in due course.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which body manages the Windscale advanced gas-cooled reactor decommissioning project; and what are his plans for the future management of the project.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Decommissioning of the Windscale advanced gas-cooled reactor—WAGR—is part of the decommissioning and radioactive waste management operations programme which is managed by 566
  the DRAWMOPS directorate within the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Government division. The DRAWMOPS directorate has recently awarded a management contract for the next phase of WAGR decommissioning to AEA Technology following a competitive tender exercise. This contract is to manage the decommissioning through to the removal of all main components including the four heat exchangers and reactor internals which is expected to take five and a half years.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the criteria which will be used to determine the method of decommissioning nuclear power stations in future.

  Mr. Eggar
  Detailed proposals for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations will be the subject of agreement between the operator and the regulatory authorities at the appropriate time.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Her Majesty's Government will underwrite the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations if it proves to be prohibitive for private finances.

  Mr. Eggar
  Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989 provides power to make grants to operators, subject to certain limits, in respect of qualifying expenditure, which may include the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to change the electronic identity of a mobile telephone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department, with the Home Office and Oftel, have been discussing with the mobile phone industry what steps can be taken to tackle the problem of mobile phone theft. In particular, the industry is considering improved control of electronic serial numbers and equipment marking schemes. The Federation of Communication Services has proposed the introduction of a new criminal offence of reprogramming a mobile phone. Discussions are continuing with the industry about whether any new offence along these lines would be at all effective in reducing the problem of mobile phone thefts, and whether such an offence could be compatible with protection of the legitimate interests of mobile phone users and others.

  Significant offences already exist under the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978 covering the theft and handling of mobile phones and section 42 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 covering the fraudulent use of telecommunications equipment.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the land area of the United Kingdom can be reached by mobile phones.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Mobile phone services are currently available in an area where over 98 per cent. of the United Kingdom population live, well in excess of the figure of 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom population required by the licences issued to the mobile telecommunications operators under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The Department of Trade and Industry does not hold figures on the percentage of land area of the United kingdom which can be reached by mobile phones.

  Exports
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences under the Export of Goods (Control) Order were(a) applied for and (b) issued in 1992 and in 1993, stating in each case how many were for sole use military equipment.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost. There will, however, be some details of licences issued and refused during the years in question in the annual report of the Export Control Organisation to be published shortly. A copy of that report will be placed in the Library of the House and I will also arrange for the hon. Member to receive a personal copy.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the outstanding amount on export credits guarantees on arms deals between United Kingdom companies and(a) Nigeria, (b) Indonesia, (c) Malaysia, (d) Saudi Arabia, (e) Jordan, (f) Qatar, (g) the United Arab Emirates, (h) Oman and (i) Turkey.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: ECGD has no business requirement to analyse amounts outstanding in terms of arms or other trade sectors. Consequently the Exports Credits Guarantee Department data on amounts outstanding in these markets are not held on a basis which enables me to provide the information requested.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the companies represented in the trade mission of November 1994 to Saudi Arabia; and what is his Department's role in respect to this mission.

  Mr. Needham
  Due to commercial confidentiality I am unable to list the companies involved in the mission organised by British Aerospace. It involved some 50 companies mainly drawn from the engineering and food processing sectors.

  My Department's involvement in this mission was in an advisory capacity, due to our involvement in the joint offset committee which aims to encourage companies to set up manufacturing joint ventures in Saudi Arabia to help the kingdom diversify its economy.

  January 1991

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  2October 1994

  Per cent.

  South East

  4.5

  7.6

  9.7

  8.9

  7.1

  1(4.2)

  1(7.3)

  1(9.4)

  1(8.6)

  1(7.3)

  Thanet

  10.2

  13.7

  16.4

  16.4

  13.9

  Dover and Deal

  5.3

  8.5

  11.2

  11.3

  9.4

  Folkestone

  7.1

  9.9

  12.3

  13.3

  11.6

  Hastings

  7.3

  11.0

  13.9

  13.2

  11.3

  Isle of Wight

  9.5

  11.5

  14.4

  14.5

  10.2

  Sittingbourne and Sheerness

  8.3

  12.1

  15.3

  14.8

  12.2

  1 Seasonally adjusted figures.

  2 Latest available figures.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the oral answer of the Minister of Defence Procurement on 22 November Official Report, column 461, when Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention as soon as possible. The necessary implementing legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and other Government legislative priorities permit.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if the chemical weapons convention will be ratified in the current parliamentary Session;

  (2) what are the reasons for the delay between the signing of the chemical weapons convention and its ratification.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The Government intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention as soon as possible. The necessary implementing legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and other Government legislative priorities permit.

  Gas and Electricity Companies
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers the Government have to regulate the call-out charges levied by the privatised gas and electricity companies.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Call-out charges levied by electricity companies for work on equipment and wiring belonging to the customer, and British Gas call-out charges in respect of appliance servicing and repair, are subject to competitive pricing by other service providers and are not regulated.

  There is generally no call-out charge by British Gas to make safe escapes of gas.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in reducing unemployment in south-east England, particularly in the new assisted areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The level of unemployment in the south east, excluding London, has shown a welcome fall from a high point of 9.7 per cent. in January 1993 to its current level of 7.1 per cent. Unemployment within the assisted areas has also fallen as shown in the table.

  High-technology Enterprises
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to promote further regional distribution of high-technology enterprises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Regional policy seeks to address disparities in employment opportunities and to develop the indigenous potential of the assisted areas, including their ability to attract high technology investment. But investment decisions by high technology and other firms must remain, in general, matters for commercial judgment. The Government do provide advice to companies on technological developments through business link offices.

  National Consumer Council
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the level of funding for the National Consumer Council was in(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The grant-in-aid paid to the National Consumer Council1 for each year since 1990–91 was:

  1990–91: £1,606,650

  1991–92: £1,895,609

  1992–93: £2,138,978

  1993–94: £2,322,686

  Final figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Note: Figures include DTI contribution to NCC staff pension fund.

  Source: National Consumer Council Annual Reports 1990–91 to 1993–94

  1 Figures do not include grant–in-aid paid to the NCC's Associate Councils (the Scottish and Welsh Consumer Councils) and the Consumers in Europe Group.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average and the median time his Department has taken to pay suppliers in each of the last 12 months; and what proportion of bills it took more than six weeks to pay.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information requested is not available. However, my Department conducts an annual survey of the proportion of its bills paid on time which is defined as within 30 days—or another period if agreed with the supplier—of receipt of both a valid invoice and the goods or services. The result is published in the annual Trade and Industry expenditure plans which is available in the Library of the House.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are his reasons for reopening consideration of the proposed takeover of T. Bailey Forman Ltd. following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report of October 1994;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last five years companies have been allowed to make representations for reconsideration of a recommendation following a report on a takeover proposal from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is the role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to provide advice to Ministers on the proposed transfer of newspaper titles. The final 570
  decision as to whether to give consent to such transfers is for Ministers to make.

  In publishing the MMC report on the proposed transfer of the newspaper titles of T. Bailey Forman on 31 October I announced that I accepted the MMC adverse findings and that I would refuse consent unless satisfactory conditions could be agreed by 5 December. I invited third party comments on such conditions by 21 November.

  The last time that Ministers consulted interested parties about conditions to attach consent to a newspaper transfer was in February 1989 following the MMC report on the proposed acquisition by EMAP plc of shares in TR Beckett Ltd.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the past five years unanimous recommendations on takeover proposals from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have been subsequently overturned.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  "Marketing Your Business"
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which consultants were appointed to assist in production of the booklet "Marketing Your Business"; how much was paid to them; what was the remit given to them; and by what process they were appointed.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Business skills seminar workbooks including "Marketing Your Business" were originally written in 1988 by a group of experienced training providers on behalf of the Training Agency. Their remit was to produce a series of workbooks for use and reference by owner managers of new and small businesses. I understand that they were appointed on recommendation of Training Agency area offices.

  This book was one of a series of books written by a number of people. It is not possible to identify the separate cost of writing this particular book.

  Exports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will produce a table to show what proportion of United Kingdom exports, including services and invisibles, was exported to the rest of the EC single market in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information is provided in the table.

  EC1 share of United Kingdom current account credits

  Per cent.

  1984

  37.2

  1985

  39.1

  1986

  37.8

  1987

  38.5

  1988

  38.5

  1989

  38.7

  1990

  41.2

  1991

  44.0

  1992

  45.0

  1993

  43.6

  Source:

  United Kingdom Balance of Payments, The Pink Book 1994, CSO.

  Note:

  1 EC includes Portugal and Spain (which joined in 1986) for all years and the former German Democratic Republic from the second half of 1990.

  Business Links
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business links are currently in full operation.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: There are now 52 business links fully operational. By the end of the year this will raise to over 60 and by the end of next year I expect there to be 200, covering all parts of England.

  Open Government
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the code of practice on access to Government.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 22 November 1994]: In line with guidance on charging policy produced by the Office of Public Services and Science, which recognised the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the code, my Department has developed the following scheme of charges for information under the code of practice on access to government information. The Department has always provided much information free of charge. When requests for information under the code can be dealt with simply and quickly the Department makes no charge. Only when a significant diversion of resource is required will a charge be made in line with the amount of work involved in extracting and preparing the information to answer the request.

  Charges are based on a two-tier composite hourly rate according to the grade of person performing the work. For SEO and below the rate is £14 per hour, and for grade 7 and above the rate is £34 per hour. There is no charge if the information can be supplied for a forecast amount of less than £100. If the estimated amount is more than £1,000 the charge will be calculated on a grade-by-grade basis of the average pay cost for that grade together with direct costs such as photocopying.

  I have asked each of the agency chief executives to write to the hon. Member about their schemes of charges.

  Letter from Mike Hoddinott to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:
  Your recent Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade asked for a statement on charging policy in respect of inquiries under the Code of Practice on Access to Government. Each agency chief executive has been asked to reply.
  The charging policy of Accounts Services Agency follows that for the Department.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:
  You recently tabled the following Parliamentary Question to which I have been asked to respond direct to you as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the Code of Practice on Access to Government.
  Companies House is a public registry, and most information on companies is charged for under Companies Act powers, based on the full economic cost of providing it.
  Where requests are received involving the Code, our policy is to make a flat charge of £5 to cover administrative cost. If the work involved in satisfying the request is likely to take more than half a
  572
  day of staff time, our policy is to give a quote for the full cost and obtain agreement to this before undertaking the work.
  To date, no requests involving the Code have been received.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:
  You asked the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement on the charging policy of his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible in respect of inquiries under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I am replying on behalf of The Insolvency Service.
  The Service has developed its charging policy in accordance with guidance produced by the Office of Public Services and Science. To cover the costs of dealing with applications, there is a standard minimum charge of £20 for each access request under the Code. Where dealing with a request would involve considerable expenditure of resources and the estimated costs of supplying the information would exceed £100, an additional charge will be made based on the hourly rates of the grades carrying out the work. For insolvency specialist grades, these hourly rates are set out in the Insolvency Regulations 1994 and begin at £26 an hour for an examiner grade, rising to £49 an hour for an official receiver.
  The Service will however advise applicants where the information sought is already provided in the normal course of its activities without charge or is known to be available free of charge elsewhere, so that the applicant will not incur costs unnecessarily through the formal operation of the Code.
  The Service also publishes information guides for the public which are available free of charge.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:
  Mr. Taylor's answer to your Parliamentary Question on the charging policy of the Department of Trade and Industry and its Agencies in respect of enquiries under the Code of Practice on Access to Government indicated that Chief Executives of Agencies would write to you.
  In the case of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, we are following the Department's charging policy, as described in Mr. Taylor's response. Since the introduction of the Code in April 1994 we have adopted the two tier composite hourly charging regime at the rates determined by DTI as a whole: £14 for a senior scientific officer (equivalent to a senior executive officer) or below; and £34 for Grade 7 and above. As for the Department, there is no charge if the information can be supplied for a forecast amount of less than £100; and if the estimated amount is more than £1000 the charge will be calculated on a grade by grade basis of the average pay cost for that grade (or equivalent) together with any direct costs.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:
  I would refer to your question to the President of the Board of Trade in respect of the charging policy for enquiries under the Code of Practice on Access to Government. As an Executive Agency of the DTI involved in the supply of technology services to the public and private sector our charges are dictated by the market place for our services and the level of the competition which we face. We operate in competition with both the public and private sectors for the majority of our services and therefore all of our charging is market driven.

  Letter from Peter Clapham to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:
  I am writing in response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the charging policy of the DTI and its Agencies in respect of inquiries under the Code of Practice to Access to Government Information.
  The National Physical Laboratory makes no charge for providing small quantities of information which are readily available. Where a significant amount of effort is involved, the full economic cost of the work is charged.
  I hope this provides the information you require.
  573
  Letter from Jon Cowdock to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:

  Charges .for information supplied under the Code of Practice on Open Government
  I have been asked to reply, in the absence of the Agency's Chief Executive, on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question concerning charges for open government.
  The National Weights and Measures Laboratory applies the same charging policy as DTI. Details of that policy are set out in the reply given by Mr Taylor on 22 November.

  Letter from P.R.S. Hartnack to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:

  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  You asked the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement on charging policy for inquiries under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I have been asked to reply in relation to the Patent Office.
  The Patent Office provides a great deal of information to the public. This includes explanatory literature, which is free; publications for sale at various prices; information supplied in accordance with statutory requirements and on payment of the relevant fee; and consultancy services, for which charges are made on the basis of database access, document supply and hourly rates. None of these activities is affected by the Code of Practice.
  In line with guidance on charging policy produced by the Office of Public Services and Science, which recognised the diversity of cost and operational structure across the range of bodies implementing the Code, the Patent Office has adopted the following scheme of charges. Where an inquirer can be directed to a published document, or free literature is available, there will be no charge. Inquiries requiring further work will be charged according to hourly rates based on the average pay costs of the grades involved, together with any direct costs incurred. However, where the total cost is less than £30, no charge will be made.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 29 November 1994:

  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information—Charging Policy
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked Chief Executive of DTI Agencies to reply direct to your parliamentary question about our charging policy in respect of enquiries under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I am replying in respect of the Radiocommunications Agency of the DTI.
  As a net running cost Agency we are wholly funded by licence fees and other charges paid by our customers. Because of this funding regime we have adopted a slightly different charging policy to that of our parent department. We have set a basic "registration" fee of £15 (this is equivalent to the minimum licence fee we charge and will be linked to that level in future) for all requests for information invoked under the Code, ie outside our existing information flow procedures. This registration fee would cover all cases costing up to £100 to deal with. However, for more detailed cases when estimated costs of providing the information exceed the £100 level, we will use the Departmental composite hourly rates—but the initial £15 fee would be used as a deposit, deductible against any higher charge imposed. For cases estimated to cost over £1,000 we will also follow DTI central policy.

  Electricity
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the price of electricity paid by 80MW consumers in each EC member state; and by how much these prices have increased since 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]:The average price of electricity paid by consumers of 80MW capacity, with an 86 per cent. load factor, in each EC member state for October 1994, and the increase since October 1987, are given in the table.
  574

  Country

  Price pence per kWh

  Percentage increase

  United Kingdom

  3.40

  137.7

  Belgium

  3.13

  21.3

  France

  3.20

  33.9

  Germany

  4.58

  15.1

  Italy

  3.24

  54.3

  Netherlands

  3.20

  24.5

  Spain

  4.43

  2—

  1 For the United Kingdom there is a decrease of about 2 per cent. when the effectt of inflation, as measured by the GDP deflator, is excluded.

  2 Data for Spain are not available for October 1987.

  Data for Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg, are not available.

  Source:

  Energy Advice.

  Retail Sales Statistics
  Mr. Sainsbury
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that seasonal adjustment for retail sales statistics gives a more reliable indication of activity than comparisons with a similar period of the previous year.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply. Both measures are useful. Seasonal adjustment of retail sales statistics, whilst difficult, allows a sensible comparison of activity in the trade across months. Without adjustment, comparisons even with a similar period of the previous year can be distorted by moving holidays such as Easter and comparisons within a year are not possible.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Population Control
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has on the reasons for the prevalence of sterilisation as a method of contraception in the developing world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28 November,Official Report, column 198.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce legislation prohibiting the United Kingdom executive director at the World bank from approving projects which do not have demonstrable local consultation and environmental assessment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The bank's operational guidelines require adequate local consultation and environmental assessment in project design. Where we are not satisfied that these requirements have been fulfilled, we are ready to withhold approval.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which have received advice and assistance on
  575
  privatisation, contracting out and civil service and local government reform as part of the overseas aid programme in each year since 1989 and the cost in each case.

  Mr. Baldry
  Countries receiving advice and assistance from the aid programme since 1989 on privatisation, contracting out of civil service or local government reform include:-

  Albania

  Anguilla

  Bangladesh

  Bulgaria

  Cameroon

  China

  Colombia

  Czech Republic

  Dependent Territories: Montserrat; and Turks and Caicos Islands

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Estonia

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Guyana

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Kenya

  Kirgistan

  Latvia

  Mexico

  Nepal

  Nigeria

  Poland

  Romania

  Russia

  Sierra Leone

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  Zambia

  Information by year showing the cost in each case is not centrally recorded and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  EU Aid
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the European Union overseas aid schemes and European Union overseas aid budget headings under which United Kingdom governmental and non-governmental organisations can apply for European Union overseas aid funds, and the amount of European Union funding given to United Kingdom organisations under each European Union overseas aid scheme and under each European Union overseas aid budget heading in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  The main EC aid instruments, in all of which United Kingdom governmental and 576
  non-governmental organisations can participate, are as follows:

  The Lomé Convention for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries;

  The Asia and Latin America Programme;

  The New Mediterranean Policy;

  Phare (for eastern and central Europe);

  Tacis (for the former Soviet Union);

  The EC Food Aid Programme; and,

  The EC Humanitarian Aid Programme.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write to my hon. Friend once the data requested on funding for United Kingdom organisations have been prepared.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statistics his Department has received published by the Chinese Government on contraceptive use; and if he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  Statistics about contraceptive use are published in the "Family Planning Statistical Yearbook", produced annually by the Chinese Government. The most recently available yearbook was published in 1993. We will arrange for copies of this to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the International Planned Parenthood Federation has made a report separate from its annual report, to his Department, regarding the work of its affiliate the Chinese Family Planning Association in monitoring human rights abuses in China's population control programme; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have a continuing dialogue with the International Planned Parenthood Federation on a range of issues, including China's population policy. Such discussions and any information shared are on the understanding that they remain confidential to the IPPF and Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed between representatives from his Department and representatives of the Chinese Government at the Cairo population conference.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28 November,Official Report, column 198.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present projects in Kenya being funded in full or in part by aid from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  Projects supported by United Kingdom aid funds in Kenya with an aid allocation of more than
  577
  £500,000, and against which expenditure has already taken place, or will take place in the current financial year, are as follows:

  Aid allocation £ millions

  Small Enterprise

  Small Enterprise Awards Scheme

  0.5

  K-Rep Micro-enterprise Credit

  1.0

  Barclays Bank Loan Guarantee Scheme

  0.7

  Policy Implementation and De-regulation

  0.6

  Health and Children by Choice

  Isiolo Hospital Immediate Support

  0.5

  Family Planning Services

  2.0

  Essential Drugs Supply

  1.5

  Contraceptive Supply

  1.5

  Education

  Faculty of Information Sciences (Completed 1994)

  1.0

  Kenyatta University Science Staff Development

  1.6

  Moi University Library

  8.3

  Strengthening of Primary Education

  3.3

  Books for Primary Schools

  0.6

  Renewable Natural Resources

  Kenya Indigenous Forests Conservation (Completed 1994)

  5.0

  Kenya Wildlife Service Vehicles

  0.8

  Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

  10.6

  Kenya Trypanosomiasis Research Institute

  2.4

  Efficient Use of Plantation Timber

  0.8

  Moi Oxford Forestry Link

  0.53

  Agricultural Information Centre, STEP

  0.7

  Parastatal Reform

  Kenya Railways Phase II (Completed 1994)

  7.3

  Kenya Ports Authority (Completed 1994)

  11.4

  Good Government

  Senior Administrators Overseas Programme (Completed 1994)

  1.4

  Other

  Molo-Olenguruone and Bomet-Litein road (Completed 1994)

  12.0

  Poverty-focused NGO programme

  3.0

  Bailey Bridging Phase III

  2.8

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions United Kingdom representatives in Sri Lanka have had with factions, ethnic groups, party and community leaders; what proposal he has to enable the United Kingdom to assist the peace process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I visited Sri Lanka from 15 to 16 November. I met representatives of a wide range of Sri Lankan opinion. Her Majesty's high commission in Colombo also maintains contact with all legitimate political, trade union and human rights groups.

  Our standing offer to help facilitate talks, if all parties would find it useful, remains on the table.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment United Nations observers monitoring the border between the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina have made as to whether the flow of supplies across that border has been limited in accordance with United Nations resolutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest report of the international conference on the former YugoslaviaICFY—mission concludes that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—FRY—Government are continuing to meet their commitment to close the border between the FRY and the areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the control of Bosnian Serb forces.

  It is essential that the ICFY mission should be equipped to monitor the border closure effectively. Ten United Kingdom observers have been serving with the ICFY mission since it began work in September 1994. In response to an appeal from the ICFY Secretariat for additional help, we have decided to contribute a further ten observers and to provide five four-wheel-drive vehicles. This makes the United Kingdom the second largest contributor.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Bosnian Government in respect of the recent use of Bihac and other demilitarised zones in Bosnia-Herzegovina to launch their military attacks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have urged all parties, including the Bosnian Government, to refrain from fighting in and from the United Nation designated safe areas and weapons exclusion zones.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been received by his Department of breaches in the arms embargo in favour of Bosnian-Muslim and Bosnian-Croat forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of reports, both from the media and other sources, of breaches of the United Nations arms embargo. Evidence of such breaches is taken up with the United Nations Sanctions Committee and the country concerned.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures are being considered to encourage the Governments of Serbia, Montenegro and the Federal Yugoslav Government to continue to co-operate with the international community in implementing United Nations and Security Council resolutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Security Council decided in its resolution 943 to suspend the ban on international air links, a ferry crossing to Italy and cultural and sporting contacts in response to a decision by Belgrade to support the contact group plan for Bosnia, to cut off all but humanitarian supplies to the Bosnian Serbs and to co-operate with a mission from the international conference on former Yugoslavia.
  579
  Further sanctions relief is envisaged if the contact group plan for Bosnia is implemented. The contact group would also respond positively if Belgrade took other steps towards peace, such as support for a peace plan for Croatia and recognition of the other states of former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Croatian Government regarding the need to comply with United Nations resolutions on the importation of arms into the former Yugoslavia; what actions Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the event of evidence of Croatian non-compliance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Croatian and other Governments have been made aware of our strong views on the need for all member states to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions. Evidence of non-compliance with United Nations sanctions is taken up with the Government concerned and with the United Nations sanctions committee.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what controls are in place at airports in the Republic of Croatia to ensure that arms shipments, in breach of United Nations resolutions, are not being transported through Croatia to combatants in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As in other countries of former Yugoslavia and in neighbouring countries, the United Nations have established, under EU/CSCE auspices, a sanctions assistance mission in Croatia, based in Zagreb. This mission has authority to observe and report back its findings to the United Nations sanctions committee.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received reports indicating that the Russian Federation is considering unilaterally abandoning trade sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the beginning of 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received no reports of this nature. The Russian Government continue to be actively involved in the efforts of the contact group to achieve a peaceful settlement in Bosnia.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what restrictions are in place on the transport and telecommunications industry with regard to the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since April 1993 transportation owned by or operated from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been subject to impoundment by member states under United Nations Security Council resolution 820. In September this year, some restrictions were suspended for an initial 100 days. Aircraft and civilian flights can operate to and from Belgrade airport, as can the passenger ferry service between Bar in the FRY and Bar in Italy.

  Telecommunications are exempt from United Nations sanctions imposition. The only restriction, under UNSCR 820, is that the supply of goods to the FRY, relating to the industry, are subject to UNSC authorisation on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under which United Nations Security Council resolution airlines may engage in 580
  commercial activity with the former Yugoslavia; what restrictions remain with regard to their (a) marketing, (b) technical services and (c) financial transactions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution 943 permits civilian passenger flights to and from Belgrade airport carrying passengers and personal effects only and cargo authorised by the United Nations Sanctions Committee.

  Technical and marketing services may be provided in respect of such flights; no licence from the DTI or authorisation from the United Nations is required.

  The United Nations Sanctions Committee is in the process of finalising guidelines relating to financial transactions. Payments will be permitted from funds credited to blocked accounts on or after 5 October 1994 in order to pay the direct expenses incurred by JAT in operating passenger flights in and out of Belgrade airport.

  United Nations Resolutions
  Mr. Elletson
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the Government of the Russian Federation following the recent decision by the United States Administration on non-participation on the enforcement of United Nations resolutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in regular contact with Russia on the situation in former Yugoslavia, and are aware of Russian views on US policy, but we have held no discussions specifically on this subject.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for a relaxation on the restriction of exports from the republics of Serbia and Montenegro whilst the Governments of the two republics continue to co-operate and assist the implementation of United Nations resolutions concerned with the war in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any relaxation on the restriction of exports from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—Serbia and Montenegro—must be agreed by the United Nations Security Council and not just the United Kingdom. It will be considered within the wider context of the sanctions regime as a whole.

  We believe that further steps by the FRY authorities to comply with the requirements of the international community should be rewarded with the further relaxation of sanctions.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the European Union has received from the Government of Sudan to the European Union's criticism of Sudan's treatment of the inhabitants of squatter camps on the outskirts of Khartoum.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Sudanese Government have officially rejected the EU statement released on 31 October and questioned its factual basis. This statement condemned the use of violence by the Sudanese authorities in ejecting residents from a Khartoum squatter camp, during which at least five residents died and 14 were severely injured.
  581
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of large-scale troop movements in the Nuba mountains area of Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  With the ending of the rainy season, fighting is beginning to intensify in southern Sudan and the Nuba mountains area.

  Departmental Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who has been awarded the contract for the supply of security services at his Department's buildings.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The contract for guarding FCO buildings in London has been awarded to the Security Facilities Executive, an agency of the Department of the Environment.

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the United Kingdom complies with the recent United Nations declaration that all existing dependent territories be decolonised by the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. We respect the wishes and interests of the peoples of the dependent territories in determining their own future, in accordance with the United Nations charter and international law. We give every assistance to those dependent territories which are able to proceed to independence without forcing it on those which are not.

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to provide information via the Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply on this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) on 6 May 1994 at column 677. The FCO welcomes the recent moves by Her Majesty's Treasury and CCTA in establishing a Government presence on the Internet. Active consideration, in discussion with the CCTA, has and continues to be given to making FCO information available over the Internet.

  Serbia
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the embargo on trade with Serbia along the Danube; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On the whole, the operation is effective. Co-operation from the four national Customs services involved—Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary is good. The only persistent difficulty is the control, at certain points on the river, of the cross-bank trade by small boats.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to place in the Library the background papers, including public documents from foreign countries received and collated by the European Union intergovernmental conference unit in the Foreign Office, as and when these papers are received.

  Mr. David Davis
  We will ensure that Parliament receives copies of the relevant papers submitted to the study group of the 1996 intergovernmental conference by the Community institutions. We will also place in the Library important public documents relating to the IGC, including those from other member states. Ministers will in any case provide Parliament with regular accounts of the preparations for the IGC in the course of normal parliamentary business.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which cabinet Committees, official's committees and consortia with outside interests and how many civil servants are working on preparations and proposals for the 1996 intergovernmental conference arising from the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. David Davis
  Ministers and officials in various Governmental Departments have already begun preparations for the 1996 intergovernmental conference. As work proceeds, it will be co-ordinated by the ministerial committee on defence and overseas policy, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and by the ministerial sub-committee on european questions, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The views of outside bodies will be taken into account in these preparations.

  Israel
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Israeli Government urging them to release Mordechai Vanunu; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Vanunu appears to have been treated in accordance with the normal judicial process in Israel. There is no evidence of any illegality in the United Kingdom and we have no formal standing to intervene. We have, however, raised with the Israelis our concerns over humanitarian aspects of this case. The Israelis assured us in 1993 that the conditions under which Mr. Vanunu is detained have improved.

  OECD
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to end the United Kingdom's involvement with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and

  583
  if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  Mr. Baldry
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers expect to send 2,078 Christmas cards this year at a purchase price of £679.95. Postage and staff costs are not available. A sample copy of the card that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be sending has been placed in the Library.

  EC Membership
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will issue a White Paper setting out in detail the gains and losses to Britain from EEC membership.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer to the replies my right hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave on 17 March at column 821 and on 30 June at column 680, the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 18 May at column 470 and the reply given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 25 November, at column 468 in answer to very similar questions from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases concerning the rights of British transsexuals are currently being considered by the European Court of Human Rights; what is the estimated cost of defending those cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are not, at present, any cases involving the rights of any British transsexuals before the European Court of Human Rights. There are, however, three cases before the European Commission of Human Rights.

  As two of the cases are in the very early stages and the third, although at a more advanced stage, is not yet concluded, it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the likely total cost which will be incurred by the Government in relation to these cases.

  European Directives
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all existing or draft European directives which make reference to the concept of "industrially produced" or similar terms.

  Mr. David Davis
  Council directive 89/341/EEC of 3 May 1989—amending directives 65/65/EEC, 75/318/EEC and 75/319/EEC—on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products, and Council directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning liability for defective products both refer to the term "industrially produced". It is not sufficiently clear what is meant by "similar terms" for this part of the question to be answered.

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mrs Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the situation in(a) Rwanda and (b) Burundi; and if he will make a statement.
  584
  Mr. Baldry
  We share the concerns that have been widely expressed about the problems of Rwanda including the difficulties created by the presence of large numbers of refugees in neighbouring countries. We are also aware of the fragility of the situation in Burundi.

  We are working closely with our partners in the United Nations and EU and with the OAU in the search for effective solutions to the problems of the region. With United Kingdom support, the EU last week agreed a package of 67 million ecu—about £52 million—of rehabilitation assistance to Rwanda in key sectors, including technical support to the Government of Rwanda to begin the process of reconstruction.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar on his country's exclusion from the United Kingdom regulations on mortgage indemnity insurance captives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The question of building societies being allowed to set up captive insurance companies in Gibraltar, to write mortgage indemnity business, was discussed when the Chancellor met the Chief Minister on 17 February.

  They have since corresponded on the issue. My right hon. and Learned Friend will consider the matter further when the provisions of the amended Financial Services Commission Ordinance are fully in operation.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Pregnant Service Women
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Attorney-General when he gave advice to the Ministry of Defence with regard to the legality of its policy regarding the dismissal of pregnant service women.

  The Attorney-General
  By convention, the law officers do not normally disclose whether they have been asked to advise on a particular issue or the substance of any advice that they may have given.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Mr. Newton
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. The costs are covered by the entertainment expenditure of the Privy Council Office which, for the financial year ended April 1994, was £9,892. I am not responsible for any agencies.

HEALTH

  Health Care in London (Leaflet)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is distributing the leaflet "Changing the Focus of Health Care in London".

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health distributed the booklet to national health service organisations and local authorities in inner London for them to make it available to patients and members of the public visiting hospitals, clinics, surgeries, libraries, neighbourhood resource centres and so on.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to allow complaints in the national health service to be monitored by community health councils; and if she will increase the resources of community health councils accordingly.

  Mr. Malone
  Community health councils already have an important role in supporting individual complainants. In partnership with national health service trusts and/or health authorities they are also able to monitor complaints more generally. The Government do not, therefore, believe that legislation is needed in this area.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will alter the regulations governing community health councils to allow full membership to people over 70 years of age; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The Community Health Council Regulations 1985, as amended, do not contain any restriction on the age of members of community health councils.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will extend the statutory powers of community health councils and district advisory committees to give them the right to enter(a) nursing and residential homes and (b) general practitioner premises; if she will make it her policy to require home managers and general practitioners to give community health councils information about the services they offer to patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  It would not be appropriate to give community health councils power to enter residential care homes, which are already subject to statutory inspection by local authorities. Commissioning health bodies have responsibility for arranging visiting and inspection arrangements for CHCs in the course of negotiating contracts with private nursing homes. CHCs locally have the opportunity to develop constructive working relationships with general practitioners which might include visits to premises.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to ensure that community health councils(a) are consulted at the earliest possible stage in the process of establishing a new community care trust home and (b) have the right to access to community care trust homes subject to the agreement of residents or their guardians in line with the current statutory rights of access to national health service premises; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  District health authorities have a statutory duty to consult community health councils on any proposals for substantial changes and developments of 586
  service. CHCs already have a statutory right to inspect premises controlled by national health service trusts.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to ensure that community health councils have the right to(a) meet regularly with (i) trust boards, (ii) health authorities and (iii) local and regional offices of the national health service Executive and (b) visit all activities financed or licensed by the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Community health councils already have the right to regular meetings with health authorities. It is for national health service commissioning bodies to include visiting and other rights for CHCs in contracts with those who provide services to the national health service. EL94(4), copies of which are available in the Library, makes clear that individual NHS trusts should agree regular liaison arrangements with CHCs. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Health Authorities Bill, responsibility for establishing and supporting CHCs will pass from regional health authorities to the regional offices of the NHS executive from April 1996. The Government do not consider that legislation is needed to supplement these comprehensive arrangements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase public awareness of community health councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive is working with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales—ACHCEW—on a project for ACHCEW to develop a resource pack for community health councils to use to increase public awareness of their role and activities.

  Quarry House, Leeds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of the severance pay being offered to staff currently facing redundancy at Quarry house, Leeds.

  Mr. Sackville
  The severance payments vary according to factors such as age, salary and length of service and are calculated on an individual basis. The ways in which the sums are calculated are set out in the civil service pension scheme booklet "Early Retirement Benefits", a copy of which is available in the Library. The terms which apply to this scheme are the same as for compulsory departures.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reserve price she has put on Quarry house, Leeds.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  London Implementation Zone
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many London households are in the London implementation zone area and how many outside.

  Mr. Malone
  The 1991 census results show that the number of Greater London households in the London initiative zone area is 1,712,051 and the number outside the London initiative zone is 1,051,115.
  587
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the London implementation zone to the London borough of Redbridge.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance to local authorities and health authorities to ensure adequate provision of respite care; if she will ensure that sufficient funding is available to enable health authorities and social services to make adequate provision; if she will monitor the adequacy of the provision; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for health authorities and local authorities to decide locally the specific type and level of services to be provided. The Department continues to monitor the delivery by authorities of the new community care arrangements, including the development of domiciliary, day and respite services to enable more people to live in their own homes and to ensure that authorities make practical support for carers a high priority.

  The total funding available to local authorities for personal social services, including the special transitional grant for community care, has increased by 15 per cent. this year on last, and since 1990–91 from £3.6 to £6.4 billion. Of this, £20 million represents additional resources this year specifically for home and respite care services—rising to £30 million in 1995–96.

  Dental Fillings
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has conducted or commissioned concerning the effects of amalgam fillings on the human body; what have been the results or conclusions of such research; and what plans she has to commission or conduct such research in the future.

  Mr. Malone
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment advised in 1986 that the use of dental amalgam is free from the risk of systemic toxicity and that only a few cases of hypersensitivity occur. The subsequent research findings, and recent evaluations by several authoritative national and international expert committees are consistent with that advice. The Department of Health will continue to assess and evaluate all research in this area.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of dental fillings in(a) 12-year-old children and (b) eight-year-old children in each district health authority in England.

  Mr. Malone
  The preliminary results of the 1993 children's dental health survey show that the average number of filled teeth in permanent dentition was 0.7 for a 12-year-old and 0.1 for an eight-year-old. Information from this survey is not published at district health authority level. However, the 1992–93 survey by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry of dental caries experience of 12-year-old children provides information on the number of filled teeth for 12-year-old children by district health authority. Copies of the results of the survey will be placed in the Library.

  HIV and AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which HIV and AIDS organisations were refused funding under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for the current financial year; the amount each organisation requested and the reasons given for refusal;

  (2) which HIV and AIDS organisations have successfully applied for funding under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1986 for the current financial year; how much they requested; and how much they received.

  Mr. Sackville
  Applications for HIV and AIDS voluntary organisations exceeded the section 64 funding available for 1994–95 by over 100 per cent. Our priority was to continue grants to those organisations to whom financial commitments had already been made and renew funding to organisations whose funding was due to end after March 1994. No funding then remained to make any new grants. The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Specialist Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that NHS specialist services provided on a national basis are purchased by one authority for the whole of the United Kingdom; and that regionally based NHS specialist services are purchased by a small number of lead authorities on behalf of all other authorities within a region; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Services which meet the supra-regional services criteria are provided on a national basis and are contracted for by the national health service executive. Guidance has been issued to regions requiring them to ensure that purchasers have appropriate contracting arrangements in place for purchasing other specialised services. Purchasers are encouraged to use a "lead purchasing approach". Copies of the guidance, EL(93)98, are available in the Library.

  Kawasaki Disease
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to reduce deaths from Kawasaki disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 13 July at column 602.

  Dental Health (Children)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will meet the editor of the Bolton Evening News to discuss the benefits to children's dental health of fluoridation of water.

  Mr. Malone
  We have received no such request, but would consider any proposal on its merits.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report on the dental health of children will be available.

  Mr. Malone
  It is hoped that the report will be published shortly.

  Macmillan Nurses
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Macmillan hospital nurse posts within the NHS are currently being funded by the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not routinely collected by the Department. Data from the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund show that there are currently 239 national health service hospital nurse posts being funded by the charity. Macmillan nurse posts are usually grant-aided by the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund for the first three years, after which the costs are taken up by the NHS.

  Single-sex Hospital Accommodation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that all NHS patients, with the exception of young children and patients in intensive care units, should be offered the choice of accommodation in a single-sex area with segregated toilets and bathroom facilities without delaying their treatment or otherwise reducing its quality; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for local decision, but we do expect all patients to be treated with dignity and respect for their religious and cultural beliefs. A new standard in the revised and expanded patients charter to be issued in the new year will expect patients to be told in advance if they are to be treated in mixed-sex wards. This will allow them to raise any objections with the hospital which will, where possible, take account of their views.

  Hip Replacements
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on waiting lists for hip replacement surgery in each year from 1983 to 1993 in England, Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of people waiting for treatment in England is collected by specialty and published in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library. Data on the number waiting by individual procedure are not available centrally.

  Information relating to Wales and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has carried out on the effect on the reduction of junior hospital doctors' hours on accessibility to patient services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  A number of research projects have been supported, fully or in part, by central funds. The main studies include:Description and preliminary evaluation of Department of Health initiatives to reduce junior doctors' hours—Dr. Irene
  590
  Higginson, health services research unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 1992;
  The interface between junior doctors and nurses: a research study for the Department of Health—Greenhalgh and Company, September 1994;
  Medical support worker policy—Northern general hospital, Sheffield, on-going;
  The patient's progress —Department of Health, on-going
  Evaluation of processes for creating successful roles for nurse practitioners—Sheffield Centre for Heath and Related Research, on-going;
  Evaluation project on parasurgical assistants—University of Sheffield, Department of Surgical Sciences, on-going.

  Much of the research in this area has concentrated on how best various disciplines can work together to deliver good quality patient care. The evidence suggests that an effective use of skill mix can help maintain continuity of care, improve services to patients, help reduce junior doctors' hours and provide a range of staff with opportunities to develop their skills further.

  As well as projects supported directly by central funds, our regional task forces have been able to develop a range of local schemes to examine how best to reduce juniors' hours. They also evaluate the effect on patient care and juniors' hours of the extra senior medical posts, over 800 in all, which we have funded since 1991.

  North Staffordshire Patient Transport Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will investigate the competition for the north Staffordshire patient transport service contract; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish the counselling guide on multiple pregnancies for patients attending infertility treatment centres; and if she will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  A guide for patients entitled "The Prospect of Triplets and Quads", written by Dr. Frances Price, was published in July 1993. Copies were sent to all assisted conception centres licensed under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Copies will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Management Consultants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she plans to take to control the level of fees to management consultants paid by NHS trusts.

  Mr. Malone
  The employment of consultants is a matter for local rather than national decision. To assist health authorities and trusts to achieve best value for money, the Department published comprehensive guidance—EL(94)78—this on the use of consultants, entitled "The Procurement and Management of Consultants within the NHS". This guidance included an indication of the range of fee rates that might be reasonable depending on the skill levels required. Copies of guidance will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Executive
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to implement paragraphs 13 to 15 of the national health service executive letter EL (94) 4; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  All elements of executive letter EL(94)4 came into effect on 25 January 1994.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the current(a) chairs and (b) non-executive directors of each trust board, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24 October at column 445.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total expenditure by NHS trusts on the insurance of buildings and equipment in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance or instructions have been given to national health service trusts about the timely payment of suppliers' bills; and what evidence she has about the performance of national health service trusts in this regard.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service has been routinely monitored against a payment target of eight weeks from receipt of goods and services. Monitoring in the 1994–95 financial year shows that trusts are generally meeting this target.

  New guidance was issued to the national health service in October 1994 on the timely payment of suppliers. The guidance includes the expectation that all trusts will abide by the Confederation of British Industry prompt payment code and with Government accounting regulations. A copy of the guidance, FDL(94)67, is available in the Library.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will abolish all national health service prescription charges during the next financial year; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  GPs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to introduce mandatory training schemes for GP receptionists;

  (2) what plans she has to allocate extra money to GPs in order to help fund the practice reception programme.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will(a) increase the resources available to family health service authorities to ensure that more frequent inspections are carried out of general practitioner premises, (b) introduce measures to enforce standards and
  592
  (c) ensure that public money spent by general practitioners is used for the maximum benefit of patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Under their terms of service, general practitioners are responsible for the provision of adequate practice premises from which to see their patients and it is for family health services authorities to decide the frequency of practice visits needed in the light of local circumstances. Minimum standards are set out in the statement of fees and allowances which are payable for premises and measures already exist to enforce them.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if general practitioners in the South Thames region will remain free to accept or reject secondary care contracts; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Health authority decisions about contracts should be reached in close co-operation with general practitioners. However, GPs remain free to refer their patients in line with their clinical judgment to a service or hospital with which the health authority has no contract.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that general practitioners in the South 'Thames region will remain able to choose fundholding, locality purchasing or neither; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The recent executive letter "Developing NHS Purchasing and GP Fundholding"—EL(94)79—copies of which are available in the Library, emphasised that health authorities should work with all general practitioners to develop local health and purchasing strategies. The experience of the past four years has shown that patients receive more appropriate services when general practitioners take on direct responsibility for purchasing through fundholding. This remains voluntary.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is taking to enforce the law on the employment of children.

  Mr. Bowis
  The enforcement of the law protecting children at work is the responsibility of local authorities.

  Suicide
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicides have occurred in each standard region for each year since 1979; and how many of those committing suicide were unemployed.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of suicides, including undetermined deaths, in each standard region for the years 1979 to 1992 will be placed in the Library. Information on employment status at the time of death is not generally available.

  Gender Therapy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will name the health authorities which are unwilling to fund referrals to gender identity or dysphori a clinics; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.
  593
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce national criteria and protocols for gender reassignment therapy in England and Wales; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance already exists on medical proficiency and the importance of counselling. The production of protocols is primarily a matter for the medical profession.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if waiting times for out-patient consultant appointments at Hereford are subject to the same criteria for patients from Powys as for patients from Hereford and Worcester; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if waiting times for out-patient consultant appointments at the Royal Shrewbury hospital are subject to the same criteria for patients from Powys as for patients from Shropshire; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities and general practitioner fundholders must purchase services for their patients according to the appropriate national and local standards applicable to their residents taking account of available resources.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the availability of NHS dental services for adults in rural areas; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  : Family health services authorities in England report that they can help patients in all areas to find national health service dentists.

  Northern Health Authority
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement concerning the location of the new headquarters of the Northern health authority, the cost of relocation and the cost of using existing premises.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 22 November at column s 84–85.

  The business case estimated that relocating to Durham would be cheaper than retaining the existing headquarters by around £225,000 a year.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the need to amend reporting procedures when patients, whether referred under the Mental Health Acts or voluntary, abscond from a secure unit; if she will describe current reporting procedures; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  The current procedures are given in chapter 21 of the code of practice to the Mental Health Act 1983 and paragraphs 76 to 80 and 288 and 289 of the memorandum to the Mental Health Act 1983, copies of which are available in the Library. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is notified if a patient subject to restrictions under sections 41 or 49
  594
  of the Mental Health Act 1983 absents himself without leave.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legal advice she has receiwd or sought to clarify on whether those referred to secure units under the Mental Health Acts have a mandatory or discretionary right to exercise outside such units; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The decisions as to whether a patient is allowed to exercise outside a secure unit, whether within or outside the secure perimeter, is one for the clinical staff responsible for his or her care. In the case of a patient subject to restriction under sections 41 or 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983, any proposal to grant leave outside the perimeter of the unit has to be approved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Domiciliary Care Agencies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to introduce a system of registration for domiciliary care agencies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Warwickshire North, (Mr. O'Brien) on 12 April at columns 293–94.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to alter the arrangements whereby donor blood is obtained by voluntary and unpaid donation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such proposals.

  Durham Business School
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will institute an inquiry into the lodging of NHS funds with the Durham business school for the purpose of payment for MBA studies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a local matter for Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Greetham, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement concerning her policy for the future of the Health Education Authority.

  Mr. Malone
  We will inform the House once a decision has been made about the Health Education Authority.

  Bishop Auckland Hospital
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent to date on the preparation of the business plan and planning for the refurbishment of Bishop Auckland hospital by the Bishop Auckland hospitals trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Bishop Auckland hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member
  595
  may wish to contact Mrs. Barbara Gill, chairman of Bishop Auckland hospitals NHS trust, for details.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Alex Cartile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement concerning her policy in connection with the performance of operations at community hospitals;

  (2) if she will make a statement concerning the future of the operation theatre and associated facilities at Newton Abbot community hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of individual purchasers, in discussion with their hospital providers, to ensure that high standards of quality and safety are maintained for all surgical procedures. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Leverton, chairman of Plymouth and Torbay district health authority, about the future of the operating theatre at Newton Abbot hospital.

  Tinnitus
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate she has made of the number of people with tinnitus in England and Wales; and how many tinnitus-only clinics there are;

  (2) what guidance she has issued to health authorities regarding special provision for the relief of tinnitus; what assessment she has made of the adequacy of resources available for it; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what plans she has to review the provision of NHS services for people with tinnitus; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not known how many people suffer from tinnitus. The numbers of tinnitus-only clinics are not available centrally. However, there are facilities for the treatment of tinnitus at all national health service ear, nose and throat departments.

  As with all patient groups, responsibility for the provision of services for people with tinnitus rests with health authorities who have to assess needs and priorities against their resources. We have no plans to review these provisions.

  North Durham Hospital Trust
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent to date on the preparation of the business plan, and planning for the new general hospital by the North Durham hospital trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for North Durham acute hospital NHS trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. C. P. Douglas, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Herbal Remedies
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 86, what steps she took to obtain counsel's- opinion about possible court interpretations of the term "industrially produced", prior to formulating her policy on such matters in relation to the availability of herbal remedies; and if she will make available in the Library a copy of all legal opinions received.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not Government's practice to disclose such information.
  596
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 86, how she is able to safeguard the position of herbal remedies in possible future legal cases; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 November at column 86.

  Research
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out into the effect of insulin-like growth factor-I on human beings.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The effects of insulin-like growth factor-1, IGF-1, being a naturally occurring substance in humans, have been studied extensively and the Medical Research Council is currently funding a project on the effect of IGF-1 on binding protein in implantation and pregnancy. There are a large number of reports on research into IGF-1 on human beings which have been published in the international scientific literature. The MRC is always willing to consider soundly based proposals in competition with other applications for council's support, and funding decisions are dependent upon a peer review process.

  Medicines Legislation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now make it her policy to decline to introduce the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We consulted on the proposed regulations and have made revisions to take account of representations we received. We intend to introduce the regulations shortly.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will revise the guidance given to general practitioners on the diagnosis, treatment and benefit implications of conditions caused by exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Training in diagnosis and treatment is principally a matter for the medical profession rather than the Government. All general practitioners and accident and emergency departments were sent the Department's book "Pesticide Poisoning" when it was published, copies of which are available in the Library, and the chief medical officer wrote to all doctors in England in 1991 and again with the chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in June 1993 to alert general practitioners to the possibility of exposure to pesticides and certain veterinary medicines including organophosphorus sheep dips and to remind them of the reporting schemes operated by Employment Medical Advisory Service and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's veterinary medicines directive. The chief medical officers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also wrote to doctors in those countries. All doctors therefore should be aware of the possibility of poisoning if over exposure to any of these products occurs and the symptoms to be expected.
  597
  This guidance is still valid.

  Any benefit implications are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for local government revenue spending in 1995–96.

  Mr. Redwood
  I propose to set total standard spending in Wales for 1995–96 at £2,767 million. This figure includes £124.4 million for care in the community. It represents an increase of £72 million, 2.7 per cent. on the comparable level of funding for 1994–95.

  I propose to set central Government support for TSS through aggregate external finance at £2,450.8 million.

  Within AEF I propose to make available £1,711.1 million in revenue support grant, £520 million in distributable non-domestic rates and £219.7 million in specific and supplementary grants.

  My Department has today written to the local authority associations to consult them on my proposals for revenue support grant in 1995–96.

  I shall announce provisional standard assessments and provisional capping principles for police authorities in Wales later this week. I shall announce provisional standard spending assessments and provisional capping principles for county and district councils in mid December. I shall announce final details of the settlement early in the new year.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people suffering a disability in each of the counties of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Information of the incidence of physical and sensory disability is contained in the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys published in 1988–89. These showed that 16.4 per cent. of adults and 3.1 per cent. of children in Wales had such disabilities. This information is not available separately for counties.

  The 1991 census asked whether respondents had any long-term illness, health problem or handicap which limited their daily activities or the work they could do, including any problems which were due to old age. The following table contains information from the 1991 census relating to Welsh counties.

  Residents with a limiting long-term illness:

  Number

  Percentage of residents

  Clwyd

  64,051

  15.7

  Dyfed

  57,244

  16.7

  Gwent

  76,456

  17.3

  Gwynedd

  35,755

  15.2

  Mid Glamorgan

  109,379

  20.5

  Powys

  16,735

  14.2

  South Glamorgan

  56,202

  14.3

  598

  Residents with a limiting long-term illness:

  Number

  Percentage of residents

  West Glamorgan

  70,173

  19.4

  Wales

  485,995

  17.1

  Source:

  1991 Census—Report for Wales.

  Deeside College, Kelsterton
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to visit the Deeside college, Kelsterton.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Deeside college.

  Buckley Disability Action Group
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the offices of Buckley Disability Action Group, Clwyd.

  Mr. Richards
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have plans to do so at present.

  Holyhead
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's total financial contribution to investment in the port of Holyhead; and what are the implications of such investment for travelers by sea to the Republic of Ireland and for travellers by rail to stations to Crewe and London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Under the European regional development fund, £4.3 million has been made available to Holyhead since 1987 of which £2.5 million related to port development. In addition, since 1991, the area has attracted £300,000 assistance under the strategic development scheme, £1.9 million under the urban programme scheme and investment of £3.1 million by the WDA through the Holyhead joint venture board. The Department has also invested over £9.9 million in regional selective assistance and £525,000 in regional enterprise grant within the Holyhead travel-to-work-area.

  Improvements at the port will provide a better standard of service to travellers and the business community, as well as improving the prospects for local employment.

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which schools he has visited in each of the counties in Wales in 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  In 1994 my right hon. Friend has visited the following schools:

  Name of school

  County

  Llanfihangel Rhydithon County Primary School

  Powys

  St. Davids High School

  Clwyd

  Eirias High School (Grant Maintained)

  Clwyd

  Trelai County Primary School

  South Glamorgan

  Dynevor Comprehensive School

  West Glamorgan

  Ysgol Bro Lieu

  Gwynedd

  599
  I have undertaken four visits with two more programmed for December. My right hon. Friend and I are keen to visit as many schools as diary commitments and other pressures allow.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist people in Wales who suffer disability, with a view to improving access to buildings, transport and employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on Thursday 24 November 1994.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individuals have responded since July 1993 to Welsh Office advertisements for the register of public appointments; how many of these have been appointed; and if he will list those appointed.

  Mr. Redwood
  The general advertising campaign in July 1993 inviting people to join the Welsh Office register of candidates elicited over 2,500 inquiries. Approximately 1000 individuals subsequently returned nomination forms. Six of these have been appointed to public bodies in Wales. They are:

  Mr. H. K. Evans

  Mr. Heddwyn Evans

  Mrs. C. A. Hinton

  Mr. M. C. G. Pepper

  Mr. H. D. B. Williams

  Mrs. V. Wilson

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of health authorities and trusts as at 30 September.

  Mr. Richards
  There were nine district health authorities, eight family health services authorities and 24 NHS trusts in Wales as at 30 September 1994.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will institute a review of rural transport provision in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  County councils are required to review regularly the level of public transport provision in their areas and if necessary buy in services which are not being provided commercially.

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement of his policy concerning the effect on the Welsh farming industry of the reluctance of shippers to carry live animals.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am aware of the concerns in the industry about the ban by ferry companies on the transport of live animals. The situation is being monitored closely, and it is still too early to assess fully the impact of the ban on the farming industry. However, the Government are actively seeking agreement on European Community rules on the welfare of animals in transit, introducing 600
  tighter national laws and urgently checking proposals for new transport facilities so that those which are satisfactory can proceed.

  Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth Line
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Railtrack and train operators to discuss the carriage of rail freight on the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A meeting is planned with the director of Transrail to discuss the carriage of rail freight on all lines in Wales. The matter will also be raised at the next meeting with the chairman of Railtrack.

  University of Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Welsh Funding Council is able to, or expected to, take steps to alter the arrangements reached between the university registry and the constituent institutions within the university of Wales following the Rosser report; and if he will make a statement on the funding of those institutions.

  Mr. Redwood
  The arrangements agreed between the University of Wales and its constituent colleges following the Rosser report, and the University Registry's role within those arrangements, are matters for the university and the colleges to decide. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales' responsibility is to allocate funds for teaching and research and to do so in a way which ensures accountability and value for money.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the provision of abattoirs and meat processing facilities in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Decisions about the provisions of abattoirs and meat processing facilities in Wales are a matter for the commercial judgment of those involved in the industry.

  European state aid regulations put severe restrictions on the granting of financial aid to investments in abattoir facilities. However, financial support can be considered for meat processing under the European processing and marketing grant scheme administered by my Department.

  Libraries
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration has been given to the special circumstances in Wales in the preparation of the Aslib report on the development of regional hyper-libraries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The review of the Public Library Service in England and Wales, commissioned by the Department of National Heritage from Aslib, included a case study of the Gwynedd library service. The draft report was published in September and has been circulated for comment to a wide range of library interests.

  The Library and Information Service Council (Wales), which has statutory responsibility to advise the Secretary of State on library matters, has considered the draft report in full, including the recommendations relating to regional hyper-libraries, and has submitted comments to Aslib.

  Coronary Disease
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to reduce the waiting times between diagnosis and bypass operations for younger coronary disease patients in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Younger coronary disease patients will benefit from the Government's policies to open a new heart treatment centre in south Wales; to reduce the causes of heart disease through health promotion, and to reduce waiting times generally for both outpatient and inpatient hospital diagnosis and treatment.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the firms which have agreed to participate in the arrangements for the modern apprenticeship scheme; how many apprenticeships each has agreed to provide; what funds he is providing to each company via the appropriate training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has contracted with the training and enterprise councils in Wales for the delivery of 550 places on the modern apprenticeships programme in 1994–95. The training and enterprise councils, training providers—including colleges—and a variety of employers are involved in its delivery. Information on the firms involved is not held centrally.

  Wales Engineering Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the appointment of a chief executive for the Wales Engineering Centre.

  Mr. Redwood
  Engineering Centre for Wales appointments are a matter for the chairman and members of the centre.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has decided the details of the transitional arrangements to phase-in the effects of the 1995 revaluation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The revaluation will result in significant local and sectoral changes in rateable values and rates bills. Around 76,000 properties will see increases in their bills, and around 26,000 will see reductions. The Welsh Office's consultation paper, published last month, outlined proposals for transitional arrangements to phase-in the effects of these changes. In the light of responses to that paper and the package of support announced by the Chancellor today, I propose that no business will face a year-on-year increase of more than 10 per cent. after allowing for inflation. For property with a new rateable value of less than £10,000, the maximum real increase will be 7.5 per cent. For small composite properties such as shops with living accommodation, the limit will be 5 per cent.

  I estimate that around 62,000 Welsh properties will benefit from relief. I am sure that this will be widely welcomed by the business community.

  The Exchequer contribution will cover part of the cost of the scheme. The remainder will be met by limiting real reductions in rates bills, as proposed in the consultation paper. For 1995–96, the limits will be 10 per cent. for properties with a rateable value under £10,000 and 5 per cent. for larger properties.
  602
  Other details of the scheme will be as proposed as in the consultation paper. Regulations giving effect to the transitional arrangements will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the Welsh non-domestic rate poundage for 1995.

  Mr. Redwood
  The 1995 revaluation has increased overall rateable values in Wales by around 18 per cent. I propose to reduce the Welsh poundage from 44.8 to 39.0p reflecting this.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of qualified nursing staff by speciality for each region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Moss
  The information for 1990–93 has been placed in the Library. The figures before 1990 were not collected on a compatible basis and figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  "Making Belfast Work"
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list expenditure by(a) constituency and (b) district electoral area in Belfast under the "Making Belfast Work" initiative from its inception.

  Mr. Moss
  Information on expenditure by constituency and district electoral area is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, work is on-going on a database which links project information to different spatial regions.

  Details of projects funded under the "Making Belfast Work" initiative from its inception to the end of the 1991–92 financial year are contained in the MBW strategy proposals. A copy of this document was placed in the House of Commons Library in April of this year. I have arranged for details of projects funded by the initiative from 1992–93 to the present also to be placed in the Library.

  Roads
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many minor cross-frontier roads have been reopened to date; and how many more have still to be reopened.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Some 41 of the 104 crossings previously subject to closure orders are open to traffic. Of those, work at 17 crossings has been completed, is in progress on 14 others and was not required at the remaining 10. Some of the remaining 63 crossings are on private land where it will be for the landowner to decide what, if any, work is required.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all of the registered residential homes
  603
  and nursing homes in the Armagh and Dungannon unit, and the Newry and Mourne unit of management.

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  ARMAGH AND DUNGANNON UNIT OF MANAGEMENT

  Nursing Homes

  Armagh, Hamiltonsbawn Road, Armagh

  Castledillon, Drumilly, Portadown Road, Armagh

  Chestnut Lodge, 47 Carrickaness Road, Benburb

  Collegelands, Lislasly Road, Aughanlig, Dungannon

  Copperfields, Moore Street, Aughnacloy

  Corkhill Lodge, Donaghmore, Dungannon

  Dungannon, Killyman Road, Dungannon

  Fairlawns, 63 Drumcairn Road, Armagh

  Greenpark, Keady Road, Armagh

  The Haven, Quarry Lane, Dungannon

  Hockley Lodge, 11 Drumilly Road, Armagh

  Hockley Mews, 11 Drumilly Road, Armagh

  Manor Court, Dungannon Park, Dungannon

  The Meadows, Newline, Richhill, Armagh

  Nightingale, Old English Road, Dungannon

  Rathowen, 118 Portadown Road, Tandragee

  The Retreat, 62 Drumilly Road,Armagh

  Sanville, 17 Annagher Road,Coalisland

  The Valley, 8 Tullybroom Road, Clogher

  Residential Homes

  Ballymore Retreat, 111 Ballymore Road, Tandragee

  39 Ballynahonemore Road, Armagh

  The Bawn Cottage, 31A Main Street, Hamiltonsbawn

  Benvinda, 49 Maynooth Road, Richhill

  Corkhill Lodge, Corkill, Donaghmore, Dungannon

  112/113 Fairgreen Park, Keady

  Fairlawns, 63 Drumcairn Road, Armagh

  Glenview, 9 Cabragh Road, Dungannon

  Hebron House, 84/86 Main Street, Markethill

  Lisnakee House, 18 Moodage Road, Tandragee

  Monique, 28 Moor Road, Coalisland

  Roughan House, Newmills, Dungannon

  St. Macartan's, 74 Main Street, Clogher

  Sunnymead, Deansbridge, 12 Portadown Road, Armagh

  NEWRY AND MOURNE HSS TRUST

  Nursing Home

  Ardmaine, Fullerton Road, Newry

  Amos Vale, 75 Warrenpoint Road, Rostrevor

  Avila, Convent Road, Bessbrook, Newry

  Cairngrove, Balmoral Avenue, Rathfriland Road, Newry

  Cairnhill, Rathfriland Road, Newry

  Coolbawn, 23 Queen Street, Warrenpoint

  Glencarron, 6 Creamery Road, Crossmaglen

  Kilbroney House, 83 Kilbroney Road, Rostrevor

  Lisnaaran, 4 Greenpark Road, Rostrevor

  Our Mother of Mercy, 1 Home Avenue, Newry

  Rathfriland Manor, Rosconner Terrace, Rathfriland

  Rockfield, Windmill Road, Newry

  St. John of God, Courtney Hill, Newry

  St. Joseph's, Prince's Street, Warrenpoint

  604
  Residential Homes

  Arbour House, 16 Great George's Street South, Warrenpoint

  Coach House, Mourne Grange Camphill Village Community, Newry Road, Kilkeel

  Glenbeigh House, 18 Victoria Square, Rostrevor

  Glencarron, 6 Creamery Road, Crossmaglen

  Moneydarragh Lodge, 8 Kilkeel Road, Annalong

  Mourne Grange Camphill Village Community, Newry Road, Kilkeel

  Our Mother of Mercy, 1 Home Avenue, Newry

  Peacehaven, 38 Newry Street, Rathfriland

  Sennen House, Rostrevor, Warrenpoint

  St. Joseph's, Prince's Street, Warrenpoint

  Seafort House, 6 Queen's Street, Warrenpoint

  Brendan Smyth
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will explain the meaning and purpose of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's request on 2 December 1993 to the Irish Attorney-General to be told in due course that the warrant had been endorsed in respect of Brendan Smyth.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 28 November 1994): By its letter of 2 December to the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana, the RUC inquired whether the warrants in respect of Brendan Smyth had been backed for execution. The RUC was not at that time aware that he might voluntarily return to Northern Ireland.

  The Banks Residential Home
  Sir James Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what formal proposals he has received about the future of The Banks residential home, Bangor; what is the nature of any such proposals; and what is the timescale for considering them.

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: I have been asked to approve a proposal from the North Down and Ards Community trust that "The Banks" should close. I have recently visited the home and met local interests and I will announce my decision as quickly as possible.

  The trust has said that, if the closure is agreed, it will explore the possibility of identifying a buyer for the building who would be willing to build a nursing home and accommodate all existing residents.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to monitor the economic impact of the national lottery.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national lottery has already been a great success, with £25 million raised for good causes in the first two weeks, and I expect this to continue. My Department, together with the bodies responsible for distributing lottery proceeds, will naturally be monitoring how those proceeds are spent.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether those national lottery proceeds
  605
  administered by the Arts Council can be distributed to film projects.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage where funds from the national lottery destined for distribution to the good causes but not yet paid to applicants are held; what assumptions have been made about rates of interest accruing; and who will receive any such interest.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Proceeds from the national lottery are held in the national lottery distribution fund pending draw down by the good causes. The investment of the fund is the responsibility of the National Debt Commissioners. Interest gains received by the fund will be at a rate consistent with those normally achieved by risk-free investments. All the interest gained by the investment of the fund will be attributed equitably to the good causes and add to the sum of the proceeds available for distribution.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will give instructions that national lottery tickets should be available at Selkirk, Melrose, Lauder, Earlston and Newton St. Boswells.

  (2) if he will give instructions that national lottery tickets should be available at Innerleithen, Walkerburn, West Linton and Broughton.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have therefore asked Peter Davis, the Director-General of the national lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to the hon. Gentleman, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Fund Commissioners
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether the millennium fund commissioners can distribute money to private companies or individuals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Directions have been issued to the Millennium Commission under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, concerning matters which the commission should take into account when distributing lottery proceeds. These include the need to ensure that lottery proceeds are distributed to projects which promote the public good and which are not intended primarily for private gain. The Millennium Commission's guidance for applicants, which was issued this week, makes it clear that commercial organisations or those conducted for profit will be eligible if they can demonstrate that their project will promote the public good, and that individuals will not normally be eligible to apply for lottery funds on their own behalf.

  Sports and Arts
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer to the hon. Member to the Budget statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer today.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the completion date of the Touche Ross 606
  consultants' report on the English tourist board's crown grading scheme; and on what date he expects to respond to it.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A review of the Crown accommodation classification and grading scheme was commissioned by the English tourist board from KPMG Peat Marwick. The work is complete and has been sent to me. I intend to write to the chairman of the ETB very soon.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress he has made on developing a comprehensive strategy for tourism; when he will make his Department's new policies public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am considering the conclusions which are emerging from work that has been taken forward with the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority, drawing on the views of the industry. I shall make an announcement in due course.

  Bowood House (Correspondence)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration was given to purchasing items of correspondence from Bowood house for the national archives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  The national institutions which maintain archives were notified of the recent auction of correspondence from Bowood house. I understand that the National libraries of Scotland and of Wales and the National Maritime museum successfully bid for items they wished to acquire for their archives.

  Libraries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the five local authorities which spend(a) most and (b) least per head of population on library book provision; for the year 199293, together with the sums they spent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  The five local authorities in England spending the most per head of population on library book provision in 1992–93 were (source CIPFA):City of London (£129.54), Westminster (£4.34), Lambeth (£3.75), Llanelli (£3.35) and Kingston-Upon-Thames (£3.21).

  The five spending least were:
  Sheffield (£0.89), Bamsley (£0.87), Hillingdon (£0.78), Wakefield (£0.72) and Brent (£0.34).

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the projected average expenditure for library books per head of population for(a) the United Kingdom as a whole, (b) the English counties, (c) the metropolitan districts and (d) the London boroughs for 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  No figures for projected expenditure on library books are yet available for 1995–96.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the spending on library books per head of population, measured by the book index(a) in 1981–84 and (b) in 1992–93; and what steps he is taking to increase current expenditure.

  Mr. Sproat
  Spending per head of population, as measured by the book index used in the national book committee report, was:

  (a) £1.058 in 1981–84; and

  (b) £1.849 in 1992–93

  607
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what response he has made to the 12th annual report of the national book committee, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Sproat
  We are currently reviewing the findings of the national book committee report "Public Libraries and their Book Funds".

  More generally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage continues to monitor the provision of public library services in England, including book expenditure, by analysing statistics and by investigating complaints; and the Department is prepared to intervene directly where there is doubt about an authority's ability or willingness to fulfil its statutory obligations under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  Museum Staff
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff employed in each of the museums funded by his Department are from countries within the European Union; and how many from without.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: The information is not collected by my Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list, in tabular form, the staffing levels, full and part-time, of each of the museums funded by his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: The details of staffing levels for museums which my Department holds are not broken down into full and part-time employees. Figures collected in the course of 1994 for total staff numbers at the museums directly funded by my Department are as follows:

  Number

  Royal Armouries

  134

  British Museum

  1,079

  Imperial War Museum

  425

  National Gallery

  430

  National Maritime Museum

  350

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  560

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  589

  National Portrait Gallery

  125

  Natural History Museum

  825

  Tate Gallery

  506

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  850

  Wallace Collection

  67

  Geffrye Museum

  24

  Horniman Museum

  80

  Museum of London

  307

  United Kingdom's Gross and Net contribution to the EC Budget (£ million)

  Year

  Gross contributions before abatement of refunds

  Negotiated refunds

  Abatement

  Gross contributions after abatement and refunds

  Public sector receipts

  Net contribution after abatement refunds and public sector receipts

  1973–74

  200

  —

  —

  200

  104

  96

  1974–75

  197

  —

  —

  197

  232

  -35

  1975–76

  370

  —

  —

  370

  354

  16

  1976–77

  544

  —

  —

  544

  320

  224

  1977–78

  941

  —

  —

  941

  382

  559

  1978–79

  1,323

  —

  —

  1,323

  555

  768

  1979–80

  1,665

  —

  —

  1,665

  781

  884

  608

  Number

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  94

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  20

TREASURY

  Classic Cars
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning his policy in connection with road fund licences for classic cars when they are not being kept for use on public roads.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In his Budget speech today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor gave some further details on the Government's approach to continuous licensing for vehicle excise duty licensing based on possession rather than use of a vehicle.

  As the Chancellor made plain, in introducing continuous licensing, the Government will not seek to disadvantage those honest motorists, including classic car owners, who do not pay VED now because their cars are genuinely off the road. A consultation document will be issued shortly setting out details of the proposals.

  EU Contributions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the(a) gross contributions, (b) receipts and (c) net contributions by the United Kingdom to the European Community for each year since 1973; and what are his estimates of those amounts until 2000 assuming current OECD estimates of growth rates and national states tax policies and (i) the adoption and (ii) the non-adoption of the Edinburgh own resources proposals.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's estimates of the United Kingdom's gross contributions, receipts and net contributions to European Community institutions for the financial year 1973–74 to 1993–94, together with the latest forecast of our contributions up to 1997–98, which take account of the Edinburgh own resources proposals, are set out in the following table. The estimates for the years up to 1999–2000 which my hon. Friend requests are also set out at the foot of the table. These long-term estimates are inevitably more speculative as they extend considerably 'beyond the period covered by OECD estimates. Financial year forecasts of the United Kingdom's net contributions are subject to wide fluctuations for technical reasons such as the timing of payments. Longer term forecasts must be treated with particular caution.
  609

  United Kingdom's Gross and Net contribution to the EC Budget (£ million)

  Year

  Gross contributions before abatement of refunds

  Negotiated refunds

  Abatement

  Gross contributions after abatement and refunds

  Public sector receipts

  Net contribution after abatement refunds and public sector receipts

  1980–81

  1,900

  645

  —

  1,255

  1,022

  233

  1981–82

  2,330

  959

  —

  1,371

  1,146

  225

  1982–83

  2,820

  774

  —

  2,046

  1.308

  737

  1983–84

  3,097

  239

  —

  2,858

  1,897

  961

  1984–85

  3,614

  589

  —

  3,025

  1,892

  1,133

  1985–86

  3,745

  —

  823

  2,922

  1,930

  992

  1986–87

  5,121

  —

  1,343

  3,778

  >,557

  1,221

  1987–88

  4,906

  —

  1,137

  3,769

  1,958

  1,811

  1988–89

  5,167

  —

  1,600

  3,567

  2,400

  1,166

  1989–90

  5,804

  —

  1,317

  4,487

  2,035

  2,452

  1990–91

  6,411

  —

  1,838

  4,573

  2,388

  2,185

  1991–92

  6,129

  —

  2,428

  3,701

  2,757

  943

  1992–93

  6,970

  —

  1,993

  4,977

  2,810

  2,167

  1993–94

  8,407

  —

  2,350

  6,057

  1,864

  2,192

  1994–95

  8,308

  —

  1,899

  6,409

  5,963

  2,446

  1995–96

  9,943

  —

  2,256

  7,687

  4,293

  3,394

  1996–97

  9,910

  —

  2,108

  7,802

  4,441

  3,361

  1997–98

  10,552

  —

  2,744

  7,808

  1,526

  3,282

  1998–99

  11,190

  —

  13,570

  7,620

  1,640

  2,980

  1999–2000

  11,830

  —

  3,170

  8,660

  4,930

  3,730

  1 A substantial increase is anticipated in the United Kingdom's abatement to reflect the final correction of an earlier year.

  The Government's estimates of the net cost of the Edinburgh own resources proposals are:

  £ million

  1994–95

  25

  1995–96

  75

  1996–97

  100

  1997–98

  165

  1998–99

  230

  1999–2000

  250

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department employs two special advisers.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on the special advisers salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  VAT on Building Works
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce or remove VAT on building works to(a) listed buildings and (b) buildings in conservation areas.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no plans to reduce or remove VAT on building works to listed buildings or buildings in conservation areas.

  VAT has been applied at the standard rate to the repair, restoration and maintenance of all buildings since 1973. VAT zero-rating is permitted only for approved alterations to listed buildings.

  ERM and Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he has commissioned on the benefits and losses to Britain arising from(a) returning to the exchange rate mechanism and (b) monetary union; and if he will issue a White Paper giving his own assessment.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has not commissioned any specific studies on the issues referred to, although naturally he considers carefully advice rendered on future economic policy. The Government have no plans to issue a White Paper on this subject.

  Members and Civil Servants
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is, for an out-of-London hon. Member and for a civil service assistant secretary, each with 20 years' reckonable service(a) the normal retirement age, (b) salary, (c) annual pension and (d) the deduction from salary for pension in the last year of employment.

  Sir George Young
  For a member of Parliament, the pension scheme assumes a normal retirement age of 65, but accrued pension benefits are payable at age 60 to a retired member with 20 years' service. The current parliamentary salary is £31,687. On retirement, taking 30 November 1994 as the last day of service, the pension would be £11,730, with an option to give up part of the pension to provide a lump sum. The maximum lump sum allowed at 60 would be £37,940, leaving a pension of £8,500. The deductions in the last year of employment would be £1,897, or 6 per cent.

  For a civil service assistant secretary grade 5, the normal retirement age depends on the policy of the employing Department, but will be between age 60 and 70. The current salary would be between £36,739 and £54,815. Under principal civil service pension scheme, again assuming 30 November 1994 as the last day of service, the pension would be between £9,064,75 and £13,518,34, together with a lump sum of between

  611
  £27,194.25 and £40,555.02. The deductions from salary in the last year of employment would be between £543.89 and £811.10. A deduction of 1½ per cent. of pay is made towards the cost of dependant benefits only. The value of pension provision is taken into account in setting rates of pay.

  Earnings and Inflation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1978(a) the average earnings and (b) the average rate of inflation.

  Mr. Nelson
  The following table gives the information requested on average earnings:

  April of Year

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time Adult1 employees2 Great Britain £

  1978

  79.10

  1979

  89.60

  1980

  110.20

  1981

  124.90

  1982

  136.50

  1983

  147.40

  1984

  159.30

  1985

  171.00

  1986

  184.70

  1987

  198.90

  1988

  218.40

  1989

  239.70

  1990

  263.10

  1991

  284.70

  1992

  304.60

  1993

  316.90

  1994

  325.70

  Notes:

  1 For 1978 to 1982, figures are compiled on basis of men aged 21 and over and women aged 18 and over. Since 1983 figures are compiled on the basis of employees on adult rates.

  2 Figures are average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence:

  Source:

  Department of Employment; New Earnings Surveys.

  The information requested at (b) is available in table 8 of the publication "Retail Prices Index September 1994", CSO Business Monitor MM23, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Enhanced Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to recover enhanced payments made to public officials if there is evidence of incompetence.

  Mr. Aitken
  None. Performance-related pay or bonuses to public officials will usually reflect performance in a preceding period. The recovery of such payments would not normally be appropriate. A decline in performance might be reflected in future payments or in other action.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many voluntary resignations from the non-industrial home civil service there have been in each of the last 10 years.

  Sir George Young
  Information on resignations from the non-industrial home civil service is given in table 7 of 612
  "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how many civil servants have left the civil service for jobs in the private sector in each of the last 10 years.

  Sir George Young
  This information is not available.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his circular letter to hon. Members of 11 November, what was his estimate of the United Kingdom's gross payment to the EC in 1999; what was his estimate of the average annual growth of United Kingdom gross domestic product between 1995–96 and 1999; and what was his estimate of annual average growth of community gross domestic product in the same period.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The United Kingdom's gross contribution to the European Community after abatement is expected to be £8,660 million by 1999–2000. These long-term estimates are inevitably speculative as they go considerably beyond the period covered by OECD estimates which were used in the table contained in my answer on 23 November to a question from the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), Official Report, columns 155–58.

  The average annual growth rate assumptions used in making this forecast are consistent with the assumptions which will be announced in the Budget.

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the increase in VAT on fuel from April 1995 on the inflation rate.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: It is estimated that the increase in VAT on domestic fuel and power in April 1995 will add just over 0.4 per cent. to the retail prices index. Inflation is expected to remain well within the Government's target range 1–4 per cent. through the course of 1995. The imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power is essential to raise revenue and to encourage energy conservation, contributing to Rio commitments on global warming.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bi-valve Molluscs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how directive 91/492/EEC is implemented in the Netherlands and in France; and what assessment he has made of the nature of the monitoring of that directive and whether it is as rigorous on the continent as it is in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  It is for the European Commission to keep track of such matters and to assess the effectiveness of any supporting procedures, such as monitoring in this case. We ourselves have little information on the progress of implementation of directive 91/492/EEC in other member states. There is not independent check that we can usefully apply.

  Bovine Immuno-deficiency Virus
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has considered reports that the former milk marketing board refused to take milk for reasons of BIV from a cow herd which itself was in part subsequently slaughtered for use in meat products; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  Infection with bovine immunodeficiency virus—BIV—is neither notifiable nor reportable and the disposal of infected animals is the responsibility of the owner of the animals. Infection with BIV should not preclude any bovine animals, which are not showing signs of disease, going for slaughter for human consumption subject to the normal ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections and other statutory controls on slaughterhouse operations, nor should it preclude the milk from such animals going for human consumption. In March this year, the milk marketing board decided to stop buying milk from a farm where there were cattle with serological evidence of exposure to BIV. The then Minister reviewed this decision, as required by the milkmarketing scheme, and decided not to uphold it on the ground that the board had gone outside its powers in the scheme.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the amount of grade one agricultural land accepted for building development in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  This information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Cows
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the relationship between ovarian cysts, mastitis in cows and doses of BST administered to cows.

  Mrs. Browning
  Such issues were covered in the safety assessment carried out by the Veterinary Products Committee and the Medicines Commission, in advising the licensing authority on the two applications received for licences for BST products.

  Flooding
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportions of the costs of flooding in the last 12 months for which figures are available can be attributed to increased run-off from land.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only by extensive surveys and flood modelling.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest information on the extent and costs of flooding of roads and property in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  Surveys of flood risk areas are undertaken by the National Rivers Authority at local level and the results made available to local authorities to inform the planning process. In addition, the Association of British Insurance has recently published a report entitled "Identification of Coastal Flood Areas in England and 614
  Wales", in collaboration with the National Rivers Authority and the Ministry.

  Claims for flood damage to property are handled by insurance companies. The risk of flooding is reduced significantly through expenditure by Government and the responsible local agencies on the maintenance and improvement of flood defences.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has that the change-over from grass or spring cereal crops to winter cereal crops contributes to the run-off from land.

  Mr. Jack
  Grass is the most effective type of vegetation for reducing the rate at which rainfall runs off from land, and there is evidence that agricultural practices which leave land without grass or crop cover can lead to an increased rate of run off. How spring cereals compare with winter cereals in this respect depends on local circumstances, but winter cereals may provide some limited crop cover—and hence surface water storage—in the winter months when rainfall is generally highest.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many lorries transporting animals through Plymouth harbour on the night of 21 November(a) did and (b) did not fulfil the requirements of the journey plan.

  Mrs. Browning
  Nine vehicles arrived for loading on the ferry, of which three were turned back by the Ministry veterinary inspector on the ground that the arrangements made to protect the welfare of the animals during the proposed journey were not satisfactorily recorded on the journey plans presented for his inspection.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the latest available figures for the number of sheep farmers authorised under the certification scheme to purchase organophosphorous dip products in Wales, Scotland and each of his Department's regions in England; and what, in each case, was the total estimated number of sheep farmers.

  Mrs. Browning
  The certification scheme is run by the National Proficiency Tests Council. There are 90,000 registered sheep farmers in the United Kingdom. The number of farmers who have applied for certification in each NPTC region by 27 October 1994 is set out in the following table. The information is not available by MAFF regions.

  By 11 November, a further 647 sheep farmers had applied for certification. A total of 1,761 certificates had also been issued by that date. None of this data is available on a corresponding regional basis.

  The decision on whether or not to apply for certification is a matter for the individual sheep farmer, bearing in mind their judgment on the possible need to purchase OP sheep dips for the treatment of sheep in the coming year.

  Applications for Sheep Dipping Certificates received by 27 October 1994

  Counties

  Numbers registered

  Northumberland

  1,036

  Durham

  Tyne & Wear

  615

  Applications for Sheep Dipping Certificates received by 27 October 1994

  Counties

  Numbers registered

  Cumbria

  Lancashire

  Cheshire

  Merseyside

  Greater Manchester

  Yorkshire

  493

  Cleveland

  Humberside

  170

  Lincolnshire

  Derbyshire

  339

  Leicestershire

  Northamptonshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Shropshire

  253

  Staffordshire

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  357

  Gloucester and North Avon

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  Cambridgeshire

  110

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Essex

  50

  Hertforshire

  London (North of Thames)

  Bedfordshire

  139

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Kent

  186

  Sussex East

  London (South of Thames)

  Surrey

  61

  Sussex West

  Hampshire

  89

  Isle of Wight

  616

  Applications for Sheep Dipping Certificates received by 27 October 1994

  Counties

  Numbers registered

  Dorset

  489

  Somerset

  South Avon

  Devon

  Cornwall

  Wiltshire

  Clwyd

  522

  Gwynedd

  Powys

  327

  Dyfed

  520

  Glamorgan

  166

  Gwent

  Scotland

  1,062

  Northern Ireland

  235

  ATB Landbase

  2,277

  Badgers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library papers relating to the epidemiological investigation by his department's veterinary staff into the TB herd breakdown on the Highgrove estate in November 1993.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: No. The report of this investigation, as of similar investigations into individual animal disease outbreaks, contains information which is unsuitable for disclosure on commercial confidentiality and other grounds.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of Newcastle disease were identified in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The last confirmed case of Newcastle disease in Great Britain was in 1984.

DEFENCE

  Indonesia
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's budget spending planned for the current year on training for the Indonesian military; and what was so spent in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr Soames
  It is not our practice to disclose information of this nature.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence matters were discussed when the Chief and Vice Chief of Defence Staff visited Indonesia last year.

  Mr. Soames
  The visits by the Chief of the Defence Staff and Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to Indonesia in February 1994 and October 1994 cost my department a total of £11,032.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the arms working party clearance was given in respect of the proposed sale of Scorpion light tanks to Indonesia.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information relating to arms working party clearances is commercially confidential. A company receiving approval through the AWP process still has an obligation to apply for an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry before exporting goods. The consideration of the export licence application will, in the normal way, take account of all relevant factors.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equipment is covered by the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and Indonesia; and what is the total value of goods already sold.

  Mr. Freeman
  Any memorandum of understanding between the Government of the United Kingdom and another Government is confidential between the two Governments. Details of the value of goods sold are confidential between the purchaser and the supplier.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department employs one special adviser. Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Military Training
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries from which foreign students have visited or will visit the United Kingdom for military training in United Kingdom military establishments during 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  Those countries from which foreign students have visited or will visit the United Kingdom for military training in United Kingdom military establishments during 1994 are as follows;
  618

  Country

  Country

  Country

  Abu Dhabi

  Greece

  Pakistan

  Albania

  Grenada

  Paraguay

  Antigua

  Guyana

  Philippines

  Australia

  Hong Kong

  Poland

  Austria

  Hungary

  Portugal

  Bahrain

  India

  Qatar

  Bahamas

  Indonesia

  Romania

  Bangladesh

  Ireland

  South Africa

  Barbados

  Israel

  Saudi Arabia

  Belgium

  Italy

  Senegal

  Belize

  Ivory Coast

  Seychelles

  Bermuda

  Jamaica

  Sierra Leone

  Botswana

  Japan

  Singapore

  Brazil

  Jordan

  Slovakia

  Brunei

  Kenya

  Slovenia

  Bulgaria

  Korea

  Spain

  Canada

  Kuwait

  Sri Lanka

  Cayman Island

  Latvia

  Sudan

  Chile

  Lebanon

  Swaziland

  St. Christopher Nevis

  Lithuania

  Sweden

  Cyprus

  St. Lucia

  Switzerland

  Czech Republic

  Malaysia

  Tanzania

  Denmark

  Maldives

  Thailand

  Dominican Republic

  Malta

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Dubai

  Malawi

  Turkey

  Ecuador

  Mauritius

  UAE

  Egypt

  Montserrat

  Uganda

  Estonia

  Mozambique

  Ukraine

  Falkland Islands

  Namibia

  USA

  Fiji

  Nepal

  Venezuela

  Finland

  Netherlands

  St. Vincent

  France

  Norway

  Yemen

  Gambia

  New Zealand

  Zambia

  Germany

  Oman

  Zimbabwe

  Ghana

  HMS Brazen
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimated total eventual costs of repairing HMS Brazen following her grounding; where the repairs will be carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The initial repair work to HMS Brazen was carried out in the Chilean port of Talcahuano and further repair work will be undertaken by Devonport Management Limited at Devonport royal dockyard under the existing commercial arrangements for operational repairs. The eventual total cost of the repair work is expected to be some £2.5 million.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conditions as to the use of British defence suppliers for equipment updates and replacement were agreed in the contract for the sale of four type 21 frigates to Pakistan; what information he has on the value of contracts placed for such work(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No conditions as to the use of British defence suppliers were stipulated in the contract for the sale of six—not four—ex-RN type 21 frigates to Pakistan. United Kingdom companies competed for all subsequent major Pakistan upgrade or replacement programmes and so far two equipment contracts have been won. It is not our practice to disclose details of values of such contracts which are commercially confidential between the supplier
  619
  and the customer Government. Authoritative details of contracts awarded for major upgrades elsewhere are not available.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which helicopters are available for use on the type 23 frigates currently on trials or training programmes.

  Mr. Soames
  Mark 3 Lynx helicopter are available, for use as necessary to type 23 frigate on trials or testing programmes.

  Car Theft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the result of his Department's inquiry into the theft of a car from the home of the Army commander of southern district on 11 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  A private car belonging to the General Officer Commanding, southern district, was stolen from the grounds of his official residence on 11 October. The theft was investigated by the Hampshire constabulary as a criminal matter. The vehicle was found on 4 November and returned to its owner.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North can expect a reply to his letter of 19 September concerning the recall to his unit of one of his constituents who had previously been discharged on medical priority.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State replied to the hon. Member on 22 November.

  Northolt Airport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the report by the Policy Studies Institute on Northolt airport; if it remains his policy to retain Northolt as an exclusively military airport whilst allowing no more than the currently permitted number of civilian or business flights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Consideration of the report issued by the Adam Smith Institute on airport capacity in the London area is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, although RAF activity at Northolt, in particular flying operations, will continue to have primacy over civil use.

  Byelaws
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the legal costs of his Department's police and the Crown Prosecution Service relating to byelaws at HMS Forest Moor and Menwith Hill station since 1990; how much in costs has been awarded to people appealing against their convictions; and how many appeals against convictions concerning byelaw offences have been upheld.

  Mr. Soames
  The costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence police as they relate specifically to HMS Forest Moor and Menwith Hill station are not recorded separately and could only be provided at disproportionate cost; costs to the Crown Prosecution Service are a matter 620
  for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

  Records of costs awarded to individuals appealing against their convictions and of appeals upheld against convictions for byelaws offences are not held centrally.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons he is considering new military land byelaws; and to what extent he regards existing byelaws as being extant and operational.

  Mr. Soames
  New Military Lands Act byelaws are being drafted to replace those ruled to be defective by the courts; and for establishments where changes to the boundaries necessitate new byelaws. The opportunity is being taken to review many existing sets of byelaws.

  Military Lands Act byelaws are extant and operable at all sites to which they apply, except where they have been found defective by the courts.

  Molesworth
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who controls the National Security Agency base at Molesworth; and by whom the base commander is employed.

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Molesworth is situated on Crown freehold land and Her Majesty's Government retain control over the use made of the site and its facilities. These facilities are operated with the agreement of Her Majesty's Government by the United States European Command and the base commander is an officer of the United States Air Force.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the five items received at NSA Molesworth containing polychlorinated biphenyls, referred to in his answer of 25 October 1994,Official Report, column 584; and what is the name of the contractor through which they were disposed of.

  Mr. Soames
  The five items suspected of containing PCBs were two empty five gallon cans of electrical insulation oil, and three items of electronic scrap and capacitators. The licensed contractor used to dispose of the contaminated items was Biffa Waste Services Ltd.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons convoys transporting nuclear weapons from Faslane to Burghfield by road do not display radiation symbols on vehicles.

  Mr. Soames
  Regulation 20f of the Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations 1974, as amended in 1985, exempts vehicles carrying nuclear weapons from the requirement to display radiation symbols.

  Royal Dockyards
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount spent by his Department on the privatisation of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the period between 18 October 1993, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced our policy
  621
  towards the future management of the dockyards—Official Report, 18 October 1993, columns 39–41—and 31 October 1994, total identifiable expenditure for work associated with developing and implementing plans for the proposed privatisation of the royal dockyards amounts to some £7.2 million. Given that the current dockyard management contracts are due to expire no later than April 1996, my Department would expect to have incurred in any case costs for work related to any future management arrangements for the royal dockyards.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount paid to consultants by his Department for work concerned with the privatisation of HM royal Devonport dockyard.

  Mr. Freeman
  Payments made or outstanding to consultants for work related to the proposed privatisation of the royal dockyards between 18 October 1993, when my right hon. and learned Friend announced our policy towards the future management of the dockyards,—Official Report, 18 October 1993, columns 39–41—and 31 October 1994 total some £6.5 million. Costs attributable to Devonport cannot be separately identified.

  Tornado
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proposals he has to replace F3 Tornados assessed as no longer suitable for operational use, subsequent to the 25 fatigue index modification contract carried out at RAF St. Athan by Airwork Ltd;

  (2) if he will give the number of F3 Tornado aircraft damaged in the course of the 25 fatigue index modification contract by Airwork Ltd. at RAF St. Athan, which have been assessed as (a) capable of flying again and (b) suitable only for cannibalisation

  Mr. Freeman
  It is the intention that all aircraft, damaged by Airwork, will be recovered to a full operational standard and returned to the RAF for normal operational use.

  Equipment Programmes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now ready to issue further invitations to tender for equipment programmes following his statement on 14 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to confirm the plans on three major equipment programmes. For the Royal Navy, we are now ready to issue an invitation to tender for the build of a further batch of up to three type 23 frigates. These vessels will form a most valuable contribution to the maintenance of a modern, capable force of 35 destroyers and frigates.

  I am also glad to confirm the plans on two weapons programmes of major importance to the RAF. An ITT will be issued for a conventionally-armed stand-off missile to enhance the RAF's capability for precision attack against high-value fixed targets, the importance of which was demonstrated in the Gulf conflict. In addition, we shall at the same time be issuing an ITT for an advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon. This will be a vital element of the offensive support capability to be provided by the Harrier GR7, Tornado and Eurofighter 2000 in the next decade.

  Defence Contracts
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money was paid by his Department to GEC to bid against VSEL for the contract for the Trafalgar class of submarines.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: We offered contracts to both GEC and VSEL for studies to produce, in advance of bids, innovative and improved construction and integration techniques in order to reduce the ultimate costs to my Department. Both companies have agreed to provide early sight of such proposals but only GEC accepted the offer of a contract to do so. The value of the contract is commercially confidential.

  Royal Marines School of Music
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the costs incurred if the proposed relocation of the Royal Marines school of music to Portsmouth takes place in respect of(a) hiring new music professors and other civilian staff at Portsmouth, (b) expenditure on contract staff and casuals while permanent posts are being filled and (c) training new staff.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 November I994]: Salary costs for 15 professors of music are estimated at £481,000. This figure is the same regardless of the location chosen for the Royal Marines school of music. The salary costs for other directly-employed civilian staff should the Royal Marines school of music move to Portsmouth are estimated at £165,000. This figure compares with that estimated for continued occupation at Deal of £932,000. The cost of recruitment action to take on new staff is expected to be negligible.

  Pre-planning and timely recruiting would aim to avoid the use of contract staff and casuals while permanent posts are being filled.

  Any training necessary for new staff would be conducted under current internal arrangements at negligible cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many deductions from earnings orders have been served in the last 12 months by each of the Child Support Agency offices.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. John Spellar, dated 29 November 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of deductions from earnings orders that have been served in the last 12 months by each of the Child Support Agency offices.
  During 1993–94, 2,600 deductions from earnings orders (DEOs) were issued. In the first year of the Agency's operations, this information was collected on a national basis only, and cannot be broken down by month or by regional centre.
  623
  Between April and September 1994, a further 11,470 DEOs were issued, split between the Agency's regional centres as follows:

  Number

  Belfast

  2,006

  Birkenhead

  1,981

  Dudley

  1,296

  Falkirk

  2,162

  Hastings

  2,323

  Plymouth

  1,702

  I hope that this reply is helpful.

  Benefits and Contributions Agencies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many beds have been stolen from the nursing and first aid stations on the Newcastle sites of his Department's Benefits Agency and Contributions Agency;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a list of all items over £100 in value stolen from the Newcastle sites of (a) the Benefits Agency and (b) the Contributions Agency;

  (3) what was the cost of stolen items from the Newcastle sites of the (a) DSS Benefits and (b) DSS Contributions Agency in each of the last three financial years;

  (4) what computing equipment has been stolen from the Newcastle sites of his Department's Benefits and Contributions Agencies; and whether data on staff or claimants were removed with the computing equipment.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mr. George Bertram, the acting chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 28 November 1994:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS ON SECURITY AT DSS, LONGBENTON
  As Acting Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about relevant operational matters. As I have overall control of accommodation and equipment for all Agencies which share the Department's Newcastle site, I have been asked to respond to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions about the theft of equipment. Because of the nature of the questions I have combined the responses.
  It is over nine years since one bed was reported missing from a sick bay of the nursing facilities on the Newcastle site of the, then, Department of Health and Social Security.
  I have attached as an annex to this letter a list of individual items stolen and which were valued at over £100.
  For the financial years in question the recorded value of the items reported stolen on the Newcastle site are:-

  1991–1992: £15,900

  1992–1993: £8,778

  1993–1994: £6,850

  Separate figures are not kept for the individual agencies on the site. All Information Technology equipment is included in these figures.
  The computer equipment stolen has been stand-alone personal computers, printers, and a software package. Data on staff and customers is not stored on this equipment. The annex gives more detail on these losses.
  624
  We regularly meet with the Departmental Security Office and our Departmental Information Technology Security Group to address the current levels of security, exchange information and consider whether further improvements can be made. It is clear from this work that the current threat to IT equipment and other items from an increase in theft is the same for all governmental departments and commercial premises.
  Our physical security at the Newcastle site, which is 64 acres and employs some 9000 people has been reviewed in the last year. We have made a number of improvements such as the completion of the perimeter fencing of the site and the introduction of modern security equipment but we continue to look for further ways of improvement and are very much aware of this in our plans for the future.

  Items over £100 stolen from DSS Longbeaton

  Reported

  Item missing

  1991–92

  4 April 1991

  VCR

  14 June 1991

  ICL PC

  24 July 1991

  TV set

  13 September 1991

  Mackintosh PC

  20 September 1991

  Vacuum cleaner

  4 October 1991

  Fax machine

  7 November 1991

  £120.00 cash from unlocked drawer

  20 January 1992

  Two Protocol Analysers

  13 March 1992

  £180.00 cash from unlocked drawer

  17 March 1992

  231 desk tidies from store

  18 March 1992

  Monitor, CPU, Keyboard and Printer

  1992–93

  3 May 1992

  Microwave from Bellway

  11 May 1992

  Apricot xen-s keyboard

  18 May 1992

  Microwave from Bellway

  21 May 1992

  £140.00 cash

  22 July 1992

  Multi-meter and rechargeable torch

  28 July 1992

  60 desk tidies from store

  31 July 1992

  £100.00 cash from drawer

  2 October 1992

  Two rolls of carpet

  9 October 1992

  Two hydroponic plant displays

  12 October 1992

  Microwave from store

  25 November 1992

  £152.90 cash from unlocked drawer

  8 December 1992

  HP Laserjet printer

  5 January 1993

  VDU Monitor

  10 January 1993

  One Siemens Nixdorf PC

  10 October 1993

  Once ICL DRS M55 PC

  2 April 1993

  Lap top computer

  1993–94

  28 April 1993

  7 Feature telephones and adapted phone for hard of hearing

  18 May 1993

  HP Laserjet printer

  29 May 1993

  Portable TV/Radio from unlocked drawer

  8 June 1993

  Fujitsu dot matrix printer

  28 July 1993

  Two 14 inch TVs and two VCRs

  9 August 1993

  HP Laserjet printer

  10 August 1993

  HP Laserjet printer

  13 September 1993

  £100.00 cash from unlocked drawer

  23 December 1993

  "Apple" style desk top printer

  30 December 1993

  HP Laserjet printer

  22 January 1994

  HP Laserjet printer

  15 May 1994

  Computer monitor. "Thief apprehended"

  Quarry House
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans to transfer more Benefits Agency staff to Quarry house, Leeds.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The deployment of Benefits Agency staff is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 28 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about plans to transfer more Benefits Agency staff to Quarry House, Leeds.
  There are presently no plans to transfer more Benefits Agency staff into Quarry House. A number of Benefits Agency staff are located in other buildings in Leeds and should space become available in Quarry House in the future the Agency would consider the possibility of transferring some of these staff into the vacated offices.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Payment of Benefits
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in England and Wales collected(a) income support, (b)

  Customers paid by automated credit transfer

  Benefits

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Thousands 1993–94

  Income Support1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  Family Credit

  37

  53

  76

  91

  105

  Child Benefit

  1,297

  1,407

  1,505

  1,595

  1,708

  Retirement pension and widows pension2

  1,982

  2,160

  2,392

  2,671

  3,232

  Invalidity Benefit3

  —

  —

  —

  12

  90

  Unemployment Benefit4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  109

  Notes:

  1 The option to have Income Support paid by ACT came into effect in w/c 31 October 1993.

  2 No separate figures are available for payments of Retirement Pension and Widows Pension.

  3 The option to have Invalidity Benefit (IVB) paid by ACT came into effect in w/c 31 May 1993. Figures available showing the number of payments by IVB are combined with Sickness Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance Figures.

  4 The option to have Unemployment Benefit paid by ACT came into effect in w/c 20 September 1993. These figures have been obtained from the Employment Service Agency.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish details of the work carried out by his Department's compensation recovery unit since it was established showing the number of cases in which it had reclaimed benefit payments, the total sum recovered for each year of its operation and the total annual operating cost of the unit including all administrative costs, salaries and all other outlays incurred by the unit since its creation.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He 626
  family credit, (c) child benefit, (d) pension, (e) widow's pension, (f) invalidity benefit and (g) unemployment benefit, from the Post Office each week in each year since 1989–90;

  (2) how many people in England and Wales had (a) income support, (b) family credit, (c) child benefit, (d) pension, (e) widow's pension, (f) invalidity benefit and (g) unemployment benefit paid directly into a bank account in each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, dated 28 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the payment of benefit into bank accounts or at the Post Office.
  Information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because data is not collated relating to the number of customers being paid on a weekly basis at Post Offices. To obtain this information would be at a disproportionate cost.
  That information that is available regarding payments by automated credit transfer is not captured geographically nor weekly and to obtain it for England and Wales would be at a disproportionate cost.
  However, I have provided at Appendix A a table showing the number of customers, on an annual basis, from the year 1989–90 who have been paid by automated credit transfer.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 28 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the number of cases in which the Compensation Recovery Unit had reclaimed benefit payments, the total sum recovered and the annual operating costs of the Unit including all administrative costs, salaries and all other outlays since its creation.
  The information requested has been provided for each financial year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  627

  Period

  Number of cases

  Total amount recovered £ million

  Operating costs £ million

  1 August 1989–31 March 1990

  —

  —

  0.13

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  3,950

  3.7

  1.7

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  20,781

  25.3

  1.9

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  30,782

  51.3

  2.1

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  36,094

  81.9

  2.7

  1 April 1994–31 October 1994

  22,224

  56.2

  1.7

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to restrict the use of the national insurance number by his Department to benefit-related purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have no such plans at present but the position is being kept under review.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what undertaking he gave to the Data Protection Registrar in respect of restricting the national insurance number to tax and benefit-related purposes; and what revision he has made to the undertaking following the use of that number by a private sector firm in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Data Protection Registrar has been advised it is departmental policy to restrict use of the national insurance number to national insurance, tax and social security benefit-related purposes. I can confirm that a request has been received from a private sector organisation for permission to use the national insurance number and that this is currently under consideration within the terms of the policy.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what criteria he decides to meet or consult organisations of people with learning difficulties.

  Mr. Hague
  The same criteria are used for organisations of people with learning difficulties as others representing disabled people.

  Since I became Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, I have met as many organisations as possible covering a wide range of disabilities, including people with learning difficulties.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has yet completed his review of national insurance contributions for 1995–96.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have completed the annual review under section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. For the second year running, the Government will help employers by reducing the three rates of contributions payable for lower-paid employees. These 628
  will be cut by 0.6 per cent. for all employees earning less than £205 a week at a cost of £250 million a year. This will encourage the creation of new jobs. It will complement a further measure which the Government propose which will give employers taking on someone who has been out of work for at least two years a full national insurance rebate for up to a year. I am also increasing the help with fuel costs for pensioners, widows and certain disabled people which I introduced last year. Together with the general increases in contributory benefit expenditure which I am maintaining, this will mean a continuing shortfall in the national insurance fund between income and outgoings, but I will maintain the stability of the fund by means of the Treasury grant. The national insurance contribution rebate will be introduced from April 1996. The other changes to NICs will take effect from 6 April 1995.

  Employers and Employees

  There will be no change to the standard rates of contributions for either employees or employers, which remain at 10 per cent. and 10.2 per cent. respectively.

  In line with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the lower earnings limit for class 1 contributions is to be raised to £59 a week, which is the nearest whole pound to the basic retirement pension rate for a single person from April 1995. The upper earnings limit is to be raised to £440 a week which is slightly less than 7.5 times the new basic pension rate as provided by the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. These new earnings limits will replace the current ones of £57 and £430 respectively.

  Under the current structure, employees whose earnings reach the lower earnings limit will continue to pay an initial contributions of 2 per cent. of that limit and standard rate contributions of 10 per cent. on that portion of their earnings which exceeds the lower but not the upper earnings limit. For employers the three contribution rates for the lower paid will be reduced by 0.6 per cent. each to 3 per cent., 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively. The thresholds for these rates will also be raised so that from April 1995 they apply to weekly earnings which fall below the ceilings of £105, £150 and £205 respectively, compared with £100, £145 and £200 at present.

  Not Contracted Out Employees and their Employers

  Neither the employee nor his employer will have to pay any contributions if earnings are less than £59 a week. Those whose .earnings do not exceed £430—the former upper earnings limit—will pay 16p a week less in contributions than at present. This is because a further £2 of their weekly earnings will be subject to a deduction of 2 per cent. rather than 10 per cent. For employees with earnings above £430 the maximum possible increase will be 84p a week. Employers will pay between 35p and £6.53 a week less where the employee's earnings are less than £205 a week. There will be no change for employers where earnings are £205 a week or more.

  Contracted Out Employees and their Employers

  Those with earnings between £59 and £430—the former upper earnings limit—will pay 13p a week less. For those who earn more than £430 the maximum possible increase will be 69p a week. Employers will pay between 29p and £6.57 a week less where the employee's earning are less than £205 a week. There will be little change for employers where earnings are £205 a week or more.
  629
  Rebate for Employers taking on the long-term unemployed

  Employers who hire someone who has been out of work for two years or more will get a full NIC rebate for that person for a year, starting in April 1996.

  Self-Employed People

  The flat rate class 2 contribution will be raised by 20p to £5.85 a week.

  There will be no increase in the rate of class 4 contributions, currently 7.3 per cent. The annual limits of profits between which class 4 contributions are paid will be raised to £6,640 and £22,880 from £6,490 and £22,360 respectively. Self-employed people who pay only class 2 contributions will pay an extra £10.40 a year in 1995–96.

  For people with profits between £6,490 and £22,360—the former upper profits limit—class 4 contributions will be reduced by £10.95 per year assuming an unaltered level of profits. For those self-employed people with profits at or above the new upper profits limit the annual charge for class 4 contributions will be £27.01 higher.

  Class 3 (Voluntary) Contributions

  The rate of class 3 contributions will be raised by 20p to £5.75 a week.

  National Health Service Allocation

  The allocation to the national health service, currently 1.05 per cent. from employees and 0.9 per cent. from employers, remains unchanged.

  Treasury Grant

  In accordance with section 2(2) of the Social Security Act 1993, I propose to maintain the level of the national insurance fund during 1995–96 by means of a grant from the Treasury. I estimate that the grant required will be approximately £5.1 billion.

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

  Benefit Rates
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out details of the new rates of benefit proposed from April 1995.

  Mr. Lilley
  As usual, the annual uprating of social security benefits will take place in the first full week of the tax year—in 1995 this will be the week beginning on 10 April.

  The increases announced today are fully in line with the Government's commitment to help those in greatest need and includes the second stage of extra help for the effect of VAT on domestic fuel. Expenditure on social security will be £86.5 billion in 1995–96, £90 billion in 1996–97 and £93.5 billion in 1997–98.

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

  All national insurance benefits, excluding some transitional amounts, will be uprated at least in line with
  630
  the annual increase in the retail price index up to September which this year is 2.2 per cent.

  Income-related benefits will rise by around 1.9 per cent., slightly more than the Rossi index—RPI less certain housing costs—owing to the extra help for VAT on domestic fuel.

  Fifteen million people gained from the extra help for VAT on domestic fuel which was announced last year. They include pensioners receiving retirement pension and those receiving income support, widow's benefit, invalidity benefit—to be replaced by long-term incapacity benefit—or severe disablement allowance. From April 1995, the total extra help will be up to £1 a week for a single person or £1.40 a week for a couple. This extra money is a permanent addition to benefit rates and will be subject to future upratings in the normal way.

  Social fund cold weather payments have already increased by £1 this month. From 1 November 1995 they will rise by a further £1.50 to £8.50. This increase is higher than the amount announced last year and will give substantial extra help to income support recipients who are pensioners, disabled people or have young children.

  Some key points of the 1995 increases are:

  Retirement Pension

  Retirement pension will rise by £1.55 to £59.15 per week for a single person and by £2.35 to £94.45 for a couple. In common with certain other benefits, these amounts include the extra help for the effect of VAT on fuel.

  Incapacity Benefit

  Incapacity benefit replaces sickness benefit and invalidity benefit from 13 April 1995, the initial basic rate of long-term incapacity benefit will be £59.15 per week. This represents a full increase in line with inflation compared with the previous rate of invalidity benefit, as well as including extra help for the effect of VAT on domestic fuel.

  Unemployment Benefit

  Unemployment benefit for a single person will rise from £45.45 to £46.45 per week.

  Child Benefit

  Child benefit will be fully uprated in line with prices; this means that the new rates will be £10.40 per week for the first or eldest eligible child and £8.45 for each subsequent child.

  War Pensions

  War pensions will, again, be uprated fully in line with prices. the 100 per cent. rate of basic war disablement pension will increase from £98.90 to £101.10 per week.

  Disability Working Allowance

  Disability working allowance will be uprated fully in line with the Rossi index. In addition, the allowance for couples/lone parents will rise from £63.75 to £73.70 per week and the threshold for single people will rise from £43 to £54.80 per week.

  A schedule of the main proposed social security benefit rates to April 1995 will be placed in the Library.

  Industrial Injury Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of restoring the reduction in industrial injury benefits made since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the cost involved.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what level the £35 limit above which occupational pensions are deducted from unemployment benefit could be raised without the cost exceeding the estimated saving from extending such deductions to people aged under 55 years.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Estimates of the precise level at which this occurs are not reliable as it is necessary to estimate the number of people who become entitled to contributory benefit because the limit has been raised, and estimating this number with accuracy becomes more difficult the higher the level of limit. However, it is estimated that the £35 per week limit above which occupational pensions are deducted from unemployment benefit could be raised to between £65 and £75.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates assumed 2.4 million unemployed claimants (GB) and 500,000 unemployment benefit claimants.

  2. Estimate assumes that the job seeker's allowance has been introduced and in particular that contributory benefit for the unemployed lasts for six months.

  3. Figure estimated using the PSM with 1990–91–92 FES data and 1994 unemployment benefit statistics.

  Benefits (Remortgages)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are the projected savings resulting from the cessation of payments in respect of concomitant interest in respect of remortgages;

  (2) how many people claiming income support have sold their property since May 1994 following non-payment by the Department of the concomitant interest payments to cover remortgage payments;

  (3) if he will make a statement regarding concomitant interest payments;

  (4) how many people claiming income support who have remortgaged their home have not been paid concomitant interest payments by his Department since the rule change of May 1994;

  (5) what the projected year-on-year figures are for concomitant interest payments in the years 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The effect of the change to the rules on income support help with mortgage interest payments that came into effect on 2 May 1994 was to stop benefit from being increased to meet the interest on loans that people take out while they are receiving income support. Loans that result from the special needs of disabled person, the need to provide separate sleeping accommodation for children of different sexes over the age of 10 years or for essential repairs and improvements are excluded from this restriction. Where remortgages are concerned, income support continues to be able to held with the interest on the parts of a remortgage that were taken out to pay off loans, or parts of loans, that would have been eligible for benefit had they not been paid off. The new rules only apply if the amount of interest that has to be met has increased as a result of the remortgage, and this increase is not covered by one of the exempt categories.

  We have no evidence of anyone having sold their property as a result of the rule change. The other information that has been requested is not available.

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans exist to reform provision with regard to war pensioners.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None.

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new advice he has received from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on medical conditions caused by exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  I have received no new advice. The council keeps developments in the field of occupational diseases under review. I understand that the council's research working group is aware of reports on the links between organophosphates and health.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Opportunities
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to create employment opportunities for 16 to 25-year-olds.

  Mr. Paice
  The Government will continue with the policies that have already reduced unemployment among young people under 25 by over 100,000 in the last year and given the United Kingdom an unemployment rate for this age group among the lowest in Europe.

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives his Department has undertaken to reduce unemployment rates among the over-50 age group.

  Miss. Widdecombe
  The Government have introduced a number of measures to reduce unemployment among the over-50 age group.

  Training (Women)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action his Department is taking to promote training for women returning to the labour market after having children.

  Miss. Widdecombe
  The Department is promoting training and employment opportunities for women through its new horizons and fair play initiatives. Women who wish to return to work can enter training for work without having to be registered as unemployed for six months.

  European Union (Discussions)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last discussed the issue of unemployment with Employment Ministers of other member states of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.
  633
  Mr. Portillo
  Unemployment has naturally figured prominently in the discussions I have had with my counterparts. I want to make sure that it moves to the top of the Community's agenda.

  Regional Expenditure
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's expenditure per head of population in the south-west; and what is his Department's average expenditure per head for all English regions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not possible to give a comprehensive and accurate comparison of the Department's expenditure between the south-west and other English regions because much of the Department's budget is managed on a national, rather than regional basis and because not all the Department's activities are organised within common regional boundaries.

  Stress
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effect of stress on employees.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In December 1993, the Health and Safety Executive published a major review of the scientific literature on the nature, causes and effects of occupational stress. A copy of the review, which was undertaken on HSE's behalf by Professor Tom Cox of Nottingham university, was placed in the Library.

  Coalfield Communities Campaign
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the coalfield communities campaign to discuss employment issues.

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend has not been asked to meet representatives of the coalfield communities campaign.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many adult males were placed in full-time employment in the month covered by the most recently published statistics on unemployment.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Past surveys indicate that the majority of people who leave unemployment go into jobs.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current figures for unemployment(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European Union countries and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The United Kingdom unemployment rate is lower than that for all EU countries except Portugal and Luxembourg. Details are provided in the following table:

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in EU countries

  Latest Month

  Belgium

  10.1 (September)

  Denmark

  9.8 (September)

  Germany1

  —

  Greece2

  —

  Spain

  21.9 (September)

  France

  11.3 (September)

  Ireland

  17.5 (September)

  Italy

  11.9 (September)

  634

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in EU countries

  Latest Month

  Luxembourg

  3.4 (September)

  Netherlands

  9.9 (August)

  Portugal

  6.0 (September)

  United Kingdom

  9.0 (September)

  EC Average

  10.7 (September)

  Notes:

  1 No ILO rate available for unified Germany.

  2 Only 1991 annual average figures available for Greece.

  Source:

  Statistical Office of the European Community Unemployment Bulletin.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed regionally and nationally for each year since 1979 for less than eight hours per week; and to what extent they are counted by his Department as being in work.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information could be provided from the labour force survey only at a disproportionate cost. Data from 1984 onwards may be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  The definition of employment used by the LFS follows the guidelines of the International Labour Organisation. This counts as "in employment" everyone who did at least one hour of paid work in the reference week.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what were the median and modal age by gender, both regionally and nationally, of those workers with two or more part-time jobs aged(a) 21 to 24 years, (b) 25 to 34 years, (c) 35 to 54 years and (d) 55 years and over in each year since 1979;

  (2) what were the regional and national numbers of jobless two-adult households who have been without work for (a) six months, (b) one year and (c) two years and over in each year since 1979 to date;

  (3) if he will list the numbers of unemployed, both regionally and nationally, for white collar occupations, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information could be provided from the labour force survey only at a disproportionate cost. Data from 1984 onwards may be obtained via the Quantime LFS service available in the Library.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United kingdom are in work, as a percentage of the total population of working age; and what are the comparable figures for the other G7 countries.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is given in the following table:

  Total employment as a percentage of the population aged 15 to 64 in the G7 nations; 19921

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  68

  Germany

  66

  France

  60

  Italy2

  56

  USA

  71

  Canada

  64

  Japan

  74

  Source:

  OECD, except United Kingdom—Employment Department.

  1 1992 is the latest year for which comparable data are available.

  2 Aged 14 to 64 years.

  635
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of part-time jobs are taken by women with an earning partner.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Latest estimates from the spring 1994 labour force survey for Great Britain show that 58 per cent. of the people whose main job was part-time were women with a partner in employment.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United Kingdom are in work, as a proportion of the total population of working age; and what are the figures in other major EU countries.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is given in the following table:

  Total Employment as a Percentage of the Population aged 15 to 64 in the major EU Countries: 19921

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  68

  Germany

  66

  France

  60

  Italy2

  56

  Source:

  OECD, except United Kingdom—Employment Department.

  1 1992 is the latest year for which comparable data are available.

  2Aged 14 to 16 years.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was(a) the number of adult male part-time workers in Great Britain in April 1993 and (b) the proportion of those workers whose earnings, excluding overtime, fell below (i) £5.88 per hour, (ii) £5.53 per hour, (iii) £4.15 per hour, (iv) £4 per hour, (v) £3.50 per hour, (vi) £3 per hour and (vii) £2.50 per hour;

  (2) if he will list the proportions of manual, non-manual and all full-time (a) male and (b) female employees earning less per week than (i) £221.50, (ii) £208.53, (iii) £156.40, (iv) £150.80, (v) £131.95 and (vi) £94.25 excluding overtime payments (1) by standard economic region, (2) for Great Britain as a whole and (3) for Northern Ireland;

  (3) what was (a) the number of adult female part-time workers in Great Britain in April 1993 and (b) the proportion of those workers whose earnings, excluding overtime, fell below (i) £5.88 per hour, (ii) £5.53 per hour, (iii) £4.15 per hour, (iv) £4 per hour, (v) £3.50 per hour, (vi) £3 per hour and (vii) £2.50 per hour;

  (4) if he will list the proportion of (i) full-time employees earning less per week than (a) £221.50, (b) £208.53, (c) £156.40, (d) £150.80, (e) £131.95, (f) £113.10 and (g) £94.25 excluding overtime payments and (ii) part-time employees earning less per hour than (1) £5.88 per hour, (2) £5.53 per hour, (3) £4.15 per hour, (4) £4 per hour, (5) £3.50 per hour, (6) £3 per hour and (7) £2.50 excluding overtime payments, indicating (i) and (ii) in relation to (I) Great Britain as a whole, (II) each county in England, (III) each county in Wales, (IV) each London borough and Greater London as a whole and (V) each regional authority and borough in Scotland.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers are on(a) part-time contracts and (b) short-term full-time contracts; and, for
  636
  each category, how many are (i) female and (ii) male; and if he will further break down the figures by standard region.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information is available from the labour force survey on the numbers of part-time and full-time employees who report that they are working under a contract for a fixed period or for a fixed task.

  The information for spring 1994 is shown in the following table.

  Part-time and full-time employees on fixed-term contracts

  Thousands Part-time

  not seasonally adjusted Full-time

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  South East

  18

  78

  93

  65

  -Greater London

  1—

  29

  36

  30

  -rest of SE

  11

  49

  57

  36

  East Anglia

  1—

  1—

  11

  1—

  South West

  1—

  15

  16

  15

  West Midlands

  1—

  18

  19

  13

  East Midlands

  1—

  18

  14

  11

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1—

  14

  31

  19

  North West

  1—

  23

  27

  22

  North

  1—

  12

  23

  10

  Wales

  1—

  1—

  11

  1—

  Scotland

  1—

  17

  34

  20

  Northern Ireland

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Great Britain

  53

  211

  280

  189

  United Kingdom

  54

  214

  284

  192

  1 Under 10,000 and so not shown

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if children under 15 currently working in factories and businesses are included in his Department's statistics as employed persons.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The labour force survey measure of employment only includes persons of age 16 years and over. Employment estimates derived from the employer-based survey make no reference to the age of the employee.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what he attributes the current changes in unemployment figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: Unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom over the past year than in any other EU country, and has fallen by over 450,000 since recovery in the labour market began. On internationally comparable figures, released last week by the Statistical Office of the European Communities, the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is nearly two percentage points below the EU average. I attribute this to the pursuit of sound macro-economic policies promoting strong economic growth with low inflation, active measures to help people back to work and the avoidance or removal of unnecessary regulations that obstruct enterprise, competition, and job creation.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes there have been in the number
  637
  of 16 and 17-year-olds on youth training schemes, nationally, regionally and in Nottingham in the last year.

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Youth training (including Youth Credits) change in in-training from August 1993 to August 1994

  15 August 1993

  14 August 1994

  Change over period (percentage)

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  4,160

  3,870

  -7

  South East

  25,000

  26,200

  +5

  London

  19,200

  18,200

  -5

  Eastern

  20,200

  21,900

  +8

  South West

  19,800

  18,000

  -9

  West Midlands

  27,100

  27,400

  +1

  East Midlands

  23,000

  22,600

  -2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28,700

  27,200

  -5

  Merseyside

  12,400

  13,500

  +9

  North West

  35,200

  37,500

  +7

  North East

  20,800

  18,700

  -10

  Wales

  15,100

  14,200

  -6

  Scotland

  33,500

  31,900

  -5

  Great Britain

  280,000

  277,100

  -1

  Source:

  TEC operating agreement—Annex J Scottish and Welsh Offices.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in the United Kingdom have either education or training places; and what the figures were in 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Some 1.1 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the United Kingdom were participating in education and training in spring 1994 compared with 1 million in spring 1984—the earliest year for which information is available. This represents an increase from 54 per cent. to 84 per cent. of the age group as a whole.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Construction Industry training board to discuss youth training on construction sites.

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Construction Industry Training Board chairman recently and discussed youth training and other matters. There are no plans to meet him again in the near future.

  Older Workers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives his Department has undertaken to improve the training prospects of older workers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our "Getting On" campaign encourages employers to develop and train their staff regardless of age.

  Unemployed older people are eligible for all the Government's employment and training programmes according to normal criteria.

  Priority Suppliers Scheme
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest position on the priority suppliers scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government were forced to abolish the priority suppliers scheme because it was 638
  incompatible with EC law. The European Commission has confirmed that the PSS was illegal and could not be continued. The Government undertook to discuss the matter with the European Commission and to reintroduce a scheme if that was possible.

  In the discussions with the European Commission the Government have sought to establish whether any preferential purchase arrangements for Remploy and other sheltered workshops can be operated within the law.

  We have just concluded our talks with the Commission. A new scheme can be introduced but it has to be different from the PSS in two ways. First, to conform with treaty requirements, access to the scheme has to be extended beyond British suppliers to comparable ones in every country of the European Union and the European economic area. "Comparability" will be defined by reference to eligibility criteria which broadly reflect our own criteria for funding supported workshops. Those include requirements that the organisation be a non-profit-distributing body; at least 50 per cent. of its work force must be severely disabled employees engaged in work which makes a genuine contribution to the organisations's business; and employees must be paid the same or closely equivalent wages as non-disabled employees doing the same or similar work. To enable workshops in all member states—which satisfy these criteria—to register their interest, an announcement will be made annually in the EC Official Journal.

  The second change is that the scheme will have to be confined to contracts below the relevant threshold above which the EC directives—93/36/EEC and 92/50/EEC—and the general agreement on tariffs and trade Government procurement agreement apply. Those thresholds are currently £96,403 for Government supplies contracts and £149,728 for some textiles products purchased by the Ministry of Defence.

  The new arrangement, which will be known as the special contracts arrangement, will like its predecessor help eligible supported workshops for severely disabled people to compete for business with United Kingdom Government Departments and their agencies: it will be administered by the Employment Service, which will circulate to Departments and their agencies details of the organisations registered under the scheme, and their products. When awarding contracts covered by this scheme, Departments will be expected to award a contract to an eligible contractor if its tender provides the same value for money as the best rival tender, and provided all other tender requirements are acceptable. Where a tender was unacceptable on price alone there would, as under the previous scheme, be an opportunity to submit a revised tender for part or all of a contract.

  Although we believe that the special contracts arrangement will be of some benefit, there remains the more fundamental problem of increasing competitive pressure, particularly in the textiles and clothing trade, from low cost producers beyond the EC. We shall continue to work with Remploy and other supported employers as they adapt to meet the challenges of the changing business environment.

  The fact that we needed to end the PSS has never put in question the Government's commitment to make payment to Remploy or similar bodies to compensate them for the extra cost of employing disabled people. That is a principle to which we remain committed. The sum of more than £140 million that the Government make

  639
  available for the supported employment programme has never been in doubt.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the training and enterprise councils to discuss TEC budgets.

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the TECs representatives to discuss a wide range of topics, including TEC budgets.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made with the arrangements to introduce three-year licences for TECs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to be able to announce that 12 training and enterprise councils have completed the process of meeting the rigorous standards we set for the award of the new 3-year licence. The licences will be effective from April 1995. The TECs are:

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  HAWTEC—Hereford and Worcester

  Humberside

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  North Derbyshire

  North Nottinghamshire

  Northumberland

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  South and East Cheshire

  Sunderland City

  A number of other TECs are close to completing the process. I expect to make further announcements shortly of TECs to be awarded licences from April 1995.

  Our expectation is that the introduction of licensing for all English TECs will take until 1997. Licensing is one part of the contract framework between Government and TECs which is designed to support continuous improvement in their performance, value for money and accountability across all that they do.

  To be awarded a licence, a TEC must meet rigorous criteria. These cover the TECs corporate plan and its strategic impact in working with other local bodies, its performance on the main programmes funded by the Government and other areas of its capability as an organisation.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the reduction in unemployment in(a) Britain and (b) other major EU countries.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The latest internationally comparable statistics from Eurostat show that the fall in the United Kingdom's unemployment rate over the past year has been greater than in any other country in the European Union.

  Statistics and Research
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money his Department will spend this year on statistics and research.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The running costs and programme expenditure of statistical services division and economics,640
  research and evaluation division in Employment Department headquarters amount to £23.8 million in 1994–95.

  Not all this total relates to the collection of information or pure research. A significant proportion of the work of the divisions concerned involved the provision of statistical and economic advice and also evaluation.

  Crown Enforcement Notices
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspections have been carried out into Crown premises in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for trends in the number of Crown enforcement notices requiring improvements within the meaning of his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 535.

  Mr, Oppenheim
  Information is not available on the number of inspections of Crown premises. There was a significant reduction in the number of Crown enforcement notices in 1986–87 when Crown immunity was removed from the national health service.

  Psychological Testing
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what studies his Department has undertaken into the use of psychological testing for employment.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In the late 1980s, the Department published the policy document "Assessment Through Psychological Testing". Subsequently, we published the report "Review of Psychometric Tests for Assessment in Vocational Training", which is now maintained by the British Psychological Society.

  We have also funded two studies of employers' recruitment practices in relation to young people, which were completed in 1992 and 1993 respectively. These studies "The Selection of Young People by Medium Sized and Large Organisations" and "The Recruitment and Selection of Young People by Small Firms", both included psychological testing among the range of recruitment practices covered.

  In addition, we are funding a project in the Tower Hamlets area on psychometric testing and the ethnic minorities. This is currently in progress.

  Output-related Funding
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the reply, 21 Novermber,Official Report, column 42, how many representations he has received, and how many were in favour and how many against output-related funding.

  Mr. Paice
  It is not possible to quantify the number of representations, which have been made from many quarters over many years. Although some representations have drawn attention to potential difficulties, there has been much support, particularly from training and enterprise councils.

  European Court
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the implications for Britain of the judgment of the European
  641
  Court in the case of Raymond van der Elst and the French Office des Migrations Internationale.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Employment Department, together with the Home Office, is considering the judgment of the European Court in this case and any implications there may be for the United Kingdom.

  Graduates
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list numbers and percentages of

  Unemployment among new graduates, United Kingdom 1979–80 to 1985–86

  Number and percentages of all graduates, of known destination, in each subject group

  1979–80

  1981–82

  1983–84

  1985–86

  Male/Female

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Education

  Per cent.

  3.2

  12.6

  4.8

  12.1

  4.6

  5.2

  4.5

  4.6

  Number

  15

  62

  21

  105

  21

  46

  10

  33

  Medicine, Dentistry and Health

  Per cent.

  0.7

  1.0

  0.8

  1.0

  0.6

  1.2

  0.9

  1.1

  Number

  23

  21

  27

  23

  20

  30

  26

  32

  Engineering and Technology

  Per cent.

  4.8

  4.2

  8.9

  8.8

  5.5

  5.3

  5.1

  4.7

  Number

  401

  20

  786

  58

  496

  42

  376

  32

  Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary

  Per cent.

  8.3

  8.5

  12.4

  16.1

  11.3

  12.8

  5.1

  5.9

  Science

  Number

  65

  36

  96

  67

  88

  55

  34

  29

  Science

  Per cent.

  10.8

  7.6

  17.3

  11.6

  11.7

  8.9

  9.3

  6.1

  Number

  1,020

  343

  1,732

  588

  1,223

  483

  875

  319

  Administration, Business and Social

  Per cent.

  10.2

  8.3

  14.0

  11.6

  10.8

  8.2

  7.0

  5.9

  Studies

  Number

  1,005

  515

  1,384

  826

  995

  601

  487

  339

  Architecture and other Professional and

  Per cent.

  6.8

  5.3

  4.1

  6.9

  3.9

  5.2

  2.6

  2.7

  Vocational Subjects

  Number

  46

  15

  26

  24

  25

  20

  18

  6

  Language, Literature and Area Studies

  Per cent.

  15.4

  9.2

  19.1

  13.1

  15.1

  9.9

  11.7

  7.2

  Number

  414

  461

  490

  727

  376

  554

  227

  357

  Arts other than languages

  Per cent.

  13.2

  10.1

  22.2

  14.7

  16.3

  11.7

  11.3

  9.0

  Number

  361

  297

  609

  481

  434

  370

  288

  237

  Multi-disciplinary Studies1

  Per cent.

  11.3

  8.2

  Number

  374

  249

  Total

  Per cent.

  8.8

  7.8

  13.3

  11.3

  9.5

  8.2

  7.5

  6.1

  Number

  3,350

  1,770

  5,171

  2,899

  3,678

  2,201

  2,715

  1,633

  1 Only available after 1985.

  Unemployment among new graduates, United Kingdom 1987–88 to 1992–93

  Number and percentages of all graduates, of known destination, in each subject group

  1987–88

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Male/Female

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Education

  Per cent.

  2.3

  2.1

  2.7

  1.9

  5.7

  3.8

  5.4

  4.3

  Number

  7

  19

  7

  19

  41

  36

  19

  48

  Medicine, Dentistry and Health

  Per cent.

  0.5

  0.7

  0.7

  0.8

  1.3

  1.6

  1.4

  1.9

  Number

  14

  24

  20

  28

  17

  58

  42

  71

  Engineering and Technology

  Per cent.

  3.2

  1.6

  8.1

  5.8

  10.6

  7.9

  10.7

  7.3

  Number

  242

  13

  343

  27

  825

  99

  897

  96

  Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary

  Per cent.

  4.6

  4.5

  9.34

  5.51

  10.1

  7.88

  9.2

  7.3

  Science

  Number

  31

  24

  47

  30

  55

  39

  51

  39

  642
  Unemployed graduates by subject group since 1979 to date, broken down by gender.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The table provides the data requested for alternate years up to 1992 and for 1993. The data have been compiled from annual reports published by the Universities Statistical Record on surveys of the first destinations of new graduates. They refer to the position of graduates at the end of the calender year in which they graduated and they exclude graduates from institutions which did not have university status prior to 1992.
  643

  Unemployment among new graduates, United Kingdom 1987–88 to 1992–93

  Number and percentages of all graduates, of known destination, in each subject group

  1987–88

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Male/Female

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Science

  Per cent.

  6.9

  4.6

  5.2

  4.9

  14.9

  9.6

  13.6

  8.6

  Number

  659

  248

  643

  311

  1,593

  644

  1,502

  627

  Administration, Business and Social

  Per cent.

  5.5

  4.6

  4.8

  2.6

  10.9

  7.8

  9.7

  6.4

  Studies

  Number

  411

  289

  475

  340

  921

  589

  832

  511

  Architecture and other Professional and

  Per cent.

  1.9

  2.8

  11.2

  8.5

  14.3

  10.2

  10.7

  4.8

  Number

  12

  7

  36

  7

  116

  31

  95

  16

  Language, Literature and Area Studies

  Per cent.

  9.1

  6.0

  11.2

  8.5

  16.1

  10.1

  15.9

  7.9

  Vocational Subjects

  Number

  173

  291

  223

  383

  335

  536

  357

  454

  Arts other than languages

  Per cent.

  10.5

  7.3

  9.0

  8.0

  17.5

  10.8

  15.7

  9.4

  Number

  287

  205

  295

  230

  536

  355

  521

  338

  Multi-disciplinary Studies

  Per cent.

  8.1

  6.9

  10.4

  7.9

  14.5

  10.9

  14.4

  8.4

  Number

  289

  226

  621

  303

  611

  464

  623

  386

  Total

  Per cent.

  5.7

  4.8

  7.1

  5.6

  12.3

  8.5

  11.6

  7.1

  Number

  2,125

  1,346

  2,710

  1,678

  5,050

  2,851

  4,939

  2,586

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the definition of other contractual benefits besides salary for a woman on 14 weeks maternity leave under regulations in force since 16 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: A woman absent from work on statutory maternity leave is entitled to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have been applicable to her if she had not been absent, with the exception of remuneration. This is under section 33 of the Employment

  Outstanding debt at end of year

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  £ million 1993–94

  Bolton

  245

  241

  234

  215

  216

  146

  152

  Bury

  108

  110

  118

  117

  115

  82

  80

  Manch

  ester

  1,138

  1,096

  1,129

  1,275

  1,382

  1,326

  1,277

  Oldham

  279

  287

  292

  274

  274

  242

  242

  Rochdale

  216

  228

  —

  248

  278

  212

  204

  Salford

  420

  428

  437

  450

  467

  403

  376

  Stockport

  151

  160

  163

  165

  156

  116

  104

  Tameside

  224

  217

  219

  248

  262

  186

  183

  Trafford

  99

  118

  118

  113

  109

  81

  82

  Wigan

  303

  303

  317

  276

  278

  250

  237

  Total

  3,183

  3,188

  —

  3,381

  3,538

  3,045

  2,937

  Note:

  In addition, debt inherited from the former Greater Manchester county council amounts to £260 million.

  1 The debt of most housing authorities was reduced in 1992–93 as the result of the commutation of certain loan charge grants in October 1992.

  Sources:

  1987–88 to 1989–90—Outstanding loan debt, capital outturn returns.

  1990–91 to 1993–94—Total external debt, borrowing and lending surveys and PWLB.
  644
  Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as inserted by section 23 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of debt for each local authority in Greater Manchester, the current figure for each year since 1987–88 and the totals for the whole Greater Manchester metropolitan area.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Under-occupation
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent of under-occupation in(a) the rented and (b) owner-occupied sectors.

  Households with more bedrooms than the bedroom standard 1993–94

  Thousands

  Number of bedrooms more than bedroom standard

  Tenure

  One

  Two

  Three or more

  Tenants

  2,120

  810

  70

  Owner-occupiers

  5,450

  4,300

  980

  These figures are from the 1993–94 survey of English housing and are subject to sampling error.

  Homelessness Data
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has done into the accuracy of homelessness data used by his Department in the standard spending assessment formula.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department is currently undertaking research on the impact of the 1991 homelessness code of guidance. One of the areas covered by this research is the consistency of authorities' statistical returns.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities about the accuracy and appropriateness of using homelessness figures as an indicator within the standard spending assessment formula.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Since the 1994–95 settlement, the following local authorities have made representations on the use of homelessness data:

  Coventry city council

  Dudley metropolitan borough council

  London borough of Newham

  London borough of Hounslow

  London borough of Islington

  Avon county council

  Barrow borough council

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of appeals outstanding against the 1988 uniform business rate valuation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  At the end of September, there were around 235,000 1990 non-domestic rating appeals outstanding with valuation tribunals in England, the vast majority of which were made after the initial appeal period to reflect changes in material circumstances.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to deregulate the radioactive nuclear waste industry and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Proposed changes to the regulatory responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were contained in paragraph 194 of the Department's consultation paper "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions",
  646
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent of under-occupation in the(a) rented and (b) owner-occupied sectors.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The latest estimates for England are as follows:

  published in August. Copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 39 dump sites identified as suitable for placing low-level radioactive nuclear waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  A recent press release by Greenpeace listed 37 landfill sites which are, or have in the past, received low-level radioactive waste for disposal by controlled burial. Ten of these sites are in Scotland and the information relating to Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution currently monitors and publicly reports upon the remaining 27 sites in England and Wales. A number of these sites are now closed or do not now receive radioactive waste for disposal. The sites which are specified in the authorisations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, and which currently receive such waste are listed

  Milton Landfill, Cambridge

  Cowpen Bewley Tip, Cleveland

  Waste Ponds, Walney Island, Cumbria

  Hilts Quarry, Derbyshire

  Magnesium Elktron site, Greater Manchester

  Cilgwyn Quarry, Gwynedd

  Braziers Landfill, Hertfordshire

  SCM Chemicals site, Humberside

  Clifton Marsh, Lancashire

  Sefton Meadows Tip, Merseyside

  Beighton Tip, South Yorkshire

  Beddingham Quarry, Sussex

  Four of these 12 sites receive low-level radioactive waste from premises licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, and which are local to the site of burial. The remaining sites receive waste generated by activities which are not a part of the nuclear industry, most commonly hospitals and universities.

  Authority to make controlled burials is granted only after a comprehensive assessment of waste producer's application and of the site it proposes. There are no outstanding applications for authorisation to make controlled burials of waste generated at nuclear sites, or for additional producers of waste to make consignments to sites currently used by others.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to(a) dry storage at the site of production and (b) other alternative methods of dumping of radioactive nuclear waste.
  647
  Mr. Atkins
  A consultation document containing the preliminary conclusions of the Government's review of radioactive waste management policy was published in August and copies placed in the Library of the House. The responses are now being considered and a statement of future policy will be made in due course.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what responses his Department has received to the consultation document "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", published on 5 August 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has received more than 250 responses to the consultation document. A list of these has been placed in the Library of the House and copies of individual responses may be obtained through the Library. In addition, we have received over 5,000 letters from members of the public following campaigns by Greenpeace. All the points raised are receiving careful consideration.

  Anti-social Tenants
  Mr. Thurnham
  : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to encourage local authorities to make use of injunctions and civil actions to deal with anti-social tenants in council housing.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government encourage local authorities to develop a variety of strategies and practices to deal with anti-social behaviour, which include the use of injunctions and other appropriate remedies.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers local authorities have to evict anti-social tenants.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities have powers under the Housing Act 1985 to evict anti-social tenants. Breaking tenancy agreements and causing a nuisance to neighbours are among the grounds for taking repossession action.

  Fly Posting
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to allow the organisers of events advertised through fly posting to be prosecuted.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is an immediate offence, under section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and regulation 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, to display an advertisement without the prior consent of the owner of the land, or premises, on which it is displayed. The maximum penalty on summary conviction of this offence is £1,000 with a daily penalty of £100 for a continuing offence. Paragraphs 51 and 52 of the annex to Department of the Environment circular 5/92 advise local planning authorities on effective prosecution procedures for fly posting.

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the current levels of elephant products stockpiled by range states and affected by CITES regulations.
  648
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The most recent information is contained in a paper by Tom Milliken of TRAFFIC East/South Africa, prepared for the meeting organised by the United Kingdom on behalf of the European Community and held in Kasane, Botswana from 19 to 23 September 1994. He estimates that the total volume of raw ivory held in the African range states is of the order of 500 tonnes. There is no quantified information on stockpiles of other elephant products, although South Africa does hold a stockpile of elephant hides. Copies of the report of the Kasane meeting and the background paper mentioned are in the Library.

  London Government
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who governs London; and what is their authority to do so.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The provision of public services in Greater London and its government is carried out by central Government Departments, centrally appointed bodies, the 32 London boroughs and the corporation of the City of London, and London-wide local government bodies. The authority for these bodies' responsibilities is conferred by legislation.

  Directorships
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 70, what rules apply to prevent possible conflicts of interest in cases where serving officials in his Department have held directorships in companies as part of the staff development programme involving contact between Whitehall and business.

  Mr. Robert B Jones
  Officials are not nominated for non-executive directorships of companies whose sector of business is the concern of their management or policy responsibilities in the Department. If they are posted to new official duties which create such a conflict of interest, they resign the directorship. In common with all members of staff, officials holding non-executive directorships are required to observe the Department's rules of conduct governing the use of official information and experience, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts; in particular, they should as directors declare an interest and withdraw from discussion of any dealings between the company concerned and the Department, and within the Department they should declare an interest and withdraw from any involvement in official business involving that company. In order to avoid personal financial interest officials do not receive fees for their directorships; in cases where fees are payable, they are surrendered to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 70, what considerations underlay the decision not to keep records of the public limited companies to which he refers.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The corporate status of the host organisation has not been relevant to the staff development objectives of non-executive directorships, which have been held in a variety of organisations, some not being companies. However, in all cases the same rules governing the avoidance of conflicts of interest have applied.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he gives to local authority unitary development plans when he arbitrates on planning permission appeals in respect of the turning down by local authorities of applications to develop open-cast mining sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  If the development plan is relevant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must determine the appeal in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is a statutory duty under section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the operation of which is explained in planning policy guidance note 1, "General Policy and Principles", a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Rented Homes
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total output of rented homes by housing associations and local authorities in the current year; what was the figure for 1978–79; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing. Local authorities primary housing tasks are now the efficient management of their own stock of housing and enabling other organisations to provide new housing. In England during 1978–79 local authorities completed 76,500 dwellings and new towns completed a further 8,000 new dwellings; during 1993–94 local authorities completed 1,400 new dwellings and by 1994–95 we expect this may have fallen to less than 1,000.

  Housing associations provide additional rented homes through new build and through rehabilitation. In England during 1978–79 they provided some 33,600 new rented homes in this way. We currently forecast that in 1994–95 housing associations will provide 41,800 new rented homes through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. We also estimate that local authority supported housing association activity will provide in the region of 10,000 new homes in 1994–95.

  In addition, the cash incentive scheme for local authority tenants; the tenants incentive scheme, for housing association tenants; and the 60 per cent of do-it-yourself shared ownership help social sector tenants to become owner-occupiers and so free up existing properties for re-letting to new tenants. These schemes were not in existence in 1978–79. We currently estimate that in 1994–95 some 13,000 new housing association and local authority lettings will be provided in this way.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the burning of orimulsion in power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have received no representations about the burning of orimulsion in power stations this calendar year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his estimate of the non-domestic rate poundage for next year;
  650
  (2) if he has decided the details of the transitional arrangements to phase in the effects of the 1995 revaluation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The 1995 revaluation will not lead to any significant change in overall rateable value in England. We therefore propose to set the poundage for England next year at 43.2p, in line with the increase in the retail prices index in the year to September 1994.

  However, the revaluation will result in significant local and sectoral shifts in rateable values. My Department's consultation paper, published last month, outlined proposals for transitional arrangements to phase in the effects of these shifts on rate bills. In the light of responses to that paper, and the generous package of support announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor today, I now propose that no business will face year on year increases of more than 10 per cent., after allowing for inflation. For property with a new rateable value of less than £10,000—£15,000 in London—the maximum real increase will be 7.5 per cent., while for many small shops combined with living accommodation, the corresponding limit will be 5 per cent.

  We estimate that nearly 1 million smaller properties and 250,000 million larger properties in England will benefit from relief. One third of beneficiaries will be shops. A further 170,000 properties will see reductions in their bills as a result of the revaluation. I am sure this will be widely welcomed by the business community.

  The Exchequer contribution will cover part of the cost of the scheme. The remaining element will be met by limiting real reductions in rates bills, as proposed in the consultation paper. For 1995–96, the limits will be 10 per cent. for small properties and 5 per cent. for large ones.

  Other details of the scheme will be as proposed in the consultation paper. Regulations giving effect to these changes will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for the appropriate level of aggregate local authority spending in 1995–96, and the level of central support for that spending.

  Mr. Gummer
  I propose that total standard spending for 1995–96 should be £43.51 billion for England. This represents an increase of £930 million—2.2 per cent.—compared with this year's figure, including the amount for transitional community care special grant and provision for local government reorganisation transitional costs. Excluding community care and reorganisation, this still represents a cash increase of 0.8 per cent.

  I propose that the level of aggregate external finance distributed to local authorities in 1995–96 should be £34.67 billion. This represents an increase of £430 million—1.2 per cent.—compared with this year's figure, including community care. Net of community care, this represents a cash decrease of 0.4 per cent.

  I also propose that the national non-domestic rate poundage for 1995–96 in England should rise to 43.2p, reflecting this year's revaluation and the annual increase in the retail prices index to September. This will ensure that the benefit of the government's success in tackling inflation will once again be passed on in full to businesses.
  651
  I propose to set the distributable amount of non-domestic rates at £11.35 billion. I propose that the total of revenue support grant should be £18.32 billion. Special and specific grants within AEF will amount to £5 billion.

  I shall announce shortly my proposals for the distribution of Government grants, including my proposals for changes in the standard spending assessment methodology. At the same time, I shall announce my capping intentions. I shall also set out my proposals for the third year of the scheme of transitional assistance to those households which faced particularly significant increases in their local tax bills following the introduction of the council tax.

  It is essential that local and central Government continue to play their part in restraining expenditure. Our overriding priority is to reduce the public sector deficit. My proposals for total standard spending, aggregate external finance and the non-domestic rate poundage represent a balanced approach to the funding of local authority services in 1995–96. I look to local authorities to take the same responsible attitude in determining their spending priorities and setting their budgets in 1995–96. However, in the context of a tough settlement, I am confident that with efficient housekeeping and efficient collection of the council tax, these proposals will allow local authorities to maintain their current levels of spending and carry out their functions.

  Consultants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what employment consultants were engaged between 1 January 1990 and 30 April 1992 by his Department or organisations responsible to it; for what posts; and when these posts were filled.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This information is not available centrally for non-departmental posts, and could not be assembled without disproportionate cost. Within the Department, the consultants used, posts to be filled and dates are as follows:Douglas Llambias Associates
  Chief Executive, The Buying Agency; filled 31 October 1991;
  Goddard Kay Rogers Associates Ltd.
  Chief Economist, Department of the Environment; filled 3 February 1992;
  MSL International
  Chief Executive, the Planning Inspectorate; filled 1 January 1992;
  NB Selection Ltd.
  Chief Executive, Royal Parks agency; filled 16 March 1992. Responsibility for this agency subsequently transferred to the Department of National Heritage.
  Saxton Bampflyde International plc
  Director, Property Holdings; filled 10 December 1990. Director and Chief Inspector, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of pollution; filled 1 May 1991. Chief Executive, Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre; filled 16 March 1992.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the contractual price agreed between the London residuary body and the Shirayama Corporation for the scale of the riverside building in the country hall complex; and how much of the sale price has now been received by the London residuary body.
  652
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The terms of the sale— including the sale price—of the riverside building of county hall were a matter of commercial confidentiality between the London residuary body and the purchaser. Some £50 million of the purchase price was distributed by the LRB to the London boroughs in proportion to the total populations of each borough in accordance with the London Government Reorganisation (Capital Money)(Greater London) (Amendment) Order 1993.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the remaining parts of the County hall complex to be sold; what is the estimated value of the unsold parts; and how much has been spent by the London residuary body in marketing the site.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The London residuary body has announced that the sale of the remainder of the county hall site is to be completed on 29 March 1995 and that the agreed purchase price is £17.5 million. The cost of marketing the site is a matter for the LRB.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the maintenance costs of county hall over the past two years; and how much relates to the riverside building.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This is a matter for the London residuary body.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to which property or properties the £10 million deferred capital receipt appearing in the London residuary body accounts for 1993–94 relates; and when he expects the receipt to be available for distribution to the London boroughs.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This is a matter for the London residuary body.

TRANSPORT

  Railways
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the current value of domestic and other properties acquired by the British Railways Board in pursuance of the building of a high-speed railway line between London and Dolland's Moor, broken down by(a) present market valuations, (b) cost of purchase and (c) present written down value in the books of (i) the British Railways Board, (ii) European Passenger Services Ltd. and (iii) any other public sector body;

  (2) how many properties were acquired by the British Railways Board in each borough or district along the route of the proposed high-speed railway line between London and Dolland's Moor; what was the cost of these acquisitions; how many properties have been subsequently disposed of and at what value; and what was the cost of the properties so disposed of.

  Mr. Watts
  All properties acquired in advance of need for the present channel tunnel rail link have been purchased by Union Railways, an agency company wholly owned by the British Railways Board. The present
  653
  market value and present book value is £13.9 million. Total purchase cost, including home loss and disturbance payments, where appropriate, was £38.8 million. The cost and number of these purchases by local authority area is:

  Local authority

  Cost (£ million)

  Number

  Shepway

  6.1

  42

  Ashford

  16.7

  111

  Maidstone

  9.6

  54

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  0.3

  2

  Camden

  6.1

  2

  None of these properties has been sold.

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if orange badges for disabled drivers issued by one local authority are accepted by others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Orange badges are valid throughout England, Scotland and Wales, except in the City of London, the city of Westminster, the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and a part of the London borough of Camden. Badges are also accepted under a similar parking scheme operating in Northern Ireland. In addition, access to certain town centres may be prohibited or limited to vehicles with special permits in addition to the orange badge.

  Commercial Vehicles (Testing)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to the introduction of a legal requirement that the large goods vehicle test be carried out on a fully laden vehicle.

  Mr. Norris
  We have considered the possibility of requiring large goods vehicles to be tested fully laden, most recently in the context of the initiative to facilitate a significant expansion of the arrangements for on-site testing by Vehicle Inspectorate staff at operators' own premises. We have concluded that this would impose an unnecessary cost burden on the road haulage industry.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by British Rail network those passenger train services that have not met their punctuality targets during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Watts
  Of British Rail's 52 route groups, the following have not met their punctuality targets over the 12-month period ending 11 November:

  South east routes

  LTS Rail

  Northampton Lines

  North London Lines

  Kent Link

  South London Lines

  Sussex Coast

  654

  Great Northern

  InterCity routes

  Gatwick Express

  Cross Country

  East Coast

  Midland Mainline

  West Coast

  Regional routes

  Merseyrail City Line

  West Yorkshire Short

  Lancashire Local

  Manchester Local

  North Wales Branches

  ScotRail East

  ScotRail Central

  Avon

  Central Inter Urban

  Mid Wales & Marches

  Transpennine

  Red Routes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the purposes of red routes.

  Mr. Norris
  The aims of the red routes are set out in chapter 5 of "Traffic Management and Parking Guidance", local authority circular 5/92. A copy of the circular is in the Library.

  Buses (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of his negotiations with the European Commission for a directive to ensure that future generations of new buses will be more accessible to disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We have pressed for a number of changes to the proposed draft directive in the interests of safety, accessibility and the needs of bus and coach manufacturers and operators. We are currently awaiting revised proposals. Our aim, which we shall be taking forward in future discussions on the directive, is to ensure that low-floor buses are introduced where technically feasible.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles using the(a) A48, (b) A40, (c) B4136 and (d) B4215/4221 heading towards the Severn bridge since one-way tolls on the Severn bridge have been imposed.

  Mr. Watts
  In April and May this year, Gloucestershire county council carried out a traffic survey for the Highways Agency which indicated that 575 more heavy goods vehicles than would be expected, allowing for traffic growth, were travelling westbound on roads through Gloucestershire per 24-hour day. The increases by individual roads were:(a) A48, 200 HGVs; (b) A40/A4136, 200 HGVs; and, (c) B4215/134221, 175 HGVs. The eastbound HGV flows on these roads were slightly less than would have been expected.
  655
  Not all the extra vehicles could be positively identified as avoiding the Severn bridge because of the one-way tolls.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the bids made by each local

  Bids for 1995–96 included in transport policies and programme submissions—all figures are in £ thousands

  Authority

  Minor road schemes (TSG eligible)

  Minor road schemes (not TSG eligible)

  Structural maintenance on carriageway

  Structural maintenance on bridges

  Major public transport projects

  Minor works (other than local safety schemes)

  Mioner works (other safety schemes

  Parking

  Total

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  1,022

  —

  2,794

  —

  290

  4,106

  Barking

  1,630

  —

  696

  134

  —

  1,243

  600

  175

  4,478

  Barnet

  665

  —

  500

  300

  —

  5,806

  815

  —

  8,086

  Bexley

  10,362

  —

  1,310

  1,100

  —

  1,796

  700

  550

  15,818

  Brent

  400

  —

  1,165

  663

  —

  12,493

  3,601

  —

  18,322

  Bromley

  246

  850

  620

  370

  —

  1,416

  320

  51

  3,873

  Camden

  —

  —

  4,358

  2,981

  —

  1,783

  635

  —

  9,757

  Croydon

  5,039

  —

  2,340

  920

  —

  4,243

  1,760

  500

  14,802

  Ealing

  550

  —

  145

  126

  —

  6,738

  600

  300

  8,459

  Enfield

  846

  —

  2,775

  3,735

  —

  2,582

  855

  —

  10,793

  Greenwich

  3,900

  —

  717

  1,053

  —

  2,625

  660

  120

  9,075

  Hackney

  30

  —

  844

  2,662

  —

  4,751

  455

  —

  8,742

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  560

  1,380

  —

  6,746

  600

  600

  9,886

  Haringey

  1,365

  —

  620

  884

  700

  3,072

  370

  210

  7,221

  Harrow

  6,622

  —

  419

  1,245

  —

  2,772

  220

  —

  11,278

  Havering

  —

  —

  115

  850

  —

  1,402

  550

  589

  3,506

  Hillingdon

  3,289

  —

  598

  2,456

  —

  8,158

  2,968

  —

  17,469

  Hounslow

  1,652

  —

  1,831

  1,593

  —

  6,666

  1,355

  784

  13,881

  Islington

  —

  —

  1,330

  1,693

  —

  5,534

  1,414

  20

  9,991

  Kensington

  743

  —

  271

  175

  —

  1,165

  640

  —

  2,994

  Kingston

  9,562

  —

  1,110

  4,375

  —

  2,788

  746

  1,195

  19,776

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  1,043

  1,330

  —

  1,744

  766

  —

  4,883

  Lewisham

  3,428

  —

  424

  255

  —

  1,865

  1,194

  —

  7,166

  Merton

  10

  —

  175

  150

  —

  2,192

  870

  320

  3,717

  MNewham

  3,031

  —

  405

  4,361

  —

  4,782

  2,361

  1,915

  16,855

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  786

  1,200

  —

  5,578

  305

  183

  8,052

  Richomd

  —

  —

  217

  460

  —

  4,938

  830

  —

  6,445

  Southwark

  4,634

  —

  2,002

  1,155

  —

  1,590

  400

  —

  9,781

  Sutton

  811

  —

  170

  853

  —

  4,864

  760

  —

  7,458

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  2,160

  1,094

  —

  7,481

  578

  1,204

  12.517

  Waltham Forest

  742

  —

  320

  178

  —

  2,294

  845

  190

  4,569

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  1,000

  995

  —

  7,278

  2,400

  860

  12,533

  Westminster

  1,093

  4,912

  128

  5,565

  —

  2,772

  1,825

  790

  17,085

  Bolton

  1,614

  —

  1,114

  4,613

  —

  3,462

  348

  98

  11,213

  Bury

  —

  —

  1,026

  1,250

  —

  3,038

  315

  378

  6,007

  Manchester

  11,907

  725

  3,049

  3,339

  —

  10,054

  1,550

  —

  30,624

  Oldham

  3,000

  —

  1,006

  3,062

  —

  6,129

  660

  100

  13,957

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  1,000

  3,000

  —

  1,000

  274

  —

  5,274

  Salford

  10,971

  300

  1,927

  1,585

  —

  8,435

  1,621

  —

  24,839

  Stockport

  592

  —

  3,228

  3,294

  100

  6,080

  541

  300

  14,135

  Tameside

  2,125

  —

  1,500

  931

  —

  3,744

  350

  15

  8,800

  Trafford

  18,972

  —

  428508

  1,387

  —

  3,298

  377

  100

  24,562

  Wigan

  1,798

  —

  850

  1,390

  —

  7,861

  350

  150

  12,399

  Knowsley

  16,260

  —

  1,178

  405

  —

  3,792

  541

  470

  22,645

  Liverpool

  3,200

  —

  2,200

  1,200

  —

  5,440

  1,200

  250

  13,490

  St. Helens

  3,574

  —

  200

  300

  —

  930

  150

  15

  5,169

  Sefton

  3,103

  —

  524

  1,305

  —

  2,627

  395

  651

  8,605

  Wirral

  2,180

  —

  400

  2,145

  —

  2,748

  400

  —

  7,873

  Barnsley

  7,676

  —

  1,373

  1,399

  —

  2,022

  464

  —

  12,934

  Doncaster

  17,950

  —

  1,334

  2,625

  —

  2,021

  800

  780

  25,510

  Rotherham

  595

  —

  736

  2,740

  —

  1,945

  350

  —

  6,366

  Sheffield

  14,677

  —

  4,350

  6,024

  600

  11,180

  750

  70

  37,651

  Gateshead

  908

  —

  520

  660

  —

  4,220

  500

  250

  7,058

  Newcastle

  10,859

  —

  2,152

  2,835

  —

  1,856

  700

  —

  18,402

  North Tyneside

  450

  —

  1,490

  660

  —

  1,322

  300

  —

  4,222

  656
  authority in England for transport supplementary grant for 1995–96 broken down into (a) major highway schemes— eligible for TSG, (b) structural maintenance on carriageways, (c) structural maintenance on bridges, (d) major public transport projects, (e) minor works-highways and public transport, (f) minor works-local safety schemes and (g) parking.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures are shown in the following table:
  657

  Bids for 1995–96 included in transport policies and programme submissions—all figures are in £ thousands

  Authority

  Minor road schemes (TSG eligible)

  Minor road schemes (not TSG eligible)

  Structural maintenance on carriageway

  Structural maintenance on bridges

  Major public transport projects

  Minor works (other than local safety schemes)

  Mioner works (other safety schemes

  Parking

  Total

  South Tyneside

  66

  —

  370

  1,130

  —

  1,090

  360

  700

  3,716

  Sunderland

  2,525

  —

  2,828

  1,537

  —

  2,412

  1,250

  170

  10,722

  Birmingham

  30,602

  1,332

  4,565

  3,590

  —

  7,632

  1,585

  952

  50,258

  Coventry

  12,829

  —

  602

  857

  —

  1,220

  533

  —

  16,041

  Dudley

  13,288

  0

  1,608

  1,282

  0

  2,327

  690

  600

  19,795

  Sandwell

  5,758

  0

  3,135

  5,286

  0

  2,082

  738

  70

  17,069

  Solihull

  1,720

  0

  1,150

  469

  0

  646

  909

  1,250

  6,144

  Walsall

  3,342

  0

  1,280

  3,209

  0

  7,819

  850

  124

  16,624

  Wolverhampton

  11,524

  0

  3,306

  4,000

  0

  4,512

  820

  220

  24,382

  Bradford

  1,133

  0

  3,523

  4,161

  0

  6,561

  1,100

  0

  16,478

  Calderdale

  436

  0

  3,690

  2,318

  0

  2,372

  417

  0

  9,233

  Kirklees

  30

  54

  5,365

  2,283

  0

  6,163

  596

  100

  14,591

  Leeds

  18,655

  942

  4,000

  2,336

  2,750

  12,400

  1,825

  785

  43,693

  Wakefield

  9,490

  0

  1,628

  1,641

  0

  3,861

  1,230

  0

  17,850

  Avon

  9,493

  0

  3,505

  3,170

  5,020

  7,735

  1,261

  0

  30,184

  Bedfordshire

  8,895

  0

  1,476

  2,624

  500

  3,602

  751

  0

  17,848

  Berkshire

  9,844

  0

  2,202

  1,900

  0

  3,267

  1,746

  52

  19,011

  Buckinghamshire

  6,633

  75

  2,900

  1,800

  0

  2,290

  1,014

  1,060

  15,772

  Cambridgeshire

  4,020

  0

  3,901

  4,958

  0

  5,010

  3,030

  49

  20,968

  Cheshire

  20,816

  783

  15,841

  5,381

  0

  4,537

  900

  55

  48,313

  Cleveland

  10,540

  0

  3,148

  601

  0

  2,599

  786

  0

  17,674

  Cornwall

  7,535

  0

  3,439

  5,228

  0

  4,823

  830

  1,220

  23,075

  Cumbria

  5,930

  0

  3,000

  3,000

  0

  6,430

  600

  693

  19,653

  Derbyshire

  6,191

  0

  2,369

  2,650

  9,788

  5,745

  1,386

  549

  28,678

  Devon

  7,648

  292

  6,052

  5,342

  300

  8,054

  1,328

  576

  29,592

  Dorset

  2,300

  0

  1,800

  3,170

  0

  4,524

  806

  0

  12,600

  Durham

  7,735

  2,855

  2,095

  2,450

  0

  5,966

  500

  0

  21,601

  East Sussex

  10,244

  0

  4,924

  3,194

  4,000

  2,908

  791

  100

  26,161

  Essex

  9,689

  2,899

  5,900

  4,244

  0

  12,130

  3,620

  0

  38,482

  Gloucestershire

  6,633

  0

  2,548

  1,686

  0

  4,046

  937

  80

  15,930

  Hampshire

  17,353

  2,000

  12,241

  3,471

  0

  7,351

  2,379

  2,300

  47,095

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  6,424

  0

  5,406

  1,851

  0

  5,316

  797

  402

  20,196

  Hertfordshire

  9,120

  0

  3,500

  4,450

  0

  5,704

  2,500

  0

  25,274

  Humberside

  6,038

  720

  5,998

  2,912

  0

  3,653

  1,000

  120

  20,441

  Isle of Wight

  2,390

  0

  810

  320

  0

  3,919

  270

  0

  7,709

  Kent

  143,034

  1,800

  15,745

  5,987

  0

  13,216

  6,376

  0

  186,158

  Lancashire

  15,862

  0

  11,035

  16,043

  1,940

  9,030

  2,650

  3,550

  60,110

  Leicestershire

  4,829

  0

  4,414

  3,080

  6,091

  8,581

  2,005

  0

  29,000

  Lincolnshire

  2,420

  0

  2,808

  3,150

  0

  4,823

  650

  117

  13,968

  Norfolk

  11,553

  11

  5,522

  6,300

  0

  6,303

  5,315

  685

  35,689

  Northamptonshire

  6,398

  410

  4,686

  2,350

  0

  1,680

  1,100

  250

  16,874

  Northumberland

  10,110

  0

  5,000

  6,370

  0

  1,190

  765

  445

  23,880

  North Yorkshire

  10,529

  0

  7,241

  7,210

  0

  5,687

  910

  1,142

  32,719

  Nottinghamshire

  7,634

  112

  5,720

  3,120

  6,136

  13,120

  1,144

  1,664

  38,650

  Oxfordshire

  1,228

  4,045

  3,756

  2,792

  0

  1,253

  2,148

  708

  15,930

  Shropshire

  6,062

  0

  4,257

  2,568

  0

  9,474

  540

  0

  22,90

  Somerset

  10,051

  0

  2,568

  4,853

  0

  3,351

  867

  0

  21,690

  Staffordshire

  16,606

  0

  8,000

  2,400

  0

  7,084

  910

  0

  35,000

  Suffolk

  3,815

  2,200

  7,141

  5,200

  0

  14,470

  1,450

  945

  35,221

  Surrey

  30,735

  0

  8,213

  9,453

  0

  10,867

  9,150

  30

  68,448

  Warwickshire

  180

  0

  3,825

  2,850

  0

  2,960

  1,505

  74

  11,394

  West Sussex

  4,294

  4,414

  2,110

  737

  0

  3,336

  2,936

  2,025

  19,852

  Wiltshire

  3,702

  0

  2,320

  450

  0

  2,796

  763

  0

  10,031

  Greater Manchester PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  44,183

  8,523

  0

  0

  52,706

  Merseyside PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11,548

  25,725

  0

  0

  37,273

  South Yorkshire PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  72,020

  5,815

  0

  0

  77,835

  Tyne and Wear PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,765

  2,840

  0

  0

  4,605

  West Midlands PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24,572

  10,559

  0

  0

  35,131

  West Yorkshire PTE

  0

  0

  0

  0

  400

  290

  0

  0

  690

  Total

  768,972

  31,731

  297,205

  276,876

  192,413

  570,798

  127,252

  38,470

  2,303,717

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects the Government to publish 658
  their detailed response to the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the prevention of marine pollution from merchant shipping.
  659
  Mr. Norris
  Work is well advanced in taking forward the report's recommendations and in preparing a response. We believe that it makes sense to delay publication to take account of current developments in the European Community and in the International Maritime Organisation. As a consequence, we now hope to publish the response in the new year.

  Railways (Finance)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what external finance limit has been set for the railway industry for 1994–95; and what estimate he has made of Government grant support for 1994–95.

  Mr. Watts
  The external finance limit for the railway industry as a whole has now been set at £1,496 million. This represents an increase of £259 million on previous plans. The increase is met either from reallocations within existing Department of Transport programmes or from the reserve and does not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The British Rail and Railtrack EFLs have been set, respectively, at contributions of £272 million and £333 million and European Passenger Services EFL at a requirement of £177 million. Grant support, comprising franchising director and metropolitan railway grant, is estimated to be £1,924 million. Any further adjustments will be notified to Parliament.

  A2
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 21 November,Official Report, column 19, what arrangements he proposes for consulting the public on the proposed A2 Lydden-Dover improvement scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  I am pleased to announce that public consultation on this scheme will start at the end of this week with the local distribution of brochures describing the proposed improvement. Public exhibitions will be held on 9 and 10 December at Dover district council offices to give the public the opportunity of discussing the proposals with representatives of the Highways Agency and their consultants.

  Those wishing to comment on the proposals are invited to write to the Highways Agency before the end of the consultation period on 3 February.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 21 and 22 November.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 21 and 22 November. It agreed a resolution on ferry safety, calling for a number of detailed initiatives at International Maritime Organisation and Community level.

  A common position was reached on a directive giving the force of European Community law to the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control, which lays down rules for state inspection of foreign ships. At my request, the council agreed to call on the Commission to work with the countries of the Paris MOU group to monitor the standard of shipping in EC ports and
  660
  to report back to the council within a year with proposals for tougher measures as necessary.

  A draft directive on mandatory reporting by ships— EUROREP—was discussed. Much of the text was agreed by the council, but the key issues of concern to the United Kingdom—finalising reporting lines, adoption of EUROREP by the IMO and the directive's date of entry into force—were referred back to the committee of permanent representatives for further discussion.

  The Commission outlined a proposal to consider granting individual exemptions from competition rules to groups of shipping companies that offer multimodal rates, provided they improve the efficiency of their land-side operations. Some member states supported the proposal. I, supported by a number of other delegations, pressed for the proposal to be considered afresh, in consultation with the commercial parties involved and with our major trading partners. In the absence of consensus, the presidency concluded that the position should be closely monitored; that the council should be consulted immediately if there were any unforeseen difficulties; that the transition to the new approach should be conducted in a reasonable and flexible manner; and that in any event the Commission should report to the council on experience with the new approach.

  The council also formally adopted three measures on which it had previously reached a common position: a directive on the training and certification of seafarers, a directive on rules and standards for classification societies and a regulation on port fees for oil tankers.

  The council agreed a resolution calling for a European contribution to the development of a global satellite navigation system.

  It agreed that consideration of the negotiating mandates for aviation and land transport agreements and Switzerland should be resumed immediately, with a view to agreeing them, at the latest, at the next Transport Council in March 1995.

  There was an exchange of views on the scope of a draft directive on the interoperability of the high-speed train network. The matter was referred back to Coreper for further discussion.

  The council discussed a proposed directive on the appointment of dangerous goods advisers by companies concerned with the transport of dangerous goods. The United Kingdom, supported by a number of other delegations, questioned the need for such a directive. A compromise proposal was referred back to Coreper for further discussion.

  The council also discussed trans-European networks, air traffic management, road transport negotiations with eastern European countries and measures to help Community shipping. No votes were necessary.

  Bedford
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many letters he has received from the Bedford area on the desirability of urgently completing the bypassing arrangements for the town;

  (2) how many vehicles of all descriptions cross the (a) Newnham bridge, (b) Bedford Town bridge and (c) Prebend Street bridge in Bedford daily;

  (3) what he estimates to be the cost of constructing a mile of motorway; and what were the figures (a) 10 and (b) 20 yéars ago.
  661
  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Trevor Skeet, dated 29 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Questions about road schemes in Bedfordshire since these are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I will answer your questions in the order in which they appeared on the Order Papers for 22 and 23 November.

  22 November 1994
  35. The inclusion in the national roads programme of a bypass for any town is not dependent solely upon the size of that urban area. When assessing the inclusion of a potential scheme the Department must have particular regard to the benefits to local people, the levels of strategic traffic that will be removed from the town and to the benefits that will accrue to the national roads network.
  The roads programme includes bypass schemes for several other towns around the country that are of a similar size to Bedford, including Hastings, Wigan, Gateshead and Carlisle.
  36. The £38 million contract for the Bedford Southern Bypass, began in August this year and we expect the new road to open to traffic in Summer 1996.
  With regard to other parts of the full bypass, in April this year the Secretary of State for Transport announced the outcome of his Review of the roads programme which examined the relative merits, in terms of economic costs and benefits, environmental impact, and the contribution of trunk road schemes to the strategic network. The Review concluded that the proposals for Bedford are in the main sufficiently important to be taken forward but that there are other schemes nationally that are considered to require a higher priority.
  The A428–A421 element of the Bedford Western Bypass has been placed in the longer term category and will be developed by the Agency as the road programme rolls forward. A consortium of local development interests has however suggested that they could provide, at their own expense, a single carriageway link along the protected corridor for the bypass between the A428 and A421 as part of new development for which planning permission has been sought. Progress on the new scheme would depend on the decisions on the planning application.
  As you are aware, a public inquiry to hear objections to the proposals for the Norse Road link element of the Bedford Southern Bypass has been arranged for January next year. Progress on the scheme beyond that stage would be dependent upon the inquiry Inspector's Report and the joint decision of the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment.
  The Agency will progress these schemes as quickly as circumstances allow but their implementation is subject to the completion of the remaining statutory procedures and to the availability of resources.
  37. The Agency is not able to calculate a figure for any financial loss incurred by Bedford because it does not yet have a Bypass. We can, however, give an estimate of the benefits which would accrue generally from its construction and the relief it provides to the existing road network. Our cost/benefit computer programme (COBA) is used to calculate a monetary figure, which compares the cost of a new road with travel benefits, such as journey time, vehicle operating costs, and reduction in accidents. The figures are calculated over a 30 year period and discounted. A strongly positive figure represents good value for money.
  For the Bedford Southern Bypass the benefits could be as much as +£82.7 million, for Bedford Western Bypass +£41.1 million and for the Norse Road Link +£13.0 million. I emphasise that these figures represent the benefit accruing globally, not just to the towns or villages bypassed.
  38. Our forecasts suggest that traffic flows on the completed Bedford Southern Bypass will range between 17,000 to 23,000 vehicles (24 hour Average Annual Daily Traffic) along the length
  662
  of the scheme. This information is taken from the latest traffic model that is being prepared for use at the Norse Road Link public inquiry.
  The Southern Bypass will include a full grade separated junction with the A6 trunk road south of the town in order to allow easy access for traffic between the two routes. From this point the existing A6 route through Bedford will be available for traffic travelling to and from the north.
  39. In the past ten years £31,085,158 has been spent on trunk road schemes in northern Bedfordshire, £43,577,768 has been spent in the south of the County and £59,560,890 on the maintenance and on small improvements to the trunk road and motorway network covering Bedforshire as a whole. In addition, we make allocations to the County for their major schemes. Recent examples are the A5065 Luton Dunstable Relief Road, the A507 Shefford, Clifton, Henlow Bypass, the A422 Stagsden Bypass and the A507 Arlesey Stotfold Bypass. We also made significant contributions to the reconstruction of the County and Longholme Bridges at Bedford.

  23 November 1994
  35. By 24 November 1994, the Secretary of State for Transport had received 55 letters from local people, organisations and companies in response to the current "Getting Bedford Moving" campaign. A reply will be sent to all those who have written.
  36. Traffic flows recorded on the 3 bridges in Bedford are:

  (a) Newnham Bridge: 30,600

  (b) Bedford Town Bridge: 27,600

  (c) Prebend Street Bridge: 28,400

  (All vehicles, Average Annual Daily Traffic 1993)
  37. The average cost of constructing a mile of motorway is about £7.6 million per mile, excluding VAT and design costs at 1992 prices. Using price indices we have calculated the equivalent cost 10 years ago to be about £6.6 million/mile and 20 years ago £2.11 million/mile.

  Bedford (Road System)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what towns of the size of Bedford or larger remain without by-passes in England;

  (2) what are his plans for the completion of the full bypass for Bedford;

  (3) what he assesses to be the loss incurred by Bedford as a result of the inability of its road infrastructure to cope with the traffic;

  (4) how many vehicles the southern route in Bedford is expected to carry when completed; and how he expects vehicles to reach the A6 from the route travelling north;

  (5) how much money has been allocated for major roads (a) in the south of the county of Bedfordshire and (b) in the north of the county during the past 10 years.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answers 28 November 1994]: These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Sir Trever Skeet, dated 29 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Questions about road schemes in Bedfordshire since these are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I will answer your questions in the order in which they appeared on the Order Papers for 22 and 23 November.
  663
  22 November 1994
  35. The inclusion in the national roads programme of a bypass for any town is not dependent solely upon the size of that urban area. When assessing the inclusion of a potential scheme the Department must have particular regard to the benefits to local people, the levels of strategic traffic that will be removed from the town and to the benefits that will accrue to the national roads network.
  The roads programme includes bypass schemes for several other towns around the country that are of a similar size to Bedford, including Hastings, Wigan, Gateshead and Carlisle.
  36. The £38 million contract for the Bedford Southern Bypass, began in August this year and we expect the new road to open to traffic in Summer 1996.
  With regard to other parts of the full bypass, in April this year the Secretary of State for Transport announced the outcome of his Review of the roads programme which examined the relative merits, in terms of economic costs and benefits, environmental impact, and the contribution of trunk road schemes to the strategic network. The Review concluded that the proposals for Bedford are in the main sufficiently important to be taken forward but that there are other schemes nationally that are considered to require a higher priority.
  The A428–A421 element of the Bedford Western Bypass has been placed in the longer term category and will be developed by the Agency as the road programme rolls forward. A consortium of local development interests has however suggested that they could provide, at their own expense, a single carriageway link along the protected corridor for the bypass between the A428 and A421 as part of new development for which planning permission has been sought. Progress on the scheme would depend on the decisions on the planning application.
  As you are aware, a public inquiry to hear objections to the proposals for the Norse Road link element of the Bedford Southern Bypass has been arranged for January next year. Progress on the scheme beyond that stage would be dependent upon the inquiry Inspector's Report and the joint decision of the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment.
  The Agency will progress these schemes as quickly as circumstances allow but their implementation is subject to the completion of the remaining statutory procedures and to the availability of resources.
  37. The Agency is not able to calculate a figure for any financial loss incurred by Bedford because it does not yet have a Bypass. We can, however, give an estimate of the benefits which would accrue generally from its construction and the relief it provides to the existing road network. Our cost/benefit computer programme (COBA) is used to calculate a monetary figure, which compares the cost of a new road with travel benefits, such as journey time, vehicle operating costs, and reduction in accidents. The figures are calculated over a 30 year period and discounted. A strongly positive figure represents good value for money.
  For the Bedford Southern Bypass the benefits could be as much as +£82.7 million, for Bedford Western Bypass +£41.1 million and for the Norse Road Link +£13.0 million. I emphasise that these figures represent the benefit accruing globally, not just to the towns or villages bypassed.
  38. Our forecasts suggest that traffic flows on the completed Bedford Southern Bypass will range between 17,000 to 23,000 vehicles (24 hour Average Annual Daily Traffic) along the length of the scheme. This information is taken from the latest traffic model that is being prepared for use at the Norse Road Link public inquiry.
  The Southern Bypass will include a full grade separated junction with the A6 trunk road south of the town in order to allow easy access for traffic between the two routes. From this point the existing A6 route through Bedford will be available for traffic travelling to and from the north.
  39. In the past ten years £31,085,158 has been spent on trunk road schemes in northern Bedfordshire, £43,577,768 has been spent in the south of the County and £59,560,890 on the maintenance and on small improvements to the trunk road and motorway network covering Bedfordshire as a whole. In addition, we make allocations to the County for their major schemes. Recent examples are the A5065 Luton Dunstable Relief Road, the A507 Shefford, Clifton,
  664
  Henlow Bypass, the A422 Stagsden Bypass and the A507 Arlesey Stotfold Bypass. We also made significant contributions to the reconstruction of the County and Longholme Bridges at Bedford.

  23 November 1994
  35. By 24 November 1994, the Secretary of State for Transport had received 55 letters from local people, organisations and companies in response to the current "Getting Bedford Moving" campaign. A reply will be sent to all those who have written.
  36. Traffic flows recorded on the three bridges in Bedford are:

  (a) Newnham Bridge: 30,600

  (b) Bedford Town Bridge: 27,600

  (c) Prebend Street Bridge: 28,400

  (All vehicles, Average Annual Daily Traffic 1993)
  37. The average cost of constructing a mile of motorway is about £7.6 million per mile, excluding VAT and design costs at 1992 prices. Using price indices we have calculated the eqivalent cost 10 years ago to be about £6.6 million/mile and 20 years ago £2.11 million/mile.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give a full list of all persons appointed to public bodies identifying the salary paid and known political allegiances.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Such information is not held centrally. Details of the remuneration of full and part-time public appointments are given in "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Details of political allegiance of persons appointed are not sought.

  Crown Servants
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will name the current members of the Advisory Committee on the Acceptance of Business Appointments by Crown Servants, indicating their occupation and background and which other public and private sector board posts they hold.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The members of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments are:

  The right hon. the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow QC - Chairman

  The Lord Bridges GCMG - Deputy Chairman

  Sir John Blelloch KCB

  Sir Denys Henderson

  Sir Charles Huxtable KCB CBE

  Sir Robin Ibbs KBE

  The right hon. Peter Shore MP

  The right hon. the Lord Thomson of Monifieth KT

  Lord Carlisle, Lord Thomson and Mr. Peter Shore are senior parliamentarians and former Ministers, Lord Bridges is a retired diplomat; Sir John Blelloch is a retired senior civil servant; Sir Charles Huxtable is a retired senior Army officer; Sir Robin Ibbs is Chairman of Lloyds bank; Sir Denys Henderson is chairman of ICI and the ZENECA group.

  Three members of the advisory committee hold public appointments in other advisory bodies sponsored by my Department: Sir John Blelloch is a member of the Security Commission; Lord Thomson is a member of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Standing Committee on Standards in Public Life; Mr Peter Shore is a member of the Standing Committee on Standards in Public Life.

  665
  Details of other public and private sector board posts held are a matter for individual committee members, and are not sought as a matter of course by my Department.

  Animal Experiment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the events in the national week of science and technology, supported by his Department, will be dealing with the issue of animal experimentation.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The programme for next year's national week of science, engineering and technology will not be finalised until the new year. At present there are no events planned which deal with the issue of animal experimentation and which would be supported by my Department.

  Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the expenditure plans of his Department in the period 1995–96 to 1997–98.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Provision for the Office of Public Service and Science, HMSO, Central Office of Information is £1,339 million in 1995–96, £1,357 million in 1996–97 and £1,386 million in 1997–98.

  Planned expenditure on public service tasks—OPSS, HMSO, COI—is £54 million in 1995–96, £53 million in 1996–97 and £53 million in 1997–98.

  Provision for science is £1,285 million in 1995–96, £1,304 million in 1996–97 and £1,333 million in 199798. As a result, the science budget, which is provision excluding EC funding to research council institutes, has been maintained in 1995–96 at its 1994–95 level in real terms, almost 2 per cent. above its level in 1993–94.

  I shall be announcing the allocation of the 1995–96 science budget in due course.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences;

  (2) to ask the Minister without Portfolio how much public money he will spend in his ministerial capacity on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season;

  (3) to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by Government Whips in their offices and official residences including No. 12 Downing street.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply. Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. Such costs as relate to Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science, Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office are covered in running 666
  costs expenditure, which is published in the annual report, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year;

  (2) to ask the Minister without Portfolio how many official Christmas cards he intends to send in 1994 in his ministerial capacity; how much these cards will cost (a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year;

  (3) to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many official Christmas cards the Government Whips intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost (a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Members, Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card the Chief Whip intends to send this year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall write to the hon. member when the number of Christmas cards sent by my office is known, and will be glad to send him one and to place one in the Library. The Minister without Portfolio and the Government Whips do not have official Christmas cards.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all executive agencies, their parent department and their date of establishment.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The information requested is as follows:

  Launch Date

  Lord Chancellor

  HM Land Registry1

  2 July 1990

  Public Record Office1

  1 April 1992

  Public Trust Office1

  1 July 1994

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Wilton Park

  1 September 1991

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Central Statistical Office1

  19 November 1991

  HM Customs and Excise2

  1 April 1991

  Inland Revenue2

  1 April 1992

  Paymaster1

  1 April 1993

  Royal Mint1

  2 April 1990

  Valuation Office1

  30 September 1991

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Fire Service College

  1 April 1992

  Forensic Science Service

  1 September 1991

  HM Prison Service

  1 April 1993

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  2 April 1991

  President of the Board of Trade

  Accounts Services Agency

  1 October 1991

  Companies House

  3 October 1988

  Insolvency Service

  21 March 1989

  Laboratory of the Government

  30 October 1989

  667

  Launch Date

  Chemist

  National Physical Laboratory

  3 July 1990

  National Weights and Measures

  18 April 1989

  Laboratory NEL

  5 October 1990

  Patent Office

  1 March 1990

  Radiocommunications Agency

  2 April 1990

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Coastguard

  1 April 1994

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2 April 1990

  Driving Standards Agency

  2 April 1990

  Highways Agency

  1 April 1994

  Marine Safety Agency

  1 April 1994

  Transport Research Laboratory

  2 April 1992

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  2 April 1990

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1 August 1988

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  1 April 1993

  Chemical and Biological

  1 April 1991

  Defence Establishment

  Defence Accounts Agency

  1 April 1991

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  1 July 1992

  Defence Animal Centre

  1 June 1993

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  22 November 1994

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  1 July 1992

  Defence Postal and Courier Services

  1 July 1992

  Defence Research Agency

  2 April 1991

  Disposal Sales Agency

  1 October 1994

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  1 April 1992

  Hydrographic Office

  6 April 1990

  Logistic Information Systems Agency

  21 November 1994

  Maintenance Group Defence Agency

  2 April 1991

  Meteorological Office

  2 April 1990

  Military Survey

  2 April 1991

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  1 April 1992

  Queen Victoria School

  1 April 1992

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  22 November 1994

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  1 April 1994

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  24 April 1991

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  ADAS

  1 April 1992

  Central Science Laboratory

  23 April 1994

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  2 April 1990

  Intervention Board1 4

  2 April 1990

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  1 April 1993

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  2 April 1990

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  1 October 1989

  Royal Parks Agency

  1 April 1993

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Building Research Establishment

  2 April 1990

  Ordnance Survey1

  1 May 1990

  Planning Inspectorate5

  1 April 1992

  668

  Launch Date

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  6 July 1939

  Security Facilities Executive

  15 October 1993

  The Buying Agency

  31 October 1991

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  2 April 1991

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  2 April 1991

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  5 April 1993

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  2 April 1991

  Social Security Information

  2 April 1990

  Technology Services Agency

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  24 May 1989

  Social Security War Pensions Agency

  13 April 1994

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Central Office of Information1

  5 April 1990

  Chessington Computer Centre

  1 April 1993

  Civil Service College

  6 June 1989

  HMSO1

  14 December 1988

  Occupational Health Service

  2 April 1990

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  2 April 1991

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Historic Scotland

  2 April 1991

  Registers of Scotland1

  6 April 1990

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1 April 1992

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  12 April 1991

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  1 April 1993

  Scottish Prison Service

  1 April 1993

  Scottish Record Office1

  1 April 1993

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  5 April 1994

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Compensation Agency

  1 April 1992

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing NI

  2 August 1993

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  1 April 1992

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  5 April 1993

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  1 April 1992

  Rate Collection Agency

  1 April 1991

  Social Security Agency (NI)

  1 July 1991

  Training and Employment Agency (NI)

  2 April 1990

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  1 April 1993

  Secretary of State for Education

  Teacher's Pensions Agency

  1 April 1992

  Secretary of State for Health

  Medical Devices Agency

  27 September 1994

  Medicines Control Agency

  11 July 1991

  NHS Estates

  1 April 1991

  NHS Pensions

  20 November 1992

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Employment Service

  2 April 1990

  669

  Launch Date

  Attorney General

  Government Property Lawyers

  1 April 1993

  Minister for Overseas Development

  Natural Resources Institute

  2 April 1990

  1 Agencies that are Government Departments.

  2 Government Department operating on Next Steps lines.

  3 The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for ADAS in Wales.

  Agency

  Present Chief Executive

  Grade

  1Remuneration in 1993–94

  Method of appointment

  Accounts Services Agency

  Mike Hoddinott

  5

  43,974

  internal

  Adas

  Dr. Julia Walsh

  2

  80,563

  open competition, direct entrant

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  Brigadier Jim Drew

  —

  53,000

  armed forces

  Building Research Establishment

  Roger Courtney

  3

  61,529

  internal

  CADW

  John Carr

  5

  49,752

  open competition, direct entrant

  Central Office of Information

  Mike Devereau

  3

  69,166

  internal

  Central Science Laboratory

  Dr. Peter Stanley

  3

  61,531

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Central Statistical Office

  Bill McLennan

  1A

  114,063

  open competition, direct entrant

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Dr. Tony Little

  3

  62,806

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Chemical Biological Defence Establishment

  Dr. Graham Pearson CB

  3

  59,599

  internal

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Robert Edwards

  5

  49,200

  internal

  Civil Service College

  Dr. Stephen Hickey

  3

  559,533

  open competition, serving civil servant

  The Coastguard Agency

  Chris Harris

  4

  349.744

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Companies House

  David Durham

  4

  50,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  Compensation Agency

  Denis Stanley

  5

  547,357

  open competition, direct entrant

  Defence Accounts Agency

  Mike Dymond

  4

  55,051

  internal

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  Paul Altobell

  4

  55,422

  internal

  Defence Animal Centre

  Colonel Roache

  —

  444,309

  armed forces

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  Brigadier Richard Kirby

  —

  355,958

  armed forces

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  David Daniel

  4

  548,624

  internal

  Defence Postal and Courier Service

  Brigadier Tweedie Brown

  —

  562,889

  armed forces

  Defence Research Agency

  John Chisholm

  2

  147,238

  open competition, direct entrant

  Disposals Sales Agency

  Keith Ellender

  6

  342,930

  internal

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Stephen Curtis

  3

  57,142

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing (NI)

  Brendan Magee

  5

  436,379

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (NI)

  Brian Watson

  6

  40,017

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Driving Standards Agency

  Dr. John Ford

  5

  247,500

  open competition, direct entrant

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  Col. Gordon Wilson

  —

  43,698

  armed forces

  Employment Service

  Mike Fogden CB

  3+

  67,557

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Fire Service College

  Nigel Finlayson

  5

  564,383

  internal

  Forensic Science Service

  Dr. Janet Thompson

  3

  62,946

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Government Property Lawyers

  Tony Osborne

  3

  59,380

  internal

  Highways Agency

  Lawrence Haynes

  2

  3100,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  David Beeton

  3

  60,903

  open competition, direct entrant

  Historic Scotland

  Graeme Munro

  3

  55,415

  internal

  HM Prison Service

  Derek Lewis

  2

  133,280

  open competition, direct entrant

  HMSO

  Dr. Paul Freeman CB

  2

  68,000

  open comptition, serving civil servant

  Hydrographic Office

  Rear Admiral Nigel Essenhigh

  —

  260,747

  armed forces

  The Insolvency Service

  Peter Joyce

  3

  57,847

  open competition, serving civil servant

  670
  4 The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are jointly responsible for the Intervention Board.

  5 The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the Planning Inspectorate in Wales.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the chief executives of all executive agencies, their civil service grade, and their salary range; and whether they were outside appointments or appointed through open competition.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The information is reproduced in the table.
  671

  Agency

  Present Chief Executive

  Grade

  1Remuneration in 1993–94

  Method of appointment

  Intervention Board

  Guy Stapleton

  3

  55,586

  internal

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Dr. Richard Worswick

  3

  63,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  HM Land Registry

  John Manthorpe CB

  2

  67,000

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Logistics Information Systems Agency

  Brigadier Allan Pollard

  —

  355,958

  armed forces

  Marine Safety Agency

  Robin Bradley

  4

  345,680

  open competition, direct entrant

  Medical Devices Agency

  Alan Kent

  4

  353,776

  open competition, direct entrant

  Medicines Control Agency

  Dr. Keith Jones

  3

  82,698

  open competition, direct entrant

  Meteorological Office

  Professor Julian Hunt

  2

  82,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  Military Survey

  Major General Mike Watson

  —

  260,486

  armed forces

  National Physical Laboratory

  Dr. Peter Clapham

  3

  62,645

  open competition, serving civil servant

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Dr. Seton Bennett

  5

  55,263

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Natural Resources Institute

  Anthony Beattie

  3

  60,831

  internal

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  Capt. Wade Graham

  —

  545,854

  armed forces

  NEL

  William Edgar

  3

  86,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  NHS Estates

  John Locke

  3

  65,620

  open competition, direct entrant

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Alec Cowan

  5

  50,911

  open competition, direct entrant

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  Patrick Devlin

  5

  45,665

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Occupational Health Service

  Dr. Elizabeth McCloy

  3

  256,512

  open competition, direct entrant

  Ordnance Survey

  Professor David Rhind

  3

  59,001

  open competition, direct entrant

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  Mike Brand

  5

  48,320

  internal

  Patent Office

  Paul Hartnack

  3

  62,751

  open competition, direct entrant

  Paymaster

  Keith Sullens

  5

  43,000

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  Geoff Bruce

  4

  54,929

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Planning Inspectorate

  Chris Shepley

  3

  552,839

  open competition, direct entrant

  Public Record Office

  Mrs. Sarah Tyacke

  3

  59,550

  open competition, direct entrant

  Public Trust Agency

  Miss Julia Lomas

  4

  356,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Marcus Black

  5

  47,864

  open competition, direct entrant

  Queen Victoria School

  Brian Raine

  5

  543,048

  open competition, direct entrant

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Jim Norton

  3

  269,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency

  Air Vice Marshal Richard Kyle MBE

  —

  260,941

  armed forces

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  Air Commodore Peter Ayee

  —

  355,045

  armed forces

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  Air Vice Marshal John May

  —

  356,710

  armed forces

  Rate Collection Agency (NI)

  David Gallagher

  6

  38,534

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  Michael Geddes

  3

  59,278

  open competition, direct entrant

  Registers of Scotland

  Alan Ramage

  4

  547,197

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Royal Mint

  Roger Holmes

  3

  56,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  Royal Parks

  David Welch

  5

  46,073

  open competition, direct entrant

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Dr. Robert Hay

  5

  42,806

  open competition, direct entrant

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Andrew MacLeod

  5

  41,296

  internal

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Norman Macleod

  6

  40,375

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Scottish Prison Service

  Edward Frizzell

  3

  54,700

  internal

  Scottish Record Office

  Patrick Cadell

  5

  43,294

  open competition, direct entrant

  672 673

  Agency

  Present Chief Executive

  Grade

  1Remuneration in 1993–94

  Method of appointment

  Security Facilities Executive

  John King

  5

  47,203

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Service Children's Schools (NWE)

  Ian Mitchelson

  4

  50,808

  open competition, direct entrant

  Social Security Agency (NI)

  Alec Wylie

  3

  55,878

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Michael Bichard

  2

  83,012

  open competition, direct entrant

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Miss Ann Chant

  3

  551,362

  internal

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  George Bertram

  3

  555,659

  internal

  Social Security IT Services Agency

  Ian Magee

  3

  57,919

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  Paul Winstanley

  6

  546,000

  internal

  Social Security War Pensions Agency

  Peter Mathison

  5

  349,490

  open competition, direct entrant

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  Ken MacRae

  6

  344,287

  internal

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  Mrs. Denyse Metcalfe

  5

  50,470

  open competition, direct entrant

  The Buying Agency

  Stephen Sage

  5

  243,067

  internal

  Training and Employment Agency (NI)

  Julian Crozier

  3

  60,590

  internal

  Transport Research Laboratory

  John Wootton

  3

  72,400

  open competition, direct entrant

  UK Passport Agency

  David Gatenby

  5

  553,269

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Valuation and Lands Office

  David Bell

  3

  55,555

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Valuation Office

  John Langford

  2

  577,152

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Derek Harvey

  5

  45,915

  internal

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Ron Oliver

  4

  53,854

  open competition, serving civil servant

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Dr. Mike Rutter

  4

  53,411

  open competition, direct entrant

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  Richard Langhorne

  5

  244,000

  open competition, direct entrant

  1 The Chief Executive's actual remuneration, including bonuses, and taxable benefits, in 1993–94 as shown in the Annual Report and Accounts of the agency.

  2 A new Chief Executive was appointed part way through 1993–94 and the current annual salary, excluding any bonus or other taxable benefits, for the present Chief Executive is provided.

  3 The Agency was launched in 1994 and has therefore yet to produce its first annual Report and Accounts. The current annual salary, excluding any bonus or other taxable benefits, is provided.

  4 The Agency was launched part way through 1993–94 and the current annual salary, excluding any bonus or other taxable benefits, is provided.

  5 A new Chief Executive has been appointed and the figure provided relates to the Chief Executive in post during 1993–94.

EDUCATION

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary for Education what steps he will take to avoid the creation of budgeting difficulties in colleges of further and higher education as a consequence of changes in the allocation of support from the single regeneration budget in 1995–96.

  Mr. Boswell
  The budgets of further and higher education colleges are matters for the institutions themselves and for the funding councils. If the hon. Member is aware of any particular difficulty, he should raise it with them in the first instance.

  School Books
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of schools in(a) the primary and (b) the secondary sector spent (i) more than £1,000 and (ii) less than £500 on books in the years 199293 and 1993–94 and what are the projections for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Figures for expenditure on books by individual schools are not collected centrally.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education from which lines of the local authority revenue outturn and revenue accounts returns the estimate of £220 million was made for local authority expenditure on the youth service which can be found in table 3 of the Department for Education and Office for Standards in Education departmental report.

  Mr. Boswell
  The estimate of £220 million for local authority spending on the youth service in 1993–94 was calculated by apportioning total local authority expenditure on education, as recorded on local authority revenue account returns for 1993–94, pro rata to the breakdown of spending in 1993–94 produced by the local authority associations as part of their 1993 report into education spending needs. The expenditure figures used in the calculation were taken from lines 1–11 and 77 of the RA returns. Income in respect of technical and vocational education initiative, WRFE, Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council/Universities Funding Council payments, EC grants and other grants recorded on the same forms were then netted off.

  Final outturn data for 199–94 will not become available until next year This is likely to be different from

  675
  the estimate shown above. The latest outturn data available is for 1992–93. Local authority Revenue Outturn forms show that net recurrent spending on the youth service in that year was £274 million. The provisional 1992–93 figure shown in the 1994 DFE/Ofsted departmental report was £232 million.

  Audit
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether she will include higher and further education establishments and teacher training colleges in her audit next year of accessibility of schools.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be asking the Further Education Funding Council to consider whether further information on accessibility to further education sector institutions is required in the light of its statutory responsibilities for students with disabilities. The remit letter sent to the

  1£ million

  Outturn

  Estimated outturn

  spending plans

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Cash Terms

  9,810

  10,530

  10,960

  11,230

  11,240

  Real Terms (1993–94 prices)

  9,810

  10,320

  10,400

  10,400

  10,180

  1 Figures rounded as in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  In a demanding public expenditure survey, the Government have had to look for greater efficiency and economy in the delivery of education, but they have maintained priority for this service within their spending plans. In particular, the Government have allowed for growth in the number of students in further education, have extended the scope of the specialist schools programme and have increased the level of support for capital expenditure on schools. Provision is made for continuing growth in the grant-maintained schools programme. As announced last year, participation in higher education has been stabilised at a level where almost one in three young people will be entering higher education. I am announcing measures to promote the private finance initiative in further and higher education; both sectors will be able, in collaboration with the private sector, to increase the planned level of capital work over the next few years.

  The plans announced today do not cover the expansion which the Government intend to make in provision for children under five. There will be a further statement about that in due course.

  Schools

  Specialist Schools Programme

  The Government's technology colleges programme has been an outstanding success. It is widening choice for parents, and helping to raise standards in the key subjects of technology, science and maths. Already 50 grant-maintained and voluntary aided schools have received matching funding under the programme from the Government and from private sponsors. As envisaged in the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity", I am now extending the initiative to foreign languages. I also intend to open the programme to county and other maintained secondary schools. Our plans include £15 million, £20 million and £25 million in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 respectively to allow for the extension of the programme.
  676
  Higher Education Funding Council for England on its establishment asked it to consider how access for students with special needs could be facilitated. It is for the Funding Council to decide what information it needs to collect in order to enable it to fulfil that remit and its other functions.

  Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about her Department's expenditure plans for the financial years 1995–96 to 1997–98.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in a statement today, the Department for Education and Ofsted's spending programme in 1995–96 will total £10,958 million. That total is £427 million or 4.1 per cent. higher than equivalent expenditure in 1994–95.

  Capital Expenditure on Schools

  Total central Government provision for capital expenditure on county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools is £621 million, £672 million and £661 million in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 respectively. In the first two years, this is an increase of £14 million and £27 million respectively over the figures announced at the time of the last Budget. I also expect the private finance initiative to make an increasing contribution in the schools sector. I shall shortly announce further details of the allocations of grant to voluntary aided schools, and annual capital guidelines to local education authorities. The Funding Agency for Schools will in due course announce the allocations to grant maintained schools.

  GM Schools

  More than 1,000 schools are now grant-maintained. The Government's expenditure plans provide for further expansion. The GM sector's rate of growth will continue to be determined by parents' decisions in ballots at individual schools; the Government will ensure that every school which becomes grant-maintained receives the necessary funding.

  The great bulk of recurrent funding for GM schools is found within the totals for local authority expenditure. Central Government's recurrent expenditure on GM schools is planned to be £83 million in 1995–96. This will be increased in 1996–97 and 1997–98 in line with the increase in GM school numbers.

  Further Education

  The Government continue to give a high priority to further education, as the key to enhancing the competitiveness and prospects for growth of the economy. Our plans will deliver the national targets for education and training, taking the United Kingdom to the top of the international league for participation in education and training among 16–19 year olds. We have been encouraged by the success of the new FE sector in increasing its student numbers, and intend to extend its

  677
  period of growth: with continued efficiency gains from colleges, that will continue up to and including 1997–98.

  The total grant for the Further Education Funding Council is planned at £3,029 million, £3,133 million and £3,128 million in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 respectively.

  The contribution towards capital expenditure within those totals is planned to be some £480 million over the next three years. In addition to maintaining planned funding levels, we are introducing new flexibility in capital and recurrent funding so as to enable colleges to make the most effective use of their resources, and to borrow against the security of Exchequer-funded as well as other assets. This should promote effective estate management and encourage the use of private sector finance, so making possible a significant acceleration in colleges' capital programmes.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of 14 September 1994 set out the Government's approach to public sector pay in the year now beginning. I shall set as a condition of my grant to the FEFC that it requires institutions in the further education sector to take account of the principles set out in the Chancellor's statement. Any failure by institutions to observe these principles may be expected to have an adverse effect on the level of grant made available to the Council in 1996–97. I shall also withhold £50 million of grant against certification by institutions in the sector that they are continuing to make flexible contracts with lecturers.

  Vocational Qualifications

  High quality vocational qualifications are central to our future economic development. We introduced general national vocational qualifications to meet the needs of hundreds of thousands of young people who seek a first class alternative to academic examinations or work focused national vocational qualifications. GNVQs are a great success. We must now consolidate early progress and ensure that concerns about retaining standards are addressed. We therefore plan to allocate £23 million to this area over the next three years. These additional resources will be used to ensure that all GNVQs meet the same high standards as we continue to expect of traditional academic qualifications, and to develop the part I GNVQ, a new vocational qualification of high quality designed for 14–16 year olds of all abilities, which we shall be piloting in schools from 1995.

  Higher Education

  Student Numbers

  The forecast number of students in higher education has been revised to take account of final enrolment figures for 1993–94. The plans also allow for additional EC students arising from the enlargement of the EC with effect from 1 January 1995. The net effect of these changes is that planned total student numbers are reduced by 2,000 and 7,000 in 1995–96 and 1996–97 compared with the figures underlying last year's Budget; numbers in 1995–96 will still be 2 per cent. higher than in the previous year. Within the planned totals, it should be possible for universities and colleges to expand further the number of part-time students and to keep the participation rate for young people at over 30 per cent. through to 1997–98.

  The Teacher Training Agency will be responsible for initial teacher training courses from the academic year 1995–96 onwards. I have asked the Higher Education Funding Council and the TTA to work together to
  678
  continue to control the number of students in higher education over the next three years.

  Tuition Fees

  The maximum tuition fees reimbursed through mandatory awards in 1995–96 will be the same as for 1994–95:

  £

  Classroom-based courses

  750

  Laboratory and workshop-based courses

  1,600

  Clinical elements of medical, dental and veterinary courses

  2,800

  Grant to the funding Council and the Teacher Training Agency

  The total grant for the HEFCE for recurrent and capital expenditure is planned at £3,613 million, £3,596 million and £3,561 million in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 respectively. The total grant for the TTA for recurrent and capital expenditure is planned at £126 million, £174 million and £170 million in these three years; this includes funding for all the functions of the Agency, including the promotion of teaching as a career, as well as grant support for courses of initial teacher training.

  The HEFCE and TTA will now have more flexibility in their planned total grant to manage their recurrent and capital allocations. As with the parallel change for the FEFC, this is intended to promote effective estate management by universities and colleges and to promote increased opportunities to borrow from the private sector to fund capital projects, in line with the Government's private finance initiative. The allowance for capital expenditure within the HEFCE grant is £350 million in 1995–96, £393 million in 1996–97 and £388 million in 1997–98. When taken together with the increased flexibility, this should enable higher education institutions to increase their capital investment as compared with previous plans. The TTA grant includes provision for estates formula and equipment funding related to the provision of courses of initial teacher training. All higher education institutions are eligible to apply to the HEFCE for capital funds for major projects.

  I have set as a condition of my grant to the HEFCE and TTA that they require institutions in the higher education sector to take account of the principles set out in the Chancellor's statement on public sector pay of 14 September 1994. Any failure by institutions to observe these principles may be expected to have an adverse effect on the level of grant made available in 1996–97.

  Student support

  The plans allow for the level of student support through the main rates for grants and loans to be increased over the next three years in line with inflation. In 1995–96, loan and grant together will increase by 2.5 per cent. in line with the forecast change in the retail price index, exclusive of mortgage interest payments. Planned expenditure in the financial year 1995–96 is £644 million on loans and £1,102 million on maintenance grants. Access funds are being increased to some £28 million a year.

  The main allowances, including dependants' allowances, will also be increased by 2.5 per cent. in 1995–96. However, I have decided to phase out the means-tested allowance payable as part of the maintenance grant to students over 26 who had previously

  679
  been in employment. I have also decided to introduce a new rate of loan. This will apply to students who are studying in London and living away from the parental home but who could conveniently live with their parents while studying. There are already special arrangements for grant for such students.

  The Government decided last year to accelerate the shift from grant to loan so that by 1996–97 the main rates of grant and loan will be broadly equal. The new plans provide for the main grant rate to be reduced by about 8 per cent. in 1995–96 with a corresponding increase in the loan rates. The parental contribution scales under the awards regulations will be adjusted so that, for parents who residual income has risen at the same rate or slower than the rise in national average earnings, the assessed contribution will continue to fall in real terms.

  Ofsted

  Expenditure provision for the Office for Standards in Education is planned at £98 million, £116 million and £121 million in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 respectively. This will enable Ofsted, the non-ministerial Government Department which monitors standards in schools in England, to complete the implementation of the new school inspection arrangements, which started in September 1993 for secondary schools and in September 1994 for primary and special schools.

  Truancy
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the total cost of the grants from her Department to install electronic equipment in schools to combat truancy;

  (2) if she will name the schools and/or local education authorities which have benefited from grants from her Department to install electronic equipment to combat truancy.

  Mr. Forth
  The truancy and disaffected pupils programme of the grants for education support and training—GEST—scheme includes experimentation with different methods of registration, including the appropriate use of information technology, as one of a number of activities which may be funded through grant. In the 1994–95 programme, 35 local education authorities included an IT element in their approved GEST proposals. It is not possible to identify the cost of this element separately. The 35 LEAS were:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnsley

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Buckinghamshire

  Camden

  Cheshire

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Derbyshire

  East Sussex

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hampshire

  Haringey

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  680

  Knowsley

  Leeds

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Newham

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  Solihull

  Staffordshire

  Stockport

  Tameside

  Wakefield

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  West Sussex

  Wigan

  Wolverhampton

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will name the schools which are fully operating the electronic equipment in schools to combat truancy.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for individual schools and governing bodies to determine whether or not to install electronic equipment to combat truancy. Details of those which have done so are not collected centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools Foundation
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what are the annual running costs of the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation offices in London, Bolton, Kirklees and Willenhall;

  (2) how much rent per annum the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation pays for its head office and its regional offices in Bolton, Kirklees and Willenhall;

  (3) how many staff are employed by the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation in its offices in London, Bolton, Kirklees and Willenhall.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation's budget estimates for 1994–95 included £56,000 for rent and £401,000 for other running costs, including staffing, for its London office; and £8,000 for rent and £148,000 for other running costs, including staffing, for its local offices in Bolton, Kirklees and Walsall.

  There are currently 7.7 full-time equivalent staff employed at the London office and four full-time staff at the three local offices.

  Case Study Booklets
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many voluntary schools have ordered copies of the case study booklet on former voluntary schools; and how much her Department spent on the production of the booklet;

  (2) how many (a) primary and (b) secondary schools have ordered copies of the case study booklet on the experiences of grant-maintained primary schools; and how much her Department spent on the production of the booklet.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The three "Experiences" booklets about primary, secondary and former voluntary grant-maintained schools each provide factual information
  681
  on grant-maintained status through case studies of seven schools. It is not possible to disaggregate the production costs of these booklets: the combined total cost of all three booklets was £112,500. To the end of October, some 11,100 copies of the primary booklet, 11,700 copies of the secondary booklet and 10,200 copies of the former voluntary booklet had been distributed. The Department does not keep records of the number of schools ordering these booklets.

  GM Conferences
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many "Going GM" conferences her Department has organised in each year since 1989–90; at what cost; and how many schools attended each conference.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The numbers of "Going GM" conferences organised by the Department are as follows:

  1989–90 Nil

  1990–91 Nil

  1991–92 Nil

  1992–93 11

  1993–94 18

  1994–95 8 (to date).

  The total cost of these 37 conferences is estimated to be £583,000. The number of schools represented at each conference has varied from 22 to 139, with an average of 78. Most schools send more than one delegate to these conferences.

  Doncaster College for the Deaf
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement in respect of ,the Further Education Funding Council's decision not' to accept Doncaster college for the deaf as a recognised college of further education for the deaf.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Council has confirmed that it will continue to fund places for students with learning difficulties and disabilities at Doncaster college for the deaf in cases which meet the council's published criteria for such placements.

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to provide information via Internet; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is enthusiastic about the potential for using the Internet to facilitate the exchange of information. There are many opportunities and challenges arising from the new communications technology that need to be addressed in all areas of education.

  The Department is undertaking pilot projects on the type of material best suited to this style of display. Press notices, including those containing statistical tables, could be made available electronically in this way. Electronic versions of departmental circulars and administrative memoranda might also provide a helpful reference service for educational bodies, as would current awareness lists of publications available from my Department and related bodies. The dissemination of information could be speeded up by providing electronic order forms.
  682
  In due course, advantage will be taken of the information pages of the Internet to hold reference material and departmental advice on a range of topics.

  The Department will be participating in the follow up to the consultative meeting on information superhighways organised by the Government centre for information systems on 21 November, which has led to the formation of a number of collaborative open groups to look into various aspects of future superhighway development.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the application of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 to colleges of further education.

  Mr. Boswell
  An authoritative legal interpretation is a matter for the courts. My right hon. Friend is aware of differing external advice on the application of the Act to further education corporations. In the absence of an authoritative interpretation of the Act, it would be prudent for further education corporations to act on the basis that the Act applies to them. The Further Education Funding Council for England has issued guidance on the Act in its publication "Guide for College Governors" and in its circular 93/13.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the application of the Trustee Act 1925 to the governors of further education colleges; and what external advice she has received on the question.

  Mr. Boswell
  An authoritative legal interpretation is a matter for the courts. My right hon. Friend is aware of differing external advice on the application of the Act to further education corporations. In the absence of an authoritative interpretation of the Act, it would be prudent for further education corporations to act on the basis that the Act applies to them, For the purpose of whether members of corporations may receive any remuneration for their services as a member, my right hon. Friend considers that the lawfulness of any such payment will also depend on whether she has approved the payment in writing.

SCOTLAND

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has to suggest that BSE is either horizontally or maternally transmitted; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There is no unequivocal evidence from field or experimental studies that the disease can be passed from cow to cow—horizontal transmission—or from a cow to its calf—vertical or maternal transmission.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum
  683
  how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Mr. Lang
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. As regards amounts spent on official hospitality, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 October,Official Report, column 594 to the question by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor).

  Students (Exam Results)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students in each of the last three years in Scotland were dissatisfied with the higher grades allocated to them and asked for for their papers to be remarked; and in how many cases original marks were(a) upgraded, (b) downgraded and (c) unchanged.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The conditions for the award of the Scottish certificate of education do not include specific provisions for the remarking of candidates' scripts after the issue of results. Presenting centres are however able to appeal on behalf of candidates for reconsideration of an award at higher grade at band "C" or above on the basis of attainment other than that produced in the Scottish Examination Board's set examination. The table sets out information in relation to

  Estimated annual cost per student

  Course

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  PGCE Primary (one year postgraduate course)

  7,110

  7,220

  Not available

  7,200

  PGCE Secondary (one year postgraduate course)

  7,690

  7,290

  Not available

  7,200

  BEd Primary (4 year course)

  6,680

  6,570

  Not available

  6,760

  BEd Secondary (4 year course)

  7,850

  6,620

  Not available

  7,450

  Education (Complaints)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to improve the complaints procedures for parents in Scotland this year; and in which education authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is important that education authorities have good complaints procedures so that parents can secure proper redress if things go wrong in schools. While such complaints procedures are primarily a matter for education authorities, the Scottish Office Education Department recently provided funding of £6,000 to the Scottish Consumer Council toward research in this field. The results of the research are contained in a report by the council on complaints and redress in Scottish schools, published in August 1994, entitled "Could Do Better". I welcome the report as a valuable contribution to the improvement of complaints procedures.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants will be available from the local authorities to support the work of educational, social and cultural organisations after the present regional councils cease to exist.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It will be for the new councils to determine the nature and level of support to educational, social and cultural organisations in the light of their statutory and other responsibilities. They will do 684
  higher grade appeals submitted in each of the last three years.

  1992

  1993

  1994

  No. of appeals submitted

  16,488

  16,731

  18,761

  No. of successful appeals

  6,902

  7,467

  7,764

  No. of unsuccessful appeals

  9,586

  9,264

  10,997

  Source:

  Scottish Examination Board.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of expenditure incurred in training(a) a teacher with a postgraduate certificate and (b) a teacher with a bachelor of education in Scotland for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 inclusive; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Comprehensive information for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 is not available. The information set out in the table is based upon returns from teacher education institutions detailing course costs for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 and funding allocated to institutions by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council for teacher education in 1993–94. The figures include also an estimate of student support costs, assuming entitlement to full maintenance grant and loan at the "home" rates.

  so by taking into account both the information provided by their predecessors on funding of voluntary organisations and expenditure priorities for the resources available to them.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent reports his Department has received from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on radiological safety and contamination at the Dounreay nuclear facility.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My Department receives regular reports from Dounreay, the most recent was an interim report on radioactive metallic particle finds on the Dounreay foreshore and was received by HM industrial pollution inspectorate on 27 October.

  Loganair
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has as yet imposed financial penalties on Loganair in respect of the number of cancelled passenger flights between Glasgow and Barra; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The level of financial support paid to Loganair for the operation of the Glasgow-Tiree-Barra air service in the current financial year has been abated to take account of the number of cancellations on the route.
  685
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what feasibility studies he carried out on the passenger air link service between Glasgow and Barra before awarding it to Loganair.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The award of the contract to Loganair was made on the basis of a full evaluation of the bids received.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the terms and conditions arranged between his Department and Loganair for supplying a passenger air service between Glasgow and Barra.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The terms and conditions of contract between Loganair and the Scottish Office require the operator to provide a specified service between Glasgow and Tiree and Barra in return for the provision of financial support, up to a specified limit, based on the deficit incurred in operating the service. In general terms the operator is required to operate in accordance with the CAA regulatory regime, to advise the Scottish Office of any failure to operate the specified service, and to provide detailed financial information on the performance of the service. The contract can be terminated by either party with six months' notice and the consent of the Secretary of State is required for every change in the capacity, frequency, nature or any other attribute of the service.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current cost of the public subsidy paid to Loganair for operating a passenger air service between Glasgow and Barra.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The financial support provided by the Scottish Office is for the operation of the air service between Glasgow and Tiree and Barra. The service operates as a combined service for part of the year and the Glasgow to Barra route is not identified separately. Financial support of up to £115,000 is payable for the operation of the service for each year of the contract between Loganair and the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints to date his Department had received in respect of the Loganair-Shorts 360 passenger air link service between Glasgow and Barra; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has received 15 letters about the reliability of the air service between Glasgow and Tiree and Barra since the introduction of the Shorts 360 aircraft in March 1994. In addition, a petition containing 147 names was received requesting the replacement of the Shorts 360 aircraft on the Barra leg of the air service. In responding to the correspondence it was emphasised that the operation of the service was being monitored closely and that discussions were underway with the operator on ways in which improvements in reliability could be achieved quickly.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reason Loganair gave his Department for suspending the De Haviland Twin Otter air link between Glasgow and Barra and replacing it with the Short 360; and what negotiations it had with his Department before implementing the change.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Loganair's decision to dispose of its Twin Otter on the Glasgow-Tiree-Barra air service was made on the ground of the aircraft's age. The Shorts 360 aircraft was introduced with the intention 686
  of upgrading the service to improve passenger comfort, and increasing passenger and freight capacity. The Scottish Office, as the contractor, was consulted about the proposed change.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times the Loganair-Shorts 360 aircraft passenger service between(a) Glasgow and Barra and (b) Barra and Glasgow has been cancelled since the service first became operational; and what percentage of total services this represents.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the period 28 March 1994 to 24 November 1994 inclusive, there were 210 scheduled rotations by the Shorts 360 on the Glasgow-Barra-Glasgow element of the GlasgowTiree-Barra air service. During this period 42 rotations, or 20 per cent. of the total, were cancelled. It is estimated that 22 rotational cancellations were linked to the operational limitations of the Shorts 360 aircraft.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on business rates for 1995–96.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated outcome of the 1995 revaluation will allow the average non-domestic rate poundage in Scotland to be reduced from its present level. I therefore propose to prescribe for 1995–96 a single rate poundage applying throughout the country of 43.2p and, at the same time, to abolish industrial derating entirely.

  The introduction of a unified business rate poundage of 43.2p for Scotland, at the same level as in England, represents the successful culmination of the progress that has been made in recent years towards harmonising poundages. In the years after 1995–96 we will maintain a unified business rate in Scotland and it will continue to be pegged at the same level as in England to ensure a level playing field for Scottish business. This harmonisation will continue through future revaluations, and maintaining it will not be a burden on the Scottish Office expenditure programmes.

  Taking together the effects of the forthcoming revaluation with this decision on the level of the rate poundage, I estimate that there will be significant local and sectoral shifts in rate burdens. My Department's consultation paper, published last month, outlined proposals for transitional arrangements to phase in the effect of these shifts on rate bills. In the light of responses to that paper, and the package of support announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, I now propose that no business will face year-on-year increases of more than 10 per cent., after allowing for inflation. For property with a new rateable value of less than £10,000, the maximum real increase will be 7.5 per cent., while for part-residential subjects with a rateable value of less than £10,000 the corresponding limit will be 5 per cent.

  The Exchequer contribution, amounting to £72 million in 1995–96, will cover part of the cost of the scheme. The remaining element will be met by limiting real reductions in rates bills, in line with one of the options presented in the consultation paper. For 1995–96, the limits will be 10 per cent. for properties with a new rateable value below £10,000 and 5 per cent. for larger ones.

  Other details of the transitional arrangements will be based on the proposals in the consultation paper. My officials intend to hold further detailed discussions with

  687
  the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Assessors' Association in the light of responses to the paper. Once these consultative discussions are concluded, regulations giving effect to these proposals will be laid before Parliament.

  Common Services Agency
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the sale of the building division of the Common Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Following an invitation to tender, 41 companies including a joint in-house management team and company expressed interest. This resulted in seven bids and following further clarification of these and negotiations with the parties I am pleased to announce that the Common Services Agency has with my consent accepted the offer from W.S. Atkins. The result is a receipt of £250,000 plus VAT to be re-invested in health care in Scotland and the continuity of employment for around 100 staff who will transfer with their existing workload to their new employers on 1 December 1994. The transfer is subject to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and will be a clean break for the agency with no continuing liabilities and warranties to be underwritten by it.

  I regard the outcome as in the best interests of the taxpayer, of the staff and for the NHS in Scotland.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce details of the 1995–96 Scottish local government finance settlement.

  Mr. Lang

  Government Support Expenditure

  I propose that Government supported expenditure—GSE—for 1995–96 should be set at £6,116.9 million. Inclusive of additional provision for care in the community, this is an increase of 1.72 per cent. on the current year's figure.

  Grant Aided Expenditure

  I estimate that local authorities will incur £798.7 million on loan and leasing charges in 1995–96. This amount is top-sliced from GSE, leaving a residual amount for grant aided expenditure—GAE—of £5,318.2 million. This figure is 1.11 per cent. higher than that for the current year. I shall announce GAE figures for individual local authorities as soon as possible.

  Aggregate External Finance

  I further propose that Government-determined support for local authority current expenditure—that is, aggregate external finance (AEF)—for 1995–96 should be set at £5,306 million. This is an increase of 0.64 per cent. on the current year's figure. Proposals for the distribution of AEF to individual local authorities are again likely to be issued before Christmas.

  Provisional Capping Principles

  To assist local authorities in their budgeting process, I have again decided to announce provisional capping principles for the year ahead. I have the power to cap a Scottish local authority either where I consider that its planned expenditure is excessive or where there is an excessive increase in its planned expenditure as compared
  688
  with the previous year. My provisional capping principles for 1995–96 are:

  (a) for regional and islands councils

  any increase in budget between 1994–95 and 1995–96 of more than 0.7 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is above the local authority's grant aided expenditure (GAE) assessment for 1995–96;

  (b) for district councils

  any increase in budget between 1994–95 and 1995–96 of more than 0.5 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is above the local authority's GAE assessment for 1995–96; and

  (c) for all local authorities

  any budget for 1995–96 more than 12.5 per cent. above the local authority's GAE assessment will be excessive save that:

  (a) if that budget is 30 per cent. or less above the authority's GAE assessment for 1995–96 and that budget is no greater than the budget set by that authority for 1994–95, the authority will not be capped;

  (b) if that budget is 60 per cent. or less above the authority's GAE assessment for 1995–96 and that budget is at least 5 per cent. below the budget set by that authority for 1994–95, the authority will not be capped;

  (c) if that budget is at least 10 per cent. below the budget set by the authority for 1994–95, the authority will not be capped.

  Council Tax Transitional Relief Scheme

  As we are now approaching the third year of the council tax and tax payers have had an opportunity to adjust to the new system, I have decided not to continue in 1995–96 the transitional relief scheme which has operated for the past two years.

  In determining the level of this settlement, I have assumed—in line with the Government's general approach to public sector pay—that any pay increases for Scottish local authority employees will be fully funded by efficiency savings. The settlement includes provision for a number of additional burdens being placed on local authorities next year including improvements to school and social work transport, the continued introduction of devolved school management, child care developments and the costs of the elections of the shadow councils.

  This is a tight settlement but, having regard to the low level of inflation and the Government's approach to public sector pay, a realistic one. The onus is now on local authorities to act sensibly in setting their budgets and council tax levels for next year. I shall not hesitate to use my capping powers to prevent excessive expenditure.

  Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of qualified nursing staff by specialty for each region in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  As information requested is rather lengthy I am arranging for a copy of the reply to be sent to the hon. Member and will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many overseas visits he and each of his Ministers made between 1 January and 30 June; during how many
  689
  he or each of his Ministers participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; and if he will list the Ministers and the countries in which these activities took place.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 November 1994]: Between 1 January and 30 June 1994, Ministers in my Department made 11 overseas visits in their official capacity. Fund-raising activities for the Conservative party are not part of our official duties.

  Exports
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was Scotland's share of United Kingdom exports in each year since 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: As shown in the table, Scottish exports continue to rise. The Scottish Council Development and Industry's survey of Scottish manufactured exports revealed that, in 1993, exports reached a new high of almost £11.5 billion. The growth rate of 19.2 per cent. from the previous year indicates that the opportunities presented by a competitive currency and lower interest rates over the past two years have been grasped by Scottish industry.

  Scottish manufactured exports have grown faster in the last two years than in the previous six

  Scotland's share of United Kingdom exports 1994–95

  Year

  Per cent. Share

  Year

  Per cent. Share

  1974

  10.4

  1984

  9.6

  1975

  11.2

  1985

  9.6

  1976

  12.3

  1986

  8.9

  1977

  11.5

  1987

  9.6

  1978

  9.5

  1988

  10.0

  1979

  9.1

  1989

  9.4

  1980

  9.0

  1990

  9.5

  1981

  9.8

  1991

  9.6

  1982

  9.3

  1992

  10.1

  1983

  9.6

  1993

  10.3

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of Scottish exports to the Scottish economy in(a) absolute terms and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product in each year since 1979.

  Mr Lang
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: As Scottish gross domestic product is not calculated on an expenditure measure, it is not possible to make direct comparisons with this data.

  Value of Scottish Exports 1979–93

  Year

  Value Current Prices £ million

  1979

  3,410

  1980

  3,762

  1981

  4,024

  1982

  4,065

  1983

  4,532

  1984

  4,953

  1985

  5,522

  1986

  5,300

  1987

  6,393

  1988

  7,166

  1989

  7,664

  1990

  8,574

  1991

  8,833

  690

  Value of Scottish Exports 1979–93

  Year

  Value Current Prices £ million

  1992

  9,682

  1993

  11,540

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the value to Scotland's economy of exports from the(a) food and drink, (b) chemicals, (c) oil and gas, (d) engineering, (e) electronics, (f) financial services and (g) tourism sectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: Strong growth recorded in all Scotland's major exporting industries over the period.

  Sectoral performances in 1993 reveal food and drink exports were worth some £2.5 billion, of which £2.1 billion is whisky; chemicals worth £1.3 billion; engineering, including mechanical, transport equipment and motor vehicle parts £1.4 billion; electronics, including computers, £4.9 billion; tourism £670 million provisional figure—financial services worth £285 million, rising to around £393.7 million if legal and accountancy figures are included.

  Oil and gas sector exports in the period were estimated to be worth some £850 million. This figure relates to exports generated by service sector and supply companies in the world marketplace. Such Scottish companies export around 20 per cent. of their annual turnover.

  North Lanarkshire Council
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he makes of the cost to his Department of setting up the new North Lanarkshire council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The cost to my Department of setting up the new Lanarkshire council has not been quantified but is likely to be minimal.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to regional and islands councils on the gritting of roads leading to schools which are not designated bus routes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: No specific advice has been given to regional and islands councils on the gritting of roads leading to schools which are not designated bus routes. Regional and islands councils determine their own priorities for gritting roads for which they are responsible.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to education authorities on school bussing in adverse weather conditions and where access to a school requires school buses to travel on roads other than designated bus routes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: None. Under sections 50 and 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, responsibilities for the

  691
  provision of school transport are placed on individual education authorities.

  M80 Motorway
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects construction to commence on the proposed M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: After widespread consultation, a decision will be taken shortly on the proposed route for the M80, followed in due course by initiation of the appropriate statutory procedures. The construction

  Standard occupational classification group

  SVQ Level 1

  SVQ Level 2

  SVQ Level 3

  SVQ Level 4

  SVQ Level 5

  Constructing

  —

  44

  6

  —

  —

  Engineering

  42

  —

  44

  —

  —

  Manufacturing

  —

  91

  —

  —

  —

  Providing health, social care and protective services

  248

  225

  1

  —

  —

  Providing business services

  589

  684

  43

  10

  8

  Other

  648

  879

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1,527

  1,923

  94

  10

  8

  Source:

  Data files supplied by SCOTVEC.

  Refugees (College Fees)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the current practice whereby colleges charge asylum seekers and political refugees the home student rates of fees for part-time study; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The Scottish Office Education Department is currently consulting further higher education institutions about the possibility of allowing them to charge part-time students from overseas a different rate of fees from home students. It is not our intention to change how individuals granted refugee status are treated. Institutions have specifically been asked as part of the consultation if they are likely to offer concessions to students who have applied for refugee status. Their responses will be taken into account in taking any proposals forward.

  Community Care
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations led him to favour the private sector for the development of a mixed economy of community care; what consideration he gave to the use of the voluntary sector or direct local provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: Prior to 1 April 1993 local authorities purchased no community care services from the private sector. Since then the Government have transferred considerable resources to local authorities which under previous arrangements would have been used to purchase residential and nursing homes care from the private and voluntary sectors. The new arrangements are based on local authorities undertaking an enabling role. They should commission services offering quality and value for
  692
  timetable will be dependent on completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of finance.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full national vocational qualifications have been awarded in the current year and in each year since 1992; at which levels these awards were made; and how many, at each level, were awarded in construction, engineering, manufacturing, health and social care, business administration, accounting and financial services and management, respectively.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The available information on Scottish vocational qualifications is set out in the table.

  money. That involves not only arranging care in their own provider units but purchasing care from providers in the private and voluntary sectors.

  While many authorities have taken on this role on an even-handed, basis some appear to wish to use the additional resources to favour their own provider units even when these do not offer best value for money. The Secretary of State has encouraged authorities to make best use of the resources available to meet the care needs of the people in their areas.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what priority he gives to(a) quality and standards, (b) accessibility and affordability for all and (c) cost-efficiency in the development of a mixed economy of community care.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The Government, in their guidance to local statutory and independent sector agencies, have pointed to the importance of all these factors. Local authorities are responsible for evaluating the relative importance of each of these factors as they relate to individuals' needs. In doing so they must also take full account of individuals' choice.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce an inspection and registration procedure for domiciliary care in the community.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the evidence he has that the development of the mixed economy of community care has been unsatisfactory.
  693
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The Scottish Office publishes a range of annual indicators on community care, including the development of the mixed economy.

  Forests
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date Her Majesty's Treasury was invited to comment on the Forest Enterprise framework document.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: HM Treasury is assisting with the preparation of the framework document and a draft was discussed with it on 21 October.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to present the Forest Enterprise framework document to Parliament and to publish it for public consultation.
  694
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The finalised framework document will be published and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the areas of land identified by the Forestry Commission or Forest Enterprise for sale since 1981 but which have not been sold, with the size of those areas, the county or, if in Scotland, region in which they are situated and the year in which they were identified for sale.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 November 1994]: The Forestry Commission keeps records of all the land it has sold and of land it currently has on the market. It does not, however, retain records on cases where land was put on the market and then later withdrawn, for whatever reason. The information requested is therefore not available.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

The Lord Bishop of Durham
Anthony Michael Arnold, Lord Bishop of Durham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford and the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
Lord Sandhurst Lord Sandhurst —Took the Oath.

Indonesia: Arms Sales
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will immediately cancel all current and planned arms deals with Indonesia including related deals such as military bases and road construction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have no plans to do so. As always, the export of military equipment is looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to the Question, to which, of course, I did not expect to receive an affirmative Answer. However, it gives me the opportunity to ask the noble Lord whether he recalls that last month the Chief of the Defence Staff, Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, visited the Indonesian leader and was quoted in the Jakarta Times under the heading,
"[Indonesia and] Britain forge closer defense ties",
as saying:
"We are looking to sell certain things like Hawk aircraft and Scorpions (armoured vehicles)".
Does the Minister also recall that, in the report, the Hawks are described as "ground-attack fighters", and that the Indonesian general who accompanied the Chief of Staff during his interview with President Suharto is quoted as saying that the issue of human rights "was not touched on"? Does that report accord with the position in relation to Indonesia which the Government have outlined to the House from time to time?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's last point, I believe that the Indonesian authorities are well aware of our concern for human rights. I can assure the noble Lord that representations have been made to the Indonesian Government about those concerns at the highest level. I can also assure the noble Lord that assurances have been received from the Indonesian authorities at the highest level that British equipment
534
will not be used against the civil population. I can further assure the noble Lord that we have no evidence of British equipment being so used.
As regards the visit of the Chief of Defence Staff, I can tell the noble Lord that discussions covered a range of equipment and topics of mutual defence interest. Details of the negotiations are commercially confidential between the customer and the supplier. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the export of military goods from the UK has been, and will continue to be, subject to export control which takes into account both defence and foreign policy, as well as human rights issues.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that arms sales to Indonesia are governed by the set of principles that were agreed by the CSCE on 23rd November 1993, and that they not only enjoin us not to sell arms where they might be used in violation of human rights against the civil population, but also where they might contribute to an arms race in the sub-region? Against what external enemy could Indonesia be building up such a formidable arsenal? Further, is not one of the consequences of arms sales by the United Kingdom and others to Jakarta that neighbouring countries such as Malaysia, the Philippines and Australia will also be compelled to increase their military expenditure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Indonesian Government have a right to purchase arms under Article 51 of the UN Charter. As regards individual exports of arms, I can only tell the noble Lord that we consider export licence applications on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria. In addition to our own national security considerations, those criteria will include the common criteria for arms transfers agreed by the EU partners in 1991–92, the P5 guidelines of 1991, and the principles governing arms transfers, mentioned by the noble Lord, which was agreed by the CSCE in 1993. We would reject any applications which in our view—and I repeat, in our view—would not be consistent with those criteria.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is not just any human rights story? It is the story of 200,000 people who have perished in East Timor since the Indonesian invasion. How do the Government reconcile their position on human rights with being a principal supplier of arms to that regime? When the Minister says that he has no evidence of the equipment that we supply being used against the Indonesian people, can he actually give the House a guarantee that that has never happened?
Lord Henley: My Lords, when I say I have no evidence, that is exactly what I mean by those words. I obviously cannot give a guarantee if I have no evidence. All I can say is that there is no evidence, but that we have received assurances from the Indonesian authorities that arms have not been used to that effect. I recognise the noble Lord's concerns. Indeed, we recognise that the human rights situation in Indonesia and East Timor is by no means perfect. There obviously have been recent setbacks. We do believe, though, that

535
the human rights record has shown a degree of improvement since the 1960s and 1970s. I have to say to the noble Lord that I suspect if we simply severed all links with the Indonesian Government we would by so doing surrender all influence over them whatsoever.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is it coincidence that since 1986, when Britain became the major supplier of arms to Indonesia, the British aid budget to Indonesia has doubled?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, and as my noble friend Lady Chalker made clear in the debate that I think the noble Lord spoke in some week ago, there is absolutely no link whatsoever between arms sales to Indonesia or anywhere else and our aid programme, and I cannot repeat that point enough.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, nevertheless if the Indonesian Government can afford to pay these vast sums for arms, can they not also afford to dispense with our overseas aid?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, I believe the Indonesian Government have a right under Article 51 in terms of their own self-defence to purchase arms. There are many other poor countries, or even poorer countries, that find it necessary to buy arms for their self-defence. I do not believe that Indonesia is in such a position that we could deny them aid purely on the grounds for example that their per capita income was above a certain level.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is obviously unreasonable to ask for the breaking of all links with Indonesia? But is he also aware that the fact that our trade with that country so largely consists of armaments is the source of very considerable disquiet which I think is not confined to the Opposition Benches in the House? Can the Government at least say that they will not seem to go out of their way, as they are at present, to increase the arms trade at the cost of other forms of trade?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think I can take the noble Lord any further. As I said, we shall continue to consider any application for arms sales on a case by case basis, and obviously we shall take human rights concerns as well as all other criteria into account.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Lord not feel that this is breaking the principle that arms should not be sold to regimes which have a poor human rights record? I am not only thinking about East Timor, but over the whole of the many islands of Indonesia there are instances of appalling human rights activities by the government and restriction for instance of trade union rights and freedom of the press. Should we be selling arms at all to such a regime?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot take the noble Lord any further. As I said, human rights is one of the criteria that will be taken into account.

Diplomatic Service: Civil Service White Paper
2.53 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to apply to the Diplomatic Service the proposals set out in the White Paper The Civil Service: Continuity and Change (Cm 2627).
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the White Paper recognises that the Diplomatic Service is a separate branch of the public service with its own particular needs and structure. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is considering the parallel action to be put in hand to cover the areas considered in the White Paper.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am much obliged for that Answer, although I am a little bit surprised that we have not yet had any detailed statement of what is proposed given that the White Paper on the Civil Service was issued in July. We have not been told what the Government's response is to the comments which they invited on the White Paper. We now have to digest the long report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee from another place which has just been issued. It will not be all that long before we get the first report from the Nolan Committee and one day presumably we shall get the Scott Report. All of these bear directly on the role of the Civil Service, including the Diplomatic Service. Are the Government holding back on final decisions until all this information is available or are they steaming ahead, as it were, and if so could we somehow be told in some detail just what is going on? Are we to be given an opportunity at a fairly early date of debating these issues, which are not without importance?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question was about the Diplomatic Service. I would say to the noble Lord, who has long experience in Civil Service matters, that it is quite right that the Government should consult widely on the White Paper. Indeed it is quite right that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is undertaking a wide-ranging and thorough review of the senior management structures, evaluating every senior post. This review will consider similar scope for de-layering for the Foreign Office as has been found possible in other areas. But I do not think we should rush this exercise when it is of such importance to so many people in our excellent Civil Service.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that open competition and transfers for limited periods are not easy to arrange for the Diplomatic Service because members of it at the beginning have to sign that they will be prepared to be sent anywhere, usually to insalubrious places, and their wives and families have to be prepared for that? As regards the Civil Service or industry, wives are often teaching at local schools or carrying on other careers of

537
their own. After the Plowden and Fulton Reports cross-fertilisation was tried and has been successful, but it is limited by the factors which I have just described.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, but we welcome the opportunity to have members of industry serving both in the Diplomatic Service and indeed in the Civil Service as a whole. We also welcome the exchanges that are taking place between the diplomatic services of member countries in the European Community. However, my noble friend is absolutely right in saying that, because the Diplomatic Service needs to recruit and retain people who are willing to be sent anywhere in the world at short notice, we have more difficulties in such recruitment, but I am glad to say that the applications always far exceed the number of places that we have.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help us a little more. I do not say this in any spirit of criticism—not great criticism anyway—of the Government's position, but I do not quite understand what is happening. The Government produced a White Paper on the Civil Service and presumably took quite a lot of time to think about it before doing so. They state in that document:
"The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be putting parallel action in hand".
It does not state that he is considering action, but that he will,
"be putting parallel action in hand to cover the areas considered in the White Paper".
Are we to be told what the parallel action is? Are we to have another White Paper dealing with the position of the Diplomatic Service? Will a statement be made? How will it be done?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thought that I made clear in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that we are already undertaking the review of the senior management structures, and also of grading arrangements and the machinery required for pay delegation, and preparing an efficiency plan. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office administration will take on responsibility for pay and grading from 1st April 1996, and we are exploring ways of bringing the Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service staff onto a similar footing and of improving career opportunities both for the fast stream and the main stream. I mention the Home Civil Service because I think it is important that we also have exchanges between the Diplomatic Service and the Home Civil Service where that will work. Many Home civil servants go and do most valuable work for us in our posts abroad. There may not be another White Paper, but I would say to the noble Lord that we are clear that we must continue our rigorous inspection system and that we must stand by our staff who, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said just now, have a difficult job to do in some of the posts in the world to which we send them.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, how is the Diplomatic Service responding to change in the
538
international situation, especially with regard to the ex Soviet Union and especially with regard to the need to hold down public spending?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to ask this question. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made considerable progress as regards doing more for less. We have achieved greater efficiency through our rigorous inspection system. The objective is to redeploy resources to frontline diplomatic work while at the same time holding down our running costs. By doing this we have been enabled to open 21 new posts since 1990, nine of which are in the former Soviet Union.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in introducing into the Diplomatic Service the changes outlined in the White Paper of last July we are not dealing with simple and minor administrative changes but with issues of some constitutional importance, such as the selection of ambassadors for the most senior posts, the professional competence of such people and their political neutrality? Does she also agree that we should pay heed to the example of the United States, where political patronage has operated extensively, to the great disadvantage of the efficiency of the United States foreign service, and that we should be very careful to avoid such a situation arising in this country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that this is not a simple matter and that the appointment of senior diplomats is of major importance. I believe that we do have a politically neutral Diplomatic Service and Home Civil Service, and so they should remain. These are matters which are very much in our minds in conducting the review.

European Union: Financial Arrangements
3 p.m.
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Having regard to the statement in the Queen's Speech on 16th November 1994 that they will promote budgetary discipline in the European Union and combat fraud, what proposals they will initiate to achieve that purpose.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the United Kingdom has been in the lead in pressing for improvements to the Community's financial arrangements. We secured important improvements in the Treaty on European Union. At the recent Anglo-French summit at Chartres the Prime Minister suggested a number of areas where the Community needs to improve its performance in dealing with fraud. I expect him to pursue these at the European Council in Essen next month.
Lord Benson: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that this difficult subject could be approached by a three-pronged attack? First, it should be recognised openly that the Commission is not in a position to prevent those financial misdemeanours which take place

539
throughout the Community, and particularly in the member states. Secondly, for that reason, does he agree that what is needed is a comprehensive reform of the whole of the financial administration of the Community which embraces not only the Commission but also the member states, as a single exercise? Thirdly, so far as I know the only institution in the Community which could set that in hand is the European Council of Ministers, which will have to undertake a great deal of painstaking inquiry and will need a great deal of independent professional advice. Has the noble Lord any other workable solution in mind?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that Question Time is not the time for me to answer in great detail the various points that the noble Lord makes, because I would use up not only the remaining 12 minutes available to the House for Question Time but a great deal more time thereafter. The noble Lord makes some very interesting suggestions. Perhaps I may take the first one, in which I suspect that he was suggesting an increase in the Commission's own extra powers. Obviously that is a matter which could be considered as part of the attack on fraud, but member states themselves would have to recognise that in so doing they would have to expect much greater intrusion into their own affairs. I am not sure whether that would be acceptable to all member states.
All that I can say to the noble Lord is, I repeat that the United Kingdom Government are absolutely committed to the fight against fraud and to good financial management within the Community. We shall continue to fight through the Council of Ministers and through other means for such improvements. We are beginning to see some improvements. But as the House's own Select Committee made quite clear, any such improvements are very much a long-term policy and would take quite a long time to bear fruit.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken of the efforts made by Her Majesty's Government in this respect at the level of the Council of Ministers. Is he aware that at approximately 25 minutes past 5 o'clock yesterday Mr. Norman Lamont, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave his account of what happens when matters are raised? I quote from what he said.
Noble Lords: Order! Paraphrase!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, he is an ex-Minister. However, in effect, he said that he opened the discussion. A large number of Ministers did not turn up. Some of those who did turn up read newspapers. For some reason or other, Mr. Delors intervened in Council to reprove Mr. Lamont for having raised a political matter at the Council of Ministers. Thereafter the discussion terminated.
540
In those circumstances, is it wise for Her Majesty's Government to agree, and to insist through another place, that an extra £18 billion be paid over the next six years into Community funds when the Community is quite incapable of controlling its expenditure properly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again I do not think that now is the time to discuss the own resources decision and last night's debate in another place. We shall certainly have our opportunity to discuss the matter in due course. Nor do I intend to follow the noble Lord in discussing what my right honourable friend may or may not have said in another place yesterday. I am afraid to say that I have not actually read what my right honourable friend had to say.
Perhaps I may make one brief point about the fight against fraud; namely, what was agreed in Copenhagen. It is very valid. It was agreed by all member states that it was in their own interests to pursue fraud because if they did not do so—and they were in the best position to pursue the fight against fraud—the very reputation of the entire Union would be called into question by all those individual citizens in the Community. Therefore, I hope that in due course every single member state will pursue this policy with the same vigour as Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the more effective control of public expenditure in Europe would be greatly increased if a committee were set up similar to the Public Accounts Committee that we have in this Parliament? Further, does he also agree that the Court of Auditors in Europe should model itself on our National Audit Office which places emphasis on value for money?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes very interesting suggestions. But as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, I do not think that Question Time is the time for Her Majesty's Government to respond in considerable detail to what are perfectly valid suggestions that may or may not have advantages.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm what Sir John Cope, the then Paymaster General, wrote to my honourable friend Mr. Andrew Smith last year? He wrote:
"It is correct that the UK does not take up the money that the Commission allocates to us for anti-fraud work".
In the light of Sir John's admissions, is not the Minister's statement that the Government are committed to fighting fraud totally worthless?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by saying to the noble Lord what I heard in an aside from one of my noble friends: absolute nonsense. The noble Lord takes the simplistic socialist view that merely by spending money on a problem one can resolve it. I do not believe that money is the only answer. The best answer is for all member governments to have the appropriate attitude. Her Majesty's Government will continue to set a lead in this matter and encourage other member governments so to do.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government are not taking up moneys which

541
are available from the Commission in order to combat fraud? That was said in the other place yesterday by a Government Minister. Will the Minister be pleased to confirm it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was not denying the veracity of that letter from my right honourable friend the former Paymaster General. I was saying that the party opposite has a very simplistic view about how to go about things.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am, as always, in the hands of the House. I observe that we have one more Question. I wonder whether your Lordships might feel that the time has come to move on.

Crime Prevention: Children and Young People
3.10 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of public concern at the levels of violence to and by children and young people, they have any plans for improving co-ordination of research and action to reduce and prevent such violence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government share public concern about violence to and by children and young people and remain determined to take concerted action against all crime. The strategy on crime prevention and partnership is being developed on a broad front both at a national and local level and a number of interdepartmental groups are in existence to provide a forum for co-ordination on this matter.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is she aware, and are the Government aware, that there is much concern about the operation of the child protection committees, the lack of any statutory basis for them, and the lack of resources to enable them to do preventive work? Are the Government reviewing the status and function of those committees? Does the noble Baroness realise that the most recent report, the 1993 Children Act Report, found that in some local authorities high numbers of children on child protection registers had no social worker allocated to them? Is that not a highly dangerous situation which must not be allowed to persist?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, although area child protection committees are not on a statutory basis, they have been established in all social services departments. There are 108 local committees. They do very good work indeed, and we support them. But we do not necessarily fund them centrally. Often they are funded by the police, the social services department, health authorities and education committees. We believe that that is the good idea because it strengthens their commitment.
542
With regard to cases not allocated to social workers, we carried out a survey in 1992. We found that 97 per cent. of children on the register had an allocated social worker. But there was an issue in inner London. That is one that we expect social services departments to address.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if the Minister considers that there should be co-ordination of research and action to reduce and prevent such violence, does she agree that that would include almost every ministry, voluntary organisations as well as individuals? For example, every day an enormous number of children in this country are out of school. Young people cannot obtain jobs. The Youth Training Service does not work to the advantage of all young people. The youth service has been cut back and the social services' expenditure reduced. Will such research cover all those aspects?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, we have set up a number of groups. The interdepartmental official group on child abuse supports the ministerial and official group on domestic violence. There is also a new interdepartmental official group for crime prevention. However, with her vast experience of the subject, my noble friend will know that the best results are obtained locally and that it is really up to local organisations, be they voluntary or statutory, to work closely together to tackle that difficult problem.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the horrifying statistic produced by the OPCS that children in this country under the age of one are in the age group most vulnerable to being murdered? Is that not such a terrible situation that it calls for national Government action rather than local initiatives?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we appreciate that children under one year of age are twice as likely as children of other ages to be placed on child protection registers. The number of children who are murdered at that age is four per 100,000, so it is a very small number, although tragic for the families concerned. In trying to prevent that, we work very intensively with families who are at risk. We carry out such activities as pre-birth conferences which we believe go some way to ensuring that it does not happen to more young children.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will the Government consider supplementing the funds available to voluntary youth organisations, in particular in the London boroughs, where it is reported that there has been in real terms a reduction in expenditure of almost 15 per cent. over the past four years? Would not such an investment be money well spent in seeking to reduce criminal and violent behaviour among young people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we support voluntary organisations to a large extent. We support Barnardos, the Family Care Unit, the Home Start UK, the National Stepfamily Association, the NCVCCO, and the NSPCC. We also give financial support to Parentline

543
and Childline. We recognise that a range of voluntary organisations are doing sterling work in that field and we support them.

Central European Time Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the adoption of Central European Time in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and to restrict the extent of the Summer Time Act 1972. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Mountgarret.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 30th November
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Ashley of Stoke set down for Wednesday, 30th November shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Haskel set down for the same day to two hours.—( Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on Broadcasting—

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

E. Arran,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Mancroft,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

B. Seccombe,

L. Thomson of Monifieth (Chairman),

E. Winchilsea and Nottingham;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I raise this point because I have a high regard, as have all your Lordships, for the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. It may be that in this Session nothing can now be done about the situation if the Motion is passed.
However, I should have thought that the independence of the chairman of the Broadcasting Select Committee was absolutely vital. Although the noble Lord would he a very good chairman in all other
544
ways, I wonder whether it is fair on him in view of his long and valuable experience in broadcasting, that he should be chairman of that committee, having to guide it in the way that he would. If that committee, in a spirit of minor controversy, came out in favour of broadcasting companies and the BBC, a decision which others considered that it should not have reached, that decision might be attributed to the chairman's previous history. With great respect to the noble Lord, it might be better to have a purely independent chairman.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not sure that the points made by my noble friend have a bearing on the duties to be carried out by those noble Lords who will serve on the committee if the Motion is passed this afternoon. But I can assure my noble friend that the customary consultations took place before the recommendations were placed before your Lordships' House. First, such consultations are matters for the usual channels. Secondly, recommendations are a matter for the Committee of Selection. Finally, it is a matter for your Lordships' House. Your Lordships have heard what the noble Lord has said. If noble Lords feel that, on reflection, those are matters that ought to be taken into account, they can be taken into account in the future.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us were very surprised and sorry that the name of the Member of your Lordships' House with most experience of broadcasting, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, does not appear on the list?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, a number of Members of your Lordships' House would be well qualified to serve on this and other committees of the House. I am sure that that suggestion will be borne in mind in the future, as no doubt will all other suggestions, which are most welcome.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, am I not right that the functions of the committee are purely to oversee the broadcasting of proceedings of the House? They have nothing to do with the broader implications of the world of broadcasting in general and the differences between the BBC and commercial television. For that purpose, I consider that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will be a most admirable chairman.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I am greatly influenced by what the noble Lord has just said.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily this afternoon, but in support of what he said perhaps I may refer to page 174 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. It gives the terms of reference of the Broadcasting Select Committee and states:
"This committee has responsibility for supervising the arrangements for, and dealing with any problems or complaints arising out of, the televising and sound broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees".

545
Then there is a further passage. It was with that thought in mind that I made my first response to the noble Lord who raised the matter. The points which he raised do not have a direct bearing on consideration of the working of this committee of your Lordships' House. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees, be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)—E. Arran, L. Thomson of Monifieth. — (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)—

L. Dainton,

L. Flowers,

B. Platt of Writtle.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has two main objectives. The first is to enhance the effectiveness of our criminal justice system by strengthening the powers of the criminal justice agencies in the fight against crime. The second is to improve its efficiency and its capacity to deal with those who break the law.
This Bill is the result of the most substantial overhaul of the criminal justice system in Scotland in the last 15 years. I emphasise the word "overhaul", as we are not seeking to destroy the fabric of the system, and put something completely new in its place. We are building on strong foundations which have essentially stood the test of time. Over the past two years we have taken an intense look at how the system is operating, identified specific problems and points at which it is not running smoothly, and formulated proposals to make it work better.
546
We have been careful to take account of the views of all those with an interest in the criminal justice system in Scotland. The proposals in this Bill are the product of wide and detailed consultation: seven consultation papers, five research studies, a White Paper and a report from the Scottish Law Commission. I cannot recollect in past years any proposal for legislation for Scotland which has been subjected to that intense degree of consultation other than the Children (Scotland) Bill published last week.
The responses to the consultations suggest to me that we have found the right approach to reform. The great majority of our proposals were supported. And where our original proposals met with reasoned opposition they were reconsidered, and discarded or adjusted.
My belief that we have found the right approach was reinforced only two weeks ago with publication of the Labour Party paper Protection and Justice, which bore in many respects a remarkable resemblance to the ideas in our consultation papers and the White Paper. That confirmed for me that there is no significant area of our Scottish criminal justice system which we have failed to explore. There are just two particular measures which are not included in the Bill, for different reasons.
Our consultation paper Juries and Verdicts recounted the history and development of our system of three verdicts, and considered as impartially and objectively as it could the case for and against retention of this system. We considered very carefully the responses received and concluded that the arguments for retention of the size of the existing jury, the present majority verdict and the historic three verdicts were more compelling than those against.
Most emphatically we were of the view that the verdict of not proven should not be considered in isolation from those and other distinct features of our system. We do not then propose to interfere with any of them.
A second matter, about which there has been considerable public debate in the last year, is that of the case for change to the criteria applied by the Appeal Court in its consideration of criminal appeals, and for new machinery for considering alleged miscarriages of justice. The care of our analysis, in the paper Sentencing and Appeals, of the difficulties of these issues has been applauded in Scotland but many of those consulted felt that these difficult issues required yet further detailed analysis.
We have now responded to that view: my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has appointed an independent expert committee under the chairmanship of Professor Stewart Sutherland, the new Principal of Edinburgh University. The committee has been asked to report no later than the summer of 1996. Professor Sutherland has made it clear that he intends to complete the committee's work as quickly as possible, and I am grateful to him for that undertaking but I do not underestimate the complexity of the task. It is far too important a matter to be decided precipitately.
I indicated earlier that the Bill contained proposals which were intended to increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in dealing with crime and

547
criminals. These include the provisions on bail, the use of DNA analysis, the development of fiscal fines and new powers covering confiscation and forfeiture.
The Bill opens with provisions designed to crack down on the abuse of bail. Clauses 1 to 5 are designed generally to tighten up on the use of bail, to ensure that the public is protected and to make it clear that abuses will be dealt with firmly. For certain serious offences where the accused already has a conviction for such an offence, bail will not be an option. The Bill also provides the courts with powers to increase the sentence for an offence which is committed while the offender is on bail. Up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of £1,000 may be added to a sentence for such bail abuse. Those are tough measures. But the Government consider them wholly justified. The court must take into account not only the interests of justice but the protection of the public. Breach of the court's trust is a serious matter. The measures show the seriousness with which abuse of that trust could be treated.
New technology has provided the police with many additions to their armoury. Most recently DNA analysis is being developed as an effective test in the investigation of certain crimes. To improve further the effectiveness of DNA techniques in the detection of crime, Clause 48 proposes extension of the range of samples which may be taken without warrant in a criminal investigation. The Bill specifies the circumstances in which samples and prints may be checked against those held in police records. It also includes essential safeguards on the uses of samples.
There has been considerable public debate in Scotland about our proposal to extend the use of fiscal fines, particularly in relation to minor drugs offences. Use of fiscal fines has proved effective in keeping a range of minor offences out of our courts. We propose in Clause 50 to extend the range of offences for which a fiscal fine could be offered to all offences triable summarily. I emphasise the words "could be offered". The discretion will remain with the public prosecutor as to whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute. No offence would be decriminalised. We are simply proposing that the range of alternatives open to the prosecutor should be widened.
Clause 51 provides for a sliding scale of fiscal fines which would allow the procurator fiscal to offer a fine fitted to a greater range of circumstances than at present. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords to learn that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate intends to issue guidelines to procurators fiscal on the use of the extended system of fiscal fines.
As regards confiscation and forfeiture, the Government have been in the forefront of measures to deprive offenders of the profits of crime and property used in crime. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 introduced confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking in Scotland and the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which was UK in extent, implemented the Vienna Convention. The provisions in Part II of the Bill will give the Scottish courts powers to confiscate the proceeds of serious crime and enable the United Kingdom to withdraw its
548
reservation to the laundering convention as it applies to Scotland. The provisions follow recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission in its report on confiscation and forfeiture which was presented to Parliament as recently as last September. It also adopts the Law Commission's recommendations for reforming the general and specific powers already available to Scottish courts to order forfeiture.
The legislation proposed in Part II is lengthy and necessarily complex and I do not wish to detain your Lordships now by going into it in detail. But clearly, with the recent publication of the Scottish Law Commission report, we have had to move quickly and we may wish to propose some amendments to it.
In addition to the proposals I have already outlined as being intended to assist the system in dealing effectively with offenders, the Bill proposes a number of initiatives aimed at fitting the punishment to the crime and the circumstances of the offender.
Clause 29 is intended to enable supervised attendance orders to replace imprisonment as the main sanction for fine default. It builds on experience that we have gained since 1991.
The supervised attendance order would in certain circumstances replace imprisonment for fine default up to level 2 on the standard scale. The provisions would also enable the courts to use supervised attendance orders in place of fines for 16 to 17 year-olds, and would replace imprisonment for fine default for this age group. However, many responses to our consultation paper emphasised the value of the sanction of imprisonment in encouraging the payment of fines and expressed concerns about the risk of increased non-payment if the sanction was removed entirely. The Bill therefore provides for flexibility in permitting certain of these new arrangements to be introduced gradually at local level.
Major strides have been made in recent years to develop and reinforce community based penalties generally. Clauses 30 to 35 seek further to improve the effectiveness, enforceability, targeting, and credibility of these measures. This includes provision to reinforce public protection where there is abuse of trust while undertaking unpaid work as a condition of probation or on a community service order.
The Bill also—in Clause 55—empowers my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to extend the scope of 100 per cent. funding of social work criminal justice services to bring in diversion from prosecution and certain services to the children's hearings in respect of young offenders falling in the age group of 16 and 17. Pilot work still needs to be done but the provisions confirm the Government's continuing commitment to this vital area of criminal justice.
I turn now to the procedural reforms in the Bill. Many of these provisions are designed to streamline the criminal justice process, to speed it up and to reduce as far as possible both inconvenience and waste.
Recent experience in summary cases has shown that the holding of what we describe as an intermediate diet, ahead of the trial diet, at which the judge can assess the state of preparation of the prosecution and defence

549
cases, can bring considerable benefits in reducing the number of trials which have to be cancelled or adjourned.
Sheriffs have reacted very positively to the use of intermediate diets in those areas where they currently operate, and I pay tribute to the groups under sheriffs principal Nicholson and Cox in promoting the use of intermediate diets under existing statute.
We have decided as a result of the consultations to build on the existing statutory framework. The provisions contained in Clauses 12 and 13 introduce mandatory first diets in solemn proceedings in the sheriff court and mandatory intermediate diets in summary proceedings.
As part of our proposals, the prosecution and the defence will be required to identify matters which may be capable of agreement and take all reasonable steps to agree those matters before the trial. We believe all this will have a significant and positive impact on the conduct of court business. Not least it will mean that many thousands of police and civilian witnesses (many of the latter group will also have been victims) will be spared unnecessary attendance at court.
Allied to these provisions are provisions in Clauses 14 to 23 designed to simplify the agreement of evidence where it is undisputed or uncontroversial. In addition to putting emphasis on agreeing evidence in advance, we propose that procedures should be simplified by enabling certain types of evidence to be given by means of certificate. These proposals take account of the changing nature of the evidence which is now coming before the courts as a result of new forensic techniques and the nature of modern crime. Again they should also reduce the burden on the number of witnesses actually required to attend court to give evidence.
We also considered whether anything could be done to improve the experience of the criminal justice system by those who were asked to act as jurors, building on the principles already set out in the Justice Charter.
Jury service is an extremely important duty. We believe that we must do all we can to obtain juries which are representative of society as a whole. In Clauses 6 to 8 we propose the abolition of peremptory challenge of jurors; that jurors' occupations should no longer be listed in jury lists; that jurors excused service for any reason should be recalled within a year; and that persons on bail should be disqualified from jury service.
I now turn to the matter that has caused some concern; namely, the right to silence. In the White Paper published in June this year, the Government undertook to consult on whether any changes should be made to the judicial examination procedure and related matters, including the right to silence. After consideration of the comments we received, we have reached the conclusion that only very limited changes to the law are necessary. Our proposals are contained in Clauses 10 and 26 of the Bill.
We do not propose any change in the law on the right of the accused to remain silent under police questioning early in an investigation. Clause 10 proposes, however, strengthening the procedures for judicial examination by ensuring that the prosecutor can put to the accused
550
questions designed to seek admissions. We believe that there is no reason why an accused should not, under the sheriffs protection, be invited to admit, deny or explain facts which point to his guilt.
At trial, the approach of the court is determined by the common law of Scotland and the court may comment on an accused's failure to give evidence. We have concluded that a statutory provision to restate the law on silence at trial in Scotland is not necessary but we propose, as recommended by the Thomson Committee and a majority of those who responded to our consultation paper, to remove the statutory prohibition on the prosecutor from commenting on an accused's silence at the trial.
We consider it wholly appropriate that the prosecution, when addressing the jury should be able to comment on a matter on which the court may comment and which the jury may take into account in reaching its verdict.
I now pass to two important provisions on sentencing. The provisions contained in Clause 27 would empower a court, in determining the sentence, to pass on an offender who has pled guilty, to take into account when and in what circumstances the offender made that plea. This provision would make it quite clear that it is appropriate for the courts in Scotland to do that.
Apparent inconsistency in sentencing is also a frequent public criticism. Clause 28 provides expressly for the Appeal Court to issue opinions on sentencing matters which go beyond the particular case before it and would require the lower courts to have regard to those opinions in their own sentencing decisions. Our proposals also include significant changes to the procedures for dealing with criminal appeals. The number of appeals coming before the Appeal Court has nearly trebled in the past 10 years. That clearly is putting our system under considerable strain.
Clauses 35 and 36 propose two significant new measures designed to assist the High Court in their consideration of criminal appeals. First, there would be a new requirement for leave to appeal. A single judge would decide on the basis of papers whether there were arguable grounds to allow the appeal to proceed and would seek to filter out clearly unmeritorious or frivolous appeals. The appellant would, however, have the right to continue his application for leave to appeal to the High Court, if it were rejected by the single judge.
Secondly, in appeals against sentence or other disposals alone the quorum of the High Court would be reduced from three to two judges. The quorum of three judges would be retained, however, for appeals against conviction.
I believe that these reforms will help the Appeal Court to cope with the substantial and increasing workload and allow it to concentrate its resources on those appeals which raise issues of greatest importance.
Passing to Clauses 39 to 47, they respond to criticisms that have been made of the procedures for dealing with accused persons who are insane and cannot therefore stand trial, and persons acquitted on grounds of insanity. Under the existing procedures in Scotland, a person found unfit to stand trial must be detained in a mental

551
hospital—possibly for the rest of his life, if he gets no better—without the court reaching a view on whether or not he committed the act for which he was charged.
That is not justice. Under the provisions of the Bill the court would be required to undertake an examination of the facts in order to determine whether or not he did the act constituting the offence. There would be a wider range of disposals available to the courts in dealing with persons acquitted on grounds of insanity. Bet let me stress that, whenever a court considers it appropriate to impose a hospital order with restrictions to protect the public from serious harm, it may still do so.
The House may be aware that there are now a number of statutory exceptions to the general requirement in the 1975 Act in relation to the time limits within which summary prosecutions must be brought. We are considering whether it is now time to make amendment to achieve a greater consistency and we may wish to introduce amendments at a later stage.
Finally, as a further step to streamline the operation of the criminal justice system in Scotland, we hope to bring forward a consolidation of criminal procedure legislation immediately following the Bill's passage. In order to achieve that, some pre-consolidation amendments will be needed and we intend to bring those forward at a later stage.
We are fortunate in Scotland to have a criminal justice system which commands widespread public respect and confidence. We cannot be complacent, however. Times change and society's expectations change with them. The public are understandably becoming ever less tolerant of crime and criminals. They rightly expect quick and effective treatment at all stages of the criminal justice system, just as they do from other public services.
I believe that this Bill, if enacted, will achieve a step change in both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Scottish criminal justice system. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I should first like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who is universally regarded in Scotland as a man with a great sense of fairness and interest in making the Scottish legal system as fair and just as possible. That is recognised on this side of the House. We also commend the diligence with which the Scottish Office has attacked—if I may so put it—the various problems arising within the administration of the Scottish legal system and on the production of various papers, culminating with the latest one on the right to silence. Consideration of those papers may very well be rather rushed by the presentation of this Bill to your Lordships' House.
It is true that the views of various parties have been taken into account in formulating the Bill; but the presentation of the Bill has been something of a rocket to the legal community in Scotland and indeed to the
552
people of Scotland. Time may have been taken to consider the representations in the formulation of the Bill, but there is deep concern about the amount of time that has been left for people to consider the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House and another place. It has been suggested to me that perhaps the Committee stage of the Bill should take place some time in the middle of December. That is not a course which commends itself to me. I note that the Minister shakes his head and so I shall depart from that piece of carping and leave the matter there. We shall be delighted to consider the Bill in detail in the new year. The Government can rest assured that from this side of the House everything will be done to expedite the passage of the Bill, subject of course to the usual tradition of scrutiny and improvement. I shall come to the issues of the not proven verdict and criminal appeals at a later stage of my remarks.
In passing, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the question of fiscal fines. There is one matter about which perhaps the Minister, when he winds up, might advise the House. If a young person is found in possession of a small amount of cannabis during a police search and is given a fiscal fine, is that to be recorded as a first "offence"? If that person is then caught a second, third or fourth time, will a record be kept somewhere of something that is not a conviction? It is quite a serious problem. It can readily be seen what may happen. People will say, "It's all right. It's just a fiscal fine. I'll just keep on taking drugs"; and vice versa. The suppliers of drugs may encourage young people to indulge in drugs on the basis that, with any luck, they will get away with a fiscal fine.
We on this side of the House support any measures which can streamline the system of Scottish law without eroding the rights of the accused in particular. Regrettably, we see the Bill as a grave threat to the so-called right to silence. I shall come to that point later.
We welcome the introduction of any measure which assists in the smoother operation of the criminal law in Scotland provided that it maintains the essential balance between expediency and efficiency in the administration of the law; the rights of the individual in criminal proceedings; and in particular the long-standing rule that the Crown, which brings alleged offenders before the courts, must always be held to its obligation to prove any case, from breach of the peace to murder, beyond reasonable doubt. The basic concept of the presumption of innocence should not and must not be undermined, shifted sideways and sacrificed on the altar of administrative expediency. That is one view that some people may very well take of the proposals in the Bill.
My reading of the Bill in the time so far available has not yet convinced me that that balance is maintained by the Bill. I suspect that behind some measures in the Bill there is a deliberate and calculated erosion of the basic concepts of the legal system in Scotland, with a view to obtaining more and easier "convictions", to satisfy—as we have seen south of the Border—a bloodthirsty lobby of people who say, "Get them at any cost", devotees whose ideas of justice may be somewhat blinkered, if not perverted.

553
For example, we have heard of police officers at their annual conferences saying, "Of course, criminals are hiding behind the right to silence and we cannot catch them". If that is the philosophy behind the Bill, so be it. But I can assure the House that that philosophy—which I am sure the Minister would not endorse—will be fought tooth and nail from this side of your Lordships' House. Strangely enough, some people in that category who, in their experience, would express that view, are the same people who, when they get into trouble—I have had personal experience of defending some of them—immediately jump behind the right to silence and say, "I am not saying anything. It is up to the Crown to prove the case".
To sacrifice basic principles of law, long regarded as being for the protection of the individual and the avoidance of injustice in criminal trials, for reasons of expediency and cost cutting, is dangerous. If that is what is behind the Bill, to any extent, then the Bill must be carefully and rigorously monitored and scrutinised. This Bill will receive that attention in your Lordships' House in accordance with the usual approach of your Lordships to consider and improve Bills.
It is self-evident that any system is capable of improvement and no system, of law or otherwise, is or ever will be perfect. Throughout the United Kingdom events should by now have alerted us all that a system of law should always be tailored to ensure that the risk of miscarriages of justice is minimised in so far as possible, bearing in mind that cases in court depend on the honesty or dishonesty of police and lay witnesses and the vigilance of the court to control proceedings and direct the jury on legal issues arising within a case. No system can eliminate dishonesty. We have seen examples. If a police officer or forensic scientist wants to tell lies, nobody can stop them. They may be detected in due course; but that is a fundamental weakness of the system. Miscarriages of justice will no doubt occur as long as witnesses, of whatever standing they may be, are prepared to lie under oath. It is for the courts to attempt to trap them and give them their due justice in courts.
Various issues were raised by the Minister, such as the perceived weakening of the so-called "right to silence"; the question of comments by prosecutors and judges on the absence of the accused from the witness box; sentencing guidelines; and the extension of the area of questioning open to a procurator fiscal in judicial examination. Those are examples of areas which will be closely examined in this House when your Lordships scrutinise the Bill, always with a view to maintaining the delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the state within a criminal justice system.
For example, in a country such as Scotland in which an accused is not obliged to say anything which may incriminate him, from beginning to end of the investigative and judicial procedure, why is his absence from the witness box often referred to as a "failure" on the part of the accused to give evidence? In what is he failing? Where the accused exercises his legal right not to say anything from the moment of his arrest, his absence from the witness box, far from being in any
554
way a failure on his part, is a positive exercise of his constitutional legal right to remain silent. Unless and until there is a radical review of the criminal justice system, perhaps not only in Scotland, but also in England and Wales—it is sometimes suggested that the adversarial system of justice is not achieving justice in the public sense and that we should go over to the interrogative system such as they have on the Continent where the whole proceedings are under the control of the court—the right to silence is sacrosanct.
It is a legal nonsense to allow comment to be made by either the judge or the prosecutor, as a general rule, on the absence of the accused from the witness box, though I concede that there may be exceptional cases where that may be justified. For example, where my fingerprint is found on the till behind the bar of some hotel where there has been a break-in, and it is a hotel which I do not frequent, if there is no explanation as to why my fingerprint was there, then there may be a case in which comment may be made by the judge or the prosecutor. But those exceptions are few and far between and any intrusion into the right of silence must be scrutinised carefully.
If the prosecutor is to be allowed to comment on the so-called "failure to give evidence", how far is he or she to be permitted to go? Who is to control the forensic excesses of a prosecuting zealot—and there are plenty of them—whose idea of exercise of judgment is at the least questionable? Whose guidelines are they to follow? Who will lay down the guidelines to a prosecutor to say, "By the way, in a case of murder you can say this; in a case of rape you can say this; and in a case of theft you can say that"? Will guidelines be laid down for the prosecutor? Moreover, having been given that freedom, if a prosecutor goes completely over the top—I do not rule that out in a serious case and, incidentally, it could ruin the prosecution—how is the judge to negative those excesses? Each time the judge draws attention to the excesses of the prosecutor, by inference he draws attention to the fact that the accused did not give evidence. The whole thing therefore becomes an uncontrollable circus. I believe the Minister said in a radio programme last week that it is simply an extension of the existing right of the judge to comment on the absence of the accused from the witness box. I may be misquoting the noble and learned Lord. Sometimes I listen to the radio early in the morning rather than a repeat of the programme in the afternoon.
Perhaps I can draw your Lordships' attention to the case of Sutherland v. H.M. Advocate, SCCR 1994, page 90. That is a typical example of the dangers as regards what is happening. It is a case in the Court of Appeal. The opinion states that the judge,
"told the jury that he was perfectly entitled to take that course"
—that is, not to give evidence—
"and that it would be an entirely wrong approach for them to conclude that the appellant must have had something to hide, must therefore be guilty and should be convicted. He said that they must draw no adverse inference from the mere fact that he had elected not to give evidence. In the passage to which the ground of appeal relates he then said this … 'Having said that, however'"—
note the word "however"—

555
"'if there is some evidence in the case which is crying out for an explanation and there is no explanation from the accused when he is the one person who could give an innocent explanation, then you may find it easier to draw a guilty inference from the fact or from that piece of evidence which you are considering'".
The appeal court said,
"As to whether he [the judge] exercised the necessary care and restraint when giving this direction, we note that it was contained in a single sentence and that it was preceded by directions in the clearest terms that the jury were not entitled to draw any adverse inference from the mere fact that the appellant had elected not to give evidence. We do not think that what the trial judge said in his passage went beyond what was appropriate and permissible. We reject this ground of appeal".
That is sociological, if not legal nonsense. How can a judge say on the one hand, "Do not draw any adverse conclusion from the failure of the accused to give evidence", and on the other hand say, "but you will note that this is a piece of evidence which may require an explanation and he has not given evidence"? Why do we not get back to basics? In former days all a judge said was that the jury was not entitled to draw any adverse inference from the failure of the accused to give evidence? Why cannot we leave it at that and let the jury get on with it?
I should like to know—perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can tell me—what evidential value the direction from the judge is to be given by the jury. In a recent case on television in Scotland the accused failed to give evidence. We did not hear what the judge said about the impact of that. But are we going to get corroboration not even by false denial but by absence from the witness box?
It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to shake his head, and I understand why he does that. It is all very well for people versed in the law to say, "Well, of course, that is not the way things are". But if a prosecutor says, "Aha, Mr. Smith has not given evidence", and the judge says, "You will note this piece of evidence is here demanding an explanation and Mr. Smith has not given evidence. You will draw such conclusions as you think fit", what is a lay jury supposed to do except conclude that it is getting a nudge, nudge, wink, wink from the judge and say, "By the way, guilty may very well be the appropriate verdict"; not deliberately on the part of the judge, by no means? But as long as these freedoms exist from the Bench and, even more dangerously, from the floor of the court in the hands of prosecutors, we are in danger of eroding our system of law very considerably.
This matter, along with the question of judicial examination, must be considered. The noble and learned Lord the Minister raised the question of judicial examination with a view—if I have his words correctly—to eliciting a confession of some kind from the accused. Perhaps your Lordships are not familiar with the judicial examination. It is a process by which an accused person is taken before the court at a very early stage in the proceedings, before he even knows what the case against him is. He will have a copy of the complaint, or a indictment or a petition, but he is then "forced" to explain to the court what the case is all
556
about, what his defences are, and so on. As it stands, the judicial examination is dangerous enough because it gives the prosecution one bite of the cherry before even the defence has had time to prepare anything. But if we are to go one step further and allow the prosecutor a real snap at the accused in order to get him to confess to something, that is quite a preposterous proposition. We shall be running two trials.
I go back to my basic point. If we do not like the adversarial system, if it is all wrong, let us get rid of it, and let us set up a commission to decide whether the whole legal system in England, Scotland and Wales is a proper legal system for modern times. However, what we are doing in this Bill is to mess about with procedure, with the accused and with the rights of the individual.
Judicial examination is just as important as any other element in the Bill. It is incumbent on the Government to take a second look at these matters—the right to silence and judicial examination—and sit back, get interested parties to come in and have a proper consolidated period of consultation and consideration. The right to silence consultation period ended on 31st October of this year. This Bill was printed on 16th November. There was a considerable response to the right to silence consultation paper. The rapidity of the production of the Bill raises very serious questions: either that the Government considered the representations and did not think them worth much, or they had already made up their mind, the consultation period was nothing more or less than a sham, and the Bill was ready on the stocks to be launched, giving it a fortnight after the close of the consultation period. I can assure your Lordships that within the legal profession there is great concern about the steps the Government are taking in the matters of the right of silence, judicial examination and so on.
The parts of the Bill which encourage expediency in the administration of justice without eroding, or potentially eroding, the rights of accused persons are welcome and will be supported, and are supported, by noble Lords on this side of the House. As I have already said, the passage of those parts of the Bill on to the statute book will not be impeded by unnecessary objections. We shall try to contribute constructively to the phraseology of the Bill. Various areas of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord has already indicated, are better suited to be dealt with at the Committee and Report stages. It would be insolent of me to take up your Lordships' time in discussing those areas in detail.
I wish to raise two other issues. The first concerns sentencing guidelines. On this side of the House—the noble and learned Lord referred to the document produced by the Labour Party—we are in favour of consideration at least of a sentencing commission. The essence of guidelines is that they should be consistent. With the varying constitution of the Appeal Court in Scotland, where one does not get the same three judges listening to appeals, it is not necessarily the case that one will get a degree of consistency. We have to consider that point.

557
What I would not like to happen—and I have raised this point in your Lordships' House before—is to see sentencing guidelines become a straitjacket for a local judge. In a recent case in England a judge wanted to give some young fellow a considerable period in prison. He said, "I would like to give you x number of years but the sentencing guidelines say that I can only give you y". He had to pass a sentence which was not commensurate with the feeling of the local area and the nature of the offence because someone in the Appeal Court, looking at a bundle of papers, had said what was the appropriate sentence in that type of case. That should not be allowed to happen. It must not be a straitjacket for local judges.
We have our own problems in Scotland—speeders on the A.9, the Inverness road, probably one of the most deadly roads in Britain, if not in Europe. People come from the south, driving at 100 to 120 miles an hour. Perhaps in the south of England that might be regarded as just a yuppy exercise on a Friday evening. In Scotland it is regarded as a highly dangerous exercise on a very dangerous road. The guidelines that might be appropriate in the south of Scotland—in Dumfriesshire—might not be appropriate in Inverness-shire. I should like to think that the Government might consider setting up a commission of lay and legal representation to give a broad consensus as to the gravity of particular offences at a particular time and the way they should be dealt with.
The area of mental disorder in criminal procedure is a minefield of difficulty. It is a bewildering area. I ploughed my way through it and I commend the Minister and those who worked on it for the work they have done. We will do everything to assist in the passage of that part of the Bill, as we will do on the question of people profiteering from crime.
On the question of the abolition of the not proven verdict, all I can say is that we shall be back. The not proven verdict is regarded by many people—I declare an interest in that I have been against it for ever—as a nonsensical verdict. It is a fudge. Three verdicts in a criminal court. The rest of the world gets along with two. We in Scotland, for historical reasons, have to have three. All I can say at this stage is, let us get rid of it, but let us get rid of it after an informed debate in your Lordships' House.
The question of defence access to Crown papers in criminal cases, which was focused on yesterday south of the Border, will have to be considered during the passage of the Bill.
Finally, on the question of miscarriages of justice, unlike in other respects, Scotland is well behind the field. England and Wales, we think, will have a new body in office probably within a year. What has happened in Scotland in response to various observations made about the difficulty of miscarriages of justice is that a committee has been set up. Perhaps I may quote Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, speaking at the 10th Commonwealth Law
558
Conference—I cannot remember where it was but it is the words that matter—in March 1993. In dealing with miscarriages of justice, he said:
"It thus seems that such a new body if brought into being would have an important part to play in remedying miscarriages of justice in the criminal justice system. Indeed unless such a new body is created, there will be some cases where one cannot be confident that means exist within the criminal justice system as presently constituted for remedying miscarriages of justice which may have occurred".
That was a cry from one of the principal judges in Scotland to say, "Do something about miscarriages of justice". I recognise that the Government have done something about the situation because they have set up a committee which will not report until July 1996, or earlier, on the promise of the chair of the committee. I am somewhat concerned about the composition of the committee because I do not see on it any representation from practising lawyers apart from Professor Ross Harper who, for this year and the next two years, I believe, will be the president of the International Bar Association. I am not sure how much he practises criminal law. There is no representation from the Bar Association of Scotland or indeed from the Faculty of Advocates, as far as I can see.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is Derek Emslie.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I understand that there is one representative from the Faculty of Advocates, but in terms of practising criminal lawyers, I do not believe that Derek Emslie would put himself into that category at the moment. If I remember correctly, he is an Advocate Depute. But there is no input from the practising lawyers, particularly practising criminal lawyers in Edinburgh, who deal with the appeal procedures. I ask the Minister to take that into account and perhaps consider expanding the committee without making it too unwieldy in order to bring in the practitioners who have to deal not only with the appeals but with the clients involved in the appeals. It is all very well taking evidence from these groups, but what is needed is people to consider the evidence.
In closing, I welcome what the Minister has said—that we are to have a consolidating Bill for criminal law in Scotland—because since the mid-1970s, with all the necessary developments in the law as time has gone by, the practise of criminal law has become a nightmare in trying to find what the actual statutory law is. I look forward to the later stages of this Bill, which I consider should be free from petty party politics. I hope that everyone who takes part in the Committee and Report stages will bear that in mind. We do not approach it from a political point of view and I hope that no one else in your Lordships' House will do so because what matters are the interests of justice, the interests of the individual and the benefit of society.
4.12 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, we have before us today a Bill which goes some way towards meeting the needs of the criminal justice system in Scotland. Some of the measures contained in the Bill

559
are desirable and will be an improvement, but I have to ask: do they go far enough or are they just catching up measures?
Noble Lords will be aware that I worked for many years in the criminal justice system on the social work side, supervising probation orders, community service orders and aftercare licences. I was also a prison social worker and worked most recently on an intensive probation project.
From that point of view, I am happy with the stiffening of penalties for contravention of the Bail Act, with two provisos. First, I am not happy about those who are released on bail at the sheriff court as regards whether they are adequately briefed on the conditions of bail. My observations are that the priority of court staff at that time is to secure a signature on the bail release form. Discussing bail conditions with offenders has shown me that they have little or no knowledge of what is involved despite in some cases being bailed several times in the past. A review of the court procedures in that instance is needed.
Secondly, I wonder whether the new aggravated bail contravention sentence is compatible with the presumption of innocence. Release on bail after a remand can have a destabilising effect on offenders leading to desperate behaviour and naive feelings of "what does it matter?". Of course it does to a victim, but an offender may not see it that way clearly. Bail information and accommodation projects, as run by the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, can be helpful in this instance.
The proposed arrangements for jury service should achieve a reduction in hassle and frustration for potential jurors. It also makes it more difficult to avoid jury service by means of the re-citing of excused jurors within one year. We welcome the decision to keep the number of jurors at 15 and to retain the not proven verdict.
There are measures to improve the pre-trial procedures which may prove to be efficient. The mandatory first diet and intermediate diet will reduce the frustration currently felt by jurors and witnesses at the adjournment of trials. I am concerned that Clause 10 will cause difficulties for accused persons not legally represented who may not give a considered answer and subsequently find themselves in greater difficulty than appropriate, for few of these people are well versed in the law.
The measures on uncontroversial evidence seem to be helpful in speeding up trials. However, Clause 18 sounds unfair for it provides information to the jury that I, if a juror, would not wish to know. Meanwhile, Clause 22 seeks to protect the victim from the most pernicious line of questioning in the court system.
The changes proposed for the trial are significant to this debate. Clause 25 allows for the removal from the dock of an accused who is misbehaving. Perhaps this may be a reaction to the evidence which is being led against the accused. Without his or her presence and reactions, how will the jury be able to reach a satisfactory opinion? Clause 26 opens a potential can of worms. It seems to me that a situation may occur when
560
the accused will never dare not to give evidence because there is a danger that the jury's mind will be predisposed against the concept of not giving evidence. Ultimately, the Crown must prove its own case.
After conviction, Clause 27 formalises the concept of sentence discounting. This may help to bring a speedier close to a trial in which the defence is faltering; but will that lead to circumstances where the accused, although innocent, will end up pleading guilty? In Clause 28 there seems to be a move towards a sentencing policy. Does that not put in jeopardy the independence of the bench? On the other hand, it would avoid vast differences in sentencing. An extreme and possibly ludicrous case I encountered 25 years ago was at Polmont Borstal. Three boys from relatively crime-free Stornoway were given Borstal training for the theft of paint—a charge that might not have come to court in Glasgow. The novel solution to that case of considerable disparity and of penal contamination, was that they were put in the care of a Gaelic-speaking officer and liberated as soon as permitted.
Clause 29 broadens the scope of supervised attendance orders, especially for 16 and 17 year-old fine defaulters. Given that this group is wrongly disqualified from benefit fines do seem inappropriate for unemployed teenagers. As long as the supervised attendance centres have a programme which will begin to meet the needs of the offender, that would be a good move. To do so, the centre's programme must include discussion groups about offending behaviour, the effect of crime on victims, the use of leisure, entry to the workplace and the resolution of personal and housing problems. The extension of supervised attendance orders to 100 hours is appropriate when set against this list of appropriate tasks for supervised attendance order clients.
Clauses 30 and 31 enhance the role of social work in the criminal justice system, but will the funding be there? Clause 33 brings treatment by a psychologist into the world of probation conditions. Clause 34 aims to stiffen the penalties for offences committed at community service locations. I recall two incidents at the Inverness community service depot. On the first occasion, a supply of paint was stolen and, on another occasion, a set of joinery tools was stolen—albeit that the latter was recovered.
In the proposals for appeals, there would be a reduction in judges' time if the single judge sift and quorum of two judges were implemented.
There is good news about the treatment of those accused who suffer mental disorder. They could now be dealt with by either hospital order, restriction order, guardianship, or supervision and treatment orders after an examination of the facts. I hope that the resources will be made available to allow those orders to be implemented.
Clause 49 tidies up the anomalous situation regarding detention before charges are preferred, so that the total period of detention will be restricted to six hours. That is quite long enough for young and inexperienced offenders.

561
The proposal in Clause 50 which permits all statutory offences to be tried in the district court raises the question of whether we would see cases being remitted to the sheriff court for higher penalties.
The unspecified extension of the range of fiscal fines has some merit although there is a question about whether the exemption of a fiscal fine from a person's schedule of previous convictions will be suitable in every case as the range of offences dealt with in that way widens.
An increased range of social work activities are being brought forward on to the statute book at Clause 54 and therefore into the framework of 100 per cent. funding by the Scottish Office. They include the provision of social background reports to children's hearings for 16 and 17 year-olds to the procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate, as well as supervision of the mentally disordered on supervision and treatment orders, the supervision of 16 and 17 year-olds on a supervision requirement under Clause 44 (1) (a) and (b) from a children's hearing with appropriate funding, and diversion from prosecution schemes. In Motherwell and Aberdeen reparation and mediation schemes are currently being run by the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders after pilot projects in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the funding of which unfortunately ran out.
Part II deals with the proposals to extend confiscation, forfeiture and the accompanying restraint orders. All deal with money laundering and other proceeds of crime. I do not propose to speak at length about that, except to make two points. My first point is that while there is a good moral case for the confiscation of the means of crime and the forfeiture of its proceeds, it will all depend on the diligence of the procurator fiscal, the co-operation of the accused and convicted, and the persistence of the administrator. I wonder whether the expanded profession of administrator may prove more expensive to the court system than the amount recovered.
My second point is that confiscation and forfeiture are by no means a new idea in Scotland. There is a fine, if costly, history to that. The commissioners for the forfeited estates played a significant part in Scottish history visiting, among others, the Earldom of Mar in 1716. After pushing the Union through the Scottish Parliament, former Principal Secretary Mar rebelled against it, a view not lacking in support today. Ah well, the prison social worker in me cannot resist trying to rehabilitate the sixth Earl!
I wish to mention on a personal basis two aspects of the criminal justice system which ought to be in the Bill but which are not, yet. First, I had hoped that there would be a mandatory requirement on all Scottish prison service establishments to make available to prisoners, on a voluntary basis, a course to enable them to discuss their offending behaviour and other post-release issues. I have always been surprised that until recently such a fundamental subject has been a virtual taboo in prisons.
Secondly, I wish to complain that there is very little in the Bill which addresses the needs of the victims of crime. Urgent attention is required to be given to victim issues. Ought it not to be the norm, for example, that
562
compensation orders are made? Again, the procurator fiscal should make more effort to keep the victim in touch with how the case is going and with what will be required of him or her as a witness. For the victim, the trial will probably be a re-run of the original offence—and the defence may be as aggressive as the offender. Again, the provision of a victim counselling service at court would be helpful. I pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes across Scotland—from Clackmannan to Stranraer to Caithness. I hope that the Minister will soon be able to announce the doubling of funding for victim support. Spending more in that area will give better value for money for victims, who are fundamental to the criminal justice system. It is significant that if you are an offender, you will be seen by paid professionals. If you are a victim, you will be helped by trained volunteers. Such is the imbalance.
To conclude, the Bill tinkers with the criminal justice system to improve it, but I regret that crime will remain at an unacceptable level. Does the engine of the criminal justice system require fine tuning or replacement?
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lours: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on his speech, which I believe was his first from his Front Bench. He is a comparative newcomer to this House and I am sure that we all admire the way in which he has deployed his professional expertise in his first speech from that position.
The Bill deals with issues that are right at the top of the agenda for the people of Scotland. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we Scots think a lot and care a lot about jobs, schooling, hospitals, community care and the economy; but I believe that it is a fair guess that higher even than those in priority comes concern at the present time for the safety of our homes, our children, our elderly relations, ourselves, our cars and our possessions generally. There is concern about the number of burglaries and violent crimes which we read and hear about daily and which we and our friends and acquaintances may, alas, have experienced personally. High on our agenda too is concern that far too many people suspected of crime seem not to be caught or seem, having been caught, to be allowed to escape. There is concern that too many people receive sentences that seem far too lenient.
I know very well from when I served on the Bench as an honorary sheriff in the 1970s and early 1980s the frustration which ordinary law-abiding people feel if a court imposes a sentence that looks inappropriately light, if they think that an accused person is too easily given the benefit of the doubt, or if a convicted person is able to keep his or her ill-gotten gains and in no way make restitution for the loss suffered by the victim. Those frustrations are, I believe, no less—and probably more—strongly felt nowadays than ever before. We all hear and see more and more via the media, and the current desire for the operation of our courts in Scotland to be strengthened is very great and cannot be ignored.
At the same time, it seems to me that we Scots are deeply conscious—at any rate, when we take time to

563
reflect—that accused people must be dealt with fairly; that as regards serious crimes juries are the people who should decide guilt or innocence; and that sentencing should be clearly fair as well as firm.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay—who at present is not in his place—that I do not believe that the electorate or its elected representatives in Scotland are bloodthirsty. I believe that people are only too well aware not just that the victims of crime might at some point be their own parent, grandparent or child but that one day the accused person might be a member of their own family: a son, a daughter or a grandchild.
For that reason, as well as the basic tolerance deep down in the Scots personality and culture, I believe that people appreciate the need for balance in the law; that if, for example, there is to be the strengthening of deterrence—the more effective catching and holding of suspects and arrangements that make it more difficult for the guilty to be found innocent—there must also be proper safeguards to ensure that unnecessary force is not used, that the innocent are not convicted and that miscarriages of justice can be rectified.
Likewise, when people are reminded that the taxpayer must pay most of the costs of the administration of justice—of ensuring that firmness and fairness, in fact, happen—they accept that those costs must be kept in control. They understand well the need to make the procedures work as smoothly as possible with as little waste of time as can be managed. Those who at some time have been called as witnesses or jurors probably know from experience how time is wasted and how there are repetitions, delays and adjournments. It is interesting to note that the Government's figures show that of the 350,000 witnesses who attend court in Scotland each year, no fewer than 280,000 give no evidence at all. They are told that it is all necessary in the cause of justice. However, many are a little mystified why such inefficiency must be part of the law.
The Bill addresses many of those anxieties. As my noble and learned friend told us, and as subsequent speakers have mentioned, the first five clauses deal with the law relating to bail. They limit the range of people who may be granted bail and make it possible to impose tighter conditions. They make it possible to impose more severe penalties for those who break the conditions or commit offences while on bail. They also make it possible for bail to be reviewed if new circumstances come to light which cast doubt on the original decision.
Part II contains proposals relating to confiscation. They enable the court to confiscate the proceeds of crime and they set out how the court will determine what the convicted person has in fact gained by his or her crime. Part II also makes it more difficult for people convicted to escape from forfeiting the property that they have used in crime. It allows the court to make suspended forfeiture orders and to search for and seize property which might in due course be the subject of such an order. All those measures meet the anxieties of the public.
Much of the Bill is devoted to measures that would speed up the workings of the court and would enable court officials, lawyers, judges and, indeed, police
564
officers to use their time more effectively and cost-effectively as well as taking up less time for witnesses and jurors.
The Law Society of Scotland has been kind enough to write to me as it has to other noble Lords. It is happy about the majority of the Bill. It tells me that the Government have consulted the society and have taken many of its suggestions into the Bill. It does not agree, it tells me, with Clause 10, which deals with judicial examination, or with Clause 26. We shall be discussing the proposal relating to the so-called right to silence, which I understand is different from that in the legislation for England and Wales. The Law Society of Scotland is also concerned that resources may not be made available on the taxpayers' behalf to finance the new arrangements. It wonders whether the Government have costed carefully enough the balance between the likely savings and additional expenditure. Can my noble and learned friend comment on the statement in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill that the cumulative effect of the proposals should be broadly cost neutral?
The Bill proposes many changes which, while looking eminently sensible to the lay person, will clearly demand new ways of working and, I dare say, even some new skills for lawyers. Of course the House will need to look carefully and in detail at the workability of the measures, not least through lawyers' eyes. After all, the lawyers must get it all to work. I imagine that when we hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, we shall not be allowed to forget that. I believe that the noble and learned Lord won the Sword of Honour during his training as an Air Force officer. He has ever since been a doughty fighter and we look forward to hearing his speech.
I hope that during our detailed deliberations noble Lords will not become so concerned by the challenge that the Bill presents to lawyers that the needs and anxieties of the public will sometimes be put on the back burner. We must not allow that. This Bill is much needed and I commend it to the House.
4.38 p.m..
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, on Second Reading it is appropriate to discuss the principle of the Bill. However, Part I contains many disparate and unconnected reforms and it is difficult to find the principle. That is not a criticism of the Government; it is just the way it is. I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl's judgment that the Bill is tinkering with the system. I was most surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord the Minister describe it as resulting in the most substantial overhaul of the Scottish criminal justice system for 15 years.
There is a temptation to go straight to the detail because there is no one coherent principle. However, I shall resist doing so. First, I wish to comment on the process that has led to the production of the Bill. It culminated in the publication in June of the Government's White Paper, Firm and Fair. I was and I remain a serious critic of that process. The Government went about it in entirely the wrong way and that is one of the reasons why they obtained some bad results.

565
The Government published about half a dozen papers during a period of less than 12 months. They allowed a brief period of consultation—two or three months at most—some of which occurred during the court holiday periods. The people who wrote the papers, who thought up the proposals that were included in them and who decided what was to be left out were civil servants, working to the instructions of Ministers. In some cases I know that their knowledge and practical experience of criminal practice and procedure was very limited indeed. In the case of the Crown Office participants to that process, their experience was entirely one-sided. They had the perspective and prejudices of full-time career public prosecutors.
Let us contrast that with the process which led to the 1980s Bill. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is in his place. In the 1970s, for a period as long as nine years, many distinguished experts sat and considered criminal justice reforms. In particular, the committee under Lord Thomson produced three reports. It had on it three High Court judges, a sheriff, public prosecutors, professors, doctors, policemen and lay people. Over that period, it produced a serious look at all the matters. It heard evidence from people listed in Appendix 1 to the report and that list extends to four whole pages of consultees. Some people gave oral as well as written evidence.
It then took a long time to produce its report which was based on all the perspectives of anyone inside, or even outside, the Scottish criminal justice system. Therefore, the legislation which followed was soundly based and commanded widespread support. I mention the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, because when we were members of the government, we sat together and went through the reports. We included in the Bill as many proposals as the legislation committee would permit.
When the government fell, the succeeding government took over that particular Bill, and in many ways, they improved it. They extended it and added the results of the new consultation processes which had come on-stream at that time. That reform commanded the respect of the whole of Scotland. This one is based on an entirely different process. Nobody knows where the ideas came from. Nobody knows why some of them are there and why others have not even been canvassed.
I want to say—and it is right that I should do so—that the consultation process, short though it was, produced a considerable amount of protest from people in Scotland, including myself, the Law Commission and a good many others, about the weakness of the process, the shallowness of some of the proposals and the unwisdom of some of the ideas being published by the Government. I wish to pay this tribute to Ministers—and I do so with the greatest sincerity—for listening to that consultation process in a way which, I must say, surprised me. But they certainly listened and the result is that the Bill is not nearly as bad as most of us had feared. I hope that they will continue to listen and I am sure that they will do so because we are all concerned to improve and streamline the system.
However, it is necessary to draw attention to one or two consequences of that particular process. The whole emphasis of the Bill is on what the White Paper calls
566
"our fight against crime". That is what the White Paper is concerned about. I am certainly as anxious as the Government to fight against crime. The White Paper states that their highest priority is to protect the public from crime and from criminals.
Of course the public has the right to expect that kind of utterance from the Government. But the highest priority of the Scottish criminal justice system is to ensure that justice is done in and by our criminal courts. We, the judges, are not allies of the police or public prosecutor. We are not members of the same team. We and the criminal courts exist to ensure that those whom the police and the public prosecutor seek to prosecute will be dealt with justly and fairly and as speedily and inexpensively as possible.
The result of the process that I have described, with the main input coming from the prosecution, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, is that the balance of the Bill is entirely wrong. I detect only one measure which goes in favour of an accused person in a criminal trial. The whole thrust is to tip the scale against accused persons. That can be seen in the proposals with regard to bail, the increase in penalties, the limitations upon appeals, the reductions in legal aid, where it is hoped there is to be a saving in legal aid, the encroachment on the so-called right of silence and so on.
There is the proposal to reduce the right of peremptory challenge, the right of the defence to say, "We object to this juror" without having to show cause. The history of the matter is that until 1980, there were five peremptory challenges. The Thomson Committee considered the matter and suggested that we should reduce the jury to 12 and allow two challenges. The logic of that was that if you retained 15, you kept three challenges. In 1980 the Government came forward with a proposal to make it one challenge. In this House I introduced an amendment to make it three. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at that time—I think he is now the Lord Chancellor—marched his troops through the Lobby and the result was that the proposal was defeated.
The matter went to the other place and when it came back with the support of the Government, they had what was called a balanced compromise between those who held different points of view. It would be unwise to disturb that compromise now. The compromise was to have three peremptory challenges. What has changed today? Why are we being invited to abandon that balanced compromise which flowed from Thomson and which met with the somewhat muted approval of those who took part in the discussions at that time.
But an even more serious consequence of the somewhat incestuous way in which the proposals were conceived is that the procedural remedies which are to be introduced in Clauses 10, 11, especially 12, and 13 do not address real problems. Some delay and inconvenience is inevitable in a criminal justice system. It cannot be remedied. But in so far as it is possible to remove faults and improve matters, it is quite clear that the principal causes of delay and inefficiency in our system of bringing people to trial are to be found inside the prosecution system, the system over which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate presides.

567
Again, I make it quite clear that that is not a criticism of him or those who act under him, including the fiscals and the Crown agents. I believe that they are heavily under-resourced. Many people support me in that belief. But the Bill does absolutely nothing at all to help them in that regard. As is pointed out in the financial part of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill is to be cost neutral. That is cloud-cuckoo-land. You cannot introduce extra bail duties for fiscals and advocates-depute, extra preparation for questioning at judicial examination, extra preparatory work for the fiscals to deal with the matters in Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14, extra work at hearings in relation to insanity cases, extra responsibilities conferred in relation to confiscation under Part II and so on without increasing the resources available to the fiscal service. Those resources are already inadequate and I am afraid that the Bill is extremely weak in that regard.
There cannot be the slightest doubt that if you increase the number of penalties and the number of crimes but reduce access to bail, as this Bill does, the prison population is bound to rise. I believe that it costs about £20,000 per year to keep a person in prison. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will correct me if that figure is wrong. Has that been taken into account? The only likely saving mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum is on legal aid. That is very dangerous indeed.
I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is in his place. He will remember very well the case of Grainger because he acted for the unsuccessful party before the European Court of Human Rights. We got into trouble there because we had not allowed legal aid to a person in relation to an appeal and the Government had to pay compensation of, I think, £1,000.
I turn from what the Bill does contain to some matters that it does not contain. It does not contain certain potentially useful reforms. Mention has been made already —and I want to emphasise it—of dealing with the real miscarriage of justice cases which the present system cannot handle. We may not have had the same publicity in relation to those cases in Scotland but make no mistake about it, we have had such cases and, indeed, I believe that some may still exist.
What is significant is that within the past 10 days, the Government have set up a committee. Why have they waited until then? The Runciman Committee was appointed in the spring of 1991 and the problem was evident then. It reported in June 1993 and the answers were offered then and there has been a great deal of commentary in relation to them since that time. I should certainly like to know why it has taken until now for such a proposal to be put forward. It is a matter of urgency. If a person is languishing in prison suffering from a miscarriage of justice, nothing could be more urgent to him. We must not proceed about it in such a leisurely way as that which has been proposed.
I shall pass over a number of other matters that I should have liked to deal with because they may be suitably dealt with in Committee. However, there is one case that I should like to mention. I am sure that the
568
noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will have a good deal of sympathy with this point. I have in mind the recent case of Eric John Rowan. He faced criminal charges in Scotland and was released on bail. Eventually, he failed to turn up for trial. One of the conditions of bail was that his passport should be confiscated. Shortly afterwards, he was arrested at Manchester Airport apparently trying to leave the country without a passport. He has since been detained on remand in England. The Scottish courts cannot bring him to trial because statutory provisions do not permit the release of a person held on remand in England to be tried in Scotland. The result is a nonsense.
We in Scotland are very proud of the fact that we have strict time limits on the prosecution of charges. Of course, such time limits affect Mr. Rowan. The Lord Justice General, writing the opinion of the court, said:
"In view of the difficulties which have arisen with the English prison authorities since the introduction of the 12 month time limit in Scotland by the 1980 Act, we believe that the time has come for the whole matter to be reconsidered by Parliament, with a view to the introduction of legislation to permit the transfer of prisoners on remand in such circumstances. In our opinion this is a reform which is now urgently needed".
It is urgently needed and I should like to see it in the Bill. If we are faced with the problem that the English are not prepared to allow the UK legislation to be altered—and I believe that that may be a difficulty—then I believe another possible solution is to insert in the Bill a provision to enable the courts to extend the time limits on that specific ground. At least we will be able to do so without difficulty. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will no doubt be considering that particular matter.
I do not want to go into the bail provisions in any great detail. However, I doubt very much whether some of them are really necessary. For example, in Clause 3 your Lordships will find that certain persons who have been convicted of such crimes as murder, attempted murder, rape and so on, will not be allowed bail if they come before the courts. But who on earth would grant them bail? I sit as a bail judge once a week and I hear, perhaps, 30 or 40 cases each day that I sit. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether there are any cases known to him within the past, let us say, three or five years when a person charged with murder, attempted murder, rape or attempted rape, and having a previous conviction for such a crime, has been released on bail? I should be astonished to discover that that has happened.
Clause 5 says that one cannot proceed with an appeal unless one has lodged the grounds of appeal. That is the practice of the courts at present. Indeed, it is the subject of a practice note which I have in my hand. I see that the noble and learned Lord is shaking his head. Nevertheless, it was issued by the Lord Justice General in March 1994. It is the practice and I, as a bail judge, observe it. In fact, the practice was first specified by Lord Wheatley, then Lord Justice-Clerk, in the case of Smith some years ago. I have the practice note with me in case there is any doubt about the matter.
Clauses 8 and 14 deal with a matter which is very close to my heart and, indeed, to that of the Minister. The noble and learned Lord will remember that I came

569
forward in 1990 with proposals to require the prosecutor to serve on the accused person, along with the indictment, a list of separate facts which the accused person could then be invited to admit or deny. The Scottish Law Commission picked up the idea and wrote a very useful report on the matter of which the Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be aware. Indeed, in the 1990 debate, the Minister is noted as saying:
"The Scottish Law Commission is currently considering the responses to its consultation on Discussion Paper No. 77 on [these] matters".—[Official Report, 17/5/90; col. 429.]
The commission produced a report and brought forward an excellent clause. The essential character of that clause was the same as the one that I advanced in 1990; namely, that the prosecution should, first of all, specify the matters that ought to be agreed or that might be made the subject of an agreement. The Bill distorts the whole thing entirely and lays the obligation upon both the prosecution and the defence. So, what price the right of silence if there is a statutory obligation to agree certain things? I do not really understand that at all.
Clauses 12 and 13 are said to tackle the question mentioned by the noble Baroness of people coming to court and finding that the case is not to be heard. It means going back to the system which was abolished following consideration by the Thomson Committee. We used to have two diets which were abolished in 1980 by a Bill introduced by the predecessors of those who now sit on the Front Bench. But here we are, for no particular reason, going back to that situation some 14 years later. I do not understand it. In Committee I shall say that Clause 18 is a wholly misconceived clause. It enables the prosecution to put the previous convictions of accused persons before the jury, although the accused persons have not given evidence. I regard that as a terrible departure from the principle that ought to apply.
I can offer a little comfort to the Minister, as regards Clause 26—a clause much disliked by others. I actually support the provision. It relates to the comment by the prosecutor upon the failure of the accused to go into the witness box. Perhaps I may suggest to your Lordships the reason for my support. It is deeply patronising for judges and people like ourselves to imagine that, unless someone says to the jury, "Did you notice that he did not go into the witness box?", they will not have noticed. If a judge points out to them that an accused did not give evidence, one does not see members of the jury striking their heads and saying, "Jings, we didn't actually notice". It is deeply patronising to say that that cannot be commented upon. If the judge can comment upon it, as he can—though he should do so with restraint; and those restraints are fairly well known—I do not see any reason in the world why the prosecutor should not say, "Well, ladies and gentlemen, you have heard the evidence. His fingerprints were found all over the safe. His footprints were found on the carpet and his DNA sample matched that found on the broken window, but he did not offer an explanation". Members of the jury do not need to be told that. But, if the prosecutor wants to say it, let him go ahead and do so. I do not regard that as a serious invasion of some precious constitutional
570
right. I believe that a good deal of nonsense has been talked about it by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar.
I am most doubtful about the proposal that judges should sit alone in order to consider criminal appeals. I have with me a document written by Justice. It was pointed out that there is such a system in England where a single judge scrutinises papers and decides, on the basis of the written papers, whether or not there will be an appeal. The document says that the single judge acts as the main filter for appellants—some research was carried out in that respect—and continues to say that there is a lack of any consistent practice in the way that applications appear to be considered. In one case as regards which Justice has the papers, a solicitor had in error sent two sets of appeal papers in the same case. Two single judge decisions followed: one granted leave to appeal and the other one refused it. Both decisions had been made at different times by the same judge. The first decision was favourable and a custodial sentence was reduced on appeal.
When one sits down at the end of a busy day and is handed a great heap of papers which one has to read before one has one's evening meal or whatever, one is bound to look through them fairly cursorily. Yet, if we refuse leave to appeal and the matter goes to the Appeal Court and leave is also refused there, legal aid is not granted. Therefore, the judges are being brought in to act as doorkeepers against further depredations of the legal aid fund.
There are many other matters which I should like to discuss, but I see that my time is nearly up. I repeat, I hope that the Government will do what they certainly did at the consultation stage; namely, listen and respond. I am anxious to help. I hope it is not immodest if I say that I have more experience of practice at all levels in the criminal courts in Scotland as a prosecutor, as a defence counsel, in the burgh court, in the district court, in the sheriff court and in the Appeal Court in all capacities than anyone else in this noble House. I share the Government's objectives in relation to speed, simplicity and comprehensibility in the criminal process. I hope the Government will study carefully the many amendments that I propose to put down and that they will be seen as genuine attempts to improve the Bill. That is what I propose to do and I look forward to the next stage.
5 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who has just regaled us with what I regard as an excellent speech—I am grateful to him for that—may care to wind his memory back 15 years when he carried out two other duties that he has not mentioned to your Lordships. First of all, from the Opposition Bench, when he "fine-toothcombed"—if I may put it that way—my efforts, together with my noble friend Lord Mansfield, to put through your Lordships' House the 1980 Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. The noble and learned Lord made one or two comments at the outset of his remarks which were fairly complimentary towards this particular measure; but 17 years ago the noble and learned Lord was on this side of the House and giving me instruction,

571
and perhaps correction, over the patents Bill. Therefore the noble and learned Lord has even more practical experience than he has mentioned.
If I take the noble and learned Lord back 15 years, he may remember the 1980 Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill on which his excellent and kind colleague Lord Ross of Marnock gave me and my noble friend Lord Mansfield a fairly harsh time—making the current Front Bench Opposite appear mere tabby cats—over the problem of attempting to calm the alcoholic hooligans at Scotland's football grounds. I was looking at this debate just yesterday, and there is column after column after column from Lord Ross of Mamock on how we would be acting oppressively and would remove the rights of individuals. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, attempted to calm the flow from Lord Ross. But—surprise, surprise!—over the years when I have attended football games in Scotland—I am sure the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Carmichael, have attended football matches and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, told me he attended such a game at the weekend—policemen and the police authorities have said that the 1980 Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act has achieved exactly what it was intended to achieve with minimal disturbance.
I am going back 15 years but I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will be able to give us the benefit of his advice and his practical experience over the remaining stages of the Bill. It seems to me that this Bill is in the nature of a consolidating Bill and tries to encapsulate several reports and thoughts of the Law Commission and the legal fraternity in Scotland. I have three points to which I hope my noble and learned friend can respond either tonight or later in writing.
My first point concerns Clause 16 and forensic scientists. I was interested to note in subsection (4) that a forensic scientist is authorised to do certain things and, in subsection (4) (b) (i), "is a constable". I am interested to note that it appears that members of the police force are sufficiently qualified in this rather complicated science to be forensic scientists for the purpose of major criminal investigations. I hope my noble and learned friend can give me some advice as regards the qualifications that are required under Clause 16(4) (b) (i). To what level do these individuals require to be qualified, and where do they carry out their work? How many individuals are we thinking of—a handful, 50 or even 100?
Secondly, I studied Clause 20 which concerns video recordings. At first sight I thought this was dealing with video recordings of suspects being questioned; but on closer examination, I found that my fears were virtually allayed although I hope my noble and learned friend will give me clarification that the evidence which is available on the video recordings is adequate for the purposes of proof in the criminal courts.
Thirdly, Clause 26 concerns what we call the right to silence. I am afraid that I have not been able to understand the entire output of the 1975 Act; but I understand that that Act of 1975—let alone Clause 26—follows on from what I believe was known as the
572
Thomson Report. That is the advice that I have been given. I recall the furore and high emotion that was aroused both here and elsewhere and all around the United Kingdom over the right to silence perhaps seven, eight or nine years ago when we were discussing a so-called right to silence with regard to serious offences which were connected with the prevention of terrorism and other aspects of the law both here and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I have been considerably reassured on that matter by what my noble and learned friend had to say. I was interested, too, in what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, spelt out in about two minutes flat what I believe and hope to be the case. Certainly the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has reassured me on this point, and I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend the Minister could reassure me further. If the matter is complicated, perhaps he can write to me but I shall certainly listen carefully to what he has to say when he replies to the debate this evening.
Finally, I congratulate my noble and learned friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, who is not in his place, who are all practitioners of what I believe to be the best legal system in the world. I believe that this Bill, with any imperfections that we or Members in another place will attempt to iron out, will make a useful step in the progress of that legal system. I have had experience of the office of my noble and learned friend, and it is ready to give Members of your Lordships' House or of another place the opportunity to have a simple Bill—I believe the sinister words here are, "if government time allows"—with government support but the work has to be done by Back-Benchers. I believe the law can be tidied up. My time is up as regards this Bill and I look forward to hearing what my noble and learned friend has to say.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this Bill is highly technical. I have listened to the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I am not sure whether there is another title for a High Court judge other than noble and learned. As a layman, I am sure the House will realise the difficulty I experience in trying to reply to a debate such as this. However, I am sure that we will have an interesting Committee stage in which my education as regards the law will progress further.
There are one or two points in the Bill I wish to deal with. My only connection with some of the matters we are discussing is that I was for a number of years the honorary chairman of SACRO in Scotland. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will have received briefs from SACRO, as I have, and will have considered a suitable response. One of the matters that has been referred to in a number of the contributions to this debate is that of resources. It is said that the costs will be roughly balanced. I wonder whether we can look forward to a time when resources will cover the costs of the courts, and of the prosecution—almost certainly the costs of the

573
prosecution will increase under the terms of this Bill—and of the prisons and the expenses of social work departments. I am informed by others—I am fairly convinced of this myself—that the costs of these provisions will almost certainly increase because of the effects of the Bill. I should say the good effects of the Bill as I am not criticising it in that regard. I am just saying that I doubt whether we shall obtain the system of justice on the cheap that we hope the Bill will give us. I believe, and others have expressed the view, that the financial effects of the Bill will certainly not be broadly cost neutral. I hope that in replying the Minister will deal with that point.
Some of the points that I should like to raise have already been mentioned. However, I have been involved in the issues in my earlier role with SACRO. One of those questions is the handling of miscarriages of justice, a matter which was dealt with very well by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The disturbing feature of the issue of miscarriages of justice is that the stage has almost been reached when people believe there has been a miscarriage of justice; there has been so much publicity of cases in England that if someone puts up a reasonable case, the general public—and sometimes the press and media—believe that there may be something in it. Therefore, there must be a clear examination to debunk any supposed miscarriage of justice. That must be transparent. That is an important point for the future and for the sake of justice in Scotland.
SACRO was also concerned about bail. None of the issues relating to bail was raised during the consultation process. Some of the measures appear to have been brought in almost as a "get tough" policy towards offenders, an afterthought in response to a perception that those on bail do not take the conditions of bail seriously. While I was involved with SACRO, Lothian Region in partnership with SACRO, introduced a pilot project, with funding from the Scottish Office, offering bail information, supervision and accommodation to those on bail. That worked rather well. The project was aimed at reducing the number of remands into custody. It demonstrates that that approach is effective. So far as I know, the project is continuing. In the view of those involved with the scheme it would be preferable to increase the funding for such projects rather than to encourage more remands into custody when that has already proved to have disastrous consequences for young people, and particularly the vulnerable young people. No one would doubt that there is a group of young people for whom custody for a period and in certain conditions may be appropriate; but in the case of many young people it would almost certainly be better to have well supervised bail, which of course involves some cost.
Breaching bail is already deemed an offence in Scotland in its own right. That is harsher than the situation in England. Clause 2 represents a further harshening which is not in keeping with the present practice of extending bail on a presumption of innocence.
574
We have a large number of points to raise in Committee. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that, and he will want a good debate on the Bill before it goes to another place.
Catching the eye of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, perhaps I may respond to his comments about football. I should like to correct him. I believe that the measure that he mentioned resulted from the report of the late Frank McElhone. It was a very progressive move. As a regular football supporter, I deplore the amount of drink which is consumed outside the ground. It is quite appalling. I was going to say that it is almost like this noble House on a busy night, such as during the Maastricht debate. People stand outside the doors before going in. The situation is very bad in places like Maryhill Road, Parkhead and Ibrox when there is a big football match. The amount of drinking is excessive. But there is none in the ground. That is very important, quite apart from the fact that there are no cans or bottles to throw. In addition, perhaps by the time people go into the ground some of the effect of the drink has worn off. However, there is still far too much drinking in Scotland. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to intervene at this point, but I felt that I had to put the record straight in case the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, had put the wrong slant on the matter.
In SACRO we also introduced mediation schemes under which the accused discusses with the victim the consequences of his actions. In the case of violence, particularly violence on the spur of the moment, it may be possible to make the person who had committed an offence rethink and have some contrition if he faces the person who was the victim of his violence. I do not believe that anyone is beyond some form of redemption and I believe that the scheme may be of some help.
There is another debate here this evening on a rather different subject—the United Kingdom motor coach industry. It could hardly be further from the very serious subject that we are discussing now. With those words and the promise of a very good Committee stage, I should like to hear the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, instead of immediately thanking all those who have contributed to the debate, perhaps I may record with some regret that, unfortunately, a Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Selkirk, who over many years regularly contributed to debates on criminal justice in Scotland died last week. His contributions will be greatly missed. Those of us who are members of the Faculty of Advocates were proud that, with his distinguished political record, he was also a member of the faculty.
I thank all those who have contributed to the Second Reading debate. The Bill was characterised by a number of your Lordships as being a tinkering with the system. The Bill is the result of extensive consultation. I

575
certainly reject the idea that in any sense we did not recognise that what is at issue here is justice. In the foreword to our paper Firm and Fair we say:
"Scotland is well served by its distinctive system of criminal justice. An independent prosecution service acting in the public interest and a judiciary of absolute integrity are among its, particular strengths".
I would be the last person in your Lordships' House to suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that in any respect his intellectual capacity is failing. However, it seems to me, with respect, that he is coming to an age when his memory is becoming somewhat golden. If he genuinely believes that the 1979 Bill, and in its later form the 1980 Bill, commanded the universal respect of all Scotland, that does not square with my memory of it, although as time has gone by some of the features which were opposed at that time are now accepted as being important parts of our system.
This is not a tinkering with the system. We looked long and hard at all of the issues and where we might improve them. Certainly we did not try to address such fundamental issues, even if we wanted to, of whether we should move from our current adversarial system to an inquisitorial one. I would vigorously resist that, particularly at a time when so many countries in Europe are looking this way across the Channel to see whether they might move more towards our adversarial systems rather than remain with their own inquisitorial systems.
I accept that, if there is one big idea which is not contained within the Bill, it is in relation to the proposal that there should be a fresh view, possibly including the establishment of a tribunal, in relation to miscarriages of justice. As the Bill progresses through its later stages there may be those who will wish to return to that matter. We recognise the interest in it. We also recognise the great complexity of the issue. It is for that reason that the committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Sutherland has been established. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. It would seem to me that its membership is not without distinction, including within it the Lord Justice-Clerk, and Sheriff Gerald Gordon, who will be well known to anyone with an interest in the criminal system, along with many other distinguished lawyers and others who have a knowledge of our system.
I make no apologies for returning to a number of matters in procedure which existed previously. Our experience has been that by focusing carefully on intermediate diets in the sheriff courts remarkable progress has been made in reducing the number of witnesses unnecessarily called to our courts and the number of trials unnecessarily adjourned or sometimes cancelled. Already we have achieved significant success. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will make those experiments even more successful.
It is not a matter simply of saving the fiscal's time or the court's time. Among the correspondence that I receive are letters from members of the public who have been cited as witnesses. They find that they have repeatedly to come to court and are then sent away without explanation. They have to return weeks later
576
and then find that a plea of guilty is tendered, so even in those circumstances they are not required. What is alarming is their conclusion: that should they be witness to another criminal activity they would turn a blind eye to it. At the centre of the Bill is a serious purpose: it is to avoid just such a problem. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out, huge numbers of people are called to the courts as witnesses every year. We hope to reduce the number substantially.
I am grateful to my noble friend and to others in the House who have given a welcome to the provisions in the Bill. It contains a wide variety of different issues. Sometimes the support came, if I may say so, from unexpected quarters with unexpected vigour. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for his trenchant and brief explanation of the desirability of Clause 26. I hope that it will be understood far more clearly in Scotland what a modest proposal it is and where it fits into the existing common law.
At another point the noble and learned Lord complained that the balance of the Bill was entirely wrong; that it had all been inspired by Crown Agents, the Crown Office or the Law Officers. I cannot accept that. I believe that there were matters on which we wished to achieve a rather better balance. If I recollect the matter accurately, he singled out the change which we proposed on the peremptory challenge of jurors. His narrative of what took place in the 1980 legislation was entirely correct. Since then a similar abolition was proposed and indeed enacted in England. A number of anxieties were expressed at the time. However, my understanding of the situation south of the Border is that, notwithstanding that abolition, the threatened problems have not arisen.
There was general complaint that there was risk of some under-resourcing of both the fiscal service and the criminal justice system more generally. I come back to this point. I am concerned that our criminal justice system should work efficiently and effectively, and that no one—be they court staff, sheriffs, procurators fiscal or whatever—should have time wasted and public money wasted if it can be properly avoided, and that might best be done in relation to our provisions on routine evidence, certificated evidence, agreed evidence and intermediate diets.
There will be expenditure, and provision is allowed for it in the Bill. We should like to extend some of the arrangements and go further with 100 per cent. funding if the arrangements prove successful in relation to supervised attendance orders and the like. I have no doubt that noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, will warmly approve of the arrangements that we have already made and of the way in which we wish to extend them.
I hope that our proposal that those who have had a fine imposed and do not pay it should have the matter resolved by the requirement that they are subjected to a supervised attendance order rather than be sent to prison will be more specifically welcomed. Anyone who has contact with the prison service in Scotland will realise the enormous waste of resources involved with the huge number of receptions required. Such a situation achieves

577
absolutely nothing. People are sometimes in prison for only a matter of hours before their fine is paid but huge burdens are imposed on the service.
A number of detailed questions were asked. It would be difficult for me to attempt to answer them all. I shall take up the offer extended to me by my noble friend Lord Lyell to write to him on the issue of the' qualifications of forensic scientists. As he will appreciate, forensic scientists carry out a wide range of functions. He also asked me about the video-taping of police interviews. A pilot scheme in Lothian and the Borders has just been completed and we are looking to see what experience might be gained from that scheme to take the matter forward.
I am grateful for the welcome for many of the detailed provisions which have been introduced in the Bill. From the speeches that have been made, I am encouraged that the House will enjoy positive and constructive Committee and Report stages. I hope that sufficient has been said in the Second Reading debate to set out for all those not only in your Lordships' House but in Scotland who wish to know what the Bill contains. I hope that they derive that information from our deliberations this evening. I look forward to the later stages of the Bill. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motor Coach Industry and European Legislation
5.28 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the impact of European Union legislation on the United Kingdom motor coach industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have pleasure in declaring an interest of which many of your Lordships are aware. For many years I have been in touch with the bus and coach industry, and I am delighted to ask this Question today. I thank those noble Lords who are taking part in the debate.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will develop the subject of road safety. I shall touch on it but will allow him to develop it. I am also pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who this afternoon is wearing his hat as the official Opposition spokesman. It would be helpful if he could give the benefit of his wisdom on the background of some of the legislation with regard to Europe. It is an important subject for the industry as a whole.
The major part of the motor coach industry in the United Kingdom—the number of vehicles is estimated at 15,000—is operated by small to medium sized enterprises. That ranges from operators of one coach to those with up to 50 vehicles. We do, of course, have a few significant large international operators with fleets numbering hundreds. However, many of the fleets are family owned and rely upon the dedication and flair of their owners for their continued success. In rural areas coaches are frequently the only means of transport for work and leisure pursuits and also provide evergreen
578
holidays. But, most importantly, both nationally and internationally motor coaches play a key role in inter-urban travel and key express routes.
The safety of passengers is one of the principal concerns of United Kingdom coach operators and governments alike. Proven solutions to increasing safety have always been welcomed by the industry. I must confess that 1994 was not the best year where accidents are concerned, but coach travel continues to be one of the safest forms of transport.
Legislation from Europe which has opened up the market for transport by motor coach has been welcomed. That has been particularly true of the simplification procedures and authorisation of certain services. Common rules for access to the profession are all welcome. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was responsible for that in his 10 years as a Commissioner.
The Commission White Paper on the Common Transport Policy, especially the development of the Citizens Network, is most encouraging for the role of communal transport, in which coaches play a key part. However, there are a number of developments in Europe which add significant additional costs to the operator and may put many of the small enterprises out of business. Among the most worrying is the proposal to apply value added tax on intra-Community bus and coach travel but to allow air and rail travel to be zero rated. That move is discriminatory and places the bus and coach sector at a competitive disadvantage. In addition to that outright discrimination, the nature of the VAT will create such a burden that many will be forced to withdraw from established operations.
The international coach passenger, when compared with international passengers travelling by other modes, is least able to bear the increased cost of travel which will arise from the imposition of VAT. While VAT will be paid in the country of the point of departure and not on "territoriality", it will be zero rated in the United Kingdom. The industry is concerned to know whether, if a positive rate of VAT is introduced in the UK, other forms of travel will have a positive rating for value added tax. Coaches are further discriminated against, since they pay the full rate of excise duty on fuel, whereas rail and to a lesser extent air travel are exempt.
I now move to speed capability. By 1996 the EC Directive 1992/6 will have reduced the maximum speed capability of most motor coaches to 65 miles per hour. At the time when that directive was agreed, the United Kingdom Government reassured the industry that the reduction would not result in a ban from the outside lane of motorways. Yet the Government have now consulted on such a proposal and are due to make a decision shortly. They have in their possession an independent report which shows that:
"there is no conclusive evidence that the exposure to the risk of accidents would be either increased or decreased due to the imposition of a ban on coaches from the third lane".
So why is it being considered? There are serious safety and commercial implications for the coach industry if the ban goes ahead, because coaches will have to operate at the level of the heavy goods vehicle at 56 miles per hour and will thus be placed at a competitive

579
disadvantage with other forms of transport. That is another example of discrimination against motor coaches. It seems to be against the general encouragement for people to travel on public transport.
I turn to weights. The European Community allows two-axle vehicles of up to 18 tonnes to operate throughout the Community, but the UK Government have a derogation until 1998 to allow for bridge strengthening. It would be helpful if the Government could find some means of relaxing those rules to permit vehicles of 18 tonnes on some parts of the network so as to allow UK operators to compete more effectively with Continental operators. Reports indicate that the bridge strengthening programme is almost complete.
Another point which has been brought to my attention in the past hour is a problem which has been dealt with responsibly by operators. It is that some of their passengers have wished to purchase ample quantities of duty-free goods, thus overloading the coaches. The operators have had to achieve a compromise with their passengers to avoid grossly overloading their vehicles. I can only add that if vehicles of 18 tonnes were allowed on the roads, that problem would be unlikely to exist.
As regards vehicle lengths, I should be grateful if the Minister would state the Government's views on the use of 15-metre vehicles, which are in common use throughout the continent. Many United Kingdom operators would like to use 15-metre vehicles in this country.
To wind up my remarks, when one talks about any form of legislation one comes to the matter of enforcement. The enforcement of regulations is a key part of transport and coaching in particular. Adherence to regulations on drivers' hours is a key part of road safety. There is a growing anxiety about the level of enforcement in Europe and the lack of consistency. The Commission's response to the issue is not to suggest that member states provide the right level and quality of staff but to computerise enforcement by means of a tachograph black box. Again, that brings additional costs, makes the system complicated and discourages further small to medium sized enterprises.
I have been brief, but I hope that I have dealt with the subject adequately. The issues are of great concern to the industry and I look forward to hearing the views of your Lordships and in particular of the Minister on these important matters.
5.37 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, this is a transport Question and as it is one of my interests I put my name down to speak. However, I found it difficult to discover what problem the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, intended to address. He mentioned axle weights; this morning I attended an interesting conference at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre concerning natural gas vehicles. Those vehicles have extremely low emissions, but the manufacturers were asking for an increase in rear axle weight to accommodate a rear engine and the necessary gas bottles.
580
It will always be possible to produce a case for a modest increase in axle weights, but the problem is that coaches are already extremely difficult to recover when they break down. Any increase in the weight of the coach will make it impossible to lift and tow the coach while using the recovery vehicle with reasonable axle weights. Furthermore, the coach will operate at or near its maximum axle weight for a large proportion of the journey time, whereas a goods vehicle will be fully loaded for only about 50 per cent. of the time and often much less for certain types of work. If a heavier vehicle is required to carry passengers, goods, luggage and so on, we should use a vehicle with more axles.
With regard to the cost of diesel fuel, the Government have a duty to raise revenue for their expenditure programme. Road transport has always been properly taxed.
The noble Lord mentioned speed limiters. I have a problem with these. The regulations set the speed limit for a speed limiter at slightly below the maximum speed at which the vehicle is allowed to travel.
I also support the noble Lord's concern in relation to the banning of coaches from the outside lane of the motorway. Coaches are a priority form of travel on the motorway. They can often carry 40, 50 or 60 people and should therefore be allowed to use the outside lane even if it inconveniences people in their private cars.
I contacted the Confederation of Passenger Transport on two separate days, but surprisingly I received no briefing on any problems that it might have. I was, however, very grateful for the DoT accident statistics which the organisation sent me. There are so many tables that it should be possible to prove any hypothesis on safety matters that one cares to propose. What is clear is that only the air travel fatal accident rate was better than that for buses and coaches. The accident rates per billion passenger kilometres are: 0.2 for air travel; 0.5 for buses and coaches; surprisingly, 1.0 for rail—twice as bad as the rate for buses and coaches; and 4.5 for cars. When one looks at the accident rate for motor cycles, it is surprising that there are any motorcyclists left. The picture is not so rosy when one looks at the "killed or seriously injured" rate. But the figures are still quite good compared to those for private cars.
I do not suggest that we should be complacent about coach safety. I looked at the statistics for evidence to support the need for seatbelts—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will mention this point—and I found the figures to be confusing and contradictory. The accident rate is so low that it is difficult to reach a rational opinion; so I have none.
There is always scope for improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned the enforcement authorities. Those authorities must be eternally vigilant and must continue to ensure that our buses and coaches are maintained and operated to the highest standards. I am sure that the noble Viscount the Minister will assure me that they are doing just that. But can he confirm that the number of vehicle inspectors has been reduced and that that process will continue? Is he aware that such a policy will only encourage cowboy operators? No doubt his brief will mention multi-agency checks, and they are very valuable. But the Minister should be aware that

581
inspectors' visits to operators' premises can be very revealing. That aspect of enforcement should not be neglected.
I now turn to minibuses. A minibus has no more than 16 seats, and a special vocational licence is not required to drive such vehicles. They are often used by schools, colleges, clubs etc. At one point I was involved in' commercial vehicle driver training. We had a contract to assess drivers for a London borough in order for it to comply with the requirements of its insurance company. A significant number of minibus candidates had to be failed as they clearly did not have the skill and experience to drive a minibus. I expected to find some resentment when failing such candidates. More often, however, I found relief. The teachers, lecturers, club leaders etc. often had no choice as to whether they drove a minibus as it was part of their job.
While I realise the need for EC harmonisation of driving licences, can the Minister tell the House whether any method is available to ensure that all employers assess their minibus drivers? I am thinking of a scheme along the lines of the well-established non-statutory arrangements for the testing of fork-lift truck operators in a factory. No responsible organisation uses unqualified operators as it may fall foul of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I should like to crave two or three minutes. I did not put my name down on the list of speakers because I had not expected to be in the House this afternoon. Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me—I understand that she is speaking below the gap perhaps on behalf of the party opposite.
I fear that my noble friend Lord Teviot, whose interest in the bus and coach industry is very well known—indeed, my noble friend is very knowledgeable about it—is pleading a special cause; namely, that, sadly, the last year or so has produced a number of somewhat disastrous accidents involving coaches which have called into question their safety. I do not believe that any effort to improve the safety of coaches can or should be ignored. That goes essentially to the design factors that enable seatbelts to be fitted on vehicles, whether in a large passenger carrying vehicle or in a so-called minibus which is not designed to take seatbelts. This is something of a longer term project and should be attended to.
The plea about excise duty on fuel is an old bone in a comparatively young dog's mouth. It applies equally to the heavy goods vehicle industry. One should not call out a preference for the passenger carrying bus or the coach business. It is a competitive business. What one should perhaps have is a level playing field with other modes of passenger carrying transport. But I fear that special pleading is not on the agenda.
When we come to the very narrow question of the use of motorways, there is a general misconception that the outer lane on a motorway is used either for the faster vehicle or for special kinds of vehicle. In fact, as I think
582
noble Lords will agree, that lane is primarily built for overtaking so that the other lanes can carry the more moderately speedy vehicles.
It seems to me ridiculous that we should have speed limiters on coaches or indeed on other vehicles. Technically, I do not believe them to be terribly reliable. In the hands of inexperienced drivers they can be positively dangerous. What we in the coach and bus industry have to look at is a reasonably fair level playing field with other modes of transport and higher degrees of security both for the vehicle and the driver. Far too many drivers are part-time. They may very well have undertaken a day's work or shift work—they may be, for example, firemen or policemen or are perhaps in some other occupation—and then proceed to drive coaches. This is one reason why we have had over many years a number of quite serious accidents.
To take up the point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I believe that in their enforcement the commissioners should be a good deal more stringent. I hope that the continuous operator licence system which is to come into effect with the passing of the deregulation Bill will enable the commissioners to have more time, perhaps more energy, and more expertise to devote to that aspect of coach and other transport problems.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—although I did not wish to interrupt him and I am very grateful for his intervention and experience—I must say that I was not doing any special pleading for part of the industry. I was only trying to point out that, compared with other modes of transport, it was perhaps being discriminated against. There was no special pleading.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, speak, particularly as I agree wholeheartedly with much of what he said. I should begin by saying that I am one of those passionate Europeans who nevertheless dislike excessive and unjustified standardisation: otherwise I might be misunderstood. I shall limit myself to some fairly straightforward comments.
I believe that in general we should support those moves which increase bus safety and increase the use of buses as part of a sustainable transport strategy. What we have to ask about the directives that are currently in process of being either implemented or considered is whether they achieve those objectives. For example, will the proposed directive on the harmonisation of bus construction and the second directive on driver licensing contribute to bus safety and increase the use of buses? What about the actions of the present Government? How have they contributed to those objectives?
Specifically, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about not having differential rates of taxation on different modes of transport. That is an important point which applies to a number of transport issues.
I oppose the regulation of matters which should be left to local decision-taking under the subsidiarity approach. For example, it is quite unnecessary for the

583
Community to concern itself overly with the size and seating capacity of double-decker buses. That seems to be eminently suitable for local decision taking.
On the other hand, the proposals to increase the size and weight of all public service vehicles and to increase the standing density on many of them—proposals which, are also contained in the directive on harmonising bus construction —exhibit some contrary points. One could justify the increased weight in terms of there being less risk of turning over. But surely the increase in standing passenger density does not contribute to passenger safety. The seated passenger is much safer than the standing passenger. Moreover, the decisions to standardise the sizes of buses smack of greater standardisation of vehicle sizes and types for its own sake rather than any interest in the two objectives that I mentioned.
Would larger vehicles assist in achieving increased bus use? I feel that we should all be concerned to bring buses as close as possible to where the users live. However, the larger the bus, the less able it is to move about a housing estate, for example, or go in and out of small villages. The change might have a contrary effect.
What about the increased costs in the UK, with its minimal public financial support of transport? The cost of transport is the main determinant of the level of patronage of buses.
We should approach the proposed directive on harmonisation of passenger vehicle size with an open mind and resolutely oppose any suggestions which appear to be motivated by a desire for standardisation for its own sake rather than to diminish a measured risk. I look forward with interest to learning the Government's intentions in this matter.
Finally, I should like to make a few comments on seat belts and the safety of minibuses, including driver training. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that driver error is the main factor affecting the safety of transport in school minibuses and those owned by voluntary bodies. It is terrible to say but I am afraid that it is true. Very often the drivers are volunteers who do not have much experience in the management of large vehicles. So far as I know, they are not covered by legislation, directives or guidance on the length of time that they should drive. At the present time it is all left in the hands of the people who own the vehicles. In Surrey, for example, individual schools are drawing up codes of conduct for their drivers and are attempting to provide them with some kind of training. But, given the seriousness of this matter, it would be far better if the Government would co-operate with the local government associations, many of whose members try to provide training for drivers from voluntary organisations and schools, and develop guidance for additional training to ensure that, for example, within 10 years all drivers have the additional qualifications prescribed from 1996 for new drivers in the second directive on driver registration.
The hot political issue is seat belts, particularly as it affects minibuses owned and operated by voluntary organisations and especially schools, and those public service vehicles used for transport to schools. The installation of any type of belt has problems for both
584
existing types of vehicles. A debate is under way as to whether we should insist on two or three-point belts—in other words, lap belts or lap and shoulder belts. There is a great difference in the types of vehicle into which the belts can be fitted.
I am worried by the argument that two-point belts—lap belts—are more dangerous in some circumstances than not wearing a belt at all. There is an urgent need for the Government to commission dispassionate advice on this matter before any regulation of any description on seat belts is implemented, because at this moment the Commission is talking about two-point belts.
There is a cost involved. Seat belts on buses for transport to school—whatever their type—will mean the abandonment of the current rule that three pupils may sit on a seat for two persons. That is probably a good idea but who will bear the cost of that?
Finally, there is the problem of the protection of the very young children who now travel on school buses as the number of small primary schools is gradually reduced in all country areas. Are the Government interested in promoting special designs of buses or special protection for those very young children?
There is clearly no reason why the UK Government should not provide guidance on driver training and the safety of seatbelts. Indeed, I understand that it is perfectly within our power to legislate on the seatbelt issue. There are in particular very real problems connected with the safety of buses and minibuses used by school pupils. I should be most grateful if the noble Viscount would respond to the questions that I have asked.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for introducing this subject for debate. It is appropriate that we should debate the issues affecting the coach industry, most particularly in relation to various elements of European Union legislation. The difficulty is that the debate has hardly been focused on particular topics. But I do not in any sense seek to indict the noble Lord for that fact.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, to what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has frequently referred to as "this transport club". Before he was elevated to his present lofty position of total inscrutability with regard to debates, he frequently said with great relevance, whenever anybody new participated in our debates, how nice it was to see a fresh face. We very much welcome the noble Baroness. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on his elevation. He and I spent many hours together debating issues of transport, for the most part very constructively. We often agreed and it is when one agrees that one can say one is totally objective—as we have always been in relation to these issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, coach travel is a relatively safe form of transport. But many serious accidents have occurred in the recent past and many lessons should be learnt from those tragedies. Too many people have been killed,

585
families bereaved and people injured. In those circumstances I shall address three issues affecting safety.
First, I shall deal with the question of seat belts—a matter with which we dealt during the course of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. The response we received from the Government as to actions to be taken, or not taken was less than satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some further and better particulars of the actions that they are taking at European Union level in that regard. Secondly, I shall deal with drivers' hours and rest periods and, thirdly, with the enforcement of speed limits. One could go much wider but I propose to confine my remarks to those three topics.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that he was not convinced that a case had been made out for the wearing of seat belts. He rightly said that it is a complex issue and he was uncertain in his own mind in that regard. But the Government carried out a formidable analysis of the case for compulsory fitment of seat belts on minibuses and coaches and the results were announced in a Written Answer on 19th July. To put the matter in its correct context, it is right that I should deal with those conclusions.
The Government were convinced that the strength of the case for compulsory fitment of seat belts as a standard for all European manufacturers was clearly made out by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. John MacGregor. It was stated that,
"We are formally requesting the European Commission to set the shortest possible timetable to require seatbelts on all new minibuses and coaches. This reinforces our call for action at the Transport Council in Luxembourg in June. We have also decided to seek the Commission's agreement for the UK Government to act ahead of the European Union to ensure that all minibuses and coaches are fitted with belts when specifically used for the transport of children".—[Official Report, 19/7/94; WA col. 261]
Those were interesting observations, which I welcome. The case is now conclusively made out and the Government are convinced that their research has established that seat belts are necessary. I am sure that by their use lives will be saved and injuries reduced. The cost involved would be relatively small. I understand that a fair estimate is that on a £10 coach ticket the cost would involve an extra 4p. We are therefore talking of extremely small-scale costs for an important saving of life and therefore that is not an issue. Although lap-belts are not as effective as three-point belts, they too will have a major effect in saving life and limb.
Why therefore have not the Government acted with greater promptitude? There was surely space in this legislative programme to be able to introduce enactments of that kind. The Government have said that, notwithstanding the arguments that have been adduced in a number of our debates, European Union legislation affecting the single market prohibits them from acting unilaterally. However, that is contradicted by the Minister's assertion that he is proposing—I do not know whether he has already sought the Commission's agreement—for the Government to act ahead of the European Union to ensure that all minibuses and coaches are fitted with seat belts when used specifically
586
for children. If that is the case, they are utilising Article 36 of the Treaty, which provides that in certain circumstances a government is permitted to avoid prohibitions or restrictions on imports and exports of goods in transit on grounds of, among other things, the protection of health and life of humans. Consequently, that is what the Government are proposing to do in relation to seat belts on vehicles which primarily carry children. Why therefore should it not be extended over the whole field? The Government cannot have it both ways. Article 36 exists to be promoted in exactly these circumstances, provided that the Government do not collude in seeking to establish discriminatory rules in regard to trade.
I believe that the Government should utilise Article 36 in both cases. But perhaps the Minister can say when the application was made to the Commission for agreement in the first case to which I alluded. What has been the response of the Commission so far? Is there is a hold-up and, if so, why? Perhaps the Minister can respond to those important points when he replies. There is a growing impatience in this country with regard to measures that should be taken, and taken rapidly—ahead of the European Union as a whole —and which can be taken legitimately.
My second issue relates to the response so far of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, with which the Government have presumably been involved in a good deal of consultation. What is its view on these matters? Is it taking a negative attitude or does it support the Government's view, particularly with regard to coaches carrying children, where it is important that this unilateral action should be taken? Or is it opposing it? What is its view with regard to the wider application of seat belts in coaches generally?
I turn next to the question of drivers' hours and rest periods. I was involved in the regulations that emerged in 1986 to replace the former regulations in what was then called the "European Community". It is now called the European Union and some people, I understand, are confusing it with a large insurance company! But the European Union was previously known as the European Community.
The reason the Commission at that time put forward proposals for reviewing drivers' hours and rest periods was because the old system was found to be hopelessly complicated and virtually unenforceable. That applied throughout the European Community. When I advanced these proposals on behalf of the Commission, I met with a less than receptive response from member states generally. They seemed to want a concept in which one could have stricter regulations in this regard, but that they should not be too carefully and fully enforced. What we emerged with was a set of regulations that was almost as bad as what had prevailed previously; and notwithstanding all my blandishments, the member states insisted on rejecting the Commission's proposals totally, which, of course, they were entitled to do, and replacing them with their own half-baked scheme. That half-baked scheme remains today.
I should like to know whether the Government believe that it is necessary to have a new set of regulations here and what they are doing in that regard.

587
If drivers at the wheel are excessively tired, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out in his intervention, serious accidents can so easily arise, and do. Indeed, I believe that in the terrible accident involving a number of American tourists last November there was evidence that the driver failed to take a proper rest before starting work, although I gather that the matter is still under investigation. However, that allegation was made. It is only one case. I am satisfied, from the evidence that was adduced before me, that there were very serious breaches of the regulations, then and now. What are the Government proposing to do? Does the Minister believe that enforcement is anything like sufficiently effective?
I turn to the next question, which is speed limiters. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has some doubts about the application of speed limiters. I do not believe that it is the Government's view that those doubts should be entertained and I certainly do not share that view myself. I welcome the introduction of regulations to restrict speeds to 70 miles per hour—new coaches are to be limited to speeds of 65 miles per hour—by the use of speed limiters. One thing is clear, however, and to this extent I believe the noble Lord is right: speed limiters are too easily disconnected. There is evidence that they have been disconnected, particularly in the case to which I have just referred.
Despite the use of limiters, and also the use of tachographs, speed limits are widely ignored by coaches and by heavy goods vehicles. Indeed, the Department of Transport survey of 1993 illustrated that one in five coaches—between 56,000 and 57,000 out of around 270,000 —broke speed limits on motorways in the United Kingdom. Some were recorded as travelling in excess of 80 miles per hour. The fact is that tampering takes place, both with the tachograph and with the limiters. I should like to know whether the Minister agrees that that situation needs further investigation; and if so, what the Government are proposing to do about it.
It is far too easy at the present time for the law to be broken. It is not good enough, and the situation needs to be remedied. When these serious accidents arose, I do not believe that the first reaction of the Government, which was to blame the European Union or European Community for not taking swift enough action, was at all justified. We are in a position of being able to act unilaterally in situations affecting the safety of our people. Of course, a case has to be made out that we are not engaging in arbitrary discrimination of trade and that we are not seeking to preclude others from entering the market for some bogus reason. But I do not believe that that is the case. Nor do I attribute such a motive to the Government. I believe that there is now an overwhelming reason for action. The Government have conceded part of the case, but why do they not concede the rest and stop behaving in an inconsistent way?
6.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for providing this opportunity to debate the important matter of the impact of European Union legislation on
588
the United Kingdom coach industry and I am very glad that a small but resolute band of noble Lords has contributed a great deal to that debate this evening.
European legislation covers a wide range of matters affecting the coach industry. The construction of vehicles is harmonised to eliminate barriers to trade and to provide a single market in vehicle manufacture. Harmonisation should also promote high standards of safety and environmental performance. Entry to the profession of PSV operator is covered by directives relating to good repute, financial standing and professional competence. There are rules relating to competition on international services and, on issues of safety, European legislation covers such matters as drivers' hours and speed limiters. The general effect of these measures is to ensure that competition in the provision of vehicles and coach services is broadly harmonised, and that must be a good thing for the consumer and for the industry. I understand, however, some of the worries which have been expressed about the effect on coach operators of some aspects of the legislation and I shall attempt to address those concerns in my remarks.
My noble friend Lord Teviot expressed concern about the proposal to apply VAT on intra-Community bus and coach travel. The purpose of the draft proposal is to clarify the position of transport by road and inland waterway which passes through different member states. Taxation would be at a single place—the point of departure—thus avoiding the possibility of double, or, in the obverse case, no, taxation. Although the purpose may be clarity, we share the concerns expressed by my noble friend. For that reason we have consistently opposed the proposal on the grounds that it discriminates against certain modes of transport. We would much prefer to see an all-embracing directive encompassing all forms of passenger transport. As it is, I understand that there is limited support from other member states for the draft proposal and it is unlikely to be taken further forward in the very near future.
Nothing contained in the draft proposal would make the UK have to start charging VAT on passenger transport within the United Kingdom, which is, as noble Lords have remarked, currently zero-rated. The decision to impose VAT in our own domestic circumstances is a matter within our own jurisdiction. Any amendment to the EC law to make charging VAT mandatory would be subject to unanimous agreement from member states.
My noble friend Lord Lucas emphasised the question of taxation on fuel. Arrangements for excise duty on fuels used by the various modes of transport differ, but for a variety of reasons. It has, however, always been the case since the fuel duty rebate scheme was first introduced giving local buses a substantial rebate that the rebate was not available to coaches.
As a consequence of EC directive 92/6 and national legislation, buses and coaches will be limited to a top speed capability of 65 miles per hour from 1st January 1996. This point was picked up and commented on by a number of noble Lords, some in favour and some against. We did not favour requirements on set speed being included in the directive, but all other member states were in favour. The reduction in maximum speed

589
has led to a concern that coaches limited to 65 miles per hour in the outside lane will lead to bunching of faster moving traffic behind and therefore possibly dangerous driving manoeuvres. The enabling regulations were the subject of consultation recently and a decision will be made in the near future.
The issue of weights was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teviot and by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. While I understand the desire to increase the weight limit from 17 to 18 tonnes, the United Kingdom is constrained by the axle weight limit of 10.5 tonnes. The axle weight cannot be raised until the bridge assessment/strengthening programme has been completed. When it is, in 1999, 18 tonne coaches to the same vehicle specification as the rest of the European Union can be fully utilised in the United Kingdom. It is technically possible to increase the permitted weights of UK coaches to 18 tonnes, keeping the 10.5 tonnes axle limit. However, this would require modifications to the design of coaches to ensure a sensible distribution of the load between the axles.
My noble friend Lord Teviot raised the question of vehicle lengths. Rigid vehicles are limited at present by United Kingdom construction and use regulations to 12 metres. The European directive also limits vehicles used in cross-border trade to 12 metres. Countries can allow longer vehicles for national use in their own territory. Some have used that provision to allow rigid vehicles of up to some 15 metres.
As regards the liberalisation of international passenger services, they have been liberalised throughout the European Union as a result of two main pieces of European legislation. The first allows all services except for regular services and certain other specialised services to run without the need for authorisation. Instead they are required to carry only a control document giving details of the service the operator is running.
The second piece of legislation concerns cabotage, which is the term used for a service carried out wholly within the territory of a member state. An operator may now undertake certain types of cabotage journeys without a registered office in the relevant country. At present this applies only to closed door tours and to special regular services such as the carriage of school children, but from the end of 1995 cabotage operations will be authorised for all non-regular services.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned the Vehicle Inspectorate. I can assure him and the House that the efficiencies being sought from the inspectorate will not in any way reduce its enforcement effort.
Turning to the question of drivers' hours—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, among others—I share the view that enforcement of the regulations on drivers' hours is a key element in road safety, and it also helps to ensure fair competition. The Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency has set up a drivers' hours taskforce to target drivers' hours enforcement, and nearly 1.75 million lorry and coach tachograph charts were checked in Great Britain in 1993–94.
590
But the output of the tachograph—that is, the daily paper charts—is relatively time-consuming to check and there is clearly a limit to the level of enforcement that can be carried out without a disproportionate use of resources. That is why the Commission has brought forward a proposal requiring the installation of an add-on device to the tachograph which would enable data to be stored digitally onto a driver-specific smart-card.
Although the Government accept in principle the need for an alternative form of recording equipment, we are not convinced that the use of an add-on device is the right approach and, in particular, we are concerned about the security of electronically recorded data. We believe that the Commission proposal has a long way to go yet, and, as usual, we shall bear in mind the views of the industry in our discussions, and indeed the views of your Lordships which have been put forward this evening.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. In fact the situation does not change very much from the days to which I was referring. There are always reasons for not doing things and not arranging for evidence to be more easily available. What are the Government themselves proposing? What suggestions are they making to the European Commission? Surely they have had long enough to decide these matters. We have had many years since these unsatisfactory regulations were brought into effect by the decision of the member states in conflict with the Commission. Surely the Government have had ample time to consider how a system can be set up which is properly enforceable.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has put his finger on the very point, which is enforceability. But I should remind him, as I mentioned earlier, that through the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency we have set up a drivers' hours taskforce to target drivers' hours enforcement. We see enforceability as being absolutely crucial. At the moment the written tachograph sheet does seem to give the best solution to the problem. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it is time-consuming and does not necessarily represent the best use of limited resources.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, very properly addressed the issue of seat belts. That is something which we have discussed on a number of occasions before, particularly during the passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, as it now is. I believe that this is an incredibly important issue and I welcome this additional opportunity to discuss it and to put on record the Government's vigorous position.
Perhaps I may begin by re-emphasising that the United Kingdom has been pressing the Commission for some years to amend the directives on seat belts and anchorages to allow us to make a requirement for belts on all seats in these vehicles. There was never sufficient support from other member states to effect a change. This is of course a European Union matter because of the important role of vehicle standards in establishing the single market for the coach construction industry.

591
Despite an earlier lack of response which I have detailed, in February 1994 the Commission, with the agreement of member states, announced its strategy for improving coach safety, including amending the directives to require belts to be fitted to all seats in new minibuses and coaches. We expect proposals from the Commission early next year. I should stress again—particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—that we simply cannot act nationally to require belts to be fitted to all minibuses and coaches. We would be required to allow any vehicle to be registered in the United Kingdom which met European Union standards; that is to say, with seat belts only on exposed seats.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful once again for the noble Viscount giving way. This is a matter where he and I have crossed swords before. Article 36, to which I referred earlier and to which I have referred in previous debates but without adequate response, exactly provides that protection where issues of safety affecting human life and health are involved. As I understand it, the Government have already sought permission as regards buses and coaches carrying primarily children. If that is the case, why do they limit the situation to that rather than extending it right across the board when they themselves are convinced that seat belts would lead to a saving of life and fewer injuries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord inasmuch as we have crossed swords on this matter before. I accept that he has considerable knowledge of the workings of the European Union, but what I do not accept is that we are wrong on this, despite the considerable debate that we have had this evening. I shall detail further the Government's position, why we feel that we cannot act unilaterally and the difference between acting across the board and acting towards a small, specified and highly targeted group such as vehicles used specifically for the carriage of children. I believe that the United Kingdom has taken a lead on this. We take it very seriously indeed. We believe that the best and the most enforceable and effective way of going about this is through the Union.
Following the tragic accidents which occurred late in 1993, a review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts in minibuses and coaches was undertaken by the Department of Transport. That review indicated that, while three-point belts offer better
592
protection than lap belts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, mentioned, in certain circumstances lap belts would offer significant overall benefits. I believe that that is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was seeking to emphasise in his remarks.
As a result of this review, the then Secretary of State announced on 19th July as part of a package of new measures to improve minibus and coach safety that: first, he would request the European Commission to set the shortest possible deadlines to introduce compulsory fitment of seat belts in minibuses and coaches; secondly, that the United Kingdom would act ahead of the Union to require the fitting of belts in mini-buses and coaches which are used specifically for the transport of children; and thirdly, that manufacturers and operators would be encouraged to fit belts in both new and existing vehicles.
Those measures are being pressed forward as quickly as possible. The draft regulations are being prepared for a consultation exercise which will begin before the end of this year. The regulations will also be used to inform the Commission of our plans to implement the proposals.
As regards the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on mini-bus driver assessment, she may know that there is currently no power to enforce such an assessment, but I commend the advice and guidance that is provided by the Community Transport Association to organisations that run mini-buses. I believe that it would be preferable to build on that basis rather than set up a separate, perhaps bureaucratic, scheme.
This has been a useful debate. It has helped to clarify the issues. We have discussed matters of concern to the coach industry and to the many noble Lords who are present. I should reiterate that removing some of the differences between European countries must be good for passengers and consumers as well as for the bus and coach industries. I hope that what I have said provides the necessary assurances that the Government are well aware of the industries' anxieties and will continue to bear their interests in mind during any negotiations, and that the Government are well aware that those who use coaches and buses are concerned about potential problems, particularly the seat belt issue. This has been a worthwhile debate. I thank again my noble friend Lord Teviot and all noble Lords who have taken part.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before seven o'clock.

  ENTRY CLEARANCE APPLICATIONS: LIST OF DESIGNATED POSTS
  ENTRY CLEARANCE APPLICATIONS: LIST OF DESIGNATED POSTS
  ABM TREATY: DISCUSSIONS
  ABM TREATY: DISCUSSIONS
  BILATERAL STRATEGIC STABILITY TALKS
  BILATERAL STRATEGIC STABILITY TALKS
  ROAD PRICING IN LONDON: STUDY
  ROAD PRICING IN LONDON: STUDY
  MARINE POLLUTION: RESPONSE TO REPORT
  MARINE POLLUTION: RESPONSE TO REPORT
  HANSARD ON CD-ROM
  HANSARD ON CD-ROM
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 23RD NOVEMBER 1994
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 23RD NOVEMBER 1994
  EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE REFERENCE
  EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE REFERENCE