Sitting of 5 December 1995

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

    Accident and Emergency Departments
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority to discuss the situation in local accident and emergency departments. [2172]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.
    Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious crisis in accident and emergency departments in Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, that Whipps Cross hospital closed on 14 November and told doctors not to send people there, that King George hospital has regularly told ambulances to go away, and that some of my constituents have had to wait on trolleys for 10, 12, 14 or, in one case, 24 hours? In one case, a constituent was questioned about an incident by the police in front of other people in the area. Is not that a disgrace? When will the Government do something about the crisis in accident and emergency departments in Redbridge and Waltham Forest?
    Mr. Horam: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point clearly because there are problems in those two hospitals in his constituency. However, he has exaggerated the problems. I can tell him that both the trusts involved are looking at the situation closely. They are taking short-term measures, and, to deal with bed management, are recruiting additional staff and so forth to cope with the problems. The problems are caused by a higher demand for A and E treatment throughout north London, which is also being examined by the trusts. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that things are improving.
    Sir Michael Neubert: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in his new responsibility. Is he aware that the A and E service in the adjacent Barking and Havering area is already under strain as a result of the decision to concentrate casualty at Harold Wood rather than at Oldchurch hospital in my constituency? If the service at King George hospital, Ilford—the hospital to which many of my constituents will in future have to turn—is also to be terminated, that will result in an unacceptable reduction in standards of access in an emergency.
    Mr. Horam: Again, I understand my hon. Friend's point. I would be very concerned if the A and E
    122
    department at King George hospital were to close. I have no information to that effect. On the contrary, I understand that there is no intention of closing the A and E department at King George hospital.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister accept that the picture which has just been painted is a national one? Accident and emergency departments are currently closing their doors because of a shortage of beds, and patients are waiting hour after hour on trolleys in corridors. The Minister should recognise that A and E departments are twice penalised by the internal market: a lack of bed space means that they cannot meet patient charter times, but because they cannot meet those times, purchasers are withholding payment. The Secretary of State has announced this morning the Government's so-called blitz on bureaucracy. Given that the Government created the internal market, will his announcement be followed by an apology to people who work in health and to the British people about the mess, and will he listen to what the British people want from the NHS, that is, proper patient care and not the privatisation that is creeping in at hospitals throughout Britain?
    Mr. Horam: That sounded like a statement of Labour party policy in a nutshell. Labour Members have nothing more to say. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman in his calmer moments will surely realise that he is exaggerating. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) was rightly referring to a situation in his constituency and that was perfectly fair, but in London as a whole 35 A and E departments are open 24 hours a day. Some £37 million have been spent over the past five years and things are definitely improving.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is by no means a national situation, and will Opposition Members appreciate that there are some hospitals in the country that run their affairs efficiently? I have today heard from the head of the accident and emergency department in Lancaster that we have no problems because we treat our staff well and we have a good reputation. Other hospitals might try doing likewise.
    Mr. Horam: I am delighted to hear it. As a Lancastrian, I am delighted that Lancashire is once again leading the country.

    GP Fundholders
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current percentage of general practitioners who have moved to fundholding status; and what is his estimate for the percentage of GP fundholders over the next two years. [2173]
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to evaluate the impact of GP fundholding. [2175]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Independent evaluation has repeatedly demonstrated the benefits of fundholding. That is why the Government are committed to further development and expansion of the scheme. Over 39 per cent. of general practitioners in England are already fundholders and this is expected to rise to over 50 per cent. by next April, with more practices preparing to join in 1997.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply, which shows that by next year, half of

    123
    Britain's GPs will have to operate like small business men. Can he answer a more important question? According to figures that he gave me last week, £66 million is now spent on the bureaucracy of administrating fundholders. That £66 million is almost exactly equivalent to the cost of the 15,000 hip operations on hospital waiting lists. We are all delighted this week that the Queen Mother came out so well from her operation. Will the right hon. Gentleman stop that money being spent on bureaucracy and give people on the hip operation waiting list some hope?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am certainly not doing anything to undermine the development of the fundholding scheme. All the research that has been done on that scheme demonstrates that the extra administrative cost, which is certainly there, delivers improved value to national health service patients. The question is for the Labour party. Does it agree with its previous health spokesman that it should abolish fundholding, or with the present incumbent of that post that it is not a matter of abolition but replacement?
    Mr. Hinchliffe: How does the Secretary of State justify ignoring clear evidence provided by GPs in my constituency of a two-tier system arising directly from fundholding?
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is behind the times.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is not it scandalous that 36,000 of my constituents are, according to their doctors, receiving a second-rate service as a result of the status of their GPs? Is not it true, as one GP who wrote to me said—that letter has been seen by the Minister for Health—that those who deny the two-tier system arising from GP funding are talking a lot of twaddle?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was right. The hon. Gentleman is behind the times. First, of the five cases that he mentioned the last time that he raised the issue in the House—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact—two have had their operations in less than 12 months and the other three are on a waiting list for treatment in less than 12 months at Pinderfields hospital. Furthermore, both the fundholding and the non-fundholding GPs joined Wakefield Healthcare last week to issue a jointly agreed statement which said:
    "As far as Wakefield Healthcare and GPs, both fundholders and non-fundholders, are concerned there should be no difference in the way patients, whether they go to fundholders or non-fundholders, are treated."
    That is the policy of every GP in Wakefield, whether a fundholder or a non-fundholder, and it is also the policy of Wakefield Healthcare.
    Mrs. Roe: Has my right hon. Friend seen a recent interview with the hon. Lady for Peckham (Ms Harman) in Doctor magazine in which she says of the Opposition's plans for fundholding:
    "We don't call it abolition, we call it replacement."
    Does my right hon. Friend think that fundholding doctors will be reassured at the prospect of being replaced and not abolished?
    Mr. Dorrell: No, I do not think that they will be remotely reassured. Every fundholding GP in the health
    124
    service wants to hear what the Labour party would do if it ever found itself in government. The previous Opposition health spokesman said:
    "We can live with a whole range and variety of models."
    She also said that the Opposition are committed to abolishing fundholding. Are they or are they not committed to abolition?
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an increasing percentage of GPs in Suffolk are in fundholding practices and that that is bringing benefits in the forms of increased personal counselling, chiropody for diabetics, and better diagnostic and physiotherapy services—all very much to the benefit of patients?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His experience in Suffolk is repeated throughout the health service. One of the two questions that I have answered jointly asked what steps I have taken to evaluate fundholding. My hon. Friend has offered a local evaluation, but it has also been evaluated by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the Fabian Society, the OECD and the health service research unit at the university of Oxford. They have all published evaluations of fundholding, and the only problem with them is that they have been inconveniently optimistic for the Labour party.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Since it is the intention to offer primary-led health care, do the Government intend to change FP10 to allow GP fundholders and others to provide new treatments for leg ulcers in the community rather than in the secondary sphere, which is more costly?
    Mr. Dorrell: I shall certainly consider that specific proposal. We need to ensure that the maximum range of clinical care that can safely be delivered by practitioners in the primary care context is delivered. Such care has been provided throughout the country as a result of fundholding. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific idea, I should be happy to look at it.
    Mr. Barry Field: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Isle of Wight has one of the highest percentages of GP fundholders in the country? Does he attribute that success to the fact that the Liberal Democrats opposed such a scheme before the election and then, after it, led the charge in forming a fundholding consortium on the Isle of Wight, which has given us such a high percentage of fundholders?
    Mr. Dorrell: The Liberal party has had just as much difficulty as the Labour party in deciding its policy on the issue. Both parties forecast that there would be no support for fundholding when the scheme was launched. Both have found themselves embarrassed by the fact that, next year, more than half of all GPs in the health service will have opted voluntarily to join the fundholding scheme. My hon. Friend is quite right.
    Mr. Burden: Can the Secretary of State tell me what the reaction of fundholders and other purchasers of health care in Birmingham will be when they look at the small print of the Budget? They will find that a promised 1.1 per cent. increase in funds will turn out to be equivalent to no more than a half per cent. increase, which will mean around £6 million cuts wherever health care is purchased. When the Secretary of State visits Birmingham next week, will he explain to the local people why their community services will be cut?
    Mr. Dorrell: This is a question about primary care. One of the best bits of news in the Budget about primary care is that it allows for the continued growth of the family doctor service through the 4 per cent. real terms growth in resources available to it. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might welcome that.
    Mr. Dunn: Many thousands of people in the Dartford constituency have benefited from GP fundholding. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Conservative party is the only party that supports that scheme? The Labour party is totally opposed to it now, as it always has been.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Conservative party, and its Government, is the only party committed to the development of fundholding. Every fundholding GP and their patients want to know the policy of the Labour Front-Bench team. When the Opposition appear before a fundholding audience they say that they recognise that the freedoms available under the scheme have produced improvements. They give a soft message to fundholding doctors, but once they get back into the television studios they say that they are committed to abolishing the scheme. What is their policy? We are waiting.
    Ms Harman: I presume, Madam Speaker, that I am supposed to ask a question rather than answer one. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that one of the effects of GP fundholding has been extra administrative costs. Is not it the case that as a direct result of the Government's NHS reforms the cost of NHS bureaucracy is an extra £1.5 billion every year? That money should be spent on patients, not on paperwork. I welcome the publication of the NHS bureaucracy league tables, which the right hon. Gentleman made available this morning, but can he explain to the House why it is that the worst health authority in the country—the one that spends most on bureaucracy—is Huntingdon, the Prime Minister's constituency?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady might have welcomed the fact that in that same health authority there is to be a 10 per cent. reduction in administrative costs next year. As she raised the subject, she might also have welcomed the fact that the announcements I made this morning represent a shift of resources out of grey suits into white coats of £280 million next year. There will be £280 million extra next year for the treatment of patients. When will the hon. Lady welcome that?
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by April next year 100 per cent. of my constituents will be treated in GP fundholding practices? Does he agree that that is the result of decisions by GPs in order to give their patients the best possible level of primary health care services? In the light of that, is it not an absolute disgrace that the Labour party proposes either to abolish or emasculate GP fundholding?
    Mr. Dorrell: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. GPs in his constituency have chosen to operate a completely voluntary scheme because they believe that it will improve care to their patients. In that they agree with the Fabian Society and a wide range of other commentators who have looked at the scheme. We are still waiting for an answer from the Opposition Front Bench as to why they will not support the scheme.

    Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Pharmaceutical Services negotiating committee; and what was discussed. [2174]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Officials regularly meet the Pharmaceutical Services negotiating committee to discuss issues that affect community pharmacy contractors. Ministers meet the committee whenever it is appropriate.
    Mr. Turner: I am sure that the Minister will have heard about the committee's anxieties and the cash flow problems that pharmacists are facing because his Department is an extremely bad payer. As he must be aware, small pharmacists in particular are concerned that they are not receiving within a proper time scale payment for prescriptions that they have already dispensed. That is making it impossible for them to solve their cash problems and they are creating redundancies. Should the attitude of the Minister's Department and the Government be causing redundancies at a time of massive unemployment? The Minister should stop his Department being such a bad payer and get on and pay the people the money that the Department owes them.
    Mr. Malone: I read the briefing note that the hon. Gentleman is clearly using. It misses out a fact that perhaps the pharmacists did not discuss with him—if he had discussions with them and did not just read the note. A voluntary agreement that was negotiated with the pharmacists has been in place for some time. It sets out how the payments are structured so that they can be made as quickly as possible after the Prescription Pricing Authority has processed them. That agreement was highly welcomed when it was put in place and I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is being honoured to the letter and payments are being made in the context of the agreement. Of course I recognise that pharmacists are business men and have to run their businesses in a proper way. They make a valuable contribution to the community and if there are any ways of taking that forward that we can discuss with them, I am always happy to do so.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that, like all other interest groups, pharmacists have a legitimate case? If the Opposition take up the arguments of every interest group in the community and ask the Government to pay 100 per cent. of their claims, public expenditure is bound to get out of control. Although it is certain that the Opposition will temporarily become popular with farmers, lawyers, civil servants and every other interest group that wants to get its snout into the public trough, that is a clear indication that public expenditure under Labour will get grossly out of control.
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every time that there is a request for additional funding, the Labour party accedes to it in the same breath as it suggests that taxation can be brought down, but those attitudes are incompatible. Unlike Labour, the pharmacists are always responsible when entering discussions. Last year the global sum from which they were paid was increased by some 2.5 per cent. The pharmacists also agreed to a change in the structure of the payments made to them, so that we can ensure that more payments go to pharmacists who provide more professional services. That was a welcome way to approach added public expenditure for added value. Labour says that payments should go up for no reason.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that many people on regular prescriptions complain that chemists are giving short weight—that the doctor writes a prescription for 30 tablets but that the chemist dispenses only 24 or 26 tablets? People on regular monthly prescriptions are having to pay as much as one month extra per year because of that short measure. The pharmacists blame the packaging. Nevertheless, many members of the public feel cheated when they have paid more than £5 for a prescription but receive too few tablets. Will the Minister get together with the pharmaceutical and packaging industries to ensure that the customer gets what he pays for?
    Mr. Malone: Rather curiously, the hon. Gentleman asked a question that might have more point in six months' time, as we introduce patient pack prescribing—which is in its early days and has not yet been generally introduced. Pharmacists must dispense the appropriate medicine according to the doctor's prescription. That will be the case when patient pack prescribing is introduced. It will ensure that the patient is given the appropriate amount of medicine to treat the symptom for which he sought a prescription from the doctor.
    Mr. Deva: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the important role played by pharmacists in helping people with self-medication, which contrasts sharply with Labour's health policies—which are all diagnosis and no prescription?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Community pharmacists play an important role in providing medical care, and it is one that we are extremely keen to encourage through the payment of the professional allowance for displaying pharmacy practice leaflets and health promotion literature. Pharmacists, as health care professionals, are keen to develop that important role.

    Breast Cancer
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's progress towards the use of specialist breast units for the treatment of breast cancer. [2176]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowls): The Calman report forms the basis of our strategy for the development of cancer services. We have charged regional directors with the task of taking that forward and, where necessary, reconfiguring services to treat common cancers, including breast cancer, in specialised units.
    Mr. Gunnell: Given that the Calman report regarded as urgent the move to specialist breast cancer care units, which was endorsed by the Health Select Committee report, is sufficient urgency being shown by the Department? I think not. Is not it important that the Government move rapidly to establish a network of such units, so that the fears that haunt many women in this country can be allayed by the provision of prompt, effective and thorough treatment in every area? Is not that absolutely necessary? Why are the Government so dilatory in moving to that position?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically ungenerous in not acknowledging the work being done by the NHS. Calman reported only in April, since when regional offices have been working on the
    128
    recommendations. Calman set out a structure of primary care refering to cancer units for diagnosis and treatment and cancer centres at which rarer types of cancer—and particular specialist services, such as radiotherapy—would be available. The hon. Gentleman needs only to look in his own back yard. The United Leeds teaching hospitals have developed fine services that include a specialist unit. That is the way forward for Leeds, and the hon. Gentleman might have paid tribute to that development. We are looking to see how to develop services throughout the country for the benefit of patients.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Royal Marsden hospital in Sutton, in my constituency, which offers an excellent breast cancer service with particular expertise in early detection and palliative care? Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the extra budget allocated by the Chancellor should go to that superb service?
    Mr. Bowis: I am happy to pay tribute to the Royal Marsden, and I was able to do so yesterday because I was at the Queen Elizabeth II centre when it received a charter mark award. I congratulate the hospital publicly again today. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the resources that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has negotiated with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—£1.3 billion more for the coming year; a 1.6 per cent. increase in real terms. I have no doubt that some of those resources will lead to further improvements in our cancer services.
    Mr. McLeish: In view of the concern about high mortality rates for breast cancer, will the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that a reduction in the mortality rate for breast cancer is a key part of the "Health of the Nation" strategy? Will he also confirm that he is satisfied with the progress that is being made to achieve the target of a 25 per cent. reduction by 2000? Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to monitor progress at the district health authority level; and does he agree that the development and publication of local targets at DHA level is vital if the "Health of the Nation" strategy is to mean anything?
    Mr. Bowis: There were about five questions there. I have already announced that our regional offices will examine the configuration of services, and will build on that. Of course we stand by our "Health of the Nation" targets. Progress has been made, and we want to see more. That is why we are developing services; why we are investing in services; and why much research is being done. I pay tribute to the range of research conducted by Government and by the voluntary sector and pharmaceutical companies.

    Infant and Perinatal Mortality
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the change in (a) infant and (b) perinatal mortality rates in the last 15 years. [2177]
    Mr. Dorrell: Infant and perinatal mortality rates are at their lowest levels ever. Deaths of children aged under one year—the infant mortality rate—fell by half between 1979 and 1994. Stillbirths and deaths of babies less than a week old—the perinatal rate—fell by nearly 40 per cent. over the same period.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, which reveals a staggering reduction

    129
    in the number of fatalities. Does he agree that that is due principally to three factors; first, the great advances in medical technology; secondly, the increasing skill of our doctors and nurses; and, thirdly, the vastly increased amounts of taxpayers' money put into the national health service? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures underline the increased quality of infant health care, like so many other NHS services, for the benefit of the whole nation?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right on every count. Those indicators are interesting, because they are some of the relatively few health outcome indicators that are directly comparable with those in different countries. Such indicators tell heavily in favour of the good value and efficient health service delivered by the NHS, which has been consistently supported by the Government and which we shall continue to support.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Has the Secretary of State had a chance to look at the King's Fund's recent publication, "Tackling Inequalities in Health", which confirms—as is to be expected—that over the past 10 years there has been a widening gap between the rich and the poor, and that that gap is reflected by widening differentials in mortality rates for adults and infants? If that is so, what is the Department of Health doing to ensure improvements in health nationwide by increasing equality in wealth and income for all citizens?
    Mr. Dorrell: I talked yesterday about some of the things that we are doing to ensure that we deliver, nation wide, the objectives of the national health service. The establishment of proper purchasing arrangements for the health services within the reformed management is designed precisely to target resources on health need. The Government's commitment to weighted capitation— I announced a further step towards its delivery yesterday—is also intended to eliminate variations. That commitment is precisely directed to answer the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be welcome, fair and right if the media sometimes concentrated on the remarkable advance that has been made in this part of the health service as in others, and that tiny babies are saved today who would not have had a hope of life even 10 or 12 years ago?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is a dry statistic that tells a very human story of which anyone interested in the NHS should be proud. It is a comparison between health care in Britain and health care in virtually every other developed country and it tells in favour of both our national health service and the Government's support for it.
    Mr. Milburn: Although the overall fall in death rates is clearly welcome, will the Secretary of State explain why last year both the South Tyneside and the Sandwell health care NHS trusts had a perinatal mortality rate of 13.7 per 1,000 live births, while in Kingston and Richmond the rate was just 3.4 per 1,000 live births? Will he also confirm that, if all infants and children enjoyed the same survival rates as those in social classes I and II, up to 3,000 deaths a year might be prevented? Does that latter figure not show that the price of widening social and economic inequality under the Government is being paid for in the health of poorer people?
    Mr. Dorrell: What the hon. Gentleman does not cover is two facts: first, that health outcomes are improving for all social classes in Britain; and, secondly, that the Government have put in place reformed management of the health service, precisely to ensure that health resources are targeted at health need. It is precisely for that reason that we changed the management of the health service. Since the hon. Gentleman raises the subject, I assume that he would now like to welcome that.

    Huddersfield Health Care Services NHS Trust
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the development package recently announced by the Huddersfield national health service trust. [2178]
    Mr. Malone: I very much welcome this £10 million development programme. It will provide improved health care facilities for the people of Huddersfield, in the context of a modern health service.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that this £10 million development programme, across a range of health facilities in my local hospital, represents a remarkable investment in improved health care for the people in and around Huddersfield and is the sort of good news about which we never hear from Opposition Members? Is he aware that I get far fewer complaints about my local hospitals than, for example, about my local Labour council?
    Mr. Malone: I am not surprised to learn of the content of my hon. Friend's postbag, because he does indeed have an excellent local hospital. May I, in the words of the trust chief executive, point out that
    "Never before have we had so many new developments planned on this scale … together, they form a major step forward for patient care"?
    That is a great improvement, in the context of that particular hospital. What the Labour party always fails to acknowledge is that such things are happening throughout the country. Perhaps when it happens in the areas of Opposition Members, they might table the sort of question that my hon. Friend tabled today.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister accept that what happens in Huddersfield impacts on Calderdale, because they share the same purchaser? Is he aware that the development about which he talks means that in Calderdale we will lose 300 badly needed beds?
    Mr. Malone: Yet again, we have the hon. Lady complaining about investment in the health service which will benefit the whole range of the population that this hospital trust serves. Of course we understand that it is up to local health authorities to decide where they purchase their health care; now they will be able to do so on behalf of my hon. Friend's constituents and those of the hon. Lady. Those people can be served by this hospital through updated facilities in which £10 million is being invested. I would have thought that the hon. Lady might welcome that.

    Haemophiliacs
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about making an ex gratia payment to haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C. [2179]
    Mr. Horam: Representations include seven earlier parliamentary questions, and five early-day motions. There was also an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend on 11 July and a short debate in another place. Ministers have received 291 letters.
    Mr. Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to the Department of Health. Since his promotion, has he had a chance to read the impact study produced by the Haemophilia Society, which has been made available to his Department, which demonstrates the physical, financial and emotional hardship suffered by haemophiliacs? As the cause of that hardship, infected blood products, is the same as that which passed on the HIV virus to haemophiliacs, should not the Government's reaction be the same?
    Mr. Horam: First, I congratulate the Haemophilia Society on its sensible review and my hon. Friend on his relentless questioning over many years, which has already achieved quite staggering results. I have not yet read the full review, but I shall do so as a matter of priority and I shall obviously take its conclusions most carefully into account.
    Mr. Mudie: Does the Minister realise the stress caused to the families of individuals, such as a 13-year-old youngster in my constituency, who not only have to cope with haemophilia but have now been totally devastated by having to cope with the effects of hepatitis C? Please may we have an early and sympathetic decision to bring some hope to those families?
    Mr. Horam: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the problem will always receive sympathy from me.

    Residential Care
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will clarify the criteria used to assess voluntary groups providing high standards of care in residential settings for those with challenging behaviour, in respect of the application of necessary minimum levels of proper discipline and restraint. [2181]
    Mr. Bowis: Regulations require that the owners and managers of homes should both safeguard and promote the welfare of residents. We expect statutory authorities to ensure that service providers should have clear, written policies on the management of people who may cause harm to themselves or others.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not an easy job to look after the severely mentally handicapped, and that common-sense disciplines should prevail over fashionable, impractical social services' ideologies which are certainly not in the best interests of the residents themselves?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is entirely right. When we are talking about difficult to manage individuals, we must ensure that the restraint and control used are sufficient to prevent a person from hurting himself or herself, other people or property. That is common sense, which must always take precedence over political correctness.

    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to privatise the role of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [2182]
    Mr. Dorrell: None, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister not concerned that access to in vitro fertilisation is so variable around the country, and barely exists at all in my part of Devon? Instead of talking about privatisation and hiving off, what action does he intend to take to ensure that that authority makes that vital service available to young couples throughout the country?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of talking about privatisation, but when he asked me what plans I had for privatisation, I said none. That is hardly an accusation that can be made to stick. With regard to the development of IVF, I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might welcome the fact that that is a new science which has been developing fast within British hospitals and which is being made available by different health authorities in different parts of the country to the people of their areas. We have always made it clear that that is a matter for local decision making within individual health authorities, reflecting the health priorities of their districts.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there can be little public confidence in a body whose members and employees are involved with and generate their income from destructive experiments on living human embryos? Is it not a positive disgrace that not one person has been appointed to that authority who believes in the sanctity of human life and who reflects the majority view in Britain that such experiments are repugnant?
    Mr. Dorrell: Strong views on the subject are held on both sides of the argument, the resolution of which, as the House knows, was achieved by a free vote during the passage of the legislation. The authority's membership is intended to reflect the necessary scientific expertise and the commitment to apply proper ethical standards to the use of that science. My hon. Friend may not like every member of the authority, but I hope that she will at least endorse the objectives that guide the authority's deliberations.

    Hospitals (Emergency Admissions)
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of trends in the numbers of emergency admissions to hospitals. [2183]
    Mr. Dorrell: The number of emergency admissions to hospital increased by an average of 3 per cent. each year in the five years to 1993-94. That is broadly in line with the increase in total admissions.
    Mr. Rooney: Is the Secretary of State aware that staffing levels in Bradford royal infirmary's accident and emergency department are far worse than those in any comparable department in the country? Has he any intention of meeting regional and district health authorities to set minimum staffing levels so that patients charter standards are met?
    Mr. Dorrell: Patients charter standards define the standard that a patient is entitled to expect when he or she approaches the health service for care, whether through an accident and emergency department or through any other department. It is obviously the responsibility of trust

    133
    management, in consultation with the health authority, to make certain that those standards are delivered. I am sure that that will be the guiding principle in Bradford, as in every other part of the country.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures demonstrate the need for hospitals to have proper systems in place to ensure the prompt admission and speedy discharge of patients? Is it not vital for social services departments up and down the country to get their act together to ensure the proper discharge of elderly patients into the community?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The relationship between the health service and social services departments in every part of the country is the key to the delivery of the objectives of both the health service and social services departments, and it is given a high priority throughout the health service.

  PRIME MINISTER

    GP Fundholders (Lichfield)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet a delegation of general practitioners from Lichfield to discuss the future of fundholding. [2202]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Fundholders' views on developing the success of the scheme are always welcome. Any detailed recommendations will, of course, be considered.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that every general practitioner in Lichfield will be a registered fundholder? The reason is that those GPs believe in the Conservative party's crusade for choice: they believe that it is right for them to be able to choose the consultant and the hospital that are right for them. Does my right hon. Friend realise that they are appalled at the Labour party's plan to abolish fundholding? Does that not give the lie to Labour's crusade for schools, which is evidently empty rhetoric—just another empty soundbite?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that GP fundholding has improved patient care and increased patient choice up and down the country. An increasing number of doctors are choosing to become fundholders, and I welcome that, in Lichfield as elsewhere.
    There is, of course, all the difference in the world between a policy that genuinely believes in choice—as ours does in relation to both health and education—and one that believes in choice for marketing reasons. We saw an instance of that this morning.

    Engagements
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2203]
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with all the other users of the Great Western main
    134
    line from Paddington to south Wales and the west of England, that the signals for railway privatisation are now firmly stuck at red? Now that the consortium Resurgence Railways, led by the Prime Minister's Huntingdon Tory crony, Mike Jones, has been rejected because it cannot raise the money, and the second-choice preferred bidders—led by the present management team at Western Region—cannot raise the money either, should we not be singing the old song "Let's call the whole thing off"?
    The Prime Minister: That was rather contrived, I must say. Rail privatisation is going ahead, for one simple reason: it will deliver a better service for rail passengers. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends really think that, over the past 40 years, the public have had the rail service that they would like, I do not know where he has been.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend believe that, if he appointed Scottish-based Members of Parliament to key Cabinet posts such as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Chief Whip, and then proposed to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh that failed to address the West Lothian question, that would be good for the Union of the United Kingdom and for relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK?
    The Prime Minister: I do, of course, have a number of very distinguished Scots in my Cabinet and in my Government, but I certainly agree with the thrust—[Interruption.] Not at the moment, it is true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is distinguished, but he is not a Scot. The thrust of my hon. Friend's point is surely right—if the devolution plans proposed by the Opposition parties were to proceed, they would undoubtedly lead to conflict between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that, even at this late stage, the parties advocating those policies will consider what they would mean in practice both for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom and will decide that extra taxation for Scots alone is not a way to improve the prosperity of Scotland.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree, as the Government's report "Lifetime Learning" which was published today confirms, that Britain's skills and education attainments are nowhere near where they should be? Rather than encouraging a small number of children to leave state schools for the private sector, should we not be raising educational standards for the 7 million children who are educated in the state sector, many of whom do not get the education that they deserve?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have produced a whole series of plans to raise educational standards over recent years, many of which, alas, have been strongly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know where in the education sector there is failure, he might look at Hackney for example. [[HON. MEMBERS: "Islington."] I shall come to Islington. The right hon. Gentleman might look at Lambeth, where the secondary schools are so bad that the Office for Standards in Education has to inspect every one of them. He might, of course, look at Islington, which has just come absolutely bottom in the table of GCSE results. What is consistent among all those is that they are all Labour-controlled education authorities.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate SCM Chemicals in my constituency, a subsidiary of the Hanson Trust group, which yesterday announced a massive expansion of its titanium dioxide plant? Is that not clear evidence that international investment is making my constituency the chemical capital of the world?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for his constituency and his constituents. I hope he will agree that Government policy as well as his advocacy might have played some part in bringing that investment to his constituency.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2204]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Cornwall and Devon why they should accept the Government's conclusions today that Government spending in the region compares favourably with that in the rest of the country, when every independent report shows that spending in the region is 10 per cent. less Department by Department, education to industry, than that in the rest of the country, despite high unemployment, low wages and a high cost of living?
    The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a number of measures to deal with those problems in the west country and elsewhere, and it is extremely important that those problems are dealt with. We are determined to address them and to improve the living standards and opportunities for people in the west country. That is what we have been doing and what we shall continue to do. It is pity that the hon. Gentleman seeks to denigrate every effort that is made.
    Mr. Devlin: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of the disgraceful intimidation and browbeating that is going on in Hurworth in my neighbouring constituency where the Labour party is trying to prevent a local school from opting out? Apparently, the whole affair is being organised by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, aided by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn.)
    The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of intimidation of parental choice is to be condemned. Parents have a natural and a legal right to decide whether they want the school to which their child goes to opt out and they should be able to exercise that right without intimidation, either by the education authority or by anyone else. If there is evidence of that, I hope that those implicated in it will examine it without delay.
    Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2205]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Quin: My question concerns the appalling human rights abuses in Nigeria, together with reports in the press today of confidential information from Home Office files being leaked to Tory central office and thence to the press. Will the Prime Minister order an immediate inquiry into
    136
    those leaks and further assure the House that there will be no deportations to Nigeria of people at risk from that murderous regime?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, our position on Nigeria is clear and, in company with others, we set that out clearly at the Commonwealth conference. The case in today's newspaper to which she refers was one where the applicant or his representative had chosen to make public details of their cases and allegations about their consideration. In those circumstances, the Home Office gave information that was necessary to set the record straight in response to telephone inquiries that it received and, subsequent to the information being given by the Home Office, it was also used by others.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the outstanding success of Operation Christmas Cracker? Is he aware that some 12,000 police officers in 40 force areas today made a number of staggered raids in which more than 2,000 suspects were arrested, and recovered property ranging from bicycles to reptiles? Does he agree that that is one of the best Christmas presents that people could have?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who touches on a matter that is of importance to everyone. I certainly welcome the priority given to today's operation, which involves some 40 police forces and has occasioned more than 2,000 arrests. There is no doubt that, over the past couple of years, innovative policing methods have made a distinct impact on the crime level, and we are now beginning to see the crime statistics fall. It is policing of that sort that can give people considerable reassurance. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff about crime falling, but it is a matter of importance to the public out there.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2206]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen the astonishing reports in the press that the official video of the party conference has been doctored to make the party chairman appear good, and to play down the popularity of the Secretary of State for Defence in the party? If the Conservative party cannot tell the truth about its own conference, is it any wonder that no one trusts it on tax?
    The Prime Minister: From the party that has more spending pledges and higher tax in the pipeline than anyone else, I find that ironic. On the newspaper reports, the hon. Gentleman should look at reality, not newspaper reports.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that high-quality textiles from Yorkshire were used in the new James Bond film? James Bond may be ruthless in what he does to his enemies, but he is also particular about what he wears. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three west Yorkshire textile companies that were involved in that project?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate west Yorkshire and the textile industry and I hope that, as a result of that extra advertisement, they will sell far more of their textiles at home and abroad.
    Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2207]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Corston: The Prime Minister describes himself as a one-nation Tory. Will he therefore tell us which is fairer—abolishing capital gains and inheritance taxes or implementing a starting rate of income tax of 10p?
    The Prime Minister: I see that the shadow Chancellor is here. One of his hon. Friends, also a Front Bencher a year or so ago, referred in very scathing terms to precisely the sort of proposition that the shadow Chancellor made. It is a gimmick and the shadow Chancellor knows it. What is fair is to lower the basic rate of tax to 20p, which is what we are doing by raising thresholds so that one in four people now pays tax at 20p, by cutting the tax on savings for all basic-rate taxpayers so that they only pay 20p, and by reducing the basic rate of tax.
    The hon. Lady reveals the deep innate distaste of the Labour party for cutting taxes. It is a spending party and a tax-raising party, while we cut taxes.
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I gave you prior notice. You will have just heard the Prime Minister refer to what appears to be a major change in the long-standing policy of the Home Office not to disclose to a third party confidential information concerning anyone involved in immigration or asylum applications. In view of the disclosure by Conservative central office of information concerning a Mr. Igbiuidu, a Nigerian national seeking asylum in this country, could you, Madam Speaker, arrange for the Home Secretary to make an early statement about what changes the Home Office has made in its policy of not disclosing information about individual applications?
    Madam Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of his point of order. I certainly heard the Prime Minister's response today. I understand that the information was released by the Home Office. I, as Speaker, have no responsibility for the actions of Government Departments, but even so I took the opportunity this morning to look at the matter and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is precedented.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to look in the Official Report tomorrow at question No. 1 to the Prime Minister, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). He asked a closed question. We all
    138
    understand the ground rules. A closed question prevents any supplementary from being asked, other than in relation to the subject matter of the question.
    My complaint is that the Prime Minister did not respond either in detail or by implication to the question, which specifically asked whether he would meet general practitioners from Lichfield. There was no mention of Lichfield in the Prime Minister's reply, and certainly not in relation to general practitioners. If the rules are to apply, a Minister has to respond to a question, or it is unfair to Opposition Members.
    Mr. Fabricant rose—
    Madam Speaker: Sit down. I am taking no further points of order on this matter. Indeed, it was not a point of order anyway. I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers. We shall now get on with the business of the House.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us could not hear what you said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). For clarification, could you tell us whether you said that the procedure was precedented or a precedent?
    Madam Speaker: It is precedented. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come to see me I will give him the information.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw to your attention the happy fact that, after 15 months, I am back in service?
    Madam Speaker: It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman back. I shall look for quality contributions from him in future.

  BILL PRESENTED
    LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. Secretary Forsyth, supported by Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Dorrell and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to enable licensing boards to make byelaws including licensing conditions relating to certain events involving music and dancing and to make new provision for the composition of licensing boards for licensing divisions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the Income-related Benefits Schemes and Social Security (Claims and Payments) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2303) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

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

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

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply, acquisition or importation otherwise than by—

  (i) zero-rating or exempting supplies of goods which are, or are to be, subjected to a fiscal or other warehousing regime; or

  (ii) zero-rating or exempting supplies of services on or in relation to such goods;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax otherwise than to persons constructing or converting buildings in cases where the construction or conversion is not in the course or furtherance of a business;

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

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

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  Madam Speaker: I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the first Ways and Means motion. It may be convenient if at this stage I also announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the motion on public expenditure which is being debated together with the Budget resolutions.
  3.35 pm
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had three principal objectives in his Budget: first, to maintain the Government's determination to make this country the enterprise centre of Europe; secondly, to enhance still further the priority that we give to three vital public services—education, the health service and the battle against crime—while reducing overall public expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product; and, thirdly, to pursue the Government's objective to allow people to keep more of their own money through a programme of significant tax cuts. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for producing a Budget that achieved all three of those objectives. He has delivered a Budget that will get borrowing down, secure our reputation for governing responsibly and in the national interest, and continue to promote a sustainable, lasting recovery.
  I referred to our determination to build in this country the enterprise centre of Europe. We have recognised as a Government—perhaps more frankly than any other Government—that over the past 100 years, our position as a trading nation, from about 1860 onwards, has been one of relative decline. As a Government, we inherited in 1979 an economy heading for still more serious decline—structurally unsound, grossly overmanned, seriously unproductive and ridden with industrial disputes. It was widely acknowledged that in 1979 this country was the sick man of Europe.
  Today, we are among Europe's fastest growing economies. The United Kingdom grew faster than G7 average growth in 1993 and 1994, and we are set to do so again this year. The International Monetary Fund expects us to join Germany at the top of the G7 growth league in 1996. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has praised the change. Its survey of the UK noted:
  "the UK's sweeping structural reforms are yielding dividends in a more flexible, competitive, and less inflation prone economy."
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister refers to sweeping structural reforms. Has he noted the sweeping structural reform in my constituency, where an American company, Campbell Soups—60 per cent. of its share capital is owned by one family—was able to take a decision which closed one of the most advanced food-producing plants in the country, owned by Home Pride, effectively wiping out 123 jobs at a stroke? Home Pride was profitable last year; it made £4 million. The entire food industry is outraged, and my constituency is outraged, yet the Government stand back and do nothing. Who is going to step in to stop such companies wrecking the local economy in my constituency? If the right hon. Gentleman has any honour, will he stand at the

  141
  Dispatch Box and join me in appealing to the British people to boycott the products of the company—Campbell soups and Fray Bentos corned beef—so that it knows that we will not stand aside and watch it wreck a constituency such as mine?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: So much for inward investment!
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course I do not like unemployment being created in any constituency in any circumstance. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) seriously. Was he saying that a future Labour Government would become involved in preventing companies from closing down? Would a future Labour Government be prepared to offer subsidies to such a company? Is that one more—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I will not give way. This is a question not for the hon. Gentleman, but for Front-Bench Members of his party. What faces us today is old Labour anticipating old demands that it will make to a future Labour Government. Perhaps the deputy leader of the Labour party will tell us how much money is tucked away in the coffers of a potential Labour Budget to save jobs in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described.
  I noticed another characteristic of old Labour when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke against inward investment, cynically attacking one of the most successful aspects of the British economy.
  Mr. Skinner: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not carry out his promise of a short time ago, when he talked at the Tory party conference about intervening before breakfast, before dinner and before tea? Why, in this respect, does he not intervene before the soup?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I and my right hon. Friends have intervened time and again and the result has been that there have been more than 4,700 inward investments into this country which are creating or safeguarding 700,000 jobs. That is the sort of intervention in which we believe, creating an enterprise economy which is making us the most successful enterprise centre of Europe.
  It is interesting that this is the new Labour party. At any sign of success, any inward investment by overseas companies or any decision to cause a redundancy, the Labour party is up in arms with indignation. There is nothing new about the Labour party. Labour Members are the oldest men and women, psychologically, in British politics.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: There is no point in my giving way when the Labour party has given way to every intellectual argument that this party has paraded over the past 16 years. Labour Members—the whole lot of them—do not realise that they are intellectually flat on their backs.
  The people of this country must make a decision. Do they want this country's economy to be judged by the standards of the Labour party, or by the standards of the men and women running the world's most successful international companies who, in the freedom they enjoy, are choosing to invest in this country—a country that the
  142
  Tories have made the most successful in Europe? Which is the right judgment? Should people choose Labour's restrictionism, which harks back to yesterday, or the Tory party's bringing the investment that will create prosperity and jobs tomorrow?
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Deputy Prime Minister closed the pits and put 30,000 miners out of a job. Why are new mines now being opened in the north-east of England? Why are companies opencasting half my county? Why is that happening when the right hon. Gentleman put 30,000 miners on the dole?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I took that most uncomfortable decision for the same reason as Labour Ministers took exactly the same decisions year after year after year, in the unhappy circumstances when they sat temporarily on the Treasury Bench. They took that decision—as I did—because the industry was uncompetitive. The reason why the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) can point to the fact that new mines are being opened, new opportunities are being created and coal is being exported is that under the private sector, the coal industry is competitive. That is the transformation which has come about.
  Mr. William Cash: Bearing in mind the fact that I voted against the coal proposals to which my right hon. Friend has referred, but moving further forward, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Labour party demonstrates its utter hypocrisy by continuing to cavil and complain about how we are running the economy, when the Labour party was behind the exchange rate mechanism and is in favour of further integration into monetary union? Will my right hon. Friend say here and now that the United Kingdom will never go back into an exchange rate mechanism? It is precisely because we are outside that system that we are now competitive and have all the growth to which my right hon. Friend has rightly referred.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Now that my hon. Friend has reminded me of the facts, I recall that he disagreed with me on the issue of the coal mines. But the day when my hon. Friend and I agree on all aspects of policy will be a day for the Tory party to rejoice from one end of the country to the other. I only suggest to my hon. Friend that he should use his considerable rhetorical skills not to attack the record of the Government but to attack the Labour party, which will otherwise take the place of the Government.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that it is only fair that the Opposition spokesmen should have a chance to speak in the debate, as opposed to allowing the whole thrust of Labour party policy to be dictated by its Back Benches.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am being fair to the Labour party because I understand that it cannot make up its mind which way to vote tonight. Perhaps I should give Labour Members more chance to debate these matters between themselves. I will not give way to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd); she will forgive me.

  143
  The fact is that international opinion and world commentators now praise the remarkable changes that have occurred in the British economy. To quote only one, the chairman of BMW said earlier this year:
  "structural change has made Britain by far the most attractive place to invest in Europe."
  The fact is that the change is happening in manufacturing, the service industries and in the vital super-highway industries of tomorrow. The people who have to make the judgments upon which so many jobs and so much investment depends know that the British economy under the Conservatives offers the best tax climate, excellent industrial relations, low inflation and a climate of enterprise which the Government are systematically extending and expanding year after year.
  There can be no clearer indication of the success of our policies—it is one that was at the heart of the Labour party's preoccupation—than the fact that unemployment has fallen by almost 750,000 over the past two and a half years. The United Kingdom now has more people in work than any other major European Union economy.
  I shall expand on some aspects of the Government's continuing agenda of competitiveness, to which the Chancellor referred in his speech. I shall start with the deregulation initiative and the burdens on industry. After the outstanding work of the task forces, first under Lord Sainsbury and now under Francis Maude, far more than 1,000 regulatory provisions have been earmarked for repeal or amendment. Some 500 will have been dealt with by the end of this month, and many more are in the pipeline.
  We are now saving companies hundreds of millions of pounds per annum, which of course feeds through into enhanced competitiveness, investment and jobs. Out of the hundreds of regulatory provisions, I shall give the House three examples. First, merely by simplifying the food temperature control regulations, the Government will have helped save industry about £40 million a year. Secondly, we have increased the proportion that charities can invest in equities from 50 to 75 per cent. On the charities' own estimates, that could increase their investment returns by some £200 million a year. Thirdly, the simplification of trade marks legislation is already generating savings of some £30 million a year.
  I am pleased to announce today the progress that we have made on a major area of regulatory concern—bringing in greater joint working by the Inland Revenue, the Contributions Agency and Customs and Excise to make dealing with Government more straightforward and less burdensome for business. Anyone in business will know that every year, two heavy documents arrive, one explaining the tax system, the other explaining the national insurance contribution system: two systems, two organisations, two sets of inspectors, two documents.
  Today, Peter Wyman, senior tax partner of Coopers and Lybrand and a member of Francis Maude's task force, has agreed to oversee and drive forward the project of joint working between the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency and to ensure that this delivers real early benefits to business. We are talking about concrete things that really matter to people who run businesses: like having just one initial audit visit covering both PAYE and national insurance; like a single telephone help line to deal with queries and to
  144
  cut out the duplication of paperwork. Peter Wyman will bring exactly the external experience and perspective that we need for this task.
  I referred earlier to our inward investment. One third of all inward investment in Europe is now based here. Forty per cent. of all American and Japanese investment in Europe is here—world-class companies transforming management practices, our employment prospects, our research expertise and our export markets. This investment from overseas, together with very optimistic forecasts for domestic investment, is helping the transformation of our economic prospects. But there is more to it than that.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend believe that if the Government were to sign a sweetheart deal with BT allowing it to compete against the new entrants into the cable market, we would get the information super-highway built quicker? Would that have the effect of cutting off inward investment from such companies?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would bear with me. I had it in mind to return to that subject a little later in my speech.
  This is not just about our industrial and commercial base. Britain is being modernised and rebuilt in what will be seen in perspective as the greatest period of urban renaissance since the 19th century. None of this is luck; it is as a deliberate consequence of the strategies that the Government have pursued.
  First, trade union reform and the privatisation of our nationalised industries played a critical part in restoring the wealth-creating ethos in this country. They have become established here despite the in-built resistance at every stage of the Labour party, which is characterised now only by its abject surrender on all those major issues of principle for which it fought so hard in the 1980s.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: No, we know into which Lobby the hon. Gentleman went all through the 1980s. We know the record.
  The fact is that our reforms in the restructuring of our economy and the privatising of our industries have become so entrenched here that they are the subject of intense investigation across the world. There is virtually no country today that is not exploring and experimenting with the ideas that we developed in the 1980s. They are established here and admired across the world. The fact is that we are moving on to new ideas that again will become part of the world culture change.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Talking about new ideas, or perhaps rehashed old ideas, my right hon. Friend has been discussing regulation and competitiveness. I understand that there are one or two parties in the House—or even three—that have a proposal for a Scottish Parliament. What would that do for the competitiveness of industry and deregulation in Scotland? My right hon. Friend may intend to deal with that later, but if he does not, perhaps he could tell the House what he thinks about it.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: It is difficult to be sure how much extra tax it would lead to because I would have

  145
  to know how much extra tax was going to be imposed by a future Labour Government across the national economy. As I understand the specifically Scottish dimension, the cost of an assembly in Scotland would be of the order of 3p. That, I think, is the tartan tax. That, broadly, would be the sort of cost that the people of Scotland would have to pay. The effect on inward investment in Scotland would be dramatic, but it would, of course, be hugely advantageous to England, Northern Ireland and Wales, because we would get the inward investment that socialism in Scotland would deter from going there. Those are the obvious consequences of a Scottish assembly, and that is why I do not expect to see it happen.
  We are now pioneering further developments that will affect the culture of public and private sector co-operation on a world scale. The first of those is the progress and vast potential of the private finance initiative. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear last week that we will also be extending the reach of another Government innovation—challenge funding. In many ways, the cultural shift implied in challenge funding is among the most pervasive and ambitious of our proposals.
  I well remember, 15-odd years ago, the hostility that greeted the concept of the urban development corporations, the enterprise zones and the urban grant. But once again, as in so many other areas where we have pioneered, others have been forced by events to follow the lead that we set. We have seen, and will see through regional challenge, city challenge and the fund for the single regeneration budget, billions of pounds of investment from the private sector being levered in by the stimulus of public money to regenerate and revitalise our inner cities.
  No one who has any experience or understanding of east London, Tyneside, Clydeside, the Tees, Merseyside, inner Birmingham, central Manchester or Cardiff bay can question that it is Conservative policies which have transformed those formerly dispirited urban areas. They have done that by creating a genuine public-private partnership, which has added hugely to what the public sector could ever have been able to afford.
  We have not just created a physical renaissance—we have changed the culture of co-operation at local level. We have forced the inward looking, self-serving local Labour authorities to work effectively in partnership with their local communities, which they have been elected to serve.
  Challenge funding has brought the Government, local authorities, training and enterprise councils and the private sector together. Regional challenge involves the European Commission in the same process. As a consequence of such partnerships, those involved have overcome differences and worked together for the benefit of the entire community. In order to win the competition for challenge funds, local authorities must now consult and involve their local communities. They must talk to tenants, teachers, the police and the industrial and commercial communities as they develop their plans and their priorities.
  That is the politics of progress. That is how one truly builds the concept of one nation in the most deprived parts of our country. That change has been brought about because the Government have changed the assumptions that local authorities can simply expect to use taxpayers' money to finance irresponsibility and dogma.
  146
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has now proposed an expansion of challenge funding in local authority capital programmes. Shortly, the President of the Board of Trade will announce the result of the competition for the £160 million available under the regional challenge, which we have run with European funds.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Bingo and scratch card economics again.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I cannot help but notice the continuing murmuring of anti-enterprise slogans from the Labour party. The most interesting thing about sitting on the Conservative Benches is to note that the only thing that ever excites the Labour party is yesterday's slogans. The more the leadership of the Labour party talks about new Labour, the quieter the Labour party becomes. The more it lapses into yesterday's jargon, the more hysterically reminiscent it becomes of the old Labour party I know and love. [Interruption.] I should have thought that with so much self-evident success, benefiting the Labour constituencies of this country—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I refer to Mr. Campbell. I will have some order now from the Opposition Front Bench below the Gangway.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am referring to falling unemployment, which now creates derision among the Opposition. I am talking about inward investment in their constituencies and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) sneers. My right hon. Friends spend hour after hour trying to persuade companies to come here instead of the south of Ireland, Germany, Holland or anywhere else and all that we get from Opposition Members is sneering at the results that bring jobs to their constituencies.
  That is characteristic of what we know about the Labour party. They are never happier than when they are talking Britain down. The Labour party has latched on to the 1995 world competitiveness report. It is a report in which Chile comes top for having corporate boards which safeguard proper practices and Peru is thought to be the second most likely country in the world to have a low inflation rate in the next 12 months, despite the fact that the present inflation forecast for Peru in 1995 is 20 per cent. To cap it all, it is a report in which public confidence in financial intermediaries in Colombia surpasses that in all G7 countries except Canada.
  Not content with that piece of fantasy, the Opposition turn desperately to some of the OECD figures that the Government used in the competitiveness White Paper. The OECD figures do not help them enough, so what do they do? They stick Hong Kong and Singapore into the OECD league tables of GDP per head and select the position just above the United Kingdom in which to put them. They have no idea as to whether they should put them there, so they do whatever suits their political propaganda.
  The Opposition are not comparing like statistics with like, but that does not matter. It may not fit the facts, but it serves the narrow, knocking purpose of the Labour party. They leap about and start crowing that the United Kingdom has apparently slipped from 13th position in 1979 to 16th now and when they include Hong Kong and Singapore, it is 18th. However, they overlook inconvenient facts, as they always do.

  147
  We might explore whether the Opposition are prepared to get rid of the unemployment benefits and the welfare benefits that we have here but do not exist in Singapore in order to raise the investment levels in Britain to those in Singapore. Perhaps that is new Labour policy, and that is how Britain's competitiveness is to improve, but we might be let into the secret this side of a general election campaign. Perhaps they have it in mind that people should live in conditions characteristic of those in some of the fastest growing economies of the far east. If they would be prepared to allow those housing conditions to exist here, people should be entitled to hear about it.
  Mr. John Prescott: This is absurd.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not absurd; it is absurd that the Opposition are attempting to compare Britain with those two economies for their own narrow, selfish party purposes, although they were not included in the OECD figures.
  Even if one were talking about the events of the 1980s and 1990s, and considering the countries that were included, in 1979 we were the sick man of Europe. Nobody seriously argues with that. I cannot believe that the Opposition would defend it; that would imply that they wanted to go back to it. They certainly would go back to it, but they do not want to imply that intention.
  In 1979 we inherited the disasters of restrictive practices, rampant inflation and soaring debt. Thanks to that legacy I concede at once that we slipped to 19th place in 1981. I wholly fail to understand how anybody can imagine that in the immediate aftermath of the winter of discontent we could have seen anything other than the deterioration of the British economy. Where the whole game plan comes unstuck is that from 1981 onwards, we have worked painstakingly and steadily to right the effect of those years of decline. We have achieved something that the socialists opposite never achieved—real, lasting success. While Labour fiddles with statistics, we have been tackling the competition head on.
  Mr. Prescott: It is not us who have been doing the fiddling, such as on the unemployment statistics.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Use the word "fiddle" and the deputy leader of the Opposition wakes up. That is his stock in trade, and he is expert at it. I suggest that he calms down because I shall be coming to the deputy leader in a few minutes. Give me a minute or two to deal with the facts before we get to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Since 1981, we have seen a significant recovery in this country's status as a world economy because we have systematically put in place the conditions for competitiveness. Although Labour has changed its language, it has changed none of its instincts or ambitions. Labour in the end is the party of the producer, not the consumer. It is the party that will always serve the interests of organised labour as opposed to the interests of the market place. In the end, the Labour party will put its interests above those of the nation at large.
  If anyone wants to understand how little Labour has changed and how little it understands of the responsibilities of government—and of how one does not fiddle in Government—consider the point raised by my
  148
  hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). The leader of the Labour party stitched up a deal with BT, which he announced with maximum publicity at the Labour party conference. If we in Government behaved like that, we would be in the courts for abusing our legal restraints. No wonder the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has been spending his time ever since trying to persuade the cable companies, which we encouraged to invest billions in Britain, that he had not done a deal with BT. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he has done a deal with BT that no one in the Government could do within the constraints of the law, in which case the right hon. Gentleman does not have any idea of the responsibilities of government, or he has not done a deal—in which case he deceived the British people into believing that he did. With the Opposition, if votes are for sale the price is of no regard.
  One of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to preside over the regulatory climate and to operate, objectively and on advice, within the law. I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who is an Opposition spokesman and could find himself in a responsible position and required to study evidence and listen to advice, in taking a wholly analytical and detached view of problems put before him—for that is the job that the hon. Gentleman shadows. Before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central received any independent advice or heard what the regulators had to say, he wrote to me:
  "Bskyb is abusing its market position by restricting consumer choice and disabling potential competitors."
  I read in the newspapers that the deputy leader and the Leader of the Opposition ordered the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central to withdraw that letter. After all, what is the point of flying all the way to Australia to suck up to the executives of the Murdoch empire if one's official spokesman back home is trying to carve up one piece of that empire at the same time as one is trying to win votes in Australia? I will give Mr. Murdoch a simple word of advice. Before he listens to the organ grinder, he should keep his eye on the monkeys back home. Nothing shows more clearly what Labour would be like in power and that it has no idea of the responsibilities within which a Government must operate. Labour is not fit to govern.
  Mr. Richard Caborn rose—
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I will get the letter.
  Mr. Caborn: While the Deputy Prime Minister is getting the letter, I can tell him that legal advice was taken on the BT deal by the Select Committee. In fact, we took three sets of legal advice. We were told that the proposals in the Select Committee report were attainable, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said.
  I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might do better in government if he did some of the things that he suggested when he was in opposition. I also suggest that if he revisited his book "Where There's a Will", he might gain more backbone to take on the Treasury—as he said that he intended—and that might be helpful in the future.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am glad that I gave way. I read the Financial Times and—
  Mr. Caborn: We have read the book.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had read my book, he would not have made such inane observations.
  If the BT deal announced by the Leader of the Opposition in his bravura performance was real and of value, why is he now telling the cable industry, to quote the Financial Times—[Interruption.] I shall give way if anybody wants to tell me that what the Leader of the Opposition told the Financial Times is not true.
  The Opposition cannot have it all ways. What the Leader of the Opposition said at the party conference was designed to give the impression of a deal that would change the world. What he said today to the cable companies "at a private meeting"—not on the platform at the Labour party conference, not at a great gathering of the Labour party and with no trade unionists there to check the minutes—was
  "that BT would only be allowed access to the market after 1998 if it presented a detailed programme for the construction of a nationwide "broad-band" cable network—the so-called information superhighway."
  Mr. Caborn: That is what the Select Committee said.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: We are talking not about what the Select Committee said, but about what the Leader of the Opposition tried to con the British people into believing at the Labour party conference. Obviously, he was trying to have it both ways. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in government, he would have been in the courts—and the Opposition know it.
  The Budget debate has had the flavour of the old Labour party. One after another, Opposition Members have been demanding higher levels of public expenditure. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) wanted a community action programme. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) demanded investment in the construction industry. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) wanted —20 for the disabled. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) wanted more family credit. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) wanted regional development agencies.
  Opposition Members want policemen, money for roads, housing benefit, money for education, investment, money for lone parents and more overseas aid. Their wishes were all summed up by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) when he said:
  "Greater expenditure is justified in many areas."—[Official Report, 29 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1283.]
  All that at 10p in the pound income tax!
  I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) cannot answer the questions that have been put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and other colleagues. One after the other they have intervened, but they have received no answers. Not only is the Labour party not fit to govern, but its sums do not add up.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question that will be in the mind of a typical teacher in his constituency? "If I am to get £9 more a week out of the Budget, I would need a pay increase of 4 per cent. If I got a pay increase of 4 per cent., schools would not get another £848 million because
  150
  that entirely depends on the teachers' pay settlement being much lower. Which do I take?" Surely the same Budget cannot offer both.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of understanding the Chancellor's language. My right hon. and learned Friend referred clearly to the average income rising by £9 a week next year. He said time and again that that increase takes into account a range of factors, such as wage settlements, bonuses and overtime earnings, which will vary as between companies, employees and industries. That is bound to be the position, and everybody understands it, but the fact is that we have a conflict: a shadow Labour Chancellor who cannot answer any of the questions, and a Labour party that is determined to try to seek increased expenditure in programme after programme.
  I was interested to see a question that was tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), which read:
  "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in a full year of introducing a new 30 per cent. tax band on £3,000 of income above the basic rate band; and what would be the yield from introducing a 60 per cent. upper rate at a 40 per cent. rate limit of (a) £50,000, (b)£70,000 and (c)£100,000."—[Official Report, 2 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 426.]
  If that was an idle question from some relatively new and inexperienced Labour Back Bencher, I doubtless would do my best to draw that to the attention of the House, but it may not have quite the credibility that it has when it comes from a Labour Front Bench spokesman. What possible interest has a shadow Treasury spokesman of the parliamentary Labour party in asking the Treasury to calculate the product of a 60 per cent. upper rate tax band? Is it idle curiosity, or is it to help with the arithmetic? If it is the latter, it would help the shadow Chancellor to answer the questions, but at least we should know that this side of a general election campaign. [Interruption.] I read out the question. I did not get it wrong. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is a Front Bench spokesman. [Interruption.] If I have revealed that I was not sure that the hon. Gentleman was a Treasury spokesman, have I revealed something else: that there is a split between hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench—between the Treasury trying to keep expenditure down and some other departmental responsibility trying to find the money to pay for increased expenditure? I do not mind which way it is; all that I tell the people of this country is that the Labour party is planning a 60 per cent. tax rate and it is doing the calculations on that basis.
  Of course, the Labour party may try to suggest that one is raising claims about its policy that cannot be substantiated, but in the real world its own party members are asking the same questions. I happened to notice what the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said on the "Today" programme:
  "Gordon—
  I would be more respectful if I was referring to the shadow Chancellor—
  can say anything he likes if he thinks that is going to win the election. When Labour is in power they will be looking for other priorities apart from tax cuts".
  I have to say, of course, that the hon. Lady is a young and enthusiastic Member of the Labour Back Benches, so perhaps again we can dismiss it as an isolated occasion, but I have always been interested in the old hands who

  151
  have been around a little longer, one of whom is our old friend the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was on the "Clive Anderson Talks Back" programme. [Interruption.] I understand that Labour Members do not want to hear it, but hear it they will, not just from me but from their right hon. Friend. Let me quote what he said:
  "The Labour Party doesn't want to cause trouble because we want to get this bunch of crooks out of Government." [Interruption.]
  We can unite the Labour party on that. He goes on to say:
  "And that's absolutely right".
  Now get the cheer ready, boys.
  "And then when we come to power, then you'll find the Labour Party is the same … party as it's always been."
  So there we have it—a party determined to egg up expenditure at every moment; a shadow Chancellor refusing to answer any of the questions; a shadow spokesman asking for calculations of the product of 60p in the pound income tax; and the old hands of the Labour party saying, "Let them say what they like as long as we get into power, then we will revert to type."
  I am not telling the Labour party anything that it does not know. It knows that the shadow Cabinet is torn apart by the traumas of the debate that is going on—the shadow Chancellor talking about 10p in the pound income tax.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear. That is a very good policy.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Well, the hon. Gentleman should go and tell the shadow Foreign Secretary that, because he blew his top when he first heard about it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, he did not.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, he did.
  "Shadow Chancellor talks about denying welfare payments to those people who do not present themselves for work."
  The shadow Chancellor just did not tell his colleagues in advance, so the shadow Foreign Secretary flipped his lid when he was first told.
  The only thing that can be said for the deputy leader of the Labour party is that, as no one ever tells him anything, he cannot be blamed if anything goes wrong. I do not want to give the House a misleading impression about the deputy Leader of the Labour party. I do not want to give the impression that just because no one talks to him they do not love him. It has become abundantly clear through the media of The Times that at least someone loves the deputy leader of the Labour party.
  I was intrigued today to see that a young lady, Fleur Adcock, has written a little poem to the deputy leader. It reads:
  "In the dream I was kissing John Prescott—
  or about to kiss him; our eyes had locked
  and we were leaning avidly forward,
  lips out-thrust, certain protuberances
  under our clothing brushing each other's fronts,
  when my mother saw us, and I woke up."
  I must say, it was a merciful release for somebody.
  We are back with the essence of a Budget which has left the Labour party floundering with a wholly inadequate response. It is a Budget which will deliver an
  152
  extra £9 a week to the average income in Britain. It is a Budget which has seen us pursue our priorities of extra expenditure on the health service, on education and on the police. It is a Budget which has seen us march on a journey which is intended to take us to our 20p in the pound tax rate. It has revealed, by the Labour party's abject inability to make up its mind which way to vote tonight, that it is a party of opposition and not fit to govern.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate your guidance on a matter of some importance before the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) rises to move the amendment on the motion on public expenditure. The amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal party, which has not been selected, includes an honourable declaration of interest by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The amendment in the name of the leader of the Labour party includes a call to switch resources
  "to investment in transport from the cost of rail privatisation".
  Would not it have been helpful if the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East had also declared his interest arising from his sponsorship by a rail union?
  Madam Speaker: I have made my views known on this matter before and I shall not get further involved in it. The hon. Gentleman has raised such issues before, and I refer him to the Official Report.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in line 4, after `tax', insert
  `other than in respect of value added tax on fuel and power for domestic or charity use'.
  The amendment gives the House an opportunity to vote again on the issue of VAT on domestic fuel.
  It was sad to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister today. I have much respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He has written a lot on many issues; I am in common accord with him on some, and in strong disagreement on others. But he rather treated the House to a speech that did not address the issue. It was more in accord with the circus than with a debate in the House of Commons. I am sad about that, because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is capable of making a more serious speech about the important issues involved in the Budget. The Budget debate is one of the most important debates in which the House engages in discussing the nature of the economy and the prosperity of the country.
  The Deputy Prime Minister is, in fact, more concerned with being the chief propagandist of the Tory party, an art in which he proved himself proficient today. We have heard of the fiddling of statistics from a Government who have fiddled the unemployment figures—among others—to such an extent that the responsibility for recording those figures has been taken from the Department for Education and Employment and given to the Central Statistical Office. At least they are now reported more honestly.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech was indeed a propaganda speech. It continued much of the argument that he advanced on this morning's "Today" programme,

  153
  when he spoke of the "sacrifice" that had to be made if we were to achieve the success to which he referred this afternoon. It is not a sacrifice made by millionaires such as the right hon. Gentleman, and the many other millionaires who have done very well under 16 years of Tory government. It is the low-paid—people who desperately need assistance—who have suffered, and have borne the heaviest tax burden.
  I find it offensive that it is those who have made the decisions in Cabinet who have benefited from those decisions, while launching an attack on people who desperately need the protection of a minimum wage. That is little enough to expect when more and more people are being driven down into poverty pay. That is what has happened in the 16 years of this Tory Government, and it is a disgrace to the country.
  Yes, a sacrifice has been made; but it has been made by the millions whom the Government have put out of work, often by deliberate acts of policy. Millions of low-paid people have been denied the protection of a minimum wage, and driven into poverty pay by exploitation.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, on behalf of his party, to guarantee jobs for those who become unemployed as a result of a minimum wage?
  Mr. Prescott: I will not take any lectures from any Tory Member about the level of employment, but I give the hon. Gentleman this guarantee: we shall be committed to putting employment at the top of our list of objectives as a Labour Government. We believe that there are certain things that the current Government could do now to return more people to work, rather than allowing them to waste away on the dole. I am talking about real jobs, not the "skivvy" jobs offered by the Budget.
  That is the challenge for us, and we readily accept it. I might add that it was a Labour Government who, after the war, produced full employment for the first time, despite the opposition of the Tory party of the day. That is a matter of record.
  Mr. John Townend: If by some mischance the right hon. Gentleman manages to gain power, will he and his party bring back the national dock labour scheme, which ruined the port of Hull and turned it from the country's third port to its 15th? Hull is now recovering, and has doubled its trade since the Conservative party did away with the scheme.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is living in the past. Let me tell him what I would bring back: I would bring back a minimum wage, which would help an awful lot of employees in his shop who are earning very much less than that wage would be. Can the hon. Gentleman honestly say that those people are at least guaranteed the level of wages introduced by the Wage Councils Act? No, he cannot. He should look at his own business before he starts lecturing us about the conditions of people in jobs.
  A week has gone by since the Chancellor announced the 18th Tory Budget. The common theme—this year's Budget is no exception—is that these are Budgets for recovery. Every Tory Chancellor has said at the Dispatch Box, "This is another Budget for recovery." Lord Howe said it in 1983; the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said the same in 1992. According
  154
  to the Government, we are always recovering, but we can never quite shake off the illness from which the country has suffered over the past 16 years.
  We have had time to study the Budget much more closely since it was announced last week, and we have had judgments from the media, economic experts, industry and hon. Members. It is clear from the general view that the Budget has failed to meet the needs of the nation. According to The Sun:
  "It was about as inspiring as a cold kipper."
  The Daily Mail questioned:
  "Where's the magic?"
  The Daily Express announced:
  "It's too little, too late."
  Those quotes are just from the Tory press, never mind anyone else. The CBI's welcome was distinctly lukewarm, and even senior members of the 1922 Committee are critical of the long-term failure to cut public expenditure and taxes even further. As most people have agreed, the Budget is the first step towards a grubby attempt to win the next general election.
  After the biggest tax hike in history in 1992, what has the Chancellor done to redress the balance? What principles are behind his new tax policies? Are they honest? No, they are deliberately misleading. Are they sustainable? No, and they show no desire to secure a more prosperous economy and greater employment. Do they reward hard work and provide opportunity? Certainly not in terms of providing real jobs and training. Are they fair? No, they are not.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study the Budget. Last week, I asked the shadow spokesman for Trade and Industry whether there was any tax reduction in the Budget that her party opposed. I asked her whether there was any spending ceiling in the Budget that her party would increase. She found those questions difficult, and was unable to answer either of them. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has studied the Budget. Which tax cuts does he propose to vote against, and on which services will he advocate more spending?
  Mr. Prescott: We have made it very clear that we disagree with the Budget's general strategy. I am moving an amendment to reduce value added tax on fuel. That is an important step, and hon. Members disagreed with the Government and supported us on that matter. We will undoubtedly approach taxation in a fair way. The Government do not. For the past 16 years, they have followed an unfair and regressive tax system. That is why we shall be fundamentally different.
  In the context of spending, we shall operate much more fairly the private finance initiative, which I was one of the first to advocate. [Interruption.] Conservative Members think they have discovered private finance initiatives, but when we spoke about them in the House, the Government constantly told us that we could not have them. The Chancellor will certainly confirm that. We disagree with the strategy, and we have made it clear that we disagree with the Government's taxation principles. We shall vote accordingly.
  The Budget hides multitudinous unfairnesses. Some 5 million people on benefits will not share in the 1p in the pound tax cuts or the widening of the 20p band.

  155
  [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister said that his objective and that of the Chancellor was to reduce the burden of taxation. I am afraid that is not the case, because it has been increased, even on the Chancellor's figures. The overall tax burden has increased, and the Chancellor agrees that people are £670 worse off than they were after the last Budget. By any measurement, that shows that, on their own criteria, the Government have failed to be fair on taxation.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is again drifting away from the point. He cannot just be against a Budget strategy but not against any of its measures. A Budget is a combination of tax reductions that allow people to keep more of what they earn and what they save, and a series of public spending judgments about how much will be spent on each service. It strikes a balance between the interests of allowing people to spend their own money and providing good-quality public services.
  Is there any tax decision or spending decision in the Budget with which the right hon. Gentleman's party disagrees? If not, how can he oppose the Budget strategy? He is just saying that he does not have an opinion at all on the Budget's contents.
  Mr. Prescott: I can well understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer continually wants to explain his Budget: the rest of the country has certainly not understood it, and gives it the thumbs down. We have an entirely different strategy from the Chancellor. For example, the Government have made great play—he keeps talking about it—about the windfall tax that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed, which they disagree with, but it is a proposal. We identify that extra tax with jobs, and we are entitled to do that.
  We disagree with the judgment exercised by the Government in cutting the resources in the training sector, which is vital. We disagree with the judgment in respect of the reduction in public expenditure. We disagree with the Budget's fundamental drift and direction, and we are entitled to do that. We are called the Opposition at this stage, not the Government, and we are discussing the Government's proposals.
  The Budget hides a multitude of unfairness. Five million people on benefits will get no share of the Government's 1p in the pound tax cut or of the wider 20p band, yet those people must still pay VAT on fuel. In Britain, deaths from hypothermia are much higher than in Scandinavian countries, where climates are colder. Today's cold weather reminds us that pensioners cannot afford to turn up their heating as easily as we can in the House of Commons.
  It is a disgrace, and an indictment of the proposal in the Finance Bill to cut £30 million from the energy conservation budget, that that money could have been used to put people back to work in decent jobs, providing energy conservation so that pensioners could live with a little more heat and a little less insecurity. That is what we call jobs and social justice, where we meet the need for a real job and for people who are desperate simply to have the essential requirement of decent heat in winter. That is one clear example.
  If the Chancellor really had some money to spare, would it not have been fairer to the old, the low-paid and the unemployed to cut VAT on fuel? That is what we will
  156
  offer the House the opportunity to do. Again, it might be the only tax reduction that has ever been forced on the Government, apart from last year's VAT cut, when the Government were prevented from putting up VAT on fuel. We will give the House the opportunity to do that again.
  An awful lot of Conservative Members have made it clear that they support that. Why? Because they think that it is a more progressive way of tax than the regressive measures that identify much of the Government and Budget proposals.
  Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on VAT on fuel, and I will join him in the Lobby this evening, but will he explain why, when the Scottish National party and its allies gave the House the same opportunity on 21 January this year, he and his colleagues abstained, calling it a cynical ploy? Why was it a cynical ploy in January and right tonight?
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must make his own judgment on this matter. We have given the House an opportunity to vote, and we are the only party that is likely to achieve victory. If the SNP and other political parties join us, we will have achieved that objective, and many pensioners, people who are dependent on heat, will be very pleased that again the Labour party has led the way in making another tax reduction.
  The Deputy Prime Minister rose—
  Mr. Prescott: Ah.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Why was it a cynical ploy in January and the whole Opposition strategy tonight?
  Mr. Prescott: I keep getting an explanation as to why it should be. I stick to my argument, which is that we have put the case and given the House an opportunity to cut VAT from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. As the House knows, we cannot reduce it any further than that, because of the requirement of European Community regulations. We will provide the House with that opportunity.
  These Budget tax cuts are unfair, dishonest and typical of many of the Tory tax proposals: the more one has, the more one gets. These tax proposals give nothing to millions of people, but their tax burden keeps increasing. Despite what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, the burden has increased from 34.7 per cent. of gross domestic product to 36.5 per cent. this year. Does he accept that figure? I assume that he does—they are the Government's figures. He suggests that the Government's objective is to reduce the overall tax burden, but nothing in the Budget reduces that burden. Even on the Chancellor's projections, it increases the burden.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: What did the Leader of the Opposition mean when he told the CBI recently that, under a Labour Government, there would be no return to the old penal rates of taxation, such as 80 per cent? Did he mean a return to 70 per cent. or 60 per cent?
  Mr. Prescott: We have made it clear that we will not return to penal rates of taxation. The hon. Gentleman has a reputation as someone who is concerned about the less fortunate in our society. Perhaps he should concern

  157
  himself with the penal rates that affect people on welfare—if they take work, an 80 or 90 per cent. penalty is imposed on them. I wish that as much attention was paid to that problem as Conservative Members pay to penal rates or the top rate of tax.
  We will make a judgment on the different levels of tax rates at the appropriate time. My right hon. Friend has taken an important step forward by stating our policy on the lower end of rates. I understand that Conservative Members are arguing whether 10p or 15p is practical. It is certainly practical in other countries. It is an important step towards measurable wealth which will help us to find the best ways to get people from welfare into work. It is an important point, and I shall deal with it in more detail later.
  Mr. Marlow: Are the right hon. Gentleman and his party considering at some stage increasing the top rate of tax from 40 per cent? If so, what parameters is he thinking about?
  Mr. Prescott: We will make a decision about that level of tax at the appropriate time. It is fair to assume that there will be another Budget before the general election, and I do not know what the Chancellor will include in it. We have an obligation to make clear, at the appropriate time, our precise approach to taxation at all levels of income.
  What characterises this Budget is that the Chancellor gives with one hand while he takes away with the other. Council tax, car tax, petrol tax and cigarette tax are all going up—while for a few top earners there will be huge pay increases. They will be hundreds of pounds better off, yet the average family will be £670 a year worse off than they were at the last general election—and that is before the rise in council tax is taken into account. As many of my hon. Friends have said, it is a 7p up, 1 p down Budget. It is unfair, regressive and a flop.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I do not have much time, and I have given way a number of times already.
  At the end of the Budget speech, the Chancellor boasted that it would put Britain on course to becoming the enterprise centre of Europe—a soundbite if ever I recognised one. On what basis does he claim that, when the public sector borrowing requirement will be £29 billion—£6.5 billion higher than the right hon. and learned Gentleman predicted a year ago? I am worried by the Chancellor's promises, because every time we have measured his promises against reality, he has been way off target. The PSBR is an example of that.
  The PSBR is going up, inflation is rising, growth is slowing down, and the balance of payments is deteriorating despite a massive 25 per cent. devaluation. The Government have made great play about Labour Governments and devaluation, yet they introduced a 25 per cent. devaluation in one go, and then claimed the credit for the increase in exports.
  With such a devaluation, there should have been a trade surplus—but that has not happened under this Tory Government. Instead, there is an increasing deficit in the balance of trade. It is the slowest investment recovery from any recession this century. Investment in manufacturing—that crucial area of wealth creation
  158
  —is 20 per cent. lower than it was in 1979, and it is falling as a proportion of gross domestic product. It is a catalogue of failure.
  The Deputy Prime Minister made great play about the world prosperity league. The right hon. Gentleman's own report, "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead", published this year, contains a table showing that Hong Kong and Singapore have overtaken Britain. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that Hong Kong and Singapore had done well because they did not provide the sort of unemployment benefits or housing programme that Britain provides.
  Will he tell me which of the following countries—they are all ahead of us in the prosperity league—do not have unemployment benefit or a housing programme: Luxembourg, United States of America, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Iceland, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Australia? All those countries have done better than Britain. Will he tell us which one of those countries does not have a housing programme or does not pay unemployment benefit? Can he tell us that, or was he mistaken in his remarks?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I was talking about Singapore and Hong Kong.
  Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman was talking about those countries that had done better than Britain, and he suggested that Singapore and Hong Kong had done better because they did not pay unemployment benefit or have a housing programme. I do not know whether he reads his Department's publications. Obviously not: otherwise, he would know that all the countries I mentioned have done better than Britain. It is nonsense for him to suggest that that has anything to do with benefits or the social costs involved in providing decent housing.
  Another interesting fact is that almost all those countries have a minimum wage. Why have they done better than Britain when the Government say that a minimum wage would be a problem for our economy? The people who make that claim should face facts. Most of those countries have a minimum wage, but they do far better than Britain in the world prosperity league. Does the right hon. Gentleman look at the evidence and take it into account, or does he just ignore it? A few years ago, the right hon. Gentleman used to believe in a minimum wage. He has changed his mind. However, the principle is still right, even if he has moved away from it.
  As well as the world prosperity league, we should study what the OECD has said—an organisation that the right hon. Gentleman claims has said Britain is doing well. I accept that it has said some good things, but it has also said some bad things. It, too, has leagues, and they show that employment in Britain is lower than it was in 1979, that Britain has plunged to 21st in the investment league, to 24th in the skills league, and to 35th in the world education league.
  Those figures show the total and chronic failure by the Government to provide the essentials to make Britain a prosperous country. That is why Britain is falling down the leagues: we do not train our people sufficiently, and we do not give them a good enough education. We do not invest sufficiently in our industries. All that has happened while the Government have been in power, and it has contributed to our dismal fall from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league.

  159
  In addition, most of that happened while the Deputy Prime Minister, in previous jobs, has been in charge of competitiveness. He has been in charge of that area of policy over the past five or six years, but it has been nothing but a dismal failure. I do not know whether the fact that he is Deputy Prime Minister will make any difference. Perhaps he can now take on the Treasury. We hope that Britain's position will improve, but our judgment is that the Budget will not do anything to bring that about.
  The international tables are clear proof of the long-term failure of Tory economic policy, yet the Chancellor thinks that it will put Britain on course to be the enterprise centre of Europe. What will the Budget do to reverse Britain's decline? Nothing. All it has done is give us new theories and new targets.
  In the 1980s, we were plagued by the theories of Friedman and the money supply—now generally discredited. Now we have the target of reducing public sector expenditure to below 40 per cent. of GDP. We are told that, if only that can be achieved, we will have the self-sustaining, non-inflationary growth the Government talk about continually. Do they not realise that it is not just how much they spend, but where they spend it? Labour spent money on investment and kept people in work. There were fewer than 1 million unemployed when the Government took office.
  It is sheer arrogance for the Government to say constantly that somehow they have improved the employment situation—the number of unemployed people has risen from 1 million to 2.5 million, even by the fiddled figures. If the Government remain in power, there is the possibility that we will go into the next century with more than 2 million people unemployed. That is not only morally unacceptable, but creates massive problems with public finances which we are now trying to address. We are identifying the problems of failure.
  We have to make it clear that the Tories—apparently spend more on keeping people out of work than using it to get them back to work. That is one of the essential differences between the Labour party and the Tories. They have cut public investment and increased public consumption—despite the enormous opportunities for investment. In the history of this country, no Government have ever been blessed with more resources in such a short period—from the £100 billion that they have taken from North sea oil to the £120 billion from privatising nationalised industries at a knockdown price.
  That money has largely been wasted on keeping people on the dole. No Government in our history have had such resources, or, indeed, ever had such an opportunity to do something about fundamentally changing the relationship between investment and consumption to achieve greater prosperity in this country. That has always been our case, and the problem which we have always tried to address. It is not easy to deal with politically—I readily accept that—but, with such vast resources, the Government had an opportunity to make that change. No other Government would have squandered those resources like this Tory Government.
  As last year's excellent report on manufacturing competitiveness by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for
  160
  Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—said, investment is the key. The Committee catalogued the decline in manufacturing, which it said was due to the lowest levels of investment, training, qualifications and skills among our people. It pointed out where the failures lie.
  If one reads the report's conclusions and looks at what this Budget—and the one before—have done, one sees that it has made no recommendations along the lines of those suggested by the Committee designed to deal with problems in reversing the decline in our manufacturing industry. The Government have ignored the Committee's recommendations. We have to invest if we want the economy to grow. That is the crucial variable in every successful economy which one studies. We need long-term investment in capital, infrastructure and people.
  In Germany, Japan, the United States and any other major competitor country, investment, with an industrial strategy, is the key to economic prosperity. Why should industrial strategy be considered an ideological difference between the parties in Britain, when Governments of the left and right in various successful countries have managed to deploy a proper role for Government in developing one?
  Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Deputy Prime Minister has often advocated the case for such a strategy. I thought that he was right to do so, and I wait to see whether he is successful in his new job in challenging the rather short-term view of the Treasury which has often dictated matters.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: No.
  Such a strategy is also the key in the Asian tiger economies, about which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister often talk, and on which the Deputy Prime Minister is so keen. In those economies, public and private finances work together in partnership, and the Government have a proper role to play. That is true of Singapore, as it is of Hong Kong. Any visitor to those countries notes that their deserved prosperity is as much to do with public as private investment. That is also true in Italy and Norway and a number of other European countries, because they invest more in capital and people. It is about not simply wages, but skills and productivity.
  It is a mistake to suppose that the inward investors of whom we hear so much, and whom we welcome, come to Britain to take advantage of low wage rates or to dodge the social chapter. That is just not true. If that were the case, why has three times more investment left this country than come into it in the 16 years of Tory government? Of course, in a global economy, money flows in and out, but one cannot make the judgment that the money coming into this country is doing so simply because of cheap wages, and that the money leaving countries is because their wage levels are usually higher than ours. One cannot assume that that is somehow an indictment, and that we must therefore aim for the lowest costs with lower wages, and get rid of the social chapter. Such conditions have often been present in the countries where the money has gone.
  Inward investors come to Britain because of the international advantage, and we should recognise that. Such an advantage is often down to our language

  161
  —a common language and culture. Of course, we are also close to Europe. Those are the reasons why companies invest in this country.
  r. Fabricant: On that very point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott indicated assent.
  Mr. Fabricant: That demonstrates that persistence pays off. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he think that one of the reasons—just one—why companies invest in this country is that we have the lowest rate of corporation tax? While we are at it, does he support the 1p reduction in income tax, given that a year ago he said that he would not support the Labour party if it were ever to go down the road of cutting income tax?
  Mr. Prescott: I thought that the Whips gave out only one question, not two. I shall deal with the first one. Again, if one looks at the OECD figures and the levels of taxation, whether corporation or personal, one sees that no common criteria produce a successful result. In some countries, conditions are very different. From the evidence, one can see that even those countries with high corporation tax have done better in getting more people back to work and attracting more investment. In some cases, low taxation has had that effect. [Interruption.] I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the OECD figures—
  Mr. Fabricant: I have.
  Mr. Prescott: I am afraid that he has not looked very carefully—
  Mr. Fabricant: I have.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I deplore seated interventions, especially given the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has already been allowed to make certain interventions quite properly.
  Mr. Prescott: Basically, investors come here because of the access to markets, especially Europe. Of course, the devaluation of the pound by 25 per cent. has been attractive too.
  Investors come, and they are welcome, but we cannot rely only on inward investment for future growth. We have to boost the indigenous investment—that is another thing that the Budget has failed to do. It has failed to provide any additional incentive for private investment in manufacturing. Industry has made that absolutely clear. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made it clear that we would do more on allowances. Again, there is disagreement between the parties on the allowances that investors get against tax, but at least we argue the case.
  The Budget has certainly failed to provide any additional incentive for small and medium firms. They clearly do not think that there has been much in the Budget to help them. There has not been any additional incentive for private investment in plant, training and public investment, on which much of the private sector is dependent, especially in construction and manufacturing. It is often not understood, and rather unfortunate, that much private investment is very much dependent on public sector investment, whether in housing or in various other industries. It is very important for manufacturing companies.
  162
  Yet the Government have been pursuing cuts in public expenditure—by 6 per cent. this year and 11 per cent. for 1996. It is hardly a Budget for investment. Given that investment is crucial to the development of prosperity and to moving up that league of prosperity, the Budget had to be designed to deal with investment. Frankly, it failed to do so.
  The only argument given by the Government is that of the private finance initiative. We have heard it in every Budget since the Tories stumbled on the idea. I have spent a number of years at the Dispatch Box opposite various Chancellors and Secretaries of State for Transport arguing that there was a role for a private finance initiative—indeed, a very good role. I think that the Chancellor concedes that. I wish him well, so that public and private finance meet in investment.
  Such investment should be in addition, but the Government's problem is that such investment often hides cuts in public expenditure; it is used as a smokescreen. It is often suggested that extra money through private finance will replace cuts in public expenditure, but, frankly, that does not happen. The Chancellor knows that to be true; the figures are very clear on it. Nevertheless, the idea is sound—it should be: it came from the Labour party. But the Government have ruined it through incompetence, sheer ignorance and blind ideological prejudice.
  On transport, it was Labour's plan to bring public-private leasing into British Rail that forced the Government into a £150 million leasing deal two years ago. It was in our manifesto, after all. The Chancellor must have read it at the time. It was a good idea. They used to tell me that it could not be done. Yes, it was a leasing agreement, but leasing deals can be involved in private finance. We showed them that it could be done, but now it has been ruined. The whole process is being undermined by a Treasury still wedded to arcane principles and run by people who do not understand what they are doing.
  I know that the Chancellor has sent a number of his civil servants away for training and education to break the cultural logjam in attitude, and I wish him well. That is absolutely right. Indeed, it was one of the recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East and myself on changes in private finance.
  The Economist said that the Government's proposals were a "dog's breakfast". The PFI has replaced actual investment with expressions of intent. We have seen the growth of the PFI in the Government's wish list—from 78 projects in 1993 to 1,500 today, worth almost £27 billion. But only 64 of those projects have been completed, and less than £500 million of private finance has been levered into public investment. The private finance initiative has been a smokescreen for the Treasury, behind which it can cut hundreds of millions from public investment, which is set to be cut by a further 18 per cent. over the next three years.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has made many disparaging references to cuts in public expenditure. He has also said that he fundamentally questions the whole Budget judgment. In the view of the Labour party, what percentage of gross domestic product is it appropriate for the Government to take?
  Mr. Prescott: At the time of the general election, the hon. Gentleman promised that the Government would cut taxes. I do not know how he answers that point now. The quality of public expenditure is as important as the quantity. We suggest that, instead of wasting money on keeping people on the dole—about £20 billion—we should use it to put people back to work. I will come back to that point in a second.
  The real point about private finance is that our transport infrastructure is crumbling and our construction industry is on its knees. Our businesses are not getting proper access to the markets in the United Kingdom and abroad. The Birmingham northern relief road should have been built in 1992. It has been delayed, and is still not being built, despite all the arguments about private finance.
  Good, modern railway works in York were closed down, simply because the Treasury would not approve any more leasing agreements, which would have enabled the carriage works to produce the trains. Yet more than 50 per cent. of the trains on Network SouthEast are over 25 years old. The leasing agreements were a simple way in which to finance new trains, which would have kept people in work instead of putting them on the dole. If people are in work, they can pay taxes and contribute to providing other services. That is the question we face today.
  The east coast main line is more modern than the west coast main line, which is falling down, because it has had the investment. When the Chancellor and I were walking to another place, I said to him that, yet again, there was a Bill on the channel tunnel rail link. There has been a Bill on the channel tunnel rail link every year since 1986. Why is that? It is purely because the Government could not deal with the problems involved in financing the link.
  The Secretary of State for Transport at that time, Lord Parkinson, told us that the link would not be built if the Government could not find private money, yet he is leading one of the consortiums bidding for about £2 billion of taxpayers' money to pay for the link. In the meantime, we have lost the benefits that come from a modern transport infrastructure.
  That kind of disaster has plagued Britain in dealing with these matters, and one hopes that there will be a sensible compromise on the problems, with which I know the Chancellor is dealing. The issue is how we deal with sharing the risk between the public and private sectors. I had intended to say more about that, but time prevents me from doing so. It is an important question, and unless we solve the problem, we shall not be able to unlock the tremendous amount of private funds that are available to help us build the infrastructure. The infrastructure must be modernised, so that our regions can compete as they desperately need to do.
  Regions are important, yet they are not mentioned in the Budget statement. We need to expand investment in training, jobs and regional economic development. We believe that that can be done, and that public and private finance can play their part. The release of local authority housing receipts must be a classic way in which to release funds. The Government admit that £4 billion or £5 billion is still held in the accounts.
  We are paying about £2 billion to keep a quarter of a million building workers on the dole. We have record levels of homelessness. Why can we not release people from the dole, provide jobs, train our youngsters in
  164
  apprenticeships, and meet the requirements of jobs and social justice? That is what we think needs to be done. Construction jobs are real jobs—one can give many more examples.
  The Government's only contribution to employment has been to propose the workfare scheme. This is the Government who told us in 1979 that Labour was not working. Unemployment has now grown to 2.5 million even on the Government's fiddled figures, yet all they offer is a workfare scheme. That came about as a panic measure. After the Budget was received badly, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister went on an assault over the weekend to improve people's attitude toward the Budget.
  There were two proposals. The first was workfare—chain gangs—which does not mean proper jobs. There will be no education, no training and no connection with the real jobs my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East talked about when introducing our welfare-to-work proposals. The Government are forcing people to depend on the welfare services.
  There was a second element in the assault this weekend on people's attitudes to the Budget. Can the Deputy Prime Minister answer this question, once and for all? He has been asked this before, and I have written to him to this effect. Is it a fact that people will be £9 better off as a result of the Budget? If so, does the figure include a 4 per cent. rise in earnings? Are the Government calculating that there will be a 4 per cent. increase in earnings next year in reaching the figure of £9?
  Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us? If he will not tell us, I assume that that must be the case. The Government are now telling us that they have a 4 per cent. wage policy; no doubt that will be noted. Is that what the Deputy Prime Minister wants? Is that what he is saying? The House and the country will note that the Deputy Prime Minister has no intention of doing anything.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I was going to save the answer for my winding-up speech, but there is little else for me to answer, as the right hon. Gentleman has not yet mentioned one measure in the Budget with which he disagrees.
  The figure of £450 a year better off next year is the usual figure that is given if one asks the Treasury to make assumptions about the growth of the economy, about inflation, about earnings and about the effect of all the Budget changes. That includes changes that mean that tax goes up, such as the increase in tax on tobacco, and those that mean that taxes go down, such as the reduction in income tax. Every year, the Opposition ask the Government those questions, and the Treasury answers the questions on the basis of those assumptions.
  The answer this year is the best forecast that could be made for next year. The average family will be £9 a week better off as a result of our best forecast of the economy and the Budget measures next year. That is what I said when introducing the Budget. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is deliberately misusing the figure and claiming that I said that there would be a £9 a week reduction in taxation. I did not say that. I talked about what matters to people—the money in their pockets, and the extent to which they are benefiting from the economy's recovery.
  Mr. Prescott: It is very clear that the figure means that there will be a 4 per cent. increase in earnings. The Chancellor has not rejected that argument—indeed, all his arguments take that point into account. We have deduced from his figures what the tax reductions will be and what their effect will be on the average family. When we deduct that from the effects of the other changes, it is clear that the figure of £9 a week assumes an increase in wages of 4 per cent.
  Mr. Clarke indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prescott: I do not think that anyone denies that. Let the House make a judgment about it. The figure includes that 4 per cent. I do not know what that will do for the Government's education proposals, although the Chancellor says that there will be improvements in education. I do not know what that will do for improvements in the health service. The Chancellor now tells us that the figure is an estimate.
  Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman says that the figure is not good enough. What tax changes would the right hon. Gentleman make? This whole nonsense is based on an assumption that the Labour party has an opinion, one way or the other, about the changes we made in personal taxation. This is not a difficult question for a shadow Government. Is the Labour party in favour of the changes we have made to personal taxation, is it against the changes, or do Labour Members not have an idea in their heads except when a soundbite is given to them by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)?
  Mr. Prescott: "Now you see it, now you don't." The House will make a judgment, and I shall move on. The 4 per cent. wage increase is clearly implied in the figure, and people will no doubt take that into account.
  Our main indictment of the Budget is that there is no industrial strategy, no regional strategy, no training strategy, no investment strategy and no growth strategy. This is not a Budget for enterprise, as the Chancellor says it is: it is a Budget for continuing failure. It is a Budget of a busted flush Government who are led by a weak Prime Minister, a has-been, hop-along Deputy Prime Minister, who gave us some examples of his approach today, and an inadequate Chancellor. The Government have no idea what they want for our country. The sooner they are gone, the whole rotten lot of them, the better it will be for Britain.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. David Howell: If there was an entire alternative strategy buried in the speech we have just heard, it was buried very deep and with many layers of verbiage above it. We shall have to do a lot of digging to discover the alternative strategy. Although the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) recognised and, I think, understood some of the points about the private finance initiative, it is regrettable that he did not give one word of acknowledgement—he gave one small word—to the amazing story which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister described as unfolding in the United Kingdom. The story can be summed up in one sentence: all around the world, people do not regard the United Kingdom as the catastrophic failure that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and his friends describe; they regard it as an outstanding success.
  166
  Those people from around the world do not use mere words, they act. If one talks to those people, they say that they want to put their factories here, and they do so on a colossal scale—more than in any other country in Europe. That activity is not slowing down but increasing. Those people want to put their funds here for management. The entire savings of Asia, from where the funds will come, are increasingly managed and recycled through the financial services industry of London, which dominates the whole world. I declare an interest here because I advise those people. They want to educate their children here because the United Kingdom is a brilliant exporter of educational services. They want to buy houses here, and they are crowding in to do so, which accounts for some of the vagaries of the housing market, particularly at the upper end. They want to keep their personal funds here
  If those people want to do all that and regard Britain as such a successful place, above all other countries in the world, why does the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and his colleagues need to keep coming back to the failure theme? That is a naive question in a sense. They belong to the Opposition, and they want to dig out the failure. They want to turf out my party. I understand that motivation because I remember being in Opposition, and that is what one spends a lot of time doing.
  The story is not plausible, however, if one leaves out half the theme which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out this afternoon. Opposition Members have left out another, major element of the story. Not only is the United Kingdom the magnet for inward investment on a massive scale, which brings in hundreds of thousands of jobs, but we are—there is nothing to be ashamed of in this, although it may offend old Labour doctrines—one of the world's largest outward investors. We place assets around the world on a colossal scale, which in turn brings back such large invisible earnings to this country that they exceed our entire earnings from manufactured exports.
  Around the world, we have about £600 million of portfolio investments, £300 billion to £400 billion of direct investment and another £700 million of loans to foreign residents, which means that our total overseas assets are worth about £1,400 billion to £1,500 billion. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked where the money from North sea oil has gone, and where the money from this and the money from that have gone. The money about which he is talking is a small amount compared to the colossal investment and inward flow of funds back into this country. In turn, that inward investment enables us not only to finance our present investment in the United Kingdom and our falling levels of unemployment but to continue to finance our undoubtedly expensive system of welfare and universal provision, which, like every other country, we are rightly worried about because it is such a burden on the budget.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a speech about the Budget and the economy and he left out those gigantic elements in the story, which are the ones that determine where we trade. It is overseas investment that opens up trade nowadays. Trade does not follow the flag; trade follows investment. We put in the investment first, and then we put the goods into those markets. That is the story of jobs and investment in this country, and that is the story of our success. Although the right hon. Gentleman may not to give that aspect of the story the acknowledgement

  167
  that it deserves, because he wants to set up a critical position, to leave out that aspect altogether leaves one with an absurd, empty husk of a speech. His case will not stand up and it looks ridiculous.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, even if they will not speak in glowing terms—I understand that—at least to study what is going on in this country and what is happening to the economy. That would be the first move towards any claim that they may have to be a responsible Opposition, let alone a responsible Government.
  I should like to return from that sad story of not understanding what is happening in the British economy to one or two specific aspects of the Budget and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's presentation on it.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The right hon. Gentleman has presented an oversimplified picture. Can he give us the net figures for inward and outward investment and tell us what has happened to our net foreign assets?
  Mr. Howell: The net figures are obviously very different. We are outward investors and inward investors. Just as for net exports and imports of physical goods, the figures for exports are smaller. Nevertheless, we are a substantial net earner of invisible earnings. That offsets any export deficit that we may have had in the past. The picture is rapidly changing, particularly in our trade with Asia. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we now have an export surplus of physical exports to the tiger countries and we have recently achieved a surplus of such exports to Japan. So there, too, the story is changing radically. It is about time that that was recognised by someone on the Opposition Benches.
  I wish to deal with three aspects of the expenditure and taxation plans of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. I am afraid that, having reinforced the strong case that my right hon. Friends have made, I now wish to strike a mildly critical note on an expenditure matter. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Opposition whether there was any policy area on which they thought that expenditure should be higher. Nothing was forthcoming. I believe that a mistake has been made in one policy area. It is rather small, but it is at the cutting edge of our world effort. I refer to the cuts proposed in the budget of the British Council.
  The Government propose to cut the British Council's budget by 17 per cent., or about £22 million in today's money. That is a devastating cut in the work of that agency. I do not know whether the same cuts are to be imposed on the BBC World Service, which is the other major arm of cultural diplomacy. I do not have the figures, but perhaps we could learn them from my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  I wonder whether the Government's action is the right way to go about cuts or whether we have a touch of the slash and burn which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said that we should not have. The cultural diplomacy effort of the British Council creates the climate that enables British investment to go overseas and British goods to go after it. It creates the attractive nature of Britain that makes everyone want to invest here. Yet we have seen the same slicing of the small agencies of the
  168
  British Council and the World Service, which are highly effective, as has been applied to much bigger operations such as defence and other aspects of our overseas effort.
  The Government may say, "Fair is fair. Everything has to be chopped off together." I wonder whether that is right. The World Service and the British Council are the spearhead of today's foreign policy effort. If the Government have to make a shorter spear, why cut off the tip as well as the tail? It cannot be right. Although I do not ask that more money be found from nowhere, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go back to their colleagues who have responsibility for foreign policy, defence, the diplomatic wing, the agencies and overseas aid and consult on whether it was right to slash the British Council budget. I know that there must also be restraint in overseas aid. That is probably right. We need an entirely new approach to aid and development nowadays.
  I have made a criticism. One may say that it is a plea for more spending unless I suggest some alternatives—which I can do. I make the criticism with the strong feeling, which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends share and which has been aired in the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Select Committee, that the British Council and the World Service are the cutting edge of British success and interest in the world and we slash them at our peril.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: Why does my right hon. Friend believe that we ought to have a fundamental change in the way in which we deal with our overseas aid programme? The United Kingdom programme is one of the finest in the world. It is not only quantity but quality that count.
  Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend tempts me to make a much longer speech than I wish. We have reached the point in the post-war doctrines of donors and aid at which it is realised that aid does not necessarily equal development. Merely calling for more aid, in particular more Government-to-Government aid, does not lead to the processes of development which are hoped for. Sir William Ryrie, who has been with the International Finance Corporation for some years, has written a book on the subject which I commend to my hon. Friend. It brings home the message that, if we are to make our aid budget smaller or limit its size, that ought to go hand in hand with implementing the policies that are necessary to achieve development. It is time that the whole aid policy was reviewed. That is happening in the United States, Japan and France and I hope that it is happening in Britain. Perhaps my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker will be able to tell us that that aid policy is being changed pari passu with limitations on the size of aid funds.
  I commend the book to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). It shows that the new engines of development are not primarily overseas aid but private investment. Even some of the more enlightened African leaders, who may understand free market economics better than Labour Members, are beginning to ask for capital, not aid. They want capitalist enterprise and entrepreneurs to get their economies—even in central Africa, let alone the booming countries of Asia—going.
  I have declared an interest in the private finance initiative because I advise people on such matters. It is a superb initiative. I am glad that the Labour party supports

  169
  it; it has even claimed some parentage of it. I am not sure that I would accept that, but I shall let it go for a moment. What is being done is immensely valuable. There are some points on which I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor can go even further and give the PFI a stronger push.
  I reject the argument that the PFI simply shifts funds off-Budget. It creates the opportunity for projects to be fulfilled, even if it is only a case of sale and leaseback, with far greater efficiency. The Northern line and the national insurance over-the-counter payments system are two examples of ways in which the PFI can produce£for the same amount of money as or perhaps a little more than can public finance£vast savings, much greater efficiency and a better product.
  I hope that those responsible for the PFI in Departments will be organised even more effectively than they are. My impression is that the PFI has got going in the Health and Defence Departments. They are thinking about ways in which private finance could deliver more efficiently all sorts of services hitherto financed in the public sector. However, the other Departments need to get their acts together. The Health and Defence Departments seem to be ahead of the others, which need to move more vigorously. I hope that they will be encouraged to do so by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his officials and colleagues in the Treasury.
  In the private sector, the construction consortiums should stop grumbling and realise that they have to get organised. They must win the support of, although they need not become directly mixed up with, organisations that can raise the capital and handle the financial side of the huge new operations that they are going to build, own, operate and perhaps transfer. That will require capital support. The building industry and construction firms do not have the capital—and never have had it—for that sort of operation. They must work out relationships with the operating companies that can produce the capital.
  I would like a little more attention to be paid inside the Treasury to working out the implications in years ahead of such deals. Some people argue that the PFI merely postpones until tomorrow the payments that we should be making today for infrastructure. That is partly true. It is a good thing if it produces greater flexibility, but we need to monitor it carefully and count up what the future payments will be—how they will operate and how they will impact on the Budgets of five, 10 and 15 years ahead; otherwise we will be back to year-by-year, seat-of-the-pants finance that opens us to the accusation that the PFI only postpones the evil day. I am not against flexibility, but the matter needs to be handled using a more modern accounting method than appears to be used at present.
  The PFI opens up enormous opportunities. What is more—again, I declare my interest—just as we exported the skill of privatisation, along with many other skills that are needed all over the world, so also, if we develop the techniques for the PFI, we shall find every country in the world, from Malaysia to China, Taiwan, India, the Americas and Africa, seeking to learn the techniques from us. We have colossal opportunities and leverage in respect of that. I hope that it happens.
  My last remarks involve another set of initials which concern a bird which, in my view, will never fly: EMU—economic and monetary union and its convergence
  170
  criteria. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked some extremely pertinent questions, which I was glad to hear, when he made a speech the other day at the Guildhall about EMU. His questions have not received any answers because they are devastatingly accurate. Labour Members ought to feel that they should be trying to answer them because they are supposed to be broadly in favour of the single currency, the Maastricht criteria, the timetable and all that.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked how the relationship between the countries in the single currency and those outside it would work. How will those inside it feel about exports that will affect their textile and motor industries sweeping in from countries that cannot—or do not want to—join the single currency and have more competitive currencies?
  What will the single currency do to the Euro-budget if there have to be huge compensatory mechanisms and a vastly swollen Brussels bureaucracy to increase redistribution to compensate the countries that cannot escape through a more flexible exchange rate? What will it do to the whole single market, which some of us have spent a quarter of a century encouraging and trying to build up? We are told that new barriers and divisions may have to be introduced between countries in the inner core and those outside it.
  I never thought that I would make a speech in defence of the former leader of the Labour party, Commissioner Neil Kinnock, but I understand what he was thinking about when he began to say, as I believe he did, that the whole attempt to put the single currency into a political timetable over the next three and a half years or whatever was dangerous. If there is ever to be a single currency, it must come as a result of market forces and demand. It cannot be imposed by politics.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor keeps reminding us, the Maastricht criteria—there are several others that one could add—are the normal indicators of good behaviour to which any sensibly run economy needs to adhere anyway. What discipline forces us to comply with them? It is not a lot of treaty declarations in Brussels but the dictates of the global financial system. That is the new gold standard.
  People say that we should have a gold standard and that the single currency, instead, is not so bad. In fact, we have a gold standard: global financial disciplines that are so strong and which involve such a rapid withdrawal of capital in seconds—or nanoseconds—that, if things go wrong, they impose a deadly discipline on any country that seeks to move too far away from the sensible indicators of a low inflation rate, low interest rates, sensible borrowing, a sensible fiscal system and sensible rather than penal taxation on work and enterprise.
  There is no need for us to submit ourselves to the so-called discipline of the single currency, even we wanted to do so. We have plenty of disciplines and they are the ones that we must obey. If we do not, the global financial system will come down hard on us.
  Mr. Jenkin: Could it be that the Labour party is lunging at the single European currency because it imagines that it can escape from those international disciplines and believes that a single currency would somehow be a refuge from the real world?
  Mr. Howell: There could be something in that. EMU may begin—although I do not think that it will fly—and

  171
  do great damage to Europe. If it goes at all, it will be full of curious arrangements such as stability pacts and compensatory arrangements, about which the French are talking, and could provide an opportunity for an irresponsible Government to start doing irresponsible things and somehow take cover behind the European system. I had not thought of that. It may be a way out. It explains why the Opposition do not talk much about global financial disciplines but hang on to the idea of a single currency.
  Economic and monetary union and the single currency mean bigger government. Perhaps that really explains the enthusiasm of the Labour party. It means a lot more central Government, higher taxation by Europe and higher redistribution. Even if it came together—and, heaven knows, events in France make that less likely every day—I think that it would explode.
  I realise that, in asserting that view, one is saying something rather challenging. One is saying that the whole French political establishment, which has been wedded to the idea of recapturing its monetary destiny, as it calls it, is wrong. One is saying that Chancellor Kohl, who is a great man, the small entourage around him and many other learned Europeans, great bankers and officials are all wrong. They are the ones who said that one cannot have a single market without a single currency. They said that that was essential for the future of Europe, and that, if we did not achieve that, it would be the end of civilisation.
  If I am wrong, and we go ahead with EMU, we will have division in Europe on a most miserable scale. It is a prospect from which I want to rescue Europe. If all those people are wrong, we will witness the discrediting of the entire European establishment. That is an awesome and dangerous thing as well. I do not think that we should cheer should that occur, particularly as the European establishment has linked the future of European integration, which I favour, to the ludicrous project of the single currency.
  We have an agonising choice with which we should never have been faced. It was not necessary. There is no solid economic argument for a single market having to have a single currency. With tomorrow's technology, one could probably have many more diversified currency relationships than one can have today. There never was any need to face Europe with that choice. There never was any need to put the European story and the enlarged Europe which we want at risk with the single currency. I believe that those who try to pose that choice to us will greatly regret their action in due course.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I listened with great interest, as always, to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I could not have agreed with him more when he said that Britain is an attractive country. Of course we are, but that does not mean that we are economically successful. There are plenty of attractive countries.
  As for the proof of our economic success, look at the Red Book and our balance of payments deficit. That is the best test of all. Last year, the balance of payments deficit for this year was forecast to be £3.5 billion; it was increased in the Red Book to £6.5 billion. Is that a sign
  172
  of success? Next year the balance of payments deficit will be £5 billion. Is that a sign of more success? Given the low level of activity in the economy in the past four years, we must ask ourselves why we have not been in balance at all. A period of low economic activity puts the brakes on; it is a version of stop-go. It is a recipe for getting an economy round and into balance. I have argued against stop-go many times, but one of its advantages is that it brings about a balance of payments surplus, or at least it removes the deficit. That has not happened during the past four years, and it is clear that there is something seriously wrong with our economy. Although we have carried on in the standard stop-go manner, we have not produced the results that one would normally always expect to find.
  In a recession, imports and consumption decline, and that effect is the standard means of bringing an economy round. Not only have we suffered from a recession, but the value of the pound has reduced from DM2.95 to DM2.20. We all know about the J-curve effect, but that happened long ago. We should have been reaping the benefits now, but we are not.
  I have always argued for a much lower exchange rate than we have had in the past, but I never expected to see it go down to DM2.20. When the exchange rate was DM2.95, I argued that it should drop to somewhere between DM2.30 and DM2.35. I did not like to voice that opinion because everyone would say that it was ridiculous. Now that we have an exchange rate of DM2.20, however, I am in the unique position of not wanting a lower exchange rate. If anything, I want it to be little higher.
  We have had the recession and witnessed the pound going down against the deutschmark to DM2.20. We have seen cuts in public expenditure. We have seen a 7p increase in taxation followed by a reduction of 1p this year. The public sector borrowing requirement has gone up from £21.5 billion last year to £29 billion this year. All that has happened, and the balance of payments deficit is getting worse. One can draw just one conclusion from that—something has gone seriously wrong and our economy has not operated as it should have done.
  I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His predecessors thought that they were undertaking an economic miracle; in fact, they were preparing the foundations for a disaster. They ignored manufacturing industry and abandoned the skills and investment that used to be the cause of our prosperity. The basis of our prosperity was demolished in the early 1980s and those Ministers, in their arrogance, thought that they were doing something wonderful.
  The question for the Chancellor and the House is, "What are we to do about the economy now?" We cannot allow the current tinkering with it to be the solution. A range of measures should now be employed. The one golf club approach, put so graphically by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), seems to be the standard feature of British economic policy, whichever Government are in power. In the 1960s, we had the one club of the exchange rate; in the 1970s, we had the one club of sterling M3; in the 1980s, we moved to a position between MO and M6; and now we have the one club of inflation. Despite the intellectual power that is supposed to lie behind Government decision making, Ministers are unable to concentrate on more than one variable at a time.

  173
  In practice, the Chancellor is well aware that he must balance several claims—growth, unemployment, the balance of payments, investment and inflation. They are all factors. The Bank of England can, of course, afford the simplicity of concentrating on one claim, the Chancellor cannot. His skill is to provide the mix of policies that balance all the competing claims. He is in a worse position than Harold Macmillan who complained that he had only last year's "Bradshaw". The Chancellor does not even have that; he has something much more out of date.
  Doctrine is not required now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot exist on a doctrine—we cannot exist on a doctrine. We require judgment—the ability to make decisions based always on inadequate evidence. We are always confronted with inadequate evidence, which is why we need judgment. If we had all the solutions we would not need high-powered people to make important decisions. Most Chancellors try to produce a theme for their Budgets around those important decisions.
  No theme was attempted for this year's Budget—they are frequently rather contrived—but there is one ready to hand. My hon. Friends will not be surprised when I say that it has to do with investment. We must take that issue much more seriously than we have ever done before. We must invest in people and in capital equipment. We must invest to reduce unemployment and to encourage modernisation. It is through such investment that a Chancellor can lay the foundation for our future growth and our future as an economically successful country.
  The problem for the Chancellor is that investment in people through education and training is mostly for the longer term. We know that. We know that results are not obtained quickly. With the approach to a general election, I would expect to see some deference to such investment. It is likely, however, to fall well short of what we really need. If there is to be more than a superficial response from the new Department for Education and Employment, it must engage in some long-term planning.
  Although we hear many protestations about the need for training and vocational education, little has been done. We have been down that road many times. We have had more than 100 years of lamentations about the skills gap. Time and again in that period, half-hearted measures have been introduced. With the current level of unemployment, the need now for action is even more urgent. Our weakness in this respect is well documented.
  One of the more ambitious measures of the past was "Rab" Butler's plan for technical schools, as envisaged in the Education Act 1944. It was a brilliant idea, but it withered—like so many schemes that have been played out before and since. In order to improve our skills we must come to terms with the fact that the education establishment does not like the idea of technical training. By a long process of inactivity it has thwarted, again and again, proposals to produce technical and engineering skills which other countries have always regarded as normal. As long as we used to be wealthy, we could afford to tolerate that bias against industry, but we should not underestimate it now.
  Capital allowances must be brought up to date. I know that this is my old theme, but I have to mention it again. I have long been a supporter of the old investment grants for plant and machinery and there was a big surge in investment following their introduction in 1967. Of course, those investments were not always good—that is
  174
  the nature of such assistance—but there was a big improvement and the grants were a major encouragement for investment. However, the time has passed when such measures could be reintroduced.
  We now need higher investment allowances. Once again, I must point out that the 25 per cent. allowance is damaging industry. Hardly any investment does not decline by 25 per cent. in value in the first year. We now have a massive disincentive to investment that is quite shameful. One would expect investment allowances to be pari passu with the decline in value of an investment. That would be ideal. Although it would not provide an incentive, at least it would recognise the reality. The current allowance does not even recognise the reality, let alone provide an incentive.
  The loss of revenue is only a question of delayed payment of corporation tax, as the Chancellor will get the money in the end. I do not belittle the delay and I understand its implications, but it is not as serious as forgoing it altogether.
  I should like the development agencies to expand to other parts of the country. They can be a useful way to channel investment. They have been successful in Scotland and even in Wales, although the Public Accounts Committee has had a few nasty things to say about what happened in Wales. The advantage of regional development contracts is that decisions can be made on the basis of involvement with those directly concerned. That gives people a stake in their own area and can promote greater responsibility in taking industrial decisions. It is an excellent idea and I should like it to expand.
  All industrial decisions require management ability. Regular calls are made for the institutional investors to play a prominent part in improving management. Although they might not be good guides for making industrial decisions—I would not trust them with those—they can make excellent decisions about when to buy and sell shares and they should be able to use their weight in getting independent, non-executive members on to boards. Despite Cadbury, non-executive directors are too often chosen by the chairman, who wants friends to support him, not people who ask awkward questions. We must understand the nature of the relationship. Although the responsibility of non-executive directors might be more limited—one cannot expect too much from them or overload them as they work for only a few days a month at most—their presence can be a useful promoter of good practice.
  One important area of economic policy where consensus between the parties would be most desirable is capital taxation. It is necessary because of the opportunities for postponing the realisation of capital gains and making transfers to avoid inheritance taxes.
  In the post-war years, it has been possible to take advantage of the division between the parties and to wait for a different Government which might bring about changes. People can postpone the transfer of moneys until a change of Government and that can be destabilising, but capital taxes are an essential part of fair and sensible taxation. They are also valuable, even to those on the far right of the Conservative party, if only as a means of combating tax avoidance between income and capital. There have been many cases in the past of incomes being moved into capital for spurious reasons. We should seek to establish some common ground. We shall have to await

  175
  the new thinking that will surely come when the Conservative party seeks to come to terms with its period in the wilderness following the next general election.
  I do not understand how the Government can reject capital taxes, which have existed for the entire century and are an essential part of taxation. We require the creation of a consensus on the treatment of those taxes. The level of such taxation will always be a matter for disagreement, but there should be some agreement on its structure. It is obvious that that is impossible now, but I expect some new thinking from the Conservative party after the next election.
  Some people see the solution as looking to other countries and copying their activities. I was surprised that the Governor of Hong Kong fell into that category. Others have pointed to the tiger economies as though we have only to copy them. It is all becoming too fashionable. A flow of ideas is always useful, but we cannot consider emulation.
  There are real dangers in importing economic models from other countries. Comparisons with eastern countries can be rather less useful than one might have thought. There are certain lessons to be learnt, but comparisons based on a failure to understand their social and historical backgrounds cannot be justified. So much of what we do develops from our historical and social backgrounds, and if we make use of them we can achieve results that are far better than those that result from copying alien Administrations.
  All that may come about in the next year or so, after the election of the next Labour Government. The Budget was an opportunity to show how the decline of our country could be brought to an end, and it is a thousand pities that it was not taken.
  5.46 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: The House is none the wiser about what the official Opposition would have liked in the Budget than it was before the debates began. I understand the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the size of the PSBR, and the comments early in his speech about how some public expenditure decisions are made, and I shall return briefly to both those topics.
  First, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. He was hemmed in by unwelcome economic and political reality, and, with his Budget, he has extricated himself with considerable skill. He has put no new impediments in the way of continued economic growth, and he has given it some fresh impetus. I regard that as a success. He could so easily have done neither.
  My right hon. and learned Friend's great achievement was to contrive to get his Budget dismissed by the Opposition and much of the press—not to speak of quite a number of my hon. Friends—as dull and unimaginative. By that means, he avoided most of the cynicism with which electors would view highly promoted tax cuts at present, while making sure that they appear in next April's pay packets, when they will be noticed rather less dismissively.
  The announcement of tax cuts does not cut nearly as much political ice as some people believe, but reductions in stoppages on pay slips, whether as a result of thresholds going up or rates coming down, make a much deeper impression when they actually happen.
  176
  In the summer economic debate, I urged my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to have the courage to be boring. However, I am afraid that he has been a little too exciting in one respect. I am sorry that, in addition to his well-judged raising of thresholds, he felt obliged to cut the standard rate of income tax by 1p. I would have preferred him to use the money to cut the PSBR. It would have been better to show those who are worried about its size and persistence that he gave a higher priority to reducing it. It would have been much easier then to make a substantial cut in interest rates.
  The proof of the Budget's long-term success will be the way that those rates come down—and come down they must, and stay down, if we are to achieve the Chancellor's ambitious growth target of 3 per cent. next year, on which I take it that his public sector borrowing requirement projections are based. That is the only way of helping to restore confidence and activity in the housing market, and to assist property owners caught in the equity trap. No tax reductions or clever devices could conceivably do that, or have such a stimulating effect on the economy generally.
  If there had been larger reductions in public spending, taxes could have gone down further, too, but there never was a realistic chance of that in this Budget. Spending programmes cannot be turned on and off like a tap without creating as many political problems as are solved, and just as many spending and administrative inefficiencies as are cured.
  It is imperative that the inexorable growth in spending is checked and steadily reduced as a percentage of gross domestic product. One does not have to accept all the tiger economy argument to know that the United Kingdom would be better off if public spending were well below 40 per cent. rather than well above 40 per cent.
  It is no criticism of the Budget to say that we do not have a sufficiently good mechanism to control public spending over more than one year, enabling Departments to plan properly for the medium term and to provide incentives to re-examine what Departments do and how they do it, in a way that produces proper priorities and genuine efficiency gains.
  The way in which public expenditure survey reductions work is frequently wasteful of resources, and often compounds rather than cures inefficiency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) offered a good example. I do not understand the Government's justification for the cuts affecting the British Council and the BBC Overseas Service, and I cannot believe that they were thought through in terms of their impact on those organisations.
  I do not have the finished solution to the overall problem—at least, not for this speech. I do not underestimate its complexity, which remains simply because it is so difficult to solve, even though real improvements have been made over the past few years in controlling spending sensibly over time.
  If there is to be vigorous, unimpeded, long-term economic growth, that problem is one with which this Government or any other will have to deal much better in future than in the past. The Government cannot go on straining at the seams—in the way that the Chancellor has had to do, in trying to contain spending, in this Budget.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am happy to extend to the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) an invitation to join us in the Lobby to vote against a 1p reduction in the standard rate of income tax—and I shall shortly extend that invitation to Labour Members. I apologise if the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in bad company for that reason, but there will not be much of it, because it appears that most Labour Members do not want to vote on an issue central to the Budget's strategy.
  The Deputy Prime Minister gave a glowing account of the state of the economy, in an optimistic, cheerleading manner that, such is his skill, would have enlivened the spirits of passengers who were going down on the Titanic. If the economy was as healthy as the Deputy Prime Minister said, we would be considering a different Budget from the one before us. If the economy was uproariously healthy, the Chancellor would be making the tax reductions for which so many members of his party and of the press called. The fact that those cuts were not made illustrates the problems that still beset the economy.
  This year's growth forecasts were cut from 3.5 per cent. to 2.75 per cent. Next year's growth forecast looks distinctly artificial, being raised from 2.75 per cent. to 3 per cent. It may turn out to be a lot less—perhaps not much more than 2 per cent. Some commentators have even suggested that a mini-recession will occur. The borrowing forecast is up from £21.5 billion to £29 billion, and next year's figure of £22.5 billion is actually above the figure supposed for this year.
  Again, that is a sign of an economy not in a state to deliver the tax cuts that the Conservative party wanted. There is to be a rise of only 1 per cent. in the whole economy investment forecast, and the 11 per cent. cut in Government investment will not help. That is not a healthy picture.
  The Deputy Prime Minister, in dwelling on the significant, in some cases, structural changes that occurred some years ago, is in danger of looking as geriatric as he accuses the Labour party of looking. The right hon. Gentleman also is speaking from the past. Certain things were achieved, but they are not bankers and do not provide for the kind of improvement that the Chancellor wanted.
  What a price we now pay for the failings that I identified. There is to be no additional investment in housing. The construction industry is profoundly worried, because it expected the cut in the roads programme, for which we argued, but there is no investment in the housing programme, which could have taken up some of the industry's slack. The private finance initiative is looking like a rescue operation rather than a means of adding to the stock of valuable public resources by allowing investment that would not have occurred otherwise—which was the basis on which the PFI was devised.
  Year after year, I have sat on the Treasury Select Committee and been told, "This year, the PFI will really work. The rules have been successfully relaxed." Every year, false expectations have been entertained. This year, the PFI is expected to rescue a substantial part of that which everybody expected to be the normal public sector investment programme. The PFI is transferring a great deal of the current account to future years, because all that investment will have to be paid for—normally on current
  178
  expenditure, in the price that will be paid for hospital services, or prisons. As was pointed out earlier, that aspect ought to be taken more clearly into account.
  The real-terms cut in overseas aid abandons the Conservative's manifesto claim that they would move towards the United Nations target. The substantial cut in the British Council budget has upset right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, who recognise the council's important function, which it undertakes at low cost in terms of the good will that it earns for Britain abroad.
  Something mysterious is happening with the Post Office, and I would like a specific response when the Chancellor winds up. In May, the Deputy Prime Minister, in setting out future plans for the Post Office, pledged not to take more than about half its forecast profits through the external finance limit. That pledge has apparently been abandoned in the forecasts before us.
  The external financing limit will be £210 million next year and £300 million in the two succeeding years, which appears to be raiding the Post Office's profits. The result will be an inferior postal service, because the Post Office will not be able to reinvest those profits in the way that it ought to keep postal services ahead. The public will pay in postal charges.
  The Government still do not have the energy package right, and tonight will face opposition to a number of their proposals for that reason. The Government attacked us bitterly when we talked about raising petrol duty by 5p a gallon. We were castigated by Conservative central office for making such an outrageous proposal. The Government are increasing the price of petrol by 16p a gallon, with no compensatory element for people who are wholly dependent on a car to get to work£which is particularly the case in rural areas.
  One obvious way to compensate such car users is to reduce their fixed costs by cutting vehicle excise duty. There would still be a penalty on large users of fuel. The Government are increasing vehicle excise duty, albeit by only a small amount, when they should be cutting it as a compensatory mechanism for increased petrol duty. We will vote against the increase in vehicle excise duty.
  It would be right for the House to revisit the issue of value added tax on domestic fuel, as one amendment would permit, because the Government are taking away a key compensation element for VAT. They are taking so much from the energy efficiency budget that 200,000 fewer pensioners' homes will have their lofts insulated, and 1,000 fewer people will be employed by the small businesses that provide insulation work. The Government are pulling the rug from around the knees of the elderly by taking away the compensation that they need to cope with even 8 per cent. VAT on fuel.
  The Government were right to identify education, crime and health as priorities in the Budget. But close examination reveals that the Budget does not—as the Chancellor said it would—shift more spending to schools, hospitals and the police. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment claims that she has won £878 million extra for schools, but in fact that money is not there. Merely to stand still, local authorities would need £443 million for rising pupil numbers, new EC regulations affecting school transport and local government pensions. All those elements will build up to a total of £443 million.

  179
  Local authorities also have to pay for nursery provision and the expansion of the assisted places scheme. Local government will get £774 million, but £516 million will be taken up by inflation. That leaves only £258 million, which is nowhere near enough even for a standstill budget. When inflation is taken into account, the budget does not increase and there will be a cut in services to schools. Central Government spending on local government, including education spending, has merely kept pace with inflation. The only way schools will get extra money is by local authorities robbing other services or putting up council tax.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has put parents on duty as monitors of what local authorities do. She says—in the Department's press release—that parents must ensure that local authorities spend the money in the schools. That means that local authorities will have to abandon all discretionary, non-statutory spending: grants to students in further education; the youth service, which is very important in fighting crime; teacher training; and even nursery education. Local authorities will not be able to do that, because they have already been cutting those services for the past two years. My local authority in Northumberland has had to cut those services to stand still because of the cuts it has faced.
  The extra money will have to come from the council tax. We know that, the Government know that, and they have included that in the figures in the Red Book, which allow for an 11 per cent. increase in council tax. The Government are simply passing the buck to local authorities by allowing them to increase the council tax by three times the rate of inflation.
  Of course, when local authorities raise the council tax, the Government will attack them, but raising the council tax is the only way of achieving the object. The problem was brought into sharp relief by the exchange I had with the Deputy Prime Minister earlier. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what teachers should do. If they were to feel the benefit of the £9 a week promised by the overall improvements of the Budget and the economy, they would have to have a 4 per cent. pay increase. If teachers have a 4 per cent. pay increase, local authorities will have even less money to fund some of the services to which I have referred. Teachers cannot have it both ways, because they will not be better off if schools get their money. The schools will not get anything like the amount of money that the Secretary of State described.
  A similar deception exists over NHS spending, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) described yesterday. The much trumpeted rise in current NHS spending will be offset by inflation and cuts in NHS capital spending. Overall health spending between 1995–96 and 1996–97 will not rise in real terms, and it will decline slightly in future years.
  There is a separate line now in the Red Book for NHS spending, to cover the Government's pledge to increase NHS spending. It will increase by £200 million in the coming year and by £100 million in subsequent years. However, when one takes account of the higher level of NHS inflation, and the aging population, one sees that the NHS will be seriously squeezed.
  180
  I said that the Government were right to identify crime and policing as a priority. In other ways, the Government are taking money from fighting crime by cutting the youth and probation services—crucial areas of crime fighting. The 5,000 extra police officers on the beat that the Government talk about will not be provided by the Budget. At best, the decisions in the Budget might allow 1,000 additional police officers to be appointed. That is one third the number that the chief constables requested two years ago. I welcome those additional officers, but there will be cuts in every other aspect of the Home Office budget—except, of course, prisons.
  I warn the Chancellor that he has not seen anything yet. The Home Secretary has plans to increase the prison population by 20,000. There is no provision for that in the Budget, and there is no provision for the changes that the Home Secretary intends to make in remission for prisoners. That will be a serious problem for the Chancellor in future, unless he can sit on the Home Secretary soon.
  On taxes, the rhetoric and the reality are worlds apart. The Chancellor said:
  "My Budgets of the past two years have kept us on the course that we said we would follow. We have cut taxes, we are cutting taxes".—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1072.]
  That was just a week ago.
  Where are the two years of tax cuts? Last year, the Budget contained £1.3 billion of tax cuts after indexation, but that was offset by £2.9 billion of extra taxes conveniently left over from previous Budgets, including MIRAS changes and fuel and tobacco duties. Taxes actually rose by £1.6 billion. This year's Budget appears to contain some £3.1 billion of tax cuts after indexation. However, that is offset by a £1 billion rise in fuel and tobacco taxes from previous Budgets, and a £900 million rise in council tax to pay for education spending. Stamp prices will rise by £120 million because of the Post Office changes..
  The assumed contribution from business rates to local authority finance has shot up by 12.2 per cent. That sounds like marvellous news, but it is due to a more optimistic view by the Treasury of the proportion of money that will be collected and distributed. I will he delighted if that happens, but I am not convinced by the precedent set in previous years.
  At best, the tax cut of £3.1 billion for 1996–97 declines to £l.1 billion after the inclusion of back-door tax rises. For 1995–96 compared with 1996–97, there is a total tax rise of £500 million, not the fall to which the Chancellor referred. Perhaps that is why we have not had the political Budget that this Budget was supposed to be.
  I have some sympathy with the Chancellor. He was expected to work a miracle and to produce a Budget that solved everything that the Government have done wrong. Everything that has made people angry was supposed to be cured by tax cuts: the depth of the recession; negative equity; VAT; rail privatisation; fat salaries in privatised industries; ministerial resignations; the sleaze factor; divisions within the Conservative party on Europe; and the Scott inquiry. Tax cuts were supposed to make the people forget all those problems.
  That was the theory, but it was never a good one. The Chancellor was in no position even to attempt to put that theory into practice in the Budget. The Daily Telegraph—a stalwart of Tory support—called it "A penny for your votes".

  181
  The theory is not going to work, and the Budget will not undo the damage done by the Government's other policies. The Daily Telegraph's verdict is a deeply sarcastic and rather accurate judgment. The Tory party cannot be saved by a concession to vintage car owners. I admit that I wrote to the Chancellor on this. I do not have a vintage car, but some of my constituents have. The measure is useful, and tidies up the position, but the Government cannot be saved by vintage cars.
  The Budget cannot save the Government from their fate. It fails to meet the national need for investment in education. But where is Labour? The Opposition are trapped in the Tory tax-cutting agenda, like rabbits trapped in the headlights of a car. A rabbit can run this way a bit and it can run that way a bit, but it dare not get out of the headlight's beam. The Labour party is engaged in a tactical game, the rules of which are made by the Conservatives. If the Government say tax cuts, it says tax cuts. If the Government say standards in education, it says standards in education. Whatever the Government can deliver, Labour can deliver more of the same. That is not a realistic basis for Opposition policy.
  I ask Labour Members of Parliament to tell us what Labour's priorities are. I ask them not to give the Leader of the Opposition a political blank cheque to put tax cuts before decent education by going into the wrong Lobby tonight. If the Labour party can abandon that much in opposition, how much could it abandon in government?
  Tonight, we will vote against the 1p reduction in income tax, because we, like the public, want to see the money go at this juncture to decent schools, to guarantee the future of our country. It is no use going on about monitoring standards unless one talks about where the resources will come from to raise them, so we invite those who believe that, in this Budget, the priority should be to put education right to join us in the Lobby and vote against that tax cut.
  6.9 pm
  Sir Thomas Arnold: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). When he was a member of the Treasury Select Committee we had a very good understanding. I was amused, therefore, by what he had to say about the Liberal Democrats' policy on roads, saying that they welcomed the Government's decision to cut the roads programme. But that is not what the Liberal Democrats locally in Hazel Grove have been saying. They want a number of local roads. Indeed, they forecast locally that the roads programme would be cut. It was not and a number of programmes will go ahead. That episode underlines once again the wisdom of the American politician—I think that I am correct—who said that all politics is local.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on a very skilful Budget, and join the right hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in making one or two remarks about the private finance initiative. This morning, the Treasury Select Committee took evidence, yet again, on the PFI. We have been doing that now for several years and, I have to tell the House, we are none the wiser. There is too much that is opaque and couched in language that is simply incomprehensible. It is not a party issue. Indeed, judging from this morning's exchanges, there is a good
  182
  deal of cross-party agreement on the subject and a desire to go ahead and support the policy, but we need to know more about it in ordinary language that people can understand. Therefore, I think it likely that the Committee will want to hold an inquiry on the subject in the new year, and issue a short report, because we simply cannot go on like this. It really is incumbent upon the Treasury to find ways and means of making the policy more easily understood. Let us have some specific examples of the agreements that are being made. Let us see how they vary between one project and another, and then we can begin to understand how this wholly admirable policy in principle is being implemented in practice.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on monetary policy and welcome the robust stand that my right hon. and learned Friend took during the summer months in agreeing not to put up interest rates. It has been only a few months since the Bank of England—we know what the advice was from the publication of the minutes of the monthly monetary meeting—was asking for an increase in rates at a time when it was already becoming apparent that the economy was slowing. My right hon. and learned Friend resisted that appeal and was absolutely right to do so. I say that because we have had a good deal of evidence during the autumn and as we go into the winter that growth has been moderating and slowing down. Even if there is not a deflationary bias in the economy, it is certainly now apparent that there is not an inflationary bias. Whatever increases may have taken place as a result of a surge in commodity prices, they appear to have worked their way through the system, and the immediate prospects for inflation are not at all bad.
  I fully understand the difficulty that the Governor of the Bank of England faces, because he is enjoined by the Government, the Treasury and the Chancellor to give advice that is designed to help the Government to meet the very strict inflation target of 2.5 per cent. by the end of the Parliament. He can give that advice only on the basis of the evidence that is available to him when he is asked to give his opinion. He carries out what he calls a balancing act and then gives his opinion. Clearly, the Chancellor has to take account of a much wider range of factors, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will listen to what I believe is a persuasive case for cutting interest rates.
  The Budget forecasts that expansion—growth in the economy—over the next year will be some 3 per cent. One can say that that is trend or slightly above trend growth, but it appears to be a faster rate of activity than that which we are currently experiencing. If that is so, given the slowdown in activity elsewhere in the world, it is likely that we will not be able to rely on the expansion to be driven on net trade, as the recent expansion was. We must all look for more buoyancy from consumer spending, and we are unlikely to obtain that unless we can promote more activity in the economy. Indeed, a cut in interest rates would help that process considerably.
  I understand the difficulty that the Chancellor faced in framing the Budget when his tax receipts were considerably less than that originally forecast—the public sector borrowing requirement came in very much higher than was forecast this time a year ago. He was short of some £8 billion or so of revenue. That has been a very difficult situation for him to deal with, but again that is a reason for relaxing monetary policy now to encourage more activity and in turn more buoyancy from the

  183
  revenue. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a modest stimulus of the kind that we could expect to see from a gradual loosening of monetary policy at this stage would be effective for the rate of activity in the economy.
  We now have a much better understanding of the way in which the Government take decisions on monetary policy, and the monetary framework is, in many respects, admirable. I have no wish to criticise it in any way. The framework shows that the evidence on which the Bank gives its advice is of a kind about which it is frequently difficult to be certain. Indeed, if one looks at the last Bank of England inflation report, one sees that, far from the Bank showing the certainty that the Governor showed in the late spring and summer, it says—at the beginning, in the middle and again at the end—that the situation is so full of uncertainties that it is difficult to know exactly what is taking place. That being the case, set alongside the evidence of a slowing economy, I think that the Chancellor would not be taking any great risks if he now moved towards a slow easing. I have no particular view about the number. I think that it can be done in quite modest steps, and we can see how the situation develops. I simply do not believe that he would be taking any great risks with inflation, for the reasons that I have given. Inflation is low and is likely to remain low for some time to come. His Budget arithmetic depends on a revival of confidence, and on a further expansion of output and of activity. I hope, therefore, for all the reasons that I have given, that he will now feel able to ease monetary policy.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: I agree strongly with the comments of the right hon. Members for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the British Council and the BBC World Service. It would be a mistake to implement the cuts that the Chancellor proposes to make, and I hope that a way can be found to ensure that they do not happen.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on a polished and eloquent speech, made, of course, without reference to notes, which is something that I will not try to emulate. I agree with his remarks in relation to the PFI, and I shall say one or two words about that later.
  Two things can be said about the Budget: first, that it has been grossly over-hyped by both the Tory tabloid press and by Tory Members of Parliament. It was supposed to be the Budget that would simultaneously restore Tory party fortunes and galvanise the country behind the idea of another term of Conservative Government. In fact, the Budget has completely failed to make any kind of impact or impression on public opinion.
  The Budget arithmetic is already beginning to unravel. This is a Budget characterised by creative accountancy and false claims. People will not be £9 a week better off because of the Budget. The real figure for a typical family with two children, according to the House of Commons Library, is £2.03 a week. People will be left seriously out of pocket when the 21 Tory tax rises since 1992 are taken fully into account. They will be £670 a year, or £13 a week, worse off. That will be the true state of personal finances after the Budget.
  184
  Even the claims that the Government have made for the Budget rest on Treasury forecasts, and we know just how unreliable those forecasts have been in the past. We have had higher inflation than expected, borrowing has been much higher than predicted, investment forecasts have been hopelessly inaccurate and there has been slower growth and smaller manufacturing output.
  The problems for the Government are more fully reflected in the Red Book. Last year, the Government thought that their receipts in this financial year would be £298 billion. Now they think that they will be £284.8 billion. That is a spectacular and unprecedented undershoot of more than £13 billion. We have seen an undershoot of £4.8 billion in income tax and £5.2 billion in lower and smaller VAT collections.
  That serves to emphasise the second point that can be made about the Budget, which is that it has failed to address the fundamental weaknesses of the British economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) vividly revealed one of the central weaknesses of the British economy towards which the Budget will make no significant contribution—the serious balance of payments deficits that have been run up in recent years. Most importantly, the Budget will fail on the key question of investment. There is nothing in the Budget which will stimulate private investment while, at the same time, public investment, particularly in areas such as the NHS, has been hit hard.
  There is an obvious but depressing short-termism about the Budget. Despite the Chancellor's claims to the contrary, investment in infrastructure is one of the few ways in which the Government can improve the conditions for economic growth. But even if we are to take the recycled claims about the private finance initiative at face value, the Chancellor is still planning to cut capital spending in education and health in favour of higher consumer spending. We all know that the Chancellor is ïn a political hole—he refers to it frequently—but it is a hole entirely of his own making.
  However, this is a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. In short, there is little in the Budget which will help investment or reduce the unacceptable levels of unemployment in our society and deal with the real problem of job insecurity, which is now a major drag on the British economy. The jobless will get little cheer from the Budget.
  Training budgets have been cut by a further 4 per cent. on top of the substantial cuts in training and enterprise councils' budgets this financial year. My county of Cumbria suffers pockets of extremely high levels of unemployment, particularly in my constituency and along the west coast of Cumbria. But Cumbria training and enterprise council's budget has been cut by £1.25 million this year—nearly 7 per cent. Such cuts are completely unjustified against the background of the unemployment problems in Cumbria.
  The balance of tax measures in the Budget will neither promote greater fairness, which should be a priority for Government, nor represent good value for money. I mention in particular the £250 million being spent on reducing inheritance tax liability. That money could have been better spent, and should have been spent, either by reducing income tax for the lowest wage earners or by lowering VAT on domestic fuel. Either of those measures would represent a much better spending priority.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that inheritance tax is iniquitous because it is a tax on money which has already borne tax throughout the lifetime of the deceased person?
  Mr. Hutton: No, I do not accept that. Inheritance tax is a Conservative tax. If the hon. Gentleman has those strong feelings about inheritance tax, I am surprised that he has not been voting against previous Conservative Budgets.
  I come now to the impact of the Budget on the housing market and the building industry and I want to say one or two further words about the private finance initiative. The Chancellor ruled out taking any special measures to boost the housing market or to promote growth in the construction industry. He may be right that there is no magic solution to the problems of the housing industry and the construction industry generally, but at the very least we should stop doing things that damage the confidence of home owners and prospective home buyers and which in turn have a damaging effect on the construction industry.
  In my constituency, the construction industry and the housing market are seriously depressed. The Government could do two things in particular which would improve the general confidence of home owners and prospective home buyers. First, they should consider much more seriously the phased release of capital receipts from the sale of council house properties. If that was done in a sensible way, it could stimulate the construction industry. In particular, the Government should reconsider recent changes to income support and mortgage protection payments for those people who are out of work.
  Clearly, the Government's intention is to switch the emphasis on to private insurance and away from support from the Department of Social Security. That will cause huge hardship. In particular, it is doubtful whether private provision will ever be able effectively to compensate for provision formerly provided by the DSS.
  The Government should consider two problems in particular. First, there is a serious lack of awareness on the part of borrowers about the effect of the Government's income support changes. Recent surveys conducted by the building societies show that a third of existing borrowers still believe that in the event of unemployment the DSS will be there to provide them with a helping hand. That simply will not happen. Secondly, many of the mortgage protection insurance policies are so full of holes that they frequently fail to cover many of the redundancy situations that our constituents experience.
  A particular problem in my constituency, which I know will be reflected elsewhere, concerns contractors and those who are self-employed. Many existing mortgage protection insurance policies fail to deal adequately or at all with those categories of workers. Policies such as those whose virtues the Prime Minister has trumpeted in the House and elsewhere—particularly those now adopted by the Skipton building society, to which the Prime Minister referred on 8 June at column 317—as representing the best practice of building societies, in fact turn out to be something substantially less than that.
  The Skipton building society policy does not cover the first 56 days of redundancy and does not apply at all to absence from work caused by illness or accident. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Skipton policy
  186
  probably represents the best policy that is available. But it does not deal with the real situation facing many of our constituents. In many cases, there will effectively be no mortgage protection payment in the first 56 days of redundancy, and that will stoke up serious arrears problems for many people.
  Many lenders restrict the sale of insurance to new borrowers, because they are concerned, as the Woolwich and other building societies have made clear, that an existing borrower who wants mortgage protection insurance to cover redundancy could well be perceived as someone who is at risk of redundancy, which is one of the conditions that will frequently exclude a person from taking any benefits under such a policy.
  The chief executive of the Cumberland building society wrote to me on 29 November to express his concerns about that Government policy. He said:
  "We strongly feel that the reduction in income support to owner occupiers is inequitable and can only have an adverse effect on the housing market."
  I agree with the chief executive of the Cumberland building society, Mr. Ian Kitchen. It is a shame that the Government are not prepared to reconsider their proposed changes to the rules governing income support.
  Many hon. Members have spoken of the private finance initiative. Along, I am sure, with every other hon. Member, I support the concept of genuine partnership between the private and public sectors: indeed, Opposition Members have long advocated that concept. The PFI involves problems, however—problems accurately identified by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.
  I have further anxieties. There is evidence that the PFI is becoming a vehicle not for genuine partnership between private and public sectors, but for a takeover of the public by the private sector, which would be a regrettable development. There is also clear evidence from the Budget that the PFI is a substitute for previously promised public sector capital spending, particularly spending in the national health service. The PFI does not, of course, provide cheaper sources of finance than those currently made available to the public sector by the national loans fund. Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has pointed out, in transferring capital spending to current expenditure streams we risk stoking up problems for many public sector organisations in the future.
  I want a successful private finance initiative. I want sources of private finance to be released for use in the public sector. I do not, however, want the PFI to be substituted for public expenditure itself. For many years, a hospital in Ulverston, in my constituency, has provided excellent services for elderly people who need national health service beds; along with other services, it provides respite care. The building is now unsuitable, and no longer provides the standard of care that many people expect from the national health service. It needs to be replaced.
  Morecambe Bay health authority is currently consulting organisations in my constituency and elsewhere, including the community health council, with a view to replacing the hospital with a new all-purpose residential facility and a new primary health care facility. I support that plan, and I support the concept of involving a private financial partner; but I have reservations about the application of the PFI to the renewal of the hospital. In particular, I want

  187
  the range of services provided in that hospital to stay in the national health service. I think it extremely important for such services to be provided by NHS trusts in particular. I do not want management services in the new hospital, when it is built—which I hope it will be soon—to be contracted out to people outside the NHS, and I do not believe that my constituents want that either.
  Moreover, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove pointed out, the PFI is so bureaucratic and the rules relating to approvals so cumbersome that the scheme could be seriously delayed. I do not want the PFI to operate in that way: I do not want it to delay schemes, and to ensure that they disappear. We need that new hospital in Ulverston, and I want to make certain that we get it. The PFI has become something of a smokescreen to hide cuts in public sector capital spending—and, I suspect, an example of the kind of dubious creative accountancy for which the Government have become notorious over many years.
  I do not think that the further round of cuts in the Ministry of Defence budget has been mentioned, at least today. I am sure that everyone supports the case for increased efficiency in all Departments—there can be no argument against it—but it is now proposed that a further £500 million of cuts this year, a further £500 million next year and a further £400 million the year after that should be found in efficiency savings. Those savings were not identified in the "Front Line First" study this time last year; they are to be made on top of the savings identified then.
  If those are genuine efficiency savings, there can be no argument. My only concern in that event would relate to why they were not identified earlier, as the failure to identify them clearly represents a substantial loss to the taxpayer. If, however, the £500 million this year and the total of £1.4 billion over the next three years is to be found from the MOD's procurement programmes, the cuts should be resisted. I see no justification for further large cuts of that kind, especially as they affect the Royal Navy—which, as many hon. Members know, has a substantial base in my constituency. Two big programmes are coming up, for the replacement of submarines that the Navy needs in the future and for new assault landing ships. I do not want either programme to be delayed. I do not believe that there is any military argument for delay, and I hope that whoever winds up the debate will be able to reassure me. [Interruption.] Does the Chancellor wish to intervene?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No. I was just sitting here sympathising with the hon. Gentleman, who represents a lone voice in the Labour party in expressing doubts about defence cuts. But he is, of course, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. His distinguished predecessor, Albert Booth, used to find himself rather alone on that subject.
  Having listened to all his hon. Friends asking for more to be spent on everything else while asking for taxation to go down to lop in the pound, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that there is the slightest prospect of Labour's not trying to cut the defence budget to make room for some of that?
  Mr. Hutton: I was simply saying that, if these are efficiency savings, I think that every hon. Member would agree that we need to continue to make efficiency gains.
  Mr. Clarke: I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. I did not intend to stand up and attack him. I can reassure him that these are efficiency savings, which are not based on any cuts in procurement. He was right to ask the question, which interests people in Barrow and Furness, but he will have to protect them from the rest of the Labour party if it is ever near to taking office.
  Mr. Hutton: I do not want us to have an argument about the matter, although I suspect that we are about to have one.
  None of my constituents will take lectures from Conservative Ministers, or other Conservative Members, about cuts in defence expenditure. Since 1991, billions of pounds worth of programmes have been cut from the expected work profile of Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering—capital projects and procurement programmes. The result, in terms of job losses, must be clear even to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nearly 10,000 jobs have been lost from the VSEL shipyard in Barrow since 1991.
  I am not arguing against efficiency savings; I support them. I do not want money to be wasted anywhere in the public sector. I do not, however, want substantial cuts to be made in front-line equipment that the armed forces need if they are to defend and protect the country's interests internationally and in NATO, and I do not believe that my hon. Friends want that either. There is no consensus in the House of Commons for such cuts.
  I am glad that the Chancellor has confirmed that there will be no further procurement cuts in the MOD's budget; my constituents will welcome that news. It may surprise some of the Chancellor's Government colleagues, but I am grateful for the assurance.
  This Budget will make no lasting impression. There is a growing gap between ministerial rhetoric about the state of the economy and the way in which our constituents experience the economy in their own lives. That growing gap between rhetoric and reality, which underscores everything that the Chancellor has said in the Budget debate, is one reason why I expect the Budget to be regarded with contempt as a pathetic attempt by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to regalvanise support for his dispirited and now degenerate Government. I do not believe that hon. Members—especially Conservative Members—will do themselves any favours by supporting this contemptible Budget.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. David Martin: It seems that we are all agreed on at least one matter: this is unquestionably a Budget for another Budget rather than for a general election in 1996. It is none the worse for that; Budgets dubbed general election winners—or, indeed, general election losers—have an uncertain historical record. What matters is the proper management of the economy and the electorate's perception of it as it affects them, their families and even their neighbours. That failure was at the root of Labour's loss of office in 1979, and it has been at the root of the lack of electoral success in all the long years since which Labour has enjoyed—if that is the right word—in opposition.
  We are experiencing an uncanny echo of those days, but this time it is in France where, instead of the International Monetary Fund, the German Bundesbank is

  189
  writing the script. I wonder how many business men in this country realise that what is happening in France has far more profound effects on our economic and political prospects than the Budget, with its fiscal adjustment of 1 per cent. of total expenditure and 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic product.
  Market realities, monetary policy and exchange and interest rate movements are far more serious determinants of the future economic prosperity and well-being of those whom we represent, whether rich or poor, young or old, employed or unemployed, and in those respects the Budget, although worth while in itself, is like holding a candle to the sun.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the awful events in France. The recession, the unemployment and the resultant out-of-control public finances and public sector anarchy result from applying, come what may, the straitjacket of an overvalued currency in a single-minded obsession with monetary union, with reaching the Maastricht criteria and with eventual abolition of the franc and adoption of the Euro-mark by the turn of the century. How right my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was to negotiate that single currency opt-out for us.
  I know that the Cabinet is uneasy about policy on monetary union and the abolition of the pound, but as I am on the Back Benches I am, thankfully, not bound by such collective responsibility. I am also flushed by the recent letter that I received from my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip telling me how much he appreciates my "unblemished voting record" in the last Session. Perhaps I can afford to spend a little of that credit in saying that if France is forced by the unions and by student-led turmoil—to which the French Government will probably soon capitulate, as they have so many times in the past—to release the franc from its straitjacket and let it float free, the cheers that should go up in the House, and from No. 10 Downing street no less, ought to be heard in Paris. The consequences of that in setting back the ridiculous timetable for monetary union and the single currency would lead to a greatly improved competitive age for us all. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor would certainly recognise the benefits for his next Budget.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Martin: No.
  Throughout Europe, interest rates would come down with greater confidence, which is precisely what is required here, and the Government might even be encouraged to rule out any question of abolishing the pound in the lifetime of the next Parliament. In saying so, our backs, unlike those of the French, will clearly be turned against further damaging European integration which neither people in this country nor the overwhelming number of businesses want. Nothing could be more drastic than the adoption of a single currency, which is the absolute essence, the heart and soul, of integration, which would bring with it not only impossible pressure to adopt the social chapter in due course but compliance with all the other anti-competitive Euro-nonsense measures that would undoubtedly be forced on us once the great currency plunge had been taken.
  I shall now turn to matters that are specifically dealt with in the Budget. I say quite frankly that I would have welcomed bigger tax cuts, but taxes can come down only if the state takes less. In that context, I welcome the
  190
  Government's determination to reduce below 40p in every pound the amount of national earnings that are taken by public expenditure. If we can achieve that with further tax cuts, I have no doubt that we shall discover that the consequential growth that is generated will produce more pounds in taxation to pay for the teachers, the doctors, the nurses, the police officers, and so on, which we require and which the Budget has also produced. That is welcome.
  That is the answer to the old socialist claim that one person's tax cut is another person's loss. Such a claim presumes that the national income remains the same, but what in fact happens is that more national wealth is created when enterprise is encouraged in a low-tax, high-incentive economy such as the type mentioned recently by no less a person than the Governor of Hong Kong. In my experience, he has not always been so closely associated with promoting such economic views.
  On a related matter, may I say that those who rely on opinion poll evidence of voting intentions—that people would rather more was spent on education than on lower taxes—have been shown by the Budget that that is a facile approach and a false choice in a prudently managed economy. With such management, we can have both. That brings me to those who wish to see change and reform to improve the working of the welfare State rather than damage it, which change and reform are often misrepresented as seeking to do. I wholly agree with what the Chancellor said when he presented his Budget. He said:
  "the British people need to be prepared and equipped to embrace change in a flexible way. They will be more willing to do that if they know that high-quality schools, health care and a safety net for the unemployed, the disabled and the old are there if and when they need them."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1058.]
  That is what I, too, entered politics to promote. Those objectives are often wrongly taken to be the exclusive preserve of so-called one-nation Toryism, and equally often mischievously contrasted with the aims of those who press for change in the means of achieving them.
  Of course the welfare state can and does help to deliver all these good objectives with which no one can argue, but they are not achieved wholly through reliance on the way in which our welfare state and economy operate today compared with what seemed sufficient yesterday or in 1945 or at any time since. If the welfare state as it has been operated has indeed created one nation, it is difficult to explain how, despite more and more money being poured into it year after year, it cannot under any Government sustain full employment or comprehensively tackle serious worries about violent crime, vandalism, drug abuse or family breakdown, to mention just some of the issues that are on the minds of my constituents.
  Many people believe not only that too easy access to the benefits of our welfare state contribute to all those problems but that the burdens of taxation, particularly on the working poor to pay for them, fuel the disincentive to wòrk for a living and drive a wedge between those in receipt of benefit and those who do not qualify for it. My definition of one-nation Toryism embraces not only the Chancellor's objectives but the means to bring them about. Public expenditure is required, of course—less of it, but certainly a great deal of it—with private sector methods to make the best use of it in serving the public, more encouragement of self-help, of saving, of

  191
  independence rather than dependence, and more action to encourage social responsibility through individual rather than collective state-run action. We need more trust in terms of people keeping their own money, and more belief in the benefits of doing that, and we need more recognition that the pursuit of profitable enterprise serves the public and that it could not succeed if it did not. Those who want reform to bring about such changes are not living in cloud cuckoo land. They are inhabiting this land and they are mindful of votes.
  Some people's votes for parties or Governments may depend on a crude assessment of how much taxpayers' money—miscalled public money or, even worse, disguised in jargon as resources—is spent to buy them. The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties exist on that belief. But I represent a substantial number of people who are not motivated solely by such considerations and who do not have such trust in the all-powerful state. Whether they sometimes forget it between general elections, they are Tories and they are one-nation Tories too.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) did not give way to me. I was going to put the far from facetious point to him that, if he believes, as I am sure he does, that in the past three years one of the few successful bright spots in the United Kingdom economy has been the pound's accidental devaluation and depreciation after the exit from the exchange rate mechanism, the last thing that he would want is to see France, one of our major competitors, go down the same route, particularly if it provoked a series of competitive devaluations across the rest of the European Union. All the gains that the UK has had from that have been dependent on other countries not depreciating as well. He might want to consider that thought before he suggests that the French economy should get itself into a more competitive position than the UK.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Salmond: I shall offer the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity to defend the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I give credit to the Scottish Nationalists for having an economic policy for Scotland, which is more than the Labour party has, but is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the best route for France is for the communist trade union and others to succeed, for the social security system to remain broke, for all the structural reforms in France that are needed to be defeated and for the country to seek resort to competitive devaluation? He makes it sound as though he thinks that the successful outcome of the strikes and the franc's devaluation is all that the French should aim for. That is what the Labour party used to do when it was in office.
  Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the Chancellor has been listening to my remarks, but, clearly, he has not been listening to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South, who was predicting as welcome the exit of the franc and the departure of French policy from the exchange rate mechanism, following the same
  192
  path as the UK three years ago. I was merely pointing out that there is a competitive gain from that accidental policy three years ago. I know that the Chancellor does not like to acknowledge that—which is understandable as it removes any credit that he might want for his policies—but is it not true that, if other countries in the exchange rate mechanism follow a downward competitive devaluation, the competitive gain that the UK has experienced in the past three years will largely be written off? Whether it is a good or bad thing is neither here or there. The point is, that is a fact.
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Salmond: I shall allow the Chancellor one more attempt to explain his thinking on the matter.
  Mr. Clarke: I know of no country that, since the war, has gained any economic advantage just by devaluing its currency. It is a mistake to start spreading the belief that devaluation is some sort of desirable activity.
  Mr. Salmond: I was speaking about a belief that I know is widespread among Conservative Back Benchers. When the Chancellor deals with such points, he should turn around and address the atheists on the Conservative Back Benches who do not follow his position and who believe that any gain experienced in the, past three years has been the result of his predecessor being humiliated and chased out of the exchange rate mechanism.
  Having stirred the Conservative party into total revolt against the Chancellor, I shall go on to make my speech. I note that Conservative Members have taken some consolation from the argument that, many times, Budgets that are poorly received develop like fine wines through the course of time. It is also true that some enthusiastically received Budgets have turned into vinegar later. I think in particular of the 1988 Budget, which was ecstatically received by Conservative Members at the time. By the end of that year, however, most of them were rueing the day.
  I want to offér the House a third possibility: a Budget that is poorly received initially may remain poorly received over a period. I suspect that that is what will happen in relation to the fate of the Chancellor's present Budget. I noted that Bill Keegan, commenting on Sunday in what was a friendly column, given what he has written previously about the Chancellor and his predecessors, described the Budget as perhaps a "prisoner of failure". That is roughly right, because the Chancellor's room for manoeuvre was boxed in by a range of factors that are merely the result of this country's poor growth performance over the years. The Chancellor has therefore been reduced to manipulating his public sector borrowing requirement forecast and to giving an optimistic view of a surge in growth in a slowing economy.
  In the past 16 years, the United Kingdom's growth performance has been poor by international comparisons. Those of us who were here for the economic debate that preceded the Budget will remember an exchange about whether it was appropriate or correct to make international comparisons with the UK from 1981 instead of 1979, when the Conservatives took office. The argument from the Government Benches was that it was unreasonable to count the first two years of their stewardship of the economy because, apparently, the problems of the period from 1979 to 1981 were not the fault of the then Chancellor of the Conservative party; they resulted from the winter of discontent whose effects were rolling through the UK economy.

  193
  Some of the disastrous things that happened to the UK in that two-year period might have had something to do with the deliberate policy options that were taken to transfer the taxation burden on to indirect taxation, thus increasing the inflation rate substantially. The exchange and interest rate policy set sterling at a rate that, in retrospect, I think everyone would regard as extremely uncompetitive. Certainly, the Tory Back Benchers who argue that devaluation has been the salvation of the UK economy in the past few years must surely accept that sterling's rate between 1979 and 1981 caused severe strains for the UK economy.
  It is reasonable, therefore, for Opposition Members to say that, if the Government want to compare their record with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, they should compare the record over the full 16 years of their stewardship of the economy, not conveniently omitting the first two years, when the economy effectively fell off the cliff and it was hardly surprising that it managed to scramble its way partly back up the precipice.
  By virtually any international comparison, those 16 years have not been a good experience for the UK. It was the one major western European economy that had the benefit of a huge windfall gain from the North sea—£100 billion, a huge boost to the GDP, to the balance of payments and to Government revenue—yet, with that windfall, over those 16 years, the UK's average annual growth performance since 1979 has been 2 per cent. The average for the rest of the European Union is 2.1 per cent. That is not a huge difference, but all those European Union countries did not have the benefit of that huge windfall gain.
  What makes it even worse is that, in the previous 16 years—from 1963 to 1979, when the economy was run by unreconstructed socialists such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the late Lord Wilson—the UK's average growth rate was 2.6 per cent., considerably better than the average rate over the past 16 years, so neither by the comparison with what previously happened in this country nor by any fair international comparison is it reasonable to describe performance in the past 16 years as anything but mediocre.
  Especially in Scotland, we consider the experience of the other oil-rich country of Europe, the small nation of Norway, which has experienced a growth rate of 2.9 per cent. over the past 16 years and which, from a position in 1979 roughly equivalent in terms of GDP per capita with Scotland and the UK, is now roughly 25 per cent. more prosperous. That is the penalty that we have paid in the past 16 years for this country's mediocre economic performance and for the Chancellor being a "prisoner of failure", as Bill Keegan said about the Budget.
  I am tempted to consider further the oil benefit that the Chancellor and his predecessors have had, which was followed by the privatisation benefit to the PSBR. In this Budget, we can detect what the third great trick with the PSBR figures will be: the private finance initiative. Just as oil and privatisation proceeds massaged the PSBR, the private finance initïative is set to take its place as the great camouflage to hide the underlying position in public finances, which is desperate.
  My party and I and our allies in Plaid Cymru will vote against the 24p basic rate of income tax, although not, I suspect, for entirely the same reasons as the right hon.
  194
  Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) set out earlier. It is reasonable, after 21 Tory tax rises—£1,000 a year for the average family—for the Chancellor to give back some of that money to the people from whom he has taken it. If it is £3 billion, that is fair enough, but a choice must be made as to how that —3 billion would best be spent. That is why on the Order Paper we have tabled our choice, which would bring the low rate of income tax, the first rate of income tax, towards 15p instead of the basic rate towards 24p.
  I can claim fairly substantial credentials in arguing for a lower starting rate. I first put forward a proposal for a starting rate of 20p in the SNP budget before the 1992 general election. No sooner had I made that suggestion than I was pounced upon by the then Tory party chairman in Scotland, Lord Sanderson, who said that it was an idiotic idea and that no one would be convinced by
  "that sort of 0-grade economics."
  Within two weeks, the then Chancellor encompassed that proposal in his 1992 Budget. Obviously, he was convinced by 0-grade economics.
  This year, a week or so before the Budget, we said that it was time that the starting rate of income tax moved towards 15p. Our Budget was immediately attacked by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who said it was a "back-of-the-envelope calculation". Within hours of that attack, the shadow Chancellor announced that he, too, now believed in moving towards a starting rate of taxation not of 15p, but of 10p. I was outbid by the shadow Chancellor.
  I am confused by the Labour party's decision not to vote on the 24p tax proposal. I can understand that Labour does not want the Tories to claim that Labour Members are not interested in helping ordinary people through tax cuts, at a time when most family budgets are under severe pressure. However, what I cannot understand is why, having chosen a different priority from the Chancellor for tax cuts—a low starting rate—the Labour party did not put that on the Order Paper and vote against the Chancellor's proposal to reduce the basic rate to 24p.
  It is quite clear that, if £3 billion is available for tax cuts, it is possible to lower the basic rate to 24p and to do a few other things on the side or it is possible to go for a 15p starting rate—but it is not possible to do both. By accepting the 24p proposal, the Labour party is excluding the 15p proposal from future calculations. Therefore, even at this very late stage, it would make me extremely happy if it reconsidered its position and voted against the 24p proposal. If there are tax cuts available, it would be better not to have them in a range from £50 to £1,000 a year depending on family income levels, but instead to consolidate those tax cuts at about £200 a year for most earners—as would happen if the low starting rate option were chosen.
  I want to raise the question of VAT on fuel. Earlier this evening, I pointed out that when, on 23 January, the SNP moved an almost identical amendment to tonight's Labour amendment, the Labour party decided not to vote in favour of it—although one or two brave souls defied the Labour Whips.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Seven.
  Mr. Salmond: My hon. Friend tells me that seven Labour Members defied the Whips. I welcome the fact that the Labour party has repented since its mistake in January.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the circumstances are entirely different? Our vote earlier this year was intended to ensure that VAT on fuel was held down to 8 per cent. By voting in the way that the SNP wanted, there was a possibility that we could have ended up with VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. We were not prepared to put our victory on VAT on fuel at risk for the sake of SNP gesturism.
  Mr. Salmond: Earlier this evening, I heard the shadow Chancellor mumbling just that explanation to the deputy leader of the Labour party, who sensibly did not take it up. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) knows, under the procedures of the House a clause must be agreed before an amendment can be made to it. The clause relating to 8 per cent. VAT passed without a Division, before the 5 per cent. amendment was called. The end result of Labour party posturing was that the opportunity to reduce VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. was lost. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should apologise to the people who are suffering the consequences of that posturing rather than, 10 months after the event, coming out with some sort of lame explanation.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should apologise for his remarks, as he will in due course when we exchange correspondence on this matter and I demonstrate that I am right. Is it not the case that, before the procedures that he mentioned, in law VAT was due to rise to 17.5 per cent.? We succeeded in securing an amendment to the Bill, which had not then been passed, to keep it down to 8 per cent. At that point, a wrecking amendment was moved to reduce it to 5 per cent. Will he accept that if there had been a possibility that the 5 per cent. amendment would be accepted, the Tories who voted with us on the 8 per cent. amendment might not then have done so, so the 8 per cent. option would have been lost, the 5 per cent. option would have been rejected and we would have been left with VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent? That would have been the consequence of what the SNP wanted.
  Mr. Salmond: That was not just the longest but the most convoluted explanation I have ever heard. I remind the hon. Gentleman that by 23 January the Chancellor had accepted an 8 per cent. rate. The Conservative party did not even divide against that rate. The only issue that remained to be determined was whether that 8 per cent. should be reduced to 5 per cent. The Labour party decided to sit and do nothing on that issue—as it intends to do again this evening on another issue—rather than take the opportunity to reduce the rate. No amount of post-match explanation can alter that fact. The only party changing its attitude is the Labour party.
  I welcome Labour's belated conversion to a VAT rate of 5 per cent. on fuel. I will not refuse to go into the Lobby with the Ĺabour Members this evening just because it is now a Labour amendment to reduce the rate to 5 per cent. If the Labour party extended the same courtesy to other Opposition parties' amendments as we do to Labour amendments, opposition in this House would be rather more formidable.
  196
  My last point on the Budget proposals relates to increased tax on fuel. It is a serious matter for hon. Members who represent rural constituencies. This Chancellor and his immediate predecessor set targets of real increases each year in fuel duties of 5 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation. This Chancellor has excelled himself—there is to be an 11 per cent. increase in certain duties. Rural areas that are highly dependent on transport to get goods into the shops will face higher prices for virtually every item in every shop.
  That is being done, as are so many things—including the original imposition of VAT on fuel—in the name of meeting environmental targets. In fact, it is being done for the much baser motive of getting as much revenue as possible for the Government. One official survey was quoted in The Economist:
  "Higher fuel prices will do little to cut congestion. A study of five cities—Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield, Derby and Reading—by the Transport Research Laboratory, a recently privatised research unit, found that even if fuel costs were raised by 50 per cent. there would only be a 3-4 per cent. reduction in urban congestion."
  The evidence shows that the Chancellor's motivation is the revenue that can be gathered for the Government, rather than any savings in energy and fuel that could be guaranteed by such a punitive policy.
  When the Liberal Democrats suggested something similar during the Kincardine and Deeside by-election in 1991, the Conservative party greeted it as the saving of its campaign. Tories in that rural community argued strongly that it was a punitive policy being pursued by the Liberal Democrats without regard for the interests of the area. However, the Liberal Democrats were actually suggesting compensation for rural areas. The Chancellor is not suggesting any compensation. The SNP will vote against the increases in fuel duties. I hope that, on this occasion, we will be joined by other Opposition parties.
  I want to speak about the Budget in a Scottish context. I would argue very strongly that the Scottish economy has two significant advantages over the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. First, it experiences a relative lack of inflationary pressures when the economy is running at higher levels of output than at present. In the late 1980s, recovery in the economy was arrested in the United Kingdom, especially in the south-east of England, by spiralling house prices and other inflationary pressures. That was not evident in the Scottish economy to anything like the same degree. There is much convincing evidence that the Scottish economy could be run at a higher level of output without succumbing to inflationary pressures.
  The second major advantage, which was spelled out yet again today, is in the export performance of Scotland. Export productivity in manufacturing industry runs at a level around a third higher than that in the rest of the UK. Scotland's export growth is running much higher than that in the rest of UK. Per capita, Scotland exports more than Germany, Japan or the United States of America.
  That is again a sign that the balance of payments constraint, which has been the undoing of so many Chancellors—and may yet be the undoing of this one—is not prevalent in the Scottish economy to anything like the same degree. Rather than the tame, lame affair that the Chancellor presented last week, a Scottish Chancellor, producing a Scottish Budget, could have introduced measures for output, growth, employment and for social justice.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: We are in the fifth day of the debate on the Budget. Having sat through some of the earlier days, I think that it is improving as the days go by—somewhat like England's performance in the recent test match. Tonight, Conservative Members have made a series of excellent speeches, beginning with those made my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), and followed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). They all made some fine points.
  I should like, first, to deal with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) at the beginning of his speech. I hope that the hon. Member now understands the Government's policy on exchange rates. There is no difference between the views of Conservative Back Benchers and Ministers. There is no difference between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and me, for example. We all believe in floating exchange rates. It is as simple as that. We have learnt the lessons of membership of the exchange rate mechanism and we now all believe in floating exchange rates. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has told the House again and again that he has no target for the exchange rate.
  As for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South on France, I would say that there is no benefit to the United Kingdom from France's maintaining an unrealistic exchange rate that damages the French economy and political stability there. I want Europe's economy to be healthy as a whole. I want France, which is a major export market for the United Kingdom, to do well and to prosper through political and economic stability. There is no difference at all on that point among Conservative Members.
  The further we get away from the initial rhetoric on the Budget, the more constructive our debate becomes. I greatly welcome the measures that the Chancellor has introduced to control public spending, especially those in social security to restrict housing benefit and combat fraud. He rightly pointed out that projected social security spending over the next three years had been cut significantly.
  The proposed social security reforms cannot, however, be the end of the matter. The Red Book shows that social security spending this year is being increased by £1 billion over previous plans and that, next year, it will increase by £1.2 billion over existing plans. Despite healthy economic growth for a number of years and the Treasury forecast of 3 per cent. growth next year, overall social security spending is set to increase by 4.5 per cent. in next year's estimates. That is one of the biggest expenditure increases announced in the Budget. There is plenty of scope for extra measures in that area and I hope that my right hon. Friends will continue to introduce measures to cut fraud and end the abuses that are rife among social security claimants.
  Overall, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he is an adherent to firm control of public spending. There is, however, sometimes danger in making our rhetoric too tough. If the reality does not match the rhetoric, we do not benefit. Most people believe that the Government have been cutting
  198
  public expenditure, but the figures in the Red Book show that in no year has public expenditure been reduced in real terms. Treasury Ministers have sometimes planned to reduce public expenditure in real terms, but the reality is that it has increased in real terms each year, so we should not let our rhetoric become too harsh. It will not fool the financial markets and it might mislead voters.
  Nevertheless, the Budget is much tighter than is normal a year before an election. It appears that the Government have learnt some important lessons on public expenditure, especially if one compares next year's spending with, say, the levels set for 1992–93. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) had control of the nation's purse strings, public expenditure was increased in real terms by some 5.7 per cent. We have come a long way in controlling public expenditure and I applaud the levels set in the Budget.
  The Labour party has derided Conservative achievements on inflation since 1979, but if anybody had said in 1979 that, under a Conservative Government, inflation could be brought down to a level that had not be seen for 40 or 50 years, that the horror of inflation—it was a horror for many people—could be brought to an end, everyone would have said that it would be a great achievement.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that inflation was negative during the depression? People would not say that the country was exactly booming then.
  Mr. Legg: I am not talking about negative inflation. Indeed, I am an advocate of ensuring that we do not have it. I shall make further comments on monetary policy later. Under the Conservatives, inflation has been brought down to a level that has not been seen for 40 or 50 years. Following the hon. Gentleman's comments, I am afraid that I must again remind the House that inflation reached 27 per cent. under Labour.
  The prospects for inflation are good. In the coming year, it will fall further—because we have a very competitive economy. Competition is particularly keen in energy prices, for example. The electricity rebate—derided by the Labour party—will make a big difference to consumers. The productivity and efficiency savings achieved in the public utilities will work their way through to people's pockets.
  Indirect tax increases have been substantially reduced, the mortgage rate is falling and many firms will begin to destock in the coming months. Those trends will provide further competitive pressures in the economy. It would not surprise me if inflation came down to between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. over the coming year.
  Some concern has been expressed about monetary policy, and especially about the growth in broad money, M4. It has grown towards the top of its monitoring range in recent months, but we should not over-worry about that trend. Developments in the financial world, such as the demutualisation of building societies and substantial takeovers, are important factors in that trend. There is not yet sufficient evidence to make us over-concerned about the current level of expansion of M4. The favourable inflation background should lead to further reductions in interest rates.
  There are a number of forecasts in the Red Book to which I should like to draw the House's attention. I especially welcome the section that deals with the

  199
  economy in the medium term. It has been greatly expanded and I draw attention to it because it makes a number of important points. It highlights the substantial improvements to the supply side of the economy that have occurred during the past few years and the significant and substantial margin of spare capacity that still exists in the economy. It points to there being plenty of scope for non-inflationary growth in the economy and an improvement in the long-term trend rate of growth in the UK economy. The Treasury maintains that the sustainable long-term rate of growth in the economy has increased from 2.25 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. That is an extremely welcome development. Spare capacity and improvements in the supply side are safeguards against higher inflation in the medium term and provide the opportunity for the economy to grow at above the levels we have seen in recent months.
  There has been considerable comment about the Treasury's projection of 3 per cent. growth in 1996. This morning, the Treasury Select Committee interviewed Treasury officials on that and other points. They maintained that it was possible to achieve that level of growth without further interest rate cuts. However, it appears that their assumptions on that score are optimistic. Their view is that exports will increase markedly in the coming year although the figures on world trade in the Red Book show that the rate of increase in world trade will fall. They have extremely benign views on the impact of reductions in stock levels in UK manufacturing and commerce and they hope for a reduction in the savings ratio.
  It seems unlikely that a 3 per cent. rate of growth can be achieved without further interest rate cuts. The weekend press talked in terms of interest rate cuts of 0.25 per cent. I believe that, for confidence to come back into the economy and for the growth rate of 3 per cent. to be achieved, we shall need an initial interest rate reduction of 0.5 per cent. and, probably, further reductions as the months pass.
  I draw attention to the comments of Professor Congdon, one of the Treasury's six wise men, on the 3 per cent. growth forecast. After the Budget, he said:
  "If GDP growth ran at 0.3 per cent. per quarter until the end of quarter 1 1996, the annualised growth rate in the remaining three quarters would have to run at 6 per cent. (ie. at a boom rate) in order to deliver the 3 per cent. growth figure projected by the Treasury for the calendar year as a whole."
  Quite a lot must happen if that growth rate is to be achieved, especially as the growth rate for the most recent quarter was due entirely to stock building. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove said, the Chancellor will have to make some further easing. The determination and good judgment that he showed last May in countering the views of the Governor of the Bank of England on interest rates will have to be brought into play again if our economy is to perform at a healthy rate next year.
  There has been much talk in recent weeks about Iain Macleod and his legacy to the Conservative party. It has been right to bring lain Macleod to the fore. Some hon. Members might remember that he was the shadow Chancellor when the Conservatives were in opposition from 1964 to 1970. He had some extremely robust views on the level of spending in the economy and on the consequent level of taxation. In October 1965, he described his views as follows:
  200
  "There is a limit, and that we are already beyond it, to the percentage that we can take of the GDP in public expenditure and to the burden that one can put on personal taxation without a dramatic drop in efficiency and enterprise and there I take my stand."
  He said that there was a limit to the level of public spending that we could have as a proportion of gross domestic product and, consequently, a limit to the amount of taxation that could be borne to pay for that expenditure. He made his comments in 1965, when the level of spending by the state, which he considered unacceptable, was 35 per cent. of GDP. We are now battling with expenditure levels of 42 per cent. of GDP.
  We see in the Red Book the consequences of setting expenditure at that level. Once it gets there, we have Budget deficits that generate extra interest burdens on the economy. Last year, public spending was 42 per cent. of GDP. The level of public expenditure this year is, again, 42 per cent. of GDP. If the state becomes very big, it is difficult to reduce its size—it acquires a momentum of its own. What is more, it becomes difficult to raise taxation to pay for the expenditure. That is what is happening at the moment. The Treasury has had to cut its forecasts of the amount of taxation that the economy will bear.
  Last year, the Treasury forecast what revenue could be raised in the current year. In reality, the1 revenue take in the current year will be £8 billion less than was forecast. For the coming year, it will be £12 billion less than forecast. There are many reasons why tax revenues are down. Admittedly the economy is growing less quickly, but people also have a natural reluctance to pay high levels of tax. If high levels of tax are set, people seek shelters, and there are plenty of shelters in the UK economy, such as personal equity plans and occupational pension schemes. Many of us know that our constituents use far less orthodox shelters to escape higher levels of tax.
  Part of the purpose of having a unified Budget was to take tax and spending decisions together. We shall have to look much more firmly at the spending side so that we do not impose excessive burdens that cannot be funded by taxation.
  There are a number of other important changes set out in the Red Book. It has not been brought to the attention of the House that the Maastricht criteria on the budget deficit, which we were led to believe we would achieve in 1996–97, have now gone by the board. Paragraph 4.10 of the Red Book shows that, in the last full fiscal year before decisions will be made about membership of a single currency, the forecast for Britain's public spending deficit is some 3.5 per cent. of GDP. That exceeds the 3 per cent. Maastricht criterion.
  How wise my right hon. and learned Friend was when he said in his Budget statement that the public sector borrowing requirement was the difference between two very large numbers. Forecasts are often missed by quite a wide margin. Basing so much of one's economic policy around trying to hit precise public spending deficit targets each year, in strict percentage terms, risks grave dangers for any economy.
  We have not been able to meet our target for the PSBR in the current year because there has not been as much growth in the economy as we forecast last year. That is the problem that exists in France today. The French cannot meet the Maastricht criteria because they have to

  201
  hold down the level of growth in their economy to defend an artificial exchange rate which requires higher interest rates than the domestic economy can bear. If politicians pursue artificial criteria come what may, they will only drive their economies into deflation.
  I note with pleasure what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said about the difficulties of forecasting the percentage of the Government deficit each year and I congratulate him on his stance at the Economic and Finance Council meeting some six or seven days ago. He met other European Finance Ministers the day before the Budget to consider the Waigel stability pact, which placed further requirements on member states to the effect that, if a single currency were to be achieved, they would no longer have to aim for a 3 per cent. budget deficit but for a 1 per cent. deficit.
  Those of us who have argued that a single currency would reduce sovereign parliaments such as this one to no more than rate-capped councils could have no better example of what that would mean in practice than the proposals of Herr Waigel, the German Finance Minister. I am relieved that my right hon. and learned Friend opposed those proposals, and I hope that he will continue to oppose any similar ones put before European Finance Ministers.
  The Budget is another welcome step in rebalancing the economy. Further steps must be taken to ensure that it achieves the forecasts for the coming 12 months that are set out in the Red Book. If we are to achieve them, there will have to be further interest rate cuts to bring further confidence to British business and consumers. When we get to next November's Budget, I am sure that we shall see a further instalment of the Chancellor's prudent management, which will enable the economy to generate considerable growth during the remaining years of the century.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Roger Godsiff: I have always believed that Budgets should be judged by the reaction from one's constituents. My constituents are interested not in figures in the Red Book but in facts in the real world. Last week's Budget did not bring about great dancing on the streets of Small Heath or the rest of Birmingham. Indeed, it brought a rather long yawn, but behind the yawn there was real anger. Once again, the people of Birmingham have seen missed opportunities.
  My constituency is one of the most deprived in the country. On all the indices of deprivation, Small Heath comes near the top of the list. There are 6,632 people unemployed in my constituency. Male unemployment is 26.2 per cent. Overall unemployment is 19.9 per cent. of the working population. Small Heath has one of the largest numbers of single-parent families in the country.
  What has the Budget done for people in my constituency? I put aside the comments made in the traditional Tory newspapers such as, in The Sun:
  "It was about as inspiring as a cold kipper",
  in The Daily Mail, "Where is the magic?" and in The Daily Express, "too little too late." I put those comments to one side and judge the Budget against what it does for the unemployed, the deprived and the single-parent families in my constituency. The Budget abolished the community action programme. That did
  202
  not do much for the unemployed. Likewise, the 4 per cent. cut in job training. The freezing of one parent benefit did not help single-parent families very much. While 27p off a bottle of whisky is to be welcomed, it does not have much effect on my constituents. Nor does the 1p off income tax.
  We have heard the Chancellor say on a number of occasions that this is a Budget for recovery. The Conservative party has been in power for 16 years, so what is the recovery from? Is it recovery from the stewardship of the Chancellor's predecessors, Mr. Howe, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Major and Mr. Lamont? Is it recovery from the ravages of Thatcherism? If that was the case, the Budget could be welcomed, but I regret that it has nothing to do with any of those things.
  The Budget that we heard last week did nothing to deal with the real problems of the economy because the economy remains fundamentally weak. The Budget has done nothing for private investment while public investment has been slashed. The forecast for investment growth is 1 per cent for 1995 and for 1996. The forecast for overall growth in the economy has been revised downwards to 2.1 per cent. The deficit in the balance of payments is forecast to increase to £6.5 billion in 1995.
  In addition, as has been pointed out in this long debate on the Budget, the overall level of taxation has increased since 1992 by the equivalent of 7p on income tax. So a typical family now pays £670 a year more than when the Tories first came to power.
  During all that time, the taxpayers of Britain have had to bear the cost of £20 billion a year to keep more than 2 million people doing nothing. The figure of 2 million is, if the House will forgive the pun, a conservative estimate. As everyone in the country knows, the employment statistics are fiddled. They have been changed so often by the Conservative party since it came to power that they have no credence whatever. The real level of unemployment, particularly in many of the unemployment blackspots, is now far higher than the official figures suggest. That is the price of 16 years of Conservative rule.
  Let us consider the one thing that the Conservative party always used to be able to boast about—the public sector borrowing requirement. There is nothing wrong with borrowing to invest. Indeed, I look upon it as good housekeeping, as did a previous occupant of No. 10 Downing street. However, at present we are not investing in the future.
  Investment growth is forecast to go up by only 1 per cent. next year and 1 per cent. the year after. The public sector borrowing requirement is scheduled to increase to £29 billion, despite the benefit of the proceeds of North sea oil and privatisation, purely because of the failure of the policies of the Government—the lack of growth in the economy and the huge cost that the public purse has to bear for keeping well over 2 million people unemployed.
  The Budget did nothing for my constituents. What was last week's charade really about? It was all about the next general election. More than anything else, it was about the Conservative party trying to save as many seats as possible. The Chancellor had to appear restrained this year to be able to indulge in a massive give-away extravaganza in the Budget next year. If this Budget shows anything, it is that the next general election will be held in April or May 1997. This is an a cast-iron certainty.

  203
  The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) is not here, but I have great respect for what he said. He let the cat out of the bag. He referred to the 1p income tax cut working its way through into pay packets in April 1996. That is right. That is when it will come in. The 2p or 3p tax cuts which are going to be introduced in next year's Budget will look good in pay packets in April 1997.
  The Tory party has always believed that it can con its way back into power. It believes that it can fool most of the people most of the time. Next time, the people will see through the con trick being played on them. They will see through the 2p or 3p tax cuts that will be offered up in next year's Budget.
  The people will—I am sure that the Opposition parties will remind the electorate of it again and again—look back to the highlight of Tory economic policy in this Parliament. That occurred on so-called black Wednesday in September 1992. What a glorious day that was for the country and the Government. There were two increases in interest rates in one day; billions of pounds of the country's money was poured down the drain as the Chancellor fought as hard as he possibly could to stay in something that the Prime Minister took us out of at the end of 24 hours. It was an absolute shambles from one end to the other. That is the Government's record.
  In the ensuing three years, the Tory party has attempted to try to recover from the disaster of September 1992. It will offer any bribes or incentives to try to buy the electorate next time. I believe that the people have seen through the Tories. Certainly, my constituents do not want 1p off income tax or 27p off a bottle of whisky; they want a general election.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): There are 85 minutes available before the Front Bench winding-up speeches and eight hon. Members hoping to catch my eye. I hope that they will all be successful.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: We have had a serious and thoughtful debate. Of course, only a handful of discriminating hon. Members are here to participate in the event and hardly anyone is here to report it. We have at least the comforting knowledge that we are talking to posterity. Talking of posterity, the last time that I was able to participate in a Budget debate was in 1990. I took the precaution of looking up my speech on that occasion on 1 May 1990—on what the Labour party used to call May day but about which they are no longer keen to be reminded.
  Lord Rosebery, the former Liberal Prime Minister, once said that nobody reads old speeches any more than they read old sermons; the more glittering they were at the time, the more dolorous the quest. I was pleased to read what I said on that occasion because it will help me put this year's Budget in the perspective of history.
  In the period running up to 1990, we were in the opposite stage of the economic cycle to the one in which we have found ourselves recently. It was a period of runaway boom following the rapid expansion of the money supply in 1987. To compare 1986 with 1987 will perhaps help to explain why we are in our present circumstances.
  204
  Through the whole of 1986, M3 expanded by less than £200 million whereas in March 1987 alone there was an expansion of nearly £1 billion; in April nearly £2 billion; and in May, nearly £3 billion. That was a case of pouring petrol on the flames if ever there was. Why did it happen? We were shadowing the deutschmark and were effectively members of the exchange rate mechanism, although we dared not admit it. The consequence of that was the runaway boom which we then had to counteract. That gave us three years of painful recession from which we have been slowly and gradually emerging, but it has been patchy progress.
  All those years ago, before we joined the ERM, on Second Reading of the Finance Bill in 1990, I said:
  "Joining the ERM is no soft option. We have a choice. Either we can use interest rates to stabilise the currency, in which the case the economy will go up and down, or we can stabilise the economy, in which case the currency will go and up down. There is no way of wishing away that distinction and that choice."—[Official Report, 1 May 1990; Vol. 171, c. 969.]
  Unfortunately, we made the wrong choice on that occasion and joined the ERM—enthusiastically supported by virtually every Opposition party, all of which wanted us to go in earlier. The Liberal party is still committed to that and, so far as one can discern from its policy pronouncements, even the Labour party is committed to shoving us back into that hell-hole.
  It is a tragedy that virtually the whole of the last Parliament, and the whole of this one, has been consumed by that fundamental policy error, which has had tragic consequences for our party. It has wrecked our public finances and our party's reputation for good housekeeping because of the £50 billion deficit that we have had to massage down by tax increases that we would never have wished to bring in. It has pole-axed home owners and small businesses. I have had no need to dilate upon the property slump and its effects. That is again painful for Conservatives who had hoped that the economy would be run in a different way. It compromised our tax-cutting image and reversed, for a time, our policy of rolling back the state.
  I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) said. For all the talk about cuts in public expenditure, over all the years we have been in office since 1979, there have never been any cuts in real terms in public expenditure. One has only to consult table 6A.1 at the back of the Red Book to find all the figures. In every year without exception, there has been a real-terms rise in public expenditure. Consequently, we have not been able, until this year, to re-embark upon those long-term Tory policies which were so successful electorally in the 1980s and which I believe can still win us the general election when it comes in 1996 or 1997.
  It is certainly instructive to look across the channel at what is happening to the French Administration as the people of France grapple with the Procrustean bed of the Maastricht criteria. That is utterly perverse because the French economy is in severe recession and the French Government are embarking upon an unprecedentedly contractionary fiscal policy which will exacerbate the recession and turn it into the sort of slump, to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) referred, that occurred in the 1930s. That was caused precisely by the contractionary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank—an independent bank, independent of politicians.

  205
  Wrong-headed policies were followed to the immense cost of an entire generation before the war —a mistake which we will, I hope, never make again.
  The Banque de France is now no more than a branch office of the Bundesbank and, as in 1940 to 1945, French economic policy is actually being dictated from across the Rhine. The French people have no voice, and the only way in which they can make their protest is on the streets. That is exactly what many feared might happen as a result of the theories that underlay the Maastricht treaty. They feared that as a result of attempting to enforce an artificial straitjacket on something which cannot be constrained by law, we would not make decisive moves towards the unity of Europe, but break its existing institutions and political structures.
  I am delighted to see in the Chamber the Minister of State at the Foreign Office. He is conducting a rearguard exercise at the moment in Europe; he is trying to shine a searchlight of common sense upon the horrors that we see developing, and which for some extraordinary and incomprehensible reasons the political elites of the rest of Europe seem incapable of seeing.
  We have been in a fortunate position ever since golden Wednesday 1992. As a Government we have been able to pursue our own independent monetary policy, which has been a tremendous success story. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go down in history—perhaps rather surprisingly to some of us—as a sane, sensible and well-balanced Chancellor. He will have solid achievements to his name so long as he does not dart off into the theological complexities of the issue to which I just referred. I think that his tenure of office in this Parliament will demonstrate what strengths come through for a country when it determines its monetary policy according to its own needs. That is why I think we need to have further reductions in interest rates.
  The Chancellor's good sense was demonstrated in the summer by the way in which he stood up to the Bank of England and refused to increase interest rates as the Governor wanted. I have the greatest admiration for the Governor, who recently gave me a free lunch at the Bank. I am not sure whether that disqualifies me from speaking in the debate under the new criteria. It was a jolly good lunch and, once one builds into it all the hidden costs and overheads of the Bank of England, it may well have breached the expenditure thresholds laid down in the Register of Members' Interests. That is something that Sir Gordon Downey may need to look at.
  Technocrats who run policy as sensitive as monetary policy effectively run the whole economic policy of a Government, because that is the framework within which all other tax decisions are made. That is a recipe for disaster because technocrats arrive at the wrong conclusions, perhaps by more scientific methods, and when they do so, there is no democratic means of calling them to account. That is why in France today the Government are not being made accountable through the ballot box but by riots and demonstrations on the streets. That was exactly our experience under the last Labour Government. Such lack of accountability is not a recipe for success but disaster, and one that we should certainly avoid.
  I welcome very much the return to the tax-cutting-agenda. The Budget should be judged according to the long-term perspective to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. All economies go up and down. There are
  206
  economic cycles that cannot be wished away, and certainly cannot be legislated against. In this Budget, and those that preceded, we were obliged to increase taxes in order to maintain a reasonably balanced budgetary policy. Those increases should be seen as part of our long-term objective to reduce the proportion of national income taken by the state from the taxpayer, and spent for him on priorities that politicians rather than the people decide.
  The last three Budgets taxed our economy virtually to a standstill, and even in the past three years growth has faltered from time to time. There is still a significant feeling of insecurity in the country. People fear for their jobs in the future and are anxious about the costs that they might have to encounter in their declining years. All sorts of reasons of that kind explain why the so-called feel-good factor has been elusive over the years.
  The most obvious reason for the relative lack of a feel-good factor is to be found in a table that appears in the "Economic Trends" annual supplement, which was published only last week. That table shows the figures for disposable income per head of citizens in this country. If we look at the period from 1985 to 1990 there was about a 13 per cent. increase in real personal disposable income. In the period from 1990 to 1995 that figure had dropped to less than 5 per cent. The bulk of the growth in that time has occurred in the last few quarters, so it is clear that throughout most of those five years people have been worse off than they were at the height of the boom in 1990, or only marginally better off. No wonder people have felt sore at their experiences.
  I have explained why we found ourselves in such an unfortunate position, and it is not a mistake that, I hope, we will make again. The Government do not have an exchange rate target, and although it is right to consider the exchange rate as one of many ingredients of economic management, it should not be given undue weight.
  We have not, seen any real spending cuts in the past 16 years, let alone recently. The Government's expenditure overall has been planned, from start to finish, to rise by about 12 per cent. in this Parliament compared with 4.5 per cent. in the previous Parliament. We have been far less stringent in our of control of public expenditure—partly because of the recession—in this Parliament than in the previous one. It can hardly be a credible allegation against the Government that we have been unduly Scrooge-like in our control of public expenditure.
  Labour Governments are very much better at cutting public expenditure than Conservative ones because they have a little external help. That was clear after the 1967 devaluation, and after Denis Healey's famous trip and swift return from Heathrow airport back in 1976 when the IMF came on board. In the two years following that, the Labour Government were able to make a 7.5 per cent. cut in public expenditure in real terms. That was a considerable achievement. If Lord Healey were invited to become a consultant to Her Majesty's Treasury, he might have some useful tips for my right hon. and learned Friend on how to keep public expenditure under control.
  Public expenditure has gone up by a significant proportion. I do not underestimate the difficulties of controlling it. I have been on the inside of government and seen the pressures on Ministers to push up spending. I know that with demand-led programmes it is even more difficult to exert control over that discretionary part of Government expenditure. If we are to deliver our

  207
  long-term objective to reduce the role of the state in people's lives, and return to them the freedom to spend the money that they earn and the wealth that they create in the way that they choose, it is vital that we make better progress on controlling public expenditure.
  We needed a bold Budget. It is a good Budget as far as it goes, although I would have preferred it to have been a little bolder. I do not make any great criticism of the Chancellor on that count. There are difficult judgments to strike, and no doubt we all have different views about where the balance of advantage lies. A number of fundamental features underlie the Budget, and everybody should recognise that they should incline us rather less towards caution on tax cuts and interest rate reductions than otherwise. For example, there is no inflation risk at the moment. Last year, the price of raw materials rose by 5 per cent. and more. There was a fear that that would feed a wage-price spiral, with all sorts of shortages and bottlenecks developing, but that simply did not happen. The retail prices index rose by a little more than 3 per cent. When one looks at what happened to wage rates last year, however, that shows where the fundamental weakness in our economy lies. Wage increases actually fell from 4 per cent. to about 3.75 per cent. and in some cases wages decreased in real terms. The present inflation suppression mechanism is the result of many of the policies that we have introduced in the decade and a half that we have been in government.
  We have a more flexible labour market than we had in 1980. If the Opposition were to win an election, they would make it more rigid again with such innovations as signing up to the social chapter, introducing minimum wages and, no doubt, returning some privileges to the trade unions. A flexible labour market, relaxation of rent controls, deregulation of working conditions and toughening up the benefits system—in which we have much further to go—have become crucial to our ability to grow and compete without inflation.
  The evidence is clear not only in wages, but in the unemployment figures and the resurgence of manufacturing exports and inward investment. Who would have thought that we would ever again export televisions and become a major exporter of cars? It is clear that there would be little justifiable fear of inflation were we to relax the controls just a little more.
  The United Kingdom has become the most successful country in the world after the United States in attracting overseas investment. In 1979, the figure was £22 billion; in 1994, it was £144 billion. That is a sevenfold increase. More than 3,500 United States companies, including 98 of the Fortune 100 companies in the United States now have operations in Britain. The three largest car companies in Japan have secured bases here and 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Community is in Britain. More than 1,000 German companies are in Britain, representing 12 per cent. of all German investment overseas. In the past two years alone, more than 800 inward investment projects have brought 200,000 jobs to Britain.
  That has not happened of its own accord or because companies stuck a pin in the map and decided to locate to Britain. They located here for the hard-headed reasons that we have a low-tax, relatively deregulated economy that is no longer inimical to wealth creation and is not
  208
  suffused by the miasma of envy politics and the destructive trade unionism of the 1970s that repelled them from our shores.
  What is lacking today, or is insufficiently to be found, is a recovery in domestic demand. We need to build on the useful measures contained in the Budget with a further reduction in interest rates, as recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold).
  This has been derided by Opposition Members as an attempt to bribe the electorate, but I do not regard returning what people have created for themselves and rightly belongs to them as a bribe. Bribery occurred under previous Administrations—Tory as well as Labour—when ordinary people were made a fraudulent promise that they could get something for nothing and were gulled into believing that the rich would somehow pay for vast increases in expenditure on health, education and social security.
  The tragic reality is that as the welfare state and the role of the state generally has expanded over the past few generations, ordinary people have had to pay the bills themselves. As a result, they have been deprived of the freedom to choose, and that has become the privilege of the few. We have to alter that. We have taken some decisive steps in the right direction, but we have much more to do.
  It is projected that there will be a surplus on Government accounts by the end of the century. If surpluses are in prospect, we can cut taxes to a level at which borrowing is sustainable without worrying. It is a pity that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor committed himself to a zero borrowing requirement in such a short time. Were it over a longer period of time, we would have had far more leeway sooner for significant tax cuts, which, as we know from our experience in the 1980s, have advantageous supply-side effects.
  The Chancellor was prudent in not changing his projections for the PSBR, but had he taken a little more risk on that, we could have done a lot more this year. Patrick Minford has suggested that as much as £17 billion would have been available on a rolling tax cut programme over three years, had we adopted a rather more lenient view of borrowing in the next five or six years, but we cannot do everything at once.
  Many Opposition Members fail to recognise that tax cuts produce wealth. Even after the dramatic reductions in the top rates of tax in the 1980s, not only did more revenue come into the Exchequer for redistribution, but the proportion of income tax revenues paid by those on higher incomes actually increased. It is a perverse policy to call for punitive increases in taxation because the consequences are that there is less money to redistribute and the rich pay a smaller proportion of the total tax revenue. We have a long way to go, but low-tax countries always lead the growth league.
  When the United Kingdom was the leading low-tax country in the world between 1780 and 1890, we topped the growth league. The same occurred in the United States between 1890 and 1970. Today, countries such as Japan, Switzerland and certain far eastern countries—the Asian tigers—have low-tax, deregulated regimes which put them at the top of the growth league. We should look to that example and not to countries such France and Germany—the over-regulated sclerotic regimes that are attempting to force their uncompetitive policies on us because they are

  209
  too frightened to adopt or have some other reason for not adopting the sensible, open-market, outward looking, low-tax, deregulating policies that have been so successful here and elsewhere.
  Labour is trying to project itself as the party of tax cutting. A recent article in the Daily Telegraph was headed
  "Blair: 'I will not squeeze the rich'".
  The Leader of the Opposition said that in his speech to the CBI. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) recently laid out his stall for a 10p income tax rate—admittedly to the annual conference of the British Dyslexia Association, perhaps thinking that the audience might not be able to read the fine detail of his policies, although I say that with some trepidation as I know that the debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The 10p income tax rate has been derided as a gimmick by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  Opposition Members do not seem to understand the mechanisms that achieve the policy objectives that they themselves set. The best way to help those on the lowest income is not to introduce a band of tax at 10p but to raise tax thresholds, as my right hon. and learned Friend has done this year, to take out of the tax net as many people as possible who are on the lowest levels of income, because the greatest disincentive to work is provided not by the tax system but by the benefit system due to the combination of the withdrawal rates and the tax rates which apply at that level of income. There is much to be done on that side of the equation.
  We need to continue in the direction that we are now taking. We are getting back to the policies on which we were elected in 1979, to which we have adhered and which have been so successful for Britain and have made the Conservative party so electorally successful. The greatest tribute to the truth of that analysis is that the Opposition have now discovered that they cannot be elected on the policies in which they really believe and therefore they have to present themselves as a watered down version of Tories.
  Looking at the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and his supporters in recent months, I have been struck by the right hon. Gentleman's resemblance to Sun Myung Moon. When the moonies sign up to their cult, they have to accept the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's decision as to who they marry. He spends quite a lot of his time looking at photographs and selecting and matching the couples who are to spend the rest of their lives together. That role is being performed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Labour party as he matches his members to their new beliefs. They may not have had much connection with them in the past or any understanding of the matters that they now profess to believe, but so desperate are Labour Members to achieve office that they are no longer concerned about what they would do there.
  We see in Labour a bankrupt party which has plenty of experience of bankrupting the country. That is why I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will continue the successful policy that he is adopting, which will be the best prophylactic against the country ever again entrusting the Opposition with the levers of power.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I was present for the speeches at the start of the Budget debate and have listened attentively to other speeches during the course of the week. I left the Chamber earlier to attend a meeting of the parliamentary benevolent fund, at which we presented ex-Members of Parliament or their widows with more money than the Chancellor are giving them, and more money than the Chancellor will be offering people throughout the country. The beneficiaries of our benevolent fund will receive a Christmas box of £500. Many pensioners in my constituency would love to be afforded a £500 Christmas box from the Chancellor.
  What is the Chancellor offering, and what is he taking back, and how will that affect my constituents and Wales? The House and the country realise that the Budget pretended to offer a lot to the people. With respect to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), Labour will not be running afraid of the Government at the next general election. We are positive in the policies that we want to pursue. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's majority, but I am sure that it will have to be good for him to retain his seat at the next general election—especially after this year's Budget.
  Newspaper reports following the Budget, especially that in the Financial Times, and the state of the pound immediately after the Budget was announced, proved conclusively that the array of Order Papers waved by Government Members was a farce. As soon as Conservative Members read the details of the Budget, they realised that there was not sufficient in it to allow those right hon. and hon. Members to regain their popularity with the electorate. I would not be so complacent as the hon. Member for Tatton. If he thinks that Labour's lead in the opinion polls can be reduced within the next 18 months without a giveaway Budget and a substantial reduction in interest rates, he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
  When I entered the House 16 years ago—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were here long before, and it can be seen that we are aging—there was a lengthy list of hon. Members waiting to participate in the Budget debate. In the years that followed, most Budget debates were well attended. The Chamber would not be empty but fairly full. Things have changed. When one examines the Budget, one can understand why the Chamber has not been well attended this week.
  When the Chancellor presented his Budget, he suggested that the family on average earnings would be better off next year by £450, which he said was the equivalent of £9 per week. Since then, the Chancellor and the Conservative party chairman have admitted that that large promised improvement was false.
  The Treasury press release on Budget day made the inaccuracy clear. It stated that the tax changes would be worth an average of just over £2.80 a week. The day after, the Library—whose figures give me far more confidence—suggested that the average family would be approximately £2.08 better off. In exchanges earlier between the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party, it was plain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figure was based on rosy forecasts rather than grim reality.
  Living standards have fallen over the past five months—more than at any time in 40 years. After this Budget, the typical family will still be £670 worse off

  211
  than at the time of the last general election. The Chancellor's figures cannot be trusted. One year ago, he stated that public borrowing in 1996–97 would be £12 billion. Now he states that it will be nearly double—£22 billion. Last year, the Chancellor predicted that investment would grow this year by nearly 6 per cent. Now he says the figure is just 1 per cent. Also last year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the economy would grow by 3.25 per cent. this year. Now he admits that growth is running at only 2.75 per cent.
  The Chancellor argued, in exchanges with my right hon. Friend the deputy leader during his true and excellent assessment of the Budget, that the Budget was all about putting extra money in people's pockets. What extra money—the £9 that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned when he presented his Budget, or the £2.08 that the Library calculated?
  Where are the tax cuts that the Chancellor talked about? Conservative Members waved their Order Papers when the right hon. and learned Gentleman sat down, but, having analysed his speech, they began to realise that they must start looking for a job with a friendly company or a bank, because no way can they win the next general election and hold on to their seats.
  As to increases in local government charges, the Secretary of State for Wales stated in a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that an 11 per cent. increase will be imposed on rates in Wales, which will mean an increase of £35 a year for the average ratepayer. What kind of tax cut is that? To burden the new unitary authorities in Wales, with all their new responsibilities from 1 April, with an 11 per cent. rates increase is absolutely disgraceful, and should seriously be further considered.
  What does this Budget do about job insecurity, or about expensive bureaucrats in the NHS? What are the Government's proposals to solve the negative equity problem in the housing market? Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) referred to the "Kane" programme, so called
  "because that is the name of its distinguished presenter, Mr. Vincent Kane, who has not exactly made a reputation for himself as a Labour supporter. A fortnight ago the programme dealt with poverty and made a convincing case for Wales to be described as the most poverty stricken area in western Europe, certainly on a par with some of western Europe's most devastated areas such as are found in Greece, Portugal, southern Spain, Sardinia and the former East Germany.
  Once vibrant communities in Wales have been totally decimated. In addition to massive unemployment, officially registered and otherwise, wages are deplorably low. If ever there was a case for a minimum wage, it could certainly be made for Wales."
  After my hon. Friend had spoken, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who is not in her place now, asked him to apologise to the people of Wales:
  212
  "I cannot believe that they would thank the hon. Gentleman for describing them as living in an impoverished state and equating them with some grossly chaotic country overseas. I would be furious to be put into such a category, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will later apologise to the people whom he represents."—[Official Report, 4 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 78-80.]
  My hon. Friend's experience, however, does not differ from my experience of my constituency. During the 16 years of Conservative rule, seven collieries there have been closed, making 8,500 miners redundant. The decommissioning of the Port Talbot steelworks put 12,000 steel workers out of work. That makes a total of 20,500 redundancies between 1979 and the end of the miners' strike in 1984. Without economic planning, no constituency could recover from such a blow. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who criticised my hon. Friend, should travel around the country and visit parts of Wales to see the deprivation and squalor there.
  People of all political opinions have said that this Budget was a wasted opportunity. The overwhelming majority of people have found their concerns completely ignored. What measures were included to alleviate the insecurity felt by so many families in respect of jobs, housing, education, hospital services, social security, and increasing drug abuse? That is not to mention the Government's staggering record of failure with bodies such as the Child Support Agency, which has already claimed 35 wasted lives. The Act that set it up should be scrapped as a matter of urgency. In numerous measures, the Government have moved rightwards so as to put clear water between themselves and the Opposition.
  Most Opposition Members, like me, wanted positive steps taken to solve the problems in their constituencies and in the country at large. Our constituents, especially the unemployed, are crying out for help. Some of them in my constituency have been unemployed for 10 years or more. Young people leave education with loans hanging over their heads and degrees in their pockets, desperately seeking work.
  The Ford engine plant in Bridgend announced a few weeks ago that 480 new jobs were to be created under a £340 million expansion programme. It was reported that 11,600 people applied. That means that 11,120 of them are still looking for work in Ogwr borough. This part of Wales has suffered greatly over the past 16 years, and I greatly doubt that it will recover under the Chancellor's economic plans.
  No one will be fooled: this is not the Budget of a Government who have succeeded. After 16 years, they have signally failed, as shown by rising taxes, declining living standards and public services, and increased borrowing. The Budget was the last gasp of a degenerate regime.
  We say that the only long-term solution to our unemployment and public spending difficulties is investment to strengthen the economy, a radical welfare-to-work programme, and a fair tax system that rewards hard work. Only by putting people back to work will we build a strong economy. The Tories should have adopted Labour's plan for a windfall levy on the utilities. Then we could have begun to break the logjam of unemployment and to reduce the price that we are paying for failure. That is the only route to better public services. I am sure that the Labour party will use the next 18 months to campaign for what we are advocating.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: After a week of debates on the Budget, an essential truth remains: given expectations about public services and the level of Government borrowing, the Chancellor had very little room for manoeuvre. Hence this was an honest, shrewd Budget, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on it.
  In the few minutes I have, I want to deal with some of the difficulties and paradoxes facing the Chancellor and those who manage our public finances. The three problems with which I shall deal are also electoral problems for us.
  First, assuming that the figures given me by the Library are broadly correct, the average married man with two children will be paying £150 more in tax and £217 more in national insurance in 1996–97 than he did at the time of the last general election. Doubtless the Labour party will make great play of that. But what the Labour party will not say is that the same man's wages will have increased in real terms by £558, and he will be paying £675 less a year for his mortgage, because of cuts in mortgage interest rates. He will therefore have £877 more in his pocket. That is the honest truth as far as I have been able to determine it from all the conflicting statistics of the past week.
  The fact remains that this average married man will be paying more tax—a challenge that will face the Chancellor before his next Budget. Let us assume that every 1p reduction in the base rate gives my average family man £130 more in his pocket. Let us also assume that he will be paying about £367 more in tax by the next election than he did at the last. Thus, to wipe out the tax increases, and to present us with an attractive electoral message, a 3p cut in the base rate will be needed in the next Budget. That is a very great challenge, because, as my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) made clear, with every year that passes, public spending increases. That is the first paradox and dilemma that faces the Chancellor as he wrestles very ably with these problems.
  The second is concerned with the married man's tax allowance and mortgage tax relief. Again, there are numerous conflicting figures, but from the evidence that I have been able to glean, it seems that that allowance, which was worth £430 in 1991, is worth £268 today. If the cuts since 1988 had not taken place, a married man would be paying £878 less for his mortgage. That is a powerful weapon, which the Labour party will use.
  The only reply that we can make is that what counts is not the tax that a married man pays but also what he takes home. As I said, his mortgage, because of the cut in the base rate, has been reduced by £675. I do not see how we can reverse the long downward trend in mortgage tax relief that we have seen over the past seven or eight years, but we can begin to reverse the cuts in the married man's tax allowance. I say that for good political reasons, because we have to give the powerful message that we are the party that supports the married man. It is perfectly possible, and I beg the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary, as they plan their strategy for the next year, to consider those points.
  The third problem is what I call the four ages of man, and why we are slipping so badly behind—apparently—in the opinion polls. Although they feel that they have made adequate contributions for their old age through
  214
  their national insurance contributions, the elderly are increasingly concerned that those contributions—as people live longer and expectations are greater—are insufficient to cover their needs. Therefore, what the Chancellor did with nursing homes was very shrewd.
  The elderly also feel that some people—they blame in particular unattached teenage mothers—are taking the state for a ride. That may or may not be fair criticism—I do not want to get into that debate—but the elderly blame other sections of the community for what they consider an unfair attack on the resources of the welfare state. They blame the Government for making them contribute more.
  The next generation down—those in their 50s—are increasingly concerned about job insecurity. They may well blame the Government for that, although it has very little to do with the Government. The generation in their 30s and 40s are concerned about negative equity, and, of course, the young are always impatient.
  So in those four ages of man, one sees that there are enormous problems for the Government to deal with. The only solution for us is simply to be honest and to look at the Budget, to look at what we have tried to achieve, to look at our place in the world trading economy, and to tell the truth: that, in terms of real take-home pay, the average man will be better off.
  But we have to do more. I say to the Chancellor that we are laying the foundations for a new socialist consensus if we argue that we can continue the present structure of the welfare state. I am not sure that that will be possible, because expectations will rise so fast that I do not think that we will not be able to meet them.
  Therefore, we must have the courage to indulge in fundamental reform of the welfare state, because the Labour party will always be able to promise to spend more on health, education and social security. I do not think that we will ever be able to match its promises. That again is a fund mental problem that we face in terms of electoral popularity.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would appear from the opening speeches that the Labour party may make all sorts of promises, but one of them is a 60 per cent. tax rate, which will not be very attractive to the British people.
  Mr. Leigh: That is true, although we can always hope, of course, that the Labour party will shoot itself in the foot, as it did in the run-up to the previous election. But I do not think that we can necessarily rely on that.
  I think that we will solve the long-term dilemmas and paradoxes that face us in the management of the welfare state. We have to be prepared to look in the long term at very radical reform. There is no big bang or instant solution in the reform of social security, given that expectations are rising all the time. Nor is it possible to argue in a simplistic way that we can deliver tax cuts and ever-improving standards in health, education and social security, which is what people want. That is a simplistic point of view. The fact is that people want to spend more on their health and on education. It is easy to argue that there is room for huge cuts in social security, until one bears in mind where the money is being spent: on the disabled, pensioners and so on.
  Much of the debate is conducted on an entirely simplistic basis that has no reality in fact. The only way in which we can try to fight our way out of these

  215
  dilemmas and paradoxes in the management of the welfare state is to look for management and efficiency savings, and at where it is possible to privatise. All that is possible, but perhaps we are coming to the end of the road on that.
  I believe, though, that there is a new, extraordinary consensus, which is coming from right and left: from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who heads the Social Security Select Committee, and from people like myself on the right, who argue that one has to reinforce individual responsibility in the management of the welfare state.
  One has to try to create more of a community. I do not propose that we privatise the welfare state; there simply is no public support for that. There is no support either for privatising the national health service or state education. Where individuals make contributions towards their old age or for education, there is support for the idea that they receive much more personal credit than they do at present. At the moment, they believe, rightly, that their contributions are just poured into a bottomless pit. They are given no credit for their contributions.
  They feel, frankly, that other people are taking the state for a ride. It would be an immensely complicated process. It would have to be a rolling programme. There is no way in which one could introduce it in one Budget, two Budgets, or even five. There may even have to be some degree of cross-party consensus.
  I am absolutely convinced that, if we look at how the welfare state will be managed in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, we will be looking at lifetime personal accounts, and people will have confidence that what they pay in for their old age or education will not be raided by the state, whether for tax cuts, for spending in other areas or to manage the economy.
  That is a very attractive philosophy, which we have to start to grapple with. If we do not, we will always be caught between the constant desire, which Conservative Members naturally have, for tax cuts, realising at the same time that the bulk of spending is locked up in these great state bureaucracies: spending on health, education and welfare.
  As part of that process, I see the Treasury not so much involved in a vast churning process of taking from one hand, whether in child benefit and so on, and giving with the other, as becoming much more of a Ministry of Finance, charged with balancing the books, with the welfare state devolved much more into charitable trusts, in which people have real confidence that their savings and investments are protected—not private companies trading for profit, but charitable trusts.
  I see education organised in very much the same way, with the boundaries between state and private education blurring as the money effectively follows the pupil around to whatever school or college he or she attends. That is an attractive solution, which the Treasury should at least be considering. The Treasury would become much more of a Ministry of Finance.
  At the same time, the annual Budget would not be so much an exercise in political management with the Chancellor constantly looking over his shoulder, as he has had to do this week, balancing tax cuts with managing the
  216
  currency because he wishes to bring in interest rate cuts which will be important in terms of the supply-side economy, economics and electoral popularity. He would be looking at the Budget much more from the point of view of a Minister of Finance, balancing the nation's books. The currency would be run by an independent Bank of England, backed by commodities, becoming a true inflation-proof hard currency.
  I accept that those are radical reforms, which could take five, 10, 15 or 20 years to introduce. But we need the courage, vision and determination to debate such reforms. If such issues are discussed in terms of a fatuous party political debate across the Chamber, we will never meet the expectations of the British electorate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are 30 minutes left before the winding-up speeches begin and three hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope they all will.
  8.40 pm
  Ms Judith Church: I shall take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We have heard a number of interesting speeches tonight, particularly from my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). When a matter has been addressed so well, I see no reason in the same debate to repeat points that have already been made.
  I hope tonight to address the concerns of single parents in Britain, the vast majority of whom—nine out of 10—are women. More than that, I want to address the problems of their children who will be the real victims of the measures announced by the Chancellor in his Budget. Many of my constituents are single parents and they are the scapegoats of a Budget that has made the pathway from unemployment into work more difficult.
  As we all know, single parenthood takes many forms—widowhood, the abandonment of women and their children, mothers bringing up their children when the father has failed to acknowledge his responsibility, women who have been separated or divorced who still maintain their children's contact with their father and women who are unable, for many reasons, to live with the father of their children.
  Those parents all care for and love their children, but their lives are challenging and stressful. There are only so many hours in the day, but there are many domestic and caring tasks to undertake and complete. With the addition of paid employment, the burden becomes truly onerous. We all recognise that such a responsibility is better shared between two parents, but we must accept the reality that that is not possible for many people—a growing number in Britain.
  I want to acknowledge the magnificent job which so many single parents do for their children. They deserve our praise and support and, more than that, financial recognition of the additional costs faced by lone parents in bringing up their children. Instead, all they get from the Chancellor in the Budget is a kick in the teeth. That in itself would be bad enough, but what is worse is that the Budget will hurt their children and it is the children

  217
  who are the most important people in our society. They deserve not just our affection and love but our protection and fair provision in the benefits system.
  In his Budget statement, the Chancellor said that steps would be announced
  "to close the gap between single parents benefit and those paid to other families."
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) gave the impression that it is the families with a married man who are the good families, the real families, and that single-parent families are less good. The Chancellor went on to say:
  "The right approach to single parents is neither to penalise them nor to favour them."
  But he has actually shown a far right, extremist and uncaring approach to single parents which is far from what I consider to be the right approach.
  I listened in disbelief as the Chancellor continued. He may have been too involved in delivering his speech to hear, but I actually said, "Not true", when he said:
  "The costs and responsibilities of having children are the same for couples as they are for single people."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1060.]
  The reason why that is not true was given in the Chamber the following day by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He said that the Government had recognised the obvious truth that it is more costly for a single parent to bring up children than for a couple. He said:
  "The 1985 Green Paper on the reform of social security argued that one-parent benefit should be continued
  'as a contribution to the additional costs' … 'faced by lone parents in bringing up children alone'.
  It approved the introduction of a lone-parent premium in order to recognise
  'the extra pressures faced by lone parents.'
  In 1985, the Government recognised that extra pressures and extra costs were faced by lone parents; now it would appear that they do not."—[Official Report, 29 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1216.]
  What has changed in the past 10 years to alter the Government's policy so dramatically?
  The true additional costs of bringing up a child within a single-parent family are far too numerous to list now, but let me cover just a few. There are families with two economically active parents and families where only one parent is economically active and perhaps the wife stays at home to look after the children. In both those cases, the cost of child care is covered either by the additional income of the second earner or because the non-working mother cares for the children for free within the family unit.
  The cost of child care is amazingly high. I am sure that Conservative Members will know that the cost of a nanny is well beyond what my constituents can afford. Even a registered child minder, recognised to be a good but cheaper form of child care, can cost £100 a week for 50 hours of care and another £60 or £70 for an additional child for the same number of hours. That is a tremendous amount of money. Conservative Members are out of touch if they do not recognise that a number of single parents who voted for them at the last general election are horrified at the steps being taken to freeze and reduce their benefits. After-school care of 15 hours a week for two children costs between £50 and £75 a week net.
  218
  In addition, there is the cost of babysitting. It is not a question of a single parent wanting to go out on the town at Ronnie Scott's or wherever it is that the Chancellor thinks single parents might want to go in the evening; it is a question of going to parents' evenings at a child's school—parental involvement in education, which the Government allege they want to encourage—or of going to self-improvement or evening classes so that a single mother can return to the work force or, if she is working, acquire additional qualifications so that she can progress up the ladder and provide a better standard of care for her children, which is what she is trying to do. It is clear that the additional costs are there. They were recognised 10 years ago, but suddenly in this Budget they have disappeared.
  The effect of the Budget on children from lone-parent families will undoubtedly be quite dreadful. Account is not taken of children who are growing up in families without an income earner. Income support takes no account of birthday and Christmas presents, birthday parties, treats such as visits to the zoo and museums and other things that cost a good deal of money, as all of us who are parents recognise. The same applies to lone parents on low wages who receive family credit or who struggle to hold on to their jobs when their children are ill and they must stay at home.
  A Budget such as this, which takes money away from lone parents, hurts children. It puts more pressure on people who, although they may be coping brilliantly now, are struggling to keep their heads above water. Conservative Members do not listen; they do not understand. They do not perceive the economic nonsense of the Government's proposals—for it is economic nonsense to block the pathway into work for those who want to work but cannot afford to, like my constituents, by freezing benefits.
  This tired, discredited, failed Government are out of touch. They have run out of ideas, and the people know that they should be out of office.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) made a comparison between the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and the Reverend Moon. I suggest a somewhat less dramatic comparison between the current Leader of the Opposition and Harold Wilson in 1963–64. Both were new, youngish leaders; there had been a long spell of Conservative Government; both apparently offered change. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield is hitching a ride on the Internet bandwagon, which carries echoes of the way in which the then Leader of the Opposition, Harold Wilson, claimed to embrace the white heat of the technological revolution.
  In the event, the Labour party was just able to squeak into government. We must ensure that that does not happen this time. As one would expect, however, that Labour Government were booted out after six years. As we know, whenever the British people have had a dose of socialism they have booted out the Labour Government at the next available opportunity.
  The time since the last general election in 1992 has been a tough one for Conservative Back Benchers and Conservative activists. Effectively, we have had to do

  219
  things in which we do not really believe. For instance, we were in the exchange rate mechanism, and we had fixed exchange rates. We Conservatives believe—or we certainly should believe—in floating exchange rates; we believe in a free market in exchange rates. We have also had to increase taxes, which was very unpopular not only with the country but with our supporters.
  A comparison with the Labour party can be made in that context as well. Under the current Leader of the Opposition, Labour is also doing things in which I do not think Labour Members truly believe—but they keep quiet about all that, because they are happy to put up with whatever the right hon. Member for Sedgefield says in his quest for No. 10 Downing street. Things would, of course, be different if he were successful in that endeavour.
  The experience of the past three years demonstrates just how difficult it is to control public spending. In the early 1990s, the Conservative Government took their eye off the ball, and allowed public spending to increase beyond a sustainable level. We therefore had no choice but to increase taxes in order to keep the public sector borrowing requirement at a reasonable level. Labour spokesmen make commitment after commitment, day in, day out. They are for ever criticising the Government for not spending enough money. As we know, a recent survey found that four out of 10 speeches made in the House by Labour Members called for more public expenditure. In fact, every Labour Government have increased the basic, or standard, rate of income tax, with one exception.
  Before the last general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) tabled an interesting question. Looking back into history, he asked about the rates of tax that had applied under various Governments. It was revealed that all Labour Governments, with the exception of the first—they came to power in 1924, and remained in power for only nine months; they did not have time to increase taxes—had left office with a higher standard or basic rate of tax than had obtained when they came to power. Now the Labour party says that if it were in government it would introduce a windfall tax on the utilities, which would pay for—so far—11 spending commitments made by a number of Opposition spokesmen. Those spending commitments are on-going, but the windfall tax would be a one-off. I think that Labour would find it impossible to square the circle, and to reconcile the desire for higher public expenditure with its express wish to keep taxes down.
  I do not deny that I should have liked taxes to be reduced further in last week's Budget. There is a strong moral case for tax cuts under a party that believes that people should be allowed to keep more of the money that they earn. I believe that there is a strong economic case as well: consumer confidence is low, and a stimulus in the form of tax cuts would have increased economic activity, which in turn would have generated increased revenue. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—I am pleased to see him in his plaċe—was able to reduce taxes. The fact that he reduced them by £3 billion, as opposed to the £5 billion or so that I would have liked, leaves him with considerable room to reduce interest rates, and I hope that we shall see action on that front in the near future. Indeed, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend will have
  220
  to act on that front if he wishes to meet the target of 3 per cent. growth that he has set for the economy next year.
  When we say that we want taxes to come down, we are always asked where we would reduce public expenditure. That is a fair point. An aspect that causes me concern is the national lottery. I have never been a great supporter of the lottery: I saw it almost as state-sponsored gambling. I went along with it, however, on the ground that, in a single market, it was inevitable that other countries' lotteries would come into this country, and we—the British Exchequer—would lose out on considerable revenue. The national lottery has been an enormous success, generating some £4 billion to £5 billion turnover in its first year. Perhaps more tax should be raised from the lottery. At the moment the tax on the money raised is 12 per cent., but after the Budget pool betting duty will be 26.5 per cent.
  Because of its effect on the economy as a whole—it is affecting economic patterns in a number of ways—perhaps we should treat the national lottery in the same way as we treat the pools companies. I suggest increasing the tax on the lottery to the same as that levied on the pools companies. I also suggest using lottery money rather more flexibly. Most of the money for good causes has to be pumped into capital projects, but much more of it could be used to meet the running costs of charities for example.
  I welcome the Budget's help for the elderly. The 20 per cent. tax on income from savings will help millions of pensioners who, on average, have higher levels of savings. The fact that the Chancellor has been able to introduce that change with no opposition as far as I can see demonstrates how we have improved the debate about taxation generally and tax on savings in particular. In the old days, such income was known as unearned income and the last Labour Government penalised those who received such income with an additional 15 per cent. tax. The reduction of the tax to 20 per cent. for most savers is good news, especially for pensioners who rely so much on income from savings. I welcome the fact that the benefits system is to be more friendly towards elderly people who have long-term savings to pay for care in their old age.
  I am delighted that education will receive substantially more in the next financial year than it received this year. That is right, but there is a problem in that the resources are channelled through local education authorities. I urge all LEAs to ensure that the extra money that we have made available goes to schools.
  The Conservative party is the only one that believes in low taxes and whose philosophy demands that individuals should be allowed to keep more of the money that they earn. It is the only party that believes in private enterprise and free markets. Since 1979, we have made substantial supply-side changes to the British economy across a range of areas. The economy is now in good shape and it is important to maintain the approach that ensures low inflation, a consistent economic policy and competitive corporate taxation. We must also continue deregulation. The best form of deregulation is not to introduce new regulations in the first place.
  Unemployment is falling, and that contrasts with the rest of Europe. The introduction of a national minimum wage and the adoption of the social chapter would be disastrous, especially for young people and for the long-term unemployed. The experience of countries such

  221
  as Spain and France, where youth unemployment is 40 and 25 per cent. respectively, must send a clear message to Opposition Members that a minimum wage and a social chapter would not be good news for the people that they profess to care for, those with few skills. Such people would suffer because of the minimum wage and I hope that the Opposition will drop the approach of increased regulation of the labour market.
  This is the first Budget of a two-Budget strategy that will lead to an improvement in the Government's fortunes. We have to ensure that we avoid the disaster of a socialist Government in the general election of 1997. I commend the Chancellor on his Budget and look forward to next year's, which I am sure will deliver even more.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I shall start by declaring that my constituency party receives money from the Union of Communication Workers. I do not know whether I shall say anything in my speech to require that declaration, but I am so proud of the fact that I am sponsored by a trade union through my constituency party that I wish to put it on record.
  I do not know whether the Chancellor, when he was out of the Chamber, took the trouble to go outside to feel the freezing wind which we are told is blowing from the Arctic. When he does that every day this winter I hope that it will remind him that when elderly people put on their gas or electricity, whether to cook or heat their homes, 8p in every pound that they pay will go to the Treasury. To that must be added standing charges. I have looked at the bills of some of my elderly constituents. Often up to 40 per cent. of the bill goes on VAT and standing charges. That is a terrible indictment of the philosophy behind the Chancellor's Budget last year and which continues this year. I heard someone say something about the Chancellor's language. I think that it was the language of bluff. It is the Chancellor's Budget, but it is really the Tory Government's strategy and their media "spin". The Chancellor said in presenting the Budget that a family on average earnings would be better off next year than this by around £450, around £9 a week, but it was not true. Such a family will not be better off in that way. It was strange that on the same day a Treasury press release on the Budget made the inaccuracy clear. It said:
  "Tax changes … will be worth … on average … over £2.80 a week".
  The day after the Budget, the House of Commons Library issued a bulletin that said:
  "For a single earner couple with two children on average male earnings … of the total … £2.03 (reflects) the real change in income tax, NICs and child benefit."
  Eventually, the Chancellor was forced to admit his own, I call it, exaggerated claim. In a letter on 30 November 1995 to the Leader of the Opposition, he said that
  "The Budget tax changes will leave such a family on average earnings £190 a year better off in cash terms."
  I heard several Conservative Members say how disappointed they were about the position of the married man and about what has happened to the married couples allowance. After freezing the size of the married couples allowance five years running and reducing its rate from 25 per cent. to 15 per cent., the Budget increased the allowance by £70, which is in line with inflation. It is
  222
  now worth £269, just over half the £523 that it would have been worth if it had been uprated in line with inflation and were still available at 25 per cent.
  The Budget increased taxes on petrol, up now, taxes on cars, up now, and taxes on cigarettes, up now. We heard the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) speak about the effect on rural communities. The National Farmers Union for Scotland has written to me and said:
  "In addition to freezing Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances at this year's level, the increase in tax on vehicle fuel will bear heavily on the rural sector, and farming in particular. These increased costs will be reflected throughout the food producing chain on and off farm, and will have to be recovered from the market place"—
  in other words, on prices.
  The Deputy Prime Minister, who opened this debate, was responsible for the Department of Trade and Industry when he said on the Post Office external financing limit on 11 May 1995:
  "I am prepared to agree that in future we shall aim to set the EFL at about half the Post Office's forecast post-tax profit. I hope to make progress in that direction this autumn."—[Official Report, 11 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 885.]
  But what has happened? The external financing limit, which is basically a smash and grab raid on the Post Office's profits, will go to up to £298 million next year; in 1997– 98 it will go up to £317 million and in 1998–1999 it will go to £310 million. The Post Office's assessment says:
  "For every £1 we make, the Treasury is now demanding 66p."
  That is not a 50–50 split. The assessment continues:
  "On top of that we have to pay Corporation Tax and together they leave nothing to invest in The Post Office."
  So much for freeing up the Post Office as promised by the Deputy Prime Minister. As everyone knows, it is basically a smash and grab raid on the Post Office, an attempt to cripple it because the people would not let the Government privatise it.
  On another part of the Government's strategy, the £400 million proposed cuts in social security, I want to give an example that is repeated again and again of what happens in the marginal rate. I shall call it the case of Mrs. Q, who was working and earning £19. Her husband is disabled, is unable to work and receives benefit and benefit for her. She got a job, which allowed her to earn £46. The family lost £30 and every allowance for the wife. When she went to inquire, she was told that the taper had been abolished. It was not a case of earning between £19 and £46, which one would think would be encouraged, and of her losing some benefit: they lost everything that was being gained by the husband for her.
  In relation to incapacity benefit, before people would have had invalidity benefit. There is no doubt in the assessment that they are incapacitated—that has been agreed by medical officers. In April someone on invalidity benefit would have got a pension on top of benefit as an additional sum. Now that individual gets £8, whereas in April under the invalidity benefit he would have had £80. That is a massive cut in the standard of living. It was not someone who wanted to leave work and skive; it was someone who had worked hard all his life, found his health breaking down and needed some help from the state— yet he found himself £72 worse off than someone eligible for that allowance in April 1995.

  223
  I have been told that in the Falkirk area 7,000 invalidity benefit claims are being reprocessed for incapacity benefit. There are 14,000 people on income support, plus 1,400 receiving the severe disablement supplement. Every one of those people—more than 22,000—live in fear of the philosophy behind the Chancellor's Budget. The Government are cutting the welfare state to store money to give away, but people will not believe that the giveaway is worth anything.
  There was a debate last night on the health service. I was impressed by Professor Baumol's analysis of health care when he spoke at the Office of Health Economics annual lecture 1995. His theory was basically that we can afford all the additional costs of health care, even though it is a personally delivered service, from which we cannot get great productivity without taking out staff. He said in his analysis that health care can be afforded only if the rest of the economy maintains its growth and productivity. We must have growth and we must have a productive economy.
  In September, the CBI's report—I believe that it was sent to the Chancellor— said that the manufacturing order book for the UK is now lower than before September 1992. Manufacturing confidence is now lower than it was in September 1992. The Chancellor will recall that it was in September 1992 that Britain was kicked out of the exchange rate mechanism and there was a 16 per cent. forced devaluation of the currency. That has been squandered and we are back where we started—manufacturing order books are down.
  I have looked at the figures for unemployment because the Chancellor has claimed that they are getting better. We must examine two counts. The first is the count done by the unemployment unit, based on the same standard that was used in 1979 under a Labour Government. On that count, there are 3,355,500 people—11.4 per cent.— unemployed, whereas the Government claim that the figure is 2,265,100—8.1 per cent. I want to put on record the definition of the unemployment unit count, because that is very important. It is, "The UU Broad LFS"—that is, the unemployment unit broad labour force survey—
  "is a provisional estimate of unemployed people who have not undertaken any work for pay or profit in the Survey reference week, who want work and are available to start work within two weeks."
  In other words, it is the unused capacity in Britain's labour force. For Scotland, the count is 297,800—11.5 per cent., whereas the Government claim that the figure is 196,100—7.9 per cent.
  Let us examine the Government's unemployment figures. For 1995, it is 8.1 per cent. of the population; for 1994 it was 9 per cent.; for 1993 it was 10.3 per cent; for 1992 it was 9.7 per cent., and so on. The point is that if we are not using that massive amount of productive capacity in our economy, we cannot generate the productivity and the growth that would allow us to do all the things that a Government who were running the economy properly could do.
  I shall conclude. my speech now because I am conscious of the fact that there have been very long speeches. Although I have sat here all day yesterday and all day today, I am being squeezed in at the end of the debate. However, that is the way the place runs. I want to focus on the end of the Chancellor's figures. An important
  224
  speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). If we want to gauge the real state of our economy, we should look at our international trade balance, especially for each year from 1990 to 1994. In 1990, there was an £18 billion net negative figure. There was a £10 billion net negative figure in 1994. This year, the net negative figure so far is only £3 billion, but it will end up at a negative figure of £6 billion and the Chancellor has forecast that in 1996–97 it will reach a negative figure of £5 billion.
  If, after a 16 per cent. devaluation, we cannot actually beat other countries, Britain will turn into something that the right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised, but which was commended by one of his Back Benchers—a country that makes its money by being a tax haven for other countries, laundering their money rather than selling them products. That is the problem with this Budget. It is simply fiddling about. I do not blame the Chancellor —he is a sweeper-up. The real economy is broken. The real economic policy of his Government has failed. The Budget is just fiddling about. The Chancellor is fiddling while the futures of my son and other children are going down the tubes. His Budget will do nothing to help them because it does not address the real problem—the economy of this country, not fiddling about with taxes on the margin.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: This Budget fails the test of investment, fails the test of prudence and fails the test of fairness. That is why we shall vote tonight to give this House the chance to cut that most iniquitous of taxes, VAT on fuel, and why we could not accept the amendment to the law motion as it stands.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: In a moment.
  We shall abstain on the tax changes in the Budget resolutions because although they do not include measures that we should have liked to see, we believe that people have suffered enough from the Government's broken promises and we do not intend to stand in the way of the small relief that the resolutions provide. In addition, we shall not only vote for the public expenditure amendment, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but we shall vote against the Government's public expenditure programme because it is a product of wrong priorities and fails totally to provide the employment, investment and skill strategy needed for a fair society and a strong economy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) spoke with characteristic wisdom of the importance of investment, which is now growing more slowly out of recession than at_ any comparable time this century. He referred to the need for capital allowances—something that we urged on the Government in our Budget submissions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) deplored what he rightly called the "depressing short-termism" of a Budget that leaves the construction industry in slump and does so little for investment or fairness.

  225
  The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) raised the issue of the cuts to the British Council, as did a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I look forward to the Chancellor explicitly referring to that in his winding-up speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said that it was an unfair Budget and, of course, he was right. A fair Budget would not have made the poorest fifth of the population even poorer as a direct result of its measures. A fair Budget would not have rejected, as the Chancellor did, our proposals for a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised monopoly utilities. I do not see how the Government can possibly claim fairness for measures which make more from the poorest while doing nothing about the privatised utilities in which £100 million on share options remain to be cashed in and in the very week of the Budget Yorkshire Water increased its profit by 50 per cent.— not by supplying the people of Yorkshire with water, but by not supplying them with water.
  On privatisation, that industry had a green dowry of £1.4 billion, with £6 billion of debt written off and £3 billion in investment credits set against tax. Yet since privatisation, executive pay has gone up by 339 per cent., profits have trebled, dividends have risen by 57 per cent., pollution incidents have gone up 53 per cent., investment has gone down by 20 per cent. over the past year and almost no mainstream corporation tax has been paid.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) argued, a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised monopoly utilities applied to fund a welfare-to-work programme to help the young and long-term unemployed into real jobs with quality training would have been the cornerstone of any fair Budget. As for the Government's claims that their measures make people £9 a week better off, as my hon. Friends have said, we have exposed and will continue to expose the truth that, even on the Government's figures, only £2 of that can be set against the measures in the Budget, the rest is a Government assumption of earnings growth.
  In his letter responding to my challenge on the matter, the Chancellor conceded that he cannot make his claims stand up as a direct effect of tax changes—only as speculation on growth and wages next year.
  What becomes clearer by the day is that even that little bit the British people have been given back in the Budget will be taken away in other charges. Council tax, travel costs, rents, postal charges, water charges, prescription charges, dental charges, school meal charges and television licences will all go up. Everywhere they look, people will see that what is given with one hand is more than taken away with the other. As always, it is those on the lowest earnings, who are struggling to get off benefits and into work, who will be hit hardest by the increases. If the Government think that people will suddenly start to feel a lot better off as a result of the Budget, they are in for a shock.
  Some of the measures in the Budget are welcome. The lower tax rate on savings income is a step towards the fairness on savings for which we have been calling. The increase in the thresholds for contributions to long-term care is welcome. The cut of 1p in the basic rate, the increase in personal allowances and the 20p band all provide a little welcome relief against the huge tax increases the Chancellor has imposed since the general
  226
  election, but they will still leave typical families £670 a year worse off. People are still paying the price for the Government's record of failure—broken promises year on year and not the tax cuts year on year that they were promised.
  Conservative Members are fond of talking about their instinct on taxation. Yet they now repeat the pledge to end capital gains and inheritance tax. They choose to spend £4.6 billion to benefit the better off, half of it going to the 5,000 wealthiest families in the land, rather than to cut the starting rate of tax which would help the many and especially those moving from welfare to work. It only goes to show that when it comes to instincts, the Tory instinct is for unfairness.
  Mr. Riddick: I very much welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the new 20 per cent. tax on savings, which he said was fairer. Why was it that at the general election the Labour party intended to impose a 9 per cent. surcharge tax on savings income?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture us on promises made at the general election. He should explain to his constituents why he promised tax cuts year on year and why they have had tax increases that mean that they are £670 a year worse off.
  On the expenditure side of the Budget, we see the same sleight of hand at work. We find that the much-vaunted increase for education will depend on council tax increases and cuts in other council services, many of them essential services such as the fire service. Education will face difficulties this year, like the difficulties in Northumberland which have been reported to me. Extra funding, as the Chancellor has promised, does not always translate into improvements in front-line services because of the problems that the Government are causing those services. The extra funding for the police does not add up to the 5,000 extra officers the Home Secretary has promised. In the. health service, we see real cuts next year of 17 per cent. in public capital spending and a 6.5 per cent. cut, even including the hoped-for public finance initiative expenditure, with total capital spending from public and private sources together set to fall by II per cent. over the next three years. Again, more is taken with one hand than is given with the other.
  We have to ask what sort of Government cut overseas aid by 6 per cent. after having wasted £234 million on the Pergau dam and what sort of Government cut the schools subsidy scheme even as they increase UK spending on the common agricultural policy by £100 million. How can it be right to freeze lone parent benefit which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) said, will make it harder for single parents to get into jobs, even as the administrative costs of the Department of Social Security go up this year by £100 million? How can it be right to cut training by 4 per cent. even as the community action programme is dumped? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) was right to stress the damage that those would create. It is no one-nation Budget which ends 40,000 opportunities for young people and in which the Chancellor axes the one programme designed to help young unemployed people with disabilities get into work. For those young people it is not a one-nation Britain but a no-hope Britain. I give way to the Chancellor on no-hope Britain.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has given a long and passionate list of savings in public spending to

  227
  which he is opposed. His arithmetic is wrong and he has distorted several of them. Would it be fair of us to take some of what he said as a commitment that a Labour Government would reverse any of the spending savings? If so, would he like to say what is the cost of his commitment on any of those policy areas?
  Mr. Smith: I will give the Chancellor some commitments. We would make cuts in the assisted places scheme. We would phase it out to put proper resources into cutting class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. We would cut the cost and the waste of rail privatisation and put that money into an integrated transport policy. We would cut the excess bureaucracy in the national health service and put the money into front-line patient care. We would cut the cost of nuclear privatisation. We would look carefully at that extra £100 million for social security running costs which the Chancellor has put in his Budget. Our public expenditure amendment spells out that and much more.
  The welfare-to-work programme that we need to get especially the young and long-term unemployed into jobs with training would be funded by the windfall levy. The phased release of local authority capital receipts for social housing would cut bed and breakfast costs. We would boost front-line patient care and cut class sizes. Those are the choices which a fair Government would be making in a prudent Budget. Flow can the public believe the Government's claims of prudence when they see the neglect of public and private investment in the Budget? The climate of confidence for business to invest will not be created by a Budget which does nothing on capital allowances and nothing to encourage investment for the longer term, which increases VAT thresholds for small businesses by only half the rate of inflation and increases the business rate by 25 per cent. above the rate of inflation. No wonder the deputy director of the British chambers of commerce says:
  "Growth is not enough and will be unsustainable without investment … As a nation we are good at attracting investment from other countries but the question the Chancellor should be asking is why we are not investing in ourselves … If we are to become the enterprise centre of Europe, some redress of these spending priorities needs to take place."
  The Government have taken one or two steps on the PFI that we have long called for. Training for civil servants who will negotiate the scheme will certainly be useful. The Government have failed to clarify the tendering process and the allocation of risk and to establish the new task force that is necessary to get things moving properly.
  As for setting priorities for the PFI, we now have an A-list and a B-list of schemes. It is revealing that they are prioritised not according to their public benefit but according to commercial prospects. It is the privatisation not merely of provision but of the public interest in determining priorities for provision.
  As the reaction of the construction industry shows, the whole history of the PFI has been one of reality falling far short of Government rhetoric. It is no wonder that, since the Budget, the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry of Scotland has said of the PFI plans that he is
  "deeply anxious … When the PF1 came out in 1993, it was additional to Government spending. In fact what we now have is replacement funding."
  228
  Of course, the reality is even worse. The Chancellor's own projections show a real cut of 17.8 per cent. in public capital spending, reduced only to a real cut of 8.4 per cent. when the private finance initiative wish list is included. According to the Red Book, we are faced with the certainty of a £3.9 billion cut in direct Government capital spending, offset only by the hope that the private sector will make up £2 billion of the difference.
  Let us not forget either that PFI spending carries with it revenue consequences and contingent liabilities for the future which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness pointed out in an excellent speech, will count against the public sector. I challenge the Chancellor in his reply to say how the public sector accounts will deal with that because not to account for the future consequences of present commitments is not prudent either.
  The reality is that under the Government, public assets—the infrastructure of competitiveness and fairness—are being run down to pay the costs of economic and social failure. How can this be a prudent Budget when it not only increases public borrowing projections substantially but does so not for productive investment but to cover the shortfall on current Government spending.
  It is bad enough for this year's PSBR to be £7.5 billion greater than forecast last year; for next year's to be £9.9 billion greater; and for the year after next's to be £10 billion bigger. However, for that to happen at the same time as public investment expenditure is being cut by £4 billion over the next three years is imprudence embedded as economic dogma.
  In place of the golden rule that borrowing should be for investment across the cycle we now have Clarke's leaden rule: that investment must fall as far as necessary so that borrowing across the cycle can sustain a current deficit. It is the economics of remortgaging the house and forgoing repairs simply to pay the housekeeping bills.
  I do not think that it has yet sunk in how serious the position is. If the Chancellor's projections turn out to be accurate—and they are based on what the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) called an optimistic growth forecast—the Red Book shows that the Chancellor proposes to borrow between now and the end of decade twice as much as he said that he planned to borrow last year: an extra £39 billion Tory borrowing plan between now and the millennium.
  To put it in perspective, even if the Chancellor's forecasts are accurate, Britain will, over the 1990s, have taken on an extra £200 billion of borrowing as compared with £ 31 billion in the 1980s. Central Government debt interest payments alone will add an extra £33 billion in interest payments on to the shoulders of the British people. [Interruption.] I got that figure from page 69 of the Chancellor's own Red Book statement. He ought to read it.
  It is the old, old story of Conservatives borrowing for their Government before an election that which they would force the people to pay for afterwards. The truth is that the Government are prisoners of their economic failure. It is the same failure on investment, growth, training and unemployment that has plunged Britain down the world prosperity league from 13th to 18th place: 7p

  229
  up, 1 p down—taking with one hand more than they give with the other and borrowing, borrowing all the way. No—for a strong economy, a fair society, sound public finances and quality public services, Britain needs a new start with Labour, a strategy for productive investment and skills to unite a country so divided by the Conservatives and a welfare-to-work programme which will enlist the talents, skills and energies of all our people in common success.
  When it comes down to it, it is all about unfairness with the Tories and fairness with Labour: unfair taxation with the Tories and fair taxation with Labour; an unfair Britain with the Tories and a fair Britain with Labour. That is why the House should vote to cut VAT on fuel and vote for a public expenditure programme to build a fair society and a strong economy.
  For now, all that we have is a Government who have run out of ideas and who are getting by on borrowed money and living on borrowed time. With their credit with the British people exhausted, and the day of reckoning approaching, they know that the Budget cannot save them, and it will not.
  9.34 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) called for a new start with Labour, but unfortunately he said that with 30 seconds to go in his speech, so he had no time to explain to us what that new start might mean in particular. We have had that type of speech every day throughout the Budget debate. The trouble is that the Labour party has introduced all the new American public image approaches to electioneering, and it has begun to reduce politics to the level of light entertainment.
  The Labour party has given an illustration this evening, yet again, of an official Opposition party that has decided that, when faced with real problems, it will not oppose, it cannot oppose and it certainly will not propose anything to deal with them. I accept that the hon. Member for Oxford, East touched on those problems with some vigour, but he produced no pledges or polices. He certainly produced nothing—quite remarkably—that disagreed with any of the Budget propositions that I have brought before the House.
  There is no Labour alternative, for which in some ways there is much thanks, but it is the vacuum that the Labour party represents that poses the greatest threat to the present strides that the British economy is making towards, I believe, being one of the strongest economies in western Europe.
  The Opposition have retreated before a Budget that combined a reduction in taxation, balanced by a reduction in public spending, while still protecting increased spending on the key services of health, education and the police. The Budget has also kept borrowing firmly under control, so that, outside the House, I have a won a reputation for responsibility, honesty and sound finance. I am happy to be accused of all those things, which frankly no Labour Chancellor would ever be accused of in a thousand years.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that the Government would provide resources to appoint 5,000 extra police officers. The resources they have given to North Yorkshire will provide
  230
  just 30 extra police officers, leaving North Yorkshire police force still 70 below establishment, and eight police officers below the number in post under the last Labour Government, when the crime rate stood at 20,000 crimes a year. That crime rate is now more than 60,000 crimes a year, and in my county it is still rising. When will the Chancellor make good his pledges to provide the policing that people in North Yorkshire need to protect them and to catch the criminals?
  Mr. Clarke: The increase of 5,000 officers is spread over a number of years. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the first year. [Interruption.] No, of course it is spread over a number of years, and was clearly expressed to be so. The money is there to provide for that increase in police manpower. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) delved back to the days before civilianisation. Now we have more policemen, we have more officers engaged in the targeting of crime, such as the successful operation about which we heard today. Additional real resources will go to the police service.
  I must point out to the hon. Member for York what I have pointed out to other Labour Members frequently throughout the debate. There was not a word in the Opposition winding-up speech tonight, or a word from any the shadow Treasury Front-Bench. team about an undertaking to spend any more than we are undertaking to give in increased spending on the police services. That is true of all our tax provisions and spending plans.
  On tax, we have achieved great progress towards the 20p basic rate. We have widened the lower rate limit, raised the threshold and cut the basic rate to 24p.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will do so in a second, but I cannot give way too much in my short winding-up speech. Let me make some progress.
  The various reasons that have been given for not voting against the cut in basic rate make no sense at all. Labour Members use the litany that "the people have suffered too much". When that was given to them by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), they might have asked him to explain how it answers the question, "Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to reduce the rate to 24p?" After five days of debate, the Opposition Treasury team cannot make up their minds on that difficult question. They abstain.
  We have reduced taxation for savers. The hon. Member for Oxford, East was clearly in favour of that. The cut in the small companies' corporation tax will greatly benefit many small businesses. I am not sure about the Labour party's abstention on that.
  I heard the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) busily denying that there was any correlation between economic success and low rates of corporate taxation. He was worried about that, and anxious to demonstrate that there were successful countries that had higher rates of taxation. To what level does the Labour party intend to raise corporate taxation? The right hon. Member argued that raising corporate taxation does not affect economic success. I am rather

  231
  suspicious about Labour's abstention on that. We have also provided relief on the uniform business rate. The Labour party has no view on any of those tax proposals.
  The Liberal party, however, does have a view. Liberal Members will agree that it is absolutely pathetic for the Labour Front Bench to have a so-called shadow Chancellor and a so-called shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury who cannot even tell the hungry masses behind them what opinion they have on any tax proposal in the Budget.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is in favour of a penny increase in income tax, which has become a vote against my penny. It was a penny increase at the last election. The Liberals have spending commitments of almost £5 billion. They keep spending the same penny over and over again. It is a Liberal party windfall tax.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Chancellor knows that that is not true, and that our spending commitments were fully costed. He started by saying that he had a well earned reputation for sound finance, and he knows that I have given him credit for that. How can he explain to the House the fact that, last year, when forecast borrowing was £21 billion and growth was 4 per cent., the position was so serious that he had to increase taxes? This year, when borrowing is forecast at £22.5 billion and growth has slowed to 1.6 per cent. apparently there is room to cut taxes. Is that sound financial management?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree that last year's forecasts have not proved correct in the outturn, not because we have lost control of public spending, but because the revenues from the taxation to which the Opposition appear to object have fallen short and because of a slowdown, particularly in our key overseas markets.
  The Budget has reacted to that by keeping borrowing on a firm downward course towards balance in the medium term. It is absurd for the Liberals first to go in the opposite direction to the Labour party and say that they are a tax-increasing party, and then to claim to outdo me in achieving a balanced Budget in the medium term—which I am not sure is their objective. The Liberals are pretty free with their spending pledges, as they would spend a 1p increase in income tax several times over.
  We have controlled public spending. The shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford, East, complained about that. Some of my hon. Friends raised small objections. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the British Council. It is clear that we have to make some cuts in our overseas expenditure. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has distributed public spending restraint between the diplomatic service, the British Council and the BBC overseas service. It is for him to judge the respective priority of those services and where the costs should properly fall, but one cannot exempt any area if one is to achieve public expenditure control.
  It is that which has paved the way for the tax cuts that I have just described. The tax cuts were targeted in the way I described at areas that will help the country's performance, but they were financed by the public expenditure cuts to which the hon. Member for Oxford, East objected.
  232
  At one stage, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) described as "peanuts" my tax cuts of £3.5 million, which is one half of 1 per cent. of GDP—without jeopardising our fiscal aims. Over three Budgets, I have taken £53 billion out of public spending plans, and almost all those measures were opposed by the Labour party. We have done that in a way that allows an extra £878 million to be spent on schools. We will increase national health service spending by more than £1 billion next year.
  It is no use Labour Members trying, as several did, to hold up as a cut a switch out of publicly procured capital spending to current spending on patient care, disregard the £650 million already built in on top for savings in bureaucracy in the health services, and disregard the funds that the private finance initiative—which Labour supports—will undoubtedly bring in.
  The Budget has allowed for an extra 5,000 police officers and 10,000 closed circuit television cameras.
  We are a reforming Government. Some people outside doubt our ability to deliver the tight spending plans that we have produced. They ignore the fact that, to achieve cuts, we have not gone in for a routine candle-ends public spending round. We now have a Cabinet Committee that examines priorities. That is how we can cut overall and still increase spending on health, schools and the police.
  That obviously throws Opposition Members completely, because they do not understand how we do that. We are also moving to resource accounting and modernising the civil service. The modernisation of government and the introduction of measures such as the private finance initiative and contracting out—which Labour often opposes—make credible the delivery of essential public services costing less than 40 per cent. of GDP.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Chancellor has tried to convince the public that his tax cuts are worth £9. What assumption did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make as to the level of earnings increases to arrive at that figure of £9?
  Mr. Clarke: Last year and in many previous years, the Opposition asked a great number of questions about the effect on the average family of Budget assumptions and changes. That is a perfectly fair question, and the Treasury has a standard methodology. It involves making assumptions about the growth of earnings, inflation and the economy, and setting those against all taxes and charges.
  We have done that again. That reflects reality. My Budget statement made clear the difference in tax. The Opposition are deliberately being stupid when they pretend that the figure of £9 per week was ever held up by anybody as a £9 per week reduction in taxation. It is the increase in spending power of the average family as a result of economic growth, the success of our policies, the low inflation that we have achieved, the growth in earnings that we expect and reductions in taxation. An Opposition who are silent about all the Budget measures are in no position to deride or gainsay them.
  Mr. Andrew Smith rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but will he bounce to his feet and say what proposal he has that would affect that figure of £9? The

  233
  hon. Gentleman does not seem to deny in the slightest that the average family will expect to be £9 a week better off next year—£450 a year—as a result of the success of this Government's policies.
  Mr. Smith: Will the Chancellor answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth)? Of that £9, how much is earnings, and what assumption did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make about the rate of earnings increase? A figure will do.
  Mr. Clarke: A whole set of assumptions are set out in the Red Book, as the hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows. One assumption is a 1¾ per cent. increase in earnings— which is not the same as pay settlements. That assumption is alongside a lot of other well-founded assumptions about inflation and growth based on the Budget, which add to the increased purchasing power of the average family.
  Take-home pay, after tax and after inflation, will be about £450 higher next year. We have never tried to conceal any of this; if the Labour party would quote my Budget speech accurately, all of it would be perfectly clear.
  I return to my theme, and make no apology for doing so. We have heard not a word from the Opposition that would affect this figure in the slightest: not a word on taxation, not a word on spending. No one on the Labour Front Bench has committed the Labour party to spending a penny more on the national health service than we propose. Indeed, when we suggested that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), a Labour Treasury spokesman, had talked of increases in spending on the NHS only 12 months ago, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East demanded that the Chief Secretary withdraw his heinous allegation.
  Not a penny more for the police has been pledged by any Labour Front-Bench spokesman. Nor has a penny more for education been pledged—which is surprising, because this morning the party came up with some half-baked but expensive-looking proposals in this respect. I quote the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, who said this evening:
  "Labour's plans add up to a curious concoction of the good, the bad, the idealistic and the unrealistic. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of realising these plans without substantial additional expenditure".
  The Labour party stands accused of not offering a penny piece in support of any of their proposals.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I am just coming to the hon. Gentleman's point about VAT on fuel.
  The Labour party says that it will not vote against anything. Voting against the Budget simply means voting against the resolution changing the law—totally meaningless. The Budget is a combination of tax proposals and, nowadays, of spending proposals. The Opposition ain't going to vote for any particular tax or against any particular tax. They do not have a spending proposal—yet they are going to vote against the Budget. Meanwhile, they appear to be going to join the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his Scottish nationalist friends, although not actually in voting
  234
  for lower VAT on fuel. They are just sticking their noses out of the burrow, and they appear, just possibly, to be wavering towards a policy that might pave the way to reducing VAT —
  Mr. Prescott: What about last year?
  Mr. Clarke: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what happened last year. The idea was proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan last year. Then, the Labour party could not say how it would pay for the idea, which is no doubt why the Opposition retreated last year, in a faintly insulting fashion, from the very thing they are now going to vote for.
  Let me repeat what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said then about the very matter which this evening constitutes the one vote of principle on which the Labour party says it will take a stand:
  "This nationalist amendment is another cynical ploy from an increasingly opportunist and desperate party. The nationalists know that the amendment has no chance of succeeding because there has been no campaign behind it … The nationalist amendment has been tabled for them to be able to play party politics with people's VAT bills. It is a cynical ploy from a party that sees its support slipping in the Scottish polls."—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol.253, c.49.]
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East tried to invent a reason to explain why the Labour party is standing on its head on this issue within the space of 10 months. Rather fatuously, he suggested that there was otherwise a risk of not getting the 8 per cent. through last year. But a few moments before in that debate, the Paymaster General had made it perfectly clear that there was no such risk. So Labour has ended up tonight supporting the Scottish nationalists in what Labour described but 10 months ago as a cynical ploy.
  Mr. Salmond: Let us test the Chancellor's consistency. Does he remember, in his last Budget speech, and in other speeches, defending the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel on the grounds that there were increased resources for the home energy efficiency scheme? Now that he has cut that scheme by 30 per cent.—£30 million—200,000 fewer homes will be insulated. Would he care to revisit his arguments for VAT on domestic fuel?
  Mr. Clarke: The home energy efficiency scheme is hugely successful, and I am second to none in my support of it. Expenditure on the scheme had reached a total of £100 million a year, and it has insulated many thousands of homes. It is a great breakthrough in energy efficiency, and it is also helping many people on lower incomes with their bills.
  The reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that he is cutting back from our peak of £100 million last year is that, as it stands, the scheme is open to people above retirement age, regardless of income. In principle, it is open for applications from people who happen to be fortunate enough to have retired with considerable resources of their own. It was never intended that the grant should be available to people of better-than-average incomes when they retire. Therefore, it will be more selectively offered to retired people.
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for the details that lie behind the change in estimates for that scheme.

  235
  I have not heard a member of the Labour party commit to having any view one way or the other on that, either. I have some sympathy on this occasion with the Scottish National party for pressing the matter, because only in Scotland does the Labour party have a taxation policy at all. In Scotland, everybody would have to pay 3p in the pound more. Income tax will be higher than it is south of the border. It is no good the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East looking uncomfortable. No policy has come forward. He tried one—a 10p rate. We have heard very little more about that rate. The £8 billion that it would cost has somehow never been explained.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East gives no other rates. Earlier, when I asked the deputy Leader of the Opposition why he would not give any other tax rates, and repeated the question that I asked the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who is also on the Front Bench—whether she could name a tax cut in this Budget that she is against, and whether she could give me a spending limit that she should raise—he could not answer that, either. He says that we have to wait.
  If it is too difficult for the Opposition to read the Red Book, and if, in the mass of statistics, there is some nugget of information about the British economy that is holding them back from propounding the policies that they are so anxious to introduce, I would like to know what it is. But if there is something missing, why is it possible to give a 10p rate at the bottom and yet not say what rate they would put at the top? Why do they need to look at the books to say that lop will be the bottom rate, if they cannot say what rate they would contemplate for the higher-paid? We all know perfectly well that they are the only Front Benchers in history to have a split when they have no policy.
  But the right hon. Gentleman want to puts up the tax on the higher-paid. I have known him for 25 years. His idea of the higher-paid is not very high at all in the opinion of many—[Interruption.] Many frustrating things appear to happen on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps we should have had the shadow Foreign Secretary come in and try to give us a policy, because somebody should.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was asked a question by the Deputy Prime Minister, he, being an honest and candid man, for one moment paused and gave a rather endearing smile. I think that it was the smile that must have inspired the poetry that my right hon. Friend quoted, and of which Conservative Members are all so deeply envious. When the right hon. Gentleman gives that sweet smile, he is meant to use the words "New Labour". They have absolutely nothing else to say.
  As I said when I began, there is a serious problem in all this. It is a problem for Opposition Members. They all went on and on about cuts in public spending—the hon. Member for Oxford, East quoted an absolute litany. He had a better reply when I asked him what the Labour party was promising to increase spending on. He did not give me an answer, but everybody cheered while he announced a list of cuts that either added up to nothing or were giving up a lot of privatisation proceeds, which will not do very much about the borrowing requirement, on which he claimed that he would do better than me. He has no answer. He did not promise a thing, and he is not going to vote against the tax cut.
  236
  Has the great Labour and trade union movement come to this? Well, it has. The Opposition are not new Labour, they are not one-nation Conservatives, they are not ex-socialists; they are nothing on policy. Handing over to them a great economic recovery would take us back to recession in a very short time indeed.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 307.

  Division No. 6]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashdown, Fit Hon Paddy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  Battle, John

  Dixon, Don

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beggs, Roy

  Dowd, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bell, Stuart

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eastham, Ken

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Etherington, Bill

  Benton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Berry, Roger

  Fatchett, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Faulds, Andrew

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blunkett, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Boateng, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

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

  Foulkes, George

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burden, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Byers, Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Garrett, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Canavan, Dennis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cann, Jamie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cattle, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Chidgey, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Church, Judith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hain, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hardy, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Connarty, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corston, Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Margaret

  237

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Murphy, Paul

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Parry, Robert

  Hutton, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Pendry, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pope, Greg

  Jamieson, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Tessa

  Radice, Giles

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'edg'n)

  Rendel, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Lloyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Salmond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCartney, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Clare

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Soley, Clive

  Maddock, Diana

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Alice

  Speller, John

  Mendelson, Peter

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marek, Dr John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Maxton, John

  Stott, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meale, Alan

  Straw, Jack

  Michael, Alun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Milburn, Alan

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Miller, Andrew

  Timms, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Touhig, Don

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Trimble, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Turner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Tyler, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  238

  Wallace, James

  Wise, Audrey

  Walley, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilson, Brian

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Winnick, David

  Mr. John Cummings.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Ancram, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baldry, Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bates, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evennett, David

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Bowls, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brandreth, Gytes

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gallie, Phil

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gill, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gillen, Cheryl

  Burns, Simon

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butcher, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Peter

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Cash, William

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Neil (Talton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coe, Sebastian

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Congdon, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cran, James

  Hendry, Charles

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  239

  Hicks, Robert

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Horam, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Pickles, Eric

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Gwilyn (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knapman, Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knox, Sir David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sackville, Tom

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, Sir David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stem, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marland, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Marlow, Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Merchant, Piers

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trend, Michael

  240

  Trotter, Neville

  Whittingdale, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Willetts, David

  Walden, George

  Wilshire, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Whitney, Ray

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question Put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 285.

  Division No. 7]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Ancram, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Cran, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'byire)

  Baldry, Tony

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bates, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beggs, Roy

  Delvin, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dicks, Terry

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  Body, Sir Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Booth, Hartley

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bowis, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burns, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Butcher, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Butler, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Cash, William

  French, Douglas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gallie, Phil

  Churchill, Mr

  Garnier, Edward

  241

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Madel, Sir David

  Gorst, Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malone, Gerald

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mans, Keith

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marland, Paul

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Harris, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Mills, Iain

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Heald, Oliver

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hendry, Charles

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Horam, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Paice, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Pawsey, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jessel, Toby

  Pickles, Eric

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Key, Robert

  Richards, Rod

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Riddick, Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knapman, Roger

  Robathan, Andrew

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

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

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knox, Sir David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sackville, Tom

  Legg, Barry

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Leigh, Edward

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lidington, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacGregor, RI Hon John

  Smyth, The Rev Martin

  242

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Trend, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trimble, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spring, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Stephen, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stem, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Streeter, Gary

  Watts, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wheeler, RI Hon Sir John

  Sykes, John

  Whitney, Ray

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Willetts, David

  Temple-Moms, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Ainger, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Allen, Graham

  Church, Judith

  Alton, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Coffey, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Stuart

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cox, Tom

  Benton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth & Kinross)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blunkett, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

  Denham, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dewar, Donald

  Burden, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Byers, Stephen

  Dobson, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Etherington, Bill

  Canavan, Dennis

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Cann, Jamie

  243

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Litherland, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  Livingstone, Ken

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fisher, Mark

  Loyden, Eddie

  Flynn, Paul

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McAllion, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCartney, Ian

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCartney, Robert (North Down)

  Galbraith, Sam

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Galloway, George

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gapes, Mike

  McFall, John

  Garrett, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  George, Bruce

  McLeish, Henry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  MacShane, Denis

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Madden, Max

  Gordon, Mildred

  Maddock, Diana

  Graham, Thomas

  Mahon, Alice

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marek, Dr John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow,

  Grocott, Bruce

  Shettleston)

  Gunnell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hain, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hardy, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Milburn, Alan

  Henderson, Doug

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Home Robertson, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

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

  Murphy, Paul

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Diner, Bill

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Hutton, John

  Parry, Robert

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Ingram, Adam

  Pendry, Torn

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pickthall, Calin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Janner, Greville

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Tessa

  Radice, Giles

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Rendel, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rooker, Jeff

  244

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salmond, Alex

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dennis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Short, Clare

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Simpson, Alan

  Wallace, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Snape, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, Brian

  Spellar, John

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Stott, Roger

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Straw, Jack

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mr. John Cummings.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply, acquisition or importation otherwise than by—

  (i) zero-rating or exempting supplies of goods which are, or are to be, subjected to a fiscal or other warehousing regime; or

  (ii) zero-rating or exempting supplies of services on or in relation to such goods;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax otherwise than to persons constructing or converting buildings in cases where the construction or conversion is not in the course or furtherance of a business;

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

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

  MADAM SPEAKER then, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 50 (Ways and Means Motions), put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

    2. SPIRITS (RATE OF DUTY)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) In section 5 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, for "£20.60" there shall be substituted "£19.78".

    (2) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 28th November 1995.

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

    3. WINE AND MADE-WINE (RATES OF DUTY)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) In the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979—

    (a) in Part I of the Table for "200.64", where it appears as the rate for wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent. but not exceeding 22 per cent., there shall be substituted "187.24"; and

    (b) in Part II of that Table, for "20.60" there shall be substituted "19.78".

    (2) Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (1) of this Resolution shall come into force on 1st January 1996 and sub-paragraph (b) shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 28th November 1995.

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

    4. CIDER (RATE OF DUTY)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the rate of duty on cider under section 62 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.

    5. HYDROCARBON OIL (RATES OF DUTY AND REBATE)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That—

    (1) In section 6(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, for "£0.3614" and "£0.3132" there shall be substituted "£0.3912" and "£0.3430", respectively.

    (2) In section 8(3) of that Act, for "£0.3314" there shall be substituted "£ 0.2817".

    (3) In section 11(1) of that Act, for "£0.0166" and "£0.0214" there shall be substituted "£0.0181" and "£0.0233", respectively.

    (4) In section 14(1) of that Act, for "£0.0166" there shall be substituted "£ 0.0181".

    (5) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 28th November 1995.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 40.

    Division No. 8]

    [10.30 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Booth, Hartley

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Boswell, Tim

    Mason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Amess, David

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Ancram, Michael

    Bowis, John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Ashby, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Baldry, Tony

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Burns, Simon

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Burt, Alistair

    Bates, Michael

    Butcher, John

    Batiste, Spencer

    Butler, Peter

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Carrington, Matthew

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Body, Sir Richard

    Cash, William

    246

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Heald, Oliver

    Churchill, Mr

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Clappison, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hendry, Charles

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Congdon, David

    Horam, John

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Couchman, James

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Cran, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jack, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Devlin, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Dicks, Terry

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Dover, Den

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Key, Robert

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knapman, Roger

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Elletson, Harold

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evennett, David

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Faber, David

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Legg, Barry

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Leigh, Edward

    Forman, Nigel

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forth, Eric

    Lidington, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lightbown, Sir David

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Lord, Michael

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Luff, Peter

    French, Douglas

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gale, Roger

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gallie, Phil

    MacKay, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Gill, Christopher

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gillan, Cheryl

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Madel, Sir David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gorrnan, Mrs Teresa

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, Sir John

    Malone, Gerald

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Mans, Keith

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marlow, Tony

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hamilton, Sir Archibald

    Mates, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hanley, R1 Hon Jeremy

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hannam, Sir John

    Merchant, Piers

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mills, Iain

    Harris, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hawksley, Warren

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    247

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Sproat, Iain

    Moss, Malcolm

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Steen, Anthony

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Stern, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Streeter, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Sumberg, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Sweeney, Walter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Sykes, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Paice, James

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Thomason, Roy

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Pickles, Eric

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Tracey, Richard

    Richards, Rod

    Trend, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Trotter, Neville

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Robathan, Andrew

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Viggers, Peter

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Walden, George

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Waller, Gary

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Ward, John

    Sackville, Torn

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Timothy

    Waterson, Nigel

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Watts, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wells, Bowen

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Whitney, Ray

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Whittingdale, John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Sims Roger

    Wilkinson, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Willetts, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wilshire, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wolfson, Mark

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Yeo, Tim

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Young, Hon Sir George

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Tellers For the Ayes:

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Spring, Richard

    Mr. Derek Conway.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Beggs, Roy

    Lewis, Terry

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Loyden, Eddie

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    McCera, The Reverend William

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Chidgey, David

    Maddock, Diana

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Davies, Chris (L' Boro & S' worth)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Rendel, David

    Hayvey, Nick

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Salmond, Alex

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Skinner, Dannis

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Smyth, the Reverend Martin

    248

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Trimble, David

    Tellers For the Nose:

    Tyler, Paul

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

    Wallace, James

    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    6. HYDROCARBON OIL (REBATE ON UNLEADED PETROL)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 13A of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.

    7. HYDROCARBON OIL (RELIEF FOR MARINE VOYAGES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made repealing sections 18 and 19(1)(a) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.

    8. TOBACCO PRODUCTS (RATES OF DUTY)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) For the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 there shall be substituted—

    "TABLE

    1. Cigarettes

    An amount equal to 20 per cent. of the retail price plus £62.52 per thousand cigarettes.

    2. Cigars

    £91.52 per kilogram.

    3. Hand-rolling tabacco

    £85.94 per kilogram.

    4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

    £40.24 per kilogram."

    (2) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 28th November 1995.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    9. GENERAL BETTING DUTY (RATE)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) In section 1(2) of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, for "7.75 per cent." there shall be substituted "6.75 per cent."

    (2) This Resolution shall apply in relation to bets made on or after 1st March 1996.

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

    10. POOL BETTING DUTY (RATE)
    Resolved,
    That in section 7(1) of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, for "32.50 per cent." there shall be substituted, in relation to bets the stake money on which has been or is paid on or after 3rd December 1995, "27.50 per cent.".
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    11. AMUSEMENT MACHINE LICENCE DUTY
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about amusement machine licence duty.

    12. EXCISE DUTIES (REPAYMENTS, ALLOWANCES AND DRAWBACKS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made restricting the repayments, drawbacks and allowances that may be made or paid in respect of excise duties on goods.

    13. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (INCREASE IN GENERAL RATE)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That—

    (1) In Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, in paragraph 1(2) for "£135" there shall be substituted "£140".

    (2) Paragraph (1) of this Resolution applies in relation to licences taken out after 28th November 1995.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 41.

    Division No. 9]

    [10.43 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Churchill, Mr

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Clappison, James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Clark, Rt Michael (Rochford)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Amess, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Ancram, Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Congdon, David

    Ashby, David

    Conway, Derek

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Couchman, James

    Baldry, Tony

    Cran, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Bates, Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Day, Stephen

    Bendall, Vivian

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Devlin, Tim

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Dicks, Terry

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Booth, Hartley

    Dover, Den

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan, Alan

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Dunn, Bob

    Bowis, John

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Dykes, Hugh

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Brazier, Julian

    Elletson, Harold

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Evennett, David

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Faber, David

    Burns, Simon

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Butcher, John

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Butler, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Forth, Eric

    Carrington, Matthew

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Carttiiss, Michael

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Cash, William

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    French, Douglas

    250

    Gale, Roger

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gallie, Phil

    Maclean, Ht Hon David

    Garnier, Edward

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gill, Christopher

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Madel, Sir David

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Malone, Gerald

    Gorst, Sir John

    Mans, Keith

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marlow, Tony

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Mates, Michael

    Hamilton, Sir Archibald

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Merchant, Piers

    Hannam, Sir John

    Mills, Iain

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Harris, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hawkins, Nick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hawksley, Warren

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hayes, Jerry

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heald, Oliver

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hicks, Robert

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Norris, Steve

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Horam, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Page, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jack, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jessel, Toby

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Richards, Rod

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Key, Robert

    Robathan, Andrew

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knox, Sir David

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kynoch, George

    Sackville, Tom

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Legg, Barry

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Leigh, Edward

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lidington, David

    Sims, Roger

    Lightbown, Sir David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lord, Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Luff, Peter

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    251

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spring, Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Walden, George

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Steen, Anthony

    Waller, Gary

    Stephen, Michael

    Ward, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stewart, Allan

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sumberg, David

    Watts, John

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wells, Bowen

    Sykes, John

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Whitney, Ray

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Willetts, David

    Thomason, Roy

    Wilshire, David

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Wood, Timothy

    Thurnham, Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Tracey, Richard

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trend, Michael

    Mr. Roger Knapman and

    Trotter, Neville

    Mr. Gary Streeter

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Maddock, Diana

    Beggs, Roy

    Marek, Dr John

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Rendel, David

    Chidgey, David

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Salmond, Alex

    Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Harvey, Nick

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D(Strgfd)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Trimble, David

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Tyler, Paul

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Wallace, James

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Mr. Simon Hughes and

    McCrea, The Reverend William

    Mr. Don Foster.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    14. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (ELECTRICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, in paragraph 2(1)(a), after "150 cubic centimetres" there shall be inserted "or the motorcycle is an electrically propelled vehicle".
    (2) In paragraph 4F of that Schedule—

    (a) in sub-paragraph (1), after "electrically propelled vehicle" there shall be inserted "other than a motorcycle (within the meaning of Part II of this Schedule)"; and

    (b) sub-paragraph (2) shall be omitted.

    (3) In section 62 of that Act, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(1A) For the purposes of this Act, a vehicle is not an electrically propelled vehicle unless the electrical motive power is derived from—

    (a) a source external to the vehicle, or

    (b) an electrical storage battery which is not connected to any source of power when the vehicle is in motion."

    (4) Paragraphs (1) to (3) of this Resolution apply in relation to licences taken out after 28th November 1995.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    15. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (STEAM POWERED VEHICLES, ETC.)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, after paragraph 4E there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    "4EE. A steam powered vehicle is a special concessionary vehicle."
    (2) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, in sub-paragraph (2)(b), after "excepted vehicle" there shall be inserted "or a special concessionary vehicle".
    (3) In paragraph 4(2) of that Schedule, for "and is" there shall be substituted "which is not a special concessionary vehicle and which is".
    (4) In paragraph 5 of that Schedule, after sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
    "(5A) A vehicle is not a recovery vehicle if it is a special concessionary vehicle."
    (5) In paragraph 6(1) of that Schedule, after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
    "and which is not a special concessionary vehicle."
    (6) In paragraph 7(2) of that Schedule, after "Part IV," there shall be inserted "IVA,".
    (7) In paragraph 16 of that Schedule, in sub-paragraph (1)(a), after "Part II, IV," there shall be inserted "IVA,".
    (8) This Resolution applies in relation to licences taken out after 28th November 1995.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.16.

    16. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (VEHICLES CAPABLE OF CONVEYING LOADS)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 shall be amended as mentioned in paragraphs (2) to (8) of this Resolution.
    (2) In paragraph 4(2), immediately before paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    "(bb) a vehicle falling within sub-paragraph (2A) or (2B),".
    (3) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
    "(2A) A vehicle falls within this sub-paragraph if—

    (a) it is designed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description; but

    (b) it is not so used or is not so used for hire or reward or for or in connection with a trade or business.

    (2B) A vehicle falls within this sub-paragraph if—
    (a) it is designed or adapted for use with a semi-trailer attached; but
    (b) it is not so used or, if it is so used, the semi-trailer is not used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description."
    (4) In paragraph 16(1), paragraph (b), and the word "or" immediately preceding it, shall be omitted.
    (5) In paragraph 9(2), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "and
    (c) to any rigid goods vehicle which is used loaded only in connection with a person learning to drive the vehicle or taking a driving test,".
    (6) In paragraph 10(1), after "exceeding 12,000 kilograms" there shall be inserted ", which does not fall within paragraph 9(2)(b) or (c)".
    (7) In paragraph 11(2), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "and
    (c) to any tractive unit to which a semi-trailer is attached which is used loaded only in connection with a person learning to drive the tractive unit or taking a driving test,".
    (8) After paragraph 18 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    19.—(1) In this Part "driving test" means any test of competence to drive mentioned in section 89(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
    (2) For the purposes of this Part a vehicle or a semi-trailer is used loaded if the vehicle or, as the case may be, the semi-trailer is used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description."
    (9) In section 7 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, in subsection (2)—

    (a) after "goods vehicle" there shall be inserted "or a special vehicle"; and

    (b) after "goods vehicles" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, special vehicles".

    (10) After subsection (7) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(8) In this section "special vehicle" has the same meaning as in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1."
    (11) Subject to paragraph (13) of this Resolution, paragraphs (1) to (8) of this Resolution apply in relation to licences taken out after 28th November 1995.
    (12) Paragraph (13) of this Resolution applies where a vehicle licence is taken out—

    (a) on or before 28th November 1995, and

    (b) at the rate applicable (at the time it is taken out) under Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

    (13) While the licence is in force duty shall not, by virtue of this Resolution, become chargeable under section 15 of that Act.
    (14) Paragraphs (9) and (10) of this Resolution apply in relation to applications made after 28th November 1995.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    17. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (OLD VEHICLES)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In Schedule 2 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, immediately before paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    1A.—(1) A vehicle of a description mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) is an exempt vehicle at any time if it was constructed more than 25 years before the beginning of the year in which that time falls.
    (2) The descriptions of vehicles are—

    (a) a vehicle in respect of which no annual rate is specified by any provision of parts II to VIII of Schedule 1;

    (b) a motorcycle which does not exceed 450 kilograms in weight unladen:

    (3) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) "motorcycle" has the same meaning as in Part II of Schedule 1."
    (2) In Schedule 1 to that Act, in paragraph 1—

    (a) for paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be substituted "the general rate"; and

    (b) sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) shall be omitted; and, in paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (2) shall be omitted.

    (3) In section 2(4) of that Act, for the words from "whichever" to the end there shall be substituted "the general rate currently specified in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1".
    (4) In that Act—

    (a) in section 13, in subsection (3)(b),

    (b) in section 13 as substituted under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4, in subsection (4)(b), and

    (c) in section 36(3)(b),

    for "1(1)(a)" there shall be substituted "1".
    (5) This Resolution has effect in relation to times after 28th November 1995.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    18. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (REBATES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 19 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

    19. VALUE ADDED TAX (VALUE OF IMPORTED GOODS)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) Section 21 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (2) of that section at the end of paragraph (a) the word "and" shall be omitted.
    (3) For paragraph (b) of that subsection there shall be substituted—
    "(b) all incidental expenses, such as commission, packing, transport and insurance costs, up to the goods' first destination in the United Kingdom; and
    (c) if at the time of the importation of the goods from a place outside the member States a further destination for the goods is known, and that destination is within the United Kingdom or another member State, all such incidental expenses in so far as they result from the transport of the goods to that other destination;
    and in this subsection "the goods' first destination" means the place mentioned on the consignment note or any other document by means of which the goods are imported into the United Kingdom, or in the absence of such documentation it means the place of the first transfer of cargo in the United Kingdom."
    (4) This Resolution shall have effect in relation to goods imported on or after 1st January 1996.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    20. VALUE ADDED TAX (FISCAL AND OTHER WAREHOUSES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made imposing charges to value added tax in connection with regimes applying to fiscal and other warehouses.

    21. VALUE ADDED TAX (ANTI-AVOIDANCE: GROUPS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the application of section 43 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 in cases where things are done otherwise than for a genuine commercial purpose.

    22. VALUE ADDED TAX (WORK ON MATERIALS, ETC.)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) The Value Added Tax Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) Section 22 shall be omitted.
    (3) After subsection (2) of section 30 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(2A) A supply by a person of services which consist of applying a treatment or process to another person's goods is zero-rated by virtue of this subsection if by doing so he produces goods, and either—
    (a) those goods are of a description for the time being specified in Schedule 8; or
    (b) a supply by him of those goods to the person to whom he supplies the services would be of a description so specified.".
    (4) In subsection (5) of section 55, after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following—
    "; or
    (c) any supply of services consisting in the application to another person's goods of a treatment or process which produces goods a supply of which would fall within paragraph (a) above.";
    and the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a) shall be omitted.
    (5) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 shall be omitted.
    (6) This Resolution shall apply to supplies made on or after 1st January 1996.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    23. VALUE ADDED TAX (SUPPLIES OF GOLD)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In section 55 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, for paragraph (a) of subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
    "(a) any supply of goods consisting in fine gold, in gold
    grain of any purity or in gold coins of any purity; or".
    (2) This Resolution applies in relation to any supply after 28th November 1995.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    24. VALUE ADDED TAX (SMALL GIFTS)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In Schedule 4 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, in paragraph 5(2)(a), for "£10" there shall be substituted "£15".
    (2) This Resolution shall apply where a gift is made after 28th November 1995.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    25. VALUE ADDED TAX (PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT)
    Resolved,
    That provision amending section 28 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 may be made about the manner in which payments on account of value added tax are to be made.

    26. VALUE ADDED TAX (PENALTIES)
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In section 67 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994—

    (a) in subsection (1)(a), after "6" there shall be inserted ", 7"; and

    (b) in subsection (3)(a), for "or 6" there shall be substituted ", 6 or 7".

    (2) Subject to paragraph (3) of this Resolution, paragraph (1) of this Resolution shall apply in relation to—

    (a) any person who becomes liable to be registered by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 on or after 1st January 1996; and

    (b) any person who becomes liable to be registered by virtue of that sub-paragraph before that date but who has not notified the Commissioners of Customs and Excise of the liability before that date.

    (3) In relation to a person falling within paragraph (2)(b) of this Resolution, section 67 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 shall have effect as if in subsection (3)(a) for the words "the date with effect from which he is, in accordance with that paragraph, required to be registered" there were substituted "1st January 1996".
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    27. LANDFILL TAX
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for charging a tax on disposals of material on or under land.

    28. INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR 1996-97)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That—
    (1) Income tax shall be charged for the year 1996-97, and for that year—

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

    (b) the basic rate shall be 24 per cent.; and

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

    (2) For the year 1996-97 section 1(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply—

    (a) as if the amount specified in paragraph (aa) were £3,900; and

    (b) as if the amount specified in paragraph (b) were £25,500;

    and, accordingly, section 1(4) of that Act shall not apply for the year 1996-97.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
    The House proceeded to a Division:—
    Mr. Michael Brown(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some Labour Members who want to vote against this motion are being forbidden to do so by Labour Whips, who are blocking the entrance to the Division Lobby. Will you have the Serjeant at Arms investigate?
    Madam Speaker: Members wishing to vote one way or the other in any Division are at liberty to do so. The doors are open.
    Mr. Brown: But they are not getting in, even though they want to.
    Madam Speaker: If any hon. Member wants to vote, there is a door open here.
    The House having divided: Ayes 313, Noes 38.

    Division No.10]

    [10.56 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Devlin, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dicks, Terry

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Amess, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Ancram, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan, Alan

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Ashby, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Elletson, Harold

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bates, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Faber, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forman, Nigel

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    Booth, Hartley

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bowis, John

    French, Douglas

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gale, Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gallie, Phil

    Brazier, Julian

    Garnier, Edward

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Gill, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorst, Sir John

    Burns, Simon

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butler, Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Sir Archibald

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Cash, William

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hannam, Sir John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Harris, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawksley, Warren

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hayes, Jerry

    Colvin, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Congdon, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Conway, Derek

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hicks, Robert

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Couchman, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Cran, James

    Horam, John

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

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Day, Stephen

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    258

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hunter, Andrew

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Jack, Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Pawsey, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jessel, Toby

    Pickles, Eric

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Key, Robert

    Richards, Rod

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Riddick, Graham

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Knight, R Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knox, Sir David

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sackville, Tom

    Legg, Barry

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Leigh, Edward

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lidington, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lightbown, Sir David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lord, Michael

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Sims, Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    McCrea, The Reverend William

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    MacKay, Andrew

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Madel, Sir David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Spring, Richard

    Malone, Gerald

    Sproat, Iain

    Mans, Keith

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Marland, Paul

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marlow, Tony

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stephen, Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stern, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stewart, Allan

    Mates, Michael

    Sumberg, David

    Mawhinney, R Hon Dr Brian

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Sykes, John

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Thomason, Roy

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tracey, Richard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Trend, Michael

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Trimble, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Trotter, Neville

    Norris, Steve

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Page, Richard

    Walden, George

    Paice, James

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    259

    Waller, Gary

    Wilkinson, John

    Ward, John

    Willetts, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Wilshire, David

    Waterson, Nigel

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Watts, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wells, Bowen

    Wood, Timothy

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Yeo, Tim

    Whitney, Ray

    Whittingdale, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Mr. Roger Knapman and

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Mr. Gary Streeter.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Lewis, Terry

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Loyden, Eddie

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

    Madden, Max

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Maddock, Diana

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Chidgey, David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Rendel, David

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Salmond, Alex

    Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Harvey, Nick

    Tyler, Paul

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Wallace, James

    Jones, Leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Mr. Simon Hughes and

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Mr. Don Foster

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Total:18

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    29. LOWER RATE TAX ON SAVINGS
    Resolved,
    That the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows—
    (1) After section 1 there shall be inserted the following section—
    ['APPLICATION OF LOWER RATE TO INCOME FROM SAVINGS]
    1A.—(1) Subject to sections 469(2) and 686, so much of any person's total income for any year of assessment as—
    (a) comprises income to which this section applies, and
    (b) in the case of an individual, is not income falling within section 1(2)(b),
    shall, by virtue of this section, be charged for that year at the lower rate, instead of at the rate otherwise applicable to it in accordance with section 1(2)(aa) and (a).
    (2) Subject to subsection (4) below, this section applies to the following income—

    (a) any income chargeable under Case III of Schedule D other than—

    (i) relevant annuities and other annual payments that are not interest; and

    (ii) amounts so chargeable by virtue of section 119 or 120;

    (b) any income chargeable under Schedule F; and

    (c) subject to subsection (4) below, any equivalent foreign income.

    (3) The income which is equivalent foreign income for the purposes of this section is any income chargeable under Case IV or V of Schedule D which—

    (a) is equivalent to a description of income falling within subsection (2)(a) above but arises from securities or other possessions out of the United Kingdom; or

    260

    (b) consists in any such dividend or other distribution of a company not resident in the United Kingdom as would be chargeable under Schedule F if the company were resident in the United Kingdom.

    (4) This section does not apply to—

    (a) any income chargeable to tax under Case IV or V of Schedule D which is such that section 65(5)(a) or (b) provides for the tax to be computed on the full amount of sums received in the United Kingdom; or

    (b) any amounts deemed by virtue of section 695(4)(b) or 696(6) to be income chargeable under Case IV of Schedule D.

    (5) So much of any person's income as comprises income to which this section applies shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above and any other provisions of the Income Tax Acts as the highest part of his income.
    (6) Subsection (5) above shall have effect subject to section 833(3) but shall otherwise have effect notwithstanding any provision requiring income of any description to be treated for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts (other than section 550) as the highest part of a person's income.
    (7) In this section "relevant annuity" means any annuity other than a purchased life annuity to which section 656 applies or to which that section would apply but for section 657(2)(a)."
    (2) In section 4, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(1A) As respects deductions from, and tax treated as paid on, any such amounts as constitute or (but for the person whose income they are) would constitute income to which section 1 A applies, subsection (1) above shall have effect with a reference to the lower rate in force for the relevant year of assessment substituted for the reference to the basic rate in force for that year."
    (3) In section 326B—

    (a) in subsection (2)(b)(ii), for the words from "basic rate on" to the end of the sub-paragraph there shall be substituted "applicable rate on any interest or bonus paid on the account before that time;" and

    (b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

    "(2A) In subsection (2)(b)(ii) above "the applicable rate" means—

    (a) in the case of interest or bonus paid before 6th April 1996, the basic rate for the year of assessment in which the payment was made; and

    (b) in any other case, the lower rate for the year of assessment in which it was made."

    (4) In section 350, in subsection (1), for "basic rate" there shall be substituted "applicable rate"; and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(1A) In subsection (1) above "the applicable rate" means the rate which is applicable to the payment under section 4."
    (5) In paragraph (a)(i) of subsection (2) of section 582, for "basic" there shall be substituted "applicable"; and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(2A) In subsection (2) above "the applicable rate", in relation to a year of assessment, means whichever of the basic rate or the lower rate for that year is the rate at which the person by or through whom the bonds are issued would have had to deduct income tax from the amount of interest in question if that amount had been actually paid by or through him."
    (6) In subsection (I) of section 737, after "shall apply" there shall be inserted "(subject to subsection (1A) below)"; and for subsection (1A) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
    "(1A) The deduction of tax which is deemed to have been made under subsection (1) above shall be taken to have been made at the lower rate as if the deemed annual payment were income to which section IA applied; and—
    (a) the reference to the applicable rate in subsection (1) of section 350, so far as it has effect by virtue of subsection (1) above, and
    (b) Schedule 16, so far as it so has effect,
    shall be construed accordingly."
    (7) In section 737C(6), for "basic" there shall be substituted "lower".
    (8) In Schedule 3—

    (a) in paragraph 1(c), for "basic" there shall be substituted "lower"; and

    (b) in paragraph 6A—

    (i) in sub-paragraph (1), for "applicable" there shall be substituted "lower"; and

    (ii) sub-paragraph (4) shall cease to have effect.

    (9) Paragraphs (1) and (5) to (7) of this Resolution have effect in relation to the year 1996-97 and subsequent years of assessment, paragraphs (2), (4) and (8) of this Resolution have effect in relation to payments on or after 6th April 1996, and paragraph (3) of this Resolution has effect as respects withdrawals on or after 6th April 1996.
    (10) Where any subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) falls to be construed in accordance with section 4 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, that legislation (whenever it was made) shall be construed, in relation to payments on or after 6th April 1996, subject to subsection (1A) of that section.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    30. INCOME TAX (PERSONAL ALLOWANCES)
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) For the year 1996-97, the amounts specified in the provisions mentioned in paragraph (2) of this Resolution shall be taken to be as set out in that paragraph; and, accordingly, section 257C(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, so far as it relates to the amounts so specified, shall not apply for the year 1996-97.

    (2) In section 257 of that Act—

    (a) the amount in subsection (1) shall be £3,765;

    (b) the amount in subsection (2) shall be £4,910; and

    (c) the amount in subsection (3) shall be £5,090.

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

    31. BLIND PERSON'S ALLOWANCE
    Resolved,
    That—
    (1) In section 265(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, for "£1,200" there shall be substituted "£1,250".
    (2) This Resolution shall apply for the year 1996-97.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    32. RELIEF FOR INTEREST (LIMIT FOR 1996-97)
    Resolved,
    That, for the year 1996-97, the qualifying maximum defined in section 367(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be £30,000.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    33. CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1996)
    Resolved,
    That corporation tax shall be charged for the financial year 1996 at the rate of 33 per cent.

    34. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES: 1996)
    Resolved,
    That, for the financial year 1996—

    (a) the small companies' rate shall be 24 per cent.; and

    (b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be nine four-hundredths.

    35. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, ETC.
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about government securities and securities on which amounts are payable out of public revenue or out of the revenue of any government or of any public or local authority or institution outside the United Kingdom.

    36. LOAN RELATIONSHIPS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for the purposes of corporation tax about relationships in which a company stands, or is to be treated as standing, in the position of a creditor or debtor in relation to a debt arising from the lending of money.

    37. DISCOUNTED SECURITIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for the purposes of income tax about securities issued at a discount.

    38. LIVING ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED FOR EMPLOYEES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the amount chargeable to income tax where living accommodation is provided for a person by reason of his employment.

    39. BENEFICIAL LOANS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending the provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 dealing with beneficial loan arrangements.

    40. PAYE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for modifying the effect of the Income Tax Acts in cases where an agreement is made between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another person as to the amount in respect of tax on the emoluments of employees or office-holders for which that other person is to be accountable to those Commissioners.

    41. SELF-ASSESSMENT
    Resolved,
    That provision for the purpose of facilitating the operation of self-assessment may be made about the manner in which, the periods as respects which and the times at which—

    (a) assessments may be made or varied, and

    (b) matters may be determined for the purposes of the making of assessments.

    42. PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY TO INCOME TAX
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made relating to payments on account of liability to income tax.

    43. CHARITABLE DONATIONS (PAYROLL DEDUCTION SCHEMES)
    Resolved,
    That, for the year 1996-97, section 202(7) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect with the substitution of "£1,200" for "£900".
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    44. SHARE OPTION SCHEMES
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about share option schemes, rights obtained under such schemes and shares obtained by the exercise of such rights.

    45. TAX RELIEF FOR CLASS 4 CONTRIBUTIONS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about tax relief for Class 4 contributions within the meaning of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

    46. RELIEF FOR CERTAIN ANNUAL PAYMENTS
    Resolved,
    That section 347A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply to any payment made on or after 6th April 1996—

    (a) in pursuance of any obligation which falls within section 36(4)(a) of the Finance Act 1988, and

    (b) for the benefit, maintenance or education of a person (whether or not the person to whom the payment is made) who attained the age of 21 before 6th April 1994,

    as if that obligation were not an existing obligation within the definition contained in section 36(4) of the Finance Act 1988.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

    47. GOVERNMENT PILOT SCHEMES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for the purposes of income tax about temporary arrangements made by the Secretary of State or any Northern Ireland department for the purpose of facilitating a decision as to whether, or to what extent, provision should be made on a permanent basis for or in relation to the payment of a benefit, allowance, grant or other amount.

    48. FOREIGN INCOME DIVIDENDS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about foreign income dividends.

    49. UNAUTHORISED UNIT TRUSTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the rate at which income tax is chargeable on income arising to the trustees of a unit trust scheme to which section 469 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 applies.

    50. TRANSFER ON DEATH UNDER THE ACCRUED INCOME SCHEME
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 721 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    51. PAYING AGENTS AND COLLECTING AGENTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about dividends falling to be paid or received by persons acting, or treated as acting, as paying agents or collecting agents.

    52. MANUFACTURED PAYMENTS, REPOS, ETC.
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about manufactured payments, about the sale and repurchase of securities and about the amount taken to be paid or payable in respect of any sale, repurchase or other transfer of securities to which a manufactured payment relates.

    53. CANCELLATION OF TAX ADVANTAGES (TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending paragraph D of section 704 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    54. TRUST MANAGEMENT EXPENSES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about the setting-off of trust management expenses against income.

    55. INSURANCE AND CAPITAL REDEMPTION BUSINESS
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for the purposes of corporation tax about the carrying on of insurance business and about capital redemption business.

    56. INSURANCE COMPANIES (PROVISIONAL REPAYMENTS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending Schedule 19AB to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    57. QUALIFYING LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made in connection with the requirements to be satisfied if a policy of life insurance is to be a qualifying policy.

    58. LOANS TO PARTICIPATORS, ETC.
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 419 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    59. CHARGEABLE GAINS (NON-RESIDENT COMPANIES)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending section 13 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

    60. CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending Chapter IV of Part XVII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    61. DIRECTIONS RELATING TO SALES AT AN UNDERVALUE OR OVERVALUE
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending subsection (3) of section 770 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the provision re-enacted in that subsection.

    62. PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the disposal of assets consisting in, or connected with, a licence or other right to search for or win petroleum.

    63. INHERITANCE TAX RELIEFS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made amending sections 113A and 124A of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

    64. BANKING
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made in connection with banking.

    65. QUOTATION OR LISTING OF SECURITIES
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made for modifying references in enactments relating to taxation to the quotation or listing of securities.

    66. COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND ARTISTS' RECEIPTS
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made with respect to sections 534, 535, 537, 537A and 538 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

    67. STAMP DUTY (SPOILED INSTRUMENTS)
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about stamp duty where—

    (a) an instrument is inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled; and

    (b) another instrument is made between the same parties and for the same purpose.

    68. STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made about stamp duty reserve tax.

    69. SCHEDULE 2 TO THE AGRICULTURE ACT 1993
    Resolved,
    That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made modifying the operation of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Agriculture Act 1993.

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

  PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
  Resolved,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision taking effect in a future year for amending section 186 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable by the Secretary of State by virtue of provisions of that Act relating to vehicle excise and registration.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Don-ell, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. Michael Jack do prepare and bring it in.

  FINANCE BILL
  Mr. Jack accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
MADAM SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion relating to Public Expenditure, pursuant to Order [22 November].
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House welcomes the public expenditure plans announced by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech on 28th November; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its continued firm control of public spending and its success in reducing bureaucracy, increasing efficiency and tackling fraud, while providing more resources for the delivery of key public services; applauds Her Majesty's Government's determination to reduce further the share of national income taken by the State; and commends the Government for the success of its Private Finance Initiative and the other innovative ways it is forming partnerships with the private sector to improve the efficiency and quality of public services.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Amendment proposed to the Question, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'rejects the waste, misallocation of resources, the wrong choice of priorities and the huge bills paid for an economic failure which has taken Britain under the Conservatives from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league and which has brought the real cuts in front-line services now contained in the Government's public expenditure statement; recognises the unacceptable levels and effects of unemployment including the cost to public finances now at £20 billion a year and the fact that it is because the Government is spending these huge sums paying the bills of failure that it is now cutting capital investment, cutting entitlements to social security and overseas aid and cutting the school milk scheme; calls for a welfare to work programme financed by a windfall levy on the monopoly

267
utilities that will get people back to work, reduce the costs of economic failure and release resources for front-line public services; notes that the Government's Budget proposals are a sleight of hand, because what is given with one hand is taken with the other through increases in Council Tax, prescription charges, rent levels, postal charges and transport costs; calls for an approach based on fairness and progressivity, encouraging work and opportunity, with a strategy for long-term productive investment, skills, employment and regional development; on expenditure priorities, calls on the Government to release capital receipts on a phased basis to allow local authority building and employment creation as a result; calls for switches of resources to smaller class sizes from phasing out the Assisted Places Scheme, to front line patient care from the cost of National Health Service bureaucracy and to investment in transport from the cost of rail privatisation; and calls for the transformation of the failed private finance initiative which has become a back door for privatisation into genuine public-private partnership, with a new taskforce to get investment moving'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 310.

Division No. 11]

[11.10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Corbett, Robin

Ainger, Nick

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Corston, Jean

Allen, Graham

Cousins, Jim

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cox, Tom

Armstrong, Hilary

Cummings, John

Ashton, Joe

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Austin-Walker, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Barnes, Harry

Cunningham, Roseanna

Barron, Kevin

Dalyell, Tam

Battle, John

Darling, Alistair

Bayley, Hugh

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Denham, John

Bennett, Andrew F

Dewar, Donald

Benton, Joe

Dixon, Don

Bermingham, Gerald

Dobson, Frank

Berry, Roger

Donohoe, Brian H

Betts, Clive

Dowd, Jim

Blunkett, David

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Boateng, Paul

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bradley, Keith

Eastham, Ken

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Etherington, Bill

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Burden, Richard

Fatchett, Derek

Byers, Stephen

Faulds, Andrew

Caborn, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Callaghan, Jim

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell-Savours D.N

Foulkes, George

Canavan, Dennis

Fyfe, Maria

Cann, Jamie

Galbraith, Sam

Chisholm, Malcolm

Galloway, George

Church, Judith

Gapes, Mike

Clapham, Michael

Garrett, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

George, Bruce

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clelland, David

Godman, Dr Norman A

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Godsiff, Roger

Coffey, Ann

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cohen, Harry

Gordon, Mildred

Connarty, Michael

Graham, Thomas

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

268

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Grocott, Bruce

Morgan, Rhodri

Gunnell, John

Morley, Elliot

Hain, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Hall, Mike

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hanson, David

Morris, RI Hon John (Aberavon)

Hardy, Peter

Mowlam, Marjorie

Harman, Ms Harriet

Mudie, George

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mullin, Chris

Henderson, Doug

Murphy, Paul

Heppell, John

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hinchliffe, David

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hodge, Margaret

O'Hara, Edward

Hoey, Kate

Olner, Bill

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Home Robertson, John

Parry, Robert

Hood, Jimmy

Pearson, Ian

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pendry, Tom

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

Pickthall, Colin

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Pike, Peter L

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Pope, Greg

Hoyle, Doug

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Hutton, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Illsley, Eric

Purchase, Ken

Ingram, Adam

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Radice, Giles

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld H)

Raynsford, Nick

Jamieson, David

Reid, Dr John

Janner, Greville

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Rogers, Allan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Rooker, Jeff

Jowell, Tessa

Rooney, Terry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Keen, Alan

Rowlands, Ted

Khabra, Piara S

Ruddock, Joan

Kilfoyle, Peter

Salmond, Alex

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Sedgemore, Brian

Lewis, Terry

Sheerman, Barry

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Litherland, Robert

Short, Clare

Livingstone, Ken

Simpson, Alan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Skinner, Dennis

Llwyd, Elfyn

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Loyden, Eddie

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

McAllion, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McAvoy, Thomas

Shape, Peter

McCartney, Ian

Soley, Clive

McCrea, The Reverend William

Spearing, Nigel

Macdonald, Calum

Spellar, John

McFall, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Steinberg, Gerry

McLeish, Henry

Stevenson, George

McNamara, Kevin

Stott, Roger

MacShane, Denis

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McWilliam, John

Straw, Jack

Madden, Max

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mahon, Alice

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mandelson, Peter

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Marek, Dr John

Timms, Stephen

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Tipping, Paddy

Martlew, Eric

Touhig, Don

Maxton, John

Vaz, Keith

Meacher, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Meale, Alan

Walley, Joan

Michael, Alun

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wicks, Malcolm

Milburn, Alan

Wigley, Dafydd

Miller, Andrew

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Wilson, Brian

269

Winnick, David

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wise, Audrey

Worthington, Tony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wray, Jimmy

Mrs. Jane Kennedy and

Wright, Dr Tony

Mr. Dennis Turner.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Day, Stephen

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Devlin, Tim

Amess, David

Dicks, Terry

Ancram, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dover, Den

Ashby, David

Duncan, Alan

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Dunn, Bob

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Durant Sir Anthony

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Baldry, Tony

Elletson, Harold

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bates, Michael

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Beggs, Roy

Evennett, David

Bellingham, Henry

Faber, David

Bendell, Vivian

Fabricant, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fishburn, Dudley

Body, Sir Richard

Forman, Nigel

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Booth, Hartley

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Boswell, Tim

Forth, Eric

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bowls, John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Brandreth, Gyles

French, Douglas

Brazier, Julian

Gale, Roger

Bright, Sir Graham

Gallie, Phil

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Garnier, Edward

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gill, Christopher

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gillan, Cheryl

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Budgen, Nicholas

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Burns, Simon

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Burt, Alistair

Gorst, Sir John

Butcher, John

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Butler, Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Carrington, Matthew

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Hague, Rt Hon William

Cash, William

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hampson, Dr Keith

Churchill, Mr

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Clappison, James

Hannam, Sir John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Harris, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Coe, Sebastian

Hawkins, Nick

Colvin, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Congdon, David

Hayes, Jerry

Conway, Derek

Heald, Oliver

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hendry, Charles

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hicks, Robert

Couchman, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Cran, James

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

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

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Horam, John

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

270

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Page, Richard

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Paice, James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Pawsey, James

Hunter, Andrew

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jack, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jenkin, Bernard

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jessel, Toby

Powell, William (Corby)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rathbone, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Richards, Rod

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Riddick, Graham

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Key, Robert

Robathan, Andrew

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Kirkhope, Timothy

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Knox, Sir David

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sackville, Tom

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Legg, Barry

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Leigh, Edward

Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lidington, David

Shersby, Sir Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hai Sir Peter (Fareham)

Sims, Roger

Lord, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Luff, Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Soames, Nicholas

MacKay, Andrew

Speed, Sir Keith

Maclean, Rt Hon Davi

Spencer, Sir Derek

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Madel, Sir David

Spink, Dr Robert

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spring, Richard

Major, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

Malone, Gerald

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mans, Keith

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marland, Paul

Steen, Anthony

Marlow, Tony

Stephen, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stem, Michael

Marshal, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stewart, Allan

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sumberg, David

Mates, Michael

Sweeney, Waiter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Sykes, John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Mills, Iain

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moate, Sir Roger

Thomason, Roy

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Moss, Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nelson, Anthony

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tracey, Richard

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trend, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Trimble, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Trotter, Neville

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Norris, Steve

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Viggers, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Ottaway, Richard

Walden, George

271

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Wilkinson, John

Waller, Gary

Willetts, David

Ward, John

Wilshire, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Waterson, Nigel

Wolfson, Mark

Watts, John

Wood, Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Yeo, Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Young, Rt Hon George

Whitney, Ray

Whittingdale, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Widdecombe, Ann

Mr. Roger Knapman and

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Mr. Gary Streeter.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 276.

Division No. 12]

[11.25pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Coe, Sebastian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Colvin, Michael

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Congdon, David

Amess, David

Conway, Derek

Ancram, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Ashby, David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Couchman, James

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Cran, James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Baldry, Tony

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Day, Stephen

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Bates, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Batiste, Spencer

Dicks, Terry

Beggs, Roy

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Bellingham, Henry

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bendall, Vivian

Dover, Den

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan, Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dunn, Bob

Booth, Hartley

Durant, Sir Anthony

Boswell, Tim

Dykes, Hugh

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Elletson, Harold

Bowls, John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bright, Sir Graham

Evennett, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Faber, David

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fabricant, Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Fishburn, Dudley

Budgen, Nicholas

Forman, Nigel

Burns, Simon

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Burt, Alistair

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Butcher, John

Forth, Eric

Butler, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Carrington, Matthew

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Carttiss, Michael

French, Douglas

Cash, William

Gale, Roger

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gallie, Phil

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Garnier, Edward

Churchill, Mr

Gill, Christopher

Clappison, James

Gillan, Cheryl

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

272

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorst, Sir John

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mates, Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mawhinney, R Hon Dr Brian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hague, Rt Hon William

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Mills, Iain

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Moate, Sir Roger

Hannam, Sir John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hargreaves, Andrew

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Harris, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Moss, Malcolm

Hawkins, Nick

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Hawksley, Warren

Nelson, Anthony

Hayes, Jerry

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heald, Oliver

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Hendry, Charles

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hicks, Robert

Norris, Steve

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Ottaway, Richard

Horam, John

Page, Richard

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Paice, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Pawsey, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Pickles, Eric

Hunter, Andrew

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jack, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Powell, William (Corby)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rathbone, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Richards, Rod

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Key, Robert

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

King, Rt Hon Tom

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knight, R Hon Greg (Derby N)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knox, Sir David

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sackville, Tom

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Legg, Barry

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Leigh, Edward

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shersby, Sir Michael

Lidington, David

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luff, Peter

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Soames, Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Speed, Sir Keith

MacKay, Andrew

Spencer, Sir Derek

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Spink, Dr Robert

Madel, Sir David

Spring, Richard

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sproat, Iain

Malone, Gerald

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mans, Keith

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marland, Paul

Steen, Anthony

Marlow, Tony

Stephen, Michael

273

Stern, Michael

Walden, George

Stewart, Allan

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Sumberg, David

Waller, Gary

Sweeney, Walter

Ward, John

Sykes, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Waterson, Nigel

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Watts, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Wilkinson, John

Thurnham, Peter

Willetts, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tracey, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Trend, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Trimble, David

Yeo, Tim

Trotter, Neville

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Viggers, Peter

Mr. Roger Knapman and

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Mr. Gary Streeter.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

coffey

Ainger, Nick

Cohen, Hary

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Connarty, Michael

Allen, Graham

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Alton, David

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Corbett, Robbin

Armstrong, Hillary

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Corston, Jean

Ashdown, Joe

cousins, Jim

Austin-Walker, John

Cox, Tom

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cummings, John

Barness, Harry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Barron, Kevin

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Battle, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Bayley, Hugh

Cunningham, Roseanna

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Dalyell, Alistair

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Bennett, Andrew F

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Benton, Joe

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bermingham, Gerald

Denham, John

Berry, Roger

Dewar, Donald

Betts, Clive

Dixon, Don

Blunkett, David

Dobson, Frank

Boateng, Paul

Donohoe, Brian H

Bradley, Keith

Dowd, Jim

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Eagle, Ms Angela

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

Eastham, Ken

Burden, Richard

Etherington, Bill

Byers, Stephan

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Caborn, Richard

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Callaghan, Jim

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Fisher, Mark

Canavan, Dennis

Flynn, Paul

Cann, Jamie

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Chidgey, David

Foulkes, George

Chisholm, Malcolm

Fyfe, Maria

Church, Judith

Galbraith, Sam

Clapham, Michael

Galloway, George

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Gapes, Mike

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Garrett, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

George, Bruce

Cleland, David

Gerrard, Neil

Clwyn, Mrs Ann

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

274

Godman, Dr Norman A

Madden, Max

Godsiff, Roger

Maddock, Diana

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mahon, Alice

Gordon, Mildred

Mandelson, Peter

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Marek, Dr John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Martlew, Eric

Grocott, Bruce

Maxton, John

Gunnell, John

Meacher, Michael

Hain, Peter

Meale, Alan

Hall, Mike

Michael, Alun

Hanson, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hardy, Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Milburn, Alan

Harvey, Nick

Miller, Andrew

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Henderson, Doug

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Heppell, John

Morgan, Rhodri

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morley, Elliot

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wynshawe)

Hodge, Margaret

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hoey, Kate

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Home Robertson, John

Mudie, George

Hood, Jimmy

Mullin, Chris

Hoon, Geoffrey

Murphy, Paul

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

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hoyle, Doug

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pearson, Ian

Hutton, John

Pendry, Tom

Illsley, Eric

Pickthall, Colin

Ingram, Adam

Pike, Peter L

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pope, Greg

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Janner, Greville

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Randall, Stuart

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Raynsford, Nick

Jowell, Tessa

Reid, Dr John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rendel, David

Keen, Alan

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'ty NW)

Khabra, Piara S

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kirkwood, Archy

Rogers, Allan

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rocker, Jeff

Lewis, Terry

Rooney, Terry

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Litherland, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Livingstone, Ken

Ruddock, Joan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Salmond, Alex

Llwyd, Elfyn

Sedgemore, Brian

Loyden, Eddie

Sheerman, Barry

Lynne, Ms Liz

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McAllion, John

Short, Clare

McAvoy, Thomas

Simpson, Alan

McCartney, Ian

Skinner, Dennis

McCrea, The Reverend William

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Macdonald, Calum

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

McFall, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Snape, Peter

McLeish, Henry

Soley, Clive

Maclennan, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

McNamara, Kevin

Speller, John

MacShane, Denis

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

McWilliam, John

Steinberg, Gerry

275

Stevenson, George

Wareing, Robert N

Stott, Roger

Wicks, Malcolm

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wigley, Dafydd

Straw, Jack

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wilson, Brian

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Winnick, David

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wise, Audrey

Timms, Stephen

Worthington, Tony

Tipping, Paddy

Wray, Jimmy

Touhig, Don

Wright, Dr Tony

Vaz, Keith

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Wallace, James

Tellers for the Noes:

Walley, Joan

Mr. Dennis Turner and

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the public expenditure plans announced by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech on 28th November; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its continued firm control of public spending and its success in reducing bureaucracy, increasing efficiency and tackling fraud, while providing more resources for the delivery of key public services; applauds Her Majesty's Government's determination to reduce further the share of national income taken by the State; and commends the Government for the success of its Private Finance Initiative and the other innovative ways it is forming partnerships with the private sector to improve the efficiency and quality of public services.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  HEALTH AND SAFETY
  That the draft Health and Safety (Repeals and Revocations) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

  URBAN DEVELOPMENT
  That the Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1995, dated 6th November 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94H(1) (Scottish Grand Committees (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet:

1. in Edinburgh City Chambers on Monday 11th December; and

2. in Glasgow City Chambers on Monday 18th December.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Metticillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
11.37 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I welcome the Minister to his new post and wish him well in it. I am very pleased to have secured this debate on metticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. That is the only time that I shall mention its full title. From now on I shall refer to it as MRSA. I declare an interest in that Unison pays me £500 towards my office allowance for payment of staff, but I am not raising this debate on its behalf. I also apologise for the cold that I am carrying. I look as if I am rehearsing for the role of Santa Claus with this red nose. For reasons that will become clear in my speech, I am not taking any antibiotics for my cold.
I decided to raise this subject after an article in my local paper, the Waltham Forest Guardian Series, on 14 September gave me quite a start. It said that Mr. David Chudley, a 44-year-old father of seven, was admitted to my local hospital, Whipps Cross, with a routine leg fracture after a road accident. Within a little while of being admitted with that minor leg injury, he died from the MRSA infection. His wife, Christine, is quoted as saying:
"When someone says your husband has got a broken leg, you don't expect him to die."
The report then says that his is not the only death and that there have been two connected with the bug. A consultant at the hospital has admitted that the hospital has 20 or 30 patients carrying the bug at any one time. The other man who died was Mr. Kevin Cox from Chingford; he died in February from MRSA.
The bacterium has become immune to the strongest of antibiotic drugs. It sticks to the windpipe of its victim and infects the lungs. It forms pus and can cause pneumonia, according to the local paper. The coroner wrote to the Whipps Cross medical director suggesting that the hospital should set up special isolation wards to contain the bug. The article concludes:
"MRSA is a problem in hospitals across the country but is particularly bad in the south of England.
The first few cases of the bacteria were reported in 1991. Two years later there were 300 cases in more than 40 hospitals. Now 129 hospitals in the UK are reporting it."
That is an amazing figure which shows the rapid spread of MRSA. In the same edition of my local paper, Bryan Harrison of Forest Healthcare trust said that hospitals were not a healthy place to be in. He was clearly alluding to the MRSA bug.
The 1990s have seen a massive increase in MRSA infection in hospitals. The privatisation of cleansing services in the mid- 1980s, worsening the standards of cleanliness in hospitals, has been a contributory factor, but I acknowledge other factors, especially the over-use of antibiotics. My mother's common-sense dictum to me as a child was that people should not take antibiotics unless they really needed them. If people did, antibiotics would not have the necessary effect when they had to have them. There has been indiscriminate and

277
inappropriate prescribing, although probably less in this country than in other countries. That has resulted in more antibiotic-resistant bacteria such as MRSA.
In the 1990s, there has been a worldwide resurgence of bacterial and viral diseases. Virtually all major disease-causing bacteria seem to have acquired antibiotic-resistant characteristics. There has been a massive increase in the population at risk because their immune system has been compromised in some way. Examples are cancer and leukaemia treatments and transplants, AIDS high-dose steroid treatments, invasive medical intervention and the prolonged survival of patients with chronic debilitating diseases. That resistance has come about and MRSA has spread.
I thank Dr. Jane Cushion of the House of Commons Library for her excellent briefing on MRSA; I shall summarise some of it. Staphylococcus aureus is a common bacterium which may be carried in the nose; about 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of healthy people may carry it. Less often, it is carried on the skin, usually in the armpit or in other warm, moist areas, or in the mucous membranes, such as the lining of the mouth and gut. A significant proportion of the population are reservoirs for the bacterium from whom it can escape and cause disease. Its optimum temperature for growth is 37 deg. C, which is roughly equivalent to normal body temperature.
MRSA causes infections and diseases which can result in the production of pus. The infection may be superficial, with boils, carbuncles and abscesses. Deep infections, although less common, are much more serious and include septicaemia, endocarditis—infection of the heart valves—osteomyelitis, pneumonia, toxic food poisoning, toxic shock syndrome and skin exfoliation syndrome.
Penicillin dealt a big blow to bacteria infections. In the 1950s bacteria developed which were resistant to penicillin. The antibiotic flucloxacillin was subsequently developed and kept down infections by such bacteria. There has been a large increase particularly since 1983–84 in staphylococcus aureus, which is resistant to the commonly used antibiotics. That is a serious problem. Some strains of MRSA possess the capacity to spread with ease. They have caused hospital outbreaks which have proved difficult to control.
Risk management programmes are clearly needed in hospitals to improve the quality of patient care and the occupational health of the staff. Hospital management has legal duties. The Government have introduced the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994, which cover disease-causing organisms. About 130 hospitals have reported cases of MRSA infection. The presence of MRSA has virtually become a fact of life in most hospitals. There have been larger outbreaks in the west midlands and at Southend hospital. It is a most serious problem.
The document "Hospital Infection Control" prepared by the hospital infection working group of the Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service refers to the need to have in place infection control staff in hospitals. It says that some of the highly resistant strains of MRSA
"are already resistant to most of the available antibiotics and are likely to create major therapeutic problems in the future."
It says that those strains of MRSA are
278
"particularly hazardous in high risk units such as intensive care. Implementation of effective antibiotic policies…are necessary…Surveillance for rapid detection and the provision of adequate isolation facilities are important in every hospital…Every hospital should have an infection control team."
Such teams have expert membership and include an infection control doctor and consultant medical microbiologist. The document also said:
"Every hospital should be covered by a Hospital Infection Control Committee."
Such committees include, as well as the experts in the infection control team, the chief executive and the consultant in communicable diseases control.
The Department of Health should require every hospital authority to implement the administrative procedure that I have outlined and check that it does so. MRSA is a major drain on resources. It is costly for hospitals because it means that patients have to stay in hospital for extra time. For example, when Kettering general hospital had a bout of the disease in 1991 it cost the hospital almost half a million pounds. The Government keep saying to health authorities and trusts that the cost of MRSA can be met from existing resources. Increasingly, they cannot. The Government should recognise that and compensate health authorities and trusts.
The hospital infection working group said of MRSA:
"The total annual costs in the UK, although not yet fully quantified, are undoubtedly high."
The cost is not just to the health authorities but to the people affected and their family because patients are forced to stay in hospital longer.
The hospital infection working group said:
"Overall we believe it is possible that currently about 30 per cent. of hospital acquired infection could be prevented by better application of existing knowledge and implementation of realistic infection control policies…It must also be recognised that infection control action will be constrained by the resources available."
Again, the pressure is on the Government to deal with the problem.
There is one other important feature—the danger that MRSA, which is currently a hospital infection, could spread into the community and especially into nursing homes. Time is short, so I cannot go into that in greater detail.
This is an important public health issue. I pay tribute to the work of the Public Health Laboratory Service, which includes the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. It collects and analyses information on drug resistance. The Government should put in the resources to boost the service and the information that it gives to GPs and hospitals.
The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, the BSAC, in a report last year stated:
"the steady rise in antibiotic prescriptions needs to be reversed"
and that
"failure to do so would increase the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria."
The Office of Science and Technology has also given me information about the prevalence of antibiotics in foods. Some were brought in as scientific markers; others were introduced in animal feeds. Earlier this year evidence was given to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that there had been a big increase in

279
adult cattle with antibiotic resistance. There were something like 400 cases in 1990 in England and Wales, which increased to 1,600 in 1993. The cause was thought to be the routine feeding of low antibiotic doses to intensely reared livestock to boost growth and heavy doses to prevent heal infection.
Scientists have expressed concern that the increasing resistance to antibiotics could pass through the food chain but MAFF sticks to the 1969 Swann report, which says that new potent antibiotics should not necessarily be precluded from therapeutic use in animals. The Government should have a co-ordinated policy on MRSA. The MAFF line should not be independent of but subservient to the best interests of public health.
In the few minutes left, I will spell out some of the essential policies needed to tackle MRSA effectively. First, there need to be improved cleanliness standards in hospitals. That must include stricter enforcement. Those responsible, the managers, must be taken to the courts for neglect if they do not keep up with such standards. However, the Government must recognise that such higher standards of cleanliness need more, not fewer, resources.
Secondly, there has to be funding for extra capacity for hospitals where wards have had to be closed due to MRSA outbreaks. Ward provision has been cut right to the bone and there is not the extra capacity that MRSA requires. If such action is not taken, there will be problems right through the system. There should be smaller wards. The effect of MRSA when it strikes is far less devastating with smaller wards. Whole wards have to close when it does strike.
The Department of Health must take a proactive role in ensuring that every hospital has an effective risk management programme, which should include isolation facilities, infection control teams, and appropriate-use-only antibiotic policies.
Appropriate-use-only antibiotic policies should also apply to GP prescribing and the Government should institute an immediate programme of education for GPs. With such widespread ignorance about MRSA, a programme of education should be introduced for all health workers who are likely to come across it.
The possibility of MRSA spreading from hospitals into the wider community is a real danger that requires active consideration and policies to deal with it. Increased use of day surgery and early discharge from hospital may increase the risk of MRSA, and those practices should be monitored.
A higher priority should be given to research into the causes of and cures for this killer bug. The Government should get their act together across Departments so that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not merrily continue pumping antibiotics into animals, so spreading antibiotic resistance through the food chain. The interests of public health should take precedence.
More needs to be done to combat the increased incidence of virulent MRSA, which killed Mr. Chudley and Mr. Cox, who were referred to in my local paper. I hope that the Department of Health will now devote far more thought and action to combating it.
11.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I thank the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for his kind welcome. I am sorry that he is not in perfect health, but despite that, and the seriousness of the subject, I am glad to se that he has retained his cheerful demeanour. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the important issue of metticillin resistant staphylococcus aureus—like the hon. Gentleman, I hope I have passed the test of pronouncing it—commonly known as MRSA, and that I have the opportunity to respond to the debate.
This is an issue that causes considerable concern to many people, but I must emphasise that it is not a new problem. The NHS has spent many years controlling it. I must say that in most countries the spread of that micro-organism has now been accepted as more or less inevitable. It is only because our health service offers high quality infection control systems that we are in a position to control it.
Perhaps I might start by setting the record straight on what MRSA actually is and how it causes infection. MRSA is a relatively antibiotic-resistant form of the bacterium staphylococcus aureus. Staph. aureus, the alternative way of referring to it, is one of the commonest and most ubiquitous of all the bacteria with which we are surrounded. As the hon. Gentleman said, normally it does us no harm.
About one third of us carry the bacteria on our skin or in our nose and throat and it causes us no problem. But if the skin is cut, or if resistance to infection is lost for any reason, the germ can multiply and set up an infection. Mostly, it is a trivial infection of the skin, but in patients who are in hospital it can sometimes become more serious. Many hospital patients have catheters and drips of various sorts going through the skin, which give bacteria like staph. aureus an easy route into the body. Many patients have had operations, so they have a wound that can become infected; some have poor resistance to infection because of their illness or their treatment, and are vulnerable to serious infections such as septicaemia or pneumonia. Staph. aureus can cause all those problems—a range of infections from the trivial to the life threatening.
MRSA, which is the antibiotic resistant variety of staph. aureus, acts in exactly the same way and causes the same range of infections. Again, the majority of people who carry it come to no harm at all, and if it does cause an infection, the range of problems is just the same—the infections are no worse than those caused by the ordinary bacterium.
The reason why MRSA is seen as more of a problem is that if an infection develops it is more difficult to treat because many of the commonly used antibiotics are not effective against it. There are antibiotics that can be used—the infection is not untreatable. Those antibiotics are, however, more difficult to use, they have more side effects and, of course, they are more expensive.
Some strains of MRSA show a greater tendency to spread easily from person to person than others. The first three of those strains appeared in the early 1980s and patients in many hospitals were affected. Those strains became less common after a few years, thanks to the efforts of hospital infection control teams to prevent it from spreading, and for a time the spread of MRSA appeared to have receded.
Now we have two new strains which spread particularly easily and again many hospitals are having to take action to control it. We think that that is an effort worth making,

281
although, as I have already said, in many other countries, where antibiotics are available much more freely than here and infection control arrangements are less effective, the majority of staph. aureus in hospital patients is already antibiotic resistant. That has simply been accepted as inevitable, and requiring no particular action.
The Department of Health takes the whole subject of infection control in hospital very seriously. We issued comprehensive new guidance to the NHS earlier this year, covering the structure and activities of infection control services, surveillance of infections—including those due to antibiotic resistant organisms—and the control of outbreaks. It suggests that every hospital should have an infection control team, consisting of a medical specialist—usually a consultant microbiologist—and one or more trained infection control nurses. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case at Whipps Cross.
The guidance covers the role of the team in leading and co-ordinating infection control activity in the hospital. We also give advice to commissioners of health care about what infection control arrangements they should be looking for in trusts.
The guidance to which I have just referred deals with control of infection generally in hospitals. More detailed guidelines on the control of MRSA in hospitals have been produced by two of the interested professional organisations—the Hospital Infection Society and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
The first of those guidelines was produced in 1986, but they have since been updated. The Department of Health gave them its formal support last September and is now working with the same organisations to produce a further revision in the light of advancing scientific knowledge and experience in controlling the micro-organism.
The Public Health Laboratory Service provides specialist strain-typing facilities and expert advice to help hospitals affected by MRSA. It carries out surveillance of the prevalence of the organism and can provide information, for example, when a patient is transferred from abroad to a hospital here. The PHLS is presently carrying out a special study of hospitals affected by the two main epidemic strains of MRSA to determine the epidemiology and most effective method of control of the organism.
The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the problem locally and he also made a number of important points about the national position. It stems in part from comments made at the inquest into a tragic death at Whipps Cross hospital last winter. I am assured that the NHS trust concerned—Forest Healthcare—has made a high priority of its efforts to prevent the spread of MRSA. Patients known to be carrying MRSA are nursed in isolation, and those admitted to the intensive care unit are screened regularly for the bacterium. The effectiveness of those measures is kept under review and we are confident that the situation in Whipps Cross is being controlled satisfactorily.
282
On the national position, the hon. Gentleman mentioned a point on which I would like to comment. There has also been concern among owners and managers of some of the nursing and residential nursing homes that MRSA may been a problem for their residents. It is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the bacterium and the type of infection that it may cause.
Residents in most of those community settings are at no greater risk of infection than the general population. They do not have medical devices such as drips penetrating the skin and they do not have surgical wounds. There has never been an outbreak of infection due to MRSA in such a home, nor is there likely to be one.
Last year, the Department of Health worked with the professional organisation representing consultants in communicable disease control to produce guidance on infection control in nursing and residential homes. The guidance advised that a person carrying or infected with MRSA was not a risk to other residents in most of those homes and that routine arrangements designed to prevent all types of infection, such as good personal hygiene, are sufficient to deal with it.
The Department, however, recently held a seminar for insurers of such homes to inform and reassure them about MRSA. It will also take part in a further seminar for owners and managers of homes and for local and health authority staff responsible for the registration of homes and will issue further guidance to those groups in the new year.
It is important that we maintain a balanced view of the problem of MRSA in hospitals. The majority of cases of all types of infection in hospital patients cannot be prevented with our current knowledge. MRSA does not cause more infections than other types of staph. aureus with which we are surrounded. Despite the huge increase in the complexity of medical treatment and in the number of patients with reduced resistance to infection treated in our hospitals in the past 10 or 15 years, there is good evidence that hospital-acquired infection, including MRSA, is no more common now than it was in 1980. That evidence is based on a wide survey including hundreds of thousands of patients in at least 200 hospitals. MRSA is not untreatable and nor is it a new scourge, but it is a problem worth considerable efforts to control. Doctors and nurses in hospitals in many parts of the country are working hard to do just that.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton for raising the subject, and I hope that I have assured him about the position in Whipps Cross hospital. The total situation is much more satisfactory than the hon. Gentleman might have thought.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve midnight.

WALES

  Chiropody Services, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of chiropody services provided in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement. [2664]

  Mr. Richards
  The provision of chiropody services in Clwyd is a matter for Clwyd district health authority. I have made no separate assessment of the adequacy of chiropody services provided there.

  Departmental Targets
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the published recommended response time within which his Department is expected to reply to letters from the public [3001]

  Mr. Hague
  The target time for replying to letters from Members of the House is 12 working days. The target time for replying to all other correspondence is 15 working days.

  North East Wales Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of funding has been made available to North East Wales TEC for work in townships which have lost steelmaking; and if he will make a statement. [2920]

  Mr. Richards
  In October 1990 the Welsh Office announced a substantial package of measures to mitigate the effects of the closure of the Brymbo steelworks. This included the allocation of an additional £260,000 to the North East Wales TEC. In addition, it has been able to utilise the resources made available each year by the Welsh Office to support the creation of new businesses and jobs in north-east Wales and to deliver training to enhance the skills of he local labour force. An example of this is the support which the TEC has been able to provide to local employers in establishing the new twin-sited engineering and manufacturing training centre at Yale college, Wrexham, and at Deeside college, Shotton.

  Alltami Bypass
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will advance the date of construction of the Alltami bypass; and if he will make a statement. [4017]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Proposals for an Alltami bypass form part of the A494 Mold-Ewloe improvement. This scheme is included in the "longer term consideration" pool of the forward trunk road programme published in 146
  the Welsh Office's departmental report, Cm 2815, on 9 March 1995. My right hon. Friend is to announce roads and transport expenditure plans for 1996–97 shortly.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Resident's Association Western Park, Buckley, to discuss his allocation of housing moneys 1996–97 for the modernisation and repair of social housing. [4019]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to do so. It is for local authorities to decide how to set spending priorities for their housing stock within the resources available to them.

  Long-Term Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many long-term unemployed there are in each of the constituencies in Wales. [3859]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The data requested are available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Buckley Inner Relief Road
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Buckley, Clwyd inner relief road to begin construction; what is its costs when it will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [4016]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This scheme is the responsibility of Clwyd county council.

  Cancer
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people died of cancer in Anglesey, Gwynedd and Wales in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what are these figures as a proportion of average United Kingdom figures. [2354]

  Mr. Richards
  The figures for 1990 to 1994 are given in the table. Data for 1993 and 1994 are provisional. Deaths for 1992 and earlier years represent registrations in each year; from 1993 they represent occurrences in each year. New procedures adopted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for coding cause of death from 1993, and the absence of medical inquiries, mean that figures for 1993 onwards may not be exactly comparable with those for earlier years. For most conditions, however, including neoplasms, the effects of these changes are small. Further details may be found in OPCS series DH2 for 1993, No. 20, which was published in October 1995. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  The proportions given in the table have been derived by calculating the relevant standardised mortality ratios.

  Deaths from malignant neoplasms (1CD1
  140–208)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  A: Number of deaths

  Anglesey

  226

  230

  230

  224

  233

  Gwynedd

  797

  805

  773

  793

  811

  Wales

  8,439

  8,555

  8,729

  8,747

  8,671

  147

  Deaths from malignant neoplasms (ICD1 140–208)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  B: Proportion of the United Kingdom (UK = 100)

  Anglesey

  106

  106

  105

  104

  110

  Gwynedd

  99

  99

  94

  98

  102

  Wales

  99

  99

  100

  102

  102

  1International Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Death (9th revision).

  Source:

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Oil Spillage
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number and the species of bird that have(a) been discovered oiled and (b) died as a result of the recent oil spillage in Carmarthen bay, south Wales. [4202]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No complete data are available. Estimates based on information so far received by the Countryside Council for Wales show the following effects:

  species

  Number found

  Dead

  Common Scoter

  323

  232

  Guillemot

  13

  7

  Razorbill

  2

  1

  Total

  338

  240

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many official school visits the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), has undertaken since 1 April; how and when in each case(a) the county council, where the school was non-grant maintained and (b) the hon. Member in whose constituency the school was located, was informed; and if he will make a statement. [4175]

  Illustrative table of capital element of projects

  Agreed prior to 1995–96

  Likely 1995–96

  Likely 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Total

  Defence

  30

  160

  560

  750

  FCO/ODA

  0

  0

  28

  28

  Agriculture

  40

  8

  35

  83

  Trade and Industry1

  0

  1

  29

  30

  Education and Employment

  0

  0

  112

  112

  Transport

  1,560

  3,800

  580

  5,940

  Environment2,3

  0

  0

  130

  130

  Home Office

  192

  12

  146

  350

  Legal departments

  0

  0

  89

  89

  National Heritage

  31

  17

  165

  213

  Health

  100

  300

  1,800

  2,200

  Social Security1

  0

  245

  118

  363

  Scotland

  60

  86

  2,084

  2,230

  Wales

  0

  22

  341

  363

  Northern Ireland

  207

  78

  327

  612

  Chancellor's departments

  352

  31

  78

  461

  Total

  2,572

  4,760

  6,622

  13,953

  1 Joint Benefits Agency/Post Office Counters project recorded against Social Security.

  2Docklands Light Railway.

  3In addition about £4–5 billion pa of private investment is levered in through housing, urban regeneration and other programmes.

  148
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Six. Arrangements are normally made direct with the school and the convention regarding constituency Members of Parliament is observed.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the Secretary General of the Arab League the proposal by the Government of Libya to hold a trial in the Hague, under a Scottish judge, under Scottish rules of evidence, of the two Libyans accused of the bombing of Pan AM 103 over Lockerbie. [2208]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December 1995. [2558]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2559]

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

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will break down the estimates given in his financial statement of the value of the private finance initiative schemes expected to be finalised in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 by sponsoring Government Department. [3780]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The capital value of Departments' private finance initiative schemes expected to be agreed in (a) 1995–96 and (b) the three years 1996–97 to 1998–99 are set out in the table. These forecasts are based on departmental estimates. The actual sums involved and precise timing of schemes will depend on the nature of the contractual processes.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3971]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my Office is part of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and its agencies. Total numbers of staff can be found in the civil service staff in post summary tables which have been placed in the Library. Staff costs are published in the Cabinet Office departmental report. It is not possible to provide the other information requested without disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ministerial Travel, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many times in the last year he has used London Buses while on official business; [428]

  (2) how many times in the last year he has used the London Underground while on official business. [573]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have occasionally used both London Buses and the London Underground when travelling to and from the Department of Social Security but have not done so this year while on official business.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the Child Support Agency rates regarding the calculation of ex-husband obligations; and if he will make a statement. [2579]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The child support maintenance formula is based on income support benefit rates. The rates in protected income for non-householders' housing costs are based on the non-dependent deductions under housing benefit rules. The relevant amounts will increase form April 1996, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his statement on Wednesday 29 November,Official Report, columns 1212–15.

  The formula will continue to ensure that no absent parent is assessed to pay more than 30 per cent. of his net income in current maintenance.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the client communications of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [2674]

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. lain Mills, dated 30 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's client communications.
  150
  I understand that you may have some specific concerns about a particular case and if that is so I would be happy to look at those for you.
  Earlier this year the Child Support Agency reviewed its procedures for dealing with Members enquiries. We looked carefully at our procedures and concluded that not only should we issue a revised set of guidelines to staff on how to deal with enquiries from Members but that we should use those improved guidelines to form the basis of a training brief to raise staff awareness about the important role that MPs play in our business. The training brief is currently being piloted.
  The guidelines place the responsibility for providing accurate and comprehensive replies to MP enquiries firmly with the section responsible for that part, or parts, of child support business about which the MP has expressed concern. The guidelines also make it clear that promises of future action and monitoring that action also lies with the section giving that undertaking.
  Our business plan makes it clear that we aim to reply to MPs' letters within an average of 20 working days from the date of receipt, with acknowledgments sent within 2 working days. Where a Member contacts one of our Centres by telephone using the specially designated 'MPs hot-line' (set up in late 1993 to meet Members concerns about the speedy resolution of very difficult constituency cases), we aim to return the call within 24 hours with a full explanation made to timescales agreed with the Member or his or her secretary. The time taken to give a full explanation will obviously depend on the individual circumstances of the case but it is important that dialogue continues until the case is cleared to the Member's satisfaction. I would be very interested to know if our procedures are not working properly and are failing to deliver the sort of service we want to offer to MPs.
  Where a client contacts one of our centres the call is routed to a team of operators who are trained in all aspects of child support work and who in the vast majority of cases, provide a one stop service to callers. The introduction of these dedicated telephone teams has been very successful, with more than 1 million calls answered since April 1995. The placing of incoming calls to a dedicated section releases staff working in business areas to concentrate on core business activities. In those cases where the team are unable to deal with a particularly complex enquiry then details are taken and passed to the relevant section for a reply. The complexity of our work makes it impracticable for one member of staff to have complete knowledge of every aspect of our business. We do know however, that most of our clients would prefer to have contact with fewer members of staff and we are looking at how best this might be achieved, perhaps by actioning cases within a smaller team of people.
  I hope this information is helpful to you, but once again if you have a particular case in mind please do not hesitate to write to me.

  Departmental Targets
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the published recommended response times within which his Department is expected to reply to letters from the public. [3005]

  Mr. Burt
  There is no published recommended response time for the Department as a whole. The charters of the Benefits, Contributions, Child Support and War Pensions agencies state that these agencies aim to reply to correspondence from the public within 10 working days of receipt.

  Maternity and Funeral Expenses
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the definition of the terms "maternity expenses" and "funeral expenses" used in section 138 (1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.
  151
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Help with maternity expenses and funeral expenses may be given only from the regulated fund. I have today issued additional guidance to social fund officers on the interpretation of the terms "maternity expenses" and "funeral expenses".

  The Benefits Agency has issued a bulletin to all district offices notifying them of the new guidance, which will be incorporated in a amendment to the social fund guide as soon as possible.

  Details of the guidance have been placed in the Library.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he will make to the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council regarding disorders of the knee and occupational rhinitis. [4706]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the recommendations in the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's reports, Cm 2842 and 1843. The Government accept in full the council's recommendation in respect of occupational Rhinitis that the terms of the current prescription should be more precise and brought into line with current scientific thinking. Regulations will be laid to implement the change from March 1996.

  The Government note the council's conclusion that there is insufficient scientific evidence available at present to recommend adding disorders of the knee to the list of prescribed diseases for which industrial injuries disablement benefit can be paid.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive the report from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council concerning the regulations relating to chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [4070]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on 24 October 1995,Official Report col 627.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning his proposals to limit benefits to people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [3972]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Proposals on social security payments to asylum seekers and other persons from abroad were presented to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 11 October. The committee has carried out a public consultation on these proposals and is now evaluating the responses to that consultation and we expect to receive its report during December. We have also received a number of items of correspondence, both from Members of Parliament and from the public.

  State Pension
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the mean and (b) the median state
  152
  pension received by (i) married women, (ii) widows and (iii) single women. [1845]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 24 November I995]: The information is set out in the table:

  £ per week

  Married women

  Widows

  Single women

  Median

  34.80

  60.25

  58.16

  Mean

  36.43

  63.00

  55.59

  Source:

  Retirement Pension Biannual enquiry September 1994.

  Note:

  Marital status is based on the most recent information available to the Department.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will instruct the Sheffield office of the Benefits Agency to withdraw its letter, "Urgent-Benefit Leaving", of 31 October 1995; [3477]

  (2) if he will ensure that all applicants for benefit under the urgent case regulations are informed of the provisional nature of the announced changes. [3478]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking for the Benefits Agency's Sheffield office to withdraw its letter "Urgent-Benefit Leaving" of 31 October and if the Secretary of State will ensure that all applicants for benefit under the Urgent Case Regulations are informed of the provisional nature of the announced changes.
  The letter issued to certain customers in Sheffield advising them that from 8 January 1996 they would not be entitled to benefit under the Urgent Cases Regulations was issued in error as a result of a misunderstanding by the office of the guidance issued by the Branch responsible for Income Support. The error was discovered and the letter withdrawn within 48 hours. Further guidance has been issued to clarify the position to all District Offices and a letter of apology sent to the customers involved.
  As legislation is not currently in place it is not appropriate to advise those customers receiving benefit under the Urgent Cases Regulations of the Secretary of State's proposals as details are subject to change. As soon as the legislation is in place, the Income Support awards for customers affected by the changes will be passed to an Adjudication Officer to consider a review. Customers will then be informed of the Adjudication Officer's decision and their subsequent right of appeal.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Careers Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated cost of the proposed expansion of the Careers Service; and to what that expenditure will be allocated. [3711]

  Mr. Paice
  Planned expenditure on the Careers Service is set to rise to £201 million in 1996–97 exclusive of VAT—an increase of £49 million against the expenditure
  153
  in 1994–95. From April 1994, extra funds have been provided for careers guidance for 13 to 14 year olds. From April 1995 further funds were provided to enhance the quality and coverage of careers guidance for young people from age 13 to 18 as well as for the training of careers advisers and careers teachers.

  Employment Data
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the percentage of non-employment among adult males with only basic education in 1979 and in 1995; and the same figures for the other Group of Seven member countries; and if she will make a statement. [3624]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  International comparisons on this basis are not available. However, information on International Labour Organisation unemployment rates for those aged between 25 and 64 with qualifications below upper secondary level in 1992 is available in table R21 of the OECD publication, "Education at a Glance", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the percentage of the labour force with only basic education in the United Kingdom in 1979 and in 1995, and the same figures for the other Group of Seven member countries; and if he will make a statement. [3628]

  Mrs. Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The international comparisons requested are not available. However, comparisons of labour force participation rates of those with qualifications below upper secondary level in 1992 are available in table C11 in the OECD publication, "Education at a Glance", a copy of which is available in the library.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  British Academy for Sport
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the consultation paper on the British Academy for Sport will be published. [4532]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Great Britain Sports Council today published the consultation paper on the British Academy for Sport. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. Copies of the consultation paper are available from the Sports Council at 16 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H OQP. The purpose of the consultation paper is to promote debate about the details of the structure, siting, management and activities of the academy. The closing date for responses is 31 January 1996. Following this date, the Government wish to encourage application by different groups of sporting, commercial and other public and private interests—possibly in the form of a charitable trust to establish and run the academy. Up to £100 million from the national lottery could be available for capital costs of the academy and, if appropriate, an endowment to provide future revenue costs.
  154
  The decision in principle to establish a British Academy for Sport was set out in the policy document, "Raising the Game", published on the 14 July 1995. The academy forms one part of an overall strategy for sport in the United Kingdom, set out in the policy document, for which the other two parts are the restoration of sport in school, with strong emphasis on competitive team games, and the development and strengthening of local sports clubs and their links with local schools.

TREASURY

  Valued Added Tax (Utilities)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the privatised utilities which charge VAT on advance charge bills; and what estimate he has made of the revenue raised for public funds from this procedure; [2856]

  (2) if he will estimate the revenue raised by the Exchequer from the imposition, by British Telecom, of VAT on advance charge telephone bills. [2857]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Basic VAT law provides that tax is due when a VAT invoice is issued or a payment is received in respect of any taxable supply made by a VAT registered trader, if this happens in advance of delivery of the goods or services concerned. The rule applies to privatised utilities in the same way as to other businesses, and to telephone standing charges in the same way as to any other advance charges. No central records are kept of the numbers of trades or the amounts of revenue involved. The amount of VAT paid by an individual trader is a matter of commercial confidence.

  Home Care Agencies
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to public funds of removing VAT on fees charged by private domestic home care agencies. [3619]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]:There are no figures available to allow an estimate to be made.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to abolish VAT on fees charged by private domestic home care agencies. [3620]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: Home care services provided by commercial agencies using medically qualified staff are already exempt from VAT. I announced on 9 October that in certain circumstances where agencies used unqualified staff, they need not charge VAT, provided that there is an appropriate measure of supervision by qualified medical professionals. Customs and Excise is currently holding discussions with representatives of the home care industry to agree the details of this change.

  Share Ownership
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the value of total share, and their total value, were owned by individuals(a) in the latest year

  155
  for which figures are available and (b) in each year since 1970. [4046]

  Mrs Angela Knight
  The available information is given in the table.

  Individuals' ownership of shares in companies quoted on the London stock exchange

  Year (at 31 December)

  1975

  1981

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Percentage

  37.5

  28.2

  20.6

  20.3

  19.9

  20.4

  17.7

  20.3

  Value (pounds billion)

  16.7

  28.0

  104.3

  90.5

  105.3

  125.4

  141.1

  154.6

  1. The apparent trend in the series is effected, particularly for the earlier data, by sampling errors and varying degrees of success in the identification of nominee holdings.

  2. The series reflect shares held directly by individuals, including those held in personal equity plans, but exclude those held indirectly for example in unit trusts.

  EU Budget Contributions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net contribution to the EEC by the United Kingdom for each year from 1990 and up to 2001; and what estimate he has made of the respective contribution made by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries in this period. [1028]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's most recent estimates of the United Kingdom's net contributions to European Community institutions for the financial years 1989–90 to 1994–95, together with the forecast of our contributions up to 1998–99 are set out in the first table. Recent estimates for later years are not available; the Government do not produce such estimates on a regular basis since they are of limited value and need to be treated with particular caution.

  Indicative net contribution by Member States

  Year

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  United Kingdom

  1990

  773.9

  -422.5

  5,550.4

  -2,470.2

  -1,711.3

  1,840.9

  -1,892.5

  416.7

  60.0

  -368.4

  -600.8

  3,386.9

  1991

  -416.6

  -346.3

  8,796.8

  -2,926.4

  -2,294.6

  2,449.5

  -2,357.3

  1,388.6

  -159.7

  537.9

  -1,516.2

  666.9

  1992

  -165.1

  -276.6

  9,697.6

  -3,604.0

  -2,739.6

  1,443.6

  -2,140.1

  504.3

  -164.0

  829.0

  -2,139.9

  2.387.8

  1993

  -59.6

  -376.9

  11,830.3

  -4,136.7

  -3,090.4

  1,019.6

  -2,371.9

  1,525.4

  -189.6

  1,326.6

  -2,508.4

  3,125.8

  1994

  309.3

  -198.9

  13,637.1

  -3,851.9

  -3,116.6

  2,626.4

  -1,752.0

  2,540.4

  -253.7

  1,829.9

  -1,827.0

  1,158.8

  Note:

  Administration costs are not fully allocated by member states in the Court of Auditors report. Allocation of administrative spending would be likely to increase the receipts of member states, but particularly for Belgium and Luxembourg, and so reduce the member states' net contributions.

  Public Duties (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the individuals for whom exceptional arrangements beyond those indicated in the "Inland Revenue Guide to Benefits and Expenses", booklet 480, applies in connection with their public duties and those of their spouse; how, and under what authority, the additional allowances are arrived at; and if he will make a statement; [331]

  (2) if he will list the tax deductions and reliefs in connection with public duties of a taxpayer or of his or her spouse contained in the "Inland Revenue Guide to Benefits and Expenses", booklet 480; and what limit applies to each. [330]
  156
  The table is derived from the publication, "Share Ownership, a Report on the Ownership of Shares at 31st December 1994", produced by the Central Statistical Office and published on 4 December 1995. The publication will be available in the House of Commons Library shortly.

  The second table sets out indicative net contributions in mecu for all member states for the period 1990–1994. These figures are drawn from the revelant annual report of the European Court of Auditors. The Government do not produce forecasts of the comparative contributions of the member states.

  UK net contribution to the EC budget

  Year

  £million

  1989–90

  2,452

  1990–91

  2,185

  1991–92

  943

  1992–93

  2,168

  1993–94

  2,192

  1994–95

  1,641

  1995–96

  3,512

  1996–97

  2,894

  1997–98

  3,119

  1998–99

  3,197

  Mr. Jack
  The statutory provisions covering tax deductions and reliefs set out in the "Inland Revenue Guide to Benefits and Expenses", booklet 480, apply to employees and officeholders with public duties as much as to others. Section 10 of the booklet explains how expenses incurred by a spouse are treated. There are also statutory provisions to make sure that Members of Parliament qualify for relief on extra expenses they incur in staying overnight away from their only or main home for the purpose of carrying out their duties as Members and on the cost of making trips to certain institutions in the European Union.

  Self-assessment (Small Businesses)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of hours per
  157
  week on average that small businesses will spend on the requirements of the new system of tax self-assessment. [3691]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue undertook very extensive research into the likely impact of the self-assessment changes on the costs to businesses, particularly small businesses, of complying with their tax obligations. The detail of this research is contained in a compliance cost assessment which was published on 29 November 1994. A copy is available in the House Library. It concludes that once the new system has bedded in, costs overall will reduce. The amount will vary from business to business, but it broadly equates with annual savings overall of £125 million to £250 million, after taking account of employer's costs, or between £30 and £60 per year for a typical small business.

  Financial Statement and Budget Report
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations led to the inclusion of fewer statistics in table 4.4 of the "Financial Statement and Budget report 1996–97", than in the equivalent table 4A.1 for 1995–96. [3841]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In terms of their coverage, both tables 4.4 and 4A.1 of this year's "Financial Statement and Budget Report" are unchanged from the presentation last year. Table 4.4 gives a summary presentation of the forecast of general Government receipts; table 4A.1 gives a more detailed exposition of the short-term forecast of receipts.

  Ecofin
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Ecofin Council held on 27 November, giving details of all votes and of all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [1973]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: I represented the United Kingdom at the Economic and Finance Council of the European Union in Brussels on 27 November.

  The only formal vote taken by the Council was a unanimous decision to adopt a regulation on the European system national and regional accounts, which will come into effect in 1999. The Council agreed to attach to the regulation a recommendation that where data was available member states should provide them from September 1998.

  There was no Council support for a request by Germany that the Commission produce a study on the use of a reduced rate of VAT on the sale of agricultural produce as a means of compensating farmers affected by revaluations in the agri-monetary system.

  All other issues at the Council were agreed without dissension.

  The Council agreed the following: a report on the implementation of the broad economic guidelines; procedural conclusions on the reports by member states on measures being taken to combat fraud against Community funds; and a draft report on employment,
  158
  jointly prepared by the Economic and Finance Council, the Social Affairs Council and the Commission. All these will be submitted to the Madrid European Council.

  The Council discussed the reference scenario for the transition to a single currency, on which the Council will also report to the Madrid European Council. The Council agreed on the principle that fiscal stability after the beginning of the third stage of economic and monetary union was essential and that further work on achieving this will be required.

  The Council discussed the arrangements for guaranteeing European investment bank loans to third world countries. The Council agreed that a decision to revise the guarantee system will be taken within twelve months following an EIB—Commission study. During the interim period current guarantee arrangements will continue.

  The Council considered the recent defaults, by Georgia, Armenia and Tajikistan on EU loans granted in 1991 as part of a humanitarian aid package to the former Soviet Union. The Council asked the Commission to produce proposals for a grant aid operation from Community funds to resolve this problem.

  The Council welcomed progress made by the Commission on an initiative to improve its financial management and working practices.

  The Commission also presented the conclusions of a study into the effect of currency fluctuations on the internal market.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all those in his Department who have authority to issue public interest immunity certificates; how many such certificates have been issued in each of the last five years; and what were the main reasons for them. [1431]

  Mr. Hanley
  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is normally made by the appropriate Minister. There have been four cases in which certificates were used inter partes in proceedings:

  (a) Two certificates signed the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), in June 1991 and January 1992, in respect of a case of unfair dismissal brought in an industrial tribunal by a former FCO member of staff;

  (b) Two certificates, signed in September 1992 by the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) relating to the Matrix Churchill prosecution;

  (c) Two certificates, signed by the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) in June 1990 and by the then Minister of State, Lord Caithness, in February 1992, concerning the case of the extradition of Lorrain Osman to Hong Kong; and

  159

  (d) One certificate, signed by the then Foreign Secretary the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) in May 1995, in connection with the Ord-Tec appeal.

  Algeria
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes in guidance have been given to the British embassy in Algeria regarding applications for political asylum. [3266]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the land owned in the United Kingdom by his Department. [3027]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: Land at 245 Warwick road, London W8—0.8 hectares. All other land administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or in the process of disposal is held in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mrs. Parveen Akhtar
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 6 November, ref. 20802/95. [4111]

  Mr. Hanley
  The hon. Member's letter of 6 November about Mrs. Parveen Akhtar in Pakistan was sent to the Home Office, rather than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which would normally deal with correspondence of this type.

  The Foreign Office received a copy of the letter on 1 December.

  The Foreign Office migration and visa correspondence unit has asked our high commission in Islamabad for details of the case and will send the hon. Member a substantive reply by 8 December at the latest.

  Sexual Offences Against Children (Checks)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures are available for organisations working with children to gain access to the names of British citizens convicted of sexual offences against children in(a) European Union member states and (b) other countries. [3379]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Organisations working with children in the statutory sector and in parts of the voluntary and private sectors have access to pre-employment criminal record checks on their staff or volunteers. The check will reveal any record that the police may hold indicating that a person has been convicted of a sexual offence against children. This would include any information which had been received about overseas convictions of British citizens. Such information is often, but not always, supplied through Interpol by the authorities in the country of conviction.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in the tobacco industry in the United Kingdom in(a) 1970, (b) 1975, (c) 1980, (d) 1985, (e) 1990 and (f) at the latest available date. [3982]

  Mr. Page
  The available information is in the table.

  Employment in the tobacco industry in Great Britain1

  Year

  Thousands

  1971

  34.1

  1975

  34.0

  1981

  29.9

  1984

  21.8

  1989

  11.5

  1991

  8.7

  1993

  8.0

  Source:

  CSO Census of Employment.

  Note:

  1Figures are as at June of each year for 1971 and 1975, and are as at September of each year for 1981 to 1993.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the contractors who have submitted a bid for the Patent Office accommodation services, dispatch, support services and filestore; if he will make a statement on the criteria to be used to determine whether such bids offer better value for money; and if he will make a statement. [3496]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  None of the 12 contractors invited to tender has yet put in a bid for the Patent Office accommodation services, dispatch, support services and filestore. Under the timetable laid down by the EC services directive, bids are not required until early January 1996. The criteria to assess value for money have been sent out in the invitation to tender. They are:
  quality of tenderers' proposal, commitment, monitoring and assurance procedures; tenderers' previous relevant experience; financial, commercial and technical capability; TUP implications, such as proposals for the future of former civil service staff; recruitment, vetting and training procedures; conformance to Patent Office terms and conditions; overall price and pricing profile.
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the time scale for the proposed contracting out of the marketing and information directorate, the London front office and the information technology sections; and how many staff are involved. [3495]

  Mr. Taylor
  No time scales have yet been set for these projects but the process is likely to be completed by autumn 1996. Up to 80 staff will be involved.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to require any new work undertaken by the Patent Office to be subject to consultation with trades unions regarding the implications for staff; and if he will make a statement. [3497]
  161
  Mr. Taylor
  It would be the usual practice of Patent Office management to consult staff and their representatives about any new work undertaken by the agency which has major implications for the staff.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria will be used by Patent Office management to assess staff who have applied for voluntary redundancy; what number and grades will be involved; what time limits are applicable; and if he will make a statement about the future of the services currently offered by the Patent Office. [3498]

  Mr. Taylor
  Under the terms of its framework agreement, the Patent Office operates the Department's policies for retirement and redundancy. In its current voluntary severance exercise, the essential criterion has been the operational requirement of the office—whether there was a continuing need for a post now and in the foreseeable future and whether that post had to be filled by an established civil servant. Forty eight staff in the executive, clerical and support grades have accepted offers of voluntary severance. Sixteen appeals against refusal of severance terms are under consideration. Severance will take effect from 31 June 1996. The exercise is part of the Patent Office's continuing efforts to maintain and improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of its service to customers.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many statutory instruments his Department sponsored in the last Session of Parliament; and how many of these(a) constituted a new rule or regulation, (b) were introduced to implement European Community directives and (c) amplify the minimum standards set out in an original European Community directive. [2465]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 28 November 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry sponsored 116 statutory instruments in the last Session of Parliament. It would be possible only at disproportionate cost to provide the further information requested, especially to identify from this total any cases in which the Government have acted on powers in the relevant EC legislation enabling member states to implement provisions going beyond the minimum standards set out in the directives. The Government's policy is, however, to ensure that implementing legislation imposes least cost and provides greatest certainty consistent with meeting our legal obligations.

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2031]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The Coal Industry Act 1994 and the Gas Act 1995 contain provisions relating to the expiry of certain powers.

  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 introduced a new procedure for making deregulation orders to repeal or amend primary legislation where it imposes burdens which could be removed or reduced without removing necessary protection.

  Chief Executive (Post Office)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what final lump sum severance payment was paid to the chief executive of the Post Office on leaving that post. [2889]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 29 November 1995]: Mr. Cockburn, the former chief executive, received no severance pay on leaving the Post Office and waived any entitlement to salary in lieu of notice. However, he receives an annual pension under the rules of the Post Office staff pension fund—the Post Office staff superannuation scheme—which is based on his length of service, his age and his final salary. Under those rules he receives a lump sum payment equivalent to three times his annual pension. That lump sum payment was £285,542.

DEFENCE

  Ashchurch Vehicle Storage Depot
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many "A" vehicles will be stored at his Department's centralised vehicle storage depot at Ashchurch; [3862]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the local road network of centralising his Department's vehicle storage depot at Ashchurch; what is the maximum weight of Army vehicles using the local roads; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of transport of such vehicles over the Ashchurch road bridge; [3863]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the local authority responsible for Newbury on the implications of transporting Army vehicles on the A34 through the centre of the town. [3864]

  Mr. Soames
  These matters are for the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency, ABSDA, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier K. J. W. Goad to Dr. David Clark, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency, to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding the storage and movement of Army vehicles. My responses are detailed below:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions he has had with the local authority responsible for Newbury on the implications of transporting Army Vehicles on the A34 through the centre of town".
  When large vehicles are to be transported by road, the military authorities, where appropriate, clear the route in advance, with the respective authorities, such as Police, County Highway, British Water Board, British Rail, British Gas, etc. Such arrangements have been in operation, throughout the country, for many years.
  As a general policy, we are seeking to increase the use of rail to move 'A' Vehicles but not all are within guage (for example Main Battle Tanks) and are therefore too large for rail movement. These must continue to be transported by road.

  163
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many `A'vehicles will be stored at his Department's centralised vehicle storage depot at Ashchurch."
  The current planning figure for the number of vehicles to be stored at Ashchurch is 10106. 'A' vehicles make up a small but important part of this total. The majority of these vehicles will be placed in high density, long-term storage adopting a "leave it alone" policy.
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the impact on the local road network of centralising his Department's vehicle storage depot at Ashchurch; what is the maximum weight of Army vehicles using the roads; and what assessment has he made of the consequences of transport of such vehicles across the Ashchurch road bridge."
  Ashchurch has close and easy access to the M5 motorway and transportation of vehicles into and out of the depot will have little effect on the surrounding local road network. The largest vehicles that will be using the depot will be Main Battle Tanks. These vehicles with their transporters weigh 102 tonnes. The local authority are aware of this requirement and we do not anticipate any problems in the use of the Ashchurch road bridge.
  I trust that my reply has fully answered your questions. If you have any further questions or require further clarification on any of the answers I have given, please contact me.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries purchased Hawk aircraft from the United Kingdom in each of the past seven years; and to what military purposes they were deployed. [3643]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) on 27 November,Official Report, column 488.

  Royal Irish Regiment (Lisnaskea Base)
  Rev. Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the Government's plans for the Lisnaskea Royal Irish Regiment base and St. Angelo's, Enniskillen. [3775]

  Mr. Soames
  The requirement for bases and installations is kept under continuous review. Following the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary on 2 November that the Fermanagh Roulement Battalion would not be replaced when its six-month emergency tour ended, it was decided that the small number of Royal Irish Regiment soldiers based at the Lisnaskea Royal Ulster Constabulary station should operate in future from the recently refurbished Army base in Clogher. The buildings formerly occupied by these soldiers in Lisnaskea RUC station will, however, be maintained in case they are needed in future. It was also decided that the company of Royal Irish Regiment soldiers based at St. Angelo should in future operate from Grosvenor barracks, Enniskillen. Their former premises at St. Angelo will be demolished.

  Rev. Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the threat posed by terrorists to the Lisnaskea Royal Irish Regiment base and to the people of the area. [3777]

  Mr. Soames
  The threat posed by terrorists is continually assessed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The armed forces remain fully committed to, and capable of, providing whatever support the RUC requires.

  Weapons Dumps
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all weapons dumped since 1995 west of the Hebrides showing(a) the date, (b) the amount (c) the sources and (d) the exact location. [3176]

  Mr. Soames
  Surviving records give no indication that weapons have been dumped west of the Hebrides since 1965.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to reduce worldwide fatalities caused by land mines; and what new restrictions he intends to put in place to avoid future death caused by mines that have time limited detonators or self destruct. [3644]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We want tighter international restrictions on the use and export of all anti-personnel mines to prevent their indiscriminate and irresponsible use and, thereby, to minimise the dangers posed to civilians. In particular, we are working towards incorporating such restrictions into a strengthened UN weaponry convention, protocol II of which, on mines, is currently under review internationally.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the percentage of United Kingdom spending on defence expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product in each of the past five years. [3645]

  Mr. Soames
  The percentage of UK gross domestic product spent on defence in each of the past give years is:

  1990–91 Percentage

  1991–92 Percentage

  1992–93 Percentage

  1993–94 Percentage

  1994–95 Percentage

  4.0

  4.2

  3.8

  3.6

  3.3

  Recruitment Costs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average total recruitment cost for each new recruit to the(a) RAF, (b) Navy and (c) Army in each of the last five years. [3646]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. David Hart
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Mr. David Hart has declared any financial or other interest in any organisation potentially interested in or able to benefit from the proposed transfer of the Ministry of Defence married quarters' estate to the private sector. [4203]

  Mr. Soames
  All the independent advisers involved in our work on the transfer of ownership of the married quarters estate to the private sector have given formal
  165
  undertakings designed to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in their involvement and that they have no financial stake in the outcome of the transaction.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent of the involvement of Mr. David Hart in(a) the formulation of his proposal to transfer the ownership of the Ministry of Defence married quarters' estate to the private sector and (b) discussions about this policy with NatWest Markets. [4204]

  Mr. Soames
  As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in his answer of 22 March to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark),Official Report, column 218, Mr. Hart is one of several independent advisers who have contributed to the development of proposals for the married quarters estate. His involvement has included, from time to time, participation in discussions on the proposed transfer of ownership with Ministers, officials, and others advising on the proposals, including NatWest Markets.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to take steps to procure a medium range air-to-air missile for Eurofighter 2000. [4482]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am pleased to announce that we are today inviting competitive tenders for a medium range air-to-air missile for Eurofighter 2000. This weapon—the future medium-range air-to-air missile, FMRAAM—will give EF2000 a formidable beyond-visual-range capability, complementing the advanced short range air-to-air missile, ASRAAM, already on contract. We expect other European countries will join us in the tender assessment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Colleges of Nursing and Midwifery
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the funding arrangements for the integration of the colleges of nursing and midwifery with the Northern Ireland universities. [2533]

  Mr. Moss
  It is proposed that the funding arrangements for the integration of the colleges of nursing and midwifery with the Northern Ireland universities will be taken forward within the joint declaration of principles agreed in July 1995 between the national health service executive and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the universities of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the integration of the colleges of nursing and midwifery with the Northern Ireland universities. [2534]
  166
  Mr. Moss
  Considerable progress has been made towards the integration of the colleges of nursing and midwifery with the two Northern Ireland universities. The process has, however, taken longer than expected due to the need to clarify a number of issues with the parties concerned. However, my Department and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland expect to make an announcement in the new year. I can assure the hon. Member that I and my Department are committed to securing high quality education and training for nurses, midwives and health visitors in Northern Ireland.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons convicted since 1974 for terrorist offences have subsequently re-offended on their release from prison. [2898]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 4 July 1995,Official Report columns 157–58.

  University Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 1995,Official Report, column 156, how many Northern Ireland students attend (a) Northern Ireland; and (b) Republic of Ireland universities; and how many there are in the same academic specialisms referred to in that answer. [3642]

  Mr. Ancram
  The numbers of Northern Ireland domiciled students enrolled at Northern Ireland universities in 1994–95 by academic specialism are as follows:

  Northern Ireland Universities

  Medicine and dentistry

  1,028

  Subjects allied to medicine

  2,047

  Biological sciences

  1,795

  Veterinary sciences

  14

  Agriculture and related subjects

  264

  Physical sciences

  1,346

  Mathematical/computer sciences

  1,991

  Engineering and Technology

  2,129

  Architecture, building and planning

  947

  Social, economic and political students/law

  3,720

  Business and administrative studies

  4,583

  Librarianship and information science

  365

  Languages

  1,022

  Humanities

  1,124

  Creative arts

  988

  Education

  2,010

  Combined

  1,962

  Unknown

  9

  Total

  27,344

  In 1994–95 there were 816 Northern Ireland domiciled students enrolled at universities in the Republic of Ireland. A breakdown by academic specialism is not available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the Cabinet committees he(a) chairs and (b) sits on. [3563]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn),Official Report, 19 July 1995, column 1005.

  HMSO
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to inform hon. Members of progress on the proposed privatisation of HMSO; and if he will make a statement. [3746]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 27 November,Official Report, column 447.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 136, if he will list the salaries of the staff in the deregulation unit in 1994–95 and 1995–96. [4066]

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of the deregulation unit's staffing by grade are given in an organogram, form C, which is included as part of the unit's management information system for Ministers—MINIS—for 1994–95 and 1995–96 published by the Department of Trade and Industry, copies of which are in the House Libraries. Details of the salaries for the various grades are listed in the civil service management code which is also available in the House Libraries.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate the deregulation task force has made of the number of regulations and enforcement measures upon which it has made recommendations which were introduced since 1979; and what information his office has received on this matter. [4069]

  Mr. Freeman
  The deregulation task force made 52 recommendations in its first annual report, of which the Government have accepted 46 in whole or in part. Many of the recommendations were of a general nature or related to an area of regulation rather than to specific regulations or enforcement measures. The task force has not sought to estimate how many of its more specific recommendations concerned regulations or enforcement measures introduced after 1979 as its aim has been to assist the Government in removing unnecessary burdens on business and the voluntary sector regardless of when they were introduced.

  Ombudsman (Civil Service Guidance)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he proposes to publish the Office of Public Service guidance for civil servants on the work of the ombudsman as recommended in the first report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1993–94, HC33. [4112]
  168
  Mr. Freeman
  The guidance will take the form of a booklet, "The Ombudsman in Your Files". It will be circulated to Departments from 7 December 1995 and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House at the earliest opportunity.

SCOTLAND

  Executive Agencies (Overseas Travel)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of his executive agencies for the last financial year in respect of overseas travel by staff of the agency(a) the cost, (b) the countries visited and (c) the posts held by the staff involved. [2365]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As this question relates to a purely operational matter, my right hon. Friend has asked the chief executive of his agencies to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Ewart to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about overseas travel.
  The Scottish Court Service became an executive agency on 3 April 1995. Since then, no member of staff has travelled abroad on official business.

  Letter from K. MacRae to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  In response to the Written PQ which you tabled recently, the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to provide you with information about overseas travel by staff of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland.
  It is not part of the normal business of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland to require staff to travel abroad. For financial year 1994–95, therefore, the answer is nil.
  I trust this is the information you were seeking.

  Letter from Norman MacLeod to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about overseas travel by staff of executive Agencies, so far as the Scottish Office Pensions Agency is concerned.
  None of the staff of this Agency have so far been required to travel overseas on official business.

  Letter from Dr. R. K. M. Hay to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Scotland for details of the overseas travel undertaken by staff in his executive agencies in the last financial year. I have been asked to reply in respect of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency since travel by staff at this Agency is a matter for which I, as Chief Executive, have a delegated responsibility.
  The attached list sets out the posts held by officials at SASA who travelled abroad in the course of their work in financial year 1994/95 and the countries they visited. We have provided a total estimated figure for the travel and subsistence costs of these journeys. We do not have easily available information on the travel and subsistence costs per visit as this was dealt with centrally by The Scottish Office on a Department-wide rather than on an individual Agency basis at that time.
  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information either about the cost of overseas travel or the purpose of the journeys undertaken.
  The following staff from SASA travelled abroad during the financial year 1994/95
  169

  Post held

  Country visited

  Director, SASA

  Italy

  Deputy Director, SASA

  USA

  France

  PSO, Head of Official Seed Testing Station (OSTS)

  Netherlands

  France

  Germany

  HSO, OSTS

  Netherlands

  France

  SO, OSTS

  Netherlands

  SSO, Cereals

  Germany

  Netherlands

  Italy

  PSO, Head of Herbage and Vegetable

  Netherlands

  USA (expenses only)Portugal

  SSO, Herbage and Vegetable

  Netherlands

  France

  Portugal

  HSO, Herbage and Vegetable

  Italy

  Netherlands

  HSO, Potato

  Denmark

  PSO, Head of Plant Health

  Belgium(x3)

  PSO, Plant Health

  USA

  SSO, Plant Health

  Germany

  PSO, Head of Diagnostic and Molecular Biology

  Netherlands

  SSO, Diagnostic and Molecular Biology

  Netherlands

  HSO, Diagnostic and Molecular Biology

  Spain

  SSO, Zoology

  Belgium

  SO, Zoology

  Netherlands

  The estimated cost of foreign travel and subsistence was £19,000 of which a proportion was reimbursed by the EC.

  Letter from P. E. Du Vivier to" Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply on behalf of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency to your request for information on overseas travel by staff of executive agencies.
  So far as SFPA is concerned the information which you have requested for the last financial year is as follows:

  SFPA: Foreign Travel 1994/95

  Cost

  Country visited

  Staff post

  £226

  Ireland

  Director of Corporate Strategy and Resources

  £266

  Ireland

  Legal Affairs Manager

  £1,3571

  Sierra Leone

  Director of Corporate Strategy & Resources

  £1,3571

  Sierra Leone

  Controller of Air & Sea Operations

  170

  SFPA: Foreign Travel 1994/95

  Cost

  Country visited

  Staff post

  £266

  Ireland

  Chief Executive

  £266

  Ireland

  Director of Operations

  £474

  Belgium

  Head of Enforcement Policy and Procedures

  £234

  Holland

  Fishery Officer I

  £234

  Holland

  Fishery Officer II

  £190

  Norway

  Legal Affairs Manager

  £266

  Ireland

  Director of Operations

  £474

  Belgium

  Chief Executive

  £474

  Belgium

  Director of Operations?

  £300

  Ireland

  Fishery Office I

  1Travel costs reimbursed by the World Bank.

  Letter from Graeme N. Munro to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your recent question about overseas travel by Historic Scotland staff in the last financial year.
  I am attaching a table which details the information you have requested. I have included both travel and subsistence costs.
  The reasons for travel fall into two main categories: the promotion of Historic Scotland's monuments to the travel trade abroad and participation in specialist international conferences by our professional staff. In a number of cases the cost to the Agency has been mitigated by contributions from other sources (eg where a member of Historic Scotland staff has been invited to give a paper).
  All foreign travel has to be approved by me in advance. Before giving approval I satisfy myself that the expenditure can be justified in terms of the Agency's aims and objectives.
  I hope this information is helpful to you.

  Countries visited

  Post held by staff

  Cost

  Japan and Thailand

  Travel Trade Manager

  4,800

  USA

  Travel Trade Manager

  3,700

  Germany

  Travel Trade Executive

  2,291

  Netherlands

  Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments

  400

  France

  Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments

  300

  Sweden

  Inspector of Ancient Monuments

  Nil

  Ireland

  Principal Inspector of Ancient Monuments

  200

  Greece

  Principal Inspector of Ancient Monuments

  Nil

  Canada

  Inspector of Ancient Monuments

  1,300

  India

  Assistant Inspector of Ancient Monuments

  900

  Czechoslovakia

  Director, Technical Conservation, Research and Education

  1,723

  Norway

  Director, Technical Conservation, Research and Education

  998

  Spain

  Director, Technical Conservation, Research and

  1,280

  171

  Countries visited

  Post held by stuff

  Cost

  Education

  Netherlands

  Conservator

  424

  Canada

  Conservator

  255

  France

  Senior Architect

  368

  Belgium

  Senior Architect

  Nil

  Ireland

  Director, Corporate Planning and Resources

  327

  Ireland

  Head of Finance

  327

  Ireland

  Systems Manager

  327

  Ireland

  Accountant

  327

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about overseas travel by staff of the Scottish Prison Service during the last financial year.
  The information in relation to travel for which claims were processed by the Scottish Prison Service is as follows:

  Cost (£)

  Countries visited

  Post held

  2,200.00

  Brazil

  Governor in Charge

  1,217,43

  Canada/USA

  Area Director

  I myself paid a short visit to the Swedish Prison Service during the year, and a Governor spent time with the Hong Kong Prison Service as part of an exchange arrangement. However, I regret that information on the cost of both those visits and details of any other visits made by Scottish Prison Service staff for whom claims were processed by the Scottish Office, have not been made available to me by the Scottish Office on the grounds that the information is not accessible except at disproportionate cost.
  I am sorry I cannot give you a fuller reply.

  Letter from Patrick Cadell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your question.
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will list for each of his executive agencies for the last financial year in respect of overseas travel by staff of the agency (a) the cost, (b) the countries visited and (c) the posts held by the staff involved.

  The answers for the Scottish Record Office are as follows:

  (a) £7,254 was the sum spent on foreign travel in 1994/95.

  (b) Countries visited were Australia, Belgium (EU), Canada, France (including Council of Europe), Greece, Ireland, Italy, Nigeria, Spain, Turkey, and the USA.

  (c) This travel was carried out by the Keeper (Grade 5), the Deputy Keeper (Grade 6), and 2 Curatorial Grade 7s.

  Letter front Alan Ramage to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary for State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your written PQ asking for information on overseas travel by Agency staff in the last financial year and I can confirm that no member of the Agency travelled overseas in this period.

  Algrade Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland further to the Lord Advocate's letter of 24 July 172
  1995, what evidence he has that one of the new trustees of the Algrade Trust has a background in the specialist teaching of people with learning difficulties. [3338]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The evidence comes from an account of the qualifications of the new trustees given by their legal advisers. One of the trustees is Mrs. Ethel Marsh, Dip.C.E. who was head teacher of the James Gillespie school between 1976 and 1993. This lady was the convenor of the primary, nursery and special section of the Lothian Head Teachers Association involving the educational needs for pupils with special learning difficulties.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the investigation of the affairs of the Algrade Trust by the Scottish Charities Office, with special reference to the underspending of money paid to the trust for the care and accommodation of handicapped people; the expenditure by the trust on the purchase of properties and the conveyancing of property purchased with trust funds to other parties. [3339]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Charities Office continues to make inquiries into the past circumstances of the Algrade Trust, including its accounting and expenditure as well as the purchase and conveyance of properties. The nature and extent of these inquiries is such that it will be some time before they are completed and the results are known.

  Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers—PIEDA
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions his Department has commissioned PIEDA to carry out educational reports. [3184]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  PIEDA was commissioned in August 1995 to carry out a study of the funding of further education in the islands. The study covers Orkney, Shetland and Lewis where there are existing further education colleges. The study is due to report by the end of 1995. PIEDA has also carried out work in the educational sector in Scotland which has been commissioned by others.

  Long-stay Beds
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of long-stay beds in the NHS in Scotland in 1990, broken down to show the numbers for the(a) elderly, (b) psychiatry, (c) learning difficulties and (d) chronic young sick, categories; what are the figures under these categories for 1 April; and if he will estimate in these categories the number of available long-stay beds in the NHS in Scotland by (i) 1 April 1998 and (ii) 1 April 2000. [3445]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Future bed numbers in each health board area are a matter for local determination based on a thorough assessment of local health needs.

  The information requested for 1990 and 1995 is as follows:
  173

  NHS and joint-user and contractual hospitals in Scotland— average available staffed NHS beds; by selected specialty; years ending 31 March

  1990

  1995

  All selected beds

  29,218

  22,231

  Geriatric long stay

  9,132

  7,442

  Psychiatric specialities

  14,407

  11,034

  Learning difficulties

  5,283

  3,468

  Young chronic sick

  396

  287

  1. The figures in the table relate to long stay beds for geriatric and young chronic sick patients, and to total beds for psychiatric and learning difficulty patients. Around 40 per cent. of psychiatric beds and 10 per cent. of learning difficulty beds are used for the care of short stay patients.

  2. The figures show information on the average daily number of available staffed beds. This indicates the number of beds which are staffed and are available for the reception of in-patients and day cases.

  Minebea Electronics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been paid to Minebea Electronics, Kelburn business park, Port Glasgow, in public grants; and what is the type of grant aid by which such money was given to the company. [2794]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: None. The company has, however, accepted an offer of regional selective assistance. No payments have, as yet, been made; in the event of a payment being made, details of the RSA offer will be published in "Labour Market Trends".

  Forestry Planting (Greenlawdean)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to make a decision about the outstanding forestry planting application at Greenlawdean in Berwickshire; and if he will make a statement. [3564]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland visited Greenlawdean on November 13 and has decided not to call for an environmental assessment of the forestry planting proposals.

  Dorset county council budgeted net revenue expenditure
  compared to SSA, 1995–96

  SSA

  Budgeted net revenue expenditure

  Difference

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  Education

  198.0

  213.5

  15.5

  7.8

  Personal social services

  77.6

  73.8

  -3.8

  -4.9

  Fire

  12.4

  14.4

  2.0

  16.1

  Highway maintenance

  24.8

  26.1

  1.3

  5.2

  Other services

  25.4

  30.7

  5.3

  20.9

  Capital financing

  20.1

  0.1

  -20.0

  -99.5

  Total

  358.3

  358.6

  0.3

  0.1

  Note:

  Budgeted net revenue expenditure for the first five SSA blocks include an estimate of capital expenditure charged to revenue account—CERA—calculated by apportioning the total CERA of £27.4 million as reported by Dorset county council, to those SSA blocks in proportion to net current expenditure.

  Asbestos (East Kilbride)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the management of East Kilbride development corporation first became aware of the presence of asbestos in the internal construction of houses in the Telford road area of the new town; and when the board of development corporation was notified of the problem. [4121]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Officials at the development corporation were formally advised of the presence of asbestos in the corporation's homes in Telford road on 1 February 1995. The board was notified on 14 March 1995.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rural Businesses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of rural businesses which have closed in each year since 1990. [2573]

  Mr. Clappison
  We do not hold information in this form.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussion he has had, and with whom, regarding the future development of Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement. [3172]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. Discussions are continuing between Wandsworth council, English Heritage and the owners about the future of the Battersea power station site. The Government are not party to those discussions but would like to see the future development of this important site on the River Thames resolved as soon as possible.

  Dorset County Council
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much in monetary and percentage terms Dorset county council has budgeted to overspend or underspend on each of its standard spending assessments for the current year. [3443]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following is the information.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much revenue support grant was paid to each metropolitan district for 1994–95; and what was the percentage movement from the previous year. [3198]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is as follows:

  Table to show the 1994–95 RSG for the metropolitan districts, and the percentage change relative to the previous year

  Local authority

  1994–95 RSG (£ million)

  Percentage increase over1993–94

  Bolton

  101.883

  5.7

  Bury

  51.112

  20.6

  Manchester

  273.804

  2.4

  Oldham

  97.549

  6.6

  Rochdale

  90.838

  9.9

  Salford

  100.055

  8.3

  Stockport

  71.991

  6.0

  Tameside

  77.076

  8.8

  Trafford

  67.227

  5.6

  Wigan

  101.827

  19.4

  Knowsley

  93 .268

  8.0

  Liverpool

  267.523

  -0.3

  Sefton

  98.886

  14.6

  St. Helens

  69.749

  11.4

  Wirral

  128.889

  8.7

  Barnsley

  72.868

  22.4

  Doncaster

  118.287

  14.7

  Rotherham

  93.795

  16.4

  Sheffield

  197.476

  14.8

  Gateshead

  86.866

  14.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  125.898

  12.8

  North Tyneside

  71.868

  15.5

  South Tyneside

  66.138

  11.6

  Sunderland

  130.167

  15.8

  Birmingham

  538.753

  -1.1

  Coventry

  123.711

  0.3

  Dudley

  87.861

  13.3

  Sandwell

  129.213

  1.4

  Solihull

  48.024

  5.7

  Walsall

  110.911

  14.9

  Wolverhampton

  114.446

  -6.0

  Bradford

  242.052

  1.8

  Calderdale

  71.680

  8.9

  Kirklees

  136.948

  3.4

  Leeds

  259.446

  11.7

  Wakefield

  107.079

  23.2

  Commission for the New Towns
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from the Commission for the New Towns on the likely effect of his Department's current land sales programme on market prices. [3455]

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission for the New Towns' strategy for the disposal of land is discussed with it in the context of its corporate plan. It attaches importance to phased release to local markets.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the pilot scheme for vouchers 176
  has on the rate support grant of those authorities taking part in the scheme; in (a) the first and (b) the second year of its operation. [3267]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Authorities taking part in phase 1 of the scheme will receive less revenue support grant because they have a reduced standard spending assessment for education. But if they continue to attract the same number of nursery pupils as in the past, their income from vouchers would equal the reduction in their RSG.

  We will take decisions on the second year of the scheme in the light of experience in the first year.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount payable to the chairman of the Health and Safety Executive; and for how many hours a week is his appointment. [3613]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The annual salary of the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission is currently £58,456. The appointment is pensionable and reasonable travel and subsistence expenses are payable in connection with commission business. The appointment is for three days a week.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made in pursuit of a derogation for the United Kingdom Government from the obligation in Com(93)680 final to reduce nitrates in drinking water below their natural level. [3491]

  Mr. Clappison
  The European Commission's proposal for a directive on the ecological quality of water, COM(93) 680 final contains no such requirement in respect of nitrates.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3963]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Cement Kilns
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue a full reply to the second report of the Environment Select Committee on the burning of secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns HC 479 of Session 1994–95. [3792]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government expect to make a full response early in the new year.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of
  177
  28 November, Official Report, column 557, what reports he has received from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution concerning persistent plume grounding at Castle Cement in Clitheroe; and what assessment he has made of the possible risks to public health in the vicinity. [3790]

  Mr. Clappison
  Ministers are fully aware of the reported incidence of plume grounding and the investigative monitoring that national physical laboratory carried out on behalf of HMIP. The results of this investigation are being reviewed by the Department of Health.

  Boundary Review
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions his Department has given to the Local Government Commission on the review of boundaries of metropolitan areas; and if he will make a statement. [4097]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. We are considering what reviews the commission should undertake in addition to its statutory responsibilities for periodic electoral reviews.

  Local authority

  Change in total SSA 1995–96 (£ million)

  Percentage change in total 1995–96 (Percentage)

  Change in education SSA 1995–96 (£ million)

  Percentage change in 1995–96 (Percentage)

  Bedfordshire

  -1.830

  -0.5

  0.603

  0.3

  Berkshire

  6.809

  1.5

  5.788

  2.2

  Buckinghamshire

  -0.104

  —

  1.762

  0.7

  Cambridgeshire

  4.348

  1.2

  4.528

  2.0

  Cheshire

  -0.927

  -0.2

  -1.428

  -0.4

  Cornwall

  5.178

  1.9

  1.936

  1.3

  Cumbria

  -0.146

  -0.1

  -0.934

  -0.6

  Derbyshire

  0.994

  0.2

  1.980

  0.7

  Devon

  10.114

  1.7

  6.848

  2.1

  Dorset

  3.024

  0.9

  2.089

  1.1

  Durham

  -0.377

  -0.1

  0.257

  0.1

  East Sussex

  6.766

  1.7

  6.404

  3.1

  Essex

  -4.799

  -0.5

  -1.391

  -0.3

  Gloucestershire

  7.095

  2.4

  2.198

  1.3

  Hampshire

  -0.814

  0.1

  2.302

  0.5

  Hereford and Worcester

  4.886

  1.4

  4.751

  2.2

  Hertfordshire

  9.753

  1.6

  10.328

  2.9

  Kent

  3.126

  0.3

  4.416

  0.8

  Lancashire

  7.180

  0.9

  6.688

  1.4

  Leicestershire

  3.206

  0.6

  2.919

  0.9

  Lincolnshire

  1.117

  0.3

  0.614

  0.3

  Norfolk

  -1.500

  -0.4

  -1.580

  -0.7

  Northamptonshire

  0.947

  0.3

  1.563

  0.8

  Northumberland

  -1.225

  -0.6

  -1.980

  -1.8

  Nottinghamshire

  3.214

  0.5

  3.205

  0.9

  Oxfordshire

  -1.655

  -0.5

  1.543

  0.8

  Shropshire

  1.230

  0.5

  1.248

  0.9

  Somerset

  3.656

  1.4

  3.494

  2.5

  Staffordshire

  3.094

  0.5

  4.054

  1.2

  Suffolk

  1.835

  0.5

  3.156

  1.6

  Surrey

  18.146

  3.5

  16.766

  5.9

  Warwickshire

  1.129

  0.4

  1.839

  1.2

  West Sussex

  1.649

  0.4

  3.524

  1.6

  Wiltshire

  3.831

  1.2

  4.878

  2.7

  Avon (Old area)

  0.094

  —

  -0.419

  -0.1

  Cleveland (Old area)

  0.262

  0.1

  0.007

  —

  Humberside (Old area)

  -0.422

  -0.1

  -0.394

  -0.1

  North Yorkshire (Old area)

  3.784

  1.0

  3.838

  1.7

  1. Changes calculated using Adjusted SSAs. The adjusted SSA updates the previous years SSA to take account of changes in function and geographical responsibility, but not data, methodology or control total changes.

  2. Due to Local Government reorganisation, Avon CC, Cleveland CC, and Humberside CC have been abolished. The new area of North Yorkshire CC excludes the new area of York Unitary Authority.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date he now expects to receive the inspector's report on Manchester airport's planning application for a second runway; and if he will make a statement. [3190]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I expect to receive the report by autumn 1996. The public inquiry lasted about nine months and there is a very considerable weight of evidence from the main parties, conservation groups, local residents and business people to evaluate.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the change in standard spending assessment for county councils in England for (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97, identifying the standard spending assessment for education separately and (b) the amount of total external support for each county council, together with the percentage change from 1995–96 in order from the highest increase to the lowest. [3927]

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:
  179

  Local authority

  Change in total SSA 1996–97 £ million

  Percentage change in total SSA 1996–97

  Change in education SSA 1996–97 £ million

  Percentage change in education SSA 1996–97

  Bedfordshire

  7.987

  2.3

  8.251

  3.9

  Berkshire

  8.096

  1.8

  9.042

  3.3

  Buckinghamshire

  8.219

  2.1

  8.417

  3.5

  Cambridgeshire

  14.232

  3.7

  11.167

  4.9

  Cheshire

  18.023

  3.2

  17.024

  5.1

  Cornwall

  8.603

  3.0

  8.700

  5.6

  Cumbria

  9.896

  3.4

  9.408

  5.8

  Derbyshire

  20.615

  3.9

  17.155

  5.7

  Devon

  21.852

  3.6

  17.422

  5.3

  Dorset

  10.650

  2.9

  9.509

  4.8

  Durham

  10.206

  2.8

  9.840

  4.8

  East Sussex

  8.402

  2.0

  7.264

  3.4

  Essex

  24.652

  2.6

  26.289

  4.9

  Gloucestershire

  9.505

  3.1

  9.286

  5.3

  Hampshire

  23.810

  2.7

  22.701

  4.5

  Hereford and Worcester

  11.752

  3.2

  9.097

  4.1

  Hertfordshire

  15.730

  2.5

  15.882

  4.3

  Kent

  22.259

  2.3

  22.742

  4.1

  Lancashire

  26.606

  3.1

  26.588

  5.5

  Leicestershire

  17.452

  3.2

  16.818

  5.3

  Lincolnshire

  15.138

  4.3

  13.932

  7.0

  Norfolk

  17.826

  4.2

  15.359

  6.7

  North Yorkshire (New Area)

  13.369

  4.2

  11.577

  6.6

  Northamptonshire

  12.748

  3.6

  12.504

  6.0

  Nottinghamshire

  20.518

  3.4

  18.535

  5.3

  Northumberland

  6.291

  3.2

  5.950

  5.5

  Oxfordshire

  7.510

  2.4

  5.951

  3.2

  Shropshire

  8.879

  3.7

  8.223

  6.0

  Somerset

  8.884

  3.4

  7.385

  5.1

  Staffordshire

  18.151

  3.1

  17.324

  5.0

  Suffolk

  13.020

  3.6

  11.665

  5.7

  Surrey

  10.070

  1.8

  8.188

  2.7

  Warwickshire

  8.907

  3.3

  7.850

  5.0

  West Sussex

  7.663

  1.9

  8.715

  3.8

  Wiltshire

  9.543

  3.0

  9.017

  4.8

  1. Changes calculated using Adjusted SSAs. The adjusted SSA updates the previous years SSA to take account of changes in function and geographical responsiblity, but not data, methodology or control total changes.

  2. Due to Local Government reorganisation, Avon CC, Cleveland CC, and Humberside CC have been abolished. The new area of North Yorkshire CC excludes the new area of York Unitary Authority.

  Local authority

  Proposed total external support 1996–97 £million

  Percentage change relative to 1995–96

  Lincolnshire

  281.307

  6.9

  Derbyshire

  422.515

  6.7

  Devon

  462.854

  6.4

  Suffolk

  280.824

  6.2

  Somerset

  197.322

  6.1

  Nottinghamshire

  486.294

  6.0

  Shropshire

  188.561

  6.0

  Cumbria

  229.105

  5.9

  Northumberland

  156.751

  5.9

  Warwickshire

  197.170

  5.8

  Dorset

  261.525

  5.8

  Cambridgeshire

  300.818

  5.8

  Northamptonshire

  279.661

  5.6

  Durham

  300.380

  5.5

  Cornwall

  219.921

  5.5

  Hereford and Worcester

  274.477

  5.5

  Gloucestershire

  227.468

  5.4

  Lancashire

  694.961

  5.4

  Leicestershire

  432.662

  5.3

  Staffordshire

  466.331

  5.2

  Cheshire

  432.157

  5.2

  Norfolk

  323.785

  5.1

  East Sussex

  311.010

  4.9

  Hampshire

  662.366

  4.8

  Wiltshire

  233.543

  4.8

  180

  Local authority

  Proposed total external support 1996–97 £million

  Percentage change relative to 1995–96

  Essex

  710.598

  4.7

  Hertfordshire

  458.742

  4.6

  Kent

  744.579

  4.3

  West Sussex

  284.664

  4.2

  Oxfordshire

  230.107

  4.0

  Surrey

  360.818

  4.0

  Bedfordshire

  268.352

  3.8

  Berkshire

  337.796

  3.0

  Buckinghamshire

  288.380

  1.4

  North Yorkshire (New area)

  236.399

  —

  1. Where total external support is defined as revenue support grant plus Income from non-domestic rates plus SSA reduction grant.

  2. No TES figures for 1995-96 are available for the new area North Yorkshire county council, so no percentage change figure shown in the table.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the likely receipts from sale of the Housing Corporation's loan portfolio to the private sector; and what proportion will be re-invested in housing. [4335]
  181
  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 28 November that he would shortly be appointing financial advisers to carry out detailed investigations into the options for sale and prospective disposal receipts of the corporation's loan portfolio.

  In the event of sale, the proceeds would be applied to redemption of the Government's corresponding borrowing from the national loans fund.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the relationship between the figure announced on 28 November for housing associations in 1996–97 and the sum previously announced for the same period; and what assessment he has made as to the effect of the change on the number of homes likely to be constructed. [4336]

  Mr. Clappison
  As announced on 28 November, the Housing Corporation's approved development programme—ADP—for capital investment by housing associations in 1996–97 is £1,022 million, including £19 million for city challenge schemes. The figure announced last year for the same period was £1,127 million.

  The Department's provisional estimates of the lettings from the new approved development programme, compared with the previous year's estimate, is:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Provisional estimate

  42,000

  37,300

  42,900

  Previous estimate, 15 December 1994

  41,200

  41,100

  n/a

  The current provisional estimates reflect reduced development costs and other factors.

  The ADP, together with lettings from other sources, is expected to achieve an average of around 60,000 new social lettings a year over the next three years 1996–97–1998–99.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to(a) receive a report and (b) make a decision on the proposed redevelopment of the former Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich; [4207]

  (2) when he expects the planning inquiry into the redevelopment of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich to be held; and if this conforms to the time scale set out in the inquiries procedure rules. [4206]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local inquiry has been arranged for 23 April 1996. This is seven weeks beyond the recommended time scales but it was the earliest practicable date when a suitably qualified inspector would be available. Once the Government office for London has received the inspector's report, we will issue the decision as quickly as possible.

  West Country Development Corporation
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the report by 182
  the regional director of the Government office for the south-west on the outcome of his work in respect of the reports that the West Country development corporation commissioned from Coopers and Lybrand on needs and resources in Devon and Cornwall. [4679]

  Mr. Curry
  I am publishing the regional director's report today and I and the Minister for Trade have had a useful meeting with the chairman and other representatives of the West Country development corporation.

  We have listened to the messages from local agencies in the west country.

  The regional director's report has explained that while needs in Devon and Cornwall remained substantial benefits are being delivered through increased Government spending, with improvements in many areas.

  We have today pledged the Government's continuing commitment to working with agencies in Devon and Cornwall to ensure that the counties' business development and regeneration needs are being met. Devon and Cornwall will benefit from more than £240 million of United Kingdom and European funds aimed at regenerating the local economy over the next few years.

  With the Government office and local partners working together in co-operation we shall build on the strengths of Devon and Cornwall to develop a strong and prosperous local economy.

TRANSPORT

  M42, Meriden
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has finalised his plans for the future of the M42 motorway in the constituency of Meriden. [2645]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. lain Mills, dated 5 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, if he has finalised his plans for the future of the M42 motorway in the constituency of Meriden.
  Following the recent review of the roads programme, we will be concentrating on the section of the motorway in the Meriden constituency ie between junctions 3A and 7, where the greater problems exist. In line with other decisions taken in the review the scheme will no longer contain provision for a fifth lane in each direction between junctions. In taking the scheme forward, we shall take into account the responses to public consultation in June 1994 on the full scheme. We shall also be considering the scope for other reductions in scale.

  Severn Bridge Tolls
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amounts collected in tolls from the Severn bridge for each year since construction for which figures are available in constant 1995 prices; and if he will make a statement. [2171]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  183
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 5 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list the amounts collected in tolls from the Severn Bridge for each year since construction for which figures are available in constant 1995 prices; and if he will make a statement.
  I attach a table listing the amounts collected in tolls from the Severn Bridge for each year since its construction. The first column shows the actual amounts of tolls collected. The second column shows the figures in 1995 prices.
  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Severn Bridge Amounts collected in tolls

  Year

  Amount of toll collected £

  Figure adjusted to 1995 prices £

  1966–67

  329,971

  3,210,287.86

  1967–68

  743,115

  7,054,390.70

  1968–69

  807,934

  7,326,345.51

  1969–70

  873,755

  7,514,293.00

  1970–71

  926,546

  8,158,237.53

  1971–72

  1,000,682

  7,394,039.30

  1972–73

  1,192,836

  8,229,375.56

  1973–74

  1,214,422

  7,672,718.20

  1974–75

  1,208,599

  6,583,238,75

  1975–76

  1,216,512

  5,334,405.12

  1976–77

  1,254,380

  4,718,977.56

  1977–78

  1,242,306

  4,033,767.58

  1978–79

  1,330,837

  3,991,180.16

  1979–80

  2,134,378

  5,643,295.43

  1980–81

  2,757,335

  6,179,187.74

  1981–82

  2,746,407

  5,501,053.22

  1982–83

  2,851,081

  5,257,393.36

  1983–84

  2,843,711

  5,016,306.20

  1984–85

  2,988,316

  5,017,382.56

  1985–86

  5,311,638

  8,413,634.59

  1986–87

  4,395,461

  6,729,450.79

  1987–88

  9,072,594

  13,336,713.18

  1988–89

  10,103,476

  14,154,969,88

  1989–90

  13,609,424

  17,692,251.20

  1990–91

  20,795,558

  24,705,122.90

  1991–92 (24/4/92)

  22,758,261

  25,534,768.83

  1992

  21,991.00

  23,794,262.00

  1993

  34,366,00

  36,599,790.00

  1994

  39,201.00

  40,769,040.00

  1. The amount shown for 1966–67 relates to tolls collected for the period from 9 September 1966 to 31 March 1967, i.e. approx. 7 months only.

  2. The amounts for 1991–92 is for the period from 1 April 1991 to 25 April 1992.

  3. The amount shown for the year 1992 relates to tolls collected from 26 April 1992 to 31 December 1992.

  4. The Retail Price Index used for adjustment to 1995 prices is the index published for October 1995.

  The Government's policy is to ensure that implementing legislation imposes least cost and provides greatest certainty consistent with meeting our legal obligations.

  Carriage of Dangerous Goods Regulations
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will re-negotiate with his European colleagues changes in the European agreement on the carriage of dangerous goods by road to enable withdrawal of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Classification, packaging and labelling) Regulations 1994 to take place without contravention of EU laws; [3544]
  184
  (2) if he will withdraw the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 1994. [3543]

  Mr. Norris
  To seek to negotiate the extensive changes in Community legislation and in other international agreements that are implicit in my hon. Friend's questions would be impractical. However, the Health and Safety Commission has just published a consultation document containing a draft of a revised version of these regulations. Any comments on the draft should be submitted to the commission by 1 March 1996.

  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for how long the derogation from the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 1994, set out in the verbal protocol to the Sanitary Medical Disposal Services Association of 12 June remains in force; [3546]

  (2) if he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to put in writing the protocol reached with the SMDSA on 12 June regarding derogation from the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 1994 to the clinical waste management industry. [3545]

  Mr. Norris
  I am advised that the Health and Safety Executive will be writing before the end of the year to the SMDSA about the current position regarding the transport of clinical waste.

  A1 Development Inquiry
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the air quality samples taken at the Ferrybridge junior and infant school used as evidence at the public inquiry into the A1 Ferrybridge to Hookmoor proposals; and if he will make a statement. [3720]

  Mr. Watts
  The effect of the proposed scheme on air quality was outlined in the air quality report included in the environmental statement published in February 1995. Further information about air quality was published during the public inquiry held between 18 October and 3 November.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what kind of transcript service was used at the public inquiry into the proposed A1 development from Ferrybridge to Hookmore. [3717]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 8 November 1995,Official Report, column 899.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the prevailing winds were taken into consideration when assessing the air quality at the Ferrybridge junior and infant school for the purpose of evidence at the A1 Ferrybridge to Hookmoor proposals. [3715]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration led to the decision to take no samples of particulates by the air quality witness at the
  185
  public inquiry into the proposals for the Al Ferrybridge to Hookmoor proposals. [3719]

  Mr. Watts
  Sampling is not normally carried out for new road schemes. In this case particulate levels have been predicted using the methodology in the design manual for roads and bridges. Estimates of particulates were made at 43 selected properties alongside the new route. All the levels were found to be well within the EC limit.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who decided the length of time allocated to the public inquiry into the Al Ferrybridge to Hookmoor proposals. [3716]

  Mr. Watts
  The independent inspector, appointed by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport, on the nomination of the Lord Chancellor, is fully responsible for the conduct and overall length of the inquiry.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the involvement of the Highways Agency in a public inquiry into a major motorway within the terms of the answer of 8 November,Official Report, column 899. [3718]

  Mr. Watts
  When my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport announce the intention to hold a public inquiry, it is for the Highways Agency to arrange it, though the conduct of the inquiry remains the sole responsibility of the inspector. Agency representatives would also attend the inquiry to give evidence in support of the proposals.

  Road Toll Schemes (Tagging Devices)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tagging devices are currently being considered for road toll schemes; and how many of them involve radiation emissions. [3751]

  Mr. Watts
  Three of the consortiums that we have invited to take part in our forthcoming trials offer, as part of their electronic tolling systems, tags which could emit low-level radio frequency transmissions, at levels well below those emitted by, for example, mobile telephones.

  Motorway Lighting
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria his Department uses when determining which sections of motorway require lighting. [3203]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Irvine Patnick, dated 5 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what criteria his Department uses when determining which sections of motorway require lighting.
  The decision whether to light in a particular case is taken following consideration of a full appraisal of the proposed scheme. This includes an economic assessment of the capital, maintenance
  186
  and energy costs set against the potential savings as a result of the reduction in night time personal injury accidents, calculated over the life of the lighting scheme. A full assessment of environmental factors is taken into account.

  M1 Road Works
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport between what date road works will be removed from the M1 during the Christmas and new year periods; and if he will make a statement. [3201]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Irvine Patnick, dated 5 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, between what dates roadworks will be removed from the M1 during the Christmas and New Year periods; and if he will make a statement.
  Roadworks will be removed from the M1 between Junction 38 and 42 from Friday 22 December at 06.00 hrs to Wednesday 3 January at 08.00 hrs.
  The works to widen the M1 between Junctions 21 and 21A are continuing and due for completion in March 1996. Three lanes of traffic will be maintained in each direction through the widening works on this section of the M1 from Friday 22 December at 05.30 hrs to Tuesday 2 January at 21.00 hrs.
  There are no other roadworks planned on the M1 over the Christmas and New Year period.

  British Rail (Noise and Air Pollution)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 1995,Official Report, column 53, on prosecution for noise and air pollution, what was the nature of (a) the successful prosecution against British Rail and (b) the two abatement notices. [3337]

  Mr. Watts
  Abatement notices were served on British Rail requiring a reduction in excessive noise at Paddington station, London and at Trafford Park Euro-terminal, Manchester.

  The notice served at Paddington required a reduction in the noise created by the engineering work involved in the remodelling of the track layout on the approaches to the station. The use of a tamping machine on one particular night, close to residential premises, led to a prosecution. BR was unable to prove that it had done all that it possibly could to avoid the use of the machine on the night in question and a plea of guilty was entered.

  The notice served at Trafford Park related to a new road-rail terminal constructed for channel tunnel freight traffic. The terminal is adjacent to residential properties, the owners of which complained of excessive night time noise after the terminal opened in 1994. In the hearing before the stipendiary magistrate at which the board's appeal against the notice was heard, the board suggested a number of measures to reduce the level of noise received by residents. The board has taken the steps necessary to implement these measures.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the estimated date for submission
  187
  to his Department of the inspector's report following the planning inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road; and when he expects to be in a position to make a decision and when an announcement on whether the road is to be approved; [3188]

  (2) what has been the overall cost of conducting the planning public inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road (a) excluding and (b) including the fees of the inspector. [3189]

  Mr. Watts
  Given the length of the inquiry, the report cannot be expected for some time. When it has been received, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will reach their joint decision as quickly as possible.

  The final cost of the inquiry to the Highways Agency is estimated at £1.59 million, of which £210,000 is the fees for the inspector and his team.

  Bicycles (Carriage by Rail)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage cyclists to take their bicycles with them when travelling part of their journey by train. [3460]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department assisted with the production of the Cyclists' Public Affairs Group's document, "Bike and Trains—Opportunities for the New Operators", which explains how train operators can make their services more attractive to cyclists. The document includes advice on the carriage of bicycles on trains and the provision of bicycle facilities at stations.

  The franchising director will require franchisees, through the franchise agreement, to carry bicycles where practicable and to ensure that any charges made are reasonable.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many statutory instruments his Department sponsored in the last Session of Parliament; and how many of these(a) constituted a new rule or regulation, (b) were introduced to implement European Community directives and (c) amplify the minimum standards set out in an original European Community directive. [2459]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 28 November 1995]: A total of 107 general statutory instruments were made in the Session 1994–95. Of these, based on data for the first six months of 1995, we estimate that:

  almost 20 per cent. revoked earlier instruments or substituted a more favourable regime for business;

  more than 15 per cent. implemented EU or other international obligations including measures to facilitate intermember state trade;

  two per cent. facilitated privatisations and competitions;

  almost 50 per cent. updated fees and charges, or concern local legislation.

  Twelve statutory instruments implemented EC legislation. In implementing the directives, none of these instruments go beyond the minimum standard required.

  North West Regional Railways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects North West Regional Railways Ltd. to be offered by franchise to the private sector. [3948]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director expects to offer the North West Regional Railways franchise to the private sector during 1996 or later.

  Leeds Supertram
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his intention to make provision for work to start on the Leeds Supertram in 1996–97; and if he will now announce his approval of the scheme. [4007]

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to provide funding for work on Leeds Supertram to commence in 1996–97; [4189]

  (2) if he will announce whether he will approve plans for a Leeds Supertram; and if he will make a statement. [4290]

  Mr. Norris
  West Yorkshire passenger transport Authority has bid for funding for Leeds Supertram in the 1996–97 local transport settlement. We will be announcing details of the settlement later this month.

  Salford Quays and Eccles Metrolink
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public sector funding will be required to meet the costs of constructing the Salford Quays and Eccles Metrolink extension. [3953]

  Mr. Norris
  Greater Manchester Passenger Transport authority has yet to obtain powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for the extension of Metrolink between Salford Quays and Eccles. GMPTA have bid for funding for the extension as far as Salford Quays in the 1996–97 local transport settlement. We will be announcing details of the settlement later this month.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Pre-sentence Reports
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the proportion of cases where the recommendation in the pre-sentence report was adopted by the magistrates courts during 1994 for each ethnic category. [3653]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available. The available information for 1993 was published in tables 15C, 15.7 and 15.8 of "Probation Statistics England and Wales 1993," a copy of which is in the Library.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from national health service trusts about budgetary constraints. [2188]
  189
  Mr. Horam
  None. National health service trusts are no longer given budgets, but earn their income from providing services to purchasers of health care. The level of income a trust receives is subject to contractual negotiation with purchasers each financial year.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that national health service trusts retain flexibility over whether or not to contract out specific services. [2185]

  Mr. Horam
  The only requirement on trusts is to market test catering, domestic and linen-laundry services at regular intervals. Otherwise it is for individual trusts to decide which services to market test, and when, in order to reflect local circumstances and needs.

  In-patients
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of in-patients treated by Warwickshire trusts or equivalent areas in(a) 1994 and (b) 1993. [2189]

  Mr. Horam
  Warwickshire national health service trusts admitted 69,091 in-patients in 1993–94, rising to 70,077 in-patients in 1994–95.

  Source: SD2A; KP70 return.

  Redundancy and Retirement
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary for Health what guidelines his Department is giving regarding redundancy payments and retirement packages in the national health service. [2190]

  Mr. Malone
  Arrangements for redundancy and premature retirement for national health service staff employed in health authorities and NHS trusts on national terms and conditions of service are set out in sections 45 and 46 of the General Whitley Council handbook. Guidance on severance payments for general and senior managers on short-term rolling contracts was issued in circulars HSG(94)18 and TEL(94)3. Staff employed on NHS trust terms and conditions of service will be covered by their trust's contractual terms.

  Guidance on early retirement for NHS pension scheme members was issued in circular HSG(95)25. Additionally, a guide covering pension entitlement on redundancy and early retirement has been issued by the NHS Pensions Agency to all NHS pension scheme members. More specific information is available in the booklet "Early Retirement". Copies of all documents are available in the Library.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations have been carried out by the national health service on patients over the age of(a) 90, (b) 95 and (c) 100 years in the last five. [2191]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is in the table:

  Hip replacements and other arthroplasty operations of the hip

  Year

  Age 90–94

  Age 95–99

  Age 100 and over

  1989–90

  1,325

  374

  40

  1990–91

  1,866

  463

  45

  190

  Hip replacements and other arthroplasty operations of the hip

  Year

  Age 90–94

  Age 95–99

  Age 100 and over

  1991–92

  1,942

  454

  51

  1992–93

  2,122

  426

  72

  1993–94

  2,226

  492

  29

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Hip operation codes—shortlist code WCI and WC3.

  OPCS4R codes W37–W39, W46–W48.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total income from prescription charges in 1994–95. [2192]

  Mr. Malone
  The total income from prescription charges in 1994–95 including income from the purchase of prepayment certificates was £287 million.

  NHS Private Sector Purchasing
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by the national health service on buying services from the private sector in the last four years.[2193]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount is estimated to be spent by the national health service in 1995–96 on purchasing care from the private sector. [2200]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Private Sector Nurses
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement of the number of nurses currently working in the private sector. [2194]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the publication "Private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984", which contains numbers of staff in post for non-national health service establishments. Copies of this publication are available in the Library.

  Doctors and Dentists
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and dentists undertake national health service work at the most recent count; and what was the equivalent figure in 1979. [2195]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 31 October 1995,Official Report, column 199.

  Hospital Wards
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making towards the
  191
  establishment of a choice between single sex and the mixed wards for all hospital patients; and if he will make a statement. [2196]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for the trusts and health authorities to decide for themselves how to use the resources available to them. The national health service executive has commissioned a survey of the current position on mixed-sex wards and will consider what action, if any, is required when the report of that survey is received.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the regional and district health authorities to announce the replacement facilities due at Edgware general hospital, to compensate for the closure of the accident and emergency department in 1997; and if he will give the outline arrangements agreed with his Department. [2197]

  Mr. Malone
  The health authority is undertaking consultation on detailed proposals for the facilities to be provided at Edgware hospital. Decisions will be made in the new year.

  United Leeds Hospital Trust
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the United Leeds hospital trust budget deficit. [2198]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust, Mr. David Hall, for details.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made to reduce the number of patients who have to wait over one year for treatment. [2199]

  Mr. Horam
  Excellent progress has been made in reducing the number of patients who wait more than a year for treatment. In September 1990 there were 202,740 people waiting over one year compared with 28,204 in September 1995.

  Elderly People
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that elderly people receive the same entitlement to national health service care irrespective of where they live in the country. [2201]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have made it clear that elderly people throughout the country should receive national health service care on the basis of clinical need.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring his Department has undertaken of public and private domiciliary care. [2184]

  Mr. Bowis
  We take a continuing interest in the welcome growth, innovation and quality of domiciliary care services.
  192
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals his Department has to ensure registration of private domiciliary care. [2186]

  Mr. Bowis
  Our current review of regulation and inspection of social services will consider whether statutory regulation should be extended to domiciliary care.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates have been made of the savings resulting from the abolition of regional health authorities. [2187]

  Mr. Malone
  By 1997–98, total annual savings from the abolition of regional health authorities are expected to be around £100 million. A further £50 million has also been saved from the creation of single health authorities at local level. These substantial savings will be retained by the national health service and reinvested in patient care.

  Isles of Scilly Community Health Services
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future for community health care on the Isles of Scilly. [3454]

  Mr. Horam
  The then Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) gave approval for the Isles of Scilly community health services to integrate into Plymouth Community Services NHS trust from 1 April 1996.

  NHS Trusts (Finance)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what levels of surplus or deficit each national health service trust returned in each year since its inception giving the figures by region; [3246]

  (2) how many trusts recorded (a) surpluses and (b) deficits in each region in each year since 1991–92. [3247]

  Mr. Horam
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Smoking and Drug Addiction (Children)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total Department of Health budget for smoking and drug addiction among children in each of the last five years. [3764]

  Mr. Bowis
  The tables show the amounts spent by the Health Education Authority, on behalf of the Department of Health, on teenage anti-smoking programmes over the last five years, funding provided to health authorities for drug misuse services and expenditure on drug and solvent publicity for all age ranges. Activities relating to smoking and drug addiction among children are also included within other programmes undertaken by the Department of Health, the Health Education Authority and health authorities but specific costings are not available.
  193

  Funding for HEA's teenage smoking programme

  Financial year

  Amount spent on teenage smoking work £

  1991–92

  £1,746,000

  1992–93

  752,000

  1993–94

  864,000

  1994–95

  863,000

  1995–96

  880,000

  Funding for drug misuse services

  Financial year

  Funding to health authorities to provide treatment services for drug
  misusers £ Million

  1991–92

  16.999

  1992–93

  20.043

  1993–94

  24.371

  1994–95

  25 .498

  1995–96

  26.748

  In addition, £1 million has been provided in 1995–96 specifically to develop
  services for young people at risk from drug misuse.

  Drug and solvent publicity

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  3,924,413

  1992–93

  4,965,023

  1993–94

  5,296,284

  Notifications of meningitis and meningococcal menningitis in
  West Yorkshire, by local authority districts, 1990–94

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  All meningitis

  Meningococcal

  All menigitis

  Meningococcal

  All meningitis

  Menigococcal

  All meningitis

  Menigococcal

  All meningitis

  Menigococcal

  Bradford

  35

  13

  74

  18

  31

  13

  19

  11

  16

  5

  Calderdale

  10

  9

  12

  6

  5

  2

  7

  4

  6

  3

  Kirkless

  20

  8

  14

  2

  19

  10

  19

  10

  20

  11

  Leeds

  43

  12

  55

  9

  41

  12

  24

  11

  30

  16

  Wakefield

  29

  7

  30

  8

  18

  6

  15

  6

  13

  3

  11994 figures are provisional. Information is not available at district health authority level.

  GP Commissioning Group
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to finance any general practitioner commissioning groups. [3757]

  Mr. Malone
  This is for local determination. General practitioners involved in commissioning groups act as advisers to health authorities. It is for health authorities to secure appropriate advice in purchasing, as in other matters.

  Out-patients
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current estimate of the percentage of out-patients seen within 30 minutes; and what assessment he has made of the reliability of the data on which this figure is based. [3762]

  Mr. Horam
  At 30 September 1995, nationally, 89 per cent. of patients were seen within 30 minutes of their out-patient appointment.
  194

  Drug and solvent publicity

  1994–95

  4,443,396

  1995–96

  14,871,000

  1Estimate.

  Autologous Blood Transfusion
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop an autologous blood transfusion service. [3771]

  Mr. Horman
  We recognise the value of autologous transfusion for those patients for whom the procedures are applicable. In appropriate cases it can provide a useful supplement to the supply of blood for voluntary donors which the National Blood Service supplies to our hospitals. The medical profession is aware of autologus transfusion and advice is available from medical staff of the National Blood Service and hospital consultant haematologists. Selection of patients for this procedure has to be undertaken with extreme care to avoid any possible clinical risk to that patient.

  Meningitis
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of meningitis have been notified in each of the health districts of West Yorkshire in each year since 1990. [3695]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  In 1994–95, as part of the national health service performance tables exercise, the Audit Commission found that 93.6 per cent. of trusts' monitoring systems designed to collect the data for this standard were satisfactory.

  General Practitioner Consultations
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average annual number of consultations per general practitioner in(a) 1990 and (b) 1994; [3754]

  (2) what was the total number of general practitioners consultations in (a) 1990 and (b) 1994. [3756]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is contained in table 21 on page 56 of the departmental report of the Department of Health and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, published in 1995, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Nitrates in Drinking Water
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what re-assessment he has made of the research published by his
  195
  Department in CMO(85)14 on the relationship between nitrate levels in water and cancer incidence. [3489]

  Mr. Horam
  CMO(85)14 gave advice on the health effects of nitrates in drinking water and concluded that although a theoretical risk of a relationship between nitrate and cancer remained, the epidemiological evidence as a whole gave no support to the suggestion that nitrate was a cause of cancer of the stomach, or other organs. Since 1985 there has been no good evidence for changing this advice and this is supported by evaluations made bythe Committee on the Medical Aspects of the Contamination of Air, Soil, and Water in 1988, the World Health Organisation in 1993 and the National Research Council in the United States in 1995.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the report of the King's Fund Institute on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [3749]

  Mr. Malone
  None. It will be considered, with other options put forward, by Sir Ronald Grierson's team, which is looking at ways of making the best use of the Smithfield site.

  Medical Records
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to investigate the extent of access to patients' medical records, computer and written, in hospitals and general practice by non-authorised persons. [3766]

  Mr. Horam
  Protection of medical records is the responsibility of the organisation which holds them. Breach of confidentiality is a disciplinary matter. Guidance has been issued to national health service organisations drawing their attention to the laws which protect patient confidentiality, the most recent being, for computer records, the NHS top level security policy 1992. Further guidance affecting both computer and manual records is to be published shortly.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue instructions to health authorities and consultants working for the national health service that no treatment is to be denied to patients on the grounds that they have Down's Syndrome. [3525]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service treatment is available to everyone on the basis of clinical need. The Department of Health issued guidance in 1992 on health services for people with learning disabilities (mental handicap), HSG(92)42, which made it clear that people with learning disabilities have the same rights of access to NHS services as everyone else.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to introduce equivalent disregard in respect of long-term domiciliary care subject to those proposed for long-term care in residential and nursing care homes. [3772]
  196
  Mr. Bowis
  None. It would not be directly relevant to domiciliary care.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whom he has consulted and whom he intends to consult on the operation of the long-term care package announced in the Budget. [3993]

  (2) if he will list the representations his Department has received over the long-term care package announced in the Budget; and if he will list those (a) organisations and (b) individuals which he intends to retain as consultants on the operation of the scheme. [3996]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have received no representations on these matters following the Budget statement. The consultation will be as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Further details will be given in due course.

  Hospital Meal Times
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department gives to health authorities and trusts regarding making the times of meals for patients in hospital approximate to normal domestic times; what representations he has had on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [4011]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department's recently issued "Nutrition Guidelines for Hospital Caterers" commends Patients Association advice that meals should be served at times which reflect the normal eating patterns of the majority of patients and should be eaten in a relaxed and unhurried atmosphere. Availability of food should be adjusted, where necessary, to allow for patients' day treatments, post-operative hunger or lack of appetite, and where admission is made outside ward meal times. The period between the last meal of the day and the following breakfast should not normally exceed 14 hours and a supper drink and snack should also be available, where appropriate.

  Reproductive Health and Population Policies, Republic of Ireland
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) assessment of and (b) contributions to his Department he has made regarding the public consultations about reproductive health and population policies currently taking place in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [3990.]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Heart and Lung Disease
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) male and (b) female deaths from (i) lung cancer (ICD 162), (ii) heart disease (ICD 410-414) and (iii) chronic obstructive lung disease (ICD 490-492) occurred in each region in 1993.[3980]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  The numbers of death occurring in 1993 that were due to malignant neoplasm of the trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD1 162), ischaemic heart disease (ICD1 410-414) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ICD1 490-496) are shown for each sex by regional health authority (England) and Wales.
  197
  The figures are provisional.

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 162)

  Ischaemic heart disease (ICD 410-414)

  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ICD 490-496)

  Regional health authority

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Northern

  1,722

  948

  5,444

  4,790

  1,193

  902

  Yorkshire

  1,588

  851

  6,165

  5,243

  1,300

  950

  Trent

  2,210

  988

  7,822

  6,303

  1,640

  1,038

  East Anglian

  790

  377

  3,160

  2,513

  599

  317

  North-west Thames

  1,163

  643

  4,168

  3,531

  972

  613

  North-east Thames

  1,474

  763

  5,087

  4,272

  1,206

  671

  South-east Thames

  1,546

  852

  5,332

  4,769

  1,314

  772

  South-west Thames

  1,125

  601

  4,060

  3,625

  959

  623

  Wessex

  1,153

  559

  4,916

  3,914

  927

  561

  Oxford

  864

  435

  2,941

  2,416

  703

  405

  South Western

  1,200

  632

  5,512

  4,486

  1,070

  587

  West Midlands

  2,235

  970

  8,272

  6,734

  1,896

  1,140

  Mersey

  1,196

  678

  3,947

  3,475

  880

  695

  North Western

  1,955

  1,004

  7,059

  6,246

  1,711

  1,355

  Wales

  1,390

  624

  5,260

  4,429

  1,089

  704

  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  General Practice Locums
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 1995,Official Report, column 614, on NHS staff if he will provide comparable information on general practitioner locums. [4289]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation to grant a charter to the physiotherapist profession. [2432]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy was incorporated by royal charter in 1920.

  Medial and Surgical Posts
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current structure of medical and surgical posts. [2557]

  Mr. Malone
  The main hospital career grades are consultant, associate specialist and staff grade. Other career grades are clinical assistant and hospital practitioner.

  The training grades are pre-registration house officer, senior house officer and, for doctors in higher specialist training, registrar and senior registrar. The new specialist registrar grade, which replaces the existing registrar and senior registrar grades, is being launched in December 1995 in the specialties of general surgery and radiology, and from April 1996 in all other specialties.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 608, on the support of local clinicians for the provision of clinical or clinical support services by PFI partners, if he will list the clinicians who will be consulted; what criteria he will use to judge the support of local clinicians; how he will determine that he has
  198
  gained local clinician's support; if he will consult the local British Medical Association and other professional associations; and if he will make a statement. [4113]

  Mr. Horam
  Gaining staff support, including the support of clinicians, for any proposal for capital development is the responsibility of trust management. This is true whether the development is to be procured through the private finance initiative, or is to be publicly funded. The capital investment manual, copies of which are available in the Library, emphasises the need to involve staff, including clinicians, in the process of developing a business case for capital investment. The full benefits of capital investment can be realised only through the co-operation of staff, and evidence that this will be forthcoming is one of the factors the NHS executive considers before giving its approval for a capital development.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on health services for patients in the Bexley and Greenwich health authority area as a result of delay in fully commissioning the new Queen Elizabeth hospital, Woolwich; [4209]

  (2) what discussion he has had with the Bexley and Greenwich health authority and the Greenwich Healthcare NHS trust regarding the decision to call in the planning application in respect of the former Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich; and if he will make a statement; [4211]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the progress of the private finance initiative in respect of the conversion of the Ministry of Defence's former Queen Elizabeth military hospital to the NHS Queen Elizabeth hospital, Woolwich; [4213]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the possible changes in the planned time scale of building works at the former Queen Elizabeth military hospital as a result of the

  199
  decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the planning application; [4208]

  (5) when he expects the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Woolwich, to be fully operational; [4210]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the effect upon Greenwich district hospital of delay in completing adaptation works to the former Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich. [4212]

  Mr. Malone
  Greenwich Healthcare national health service trust is managing the development of the Queen Elizabeth hospital as the main hospital for Greenwich and Woolwich, taking account of the need to explore private finance and the statutory planning process. The trust and the local health authority will ensure that safe and effective services continue to be provided during the transitional period.

  Southend Health Authority
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the relative underfunding of the Southend health authority; and if he will make a statement. [2180]

  Mr. Malone
  In 1996–97 we plan to give South Essex health authority, which includes Southend, a real terms increase of nearly £l1 million, which is the biggest real terms increase to any health authority in the country.

  This shows our commitment to bring South Essex health authority to its weighted capitation target as soon as possible.

  Annual income (£ million)

  Total number of staff employed

  Department's contribution to annual running costs (£
  million)

  Fees

  Charges

  Fines

  Part-time

  Full-time

  1992–93

  Medicines Control Agency

  21,328

  nil

  nil

  —

  1349

  nil

  Good Laboratory Practice Monitoring Authority

  0.140

  nil

  nil

  4

  4

  2—

  Medical Devices Agency

  30.402

  nil

  nil

  n/a

  n/a

  4.851

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  40.647

  nil

  nil

  1

  15

  0.922

  1993–94

  Medicines Control Agency

  23,796

  nil

  nil

  —

  1374

  nil

  Good Laboratory Practice Monitoring Authority

  0.147

  nil

  nil

  4

  4

  2—

  Medical Devices Agency

  30.483

  nil

  nil

  66

  6162

  5.714

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  40.907

  nil

  nil

  1

  18

  51.173

  1994–95

  Medicines Control Agency

  25,389

  nil

  nil

  —

  1399

  nil

  Good Laboratory Practice Monitoring Authority

  0.159

  nil

  nil

  3

  4

  2—

  Medical Devices Agency

  1.229

  nil

  nil

  77

  7165

  11.392

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  40.794

  nil

  nil

  1

  23

  51.353

  Notes:

  1Part-time and full-time staff numbers counted as full-time equivalent. Breakdown not readily available.

  2 Authority is staffed by DH officials and full annual running costs are net from the DH Vote.

  3Figures are fees/receipts.

  4Fees are offset against the Departmental contribution. The Authority does not get fees plus contribution.

  5Figure includes contributions from other Territorial Departments.

  6Figures at 1 April 1993.

  7 Figures at 1 April 1994.

  Registered Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on closures of private residential care homes. [2785]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The Department collects information on individual residential care and nursing homes registered under the terms of the Registered Homes Act 1984 at 31 March each year and, for 1993–94, on residential care homes opened or closed by comparison with the previous 31 March.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide information about the number of homes registered and deregistered under the Registered Homes Act 1984 by local authority area within each region for each of the last five years. [2784]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Information is not held centrally in the form requested.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the annual income from(a) fees, (b) charges and (c) fines; what was the total number of staff employed (i) part-time and (ii) full-time; and what contribution his Department has made towards the annual running costs in each of the past three years in respect of (1) the Medicines Control Agency, (2) the Good Practice Monitoring Authority, (3) the Medical Devices Directorate and (4) the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [2749]

  Mr. Horam
  [Pursuant to his reply, 28 November 1995, c. 605–8]: I regret that the answer given by my predecessor contained incorrect information about the annual income of the Medicines Control Agency and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. An amended table is as follows:

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Travel, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many times in the last year he has used(a) London Buses and (b) London Underground while on official business. [377]

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Home Office asylum division: staffing

  Asylum determination screening and appeal

  Policy and training

  Senior staff and management

  Issue of travel documents

  Fingerprinting

  Total

  1 November 1995

  628

  17

  28

  38

  12

  723

  1 October 1994

  533

  14

  25

  50

  16

  638

  1 October 1993

  475

  18

  24

  50

  16

  482

  1 October 1992

  414

  17

  23

  28

  —

  482

  1 October 1991

  210

  23

  18

  19

  —

  270

  1 October 19881

  57

  —

  —

  20

  —

  77

  1 The asylum division was formed in April 1991. Before that date, asylum determination staff were part of B1 division. These figures represent an approximate breakdown of the divisional staffing levels by function.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the civil service grades of those employed solely in processing applications for political asylum, the numbers of such staff in each grade and the average cost in salary and administration costs of a member of staff for each grade. [4073]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information is given in the following table. The information is based on staffing costs for 1995–96. It relates only to staff employed in the

  Asylum casework

  Screening fingerprinting

  Appeals

  Cost per grade per annum

  Admin cost per grade per annum

  Grade 5

  0.25

  0

  0

  63,768

  5,336

  Grade 6

  0.75

  0

  0

  52,932

  5,336

  Grade 7

  2.5

  0

  0

  46,200

  5,336

  Senior Executive Officer

  18

  1

  0.5

  32,076

  5,336

  Higher Executive Officer

  61

  3

  1

  26,268

  5,336

  Executive Officer

  237.5

  10

  3

  19,308

  5,336

  Assistant Identification Officer

  0

  7

  0

  19,320

  5,336

  Administrative Officer

  129

  51

  20.5

  15,948

  5,336

  Administrative Assistant

  75.5

  32.5

  20.5

  11,328

  5,336

  Administration costs

  Includes all non-pay running costs and other apportioned indirect costs (e.g. accommodation, personnel and registry costs).

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Acts of Parliament, including Consolidation Acts, affecting local government which have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [43]

  Mr. Howard
  The relevant Acts are as follows:
  The Sunday Trading Act 1994 The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Home Office Asylum Division
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the establishment of the Home Office asylum division(a) at the present time, (b) on 1 January 1995, (c) on 1 January 1994, (d) on 1 January 1993, (e) on 1 January 1992, (f) on 1 January 1991 and (g) on 1 January 1988. [559]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A breakdown of the establishment of the Home Office asylum division is given in the table. The information is based on the staff in post figures for 1 October of each year in question.

  asylum division whose work relates primarily to asylum case processing. These staff have some other responsibilities, such as dealing with applications for family reunion.

  The table does not include the cost of the time spent by staff in the immigration service in interviewing asylum applicants and in considering and taking enforcement action in relation to applicants who are liable to deportation or removal.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is to advertise for a new Director General of the Prison Service; and what qualities he will seek in the successful applicant. [3082]

  Mr. Howard
  I shall make an announcement in due course.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were
  203
  in post (a) in England and (b) in each county of EnglandIn each year since 1990. [2899]

  Police strength in England between 1990 and 1995

  As at 31 December

  Police force

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Avon and Somerset

  3,059

  3,072

  3,065

  3,034

  3,017

  2,986

  Bedfordshire

  1,064

  1,090

  1,119

  1,168

  1,113

  1,116

  Cambridgeshire

  1,186

  1,239

  1,265

  1,266

  1,268

  1,254

  Cheshire

  1,898

  1,867

  1,901

  1,873

  1,906

  1,950

  City of London

  796

  809

  805

  884

  887

  869

  Cleveland

  1,485

  1,477

  1,492

  1,414

  1,435

  1,430

  Cumbria

  1,189

  1,183

  1,197

  1,185

  1,185

  1,143

  Derbyshire

  1,751

  1,706

  1,810

  1,790

  1,793

  1,762

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,867

  2,876

  2,920

  2,908

  2,878

  2,872

  Dorset

  1,272

  1,280

  1,318

  1,292

  1,287

  1,272

  Durham

  1,364

  1,378

  1,377

  1,389

  1,356

  1,376

  Essex

  2,884

  2,878

  2,917

  2,947

  2,921

  2,897

  Gloucestershire

  1,158

  1,178

  1,148

  1,140

  1,167

  1,142

  Greater Manchester

  7,010

  6,975

  7,055

  7,047

  6,984

  7,026

  Hampshire

  3,170

  3,177

  3,287

  3,270

  3,252

  3,307

  Hertfordshire

  1,659

  1,679

  1,688

  1,679

  1,686

  1,704

  Humberside

  1,989

  2,016

  2,033

  2,028

  2,042

  2,025

  Kent

  2,988

  3,039

  3,106

  3,182

  3,116

  3,100

  Lancashire

  3,199

  3,205

  3,209

  3,140

  3,194

  3,195

  Leicestershire

  1,784

  1,808

  1,834

  1,838

  1,838

  1,860

  Lincolnshire

  1,205

  1,198

  1,191

  1,203

  1,208

  1,164

  Merseyside

  4,679

  4,605

  4,656

  4,663

  4,678

  4,536

  Metropolitan Police

  28,152

  28,126

  27,812

  27,605

  27,611

  27,395

  Norfolk

  1,394

  1,419

  1,426

  1,434

  1,408

  1,391

  Northamptonshire

  1,144

  1,156

  1,203

  1,181

  1,171

  1,160

  Northumbria

  3,528

  3,460

  3,586

  3,589

  3,595

  3,610

  North Yorkshire

  1,379

  1,382

  1,408

  1,333

  1,313

  1,310

  Nottinghamshire

  2,342

  2,334

  2,329

  2,337

  2,331

  2,314

  South Yorkshire

  2,984

  2,989

  3,000

  3,015

  3,026

  3,041

  Staffordshire

  2,193

  2,185

  2,172

  2,202

  2,214

  2,190

  Suffolk

  1,195

  1,203

  1,237

  1,216

  1,204

  1,158

  Surrey

  1,654

  1,681

  1,674

  1,667

  1,672

  1,656

  Sussex

  2,984

  2,969

  2,980

  2,977

  2,924

  3,020

  Thames Valley

  3,706

  3,722

  3,833

  3,894

  3,878

  3,760

  Warwickshire

  1,014

  1,005

  1,002

  1,025

  1,036

  982

  West Mercia

  2,022

  2,028

  2,060

  2,056

  2,037

  2,008

  West Midlands

  6,881

  6,893

  6,952

  6,968

  6,996

  7,078

  West Yorkshire

  5,276

  5,143

  5,070

  4,988

  5,037

  5,122

  Wiltshire

  1,157

  1,212

  1,262

  1,273

  1,256

  1,236

  Total for England

  118,661

  118,642

  119,399

  119,100

  118,920

  118,422

  1As at 30 September 1995, the latest available figures.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the total number of police officers in service at present; and what is the starting date of the three-year period for the recruitment of additional police officers; [4032]

  (2) what is the date and number of police officers which forms the base on which the additional officers will be recruited in pursuance of the Prime Minister's recent announcement. [4023]

  Mr. Maclean
  As at 31 March 1995 the total number of police officers in England and Wales was 127,222. The basis on which the additional funding for the extra officers is to be built will be the total police strength in forces at 31 March 1996. Funding for the additional officers announced by the Prime Minister will be available from 1 April 1996.
  204
  Mr.Maclean
  The information is set out in the table below:

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional officers the Government expect police forces to recruit in 1996–97. [4024]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for chief constables and police authorities. An extra £20 million has been available in 1996–97. This is sufficient to enable chief constables to recruit 1,000 additional officers by the end of 1996–97 if they choose to do so.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost, over the next three financial years, of recruiting 5,000 additional officers to the police service in England and Wales. [4025]

  Mr. Maclean
  A total of £180 million—£20 million, £60 million, and £100 million—is being made available over the next three financial years. This is sufficient provision to enable chief constables to recruit 5,000 more constables over the period.

  Departmental Targets
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the published recommended response times within which his Department is expected to reply to letters from the public.

  Mr. Howard
  There is no published overall target for responding to letters from the public because of the diverse nature of the Department's work. Individual units and agencies are, however, required to set clear targets for the time taken to deal with letters from the public, and to monitor performance against those targets. The targets set range from five to 30 working days.

  Money Payment Supervision Orders
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation service officers in England and Wales are currently engaged in the supervision of money payment supervision orders; and how many of such staff were engaged in that work for each of the years between 1985 and 1993. [3436]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally and is not readily available.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many money payment supervision orders were successfully completed during 1994; and in how many cases the fine was remitted in part or whole. [3435]

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 4,077 terminations of money payment supervision orders during 1994. In 1,563 cases payment was completed, and in 292 cases payment was remitted by the court.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many money payment supervision orders have been made by courts in England and Wales to date in 1995. [3433]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest estimated figures show that 1,600 persons commenced money payment supervision orders between January and June 1995.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases the defendant was(a) over 21 and (b) under 20 years in respect of all money payment supervision orders made by the courts in England and Wales, for the latest year available. [3434]

  Mr. Maclean
  The table gives the available information.

  Number of persons commencing supervision by the probation service under a money payment supervision order by age on commencement, England and Wales 1994

  Age on commencement

  Number of persons

  Under 20

  806

  20–21

  478

  Over 21

  2,415

  All ages

  3,699

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many money payment supervision orders 206
  have been made by each petty sessional division in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [3432]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available.

  Underwater Search and Recovery
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces have dispensed with their underwater search and recovery units. [3377]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that Cheshire constabulary, North Wales police, Merseyside police and Greater Manchester police have amalgamated their resources to form a single regional unit and that the Cleveland constabulary and the Gloucestershire constabulary made arrangements with neighbouring forces or private contractors.

  Hunting (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to permit chief constables at their discretion to recover the costs of police attendance at fox and stag hunts. [3208]

  Mr. Maclean
  Public order policing at these events falls within the normal law enforcement duties of the police.

  Funding for costs incurred by the police in discharging their duty to enforce the law is provided jointly by central and local government.

  Clandestine Filming
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to prevent the sale or publication of video or film footage generated by clandestine cameras without the specific and written permission of the subjects of those pictures. [3256]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government condemn the irresponsible use of closed circuit television footage for commercial gain. We strongly recommend that all CCTV systems adopt locally developed codes of practice which specify who has access to the images that they capture and for what purpose. Most public CCTV systems have done so. All schemes receiving Government funding for CCTV are required to put in place such codes as a condition of grant. The Home Office guidance booklet, "CCTV—Looking Out For You", contains advice on how to adopt a code of practice and the issues that it should cover.

  Racially Motivated Crime
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of racially motivated crimes reported during 1994; and how many led to(a) prosecution and (b) conviction. [3650]

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for the total number of racially motivated incidents recorded by the police are now collected on a financial year basis. The most recent figures available are those for 1993–94 which were given on 24 June 1994,Official Report, column 330. The definition

  207
  of a racial incident includes any incident reported to the police which contains any allegation of racial motivation, whether a crime or not. Information about prosecutions and convictions is not collated nationally.

  The figures for 1994–95 should be available shortly.

  Irish Republic Citizens
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the rights given to citizens of the Irish Republic in the United Kingdom that are not given to the citizens of other countries; and which of these rights are reciprocated by the Republic of Ireland for United Kingdom citizens. [3526]

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

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were on remand in England and Wales in each year since 1990. [3509]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, how many prisoners were on remand in England and Wales in each year since 1990.
  The information is contained in Table one of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, issue 8/95 'The Prison Population in 1994'. A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of prisoners on remand were subsequently acquitted in the last year for which figures are available; [3511]

  (2) what percentage of defendants on bail were subsequently acquitted during the last year. [3518]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available figures are published in tables 8.6, 8.9 and 8.10 of the 1994 issue of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", Cm 3010. The figures quoted in these tables should be taken as broad estimates only, due to data quality problems.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the time prisoners spend on remand awaiting trial. [3523]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are anxious to ensure that prisoners spend as little time as possible on remand awaiting trial. The number of cases awaiting disposal at the Crown court has been reduced this year through increased numbers of sitting days. Plea and directions hearings, which encourage active case management by the judiciary, are being introduced through a rolling programme and will extend to all Crown court centres in England and Wales by early next year. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, introduced in another place on 27 November, contains provision to invite a208
  defendant to indicate his plea before magistrates decide whether the trial should proceed in the magistrates court or the Crown court. This, together with the sentence discount provisions enacted in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, should enable a greater proportion of appropriate business to be retained in the magistrates courts and thereby reduce delay.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the change in the overall prison population between 1992 and 1994 was the result of changes in the numbers of remand prisoners. [3510]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A.J. Pearson to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office to reply to your recent Question asking, what percentage of the change in the overall prison population between 1992 and 1994 was the result of changes in the numbers of remand prisoners.
  The information on the prison population by type of prisoner is contained in Table one of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, issue 8/95 'The Prison Population in 1994', a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  Between 1992 and 1994, the prison population increased by 2,977 from 45,817 to 48,794. During the same period, the remand population rose by 2,267 from 10,090 in 1992 to 12,357 in 1994. This amounted to 76 per cent of the rise in the total population.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time a prisoner serves on remand; and what the average length of time was in each year since 1990. [3512]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking about the average length of time a prisoner serves on remand; and what the average length of time was in each year since 1990.
  Information for the years 1990 to 1993 is given in Table 2.1 of Prison Statistics, England and Wales 1993 (Cm 2893), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates for 1994 are given in the attached table.

  Estimated average time spent in custody for remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in 19941 by sex:

  Estimated average number of days in custody2

  Type of custody

  Male

  Female

  Untried3

  59

  44

  Convicted4

  34

  29

  1Provisional figures.

  2Estimated from number of receptions and average population in 1994.

  3Time spent in custody before conviction.

  4Time spent in custody after conviction before sentence.

  209
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the total number of defendants in each ethnic category who were(a) bailed by magistrates courts or Crown courts during (i) 1989 and (ii) 1994 and (b) remanded in custody during (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1994. [3648]

  Prison remand receptions by ethnic origin1 England and Wales 1990

  Year

  Total

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, mixed origin

  Unrecorded

  1990

  60,174

  50,471

  6,171

  1,354

  1,331

  847

  1 A new classification for ethnic origin was introduced in 1992. It is congruent with that used for the census of population. Data for 1990 is shown separately as the classification prior to 1992 is not directly comparable with that in later years.

  Prison remand receptions by ethnic origin1, England and Wales 19942

  Year

  Total

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Chinese and other Asian

  Unrecorded

  19942

  68,414

  57,420

  7,937

  1,512

  553

  992

  1 A new classification for ethnic origin was introduced in 1992. It is congruent with that used for the census of population. Data for 1990 is shown separately as the classification prior to 1992 is not directly comparable with that in later years.

  2Provisional figures.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of defendants on bail committed an offence while on bail during the last year. [3517]

  Mr. Maclean
  Statistics on offending on bail are not collected at present on a national basis. However, a review of more localised studies was given in Home Office Research Paper No. 65 "Offending while on bail: a survey of recent studies". More up-to-date figures are given in a 1994 report of the Hampshire police and probation service and show that 14 per cent. of persons given bail committed an offence during a period of police or court bail.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostels have closed since the beginning of 1994. [3519]

  Mr. Sackville
  Twelve.

  Health and Safety Offences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to setting up special police units to deal with health and safety crime; and if he will make a statement. [3611]

  Mr. Maclean
  The primary responsibility for the enforcement of health and safety legislation rests with the Health and Safety Executive. Procedures already exist for liaison between HSE, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service where appropriate.

  The introduction of specialised police units would be an operational matter for chief officers of police.

  Probation Orders
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of offenders who were supervised by the probation service on statutory orders in(a) 1989 and (b) 1995; and how many belonged to an ethnic minority. [3661]
  210
  Mr. Maclean
  Court proceedings data held centrally by my Department does not identify the ethnic origin of those bailed or remanded in custody. Information, which is available only for the last five years, on the ethnic group of prison receptions on remand is given in the tables.

  Mr. Maclean
  The readily available information relates to commencements. There is no information available for 1989 and the information relating to 1993 was published in the 1993 issue of "Probation Statistics England and Wales", tables 15.1–15.6 1994–95, Information will be published in "Probation Statistics England and Wales 1994" in the new year.

  Gaming Act Reform
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his consultation paper on the reform of the Gaming Act. [3697]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are reviewing the present controls on bingo clubs and casinos as part of the Government's deregulation initiative. The review is well advanced and we hope to consult on proposals soon.

  Stop and Search
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were stopped and searched by (1) the Metropolitan police and (2) all other police forces in England and Wales; and, of these, how many were(a) arrested, (b) cautioned, (c) charged and (d) convicted in (i) 1989 and (ii) 1994, broken down by ethnic background and gender. [3688]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information on persons stopped and searched and the number of arrests resulting is published annually in table 1 of Home Office statistical bulletin "Operation of certain police powers under PACE", copies of which are in the Library.

  No information is available centrally on the number of persons cautioned, charged or convicted, or on their gender.

  Details of the ethnic group of those stopped and searched during 1993–94 was given in the reply to a question from the hon. Member for Tottenham

  211
  (Mr. Grant) on 1 December 1994, Official Report, column 844. Similar statistics for 1994–95 should be available shortly.

  Ethnic Minority Prisoners
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants in each ethnic category were sentenced to a period of custody; and what percentage of each group were sentenced without a pre-sentence report in 1994. [3649]

  Mr. Maclean
  Court proceedings data held centrally by my Department does not identify the ethnic of those sentenced, not whether a pre-sentence report was prepared.

  Hong Kong (Key Person Scheme)
  Mr. Macshane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by profession or civil service department the number of heads of househlod in Hong Kong who have applied for right of abode status in the United Kingdom under the 50,000 key person scheme.[3506]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Following is the breakdown of principal beneficiary applications as at 26 November 1995. In cases not yet decided, applicants may be allocated to a more appropriate class.

  Applications

  Entrepreneurs class

  903

  Sensitive service class

  3,238

  Disciplined service class:

  Correctional services department

  1,396

  Custom and excise service

  813

  Fire service department

  1,822

  Immigration service

  1,468

  Independent commission against corruption

  258

  Government flying service

  23

  Royal Hong Kong Police

  5,325

  Royal Hong Kong military services corps

  840

  Royal Hong Kong navy

  186

  General occupational class:

  Managers and administrators

  25,046

  Business professionals

  2,972

  Business associate professionals

  12,086

  Accountants and auditors

  5,249

  Accounting associate professionals

  1,849

  Engineers and related professionals

  7,088

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  2,058

  Engineering associate professionals

  6,628

  Information science professionals

  4,541

  News editors and journalists

  702

  Medical doctors

  2,630

  Physical and life science professionals

  396

  Nurse and midwives

  4,034

  Other medical professionals

  818

  Health associate professionals

  1,777

  Legal professionals

  1,867

  Legal associate professionals

  693

  Teaching professionals(post-Secondary)

  1,110

  Educational administrators

  961

  212

  Applications

  Other teaching personnel

  7,806

  Computer equipment controllers

  347

  Life science technicians

  78

  physical science technicians

  241

  Social work professionals

  900

  Statistical assistants

  202

  Translators and interpreters

  417

  Total

  108,768

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may heads of household in Hong Kong have applied for right of abode status in the United Kingdom under the scheme offering 50,000 full British passports to key officials in the colony. [3503]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 26 November this year, 108,768 principal beneficiary applications had been received. This figure includes invalid, ineligible and withdrawn applications and repeat applications from some of those unsuccessful in the first tranche of the scheme.

  Vehicle Removal Charges
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate charges for those vehicle towing services formerly provided by the police. [3655]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no plans to set specific charges for vehicle recovery by garage operators who carry out this function under contract schemes which are run by managing agents on behalf of certain police forces.

  A statutory charge for the removal of vehicles, currently £105, is prescribed under the Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges etc.,) (Amendment) Regulations 1993. The police are entitled to charge this sum for the removal of any vehicle which is parked in breach of local traffic regulation orders, or which is causing an obstruction or danger, or which is broken down or abandoned without lawful authority.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the additional cash for police authorities announced in the Budget he estimates will be taken up with(a) pension costs, (b) pay increases and (c) additional recruitment of police officers and their training. [4059]

  Mr. Maclean
  The extra provision for police authorities announced in the provisional settlement for 1996–97 includes(a) £79.9 million for the estimated increase in police pension costs between 1995–96 and 1996–97; (b) £123.6 million for the estimated requirement to fund pay increases and (c) £20 million to enable the police service to employ 1,000 additional constables by the end of 1996–97.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cash needed
  213
  to meet the pension costs for police authorities in England and Wales in respect of police officers and retired police officers in 1996–97 additional to those of (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1994–95. [4058]

  Mr. Maclean
  The additional provision required to fund police pension costs estimated by the Government Actuary's Department in 1996–97 is(a) £79.9 million more than the equivalent estimate for 1995–96 and (b) £149.1 million more than for 1994–95.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the money for additional recruiting of police officers is(a) not treated as a separate item and (b) subsumed in the increase in total police spending of around 4 per cent. shown in Home Office press release 267/95 of 28 November. [4033]

  Mr. Maclean
  Home Office press release 267/95 of 28 November dealt with overall planned expenditure for Home Office services announced as part of the Chancellor's unified Budget. Section 3 of the draft Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1996–97, which my right hon. and learned Friend placed in the Library on 30 November, sets out the proposed allocation of police grant, including the additional funding for extra police officers.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will give the cost in man-hours and money for promoting the Asylum and Immigration Bill in the current Session. [4075]

  Miss Widdecombe
  At a rough estimate, work on the Bill is likely to take up 8,000 man-hours in the Home Office, at a cost of £210,000. This does not include work on the Bill by other interested Departments.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to this letter of 6 November, ref. 20807/95. [4110]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have written to the hon. Member today.

  Crime Prevention Agency
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the new Crime Prevention Agency announced in his speech of 12 October. [4677]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced the details of the new Crime Prevention Agency on 22 November. The agency will subsume the National Board for Crime Prevention, the Home Office crime prevention unit and the Home Office crime prevention centre.

  The work of the agency will be overseen by an agency board which will be an advisory non-departmental public body. I will chair the agency board.
  214
  Other members of the agency board are:

  Jack Acton:Director, Home Office Crime Prevention Centre

  Peter Batchelor: Chair, Vehicle Crime Prevention Group; formerly Executive Director Sales and Marketing, Vauxhall Motors

  Ken Pease: Professor of Criminology, University of Huddersfield

  David Quarmby: Chair, Retail Action Group for Crime Prevention; Joint Managing Director J. Sainsbury plc

  Nick Ross: Broadcaster and journalist

  John Stevens: Chief Constable, Northumbria Police: Chair, Association of Chief Police Officers Crime Prevention Sub-Committee

  Anthony Tisdale: Councillor and Chair, Surrey Police Authority

  Nigel Whiskin: Chief Executive, Crime Concern.

  The terms of reference of the agency board are as follows:

  The board is appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend and will:

  (i) act as the managing board for the Home Office crime prevention unit and the Home Office crime prevention centre;

  (ii) co-ordinate the activities of all the key players in crime prevention by: ensuring their representation on the board; developing stronger links between each other; and maintaining links with other organisations;

  (iii) initiate, develop and promote innovative ideas to help prevent crime and reduce the fear of crime by:

  following up new research;

  identifying good practice; and

  ensuring guidance and advice is available;

  (iv) work with the police, local authorities, business, industry, the voluntary sector, the community and other to target specific types of crime or crime situations by:

  setting up groups to examine specific issues, such as the retail group and the vehicle crime group,

  supporting other groups with similar aims;

  (v) ensure that all sections of the community have the opportunity to be involved in crime prevention by:

  encouraging the spread of partnerships such as neighbourhood watch, street watch, etc;

  promoting youth involvement; and

  publicising effective community activity;

  (vi) offer advice to Ministers on the major strategic and policy implications relating to these issues and on other effective crime prevention strategies.

  CCTV Challenge Competition
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to announce a further closed circuit television challenge competition. [4678]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced a new closed circuit television challenge competition on 22 November. A total of £15 million has been made available in the financial year 1996–97 to fund CCTV schemes in England and Wales. Partnerships are invited to bid for a share of this money. A copy of the bidding guidance, which gives information on how to
  215
  make a bid and details of the criteria by which the bids will be assessed, has been placed in the Library. Copies have also been sent to chief constables, local authorities, police authorities and others who have expressed an interest. The closing date for bids is 29 March 1996.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce fixed-time appointments for asylum applicants attending interviews at the asylum screening unit; what is the average waiting time for persons attending for interviews at the asylum screening unit; and what proportion of them have to wait more than(a) one hour, (b) two hours, (c) three hours and (d) four hours. [3270]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: There are no plans to introduce fixed-time appointments for asylum applicants attending interviews at the asylum screening unit. Information about average waiting times is not available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collected on those countries which operate white lists of countries excluded for the purpose of asylum seekers and refugee status; if he will publish details of the lists operated by other EC countries; what discussions he has held with his EC counterparts about the effectiveness of such lists and their harmonisation throughout the EC; what parliamentary procedures he intends to use to allow debate and decision on deletion from and addition to such lists; and if he will make a statement. [3683]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: Comprehensive information is not available, but our understanding is that Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands are among the European Union countries which operate procedures based on designation of countries of origin in which there is, in general terms, no serious risk of persecution. Our regular contacts with counterparts from these countries support our view that a designation power would improve our asylum procedures. There are no proposals to harmonise designation lists in the European Union.
  216
  Under clause 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, designation orders would be laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. The list of designated countries would be subject to amendment by the same procedure.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (i) cases were lodged with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the last three years and (ii) staff were employed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board during each of the last three years; and what was(a) the average time taken to complete each case and (b) the average time taken to respond to an initial application. [3740]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The latest published figures are given in the board's third annual report, Cm 2849, copies of which are held in the Library. Paragraph 3.1 shows that 61,400 applications were received in 1991–92, 65,977 in 1992–93 and 73,473 in 1993–94. Paragraph 3.12 gives information about the time taken to resolve cases and shows, by way of example, that 49 per cent., 57 per cent., and 70 per cent. of cases were resolved within 12 months in the three years respectively. Similar data for 1994–95 will be published shortly.

  The average staff complement in the three years was 380, 387 and 430, and currently stands at 480. The board advises that historical data on the time taken to acknowledge initial applications is not available, but the current average is six days.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions his Department has had with the Department of Transport on extending the jurisdiction of the British Transport police; what conclusions were reached; and if he will make a statement. [2887]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 29 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 29 November 1995, Official Report, column 787.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I am to visit Sweden at the invitation of the Swedish Speaker between the dates of Friday 8th and Monday 11th December. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence on Monday 11th December.

Forestry Policy
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their future policy on forestry in view of the failure to achieve new planting targets in both private and public forestry and the planned further disposal of publicly owned woodlands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, the two main aims of our policy on forestry continue to be the sustainable management of our existing woods and forests and a steady expansion of tree cover to increase the many diverse benefits that forests provide.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can he give me further assurance regarding the future of the Forestry Commission? Is he aware that the Forestry Commission has now sold off 200,000 hectares of land to private owners? Is he also aware that in very few of those cases are there access agreements, which means that ramblers, hill walkers and others who enjoy the countryside will no longer be able to enjoy the countryside? Secondly, does the reduction in the planting programme of the Forestry Commission in the past five years, from 5,000 hectares per annum to the recent figure of 586 hectares per annum, indicate an intention on the part of the Government to privatise by the back door?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, the Forestry Commission owns well over a million hectares of ground in the UK. In Scotland, it still controls over 45 per cent. of all woodlands. In respect of those 1 million hectares of ground there is a disposals programme which will last only until the end of the century and which comprises only 1 per cent. of the total estate of the Forestry Commission per annum. Any
882
business of such extraordinary proportions can well do with continuing review and rationalisation. That is all that is happening.
The Government fully appreciate the value of our forests for recreation and access. Therefore we have taken steps to strengthen the arrangements which either maintain or create access when disposals take place. We have a presumption against the sale of any Forestry Commission plots where there are high levels of public access. We encourage local authorities to enter into agreements, and we fund the legal costs of local authorities in meeting those agreements. Woodland access is probably increasing in this country for the first time ever. What is more, it is increasing where it is most needed.
In relation to planting figures, the noble Lord paints an unnecessarily gloomy picture. The UK leads the way worldwide in increasing forestry cover. We are planting more than 70 million trees per annum. We have met the total planting figure of 33,000 hectares, which comprises new planting and replanting. Since 1979 we have done a great deal to expand the forest cover of Britain.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the enormous investment which has taken place in the forestry processing industry, is my noble friend worried that the swing to hardwood will result in there not being enough softwood to supply those firms with timber in the years to come?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend raises a good point. The commercial production of timber will remain a fundamental element of government policy. To that end the grants for new conifer planting were increased by nearly 30 per cent. last year where planting takes place on better ground. We expect that increased incentive for coniferous planting to feed through as a major boost to the processing sector. In the past 10 years £1 billion has been invested in the forestry processing sector. That provides many jobs in rural areas. It is important that we protect that investment; we intend to do so.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Minister referred to legal costs of management access agreements. They are only a small proportion of the costs to the local authorities of the agreements. Are there any guidelines, or is there any way, in which the costs can be controlled? It is apparent from some of the agreements made that the price exacted for access to the forest is out of all proportion to the possible value of that access.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I looked into the question previously in response to a point put to me by the noble Baroness at the time. I continue to believe that in most cases costs for public access in disposed Forestry Commission sites are cheap. They may involve as little as a gate and the maintenance of the safety of a footpath through natural cover. There are 28 access agreements already in place in disposed Forestry Commission woodlands. Another 44 on Forestry Commission properties are due to go to the market. The local authority response has been tremendous regarding our offer of local public access agreements. We shall

883
certainly continue to work with local authorities to consider the best way of ensuring future public access where Forestry Commission sites are being put on the market.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that forestry in this country is important in terms of employment, notably in rural areas? Will he say how many people are employed in forestry, both in the public and private sector, compared with 10 years ago?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord with the exact figures. However, I can underline the fact that some 20,000 people in Scotland alone are employed in forestry. A similar number of jobs depend on the downstream activities which forestry generates. We are acutely conscious that the planting, management, felling and all other stages of forestry create jobs in rural and remote areas. If you maintain families in those areas, you maintain post offices, schools, buses and so forth. Therefore the Government place a very high priority on forestry as an employment creator.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned sustainable management of woodlands. Can he possibly define "sustainable management" in this instance?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for that question. Sustainability involves the wise use of a resource which meets, as far as possible, our own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As regards forestry, we want to plant the right types of trees in the right places. I believe that 10 years ago the preoccupation regarding forestry was in terms of quantity and whether we could achieve a specific planting target. Now we know that we must produce quality at the same time. We must not plant the wrong trees on the wrong ground and therefore close off options for future generations.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that preliminary figures from the forestry authority show a significant decline in levels of restocking this year? In the light of that, will he reconsider the 50 per cent. cut in restocking grants?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the reduction in the restocking grant announced in September last year did not apply to any applications for a restocking grant which had been received previously. Therefore many restocking operations are still taking place at the original rate.
Since most of the storm damaged areas in England resulting from the 1987 hurricane have now been replanted, less replanting is going on for that reason. In Wales, restocking has increased. The fundamental point about restocking is that there is only a finite level of public moneys available to forestry. Given the level of resources that we have, we must ensure that we derive the maximum possible benefit. At the old rate,
884
restocking grants were not seen to be delivering the value for money that was possible through redeployment to planting grants.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for mentioning Wales. Is he aware that forestry is as important in Wales as in Scotland? As a Minister in the Scottish Office, he is replying for the Forestry Commission and others because the Forestry Commission is based in Edinburgh. What arrangements do the Government propose to ensure that the Welsh interest is properly preserved rather than having to write to Edinburgh every time we want something?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it is very simple. One of the forestry ministers is the Secretary of State for Wales.

Cyprus: Demilitarisation
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions have taken place with the Cyprus Government regarding the proposed demilitarisation of the island as a basis for reaching a settlement.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the subject of demilitarisation arises regularly in our talks with both communities in Cyprus. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed it with the Cypriot Foreign Minister, Mr. Michaelides, when he was in London on 1st November. Moves to reduce deployment of troops and levels of military equipment on the island can only help to improve the climate for a settlement.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that the proposal to demilitarise the island, involving both a significant reduction in armed forces in the area of the republic and also that occupied by the Turkish Army, is the best way forward for reaching a settlement and ending 21 years of military occupation of northern Cyprus by the Turkish army?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I certainly agree that demilitarisation from both sides will have considerable advantage in the discussions in trying to get the two sides together.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it has been reported that the Greek Cypriots have recently spent many millions of pounds, representing a large part of their GDP, on new and highly technical weapons systems?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we are aware of that report. We do not believe that any form of re-arming can be helpful in this situation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, at a time when 60,000 NATO troops are being put into Bosnia—where there are many parallels with Cyprus—in order to prevent people of different religious affiliations from killing one another, would it not be the height of folly to withdraw troops from Cyprus before a political settlement is reached? The certain consequence would be fighting

885
between Greek civilians attempting to repossess their properties in the north after 21 years and the present Turkish occupants who would undoubtedly resist them.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, when we talk about demilitarisation, it is demilitarisation on both the Turkish and the Greek Cypriot sides. We are not talking about demilitarisation of UN troops, which hold the sides apart.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, would the Minister care to enlarge on the constructive proposals for demilitarisation recently put forward by President Clerides of the republic? Can he tell us the response from the occupied part in the north?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, discussions are taking place which are confidential at the moment. We trust that they will be successful, but I should hate to prejudice that by answering the question at this stage.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as my noble friend said, it is 21 years since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. The island is still divided and occupied. Can the Minister tell the House whether, as one of the guarantor powers, the Government are happy with the progress which has been made on the matter? Perhaps the involvement of the United States will help. Can the Minister also tell the House what the Government expect to be the outcome of the visit by the US presidential envoy this week to Cyprus?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we work closely with the US to establish a channel for confidential dialogue between the two communities. So far the talks have not been as productive as we would hope. We are doing everything we can and pushing like mad to come to some settlement. As to the results of the meeting this week, we shall have to wait for it to take place.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, despite the blandishments of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, 21 years ago the Turks suffered a lot of hassle on the part of the Government of Cyprus? I agree that it was an invasion hut it was not totally without provocation.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not believe that there is anything to be gained from blaming one side or the other. A just, peaceful and lasting settlement requires the free consent of both communities. That cannot be achieved by bullying.

Judicial Review Challenges: Cost
2.54 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to public funds of successful challenges by judicial review of decisions made by the Home Secretary in the 1994–95 Session of Parliament.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is only possible to estimate the total cost to the Home Office of all judicial review
886
applications made in the past year. The total cost, which includes Treasury Solicitor's charges, counsel's fees and the time of Home Office lawyers, is thought to be about £2 million. It is not possible to say what proportion of the cost related to successful challenges by judicial review, but the vast majority of applications are judged to be without foundation.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, that figure is absolutely scandalous. Is the Minister aware that, despite all the legal advice the Home Secretary is bound to receive from his own legally qualified officials and despite repeated warnings from noble and learned Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House, the Home Secretary gets his head down and bulldozes ahead with legislation which is subsequently overturned in the courts? Is the Minister aware that if the Home Secretary were a local councillor he would be surcharged? What arrangements are being made to surcharge him? He has become an expensive luxury which the taxpayer simply cannot afford.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, so long as it is the right of individuals to challenge the Home Secretary by using the judicial review process, it is important that they should be afforded that right. When they challenge the Home Secretary, it is important that he gives account of himself in the process. The £2 million which I mentioned in my original Answer covers all judicial challenges to my right honourable friend. Over 90 per cent. of the cases are found in his favour. Only 10 cases involving important decisions have resulted in adverse findings since my right honourable friend became Home Secretary.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the decisions that have been made caused considerable surprise? One, in particular, was the decision to overrule the Home Secretary's refusal to allow Mr. Moon into this country. His organisation was examined by a jury of this country and found to be a political organisation. Is the Minister therefore aware that some people are surprised at certain decisions recently made by judges?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. I trust that noble Lords believe, as I and millions of others do, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was right to exclude the Reverend Moon from the United Kingdom. Indeed, the judge himself declined to find my right honourable friend's decision irrational. However, the judge found him wanting in that an opportunity to make representations had not been given to Mr. Moon.
To continue the point made by my noble and learned friend, it is also worth noting that the judges themselves are not always in agreement. To take the case of criminal injuries compensation, it is noteworthy that of the 10 judges who considered the case, five found in favour of my right honourable friend and five against. The two judges in the Divisional Court found for him, as did one of the three judges in the Court of Appeal

887
and two of the five judges in the House of Lords. It is not only the Home Secretary who is challenged: sometimes the judges themselves do not agree.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, in view of the legal profession's growing awareness of the problem of its fees, will the Minister agree that this is a suitable case where both solicitors and banisters might be encouraged to give their services free?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that is a question for our friends in the judiciary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister agree that whether or not we are surprised is fairly irrelevant? What matters is that the separation of powers under the unwritten constitution between the independent judiciary and the Executive should always be maintained. The cost of the percentage of successful challenges affords no cause for legitimate concern.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is important to put on record that my right honourable friend only uses those powers which are given to him by a sovereign Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it not be good if Her Majesty's Government devoted as much care and detailed attention to the drafting of legislation as Her Majesty's judges do in reviewing some of its consequences?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is an important point. Recent changes have made it easier for Parliament to consider legislation; for example, the work of the scrutiny committee which takes place before Bills go into Committee. So the point is important. However, at the end of the day it is for Parliament to decide and for Home Secretaries to use the powers given to them by a sovereign Parliament.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the Court of Appeal has today allowed the Home Secretary's appeal in the case of John David Pierson. It set aside the decision of the Divisional Court which had quashed the Home Secretary's tariff and accepted that the Home Secretary had been entitled to increase the tariff. How many cases does the Home Secretary win that we never hear about? What is the percentage?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is welcome news that my right honourable friend was found to be entirely lawful in using his powers, both to set the tariff and to increase it. My right honourable friend wins over 90 per cent. of applications; therefore the cases that he loses are few. Two cases last week were very good examples, among so many, of findings in favour of the Home Secretary. We have heard very little about them. There was enormous publicity and media outcry when Mr. Justice Dyson held the detention of certain asylum seekers to be unlawful but hardly a whisper when the Appeal Court comprehensively overturned that judgment. The truth
888
is that when the Home Secretary loses, there is a great wave of publicity. Of the 90 per cent. of cases he wins, there is hardly a whisper.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the very limited figures she gave—the Treasury Solicitor's charges and so on—are dwarfed by the enormous costs to the taxpayer of the Home Secretary being overturned in his attempt to supplant the criminal injuries compensation scheme agreed by Parliament? What is her estimate of that cost to the taxpayer? Surely it must be tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is always unfortunate if people suffer such consequences. However, a judicial review system is in place. The Home Secretary gave an account of himself; the judges were not all in agreement about the right of the Home Secretary to act in the way he did; and that was a consequence of it. It is always unfortunate. I gave figures of the occasions—about 10 only—in which this Home Secretary has been found wanting. Over 90 per cent. of challenges to the Home Secretary are unsuccessful.

Museums and Galleries: Grant Reductions
3.1 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reductions in grants to museums and galleries they propose for 1996–97 and subsequent years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, expenditure on museums and galleries funded directly by the Department of National Heritage is planned to be £205.6 million in 1996–97 and £200.5 million in the next two years, compared with the previous planning figure for 1996–97 of £211.6 million.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Is the Minister aware that I am the first to recognise the need at tines to control public expenditure, having done a fair bit of that for over five years? Is he also aware that what may be modest cuts by Treasury standards are catastrophic to the museums and galleries, not least to the Victoria and Albert Museum? The cut in the museum's grant is almost 3 per cent. for 1996–97 and 3.4 per cent. in later years. While the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State says that we should seek not to erode core activities, is he aware that the Victoria and Albert has already taken all the necessary steps, as I imagine have other museums, to get maximum value for money by making appropriate savings? If we were to go beyond that in order to meet the Minister's criteria we should be in very serious difficulties. In those circumstances is it too late to ask

889
the Minister and the Secretary of State perhaps to reconsider the decision to cut expenditure again in the next two years?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord recognises and agrees a need to keep public expenditure under control. At the risk of stating the obvious, it was with no pleasure that these cuts were imposed. The noble Lord described their context. We recognise the steps taken in the past by the trustees of various national institutions and the resourcefulness they have displayed in meeting the difficulties that face them. We appreciate that.
In ensuring that the core activities of the institutions are properly carried out, the important focus is on safeguarding the managing of collections, continuing to promote access to those collections and delivering improved value for money. Bearing in mind the traditional resourcefulness and record of the trustees in this regard, we believe that it will be possible to ensure that appropriate activities are carried on in the museums. It is the case that forward spending plans are determined by the corporate plans of the institutions, which are reviewed every year. If any national institution wishes to discuss the matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that option is open.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are very glad to see the Government exercising strong pressure to cut expenditure?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend's remarks are very welcome. They support the Government's whole case.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, how do the Government reconcile these reductions with the undertakings that they gave, not once but on several occasions, in both Houses of Parliament when the lottery Bill was going through; namely, as a result of lottery money there would be no reduction in the arts budget?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important to be clear. What was said was that there would be no reduction in respect of the lottery. The particular reductions to which the noble Lord refers arose as the result of cuts in public expenditure. There is no direct nexus between the existence of the lottery and the cuts that we are discussing this afternoon.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, would my noble friend care to remind the House of what has been a decline in real terms in the purchasing grants; namely, grants for new acquisitions for the nation's major museums? I speak as a trustee of the British Museum. Will my noble friend concede the very sad circumstance that significant purchases from these grants are simply no longer possible for the great museums and the Tate Gallery?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that the specific hypothecated purchasing grant that applied a few years ago no longer applies. It was a general grant to each of the museums. It is up to the
890
trustees and management of the museums to allocate resources in the manner best appropriate to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
It is the case, as we have seen occur frequently, that appeals, and indeed successful applications, are made to the lottery fund in order to help museums acquire new items.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that these damaging cuts of many millions will in reality result in museums and galleries having to reduce the number of hours per day and days per year during which they can open to the public owing to the enormous cost of security for their treasures? How do the Government reconcile that with the department's declared public policy of increasing the access of the British public to their cultural institutions and cultural life?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord draws from cuts conclusions that I do not believe are justified according to logic. As I said to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State emphasised that the important core activities for the museums are to safeguard and manage the collections; to continue to promote access to them; and to deliver improved value for money. We believe that that approach will achieve the kind of results that we all hope to see.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, would not the museum authorities gain more credit if certain among them—not the main museums to which my noble friend and other noble Lords referred—do not support prizes to people who produce cows' and sheep's intestines? That does not help the art world in its search for help for more important matters.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in the context of an aesthetic debate, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My noble friend expresses his personal opinion; other noble Lords may hold different views.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Noble Lords: Order, order! Thirty minutes.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the problem is that Questions have run to 30 minutes and therefore we should move on to the next business.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts to try sexual offences committed against children overseas. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

"Medical Research and the NHS Reforms": Select Committee Report
3.9 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Medical Research and the NHS Reforms [3rd Report, 1994–95, HL Paper 12].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
At the outset, I pay a very warm tribute to our Clerk, Andrew Makower, whose dedication, expertise and drafting skills were in every way exceptional. Since he moved on to pastures new, the flag of Sub-Committee I has been ably carried by Philippa Tudor.
The United Kingdom is among the world's leaders in biomedical research and UK scientists are at the forefront of rapid developments in diagnosis and treatment. In 1988, the Science and Technology Committee of this House reported that the NHS was too passive in its partnership with research, in that it neither set a research agendum nor was successful in getting research findings into practice.
In 1991, the Government responded by appointing a director of research and development for the NHS in England, Professor Michael Peckham, now Sir Michael Peckham. He launched the NHS R&D strategy, the first of its kind in the world. The NHS then began to identify its research needs, to commission research to meet them, to disseminate the findings and get them into practice; and, importantly, to improve its own research practice by training staff, including groups not traditionally thought of as research leaders, such as nurses, therapists and managers.
The strategy aims to foster a knowledge-based service as well as evidence-based medical practice. Similar developments have been launched in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Happily, in recent years, through this initiative and through the efforts of the Medical Research Council, health services research and operational research, which analyse the nation's health needs and the means of delivering health services, have expanded. Research and development are neither luxuries nor optional extras. They constitute a fundamental and crucial component of our health services, upon which the lifeblood of medical and social advance depend. That research is backed by substantial resources provided by the research councils, the pharmaceutical industry, the taxpayer, the universities and the medical charities and is crucially dependent upon the NHS for access to patients and data. In return, it offers NHS patients the benefit of the latest advances and of care by leading practitioners. As have often said, today's development in basic medical science brings tomorrow's practical development in patient care.
In 1992 and 1993 concern began to grow that medical and dental research was under threat from the NHS reforms. Market forces were applying pressure upon staff time and the resources needed to conduct research and research training. The principle of uncosted mutual support—Knock-for-knock—which formerly governed
892
relationships between medical and dental schools on the one hand and the NHS on the other was breaking down, and devolved decision-making was hampering multi-centre research and the strategic planning of training. Hence, while it was clear that the initiatives of Sir Michael Peckham and his colleagues were succeeding, there was much anxiety about the future.
The Government responded appropriately by setting up the NHS R&D task force under Professor Culyer, a health economist from York. The Culyer Report was published in September 1994 and recommended a unified NHS budget for research and its support, controlled by Professor Peckham and funded by a levy on purchasers (health authorities and GP fund holders), through which research would be supported explicitly and accountably. The Government accepted those recommendations and they are being implemented. The new system should begin operation from 1st April 1997.
The report of your Lordships' Select Committee, based upon the sub-committee inquiry which I was privileged to chair, was published on 15th June. I and my colleagues are grateful to the Government for their response, published in September. We are glad that the fundamental principles set out in our report and recommendations have been generally endorsed and accepted. Time will not allow me to detail all the important points that we made; but perhaps I may highlight some of the most vital.
First, we are glad that the Government have agreed to stand by their wish to see 1.5 per cent. of the total NHS budget devoted to R&D. In their document published last month, guidance is given to health authorities and trusts about the means by which NHS activity and costs associated with research and development will be identified so that the levy will come into force from April 1997. The R&D strategy relies crucially on the regional directors of R&D, who act as bridge-builders between researchers and NHS purchasers and providers. We are glad that the Government accept the need for a mechanism to bring together researchers and NHS managers to discuss requirements, opportunities and conflicts of interests, and a means of connecting the research community with GP fund holders, whose role as purchasers is of growing significance. We look forward to learning more about the studies that are now being undertaken by various working parties and implementation groups, through whose work these and other proposed developments should become a reality. We are glad too that the Government accept our advice about getting research into practice. We welcome the Effectiveness Bulletins produced by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination in York, as well as the work of the Cochrane Centre in Oxford. But those activities must be accompanied by continuing professional education; and the informed and innovative practitioner must remain free to override evidence if it is either incomplete in the context of the case or out of date.
In our report we deplored the wall of accounting which had begun to divide healthcare from research. The cost of separating the scientist from the clinician is likely to be increasingly high, both in transaction costs

893
and in the creative interactions which will not take place at all because busy people will find it difficult to tolerate the artificiality of costing and accounting for them.
We are glad that the Culyer task force produced a set of principles commanding general assent in order to overcome those difficulties. It is indeed crucial that a stream of research facilities funding be identified from the levy to support NHS institutions with a major commitment to research, including all university-related centres of healthcare delivery. That will replace the research element of SIFT(R) (the service increment for teaching (and research)) which in the past has supported very largely teaching hospitals. Also it will replace non-SIFT(R), which supports research in some non-teaching hospitals) as well as the central support formerly enjoyed by the eight postgraduate hospitals in London. Research facilities funding will in due course he allocated selectively through a research assessment exercise. We are glad that the Government agree that that must be integrated as closely as possible with the similar exercise regularly undertaken by the higher education funding councils, thus avoiding costly duplication of effort. The R&D stream will clearly require a component to fund activities planned centrally by the director of R&D and his regional directors. It is equally clear that funds must be made available to the regional directors to operate schemes of responsive funding for research projects at local level, like the old locally operated research schemes, which often helped young doctors, scientists and others to take their first research steps.
Plainly too a separate funding stream must be identified to underpin research in primary care, general practice and community settings and be available also to support research and development undertaken by nurses and other healthcare professionals. Clearly, however, the most substantial component of R&D money will provide the excess service support and the infrastructure needed in our hospitals to create the environment in which biomedical research, which is so important and vital a feature of our NHS, can continue to flourish and indeed develop.
We have suggested that some such funding or alternatively special new regional reserves may be used to fund tertiary referrals to centres of excellence. Those have declined sharply under the internal market, which has applied pressure to purchasers not to refer, thus hampering major research projects in both rare and common diseases and often meaning that patients have received less expert treatment. We are glad that the Government accept the need to educate purchasers about how research nurtures developments in patient care and about the importance of patient flows to research. Major academic centres must be permitted to use facilities funds to set competitive prices so as to attract referrals.
The Government's R&D initiative proved very successful, not least in relation to the programmes of health services research and operational research which have been introduced, some nationally and some led from individual regions. The Medical Research Council also supported much excellent health services research. When our report expressed potential concern about mission drift by the MRC, that was construed by some
894
as suggesting that the committee felt that the MRC should no longer be involved in health services research. Nothing is further from the truth.
Our intention was to indicate that further expansion of MRC programmes in this field would carry the potential risk of duplicating work being done through the NHS R&D initiative. The committee was concerned that a higher proportion of MRC funds might in future be devoted to that field at a time when many excellent biomedical research projects simply cannot be funded, despite being highly rated by the MRC on scientific grounds. However, I must stress that we regard health services research as being of fundamental importance to the future of the NHS. We learnt with some dismay that some central initiatives, established under the NHS R&D programme, may be under threat and we trust that that fear proves unfounded.
While much detail remains to be clarified by the bodies established by government to implement the Culyer recommendations and those of the Select Committee, we are confident that the research programmes now emerging and those envisaged for the future, both nationally and locally, will do much to nurture improvements in clinical care and ensure that the United Kingdom remains in the forefront of better health services research and biomedical research. Without the appropriate infrastructure, the latter would wither and die.
Our one major recommendation which the Government did not feel able to accept was our wish to see a major inquiry undertaken into the future of academic clinical medicine, which we believe is in crisis. From all parts of the United Kingdom we learn of falling morale and diminished recruitment. The figures published in the Government's response were, frankly, puzzling, as all clinical academic departments in the United Kingdom seem to have suffered from freezing of vacancies and disestablishment of posts. While the NHS has come to the rescue by funding many important academic appointments, a development which is to be greatly welcomed, we gave the reasons—which we thought compelling—why we believe that clinical academic medicine is under serious threat.
Among the many problems of which we have been made aware is the fact that holders of clinical academic posts who have always been closely involved in patient care and in the provision of NHS services, are under increasing pressure from managers to accept an enhanced clinical load. Only two weeks ago the Senate of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons in the UK expressed its concerns publicly, quoting examples of the many difficulties which now beset those seeking training for a career in academic surgery. It quoted many examples, such as the fact that two chairs of cardiothoracic surgery now established have failed to attract any suitable applicants. Only this morning I learnt from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that in early 1995, 54 established clinical chairs in universities with medical schools were vacant; 20 had been vacant for more than 12 months.
While Her Majesty's Government rejected our proposal that a major inquiry should be launched, I am glad to say that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and

895
Principals is now setting up such an inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Rex Richards, former vice-chancellor of Oxford University and with, I hope, funding from a charitable body. I and my colleagues on the committee are convinced that the problems facing clinical academic medicine bode ill for the future of clinical teaching and research and therefore for the future of medicine.
Finally, while I am commenting upon the crucial role of the universities in this regard, perhaps I may inquire as to why regulations relating to the appointment of university nominees to the new health authorities promised in March have not yet emerged? What effect will reductions in capital spending, announced in last month's Budget, have upon the proposed reorganisation of London and other medical schools and their associated hospitals? How will the much needed expansion in medical student numbers be financed?
Those points are all vitally important to academic medicine. We trust that the CVCP inquiry will proceed with all reasonable speed. we trust also that when that body reports, the Government may then accept that such an investigation was much needed and will be prepared to take account of its findings. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Medical Research and the NHS Reforms [3rd Report, 1994–95, H.L. Paper 12].—(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the committee, especially its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for its labour and report. Together with the two volumes of evidence, it is a substantive report. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his affirmative and positive opening speech this afternoon. Clearly I speak as a layman. Nevertheless, I believe that research work needs the support of lay people in the United Kingdom. Speaking as a layman, it is appropriate that I give the House an assurance that I shall be brief; I give that promise.
I wish to raise two points of detail which are not unrelated to the main thrust of the report. First, I want to add words of support for the recommendations in paragraphs 4.52 and 5.29 of the report. Those are recommendations that the attractions and appeal of academic posts should be enhanced. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke of that towards the end of his speech.
When I read the report I strongly supported the setting up of an immediate inquiry to find ways and means of enhancing the prospects of clinical careers in medical schools. I am sure that many noble Lords will be aware of bright young doctors who have much to offer to clinical teaching and research. But as the committee points out, they are understandably attracted away from the medical schools by the greater financial rewards of consultancy posts in the NHS combined with the possibility of the fees to be gained from private practice.
896
It seems to me, and to those with whom I consulted, that the existing salary arrangements act as a disincentive to work in medical schools. If the brightest people desert medical education, the consequences over time must be serious. Indeed, the evidence received by the committee suggests that that is already a serious problem. That too was underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, this afternoon. I am sorry, therefore, that the Government did not respond positively to the call for an immediate inquiry. But I am gratified to learn that the inquiry is in hand.
I turn to my second point and trust that the House will bear with me. I want to ask about the research undertaken in Wales. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, a former Secretary of State responsible for health matters in Wales, is in his place. Having served in the Welsh hospital service many years ago, I have maintained a special interest in medical research being undertaken in regions generally and in Wales in particular. I wish to make two comments on that aspect. I accept, of course, that research is no respecter of boundaries.
Nevertheless, I believe it is important that medical and health service research should be undertaken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as in London and the regions of England. Of course I accept that the areas of the research need to be defined, mapped out and resourced in conjunction with the programmes of other institutions further afield; otherwise there could be a waste of valuable resources. I am glad that the need for regional or local research, as it was called, was underlined by a number of witnesses when they appeared before the committee. Indeed, it has been underlined this afternoon by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Nothing that I say today about the position in Wales detracts in any way from my appreciation of the contribution of the University of Wales College of Medicine, the only medical school in Wales, and the research work which it is undertaking. I am also well aware of the work which has been undertaken by the Medical Research Council in Wales. I am also conscious of the contribution of the Welsh medical charity, Tenovus. Nevertheless, regrettably, it seems to me that the Welsh Office did not submit any evidence to the Select Committee, and that omission in itself may be evidence that there are problems. I am afraid that there is reason for thinking that medical and health service research paid for out of the public purse is not supported as it ought to be by the Welsh Office. Indeed, there is evidence in the report and in the two volumes of evidence for that apprehension.
First, it appears in the evidence of Dr. Evered of the MRC, printed on page 61 of volume 1, that the amount of research and development work in England and Scotland,
"is much greater than in Wales and in Northern Ireland".
Indeed, that inadequacy is amply illustrated by comparing the brief and barren Appendix 12 printed in the report which relates to Wales with the fulsome Appendix 11 relating to Scotland and the

897
information-laden Appendix 8 relating to research activity in England. One has to ask what R&D programmes are being undertaken in Wales.
The written evidence of the Department of Health is almost silent on the issue except that it offers this pretty bland sentence, to be found on page 6 of volume 1. I quote:
"NHS Wales has allocated funds to support research and development directed towards better health, better services and choice, and better value for money".
Not much light there, my Lords. The statement goes on to add:
"The Research and Development Forum has identified an initial series of research priorities".
But that leads to the question: what are those priorities? So far as I can see, from reading the report and the volumes of evidence, they are not identified in the department's evidence.
Moreover, the disquiet and the frustration which are felt among researchers in Wales, emerge in a sad letter from Professor Borysiewicz of the University College of Medicine, which is printed on page 478 of the second volume. The professor writes:
"Among researchers in Wales there are numerous areas of disquiet pertaining to the organisation, commitment and continuity of NHS R&D but clearly these are not going to be resolved until a new director is in post".
Secondly, there has been this inordinate delay on the part of the Welsh Office in appointing the R&D director. Indeed, this was a cause of anxiety to the Select Committee itself. I am glad that the committee has drawn our attention to this state of affairs. It has done so in paragraph 4.53 and in recommendation 5.30 of the report.
As the report was published seven months ago, I should like to be assured that the Welsh Office has by now sorted out the various problems and that it is on course to create the right environment in Wales for medical and health service researchers. Nevertheless, I have to say that the delay in making an appointment accords ill with professed support for research.
Thirdly, and finally, there may be another point of some anxiety. This derives from a sentence in Appendix 12 of the report which reads,
"according to press reports, the Secretary of State for Wales took a personal interest in the selection of projects".
"Personal interest" is not exactly a term of art. What is the meaning and implication of that term in the context of Appendix 12? Does it mean that the Secretary of State as a layman, and not in his capacity as Secretary of State, sought to influence the choice? I recognise that the Government must have an effective say in this area as in other areas of policy involving public expenditure. On the other hand, I am sure it would be- agreed that research priorities should not be influenced by the personal preferences of the Secretary of State as a layman. Therefore, I want to ask for clarification of the meaning of the sentence which I have quoted and which is to be found in Appendix 12.
The Welsh Office and the research selection procedures must leave no doubt in the public mind as to whether choices of research priorities are decided on the
898
merits of the case. I should add that the evidence does not reveal whether the personal interest of the Secretary of State in the end prevailed. I am wondering whether it did.
All I have sought to do on this issue is briefly to draw attention to that part of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee which suggests that the Welsh Office has fallen short, possibly far short, of giving satisfaction in this area. I shall listen with great care to whatever information the Minister can give the House when she comes to reply.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, as a member of the committee I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who was a splendid chairman. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and I were both very privileged to be members not only of this committee but of the original committee in 1988 which produced the report on priorities in medical research. I should like to give two small quotations from that report. Paragraph 9.10 said:
"Science-led research should be dominant. The main focus of public policy in medical research should be the creation of a strong infrastructure for research and the supply of a strongly motivated and well-trained research community".
Paragraph 9.14 said:
"The funding of applied research in medicine is unsatisfactory, and the key lies in the NHS".
In all my recollection of the meetings of that first committee in 1988 I cannot remember one single occasion when we did not talk of the NHS needs which we spelt out at great length and which were very important. We said that they should be complementary to the basic biomedical research to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already referred. We were naturally delighted in 1989 when the Government accepted virtually all the recommendations of the 1988 report and when in 1991 the new NHS research and development strategy was published. It was a new culture in the service. It was a knowledge-based service and it was to be a culture of evaluation. That was an absolutely splendid decision that everybody welcomed.
The one recommendation that we made in 1988, which was not accepted by government, was that the new strategy should be supported by a special allocation of funds. The Government rejected that on the grounds that it would not be compatible with the science budget. It seemed to me then, and it still seems to me now, that that was wrong because the NHS R&D strategy is not a part of the science base. It is NHS expenditure and not a science expenditure.
In 1988 there was no internal market in the NHS, but the introduction of the internal market led to another new culture in the service based on value for money. Whether one agrees with that culture or not, it is certainly compatible with the NHS R&D strategy, which is a knowledge-based and evaluation culture, but it is not compatible with science-driven research, which is not always cost-effective. Many things which are started do not succeed; only some of them do, but they are very important.

899
The introduction of the market ignored the needs of the new strategy for research and development. That was natural enough because it is only 1 per cent. of the expenditure of the NHS; 99 per cent. of it is for looking after patients. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned, that led to the creation of the Culyer task force to produce a report on how to deal with research problems. It came up with the idea of a single stream of NHS funding which was actually divided into three streams. One fund was for research promoted by the NHS itself; the second was to cover the service costs of projects in NHS institutions, with many of them being externally funded; and the third was to provide research facilities in those NHS institutions, mainly the teaching hospitals, which were centres of high quality research.
These were sensible principles and they were generally welcomed, but they mixed up funding for NHS R&D strategy with funding for the support services that I mentioned, which are really services for the science base itself. The Culyer task force principles did not go into detail as to how they were to be implemented. In May 1995 an implementation plan was published but there were no details. I regret to say that that plan only created six more implementation sub-groups, and we await to hear their results.
Our report in May of that year suggested in our many recommendations ways in which some of these matters could be implemented. But in September, in the Government's response to our report, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, they gave general endorsement to these proposals but not any details as to how they were to be implemented. They said that our suggestions were under consideration by the various implementation sub-groups, but we still do not have any details as to how they are to be implemented.
The NHS R&D strategy is controlled by the central research and development committee which reports to and advises the director of research and development, who in turn is a member of the NHS Executive and advises it. It controls the money bags. When the central research and development committee was set up, it very rightly, following the recommendations of the 1988 committee, adopted an approach that was problem-led and not science-driven. But the Culyer recommendations for a single stream of research includes, as I said, part of the service support of a science base. I believe that that has led to the root cause of the natural academic fear that the central research and development committee and the NHS Executive will in time come to favour problem-led projects; despite the assurances that have been given by Ministers and others, the trend will always tend to be in that direction.
That is not in any way to say that it is not important to cover all these NHS problem-led matters. All the many institutions of the NHS such as general practice, nursing and so on all need problem-led research. Perhaps I may give one example from our current report which appears in Chapter 5, paragraph 13:
"We welcome the creation of a stream of 'research facilities funding' to support the additional infrastructure needed in NHS settings which support clinical research to a significant extent. The
900
central research and development committee must resist the temptation progressively to shift the balance away from essential core funding in favour of project funding".
That brought a response from the Government which was not very reassuring: they said that they accepted the need for stability in institutions doing high quality research. My conclusion was that, without guaranteed separate stream funding for academic research, I could see no way to remove long-term academic fears. These fears already affect adversely our medical schools. I beg the Government to act soon in producing details of how they are going to solve the problem.
I now come to paragraph 5.29 of the report where we said:
"We note the combined effect on clinically qualified academics of uncertainty engendered by the NHS reforms (including the problems noted above in relation to referrals, hospital rationalisation, local pay and the continuing capacity of the NHS to fund academic posts); the shortage of career-grade academic posts; the increasing loads of service provision, administration and teaching; the consequences of the unified training grade; and the proposed changes to the system of Distinction Awards. We consider that the disincentives to a clinical academic career are now so great as to warrant an immediate enquiry in their own right".
The Government's response to that recommendation was that the evidence we had for our recommendation was anecdotal and there was no firm basis for it that they knew of. But in the past few days I have received from the BMA a report completely endorsing the recommendations in Chapter 5, paragraph 29. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned, a report came from the CVCP, which has acted unilaterally on that very recommendation.
I should like to go a little further in quoting the CVCP which stated:
"Difficulties exist in recruiting and retaining clinical staff in academic posts in some fields … Problems are caused by:
a lack of confidence in the NHS as a provider of resources for teaching and research
a perception that career progression is more secure and rapid in non academic medicine
an apparent disregard by the NHS of the universities' interests adds to the uncertainty
distinction awards at the 'C' award level are to be made locally. Academics believe that they will find it difficult to compete for these awards which represents a further disincentive to take up or stay with an academic career".
The CVCP then stated that it was taking steps to set up an independent inquiry.
It is clear that worries are widespread in academic medicine. Another cause of those worries, apart from those mentioned by the CVCP, is that an increased clinical load continues to fall on the clinical academics employed by the universities, with the result that they have much less time for research.
Finally, I should like to call attention to the communication that I have received from the BMA which tells me that jobs in clinical departments at some medical schools are already being filled by non-medical scientists. That gives me a sense of déjà vu because, when I went to Edinburgh in 1958 as professor of pharmacology, nearly all of the pre-clinical Chairs and senior posts in pharmacology were held by medically qualified doctors. There was an enormous differential in

901
salaries between those for pre-clinical senior staff and those for clinical senior staff, not only in terms of the university salary but also because the clinical staff were eligible for distinction awards. The result is that nowadays there is hardly a medically qualified man holding a senior appointment in a pre-clinical department in our medical schools. That represents a real loss for the training for medical undergraduates because such people, able as they are as scientists, have no understanding or experience of patient care in medical science. We must not let that happen in clinical departments.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to express my appreciation of the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. He did us the honour of sending the text of what he was going to say to those of us who served on the committee. As I read it, I realised that, as has often happened to me before in relation to the noble Lord and medical affairs, it was hard to see what I should be able to add to the complete case that he had set out. Indeed, on many occasions in your Lordships' House I have heard noble Lords say, "Previous speakers have said most or all of what I wanted to say, and I can only say how much I agree with them".
It is in the spirit of trying to widen your Lordships' view of the remarkable development that has occurred for the NHS in this country under Professor Michael Peckham that I should like to add a few small pieces of extra information. Perhaps I may first tell your Lordships about Michael Peckham. All of your Lordships will know that intellectual activities have an artistic and creative quality and content. I was absolutely delighted when I met Michael Peckham for the first time in his office because he showed me on the walls pictures which he himself had painted. That is not very common among professors of clinical subjects. Some of us have daughters or sons who paint, but do not do so ourselves, so I was most impressed.
I should like to pay tribute to the way in which Michael Peckham has dealt with this incredibly complex national problem. I agree with the feelings that reign in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland about the importance of carrying the message to those parts of our United Kingdom. Michael Peckham took a complicated and complex subject and worked it out. The lovely thing about Michael Peckham is that he has a very clear mind and an extremely good way of expressing himself at meetings and in committees. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will nod his agreement to the fact that when Professor Peckham appeared before us, he spoke straightforwardly about the problems, I think that we all realised that usually he had the great advantage of talking about the problems as he knew them at that moment, whereas we were talking of what we had heard perhaps a week or two before.
Michael Peckham has one other great asset in his work, Mrs. Peckham. She is medically qualified. She is what we call an epidemiologist. She looks at problems in the round, out there, outside the laboratory. I once
902
had a Scottish master, a Fellow of the Royal Society, Ronald Grant, who told me when I went to work for him that he was worried by the fact that I had recently married because it was his very strong impression that the best research was carried out by misogynists who could think of nothing but research. Well, Michael Peckham had the enormous advantage of being able to talk about research at home all the time and he will probably have got very good advice from a lady we all recognise as highly intelligent and very knowledgable. If Professor Peckham is here—he may be—I hope that he will accept that, in saying that, I do not wish to detract from his own achievements.
Having said that, perhaps I may say how very much I agree with the comments that have been made about our Clerk. In addition, our earlier committee owed a great deal to Professor Walter Holland of St. Thomas' Hospital who way back in 1988 perceived how important it would be to stir up and infuse the NHS with practical science and health services research as well as fundamental medical ideas.
During the past five years Michael Peckham has seen a revolution come about: we now talk about knowledge-based medicine. By that, I hope that we mean medicine which is based on what is known (from recent research) about the best way to do this, that or the other. We should not be talking about computers and saying, "This person has had this test; push the button and give them that". Whatever happens, knowledge-based medicine must be put to the patients with understanding, with an understanding of human beings. The importance of that aspect of medicine is referred to in our report.
It is important to look at what has happened during the past five years while Peckham has been at the helm. It is important to realise that it was launched, miraculously, without exciting an enormous amount of irritation and jealousy in the Medical Research Council and among the academic professors and others who might easily have taken a serious view of an organisation which could get into top gear with the promise presently of 1.5 per cent. of the costs of the NHS. In round numbers, we are talking about 1.5 per cent. of £30 billion. If you were a chemist working for the great German firm Hoechst, you would think that 1.5 per cent. spent on R&D was not a high proportion. However, for those of us in medical research, it is a very high figure.
While preparing for this afternoon's debate, I have been delving around trying to find out about that 1.5 per cent. in terms of the allocation of funds. As a benchmark, the MRC spends about £300 million a year on medical research, and the charities roughly the same figure. In a recent press release, the Secretary of State for Health indicated that he has increased the resources for the R&D strategy to £436 million in the coming year. That is a very large sum of money. It will not be quite the bonanza that some people think, because all of us in the research corridors of non-power are aware that when one talks about the price of the research strategy in the NHS that will include all the calculations of what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to as the knock-for-knock principle.

903
We never did any accounting on what it cost to have the tests done for my diabetes. It is probably a good thing that we did not. Nor did other people have the costs of the beds they used for their research put against their accounts. That was all part and parcel of the knock-for-knock: we took care of the patients; they paid for our excess costs. I suspect that much of that £436 million may have to be accounted for in the modern NHS as money needed to support research: money that the research will cost.
All of us on the committee felt strongly that it was important that the regional directors—the people whom Sir Michael chose to support him—should have funds with which they could support young people starting out in research. There are two wonderful phrases. One is an old phrase—"pre-protocol research"—which meant that one was doing research that was so early that one could not work out exactly what one was going to do. One was going to make some exploratory observations—pre-protocol. There is another new, wonderful phrase that I found in a document sent to me by my friends on the MRC. It is called "response mode support"; in other words, it is responding to a suggestion that something is tried and undertaken.
It would be important to all of us on the committee to hear, if the Minister can tell us, whether any part of that £436 million will be allocated to regional directors of R&D for them to spend on the local medical schools and on encouraging young people to start. That same man—R. T. Grant—who was a little upset that when I joined him I had recently married, would be very concerned were there to be no means for young people to start research. I was called obstreperous. That was why I was put into research. "We have got to get rid of him off the ward. Put him in a research lab. He is too obstreperous". There must be a means by which young people can get their start. My plea is that we ensure, through clever and lighthanded management centrally, that money is made available to the regional directors of research, all of whom we know and of whom we think the world. They are very good men.
Finally, I strongly support the anxieties that were expressed in the committee and have been expressed this afternoon about morale in the academic medical departments. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on the opposite Benches. She will remember when we were talking about the newly organised health service and how I, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Walton, were keen to have a uniform salary. We made the point from the academics' view that, if we did not have a uniform salary structure, there were real risks that people would not be able to do what we would think of as the good things.
In fact, there is no uniform salary structure. Understandably, authority has been given down the line to hospitals to have their own salaries within the NHS. We cannot do that yet academically within the ordinary organisation of university posts. Perhaps we will have to do that to reignite the morale of the young doctors who are in the teaching departments. Meanwhile, Minister, if you can indicate that there will be money for regional directors of R&D that they can use to
904
encourage young people, there will be a feeling that, after all, the research community is respected. It desperately needs encouragement.
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, it will be already evident to noble Lords that there was much highly expert advice available within the committee. There were many people serving on the committee who knew a great deal about the subject. The noble Lords, Lord Perry of Walton and Lord Flowers, had served on the 1988 committee. Above all, we were lucky enough to have the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, as our chairman. Although it is a formality sometimes to congratulate the chairman, as the first layman on the committee to speak I have to say that we relied heavily upon his knowledge and experience, despite all the other expertise that was available to us.
The subject, as has been said, was being revisited for the second time, the committee in 1988 having produced what must be termed a seminal report. We have heard of the great work of Professor Michael Peckham and of the change of culture—it can only be described as that—within the NHS now that there is an R&D strategy and all that flows from it. There is no doubt that the 1988 committee report was highly instrumental and influential in bringing about that change of culture.
I pay tribute to the late Lord Nelson of Stafford who chaired that committee and who was able to serve as a co-opted member of the committee for a while until ill health forced his retirement. That demonstrates how the Select Committee procedure enables continuity of expertise which has proved highly valuable in this instance. Having done so much in 1989—the Government took a year and three-quarters to respond, but respond they did and very effectively—it appeared by 1993 that much of that great progress was at risk.
This Select Committee inquiry would have been established earlier in 1993 had not the then Secretary of State set up the Culyer task force. The fears which were clearly apparent at that time arose from the changes in fund holding, concern about the long-term future of clinical research, and concern as to whether the hard-won changes in the culture could survive. The terms of reference of the Culyer task force were appropriate. When we saw that it was to report within a relatively short period—it was briefed to report by April 1994—I am sure that we were right to step back, report on Culyer, if necessary, and take note as well of the development of the R&D strategy led by Professor Peckham. That is precisely what the report in the event proved to be.
There was no great difficulty determining that the Culyer recommendations dealt with the major central issue from which all the uncertainty and concern arose, which was the funding stream. Clearly, changes in administration and fund holding cause all sorts of alarm bells to ring. From the Culyer Report came the single funding stream and the 1.5 per cent. about which noble Lords have heard. Everything else pales into insignificance. The next issue is how one determines the apportionment of that funding stream. A stream is a

905
slightly misleading metaphor; it is more like a delta. It starts as a fund: what is important is how it is distributed.
The Culyer Report makes it clear that there are three branches to the delta: first, projects and programmes, to which one must add supporting functions which would include information strategy and the development of research capacity; secondly, service support; and thirdly, research facilities.
As a layman on the committee I was perhaps a little cynical as time after time we heard special pleading from all sorts of sectors as to how important it was that that particular sector should be the beneficiary of the funding streams. People were capable of rubbishing the expertise and talents of other sectors. The academics would point out, for example, that there was little research culture within the area of general practitioners or nursing and how dangerous it was therefore to divert too much funding there. It is important to discount special pleading and to take a clear-sighted view at regional level as to where funding should go.
Of the three streams, the first, which concerns projects and is supported by the information strategy, is an extremely important development of the research and development strategy itself. It is almost inconceivable that way back in 1992 there was no clear record of the research that was going on in the National Health Service. There was no central data bank. Therefore, the project register system was started in 1993. It is a network of registers of research projects with guidance from a central co-ordinating unit. The intention is to produce a national database of medical research projects. It is essential to know what research is being carried out in the National Health Service and helpful to have that linked adequately with the Medical Research Council, the work of medical charities and the work funded or undertaken by industry. I hope that we shall be able to move towards a totally comprehensive register system which will be widely available to anyone who has any right to access. At the moment there appears to be little access outside regional research and development directorates. There are, however, funding implications. A register of this nature must be kept up to date and properly resourced.
A second component of the information strategy is the Cochrane Centre and latterly the York Centre. The Cochrane Centre is part of the international Cochrane Collaboration. The report makes several statements about that exciting concept. Perhaps I may explain the rationale of the Cochrane Centre to those of your Lordships who are not familiar with it. Since resources are finite it is important that they are used efficiently both as regards the delivery of care and research. Information about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions must be readily available and used by decision-makers in the National Health Service. The planning of new research must be based on clear information of what is required, what is not already available and what is already being done in research programmes.
The Cochrane centres are conducting reviews of the work in progress and are determining best practice. There are pitfalls, made clear to the committee and
906
mentioned at paragraph 2.17; for example, using techniques beyond their proper limits. There is clearly a need to make information available in a user-friendly way to the practitioner but there is clearly a danger of overload. However, there is overload already from perhaps more traditional methods of imparting information. One of the merits of current developments in information systems is that much complicated, highly specialist review information can be made available to the practitioner or to the manager in a way that should be user friendly. While recognising the constraints from which these techniques suffer, I greatly welcome the initiative. It is a highly important part of the information strategy.
Finally, perhaps I may comment on the role of the regional directors of research. It is the key level at which the competing pressures for funds, to which I referred earlier, must ultimately be decided. We have heard today that academic medicine should not be discouraged from undertaking its proper role of contributing towards education, training, research, design and much else. But there is also need for research in prevention and care in the National Health Service. Perhaps that is something of a Cinderella area and not always of great interest to the clinical research community educated in biochemistry and physiology.
We have heard that the academic community has many concerns about possible threats to the research programmes. Perhaps I may make a plea that, having recognised that, we also recognise the research opportunities and contributions that can be made by general practitioners, the nursing community and non-medical health professionals. All have a perfectly valid role to play in research. If they do not have the research culture so historically and firmly behind them, that is all the more reason why the research culture needs to be developed in those areas. I am sure that the present research and development strategy is correctly designed in order to obtain wider research funding.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I with the noble Lords, Lord Perry and Lord Flowers, had the great privilege of serving on both the Committee on Priorities in Medical Research, chaired by the late Lord Nelson of Stafford, which reported in 1988 and on the present Committee on Medical Research and the NHS Reforms, so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Walton. The Government response to the 1988 report was very positive and led to the appointment of Professor Michael Peckham, whose praises we have already heard sung today. I am sure that we would all wish to join in congratulating him on all that he achieved in a short space of time. Within three months he announced a new research and development strategy with the objective of delivering health service care which is knowledge-based and has a culture of evaluation. That can be made possible only through high-quality research.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, gave the House a commendable introduction to the background of the present committee, the concerns of the medical

907
profession and the concern that the amount of health service research could lead to detraction from clinical medical research. It is right, therefore, that the major focus of our report should take that as its main point; that is, hospital-based clinical research and its vital relationship with academic medicine. Those are of immense importance to all those engaged in healthcare. It is only by pushing back the boundaries of medical knowledge that advances in treatment can be made. In that respect, it is in the interest of the patient that there is a seamless robe between the practice of clinical medicine and academic research.
I wish to dwell a little more on a point to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has already alluded. I wish to open up the debate into the area of the other disciplines involved in health service research. Only brief references were made at various points in our report, principally in the paragraph related to research outside the major university hospitals and in paragraphs 1.18, 3.16 to 3.18 and 5.8. It is my view that despite the dominance and accepted importance of medical research, a number of the older professions, such as my own of nursing and midwifery, have only recently had access to higher education and to research thinking and research facilities. Furthermore, a number of newer professions in the health service need to research their practice. If the delivery of healthcare in the NHS is to be informed and knowledge-based with a culture of evaluation, the research and development of all professions needs to be cultivated. That is why I was particularly grateful for the reference in the Government response to our report at paragraph 16 which states:
"We recognise that all professional staff have an important contribution to make. However their contribution will depend upon support and professional development. The implementation of evidence-based practice will be greatly facilitated by the participation of nurses and members of other professions allied to medicine who spend most of their time in direct patient care. This is a priority for RDRDs and their NHS networks".
The Culyer Report, to which reference has been made, suggested that all NHS settings should compete for R&D funding on equal terms. Our report expresses the concern that some disproportionate amount of research resource could be diverted from the needs of medical research. To me, that seems a rather defensive position, but we need to identify a distinct stream of funds within the R&D levy to underpin research in primary care, general practice and community settings.
We state categorically that while hospital-based research is of vital importance:
"it must increasingly share resources with research in primary care settings, and research in what Professor Culyer calls the 'Cinderella disciplines': general practice, nursing, midwifery and. health visiting and the professions allied to medicine".
Six months on from the report, I have come to dislike the description of my own profession among others as a Cinderella discipline. I should prefer to talk about under-resourced disciplines. I believe that now is the time to redress the balance in the interests of patient care between those disciplines and what is being devoted to medical research.
908
It is useful to look at what the NHS R&D strategy has done for some of those professions. Most of the nurses with whom I have spoken were happy with the outcomes of the recommendations arising from the 1988 report Priorities in Medical Research and the strategy that arose from that. In particular, they are in favour of a multi-disciplinary approach to health service research. That has resulted in a far greater involvement of nurses in research teams and a better allocation of resources to the development of academic disciplines.
That is a positive outcome with which I go along pragmatically. But there may be some negative outcomes in concentrating on multi-disciplinary research. First, the distinctive nursing contribution may not be identified and nursing, within multi-disciplinary research, may become invisible. Secondly, the knowledge base for nursing practice, which we would hope would emanate from research, would not be identified specifically. Lastly, the research models and methodologies developed for other disciplines may not always be suitable for investigating questions of nursing practice.
Of course, there are some who take a simplistic view that the only respectable and universally applicable research method is the randomised controlled trial, and they hold that nothing else can be dignified with the name of research. There are many professions which would question that thesis. Some nursing questions lend themselves to randomised controlled trials; others are far more susceptible to, for example, the social sciences.
In 1992, the Director of Research and Development and the Chief Nursing Officer set up a task force on research in nursing, midwifery and health visiting which was chaired by Professor Adrian Webb who is now vice-chancellor of the University of Glamorgan. The task force was asked to consider the nature of nursing research; how to set priorities; conduct research; train researchers; and get research translated into practice. It reported in 1993 and in my view, that report complements wonderfully the report which we have before us today.
It saw nursing research as a branch of health services research, embracing nursing practice, nursing services and their delivery, the nursing professions and their workforces and their training and deployment, health promotion, and service systems alongside other professions—a very wide range of interests.
And so I believe that that report is a useful indicator for nursing. It recommended that nursing research should have a full and equal partnership in the NHS R&D strategy and observed that neither the managerial culture nor the nursing practice culture has been sufficiently supportive. The task force made a number of other recommendations in respect of targeting and enriching research, targeting and enriching funding education for research and the need for an information strategy.
Besides the Webb Report, I believe that the situation in nursing research, as an example of a profession other than the medical profession, has been highlighted in the research assessment exercise carried out by the Higher Education Funding Council in 1992. That demonstrated

909
the need for the enrichment of nursing research and education in nursing research very prominently. Both Alison Tierney from the University of Edinburgh and Jane Robinson from the University of Nottingham analysed the results. They appear pretty catastrophic for academic nursing. Twenty-nine nursing departments participated. Nursing ranked at the bottom of the league table of academic disciplines. It came 72nd out of 72 academic cost centres.
That may call into question the whole future of nursing as an academic subject and the allocation of research resources. However, a more detailed analysis of those reports reveals some of the contributing factors. Of the 29 departments assessed, 58 per cent. received the lowest possible rating and a further 24 per cent. were given a two rating, making 82.7 per cent. of the departments having a below average rating. Only five departments rated as average and above: two were given a rating of three; and three departments received a rating of four on a scale of five. No department received a five rating.
But if one analyses the results further, one sees that all the higher grades were in the older universities with longer-established units. All the departments in the new universities—the ex-polytechnics—received a rating of one, with the exception of one that was rated a two. Clearly, the rating may reflect something of the history of those institutions but the returns also illustrate that the length of time for which a department has been established is indicative. That suggests that a discipline such as nursing has a steep learning curve on which to catch up in terms of knowledge and expertise in nursing. I must reflect that the department of the University of Manchester, which I headed until my retirement, achieved departmental status only in 1973; and some progress has been made in 20 years. When we look at some of those older professions which now have a status in higher education—and some of the newer ones—we are considering professions which need a tremendous amount of help in the learning curve which is entailed in taking up a research function.
The Royal College of Nursing has commented on our report and accepts many of its recommendations. The college sees the need for an infrastructure funding for research and development, and calls for central monitoring of the deployment in that respect. Its monitoring of the implementation of the Webb Report revealed that it was very patchy. The college endorses the need for a director of research and development in both Wales and Northern Ireland, and has major reservations about our recommendation in paragraph 3.18 that the development of the research workforce capacity should be managed and distributed at local level. In that respect, the college sees a possibility of the disciplines becoming further marginalised. Therefore, that, along with other comments, come from the Royal College of Nursing.
I have attempted to use my own profession as an example to try to illustrate some of the problems of professions moving into higher education, especially as regards their funding for research.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for arriving late for today's debate. I had so much wanted to hear the noble Lord opening the debate. I welcome the marvellous report that he has produced. However, I was delayed on my way here and, no matter how fast I ran up the stairs, I did not manage to get here on time. Therefore, I hope that I do not repeat any of the earlier comments made. I shall certainly read the noble Lord's opening speech with great interest.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for those involved in erudite, academic research. But as vice-chairman of North East Thames Regional Health Authority, I also have a very specific interest in how research relates to the every-day delivery of patient care and the needs of the National Health Service, both locally and nationally. When we had to appoint a regional research director for North East Thames, I was fortunate to chair the panel. One of those on the appointment panel with me was Professor—but not then Sir—Michael Peckham. At the end of the interviews, when we had had the choice of many good candidates and, indeed, two quite outstanding ones, we had to weigh up which to choose. One of the questions that I put to the professor was, "How many people with direct general practice experience do you have as directors of research?". The answer was that this person would be the first. It was for that reason that we appointed Professor Andrew Haines, whose appointment I believe has been a great success. It is important that we bear in mind the relevance of research to the treatment of patients.
As I am now chairman of the Royal Free Hospital Trust, I am very aware of how "patient driven"—which I suppose is the expression that I would use—are our research and interest. I say that because we are a most academic hospital; indeed, we are the largest single-site undergraduate teaching hospital in London. The trust and the academic unit are so closely allied that you cannot even differentiate as to which is which within the hospital building. We occupy the same building and are completely intertwined. I believe that that is most desirable. We are not only teaching undergraduates; we are also undertaking marvellous research.
As I listened to the debate, I could not recognise the scenario put forward earlier in the afternoon that academics. are feeling a little depressed and not valued enough; indeed, perhaps a little unappreciated. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Perry, made those points. I do not find that at all. Our research people are full of enthusiasm and do all sorts of amazing things that the rest of us can do nothing but marvel at. So many of those initiatives have a practical application to the patients in our care.
I also believe that it is most important that those centres of excellence should continue. I have in mind the very synergy of so many academics under tike one roof, all of whom have independent thoughts and views; indeed, one stimulates the other with ideas. It is a situation where they gain from having other people bringing forward ideas and thoughts. Something which

911
appealed to me very much in the report was the section on pre-protocol research. I believe that that is to be found at page 28. It is most important.
On page 26 of the report we come across something which is most essential—the R&D levy and the core infrastructure. That is terribly important. There is no way that we could have that quantity of very specialised research duplicated everywhere. In order for people to try out their ideas and develop their interests, they must have the fantastic X-ray machines available. They must have the very latest equipment. There is no way that any country in the world could afford to have such marvellous pieces of modern equipment available in every location. It is much better to have it in the centres of excellence where the people with the brains to use it can be found. That is the way to produce good results for all of us.
I believe that the R&D levy is a most important feature. I say that because the core structure—the infrastructure—could take up almost 80 per cent. of the R&D money. It is a very expensive part of the procedure. But without it research could not continue as it is now.
However, the pre-protocol issue is different. It is about curiosity-driven research. I believe that that is an aspect which we must never underestimate. There will always be carefully designed and thought-out research programmes. Indeed, they are well listed in the report. But if we think back through history to Marie Curie's discovery of radium and Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin, we can see that they were findings which came about as much through curiosity as anything else. Yet the whole world has benefited from such marvellous research which would never have happened if we had been tying our researchers and our thinkers purely to matters which had been set down in advance.
I believe that the recommendations for the pre-protocol research in the document are excellent. They will encourage enthusiasts to continue to look at new ideas and new discoveries which will be for the benefit of us all. The report is a marvellous document. I have not had time to read all of it, but what I have read has very much impressed me. Clearly there will be enough reading to keep me going over Christmas.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, it has been a privilege to sit as a layman under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who guided us through the intricacies of medical research and the National Health Service with consummate skill and clarity. Indeed, it was an education for me. I propose to confine my brief remarks to research in relation to the patient outside hospital. Therefore, I shall concentrate on the implications of one sentence in the report which appears at paragraph 3.18 and refers to the need for,
"research into the implementation of care in the community, and into the integration of primary services, taking into full account the concerns of the patient".
There are many well-known reasons for the shift from primary to secondary care. There have been welcome initiatives in pursuing research on R&D priorities in
912
relation to the interface between primary and secondary care. The subjects, numbering 21, identified in the report of a group under the chairmanship of Professor Roger Jones, published in 1994, certainly require investigation. They include the transfer of information across the interface between healthcare professionals and other agencies; the impact on referrals and discharge of including patients and carers in decision-making; and aftercare, rehabilitation and community care for priority groups. They are but examples drawn from the long list. They impinge on the subjects of special concern to me.
It seems to me that urgent consideration needs to be given to ensuring that in the primary care sector the patient knows who is in charge of his care, that that person will be responsible for managing the team and organising the treatment and care by the appropriate member of the team, and that the person in charge is available to be consulted. The exchange of information between those involved is of first importance in the interests of the patient. That requirement is, of course, additional to the wider need for exchange of information between all involved in healthcare, to which Professor Jones's report relates.
I suggest that this area deserves a research study on its own so that the guidelines for action will be clear. They need not be the same in every situation. Such a study will inevitably be interdisciplinary, involving those in the voluntary sector, social services, nursing and other professions allied to medicine, as well as the medical profession itself.
This leads me to wonder whether there would be advantage in the development of some new medical school incorporating a patient-centred curriculum, with students meeting patients from the first year onward and experiencing a range of practice settings; community-oriented clinical training with experience across the whole spectrum of health services, including their interface with the support services and experience of multi-disciplinary care; and consideration of socio-economic factors in health. Such elements would involve so radical a departure from the curriculum of existing medical schools that it seems that they might most easily be implemented in a new institution.
The Culyer Report devotes considerable space to care in the community, which I much welcome. It is a subject of great public concern. I shall be grateful if the Minister will indicate the priority the Government intend to give that area of research.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like to follow all noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and his committee on this excellent and extremely timely report. I was personally disappointed that I had to stand down as a member of the sub-committee. Reading the evidence taken by the committee and the full report has made me even more aware what a valuable and fascinating inquiry I have missed.
The report is as interesting in the indirect light that it throws on the general state of the NHS four years after the so-called reforms were introduced as in its analysis

913
of the state of medical research, the prime subject of the inquiry. As has already been mentioned, the NHS R&D programme spent its early years in the shadow of health services reorganisation. Given the findings of the report, it is unfortunate that we were not able to discuss it earlier in the year. Six months ago, when the report was first published, your Lordships' House was still considering the Health Authorities Bill, and much of what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, says in his report—and indeed what he proposed in his amendments to that Bill—would have been given extra force if we had considered the Health Authorities Bill and the report at the same time.
The report and all noble Lords who have spoken have rightly paid substantial tribute to the NHS R&D initiative, and particularly to its first director, Professor Sir Michael Peckham. Here I must declare an interest as an original member of the central research and development committee under his chairmanship from 1991 until last December, and I still act as chairman of the North Thames Regional Advisory Committee on Research and Development, where I have the pleasure of working with Professor Andy Haines, who has already been mentioned, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for making his appointment to that position.
My close observation of the programmes as a very lay, lay person has made me a great admirer of their success and, particularly, of the political skill of the directorate in bringing research and development to the top of the NHS agenda. Few people would have predicted when Professor Peckham took up his post five years ago that by now the concept of "evidence based medicine" would have become almost a cliché in research institutions, and at least some NHS management offices, all over the country. As the report says:
"The strategy receives endorsement from across the spectrum of health care and research".
However, as the report also emphasises, the energy and enthusiasm of the programme itself and of the academic researchers on whom it crucially depends have often been frustrated by the overall funding and organisational environment in which the programme tries to flower. And—to continue the metaphor—the reforms have provided a pretty unfriendly and stony soil for the new plant to root and develop.
The problems created specifically by the reforms seem to fall into three areas: problems of appropriate research funding and organisation by local trusts and purchasing agencies which are the decision makers in the new NHS; the impact of this fragmentation on getting research into practice—or, as it is known, the GRIPP initiative; and the problems of attracting bright young doctors to academic medical careers when they regard their future as being uncertain. I should like briefly to look at all three.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has this afternoon described the now accepted proposals of Professor Culyer's Committee on single stream research funding and the hopes that this will give secure financial underpinning for national research. The Culyer scheme is of course, as many speakers have said, designed to
914
counteract the effects of the internal market and its sometimes short-term approach to the contractual basis of healthcare. I join the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in welcoming the creation of a compulsory research levy on all purchasing authorities. However, I remain a little sceptical about the willingness or the capacity of every local agency to fulfill the spirit of the research and development strategy. There still seems to be substantial scope for foot-dragging about both research and development.
I was interested to read the comments of John James, who is himself an NHS chief executive and also a member of the Culyer Committee and the new central research and development committee, who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, referring to his Culyer group,
"all of us were convinced that up and down the country there were macho-purchasers, both districts and fundholders, who blatantly disregarded anything except the most short term considerations. But of course none of us accepted this as a description of ourselves…But no purchaser, however much he or she wants to be on the side of the angels, really knows what impact his or her actions have on activities within a Trust".
It is these hands-off, indirect relationships in the new NHS which raise questions about the long-term, successful implementation of the broad implications of Culyer. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, reserved the right to revisit this vital issue. The new funding arrangements will need careful monitoring and evaluation. I hope that the Department of Health will play a formal role in that process.
Overall, my main concerns about the continuing success of the R&D programmes are based in my anxieties about that fragmentation of the NHS—the breakdown into several hundred small businesses. Those concerns are made explicit in the report and summarised on page 12, where the committee quotes the Office of Science and Technology in saying:
"The importance of the NHS as a test-bed for medical research is vital. By virtue of its national coverage, the NHS is able to provide a broad, well-documented database of patient information and a , wide range of patients".
But the committee goes on to note:
"as the NHS R&D Strategy began to take shape, concerns began to be expressed that the NHS reforms…were threatening to break up this vital test-bed. These concerns…echo through our evidence".
Those concerns may echo through the evidence, but the committee does not seem to have found anything convincing to dispel them.
The committee has made the important recommendation, already referred to by several noble Lords, that regional research and development directors should have special funds to enable them to cut across local short term market fluctuations in the interest of clinical trials and other research. In the same paragraph, the committee lays stress on the need to take positive steps to educate purchasers, managers and, importantly, lay members of health authorities about the significance of research to developments in patient care. I hope that the Government will take active steps to support those recommendations.
There is, however, a problem about the mechanisms to achieve those and other recommendations in the fragmented health service. The noble Lords, Lord

915
Walton and Lord Perry of Walton, specifically referred to those. We on these Benches argued during the passage of the Health Authorities Bill that the abolition of the regional health authorities would substantially weaken the structural links between the NHS and academic medicine. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, proposed amendments to ensure that postgraduate deans would be formally integrated into the regional offices which will succeed the RHAs next April. The Government rejected the amendments and there are now only informal exhortations to executive outposts to keep close to local academics.
The future status of the regional research and development directors, who have been crucial—as was emphasised this afternoon—in building the foundations of the new programmes, is still unclear in the new offices which will be staffed by civil servants.
I note the recommendation at paragraph 4.33. It calls for the establishment of a policy and strategy committee in each region. Members of the committee noted that the strategy committee should be,
"chaired by Regional Chairmen, including within their membership the Postgraduate Dean, the RDRD, the Regional Director of Public Health, and nominees of relevant universities".
I welcome the Government's response: that they want to see such an organisation in place; and the reference in the report to the statement of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, at Report stage in your Lordships' House of the Health Authorities Bill that,
"There is nothing to stop regional chairmen within their regions building any mechanisms they wish in order to strengthen those links".—[Official Report, 24/4/95; col. 751.]
However, we need more than permission; we need active involvement in order to get those important mechanisms going. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, can give us some insight into the Government's current position on that recommendation.
Several other noble Lords have asked what is happening under the new legislation regarding the proposed regulation that the new health authorities will have a university member where there is a medical school in the area. I understand that although categoric assurances were given during the passage of the Bill, those regulations have neither been consulted on nor published. That is very disturbing.
If a strategic regional committee existed, as the report suggests, and if there were proper medical school representation on the new health authorities, we could be slightly more confident that mechanisms exist not only to oversee and, it is to be hoped, to steer regional programmes, but also to get research into practice and purchasing and to nurture the careers of academic researchers.
Current threats to the careers of academic researchers are given considerable critical attention by the report. They have been given considerable critical attention by noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, his committee felt the present situation to be sufficiently serious for it to warrant an immediate separate inquiry. The report
916
speaks of the "uncertainty engendered by the NHS reforms". There are specific concerns about the market system impeding adequate patient flows for research. They are well illustrated by a series of alarming examples on page 34 of the report.
There are concerns about the impact of locally determined pay on academic doctors who may not benefit from that system. Those concerns are echoed by organisations like the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the British Medical Association. No wonder, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, the report concludes in this section that the strong disincentives to the bright young doctors of today bode ill for the future of clinical teaching and research and therefore for the future of medicine.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I too am glad that the CVCP has set up an independent inquiry in that area but, frankly, regard it almost as a dereliction of duty that the Government have chosen to ignore that recommendation.
Other issues which have been raised this afternoon are equally important. I refer to the balance between biomedical and the health services research; and the distinction between the NHS funded programme and other important sources of finances such as the MRC and the medical charities. My noble friend spoke of the specific problems of Wales. I echo his hope that the research and development director for Wales and for Northern Ireland will be appointed as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and other Members of your Lordships' House who served on the committee with him. They have provided us with an enormously important document which not only analyses the role and direction of medical research but also gives us the first systematic appraisal of the impact of the NHS reforms on a crucial element in the successful development of our healthcare system.
At the International Conference on the Scientific Basis of Healthcare arranged by Professor Peckham in London this autumn, Mr. Dorrell said that,
"The R&D programme has the potential to make the single biggest contribution to patient care in this country as we approach the next century".
That is probably true, but it will only be true if government health policies facilitate rather than impede research and development.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I should like to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who is in South Africa representing Her Majesty's Government at the Commonwealth Health Ministers Conference and who would normally have responded to this debate. I know that she would have wished to have been here to have heard this excellent debate. I only hope that I can do it justice in her place.
Like others of your Lordships, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, not only for providing us with the opportunity of having this most

917
interesting debate today but also for his efforts in chairing the committee which produced this valuable report, Medical Research and the NHS Reforms. The Government welcomed the constructive spirit of the report. It congratulated them on the success of the NHS R&D strategy; and the debate today in raising awareness of this strategy has provided its own contribution to one of the key recommendations of the report—namely, that the work of the NHS R&D strategy should be more widely known.
The report covers a wide and complex field and it raises many research and educational issues central to the future delivery of national health services and to the quality of patient care. The Government are quite clear on the importance of this point. We have repeatedly emphasised that research and development is vital to the NHS if the service is to continue to prosper into the new millennium.
This is because R&D provides a crucial link between advances in science and the day-to-day practice of medicine and healthcare. The effectiveness of the service depends on a smooth flow of information, which in turn will help ensure that appropriate, soundly-based decisions are taken throughout the NHS. This role will become even more important as the pace of scientific discovery quickens and the service faces a host of new technologies and procedures.
I am not sure that I understood the point that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made with regard to the central initiatives under threat. There is an ambitious programme of centrally funded research which covers all important priority areas—for example, mental health, cancer, primary care and so on. But I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selborne for his magnanimous comments on the wide-ranging content of the NHS R&D programmes and the supporting information strategy.
We have been reminded today by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, that it was an earlier report from the same committee of this House which acted as the catalyst for government action in this area. It was the recommendations of the report, Priorities in Medical Research (1988), and the exertions of its chairman, the late Lord Nelson of Stafford, which paved the way for the establishment of the NHS R&D strategy and resulted in the appointment of Professor Sir Michael Peckham as the first director of R&D at the Department of Health. My noble friend Lord Selborne paid tribute to Lord Nelson, and we would like to add our tribute to him.
The current report confirms the achievements of the strategy so far, and these have been endorsed across the entire field of healthcare and research, including primary and community care, about which the noblé Lord, Lord Nathan, was worried. The centrally funded priority research programmes include primary and community care subjects, and Professor Haines, who was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Gardner, leads the national programme on primary care research. That is a vital recognition of the support that has been won for this relatively new initiative inside and outside the health service. Building on that support will be an essential
918
task in developing the strategy in the years ahead. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is happy with my response.
The report also paid a generous tribute to Sir Michael Peckham, as did the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Butterfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. We would also like to pay our tribute to him. After five stirring years, Sir Michael leaves his post in the department at the end of this month. Much has been achieved and the Government and the NHS owe him a great deal, as the findings of the report testify. We were all pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, had to say in that respect about Sir Michael. I hope that someone will send him a copy of Hansard so that Lady Peckham may see it.
One sign of his achievement was the great interest shown in the NHS R&D strategy by all the delegates who attended the department's Scientific Basis of Health Services Conference held recently in London. Over 1,100 people from 40 different countries came together over three days to learn and share developments in translating advances in science and research into the best professional practice. The level and enthusiasm of the delegates underlined just how much progress has been made in the past five years. In opening the conference, the Secretary of State took the opportunity to reaffirm the key importance of R&D developments to the NHS both now and in the future.
The Government have actively promoted this recognition of R&D. We are determined that the new NHS should provide the best possible environment in which R&D can flourish. We recognise that an effective R&D strategy is crucial to the new, modern, evidence-based NHS in delivering good and effective care to its patients. We also realise that robust new mechanisms will be needed to provide a strong and durable basis for organising and supporting research within the new NHS. That was why a task force was established under the chairmanship of Professor Anthony Culyer of York University to address those issues.
Your Lordships' report commended the Government for acknowledging the difficulties for R&D caused by the introduction of the new NHS and for setting up the task force. It also welcomed the task force recommendations and again emphasised the general support of the health service and research communities for the principles underpinning those recommendations. New arrangements for supporting R&D based on those recommendations are now being set in place. They will harness progress in science and address health service issues. In particular, they will provide a sound basis for separately supporting research and patient care while promoting synergy between them. Those plans are of international interest and concern.
As long ago as last April we announced a three-phase plan to implement the report's recommendations and create a single funding stream from an NHS R&D levy on purchasers. Substantial progress has been made since then. The first phase will come into effect next April through the introduction of an interim R&D levy based on existing budgets. In the second phase the initial levy

919
will be adjusted in April 1997 to reflect the true costs of R&D. Last month guidance was issued to assist NHS hospitals and community health service providers to identify and cost their current R&D programmes as part of a nationwide exercise. Plans for the third phase, the full operation of the arrangements, are on schedule for April 1998.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, asked the Government to act soon to allay fears that funding may shift under the new arrangements from support for the science base to needs-led projects. I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that the new arrangements will include mechanisms for ensuring the correct balance between NHS support for the science base and support for the needs-led work, to which the 1988 report of your Lordships' committee drew attention. The new national forum will play a crucial role in advising them.
I can also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that the new funding arrangements will preserve the current powers of regional directors of research and development to disburse funds for the purposes which he so eloquently described. Regional directors are at present in control of in excess of £35 million.
I should also like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in his concern about the schemes in London. As happens elsewhere in the country, those schemes will be able to test for private finance. We expect them to be successful. In the unlikely event of a scheme not attracting a private sector partner, it may still apply for public sector funding, which will continue to be available for priority schemes. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for reminding us of the importance of pre-protocol research. The Government's response to the committee's report confirmed that the new funding arrangements will address that.
I can also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that the Government will monitor carefully all three phases of implementation. Regional offices already have teams in place to support and track progress. Evaluating and making the best use of research evidence is central to the aims of the R&D strategy. As with the other programmes, the health technology assessment programme seeks to identify NHS priorities and then to evaluate the effectiveness of current technologies and procedures. The information gained is then shared with the health service.
The Cochrane Centre and the York Centre for reviews and dissemination also play a key role in spreading the word about the state of research knowledge across a range of disciplines. The centres produce information in a form which is relevant and usable, both as an aid to practice and as a way of avoiding unnecessary duplication of research.
Equally, the department's R&D initiative seeks to increase the knowledge base about effectiveness, to make it available to decision makers and to encourage its use to change practice and monitor the results. In health, as in so many other fields, the march of technology gathers pace all the time. Busy clinicians (which of course includes nurses) need to know the results of research in ways which suit their busy
920
schedules and are relevant to the fields in which they practise. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, that we have emphasised the important role which general practitioners, nursing staff and professions allied to medicine must play in the development of NHS research. We are developing a research capacity strategy for the NHS which will build on current schemes for research training in the nursing, therapy and pharmacy professions. We will publish a first statement on this strategy at the end of the month. We are very grateful for the views of the noble Baroness, which will help us as we consider future arrangements.
Recognising the reservations expressed in the report, we nevertheless take the view that clinical guidelines are one important way of helping to bridge the gap between research and practice. Together with other major initiatives such as clinical audit and education and training, they can help ensure that clinical practice is sufficiently responsive to changing evidence of best practice.
As the report points out, close links between the NHS and the universities are an important aspect of this development. At the Department of Health, the Steering Group on Undergraduate Medical and Dental Education and Research (SGUMDER) has provided a valuable national forum for identifying and considering such issues, including research. SGUMDER has already produced three reports, including the 10 key principles for effective joint planning and liaison between the universities and the NHS, and a fourth report is imminent.
Partnership and collaboration with other funders of health and medical research are a vital part of our work. Advances in science and technology and the need for health care to adapt to change call for new ways to provide co-operative working between these different funders. This is to avoid the unnecessary duplication of limited resources. This partnership is pursued through the concordats the health departments have concluded with the research councils and through our links with charities and with industry. The newly established national forum chaired by the director of research and development is proof of our commitment to such an approach. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the Welsh Office health department expects to announce the appointment of a new director of research and development later this month. We look forward to the new director actively developing and carrying forward the NHS R&D strategy for Wales.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to the recommendation in the report for an independent review of factors affecting clinical academic recruitment. I had intended to say that I was very pleased to tell the House that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, after much consideration and informal consultation, has agreed to establish such an inquiry. However, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, beat me to it. I am sure that all noble Lords were pleased to hear that piece of news.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned academic pay. Although it is true that the present mechanism does not enable medical academic pay to be

921
increased at the same time as the review body on doctors' and dentists' pay recommendations for National Health Service medical salaries are published, nevertheless, the Government remain committed to the principle of linkage. I hope that that will also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield.
The CVCP, which will be entirely independent of government, will be chaired by Sir Rex Richards, the former vice-chancellor of Oxford University. The committee hopes to announce the details early in the new year, but in the meantime may I just say that we welcome this development; we regard it as an acceptable way forward and will await the report with interest.
We welcome the opportunity this debate has given us to consider this report, Medical Research and the NHS Reforms, and to explore the achievements of the NHS R&D strategy and related developments in the Health and Education Departments. The issues raised will be crucial in shaping the agenda for building a stronger NHS underpinned by R&D.
We look forward to building on the partnerships we have already established and to working with others who want to see, and who stand to gain from, the continuing development of R&D within the NHS across the United Kingdom.
The Government acknowledge that the rapid advances in basic science and health services research make this an exciting time for researchers and a time of opportunity for government to adapt to the widening scope of modern medicine and develop a health service fit to face the future.
I thank everyone who contributed to this debate. I am aware that, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, my noble friend Lady Gardner and myself, all noble Lords served on the health committee, as indeed did the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, even if not for the whole time. It is therefore possible that I have not answered in detail all the questions of such high calibre that were put to me. I will read the debate with great care and write to noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, with whose points I did not have time to deal at the very end.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. To have chaired this sub-committee of the Committee on Science and Technology of this House was a very rewarding and challenging experience. I am grateful for all the remarks made about my personal contribution to the work of the committee. I also wish to reiterate what I said about the outstanding contribution made by our Clerk and our specialist adviser, Sir Keith Peters, regis Professor of Physics at Cambridge, whose wise and cogent advice throughout the inquiry was so helpful to the committee as a whole.
It would, I am sure, be a mistake at this hour to go into detail about the remarks made by so many noble Lords in this challenging and fascinating debate. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for the way in which they
922
drew attention to the 1988 committee inquiry, so ably chaired by the late Lord Nelson of Stafford, which initiated the very welcome and effective development of research and similar work in the National Health Service. I echo all that was said in congratulating Sir Michael Peckham and his regional directors on their outstanding leadership.
In our report we stressed the crucial importance, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, of dividing the single stream of funding recommended by Culyer into three streams—the delta, as he referred to it—one of which will support R&D both centrally and regionally, including crucially important locally operated clinical research schemes to enable young doctors and nurses, and others in the community, to take their first steps in research. The second will be the important support for research—biomedical as well as health services research—in our major centres of academic excellence. I wholly agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on the crucial importance of their preservation and on how important it is to continue to support pre-protocol and curiosity driven research in our NHS. The third component will be support, as many noble Lords suggested, for research in primary care in the community undertaken by nurses and other healthcare professionals, not forgetting the very important contribution to developments and patient care made by scientists without medical qualifications in the NHS.
To respond to the very interesting proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in my former medical school of Newcastle-upon-Tyne medical students are introduced to patients on their very first day. Every medical student in that school is taken out by a general practitioner in the first week and introduced to a family in the community whom he or she is expected to follow throughout the entire medical course, writing reports first on their social background and subsequently on their medical problems. Students do that while they are studying the basic medical sciences. So many of the ideas to which the noble Lord referred are already being implemented in a number of medical schools.
In a very cogent and detailed speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, pointed out how important it is to maintain the close relationship between the universities and the NHS upon which so much of the work referred to in today's debate depends. I was delighted to hear the Minister state that this was the cornerstone of the Government's policy. We look forward to hearing more about the regulations relating to university membership of health authorities and to whether this government proposal, accepted in their response to our report, will allow regional committees of the type that we envisage in our report to be established. We shall be interested to hear whether it will be a firm government recommendation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, the NHS is the test bed for medical research, a test bed which must be preserved. I was glad to hear that the levy will. be in partial operation in April next year, will come into full operation in April 1997 and will be in absolutely final full operation in 1998. That is very good news. I have no doubt that the work of the implementation groups of

923
which we have heard will be monitored closely by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology under the leadership of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. It is very important that that committee will continue to monitor the way in which the report is implemented by government. There is much more that we shall wish to learn over the coming months.
The contribution to medical care of research and development and of clinical academics nationally and locally is incalculable and will always be so in the future of the NHS. This has been a most encouraging debate. Many other points could have been raised but I hope that note will have been taken of this matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is crucially important that the Government's welcome for work on its NHS R&D strategy should become more widely known, not just in the academic and NHS community but by the public at large.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Probation Officers: Qualifications
5.22 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government, following the implementation of the Probation (Amendment) Rules 1995, to ensure that the proposed higher education element of the required training of probation officers will lead to a professional qualification which is of a high standard and is subject to external validation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the probation service of England and Wales is quite small—there are roughly some 8,000 qualified staff in all—but it forms a crucial element in our criminal justice system. Its functions are wide-ranging, sensitive and sometimes dangerous. The Home Office fully recognises the need for training new recruits but the question is whether the arrangements which are being proposed to that end fall short of what is needed.
There are two preliminary points that I ought to make. The first is to emphasise that the terms of the Motion are so drawn as not to involve any challenge to the amending Probation Rules recently made by the Home Secretary. The second is that I am well aware that there is pending before the courts a judicial review of whether the Home Secretary was acting within his statutory powers when making those rules. I shall be careful not to comment on that aspect.
Although today I want to look to the future, I must say a few words to explain how we have reached our present predicament. In 1994 a Civil Service review of recruitment and qualifying training recognised the merits of the service and its success in recruiting mature people with a wide breadth of experience. Nonetheless, it recommended ending the requirement in the Probation Rules that an essential qualification was the two-year diploma in social work or its equivalent. The Home Secretary liked the look of that recommendation as a means of widening the field of recruitment and issued a
924
consultative document proposing that that diploma requirement should be scrapped and training put in the hands of the service itself. A slightly unusual feature was that the universities concerned were told at the beginning rather than the end of the consultation period that the sponsoring of new students was to cease.
It turned out that the vast majority of those consulted were against the proposal to rescind the requirement for a professional qualification. Nevertheless, the Government decided to go ahead. I simply record the fact, without comment, in view of what I said at the beginning, that the amending Probation Rules which came into force only yesterday delete the paragraph dealing with the diploma qualification.
Although the rules themselves, therefore, are now silent on the need for any qualification, it is only fair to say that the Home Office decision document underlines the need for training. It contemplates that it should be the responsibility of each authority and carried out mainly within the service; that an NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) should be worked up at the appropriate level—I understand that it is level 4; and, which is important, that training should be supplemented as necessary by:
"probation-specific learning modules provided by higher education institutions".
I am particularly proud of the way in which my old department is keeping up with modern events. We never wrote English like that in my time. I hope that it is not too uncharitable to describe all this as a kind of local pick-and-mix approach at A-level standard. There is a widely held view that all that is not enough.
At this stage it is perhaps fitting to recall some of the aspects of human behaviour with which probation officers have to cope. They provide pre-sentence reports to help the courts in the sentencing process and they would soon lose the confidence of the courts if those reports were not consistently of high quality. They supervise people on parole or supervision orders—180,000 of them this year. They help people released on bail. They staff probation centres and bail hostels. This year they have prepared some 35,000 family court welfare reports. The people they deal with can be children, drug takers, alcoholics, mentally ill, homeless and sometimes the victims themselves of crimes.
The idea that those responsibilities can best be discharged, after a comparatively short period of local training, by someone such as an ex-Army officer who is used to discipline and will not stand any nonsense—that has been implied in some of the press comments—takes a bit of swallowing. So far as I can gather, it is not a view which is shared by the probation officers who were themselves formerly in the services, the police or the prison service and found out how much they had to learn.
Probation officers not only have to know about legislation in the fields of criminal justice, children, mental health and so on; they have to cope. with damaged individuals in a wide variety of circumstances. To that end they need to be schooled in the thinking and research into problems of human behaviour which take place at university level. As it happens, such thinking

925
and research is at a very high level in this country. It requires skill and knowledge, for example, to assess why an individual has got into trouble and what can best be planned for that person's future, or to advise on the right course for an offender suffering from mental illness.
As I said, the Home Office recognises that there might be a higher education element in training, possibly in most cases, but it is not obligatory. Although the decision paper is not altogether consistent in its various references to higher education, the Home Office seems to envisage it as, at best, playing only a comparatively minor part. Nor is it simply a matter of the content of a course of training. The considerations I outlined add up to a powerful case for a nationally accepted professional qualification, based on higher education, common to all members of the service and externally validated. An NVQ is simply not the answer. Without such a professional qualification I see a number of hazards.
First, this small service, this profession, would be fragmented with no common standards. One authority could well refuse to admit the qualifications accepted by its neighbour. Secondly, far from opening the door for the first time to able and suitable recruits, as the decision paper seems to imply, the likelihood is that the good entrant would be discouraged and would look for employment elsewhere in a post with a higher professional status.
Thirdly, the lowering of standards could hardly fail to increase the risk of something going wrong and thus put the public more at risk. At a time when other professions are seeking to enhance the status and qualifications of their members, the probation service would be seen to be going in exactly the opposite direction. That cannot be right.
There is much else that one could say about the probation service. And though the question contained in the Motion is simple and straightforward, it is nevertheless important. It asks the Government to say whether or not they agree in, principle that there should be introduced a professional qualification for probation officers based on higher education and externally validated. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government, following the implementation of the Probation (Amendment) Rules 1995, to ensure that the proposed higher education element of the required training of probation officers will lead to a professional qualification which is of a high standard and is subject to external validation.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
5.32 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I strongly support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and all the arguments he raised. For the sake of brevity, I shall not repeat his arguments but I strongly agree with the points that he made.
I wish to stress to the Minister that the Motion is narrow. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, also made that point. It does not attempt to open up the Home Secretary's recent basic changes in the probation
926
service. It does not challenge the new principle that recruitment to the probation service in the future will not require any prior academic qualifications. It therefore does not challenge the concept that from now on probation officer training will take place after rather than before recruitment. We are therefore talking of a narrow, but immensely important point.
The Motion concentrates on one specific aspect of in-service training which is to be established. The Home Secretary's document, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, mentioned, envisages the availability of some courses at higher education level. He expresses doubt, which I share, about the clarity of what already exists. But the Motion envisages higher education playing a part in training.
The Motion concerns two aspects. First, it says that the higher education element already proposed should be so structured and organised and of sufficient scale that it can lead to a high-standard professional qualification. We believe that that is right and necessary for the future standards and effectiveness of the probation service throughout the country. That is surely desirable also for the good morale of the probation service and for it to continue to be seen as an attractive career of high satisfaction to potential entrants of all ages.
We must not underestimate the influence of modern trends for more training—we should welcome them in this country—for people entering a profession, especially if they feel that they are entering a profession which is deprofessionalising qualifications at a time when most other areas of activity are upgrading them. This is of immense importance to the future recruitment to the service of people of all ages. I do not dissent from the Home Secretary's wish for the service to attract people of all ages so that people on second careers can join the service. That is presently happening, but the more it happens, the better.
Secondly, the Motion asks that the high standard of qualification of which I spoke should be subject to external validation and not simply be approved by the probation service employers. External validation provides the touchstone of professional status wherever we look in the area of employment. The emphasis on professional status is not just to boost the ego of the service, desirable though that may be; above all, it is to ensure that the service provides the competence, the depth of knowledge and the maturity of outlook needed if it is to fulfill its important role within our criminal justice system. The service must be equally strong throughout the country and not, as the noble Lord said, run into the danger of fragmentation and unevenness of quality from one part to another.
My final point concerns the fact that that view is held not just by the probation service and those who know a lot about it; it is held equally strongly by the employers. A note I received recently—as I suspect did other noble Lords—from the central probation council, stresses the need for a national professional qualification.
That is what the Motion seeks and it is an important request. I urge the Minister not to turn down that request this evening. I hope that the Government will accept it.

927
However, if my noble friend has not had the chance to consider the matter with sufficient care today, I hope that she will leave the door wide open so that it can be considered with a view to trying to knock it into shape in order to maintain the high professional reputation and status of the probation service for the future. That is important not just for the well being of the probation service, but also for the well being of our whole criminal justice system so that the probation service can play the vital part that it needs to play—not all members of the public realise this—in protecting the public from the crimes from which we suffer at the moment.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I learnt the value of the probation service principally, not as Home Secretary when I was responsible for it, but as a Member of Parliament for an inner city area in Leeds in Yorkshire. I know it also because for many years my wife was a magistrate in the London area and the chairman of the Bench for a long period. I learnt from her, when she talked at home about the cases that she had encountered that day, the value of the probation service.
I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on allowing us to discuss this matter this evening. Time is of the essence and I shall therefore go directly to two points in the Motion. The first concerns the high standard of professional qualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, raised the point of professional qualifications. The development of the professions over the years is vital. I know the argument that perhaps the professions do not know enough about grass-roots problems, but the two go together. Training and professional qualifications go together.
The Motion refers to a professional qualification which is of a high standard and which is subject to external validation. We may have spoken in vain against the Government on their original proposals, but measurements and tables are part of the life blood of government policy in other fields, so perhaps we may not be asking in vain when we ask for high standards in a professional qualification and external validation.
I thought that the best way I could approach the debate was to take the list which was provided by the Home Office of the main features of the new scheme. How do the main features of the new scheme measure up to the two criteria which are raised in the Motion? The list states:
"Prospective probation officers will be recruited as salaried trainees".
How will that be done? How will a judgment be made that a young man or a young woman is suitable to be a probation officer? I understand that it is to be done regionally. How will it be done? I am thinking of the headquarters of the West Yorkshire Probation Service. Will it work with Lancashire? Will there be new regions? On what basis will the recruitment take place?
The list also states:
"Individually assessed training will take place mainly in the service".
928
How will it be correlated? Will people have an afternoon off a week? Sometimes when I go to a bank I see that the staff are having two hours off in the morning for training. Is that what will happen in the probation service? Will the probation office be shut in the morning while training takes place? Where will it take place? We are told that it will be technical learning with understanding of relevant procedures. That is straightforward. It is the kind of thing we used to do in the services—a trade test on how to dismantle a gun. If you did not get 95 out of 100 you were doing very badly. I often found that the cleverer ones who had university degrees were not as good at dismantling the gun as those who had left school at 14. But that is another matter.
We are told that there will be,
"training which will be supplemented, as necessary, by dedicated probation courses at higher education institutions".
Have the higher education institutions been asked about this? What do they say? Will they run courses on a yearly basis or on a term basis simply for probation officers, or will other social science candidates at the higher education institution come in to be taught as well? We are told that,
"all such courses must meet an approved specification".
Who will draw up the specification? Will it be the colleges of higher education or the higher education institutions? Will it have a syllabus in the university book.
We are told:
"Once appointed, probation officers should have access to a range of vocational or academic qualifications which are relevant to their work".
I find that fairly vague. Where do the standards come in? Where is the validation between one institute and another, or will we find that taking a course at one institution is easier than taking a course at another institution? There is no professional qualification. Will there be qualified, validating examiners? We are further told:
"All assessments will be quality controlled by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation",
which will have to have a department in its office to quality control the courses in different parts of the country.
The list then refers to,
"competence as a probation officer".
This is the young man or young woman who goes around the backs of houses, knocks and wants to talk to Bill, Pete or Sarah. One cannot measure that qualification. What is important is how they get on with the people concerned. It is an art, not a science. It is not a very pleasant job. You have to do it in the evenings, often on a winter's night. Competence as a probation officer should be recognised not only by the reward of qualified probation officer status. One can imagine asking, "What are your qualifications?", and being told, "I am a QPOS".
I went to the Library and photostatted a document which describes what goes on in the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, which was set up nine

929
years ago by the Government following a White Paper on education and training. I know of the NCVQ because of the work it does in management, which is very good. The work it does for supervisory management is first class. I have come across it before. But it is an administrative body. The document states that it is,
"sponsored jointly by employment and education for Northern Ireland and for Wales and reports to the Secretary of State for Employment for administrative purposes".
It does not do so for professional purposes. How will it fit in with the Government's scheme? I am concerned not that we lost the last battle but that we can now influence the Government to think about standards, high qualifications and external validation. It is the most we are able to do. We have lost a major battle but perhaps we can win an important battle if we influence the Government today.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Henniker: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for initiating this debate because it gives me a chance to pay tribute to the probation service. I have had a rather odd and motley career but at the end of it I have seen a lot of the probation service. I spent a whole decade of my life looking after and training members of the diplomatic service. I see, strangely enough, great resemblances between what the diplomatic service is asked to do and what the probation service is asked to do. They are asked to do a variety of things. In the diplomatic service one can one day be repatriating a drunken seaman and the next day negotiating a treaty. A probation officer looks after someone who is dangerous and has some malady which can hardly be diagnosed. He has to rely on his own wits. I wish to say how grateful I am to the probation service and how much I believe in what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is asking us to do.
Over the past few years I have seen a lot of the probation service. I have worked with the Parole Board and I have worked in prisons. I was chairman of the Intermediate Treatment Fund by which we tried to devise demanding schemes in order to lead young people away from crime. I have become a local Suffolk man and I have also started various things with the probation service, which has its fingers in every pie. One of the things which most impresses me about the probation service is the young probation officer. I have seen a lot of them. They are deeply dedicated to what they do. In that they resemble young diplomats. They are deeply dedicated and deeply believing in the value of what they do.
When I first came out of the diplomatic service and went to work in charities in London I remember meeting a young probation officer in a sticky patch of London. I asked him why he was there. He had been an officer in what I consider is the best regiment in the British Army. He said that he had looked around very carefully to see what he could do as another job. He was just the kind of young man for whom I would imagine the Home Secretary is now looking. He said that he had looked around and that the probation service seemed to him to be top of the list. He was not disappointed.
930
Probation officers have an enormous amount of responsibility. There is an element of danger in whatever they do. They take absolute responsibility for what they are given to do. Once they are trained they are given total responsibility for looking after their clients. That can lead anywhere. The probation officer has to be careful because if he makes a mistake it is not only obvious but sometimes disastrous.
Therefore, I suggest that we look very carefully at the pleas of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who is also now president of an organisation which I once served, the Rainer Foundation, the original founder of which is alleged to have been a founder of the probation service. That has also given me a stronger feeling of involvement in the matter.
I commend what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said and thank him for doing so. I spoke about the young man whom I met in Peckham and who said how much he enjoyed the probation service. He said that he would not have come into the service unless it had had a high standard of professionalism. He certainly made that clear. I am sure that he will find, as I found when I was trying to train people at the Foreign Office, that people will not come unless they are given the chance to develop themselves in many ways which they may not have had the opportunity to do at school, perhaps even starting over again and getting further and higher training of an academic standard. I very much commend to your Lordships the pleas made by the noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Carr.
5.51 p.m.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I should like also to express my strong support of this Motion. I do so on the basis of only a little direct, but also some indirect, experience of the issues which are involved. As speakers have already brought out quite sufficiently, the importance of the work done by probation officers is not in dispute. Although the probation service did not come directly within the remit of the Royal Commission on criminal justice in England and Wales, my colleagues and I did see and hear enough of the work which probation officers do both inside and outside prisons, to be left in no doubt of its importance and value. It also seems to me no less obvious, as eloquently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, that their qualification should be externally validated.
But the supporters of the Motion, need at least to acknowledge that there are two arguments which might be put on the other side, even if only to discard them. The first of these is the risk of what is sometimes called "credentialism" or, less euphemistically, the "creeping diploma disease". It does exist and it is not a purely imaginary ailment in educational and institutional life. It is possible that the self-perpetuating quest for increasingly high levels of formal qualification can lead to an effective debasement of the intellectual and professional currency. It can waste resources and can merely recreate in a new guise the basic problem of attracting, selecting and training for a profession those who will turn out to practise it best.

931
The other argument, which should not be dismissed out of hand, is that for some occupations the best training is on the job. Nobody disputes that doctors, solicitors and architects need formal as well as practical training, but it is not perhaps equally self-evident that, for example, future heads of business corporations need diplomas in management studies or that future Ministers of the Crown or senior civil servants need degrees in political and social science. In that context, and very much in parenthesis, your Lordships might be mildly amused to learn that the Home Secretary, as an undergraduate and reading Part II of the economics tripos at the University of Cambridge, was sent to me by his supervisor to write two essays on sociological topics. I do not remember what topics I set, neither do I remember what I thought of his performance. In any case, I should like to disclaim any responsibility, whether for good or ill, for his subsequent career.
That is very much by the way, but having stated the only two arguments, which I believe can be put against the thinking which underlies this Motion, which I thoroughly support, I believe that they can both be dismissed because, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, brought out, a qualified probation officer needs to be well versed in a broad range of subjects and topics from the law and the criminal justice system itself through to the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness; the effects of both physical and emotional deprivation on patterns of offending behaviour; the psychology of recidivism and the impact of prison on family relationships.
If someone says in argument against that that these are matters not of exact science or scholarship and that one cannot teach budding probation officers about these things in the way that one can teach architects mathematics or engineering or material science, my answer is that that is true, but that is all the more reason why recruits to the probation service should have been taught—and they can only be taught formally—what is and also what is not precisely known in, for example, the field of current criminology; what can and what cannot be relied on about the statistics for drug and alcohol abuse and whether or not they license an inference to an established trend; what indeed is the present state of research on child development and adolescent behaviour; and what can and cannot be learnt in advance about interviewing techniques. As regards learning on the job, let us all remember that all too often that can be at the expense of the client who is on the receiving end.
I do not want to go so far as to lay down what ought to be in the ideal curriculum because I would not be competent to do so, and neither do I know whether it should be by way of a diploma or something else. But that there needs to be a diploma, degree or some equivalent qualification as much as for the grizzled second careerist from the armed services as for the starry-eyed young from school, seems to me to be wholly incontestable.
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
My noble friend Lady Blatch, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, generously gave me an hour of her time to explain the proposed new arrangements for probation training and recruitment. Alas, despite her very persuasive powers, on professional grounds I feel unable to accept them. I cannot agree with Her Majesty's Government as regards the recommended new format for training.
The questions to be asked, as many of your Lordships have done, are these: will the probation officers of the future have a professional qualification? Will not the probation service be out of line with other services with which it must work, notably the legal services and the social work services? Will not the new arrangements for the probation service be going in the opposite direction from that of the social work services with which it has to work so closely? Is it appreciated by the Home Office that in England and Northern Ireland there are 10 training courses for a degree in social work? Probation work includes the diploma in social work. Ten per cent. of the students training as social workers and probation officers are taking degree courses. There are already 1,000 students at any one time on a three or four-year course, and of these 300 are training as probation officers. Last year the Higher Education Council inspected 76 programmes in England and Northern Ireland, 16 of which had an excellent rating. Of those, there were 13 courses which had probation officer students.
The point in giving these figures is to indicate that social work training is moving in one direction—that is, towards the three-year degree course—while the probation service seems to be moving away from that.
The probation service is held in high regard in this country. It seems to many of us that it is now being downgraded. It is said that it would be possible to take a modular course at some university or other, and probably a university where officers would have trained on a full-time basis. When working at Oxford we arranged for a two-year course for people coming out of the services and for women whose children had grown up. They did a two-year course. They were 35 years of age and over. They were invaluable. They said that they were grateful to have had a two-year course at a university prior to taking up the work, which they were going to do, both in the probation service and in social work. I hope that we are not going to divide those who work in the same field but who are perhaps different ages.
The co-operation that exists between social workers and probation officers is invaluable to society. It is a great necessity. It would be a sad and sorry state of affairs if social workers are now to undertake a three-year degree course whereas probation officers will have only a modular course or perhaps even less than that.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the probation officers I have known in the past 40 years. As a very young, naive police officer, it was the probation officers at Clerkenwell Court who taught me to see human beings as rather more complex than I thought that they were previously. Over the years since, I have been closely associated with probation officers both professionally and at conferences. I must have met many hundreds of probation officers on many occasions, all of whom I found knowledgeable about human behaviour, sophisticated, tough minded and with a balanced view of their work.
Therefore, I cannot understand why the Home Secretary intends to remove the necessary underpinning of knowledge which goes with their everyday experience of human behaviour. As the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, said, there seems to be an attempt to deprofessionalise probation officers. The excuse that not enough older recruits apply under the present system is clearly disproved by the fact that 30 per cent. of the current intake are over 30, with something like 23 per cent. being over 40.
Many enter the service from other careers and with wide experience of human behaviour. Clearly, they have opportunities to learn from day-to-day experience, but they also need knowledge which can be gained only at the highest levels in higher institutions. It is essential that they have a background in psychology and in the development of human behaviour. They need to know about the law, procedures and criminology. I speak as someone who has two degrees in psychology and two diplomas and I have found that, although those qualifications do not necessarily provide me with answers about why human beings behave as they do, they destroy false assumptions and provide breadth, balance and an understanding of statistics and trends. They destroy one's simple assumptions about human behaviour.
It seems to me that the Home Secretary must be operating from a very simple model of human behaviour. I sometimes wonder whether too much exposure to the law, which provides manmade rules, makes people assume certain things about human behaviour. They then seem to think that people can be dealt with on a black/white, yes/no model, with the view being taken that you simply press a button and they will behave in a certain way. That seems to be what is happening with the probation service. There seems to be the assumption that probation officers have a simple job to do which can be learnt from everyday experience.
What the Home Secretary is proposing is a system of training which used to be called "sitting by Nellie", which has been widely disproved as inappropriate because you learn from other people's bad behaviour just as much as from their good behaviour. You cannot guarantee that the Nellie you are sitting beside operates according to best practice. Therefore, it is essential to have a framework of professional knowledge, academic discipline and the subjects which I have already outlined.
934
The proposals represent a downgrading in the position of probation officers vis-à-vis other professions. A large proportion of police officers nowadays have degrees. Social workers have degrees or at least higher education diplomas. To downgrade probation officers in the way that is proposed would be extremely sad. It would be a disaster not only for the profession, but for the future prospects of the offenders with whom probation officers have to deal.
We live in an increasingly sophisticated world in which we all need more knowledge and better qualifications to underpin the jobs that we do. Probation officers in particular have extremely demanding jobs and, without the breadth and framework of academic knowledge to provide a balance about the world and human behaviour, I do not think that they can carry out their duties effectively.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, it is always a daunting privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, which seems to be my fate. I support the Motion and the powerful speeches which have been made in its favour, especially by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Like him, I am temperamentally inclined towards understatement, so it gives me no pleasure at all to say that for connoisseurs of effrontery this perverse operation to deskill and deprofessionalise the probation service wins a medal. It was a done deal from the start when the two junior Home Office officials were handed skewed terms of reference. It was a done deal to the end when the consultation process turned out to be a sham.
However, we must look on the bright side. As other noble Lords have said, there are elements in the Home Office paper which can be looked on constructively and with good faith and goodwill all round. We must not miss this opportunity to create a new and even more relevant diploma or equivalent, obtainable by a variety of different routes, based in higher education and externally validated. A scheme on those broad lines which we all know—and the Minister knows—is acceptable to all probation service employers could be drawn up in short order. There have been ample analyses of probation officer training and qualifications. Virtually all of the necessary building blocks are already in place. I look forward with confidence to the Minister's response, giving us, with her usual courtesy, an unequivocal undertaking to accept the Motion.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, I am no follower of what I believe he called the "accreditisation drift", but I end by reminding the Minister that even under the old dispensation, out of 10 states surveyed, England and Wales ranked only eighth in terms of the educational level of probation officers. The two countries below us were the Philippines and Papua New Guinea. That information comes from a newly published book with which the Minister will be familiar. It is an authoritative publication about probation around the world. One of the two co-signatories to the preface is the director of

935
research and statistics in her own department. Under the new dispensation, this country is in due course bound for a position below the Philippines and Papua New Guinea. It is for us here tonight to resolve that this country needs and deserves a probation service which is more, rather than less, professional.
6.8 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I should like strongly to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I am particularly interested that his views have the support of the employers, the councils, and a large body of our probation officers.
As many noble Lords have said, the directives run counter to the trend in similar professions which demand a higher degree of qualification from their personnel to cope with the increasing complexity of the problems and challenges facing this and similar services. For a start, the reduced budget for the probation service may well result in a reduction in numbers, thus placing greater demands, both intellectual and practical, on a smaller number of officers. There is also the matter of public confidence in the service which cannot but be affected by the proposals.
The argument has been advanced by the Government that, because social workers do not need an outside degree, why should the probation service? I emphasise that the central council is flexible about it. The courses could avoid the nomenclature "social service" and the majority of the universities have, at the request of the service, provided greater in-service experience as part of their course. Perhaps that addresses a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman.
The Minister is rightly concerned that the probation service should be open to as wide a spectrum of suitable candidates as possible. I appreciate that and it is of course wholly to be welcomed, but it is significant that one county probation service with which I am familiar has approximately 230 officers. Of those, 25 were recruited over the age of 30. Several of them have categorically told the chairman that they could not conceive how they could possibly manage to do their job effectively without the specialised two-year course.
The challenge facing the service is of ever greater complexity of problems and, in not a few cases, personal danger also. The NVQ is just not enough by itself. I am persuaded that the service is flexible in attempting to meet the Government's wish for a broader entry, but from these Benches I once again urge my noble friend the Minister to recognise, at this late stage, that the external, independently validated qualification must remain the core of the training and education for probation officers. It is its standing with the public and other court bodies, particularly the family courts, which is at risk for what is and must remain a key service.
6.12 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I, too, support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Allen of
936
Abbeydale, and commend it to the House. We are indebted to him for these constructive proposals which he outlined admirably in his opening speech. I hope very much that the Minister will look upon them sympathetically as a practical means of maintaining standards in the probation service and, allied to that, reinforcing morale in it.
When we discussed these matters in April during a debate which I was privileged to lead, I hope that I may suggest, without a charge of undue arrogance being levelled against me, that we had the better of the argument. Indeed, save for the government speaker, only one of the 18 noble Lords who took part supported the government proposals.
But all that is water under the bridge, and I was grateful when the Minister, with her customary courtesy, sent me, and no doubt others, news of the Government's intentions in early October. In its decision paper the Home Office stated:
"During the consultation period which ended on 26th May almost 500 responses had been received from a wide variety of sources including Probation Services and Committees, Universities, members of the Magistracy and Judiciary".
It continued:
"All of these comments were carefully considered and taken into account".
In view of the fact that the government stance did not change at all as a result of that trawl, it is perhaps hardly surprising that they omitted to mention that nearly 98 per cent. of the 500 respondees were against the proposals in one way or another, making those of a cynical disposition wonder—no doubt unworthily—why the exercise had been mounted in the first place. Nevertheless, I hope that it may be possible to put in place constructive proposals which will meet the reasonable anxieties of all who work in and with the probation service.
I have to say that I do not believe that that can be done without some form of higher education being put in place, leading to a qualification which is seen to be at least as desirable as the present Diploma in Social Work, and one furthermore which is—this is crucial, as noble Lords have already said—externally validated. In that context, I cannot for the life of me see why among the various options open the Minister cannot, as it were, take a dip or, to put it more seriously, advocate the adoption of a diploma in probation studies, the courses to be constructed and administered by appropriate universities or colleges of higher education.
The current ties between universities and the service are cherished and are of particular value in, for example, Welsh- speaking areas such as those served by the University of Wales in Bangor which supplies many Welsh-speaking probation officers to the service. It would indeed be a step backwards to stop mining that valuable and important seam.
I should like at this point to stress that I am not opposed to the concept of a fast-track entry for mature applicants, even though the statistics show that the majority of applicants coming to the service at present are mature, and that under the existing system it is, alas, impossible to accommodate all successful candidates.

937
I believe that at present only half of those who have recently succeeded in the course can be accommodated in posts. It may of course be that the Government intend to increase funding for the service, not just to create those extra posts but to take account of the likely increased cost of fragmented local training. I hope that that may indeed be the case, but we had no clue to that in the recent Budget.
Let me pose this question: why should those young people honourably seeking a career in what is a very demanding but at the same time rewarding vocation be fobbed off with piecemeal training which will inevitably differ from one area to another in terms of competence and skill and which will end with a qualification which will almost certainly be perceived as being worse than anything on offer today? What I fear will happen is what always happens in such circumstances. Recruits will vote with their feet and march into other disciplines at a time when, because of the inexorable rise in crime, the need in the probation service for men and women of quality will never have been so marked.
I do not intend to rake over the embers again today, but let me just say that, unlike the editors of certain tabloid newspapers or many of those party activists who attend party conferences, I have been a magistrate for over 20 years and therefore am someone who has been in close contact with the probation service over that time. I know what a vital role the service plays in the administration of the criminal justice system; I know how important it is that its members receive exhaustive and skilled training from a wide variety of disciplines, not just for the correct administration of justice but for their own and our safety; I know from personal experience how professional they are and how seriously they take their responsibilities. Finally, I know that not to take those factors into consideration when finalising the training proposals may have serious future implications on the effective work of the courts and on the morale of the service.
Accordingly, I beg the Minister to have an open mind on the issue and at the least to incorporate in any future arrangements made for the training of probation officers the two principles contained in the Motion.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the proposal to amend the probation rules to rescind the requirement for a probation officer to hold a Diploma in Social Work needs to be put into a wider perspective. Probation officers do a wide range of jobs associated with reducing crime. Their day-to-day work brings them into contact with the widest range of social problems. They deal with child abuse, mental illness problems, personality disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and marital and family problems. All those situations need not only careful handling but sophisticated analytic and diagnostic techniques.
Probation officers are not merely expected to recognise signs of unusual behaviour but have to make judgments as to how they may be handled. Dealing with
938
those difficult situations requires links with other agencies such as health and social services. It follows that probation officers need to have the skills and abilities to link with medical staff in defining risk assessment at a variety of levels. They may need to decide about a florid schizophrenic needing hospital care, or, at the other end of the spectrum, to supervise in the community someone who is released from a secure unit.
Probation officers are also working as family court welfare officers. They have a crucial role to play in advising family courts, assessing family relationships, working with and managing risk to children, and mediating and helping separating and divorcing parents to formulate agreements in the best interests of the children. Those are just some of the skills probation officers need in their day-to-day duties. The idea that they can just be skills acquired on the job, as it were, would be to deny the sophistication needed in these complex situations.
If there is concern about the suitability of the existing qualification in social work, then let the opportunity be taken for probation officers to acquire skills suitable to their role in the criminal justice system, while recognising the sophistication that is required of them to do the job effectively.
The country is proud of its academic achievements and the products of our education system are demonstrated in every avenue of public, commercial and industrial life. In every sector there would be cries that the highest quality staff are needed in order to do the job successfully. The world of the probation officer still needs to be formed of this excellence. It is therefore essential that the training of probation officers is maintained at a high standard. There is a necessity in higher education for a way that leads to a professional externally validated qualification. By holding on to this aspiration we are safeguarding the standards in an important part of our criminal justice system. I was sorry to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. Another view is that, as with other parts of the system, our probation service has become a yardstick for performance throughout the world and it is important that this reputation is not lost.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I speak as a magistrate who has sat for many years on a small local Bench and I have a high regard for the probation service. I have a daughter who is a fully qualified probation officer in south-west London.
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who introduced the Motion so completely. There seems to be little more to say except that it is important that when any forms of qualifications are validated they must be of the same even high quality wherever they are obtained. Furthermore, they must be of sufficient quality to be recognised not only anywhere in this country but also in those parts of Europe where there is a probation service and in the Commonwealth countries which have the same type of judicial system as ours; notably, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
It is ironic that, while other professional bodies in this country are seeking to obtain such transferable qualifications, the Government, by not funding the

939
relevant courses in this country, are denying to the professional probation service the advantages that other professionals have.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, when in April we debated the probation service on a Motion tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the House was almost unanimous in its view about the Government's then proposals. With one exception out of 18, the House took the view that the Government's proposals were wrong. All 12 speakers today have been critical of the Government's proposals, and most importantly, supportive of the Motion before the House today.
In April the debate was wound up by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, deputising for the Minister. He said:
"In recent years the probation service has … changed from being a social work agency to being a criminal justice organisation".
He also said that changes to probation service training were part of:
"a series of proposals which aim to bring the service more into line with the proper expectations of the courts and of the public".—[Official Report, 5/4/95; col. 236]
He gave no evidence that the courts and the public were asking for change or had expressed strong views that the service fell below expectations. On that occasion we had the sense that the energy for change had come entirely from within the Home Office.
The noble Earl referred to the Dews report, which has been mentioned today, as the starting point for the process which led to the order made yesterday. He said that among the important weaknesses that the Dews report had discovered in the present system was that:
"the statutory requirement for the Diploma in Social Work inhibits the recruitment of many potentially valuable recruits".—[Official Report, 5/4/95; col. 239.]
It is interesting that in today's debate the argument has been very much the other way. Whereas the noble Earl argued—and I believe that it was the Government's view—that the existing regime was an impediment to recruitment, it has been put fairly before your Lordships today that the removal of the qualifications hitherto required may discourage talented people from thinking of the probation service as a career.
If that is so, the opportunity is now open to the Minister. The statutory instrument was made yesterday and there is no going back. We are not trying to rewrite history. But if the effect of the order has been to open the possibility of a more varied recruitment than was hitherto the case and to bring forward more candidates for service in the probation service I believe that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting-the Motion. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, clearly explained, it deals with training and qualifications after recruitment and not with training and qualifications before recruitment. There would be nothing inconsistent and nothing embarrassing in the Government accepting the Motion as it stands and acting upon it and therefore to have the opportunity of the wider recruitment that the Government originally had in mind while at the same
940
time not losing the possibility of potential recruits of a high quality. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said that the Motion before the House was entirely compatible with yesterday's statutory instrument.
As was reflected in every speech made today, we all believe that the probation service performs a difficult and unglamorous task with a high degree of competence and a serious commitment to the objectives set for it by the Home Office. I believe that given the new regime created by the statutory instrument the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, if carried, will ensure that so far as possible such an outstanding record is continued.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I shall not detain the House with a detailed speech because most of the important points have been rehearsed by other noble Lords, including two former Home Secretaries. When the matter was discussed in your Lordships' House in April, I made a long speech which was critical of the Government's approach.
The probation service does an excellent job and I believe that the evidence shows that probation works. I am in favour of recruiting as wide a spectrum of people as possible into the probation service but not at the cost of undermining training, which underpins this effective and professional service. The changes that are currently in train, if not modified by the acceptance of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, may well lead to a lack of effectiveness when dealing with offenders.
If we want to change in an effective way the behaviour of offenders, we must look at the total context of their criminal behaviour. In the case of many offenders, that means addressing drugs and alcohol abuse, psychological disorders and failures in family and personal relations. Of course, probation officers must have a prime responsibility to the courts and to the criminal justice system but a range of skills are essential to addressing the overall environment of offenders. They ought to be incorporated in the new training schemes which should be externally validated to ensure common standards across the service and a high degree of professionalism; that the needs of offenders are met; and that probation officers can move between employers. That may not be the case if there are not common standards.
In my academic career I have often taught probation trainees. Many of those trainees where drawn from the Armed Forces in Hampshire. I have not met a single mature student who believed that the skills learnt in those spheres, valuable though they would be in practice, could be transferred to probation work without extensive academic study linked to practical work during their two-year course.
If the Government believe that training in, for example, social work skills weakens a trainee probation officer's commitment to the criminal justice aspect of probation work, which must be seen as central, and fosters a perhaps less judgmental approach towards offenders, that could be corrected by specific courses

941
within training programmes, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. However, in my view, it is essential for the reasons that I have given that social work skills are not lost to the probation service.
I commend the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, both to the Minister and to the House. We do no service to the criminal justice system or to changing the behaviour of offenders by reducing the professional competence of probation officers. I fear that that will be the consequence of the Government's proposals and the Motion of the noble Lord would go some way towards mitigating what I strongly believe will be the very negative effects of the Government's changes.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have the responsibility to set the policy aims and priorities for the probation service and to ensure that a skilled and effective workforce is ready to meet the considerable demands ahead of it.
The Probation (Amendment) Rules 1995, which came into effect yesterday, remove the absolute requirement, irrespective of any education and/or experience that a person may have, for probation officers to have a social work qualification—a requirement which does not apply, in law, to chief or deputy chief probation officers nor even to social workers employed by local authorities.
It is quite wrong to say that the Government are removing a qualification and putting nothing in its place. Education and training for probation officers will be rigorous and effective. Assessment procedures will be put in place to select people for aptitude and potential to work in the probation service. Prior experience will be given a value, and training will be tailored quite specifically to cover the skills and underpinning knowledge necessary to practise effectively as a probation officer. Entry to the service will be on the basis of achieving the necessary standard. Nor are the changes an attack on the professional status of probation officers. They are a recognition of the service's special character and role. Probation work is not a branch of social work, but a discipline in its own right.
There is no doubt that probation officers require some of the same knowledge and skills as general social workers, not least because of a point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull who said that the two services often have to work together closely. But other disciplines are equally relevant; for example, understanding the criminal justice system and psychology. Probation officers have correctional and enforcement responsibilities as well as a role in helping offenders, through rehabilitation programmes, to change their lifestyles. Their selection and training should reflect those responsibilities.
It is for this reason that we concluded that it no longer made sense to insist that probation officers should have a social work qualification as a single route to practise in the probation service. It is important to be clear: the rule change does not mean that qualified social workers are in any way disqualified from becoming probation
942
officers. What it does mean is that the probation service is no longer tied to the social work education system and can look to recruit able people from a wide range of backgrounds and with a broad range of knowledge and skills, who, with appropriate training and only when meeting the required standards, can enter the probation service.
The changes will, therefore, remove barriers to the recruitment as probation officers of people who have relevant skills and experience to offer, but who lack the social work qualification which is currently required by law. And the training, which prospective probation officers will undertake to equip them with the competence to practise, will be made more flexible to take account of candidates' previous experience.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. We do not want technocrats knocking at doors and operating like automatons. Probation officers must understand psychology, relationships and the challenge of turning somebody away from a life of crime and dealing with their problems in order to ensure that they again behave in a lawful way in the mainstream community.
The Government accept that it is important that probation officers and those with whom they work have confidence in the standards of training and assessment provided. As the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, said, mistakes by probation officers can have very serious consequences. The competences specified for probation officers require them to have relevant knowledge and theory as well as practical skills and to integrate those effectively in the course of their work.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has not spoken in this debate, but in a meeting with me she made the very important point about not treating practical training and theoretical underpinning knowledge and understanding of the service separately. They should be integrated both in the training and application. That is a point which I have taken very much to heart and will hope to see in any new training arrangements.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as the noble Baroness referred to the very interesting meeting which I had with her, perhaps I may underline the fact that the whole point of my theme was that, although probation officers do not need social work training, the training that they receive should be in an institution of higher education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not disagree that the underpinning knowledge and education should take place in a higher education institution. But the point which I believe that the noble Baroness made very effectively to me was that there must be a proper practical link between what goes on in a higher education institution and the application of that knowledge to practical work within the service. I agree absolutely with that and would see that as a feature of any new arrangements.
I turn now to the Motion before the House. The key words, to my mind, are "professional qualification", "high standard" and "external validation". The Government fully accept that the involvement of higher

943
education is an essential aspect of the new arrangements. Some of the knowledge needed by competent probation officers—in particular, aspects of law, criminology and psychology—is best provided by the higher education sector. We expect the input to be geared to the individual's training needs and to be presented in modular form. For applicants with little previous experience of the criminal justice system, the higher education component may need to be a significant part of their preparation. But for others, it may be less so. In exceptional cases, an applicant may already have all the theoretical knowledge needed and need practical training and apprenticeship rather than additional university tuition.
I am reminded of a person who applied to the service with two degrees which were both relevant to the work of the probation service. He had practised for seven years as a probation officer in Canada but was not qualified to enter the service without going away to do a two-year diploma in social work, without any guarantee of being taken into the service at the end of that. That will now cease to be the case.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I think that that was a one-off case. Ultimately, that person was taken on.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the law was broken in order to take on that person. The law was circumvented and I believe that that was quite right.
Perhaps I may give another practical example which was given in the presence of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, very recently. I attended the SOVA annual general meeting. During the course of the evening, I had a very interesting discussion. There were other people around so that it was a public discussion. I was told of a young man who had been working for some years with SOVA. He had been working with offenders in the community and was one of their most valuable workers. He had been working and interacting with the probation service. At this moment, that young man is a member of the Armed Forces. His duties are such that he is able to work voluntarily for two days per week. He wishes to join the probation service. He will leave the Armed Forces in two years' time. It would be madness to send him away for a single diploma in social work in order that he may enter the probation service. Some value must be placed on the work that he has already undertaken on two days per week in the voluntary sector where he has worked with the probation service and with SOVA, which is an extremely good voluntary organisation. That is the kind of flexibility that we need.
Equally, a colleague from the same discipline may have no voluntary experience at all. The training package for each of those individuals would be different.
As I said, we expect the individual's input to be geared to his training and to be presented in modular form. It is very important that the arrangements should be flexible. Therefore, we shall be looking to universities to develop imaginative approaches to the provision of training by making appropriate use of
944
distance learning and, where appropriate, supported by tutorials, something which higher education institutions are doing very well nowadays.
At the same time, we have every reason to insist that teaching standards are high. We also expect the higher education inputs to be provided in a way which recognises the probation service as an integral part of the criminal justice system.
The Government do not intend to return to the inflexibility of one single and rigid qualification required for appointment as a probation officer. I am glad to note that the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, does not call for that; it calls for external validation, and we agree with that. The Government want to see the creation of an appropriate NVQ for probation officers which recognises the standard of their competence and expertise, including their underpinning knowledge and understanding of the service. We would expect such an NVQ for probation officers to be at level 4 at least—a higher level qualification—reflecting the professional responsibilities of the work and giving headroom within the NVQ structure for advanced expertise to be recognised at level 5, which is the most advanced award.
Locating probation officer competences in that way in the vocational qualification structure opens up the rewarding possibility of a new continuum of an education and training qualification for all the staff of the probation service, centring around the probation officers' awards. The NVQ system does, of course, involve an important element of external assessment and validation—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister again, but, as she has talked about NVQs at levels 4 and 5, she will be as aware as any of us of the mounting volume of criticism which exists about the NVQ method in relation to the underlying knowledge and understanding. I also believe that the noble Baroness is aware that there is a great controversy raging as to how that will be assessed under the NVQ system. If that is what is going to be used for the probation service, we urgently need an answer as to how the underlying knowledge and understanding would in fact be tested.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a most important point; indeed, both she and I have talked on the subject many times. I have to tell the House that I approach the matter from a different angle. Unless it recognises all of the standards—and they include both knowledge and understanding of the service as well as the practical competencies to practise as a probation officer—then level 4 will not be good enough.
If we can come together with the service—and we would prefer that the service works with us in that respect—it will be the service, together with the Home Office, which agrees the standard. If that standard happens to be higher, or different, in a positive way, from level 4, then level 4 will not be accepted as a standard. Rather than say, "We must come up to level 4 standard NVQ", much will depend upon the quality of

945
the lead body and the work that is done in that respect. However, I totally take the point made by the noble Baroness.
At the same time, we have no objection to the development of a range of academic qualifications which more experienced probation officers can aim for and which will recognise their developing expertise. Indeed, we encourage the continuing professional development of all staff in the probation service. The Government's decision document, published on 2nd October, makes it clear in terms that, once appointed as qualified, probation officers should have access to a range of vocational and academic qualifications which are relevant to their work and which build on their original education and training.
Indeed, for specialist work within the service—for example, sex therapy programmes, through-care work and the family court welfare work—further in-service training will he required. In respect of further vocational and/or academic qualifications, any contribution which universities make to the training of probation officers prior to appointment should, under the new system which we envisage, be capable of providing learning credits which could be put to a range of possible awards, including professional qualifications. In tendering to provide that contribution, universities should include proposals as to how they would make it work.
I hope that noble Lords will see that there is much common ground here; and that we want standards of training to be raised rather than reduced. It may assist your Lordships if I recapitulate the sequence of events as we see it which should apply to the whole process. Trainees will undertake training within probation services with an individually-tailored package of theory and practice managed by the service. Appropriate teaching and tutorial support will he provided by higher education and requisitioned by the probation service. Depending on the trainee's previous experience and aptitude, training could last a few months or up to two years. Competence to practise will be formally assessed against national criteria, including practical demonstrations and written work.
Successful trainees will be awarded qualified probation officer status by the probation service only if they achieve the required standard. All assessment and award procedures will be subject to quality control by HM Inspectorate of Probation and quality controlled. Moreover, and to take on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, training should provide a platform for the recognition of competence through NVQs and the development of competence through further training as appropriate.
The Home Office wishes to work with the probation service and with higher education to make the new arrangements a success. Indeed, many of 'the detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees—and, indeed, by other speakers in the debate—cannot be determined without the active participation of the service. However, I am aware that concerns and anxieties remain. Development of the new arrangements is under way. Therefore, we need to make progress with those arrangements, without which a vacuum will develop.
946
Much has been said about responses to the concentration and about the so-called wholesale opposition to the proposals. I have to say that that is too simplistic a view. Many respondents saw the need for some change; indeed, that view is also held by many within the service and by some with whom I have had meetings over recent months. I admit that there is a lively debate about the nature of such a change and about the details of the new arrangements. I would use this occasion to invite the probation service to engage with us in the work.
The subject of consistency of standards has been raised. It is another important point that I should like to address. The Government will ensure that standards will be consistently applied between probation services and the consortia in which they will operate the new arrangements; through the way in which higher education makes provision and in response to the specific specifications determined centrally; and, of course, through the involvement of HM Inspectorate of Probation. We expect the consortia to work together and for there to be a consistency of approach. The involvement of higher education in the new arrangements should not be played down. That involvement will itself bring with it a concern for standards and consistency.
Just as the NCVQ oversees and accredits higher standards for management, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, affirmed, so those structures should embrace a whole range of occupations—an increasing spectrum, including professional working—into which probation officers' working standards will slot and be validated. Standards will be consistent. Recruits to the service will be salaried trainees. They will be subject to assessment procedures before acceptance as trainees to test their aptitude for probation work, their capability to undertake the education and training that is necessary; to give a value to any relevant education experience that they may bring; and to determine a programme of education and training that they will require in order to reach the standard necessary to enter the service as qualified probation officers. That standard will be consistently applied.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said that she could not accept the assertion so authoritatively put forward that underpinning knowledge will be removed. I hope that I have made it abundantly clear to the House that the underpinning knowledge is an essential, central part of becoming a probation officer. My noble friend Lady Faithfull was concerned about moving in a different direction from social work education. Social work may or may not be moving towards a three-year degree course, but probation work is a profession in its own right. In the new arrangements we are moving to a probation-specific training which meets the needs of individual trainees and of the service. Noble Lords have consistently under-estimated the nature and content of the proposed training, the involvement of higher education and the standards which have already been published as competencies for probation officers and, of course, national standards, which are also a matter for public publication.

947
I have discussed our changes in some detail. I hope that what I have said will have reassured some of your Lordships that the Government are determined to ensure that probation officers are properly trained. We know that much work is in hand to develop the assessment and training systems. I understand that noble Lords may feel that there is not enough flesh on the bones at present. Therefore, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, may consider withdrawing the Motion on the basis that the work is in hand to develop high standards of training, including higher education elements, to lead to a properly assessed and properly controlled standard of entry to the service which, in due course, will be externally validated under the NVQ system with the caveats that I have mentioned during the course of today's debate.
Our intention is that the new arrangements should, at a minimum, maintain the already high standards of the service. My own belief is that the new arrangements will lead to able, competent and professional probation officers. I emphasise that the Government recognise the difficult, demanding and sometimes dangerous work that probation officers are called upon to do. They are, and will continue to be, valued professionals.
I welcome the debate, and I am heartened by your Lordships' concern for high standards of training for probation officers. For my part, as the lead Minister with responsibility in this area, the next step is to put these principles into practice. That is where my energies will be devoted.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It was a most unusual experience for me to find that, with one exception, there was unanimous backing for my proposal. For her part, the Minister will have felt a little lonely as speech after speech followed in support of the Motion. However, my experience over many years suggests that that is not such an unusual position for a Home Office Minister to be in.
I am grateful for all the trouble that the Minister took in preparing her reply to the debate. Although I cannot claim to have taken it all in, because she spoke at a fair pace, I shall read it all with great interest.
I am a little disappointed that the noble Baroness spent perhaps rather too much time in defending what is not under attack, namely the decision which has been made and which is embodied in the probation rules which came into force yesterday. I thought that I had made that clear.
I am also a little bothered by what the noble Baroness said about higher education. I do not think that I am wrong in saying that she suggested at one stage that a higher education component would be an essential part of probation officer training, but that is not what is said in the decision paper from which I quoted, if anyone can now remember what I said in my opening speech an hour or two ago.
948
I am afraid that I am not persuaded by what the Minister said about the NVQ. Ultimately, I am bothered that she has not conceded that there should be a professional qualification based on higher education and externally validated which would serve to unite the profession. In spite of the request that the noble Baroness made at the end of her speech, I must seek the opinion of the House.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lockwood, B.

Bancroft, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Birmingham, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Palmer, L.

Donoughue, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Raglan, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Russell, E.

Gainsborough, E.

St. John of Blesto, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Seear, B.

Glasgow, E.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sherfield, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Hams of Greenwich, L.

Strafford, E.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henniker, L.

Tenby, V. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hollick, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hooson, L.

Thurso, V.

Howell, L.

Tope, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Varley, L.

Huntly, M.

Walpole, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hylton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wharton, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

949

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Kimberley, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Kingsland, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Barber, L.

Leigh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Bolton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bruntisfield, L.

Burnham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Butterworth, L.

Melville, V.

Caithness, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Chilver, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Moyne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Onslow, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cross, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strange, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Tebbit, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Teviot, L.

Hooper, B.

Torphichen, L.

Hothfield, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Salmon Drift Netting
7.1 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley The Earl of Kimberley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to ban permanently drift netting for salmon, bearing in mind that the United Kingdom and Ireland are the only countries in Europe currently permitting drift netting; and what is the expected effect of the different increases in the cost of rod licences and net licences.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the 'subject has become a hardy perennial. I believe that this is its 10th year of flowering. Hopefully, this year the Minister's answer may be better than usual, as the honourable Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has been appointed PPS to the ministry and is extremely knowledgeable about salmon, as also is his wife, who casts a beautiful fly and catches fish! It is also interesting to know that, likewise, my noble friend who
950
will answer is also a fisherman. He and I are very nearly equal this year, as I believe that he has caught one and I have caught two; so perhaps I have a slight edge there.
The National Rivers Authority has moved to phase out north-east drift net fishing by introducing a 10-year net limitation order which came into effect in 1992. No doubt my noble friend will say that there has been a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of nets from 140 in 1991 to 99 in 1995.
Unfortunately, that net reduction has not been followed by a reduction in the catch, which continues to increase each year. Herewith are the figures: in 1992, 19,144; in 1993, 41,790; in 1994, 46,554; and in 1995, 49,801. The figure is provisional for 1995 but it is a combined net catch of salmon and grilse from Northumbria and Yorkshire as audited by the National Rivers Authority.
While those figures probably reflect increases in the overall salmon stock returning to east coast rivers, there is concern among salmon and conservation interests that the intention of the net limitation order is not being achieved. The netsmen dropping out of the fishery are the elderly and the incompetent. I do not believe that real reductions in catch will be achieved until the phase-out of the fishery can be accelerated or quotas imposed.
There is also considerable anger in Scotland since 80 per cent. of the fish caught by the north-east drift nets are of Scottish origin, reared and paid for by Scottish district salmon fishery boards and bound for Scottish east coast rivers.
I applaud the recent MAFF initiative in setting up a working party with MAFF officials, Orri Vigfusson, the Atlantic Salmon Trust and the Salmon and Trout Association which is investigating ways in which the phase-out of the fishery can be speeded up,
"without causing undue hardship to netsmen".
However, that working party is making painfully slow progress and will continue to do so unless there is a real will on behalf of the Government to take action on the drift netting issue. Can my noble friend give noble Lords any such assurance on the matter?
Salmon conservation interests are also waiting for the National Rivers Authority to implement MAFF's recommendation that the start of the drift netting season should be postponed to 1st May in order to conserve spring fish. In fact, the 1991 review of salmon net fisheries made a similar recommendation which was never implemented. United Kingdom interests are contributing £180,000 per annum as their share of the high seas buy-out negotiated by Orri Vigfusson, and already more spring fish are returning to our rivers. However, it would be scandalous if any fish saved by that far-sighted approach were to be caught by the north-east drift nets.
Still on the subject of salmon conservation, can my noble friend give noble Lords the tonnage of fish which a seal eats annually? Also the majority of conservationists do not wish to make the cormorant extinct but would like the RSPB perhaps to be a little more adamant that cormorants need not be protected so completely and utterly.
I now turn to rod and net licences. Her Majesty's Government will probably say that charges are yet to be confirmed by the Minister, who at 25th November was still considering objections. Licence increases are designed to help supplement reductions in grant-in-aid. If imposed, the rod licence increase of £10 will bring in about £270,000. The net licence increase will bring in about £65,000. The rod licence increase is 22 per cent.; net licences will increase on average by about 75 per cent. The Salmon and Trout Association is up in arms about that.
First, the new charges followed a widespread consultation on net licence charges undertaken earlier this year. The Salmon and Trout Association welcomed that review because it said that any charges should be "fair and consistent" with rods. However, in order to achieve consistency, net licence charges would have had to rise between 400 per cent. and 600 per cent.
Secondly, linking an increase of £10 to the rod licence came as a complete surprise to the Salmon and Trout Association and made it very angry. Far from achieving the consistency hoped for, it increases the gap. The rod increase alone will bring in £270,000, which is more than the entire income from net licences of £165,000. As the nets catch 70 per cent. of our salmon stock—that includes the Scottish component of the north-east drift nets which the NRA has conveniently omitted from its calculations—and pay less than 20 per cent. of National Rivers Authority fisheries income, it must be obvious to all that it is grossly unfair.
Thirdly, the NRA also announced the intention to move to a £75 rod licence and to achieve parity of net licence income "in an appropriate timescale". The Salmon and Trout Association has said that it would accept the proposals if a firm five-year timescale were introduced.
Fourthly, MAFF has privately admitted that there is no way in which net licences can be increased to achieve parity without driving netsmen out of business, which it says is illegal. Effectively, that means that MAFF is prepared to subsidise the activities of commercial netsmen. The Salmon and Trout Association believes that that is illegal and may take MAFF to judicial review. But before taking further action the Salmon and Trout Association will await the Minister's decision as to whether he confirms the National Rivers Authority's proposals.
Lastly, I have three more questions. Will my noble friend give any assurances about the Government's intention to achieve parity between rod and net licence income? Secondly, can he comment on the seeming determination of his officials effectively to subsidise the operation of commercial netting interests to the detriment of the rod fishery and all the perceived benefits angling brings to the rural economy?
My third question is this. Does my noble friend believe that a further punitive increase in rod and net licence charges, which between them will realise only £330,000, can in any way substitute for Her Majesty's Government's £8 million cuts in grant-in-aid from 1993
952
to 1997 which will paralyse the essential fisheries work of the NRA and, as from 1st April, the Environment Agency?
7.11 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am only too pleased to support the noble Earl on this issue, as I have done on previous occasions. He and I have probably participated in every one of these debates on the abolition of North Sea drift netting.
I believe that it is really time this indiscriminate netting of salmon in the North Sea was stopped. I just cannot understand why the Government and the National Rivers Authority do not recognise that indiscriminate, interceptory drift netting is bad management practice and should be deplored by the National Rivers Authority.
The long nylon monofilament gill nets are taking salmon in the North Sea as they make their way to their home rivers—indiscriminately. That means south of the River Esk (Yorkshire's salmon river) the drift netters could well be taking most of the spawning salmon heading for the Esk—quite indiscriminately—denuding it of its stock. That is obvious bad management practice. The National Rivers Authority has a statutory duty to, "maintain, improve and develop" fisheries. Through the allowing of this drift netting, the Yorkshire Esk is being denied the right to improve and develop its fishery, and therefore the National Rivers Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are in breach of their statutory duties. That is my first charge.
Secondly, the nylon monofilament gill nets should be banned. These nets are almost invisible and quite deadly in operation, trapping the salmon by their gills. Because of their strength they take seals and porpoises, too. If a net breaks, it hangs in the sea. It becomes a ghost net, continuing to kill fish and diving birds—especially gannets—for years thereafter, unlike the old hemp nets which gradually rot. Surely the Government cannot condone such a practice. So, my Lords, I ask: why not ban these gill nets?
Thirdly, why do the Government continue to be internationally embarrassed in the councils of NASCO—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation? NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon Trust and the Salmon and Trout Association—all international and national salmon conservation bodies—have campaigned for years to conserve salmon stocks and persuade governments to cut back on salmon netting—with some success overseas, but not with the British Government. When called upon to ban drift netting within the councils of the international NASCO—embarrassingly so—what is the Government's reply? Perhaps it is, "We are phasing out, under recent net limitation orders"; or, "Set up a working party". I believe that to be government procrastination, there is no need to delay. How long, I ask, will it take to end this indiscriminate, bad management practice? Ten, 20 years? I know that the concern is of course the jobs of the netters. These are part-time fishermen; they can work only when the salmon are running—a few months. They could be quickly phased out with compensation.

953
Our trawler fleet has already been subject to some decommissioning, and indeed, one or two of our major labour-intensive industries have been run down. Phasing out part-time salmon netters pales into insignificance compared with these rundowns.
The Government, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the National Rivers Authority should turn their minds to this problem. Let us rid ourselves of these hated gill nets; let us have better conservation of the salmon and increased protection of the seals, porpoises and diving birds in the North Sea. It would remove the hindrance to the spawning salmon. Salmon rivers would be better stocked, and above all, the international embarrassment removed in future NASCO meetings.
7.16 p.m.
Lord MoranMy Lords, I too wish strongly to support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. It makes me rather sad that we have been deliberating over this question for so long, as the noble Earl pointed out. On looking back at previous copies of Hansard, I find that just under 10 years ago I proposed an amendment at the Committee stage of the Salmon Bill on 30th January 1986 which suggested a five-year phasing out of the north-east drift-net fishery. With my noble friend Lord Perth, I proposed another amendment at Report stage. If that had been accepted, the fishery would have been closed about five years ago. That would have been a good thing, but unfortunately the Government decided on the long phasing out by the retiring of fishermen. As the noble Earl said, although it has resulted in a substantial decrease in the number of licences from 130 to 99, it has not resulted in any decrease in the number of salmon caught by that fishery—rather the reverse, because the salmon come up a narrow corridor and it only takes a small number of efficient fishermen to catch a great many of them.
What has worried me all along is the effect on our international position which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mason. When we were discussing the Salmon Bill, I said on 14th January 1986:
"Our position, as I see it, is hopelessly compromised so long as we allow drift netting off north-east England to continue…If our voice is to carry weight internationally, we have to put our own house in order.".—[Official Report, 14/1/86; col. 1025.]
That is still true. The fishermen in Greenland now say:"Well, you're doing it, we don't see why we should be bought out". The Irish, whose drift-netting I shall talk about in a moment, likewise see no reason why they should take firm action when we are doing so little. I think, therefore, that it is important that the Government should address the problem.
There is one aspect which worries me very much. I remember going with some of my colleagues to see the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Waldegrave, to discuss the problem, after which he helpfully set up the working party to which the noble Earl referred. In referring to the report on run timing of salmon by the Salmon Advisory Committee, he said in a news release on 28th June this year:
954
"My Rt Hon friends and I are drawing these recommendations for management action to the attention of the National Rivers Authority and the District Salmon Fisheries Boards in Scotland and, asking them, in particular, to consider urgently"—
I emphasise the word "urgently"—
"whether, and if so what, action is needed to conserve the runs of spring fish in the fisheries for which they are responsible … In this context I am asking the National Rivers Authority to reconsider the recommendation, in the Report on Salmon Net Fisheries presented to Parliament in 1991, that the opening date for the drift net fisheries of Northumbria and Yorkshire should be postponed until 1 May so as to reduce the level of exploitation of spring running salmon. The NRA decided not to implement this recommendation, on the grounds that any action on spring fish needed to be part of a wider programme embracing rod and net fisheries in both England and Scotland. In the light of the Salmon Advisory Committee's report, and in the expectation that appropriate action will be taken in other fisheries, there is now an opportunity for a postponement of the opening of the drift netting season until 1 May to form part of such a wider programme".
That is a very clear steer to the NRA by the Minister then responsible. That was at the end of June. However, so far as I know, nothing has happened. Will the Minister say why that is and what is happening? Does he expect the NRA to pay attention to the statement by Mr. Waldegrave and to change the opening date? That would save many of the multi-sea winter fish returning to this country, which we all want very much to see.
I now turn to the question of the Irish drift-net fisheries. I gave the Minister notice that I should raise this particular point. I should explain that I have an interest in Wales because my family has a salmon beat on the Wye. The Welsh Region of the NRA has done research for 10 years on the tagging of smolts and on what happens to them when they go down to sea. The scientists in the Welsh region are extremely good. They are particularly knowledgeable about salmon and sea trout. In June, they wrote to the then Secretary of State for Wales stating the three key findings of their 10-year research. The first was that,
"The drift-net fishery off Ireland's west coast takes many more grilse (one sea winter fish) and more salmon (multi-sea winter fish) than Greenland, Faroes and the other distant water fisheries all put together".
Secondly,
"The number of fish taken in the Irish drift-net fishery probably exceeds both the licensed rod and the licensed net catches in Welsh rivers and is over two thirds of the total Welsh Region salmon catch".
Thirdly,
"Differing survival rates for hatchery-reared salmon smolts and wild smolts means that the true catch for the Irish drift-net fishery may be considerably larger than the figure indicated by this 10 year study".
The letter explained:
"The NRA is pursuing a policy of phasing out, via reducing net limitation orders … net fisheries which exploit predominantly mixed stocks"—
that of course applies in Wales and even more to the north-east drift-net fisheries, though it is not concerned with those—
"since such indiscriminate exploitation makes the management of individual salmon river fisheries impossible. The NRA's draft strategy for the management of salmon in England and Wales commits us to phasing out mixed stock fisheries".
That is very welcome.

955
Clearly this is a matter within the competence of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I hope very much that the Government, both bilaterally with the Irish authorities and in the European Union, will do their utmost to persuade the Irish either to cut out or reduce very substantially the drift-netting which is damaging stocks in Wales, western Scotland and elsewhere. It is extremely important that this should be done. I know that many people in Ireland who are very knowledgeable about salmon conservation are working hard to that end. I hope that the Government will use all their influence to achieve some progress. I shall be very grateful if the Minister can tell me what is being done on that score.
Lastly, I turn briefly to the question of licence fees, which was raised by the noble Earl. A problem arises from the reduction in the grant-in-aid given by the Government to the NRA, said to be from £13.4 million in 1991–92 to £8 million in the current year. The reduction has been very damaging. It is very important that we should do all we can to conserve stocks of salmon, which are subject to so many threats all over the world.
We must bear in mind that a great part of the costs incurred by the NRA are incurred as a result of the need for enforcement. Parliament has laid down the law, stating that it is a crime to pursue salmon or sea trout illegally. Very often there are violent gangs engaged in this practice. Action against them by the police and by bailiffs is enforcing the law as passed by Parliament. It is not reasonable that the whole cost should fall on the beneficiaries. The grant-in-aid should certainly be restored to a level of at least £10 million, and preferably more. Certainly it would be absolutely wrong for it to be cut further.
The NRA is faced with the current problem of trying to raise enough to deal with its work on migratory fish. The expenditure on coarse and trout fishing is ring-fenced; that pays for itself. The licences cover the cost; but they do not go anywhere near covering the cost on salmon and sea trout, the management of which is a much more expensive business. The NRA conducted a review in which it stated that it wanted the cost of the licence to be consistent and fair as between the nets and the rods. The problem is that it is in no way consistent and fair at the moment since, as the noble Earl said, the nets take 70 per cent. of the catch. Even if the Scottish element in that is excluded, it is still a great deal more than half. The netsmen, however, pay only 20 per cent. of the cost. They have been, and still are, subsidised. That appears to many anglers as a deliberate policy of keeping commercial netsmen in business at the rod anglers' expense. It is also damaging the future of salmon. That policy must be examined.
In the past we allowed the licence rates for commercial netsmen to fall so low that they are now a ridiculous sum. They contribute only something between £160,000 this year and £300,000 next year. That is a trifling sum, whereas the anglers are being asked to produce £1.3 million. It is very important to get the level right. I realise that it cannot be done in one
956
go, but it ought to be done within a limited time. Five years would seem to be reasonable. I hope that the Government will address this problem.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask just one question. As my noble friend Lord Kimberley said, a very large number of salmon caught in the north-east coast drift-nets are heading for Scottish rivers. In view of that, could my noble friend ask his Ministry to consult with the Department of Agriculture in Scotland and with the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishing Boards, which are responsible not only for the rod fishing but also for the net fishing in Scotland, and take heed of what they tell them?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for asking this important Question. As he said when he opened the debate, we have been here before. Indeed, debates on drift-netting seem to come round with the regularity of the annual Budget Statement. But perhaps the subject this evening is a little more interesting than last Tuesday's offering.
Clearly, anybody interested in the orderly management of our fish stocks wishes to ensure that the fishing methods are properly controlled and soundly based in terms of conservation. Your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities reported in July 1994 (the 13th Report of that Session) on the regulation of drift-net fishing. The committee was quite scathing about the proposals of the European Commission on that subject at that time. Perhaps I may quote from the opinion of that committee in paragraph 40 of the report:
"There may or may not be a case for banning the use of drift nets over 2.5 km in length, or for banning their use altogether. There may also be a case for continuing a temporary derogation in their use in certain fisheries. But the [European] Commission's report offers little justification for any of these actions and it gives no explanation for the inconsistencies in the courses of action proposed. The Committee is also disturbed by the lack of objectivity apparent in the Commission's report and indeed by accusations of a lack of intellectual integrity in the document".
Obviously, the Select Committee was not particularly enamoured of the Commission's proposals on the matter. Obviously, it is very complicated. Everyone seems to agree that drift nets over 2.5 km in length should be banned. That is in line with the recommendations of the United Nations and the European Union. I understand that the Government's policy is fully in line with that and they are supported by us in the Labour Party.
With regard to the effect of the different sizes of net, there has been some interesting correspondence on this matter, and a briefing was received only today, from Greenpeace and the Wildlife and Countryside Link. It has probably been received also by other noble Lords. I found the briefing rather confusing. It seemed to argue that the present derogation allowing the use of drift nets up to 2.5 km should be banned because of the damage that is being done by the larger drift nets. I found that argument rather hard to follow. The reply from Mr. Tony Baldry, Minister of State, which was included

957
with the briefing neatly skirted around the problem. In his letter to the Wildlife and Countryside Link, Cetaceans Group, Mr. Baldry said:
"It is our experience that the permitted use of drift nets up to 2.5 km long does not lead to fraud as your letter suggests. This year, UK tuna skippers agreed that the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate should measure their nets before they were loaded. As part of this exercise net plans were prepared and made available to the RN Fisheries Protection Squadron to help with enforcement at sea. No nets longer than 2.5 km were loaded; and no nets longer than 2.5 km were found in use at sea by UK vessels".
That rather neatly skirted around the problem. If what the Minister said is correct, that is all very fine and well. But what does that have to do with the allegations concerning the use of larger drift nets by the Italian and other fleets. We should be interested to know the Government's view of those allegations that other member states are consistently flouting the current regulations or agreements.
It seems to us that the proposed phasing out of the north-east drift net industry is sensible. Can the Government say what is their latest estimate of how long that phasing out will take? To pick up the important point made by my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley, can they say what would be the effect on employment of closing down that part of the industry now, including the upstream employment in processing and so on?
No doubt we can all agree on the right components of a successful policy on this matter. It would obviously include a ban on the long Pacific drift nets and the use of the 2.5 km limit; with perhaps more rapid phasing out than is presently planned. There should be an exploration of the more technical conservation measures so long as the drift nets are used, such as sonar reflectors and windows for existing drift nets. All forms of fishing should be sustainable and not environmentally damaging. That would cover such matters as the use of drift nets in different fisheries, relative size, depth of use and various escape panels.
There still seems to be a crying need for accurate scientific information in order to enable us to make an informed judgment on drift-netting. We should, therefore, continue to be guided by the best scientific advice on this matter. I understand that there is soon to be a scientific advisory report made to the European Commission. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment on whether that is likely to be available.
If drift-netting is clearly shown to be environmentally damaging, we can all support moves to ban it, as indeed we should support all moves to eliminate any fishing practice that is clearly shown to be environmentally damaging. At the moment the jury is out on the matter.
There is important work being done by the British fishing industry on technical conservation measures. The Government should give all possible support to research and development in this area. All technical conservation measures should be included in all the European directives relating to all drift nets of whatever size.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for tabling this Question and look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and whether the Government have anything new to say on this matter.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimberley and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Like my noble friend Lady Blatch, I find myself somewhat under siege. I am glad to have had some support from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but I cannot say how much I miss the speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. In previous years he has been a notable supporter of the Government's position. We hope to hear from his successor soon.
It has been said that I am a salmon fisherman, and indeed that is true. Would that it were a declarable interest. But I am afraid that, were we at a stroke to double the number of salmon caught in British rivers, it would merely result in the costs of salmon fishing doubling and my having to move to less expensive rivers again.
Although there have been some interesting developments over the past year since a similar Question was asked, the Government's stance has not changed. The Government's policy on the north-east coast salmon drift-net fishery is based on a review of salmon net fisheries presented to Parliament in October 1991. The review showed that the drift-net fishery posed no immediate threat to stocks and there was thus no immediate justification for depriving licence holders of their licences. Taken as a whole, the UK salmon stocks are in good health. The north-east drift-net fishery accounts for about 15 per cent. of the catch. It is not a significant burden on the stocks as they are now. If action were necessary, it would be necessary to take it across the whole industry, and a substantially greater proportion are caught by fixed nets than are ever caught by the north-east fishery.
However, it is agreed between us that the north-east drift-net fishery exploits several salmon and sea trout stocks and that this makes the task of conservation and management more difficult. It is widely accepted—and by us—that salmon stocks are best managed on a river by river basis. So the fishery is being phased out. Licences are issued, with very limited exceptions, only to those who held licences the previous year. Any licences not taken up are not reissued. That has led to a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of drift-net licences issued since 1992, a rate of decline significantly faster than was predicted by the NRA when this policy was introduced. I can give noble Lords some comfort. It is not just the elderly and infirm who were giving up licences; it appears to be across the whole age range and range of competence.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley said that catches had not decreased. Indeed, that is so. But it has been a good period for salmon catches elsewhere in the industry and, should that position change, drift-net catches may go down. However, the fishery will eventually be extinguished. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how long that would take. We have not changed our position that it will happen over a 30-year period. It is happening fast at the moment; we cannot predict whether or not that will continue.

959
The Government keep the position under careful review. As we said at the time, if further action was required in order to conserve stocks, we would not hesitate to take it. I repeat that assurance today. We see no need to go beyond the recommendations of the 1991 report. Indeed, the salmon stocks exploited by the drift-net fishery are probably in better shape than the great majority of fish stocks in the North Sea.
The approach adopted towards the north-east coast fisheries is, where appropriate, being extended to other fisheries such as that for the sea trout off the East Anglian coast. That brings me to the question of the Irish fishery. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, rightly said, that is a matter for the Irish Government. It is clear that those fisheries do take a substantial number of salmon destined for England and Wales, though we do not at present have any evidence that the current level of exploitation poses a threat to stocks.
The Irish Government have established a task force to consider the practical long-term strategies for salmon management with a view to developing a system for the sustainable management of stocks. We have an input to that process. We are talking to the Irish Government. My right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food drew the attention of the Irish Government to our policy on mixed stock fisheries and the method we are pursuing to phase them out. We are also working to establish a better estimate of the effects of those fisheries on British stocks.
My right honourable friend agreed with the Prime Minister that a scientific working group comprising officials from MAFF, the NRA and the Department of the Marine will be set up to review the available data, agree on a method of analysis and provide the best estimate of the level of exploitation of British stock in the Irish fishery. The first meeting of that group will take place at the end of January, though MAFF scientists have already had a preliminary meeting with the NRA. If it is any comfort on other subjects raised by noble Lords, while the Irish fishery impact on grilse returning to some rivers may be as high as 20 per cent., the impact on multi-winter salmon and on spring-run salmon appears to be much lower.
The Government fully accept that recreational salmon fisheries are an important feature of the local economy in many parts of the country. It does not follow from that that net fisheries should necessarily be brought to an end. In the first place, the effect on rod catchers of ending net fisheries are often overstated. That has some bearing on the relative level of charges for netsmen and rod licences. The two can co-exist without necessarily competing with each other over the whole range of catches. Rod catches in Great Britain have remained remarkably stable, despite changes in netting effort and catches.
It is also important not to ignore the economic and social effects of an early closure on the fishermen involved in this fishery. Our commercial fishing industry is currently under great pressure and Ministers are most reluctant to add to it. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how many jobs are involved. I do not have an exact estimate. It will probably be a few hundred.
960
The Government are not in any way opposed to private efforts to compensate netsmen for giving up their licences. In Scotland, where netting rights are private, it has become relatively common for riparian owners to buy out netting rights and the reduction in netting effort that has taken place in Scotland is largely due to market forces. The way is now open for market forces to play a role in the north-east coast drift-net fishery. It is for those who wish to see that fishery ended to negotiate with the netsmen. We are ready to discuss the issues involved. Officials have had several meetings with representatives of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund and the Salmon and Trout Association. We remain ready to continue those discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, suggested that NASCO had called on the UK to ban drift-netting. That is simply not the case. In fact, one of NASCO's primary roles is to set quotas for drift-net fisheries operating in Greenland.
My noble friend Lord Kimberley raised the question of the impact of seals on salmon stocks. We are aware of the increasing anxiety in that area. Over the past decade numbers of grey seals in Great Britain have grown at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum and the population has doubled in the past six to eight years to over 143,000. It was estimated that if each seal ate only one adult salmon per year, that would amount to almost 60 per cent. of the number caught by all salmon fisheries in Great Britain and well over three times the catch of the north-east coast drift nets in 1993.
In practice, it is unlikely that predation by seals has a significant effect on stocks. Evidence available from various studies carried out suggests that they are opportunistic feeders whose feeding habits and ranges vary greatly from individual to individual. It is known that some seals may take salmon in estuaries before they enter rivers to spawn and some seals have been known to take salmon from nets. But by far the major part of their diet appears to be made up from marine species such as sand eel, Norway pout, tusk and ling.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, also asked about monofilament nets. He argued that the use of gill nets should be banned. A significant proportion of the white fish catch landed in England and Wales is caught in gill nets. Their use is already regulated by primary and secondary legislation. In those circumstances, further control of the use of gill nets in other fisheries would be difficult to justify and place undue restrictions on the activities of inshore fishermen.
The noble Lord also suggested that drift nets used by the north-east coast drift-net fishery catch seals, other marine mammals and sea birds. There is little evidence that that is a serious problem; nor is there any evidence that lost nets cause a significant problem. Netsmen must attend their nets at all times, and few nets are lost. Those that are are soon knocked to the sea bed in the turbulent waters of the North Sea where they fill with debris and cease fishing. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, while we support action taken on gill nets and drift nets over the 2.5 kilometre limit, smaller nets—including those of 500 metres, which is what are common in the salmon fishery in the north-east coast—seem to us to be quite acceptable.

961
My noble friend Lord Kimberley and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked when the NRA would respond to the Government's request to reconsider the opening date for the north-east coast drift net fishery. The Government asked the NRA at the end of June to look again at the question of postponing it to 1st May as part of a wider review of controls on the exploitation of spring run salmon following the publication of the Salmon Advisory Committee's report on the run timing of salmon.
I should emphasise however that that initiative on spring run salmon is not primarily concerned with the north-east coast drift-net fishery. That fishery takes relatively few spring salmon—around 400 a year on average. The NRA has been considering the need for additional controls in all the salmon fisheries in England and Wales. That is a major exercise. Nevertheless, I understand that it is almost complete and that the NRA expects to be able to respond shortly.
Let me turn to the second element of my noble friend's question concerning the NRA's widely advertised proposals to increase the duties for rod and net licences. It will be for my right honourable friend the Minister to decide, in the light of the objections that have been received, whether they should be approved with or without modifications or rejected. Given the Minister's statutory role, I shall not comment now on the substance of the NRA's proposals. But perhaps I can in some way answer the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Kimberley that the Government are allowing the net fishery to be subsidised.
My noble friend said that MAFF takes the view that it would be illegal for the NRA to increase licence duties to a level which did not result in an increase in net licence income. In fact, the point that has been made is that both the Government and the NRA must work within the constraints of existing legislation. That
962
legislation provides mechanisms to reduce the numbers of net licences and to control net fishing. That is the way in which the net catch is controlled.
Licence duties, however, cannot be used for those purposes and the Government and the NRA would be vulnerable to legal challenge were they to use licence duties to close down or substantially reduce licence numbers in a net fishery. That does not mean that licence duty increases can never lead to a reduction in licence numbers or income, but in our view a policy of deliberately setting duties at levels which it was evident would lead to a significant reduction in income would not be legally sustainable. Such a policy would also conflict with the NRA's financial memorandum which requires it to maximise its return from licence duties and other sources of income.
My noble friend also said that this meant that the Government were prepared to subsidise the activities of commercial netsmen. I would remind the noble Earl that at present more than 80 per cent. of the cost of the NRA's work on salmon and sea trout is paid for by the taxpayer. In practice, as we see it, it is the taxpayer who is providing a subsidy to both rods and nets.
I am sure that there are some points to which I have not responded properly or in full. I shall look at Hansard tomorrow and write as necessary. My noble friend Lord Burton asked about our attitude to the Scots. All I can tell him is that I have talked to them extensively and they have impressed on me the importance with which they view the eventual abolition of the north east drift net fishery. Looking at things from their perspective, I can quite understand why.
We will continue to follow the phase-out of the fishery closely and if further action is required in order to conserve stocks we will not hesitate to take it.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Wei Jungsheng
  Wei Jungsheng
  Former Yugoslavia Peace Implementation Force: US Ground Forces
  Former Yugoslavia Peace Implementation Force: US Ground Forces
  Former Yugoslavia: US Measures to Achieve Balance of Forces
  Former Yugoslavia: US Measures to Achieve Balance of Forces
  Non-Proliferation Treaty: Joint Declaration
  Non-Proliferation Treaty: Joint Declaration
  HIV/AIDS Prevention in Southern Africa: Funding
  HIV/AIDS Prevention in Southern Africa: Funding
  EU Committee of the Regions
  EU Committee of the Regions
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist Activity since the Cease-Fire
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist Activity since the Cease-Fire
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Closed Circuit Television
  Closed Circuit Television
  Nigerian Ministers: EU Entry Visas
  Nigerian Ministers: EU Entry Visas
  Closed Circuit Television Challenge Competition
  Closed Circuit Television Challenge Competition
  Crime Prevention Agency
  Crime Prevention Agency
  MoD Married Quarters Sale: Preliminary Information Memorandum
  MoD Married Quarters Sale: Preliminary Information Memorandum