Sitting of 28 November 1995

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

    Procurement Programme
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the effect on the Government's procurement programme of reducing defence spending to the European average. [810]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): If any Government were to reduce spending to the European average of 2.5 per cent. of GDP, they would be forced to cut spending on defence by as much as £4 billion, That would have a devastating effect on our procurement programme.
    Mr. Batiste: Is it not clear that the Government's policy of putting the front line first could not be sustained if we reduced defence spending to the European average? Would that not put 315,000 defence jobs at risk, and deny our troops the equipment that they need? Do not those who advocate such a policy—including many Opposition Members—put Britain's front line last?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. Year after year, the Labour party conference has voted to cut defence spending to the European average. This year, members of the Labour party did not do that. They did not even allow themselves a vote, because they knew that they could not be trusted on defence. The entire country knows that Labour cannot be trusted on defence.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do not some procurement issues depend on the management rather than on the size of the budget? Why has a lack of spares led to 30 Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft being grounded? Why has pilot training been restricted as a consequence? How are those developments consistent with the Government's stated objective of putting the front line first?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am pleased to say that the difficulties that have arisen over spares—partly because of industrial action at Rolls-Royce—are being rapidly overcome. They have not affected our ability to deploy Tornadoes at times when they are needed, and we are fully up to speed in making the aircraft available for the tasks that need to be done.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we reduced our defence spending to the European average, the Eurofighter programme would be put in severe jeopardy? Does he also agree that rumours perpetrated by
    1038
    American aircraft companies that the Government are thinking of buying some F 16s instead of the Eurofighter should be nailed once and for all?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to correct the story that has recently appeared in the newspapers. We are not considering buying F16 aircraft in place of the Eurofighter; we are fully committed to the Eurofighter, and intend it to form the cornerstone of our air defence capability over the next century. In that context, I am pleased to be able to announce that the revised main development contracts for the Eurofighter were signed yesterday. That puts the project on a much tauter, more commercial and better basis.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister feel somewhat guilty about spreading the falsehood that the Labour party intends to reduce defence spending to the European average? Is it not the Government who have reduced defence spending by 30 per cent., with the result that the Army is 10,000 men short and call-up papers had to be sent to reservists yesterday? Is it not true that our Royal Navy has been reduced to 30 ships, and that of 36 planes at RAF Bruggen, only six can fly? Does the Minister agree with the Daily Mail that our services are now overstretched and undervalued?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No. The hon. Gentleman is being a little desperate. He knows that, shortly after the Labour party conference, 42 of his hon. Friends voted to cut defence spending to the European average. He knows that his party has voted for that time after time. Now he is calling for a fundamental defence review, but we know that he is scared to admit that what he really wants to do is to cut defence spending.

    Western European Union
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the Western European Union with Defence Ministers from the other members of that organisation; and if he will make a statement. [811]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Western European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers met in Madrid on 14 November. We made clear our view that European nations acting within the WEU needed to develop their capability of mounting effective, small-scale military operations.
    Mr. Garnier: I accept that European security is British security, but will my right hon. Friend confirm his support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and, in particular, for the transatlantic limb of that alliance? Will he also assure me that he will not allow the WEU to be folded into the European Union?
    Mr. Portillo: NATO must remain the cornerstone of European defence. I cannot conceive of true security in Europe other than on the basis of a transatlantic alliance. For north Americans to have confidence in NATO, it is necessary for Europeans to show that they can do more and do their bit. The WEU and not the European Union is the proper organisation to develop that European defence capability.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: First, will the Secretary of State accept that, throughout the House, there is general

    1039
    agreement anyway that foreign and security policies should remain a separate pillar under the Maastricht arrangements? Secondly, will he give some idea of how he intends to improve or increase the WEU's operational capability? Words are fine—we have had plenty of words—but what sort of action will ensue?
    Mr. Portillo: I am not sure that it is a shared view in all parts of the Chamber that security and foreign policies should remain part of the European Union's pillared structure. It certainly is the belief among Government Members that it should not be brought within the treaty of Rome, but I notice that European socialists, certainly in the European Parliament, have advocated the spread of qualified majority voting to sectors including foreign, defence and security policy. I do not know, therefore, whether Labour Members are disowning the socialist European Members. I hope that, during our presidency, the situation centre of the WEU, the planning cell and the intelligence section will be brought into life so that they will be fully operational towards the end of our presidency.

    Defence Land (Gosport)
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the release of defence land in the Gosport area. [812]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Where it is not possible for my Department to find alternative uses for redundant sites, we seek to dispose of the surplus land as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Viggers: I thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which the Ministry of Defence has co-operated with local authorities over the release of defence land. Does he agree that the proposed development of the Portsmouth harbour region, involving some £100 million of investment, backed by some £40 million from the millennium fund, offers an unprecedented opportunity to local authorities to develop their land sensitively? Will he undertake to maintain close contact with the local authorities, including, if necessary, at the appropriate time, a further ministerial meeting on the subject?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the project is extremely exciting, interesting and potentially rewarding. I shall be happy to see my hon. Friend at the head of a delegation to discuss those matters and I look forward to receiving that delegation at his convening.
    Mr. Miller: The project in Gosport is extremely interesting. Will the Minister assure the House that, in discussions with local authorities such as that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), careful consideration will be given, both to the need for low-cost housing in those communities and to economic development? What discussions is the Minister having with his colleagues in other Departments on those specific points?
    Mr. Soames: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we always have regard to uses other than defence uses when we come to make such plans and, plainly, housing is one of them. We work extremely closely with the local authorities and, where possible, we try to conform to what they wish. As to our relationship with other Departments, plainly, in matters such as planning and the environment, we work absolutely cheek by jowl with them.

    Recruitment
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on recruitment of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [813]
    Mr. Soames: If any British Government were to reduce our defence spending to the European average, that would have a devastating impact on the size of our armed forces and the Government would never consider it.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind our commitments in Northern Ireland and Germany, and now heavy commitments in Bosnia, will he ensure that we have enough personnel to deal with those issues, and with any others that might arise?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is quite right to draw attention to the recruiting difficulties that we have, in the Army in particular—the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are satisfactorily recruited. We are doing everything possible to ensure that we overcome those difficulties and are able to continue to recruit the high-grade young men and women that we need in the armed forces today.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is not one way of reducing defence spending, which would not have any effect on recruitment, to buy the British-made Land Rover military ambulance rather than the Austrian Steyr that has been recommended to the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I am able to tell her that no decision has yet been taken, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have heard what she said and noted her interest.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a certain inconsistency between wanting to reduce defence spending to the level of the European average on one hand and the special pleading by individual Members who are concerned about orders for their constituencies?
    Mr. Soames: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, a reduction to the average level of European expenditure would be about £4 billion, which would represent a down-sizing of about two thirds in any one of the individual services. That is a totally unacceptable proposition and is one of the reasons why this country knows that it can never trust the Labour party on defence.
    Mr. Spellar: Can we thank the Tory Whips for having planted that question so that we can ask the Minister how the Government have managed in the past year to spend £500 million on redundancies and £100 million on recruitment, to make a number of troops compulsorily redundant yet still be short of troops in the armed forces and to have to call up reservists? What level of incompetence is that?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has no idea what he is talking about and is clearly suffering from paranoia. The question of recruiting should be understood. We are having difficulties recruiting for the infantry and it will not be easy to continue to recruit people to be match fit

    1041
    for 365 days a year for a demanding job. We need to spend more money on recruiting and we need to do it better. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to speak as if reservists were second-class. We have called up reservists to do jobs for which they provide extraordinarily important specialisations, and we badly need their help.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that Her Majesty's forces are the finest military personnel in the world? They are envied for their expertise and their skill. Will he further agree that, without adequate defence, no country has the credibility to play any role in the world today?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The British armed forces are renowned throughout the world for their competence, skill and courage and the plain, understated way that they just get on with the job. My hon. Friend is also right that having formidable armed forces give our country strength and sinew and a far greater sense of nationhood than would otherwise be the case, and, sadly, is not the case in other less favoured countries.

    Military Equipment
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the suitability of private contractors to repair and maintain military equipment. [814]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No. Military equipment is manufactured by, private contractors and private contractors are perfectly capable of repairing and maintaining it.
    Mr. Griffiths: What is the final bill for the damage done by the private contractor Airwork Ltd. to the Tornado aircraft that it was supposed to repair? Was not the Government's decision to take that work away from dedicated and skilled RAF personnel and give it to a private contractor another example of the Government being penny wise and pound foolish?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The final bill is the matter of a claim and it would not be right for me to comment on the precise figure at this stage. It is true that we have learnt several lessons from the difficulties that have arisen over the repairs to the Tornado. The fact is that private contractors make defence equipment, and we think that it is a good idea for them to be closely involved in work which relates to defence equipment because they know very well how to do it.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the contractorisation provided by Hunting Engineering for the supply and maintenance of flight training aircraft has been extremely successful? Can he say when the contract for the extension of the joint elementary flight training scheme will be concluded? When does he expect to announce the outcome of his review into the replacement of Bulldog?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend and I are in correspondence about that issue. I congratulate him on once again standing up for his constituents, something that he does so well. I agree with all that he says about Hunting Engineering.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that the damage done by private contractors to the 18 Tornado
    1042
    aircraft at RAF St. Athan's will cost at least £120 million, and that about 4,000 hours of extra work will have to be carried out on each aircraft? Does he agree that such wasteful bungling raises basic queries about the Government's ability to manage some of our most vital defence capabilities, as well as giving us another example of how they have become wholly complacent in their financial management?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. We have given many contractors work on defence equipment over many years. That always has been, and always will be, the case. They have the expertise, of which we need to make use. We have made hundreds of millions of pounds of savings by putting work out to private industry. That has benefited the Ministry of Defence in many different ways, such as defence procurement, repair of defence equipment and recruiting.

    Western European Union
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aims the Government have for their presidency of the Western European Union.[816]
    Mr. Portillo: We intend to concentrate our efforts during the United Kingdom presidency on ensuring that the WEU can fulfil its operational role more effectively as the European pillar of the transatlantic alliance.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Great Britain was a member of the WEU long before it joined the Common Market? Does he agree that other European countries, such as those in eastern Europe, should not be excluded from membership of the WEU just because they are not yet members of the EU?
    Mr. Portillo: I agree that the WEU has a long and distinguished history and we believe that it also has an important future. I also agree that it should be willing to extend its membership to new applicants. It would be most unhelpful if the criteria for membership of the WEU and of the EU were made the same, because we do not want to place in the way of eastern and central European countries, which may be able to join a military alliance, economic barriers that they might not be able to cross.
    Mr. Hardy: I do not dissent from the Secretary of State's view, but does he accept that, over recent months, he and his colleagues have devoted a great deal of energy to berating Labour Members who expressed concern that our defence burden is somewhat greater than that of our colleagues in Europe? During our presidency of the WEU, should not he and his colleagues ensure that our neighbours are persuaded to bear a greater share of the burden? If he does not achieve that, the presidency will be a disastrous failure.
    Mr. Portillo: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I believe that we have not yet spent nearly enough time berating Labour Members—I intend to put that right in the months to come. On the question of burden sharing, he seems to be hinting at what we have been saying all afternoon, which is that the Labour party wishes to reduce the amount that this country spends to the European average. The fact is that this country has special and global responsibilities and we are not prepared to cut our defences in the way that Labour Members want.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of mutual security is as important to the WEU

    1043
    as it already is to NATO, and therefore that no country should be admitted as a new member of the WEU until it is a full member of NATO?
    Mr. Portillo: It is extremely important that we distinguish between, as it were, political clubs and military alliances. NATO and the WEU are military alliances. That means that countries that want to join have important responsibilities, which they must understand, and it means that we are prepared to give guarantees to those countries. They are solemn guarantees, and we must be very careful about how we give them. I believe that NATO and the WEU will expand in future, but they are important matters, which are worthy of careful thought. We must not proceed imprudently in any.

    Gulf War Syndrome
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning Gulf war syndrome. [817]
    Mr. Soames: Senior medical officials from my Department frequently discuss the alleged Gulf war syndrome with their equivalents in the United States Department of Defense. I have also spoken to members of the United States Administration about it.
    Ms Eagle: Why has the Minister not taken the same positive attitude to finding out the truth about Gulf war syndrome as his American counterparts? Given the searing criticisms of his Department in the recent Defence Select Committee report, which accused him and his Department of defensiveness and general torpor, will he now wake up and establish a full medical inquiry to establish the truth about Gulf war syndrome?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that we were disappointed by the tone of the report of the Defence Select Committee. Clearly, the Government recognise that there were some people who went to serve in the Gulf who are no longer well. There is absolutely no evidence that any of those illnesses were caused by service in the Gulf, nor is there any evidence in this country, in France or in America that there is any such thing as a Gulf war syndrome.
    Although the Defence Select Committee, in the most unreasonable fashion, accused my Department of suffering from torpor, the Royal College of Physicians gave a broad endorsement to our work in July 1995. It recommended that we should undertake some further work and research, which we are doing, and my Department retains an open mind about it. The hon. Lady is making mischief if she alleges in any way that there is any such thing as a Gulf war syndrome.
    Mr. Robathan: I am sure that everybody will welcome the further research and investigation into Gulf war syndrome. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that a large number of the people who served in the Gulf—I should say the majority—and who took the unpleasant nerve agent tablets and who had the injections are highly sceptical about Gulf war syndrome and do not believe that it exists?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and that is certainly the case. Only 700 people have claimed that they have been made ill by their service in the Gulf, only 350 of whom have come forward for
    1044
    the full medical examination and care which the services provide. It is worth telling my hon. Friend that, while there remains certain scepticism among the vast majority of those who served in the Gulf war, plainly we should keep an open mind about those who are ill. We shall continue to conduct research, monitor the situation and work very closely with our American friends and others on this important matter.

    Royal Arsenal Site, Woolwich
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the royal arsenal site at Woolwich. [818]
    Mr. Soames: A development plan has recently been completed for the whole of the royal arsenal west site. That will form the basis of negotiations for the transfer of the site from my Department to English Partnerships. The east site was vacated recently and we hope to market the site next year, when investigations into the contamination are complete.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Minister agree that the 75-acre site, which is derelict industrial land that once had 80,000 people employed on it, presents an unarguable case for a defence diversification strategy? Would he accept that the Royal Artillery Heritage museum is a project for the regeneration of that site, Woolwich and the Greenwich waterfront? Will he outline a timetable for reaching agreement with English Partnerships and for a start on the renovation of the 15 listed buildings on the site?
    Mr. Soames: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has been a doughty champion of his constituency interest. It is an important site, with some extremely important buildings on it. I also agree that the Royal Artillery Heritage museum is—possibly—a worthwhile operation to have on that site. Other people are also interested in it. Negotiations for the transfer of the west site to English Partnerships are in train.
    A master development plan for the whole area is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, being drawn up and will be finalised as soon as it can be, in consultation with the London borough of Greenwich. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that my Department will play its role to the full in achieving a satisfactory outcome in a very important matter for his constituency and the nation.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many hundreds of thousands of gunners, including former gunners among hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have contributed millions of pounds to ensure that the site will be developed, not only in memory of the royal artillery as part of this country's heritage, but for very many other reasons which have been well advanced by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker)? Will my hon. Friend look kindly on the fact that voluntary contributions are substantial and growing?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, as a former gunner, speaks with feeling, since Sir Martin Farndale has clearly already dipped his hand into my hon. Friend's pocket. He is quite right to say that many hundreds of thousands of former gunners, old comrades and present gunners, have generously donated money to the plan for the Royal

    1045
    Artillery Heritage museum. I wholly agree that it could be the most wonderful museum. Anyone who has been there and seen the fantastic collection of guns at Woolwich, which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) is so keen to see more formalised, will realise that it could be an astonishingly exciting project. There is a great deal more to do and much more money required, but I wholly endorse my hon. Friend's point.

    Fraud
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of fraud within his Department's operations. [819]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The level of fraud is low and the National Audit Office supports that assessment. We are, however, determined to bear down on fraud and are taking action against it with a wide range of measures.
    Dr. Wright: In view of the recent damning report of the NAO on Ministry of Defence contract fraud, and the Gordon Foxley case in particular, will the Minister give a number of assurances that none of the firms involved in the Foxley case is still doing MOD work, that the MOD will not deal with any contractors who prevent employees from reporting fraud, and that it will put in place secure procedures to enable members of staff to report suspected fraud and to save taxpayers millions of pounds in the process?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: As I said, we take this matter extremely seriously. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he asks for that the firms involved are no longer given work by the Ministry of Defence. We have put in place, because we take the matter so seriously, a Defence fraud unit. We have also brought in a new code of procurement ethics. I am very pleased to say that the NAO's report was not damning because it displayed the fact that we have a huge budget and that a relatively tiny proportion of it is lost to fraud, partly due to the Government's vigilance and partly because of the very high standards expected of, and received from, our public servants.

    Force Levels
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on force levels of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [820]
    Mr. Portillo: If any British Government were to reduce our defence spending to the European average, it would have a devastating impact on the size of our forces. The Government will not allow that to happen.
    Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we get excellent value for money from our armed forces? Will he reassure the House that, at the current level of expenditure, our worldwide commitment to humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and protection will not be diminished, and our national defence will not be put in jeopardy?
    Mr. Portillo: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we get very good value from our armed forces. They have a fine reputation and they project the prestige and
    1046
    influence, and, when necessary, the power of the country, on a global basis. Their contribution to peacekeeping is demonstrated by the announcement that I made by written answer yesterday that 13,000 British troops are to become part of the implementation force in former Yugoslavia. Of course I take extremely seriously the necessity of the defence of the realm. That is my duty, and I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
    Mr. Burden: Given that achieving value for money must surely be important in reducing defence expenditure, does the Secretary of State agree that it was not good enough for the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that, in connection with the purchase of military ambulances, the Government were merely considering the choice between Land Rover and an Austrian company?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the report that appeared in The Observer on Sunday that the rules of the competition were being changed to benefit the Austrian company? Does he agree that the Government should be interested in having the reliable spares and service back-up that can be provided by buying British?
    Mr. Portillo: As a matter of policy, I do not comment on stories in The Observer. We do not change the rules of competition halfway through. My hon. Friend said that no decision had yet been taken, and I remind the House that Britain buys about 90 per cent. of its defence procurement from British companies. That happens not through favouritism but because they provide value for money, and that will continue to be an important criterion for us.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that we give enormous credibility to our British Army and the performance that it puts up in relation to the defence of Europe, but that the report in The Sunday Telegraph suggesting that he might favour moves towards a single army was complete rubbish, and that he would have nothing to do with any such proposals?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, the report was absolute rubbish. I am pleased to say that I have had the opportunity on any number of occasions to make our policy clear, but if I may repeat it: NATO provides the cornerstone of security for Europe, but Europeans need to demonstrate that they can do their bit, which they can do through the development of Western European Union. The comment made in The Sunday Telegraph was disappointingly ignorant and ill informed.
    Dr. Reid: On defence expenditure, Defence Ministers are in a state of advanced self-delusion. Do they not recognise that, under the Conservative Government, there has been a 30 per cent. cut in defence expenditure? There has been a cut of more than 100,000 in personnel, and defence spending has been reduced from 5.8 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. of GDP. Is it not time for everyone in the House to give up the juvenile name calling that has marked defence debates for the past 15 years and face the real challenge of a low defence budget, which is to identify the essential framework and to reach a national consensus on national security policy?
    Mr. Portillo: Last year, the United Kingdom spent 3.3 per cent. of GDP on defence; the European average was 2.5 per cent. Yesterday, I was in Germany having

    1047
    agreeable discussions with my German opposite number, and he revealed to me that the German figure is now 1.8 per cent. The reason why we cannot reach a consensus on the matter is that a large part of the Labour party wants to cut our defence spending; there is a large part of the Labour party that cannot be trusted on defence.
    The delusion is in the mind of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), because when he sees 42 Labour Members of Parliament calling for savage reductions in our defence spending, he deludes himself that it has not happened, or that those people are not Labour Members. Unfortunately, they are. The threat from Labour is real, and the country cannot trust Labour on defence.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the cuts suggested by the Labour party took place, he would not be able to order next week 2,500 vehicles constructed by British companies—including Leyland Vehicles in my constituency, as well as companies in many other constituencies the length and breadth of the country—and that he might then be forced to order Mercedes vehicles, which he, like all Conservative Members, knows would be unacceptable to all his hon. Friends?
    Mr. Portillo: Thousands of jobs would be lost in the British defence industries if the savage cuts advocated by Labour Members were put into practice. If those cuts were made, we would not be able to play a role as a power of global significance in military matters, we would not be able to play a part in NATO and we would not be able to form part of the implementation force in Bosnia. We would be a wholly different and reduced country if Labour's policies were put into effect.

    Ministry of Defence Police
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of Ministry of Defence policemen and policewomen. [821]
    Mr. Soames: The overall manpower requirements for Ministry of Defence police are kept under constant review. We will shortly be issuing consultative documents concerning our proposals for future defence police and guarding requirements.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister agree that security at sites such as Aldermaston and Burghfield which have nuclear materials is so important that it would be a bad mistake to reduce the number of MOD police at the sites or to replace them with other less well-trained or less highly skilled personnel?
    Mr. Soames: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is right: the policing and guarding of those sites are extremely important. Quite properly, the Government have examined whether there is scope for reducing costs without in any sense reducing essential standards. The safety and security of personnel and the establishments and the effectiveness of our operations have remained and will remain our primary objective.
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend knows that scores of MOD police work in my constituency, and he has already expressed his support for the work that they do. Will he undertake as swiftly as possible the review that he mentioned? The MOD police have been faced with
    1048
    reviews of one sort or another for some years, and that is bad for morale and unfair to the families of those involved.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of all the defence establishments and personnel in his constituency. I agree that the MOD police fulfil a very important role, but they are—I have to say—extremely expensive. We must therefore examine carefully where we need the MOD police to exercise constabulary powers and where we do not need people of such superior quality. I agree that we need to get that news into the public domain as soon as possible, and my hon. Friend has my assurance that that will happen. As he knows, there are some complex issues to be resolved.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the MOD police who monitor low flying using Sky Guard are doing a very good job? But does he realise that there is far too much low flying in the borders area? The number of low-flying sorties in the borders is on the way up, whereas in the country as a whole it has fallen by 30 per cent. Is he aware that an all-party delegation—including the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—saw the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, and that we were absolutely furious at the lack of action from the Ministry of Defence on the matter? Will the Minister, who I know is a man of honour, give a personal pledge that there will be a review of low flying so that the borders tactical training area gets no more than its fair share?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman managed to turn a question about the Ministry of Defence police into one about low flying, which was clever even by his standards. I shall give no such undertaking at this Dispatch Box. I acknowledge the important meeting that he had with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I am aware of the concerns in the borders. I can report to the hon. Gentleman that the MOD police hugely enjoyed his visit to Sky Guard.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that the MOD police are a splendid body of men and women whose skill and professionalism are renowned? Does he also agree that they are able to give civilian back-up wherever that is required? Will he take that into account during his review?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend speaks with a good deal of specialist knowledge. He is right to say that they are a fine body of men and women, and we are fortunate to have them on the strength. We are very much aware of the important role that they can play in a civilian capacity in backing up the civilian police. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we will liaise with the civilian police and the civilian police authorities as we come to our conclusions on this complex matter.

    RAF Valley
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive bids for the contractorisation of services at RAF Valley. [823]
    Mr. Soames: The closing date—[Interruption.] Competing for quality has never been so popular. The closing date for submission of bids is 3 January 1996.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister confirm that there are four companies actively involved in preparing bids for the

    1049
    contractorisation of services for RAF Valley? Will he also confirm that the Department has made it clear to those companies that they have a duty to maximise job opportunities for local people and to set up training schemes funded by the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has been in touch with me on a number of occasions about the matter. As he knows, several companies are interested in undertaking this very important work. We are pleased with the way in which it is moving ahead. I give him my assurance that as many local people as possible will be employed on the contract when it is let. As for training, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to make available £75,000 to North West Wales training and enterprise council as its contribution to that training programme.
    Mr. Wilkinson: As the Hawk tactical weapons unit at RAF Valley has a war role, will my hon. Friend ensure that at least some of the contractor personnel are members of the sponsored reserve who are required to accept military discipline, so that they can fulfil duties in emergency or war?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. It will certainly be important that a number of those contractor staff are members of the sponsored reserve. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Reserve Forces Bill will, I hope, receive its Second Reading today in the other place.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November.[840]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Ewing: Although I recognise the significant role that the Prime Minister has played in the Northern Ireland peace process, he will understand that there is now widespread concern at what appears to be an impasse. In those circumstances, does he feel that it is now time to establish an international commission to help the matter on?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said in her opening remarks. Naturally, I hope that we will soon be able to launch what has become known as the twin-track initiative. I had a further conversation with the Irish Prime Minister earlier today. I expect to speak to him later this afternoon. Some important points are still outstanding. It is too soon to say whether and when we might reach agreement, but some progress has been made.
    Mr. Trotter: Might I, on Budget day, remind my right hon. Friend of the massive Siemens plant which is being built on Tyneside? Is he aware that, at £1.1 billion of German money, it is the biggest investment in Europe? Is he aware that, with its planned exports of £700 million every year, the plant could have gone anywhere in the
    1050
    world? Is not the decision to put it on Tyneside, with the thousands of jobs that result, a tribute to and proof of the attractiveness of Britain, the soundness of the economy and the success of Government policies?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly a very welcome investment as, indeed, is all the inward investment that we have seen over recent years. What is very refreshing is that we are receiving inward investment not just from outside the European Union, from which we have had the bulk of inward investment into western Europe for many years, but reinvestment from one part of the European Union to the United Kingdom. That reflects our tax structure, the opportunities in this country, the fact that we are not committed to very high social costs, and the skills of the British work force.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall giving a firm pledge that, after rail privatisation, fares would be capped? How is it then that we are now told that fares on only 20 per cent. of inter-city lines and only 40 per cent. of the rest will be capped?
    The Prime Minister: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to fares rising in line with inflation over the next three years, then falling by 1 per cent. below inflation for the next four years. That is capping of fares. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when Labour was last in government—[Interruption.] Yes, Madam Speaker, it was a long time ago. It is because Labour was so appalling in government that it is such a long time ago. When Labour was in government, rail fares rose by more than 22 per cent. over and above inflation. The fact is that fares would go up again under Labour to pay for its policy of renationalisation.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister did not answer the question as to why the pledge that he gave is no longer honoured. We now know that an extra £700 million of public subsidy is going to those rail networks after privatisation and hundreds of millions of pounds is being spent in the sale. A report today suggests that the network may be sold for a quarter of its book value, which is a loss to the taxpayer of billions of pounds. In those circumstances, is it not time that, if he cannot even maintain the pledges that he has given, the sale was dropped and the network kept as a proper public service?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong all the way down the line. I assume that he is getting advice from the deputy leader of the Labour party, but he is clearly wrong with all his facts. I made the point about fares rising in line with inflation and then falling. I have again made that perfectly clear to the Leader of the Opposition. As for the sale of Railtrack, there is no question of its assets being sold off cheaply—[Interruption.] A few days ago, we saw the Labour party briefing on a Budget that it has not heard. Now, we hear Labour Members scoffing at decisions that have not yet been taken. How do they know? They do not. They are in the business of trying to smear this privatisation, as they have tried to smear every other privatisation.
    Mr. Gale: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome the news that the videotape made from recordings culled from clandestine cameras has been withdrawn from sale. Will he ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider

    1051
    prosecution, as the tape was illegal and uncertificated? Will he consider confiscation of the proceeds of the sale? Will he also prevent further similar events, so that closed circuit television cameras, which are a valuable weapon in the fight against crime, are not brought into disrepute?
    The Prime Minister: I will see that my right hon. and learned Friend considers my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Ashdown: Having been fooled by tax promises before the last election, followed by record tax hikes after it, why does the Prime Minister believe that the British people will be taken in twice by his Government on taxes?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman finds himself in a rather curious situation. He has consistently opposed tax increases and now opposes the possibility of tax reductions. Of course, it is a typical Liberal position to oppose one thing and oppose the precise opposite. What the right hon. Gentleman—whom we welcome safely to his place today—neglects to mention is that since I became Prime Minister take-home pay after inflation has risen by more than £600 a year in today's prices, real disposable income is £400 a year per head higher in today's prices and, in addition, average mortgage costs have fallen by £140 a month.
    Mr. Dykes: Further to the first supplementary question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's careful and meticulous policy on the Northern Ireland peace talks has the full, bipartisan support of all parties in the House, but none the less that there is a strong collective desire for further progress from now on? Following his previous answer, can he say a little more on the prospects following the American President's visit to Britain and the island of Ireland tomorrow?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend had to say, further to the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). As I said, I hope to speak with the Irish Prime Minister again later this afternoon. I am not certain whether we will be able to reach full agreement on that occasion, but, if we do not, we shall continue at a later stage to see whether an agreement on acceptable terms is possible.
    I emphasise to the House that the agreement has to be on acceptable terms. It has to be an agreement that will lay the groundwork that would enable all parties to get together and talk in due course. There is no purpose in an agreement that will not work and will not achieve that, so we have to deal with the matter carefully. We have to consider the position of all parties who have expressed views on the matter and I will deal with it as speedily as is practicable, but only with the determination of reaching a satisfactory settlement. As soon as we can reach one, we will announce it. If we cannot, we will continue to seek one.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November. [841]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy: A moment ago, the Prime Minister mentioned mortgage payments; but, to deal with other statistics, can he confirm that, in the five years since he took office as Prime Minister, no fewer than 320,000 families have lost their homes through repossession and
    1052
    that the repossession rate is running at over 1,000 per week? Is that a record of which he is proud or will he take this opportunity to apologise to those families for the misery that he caused them—or is it all their own fault?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly reconfirm the point I made earlier and also confirm the point that repossessions are falling. What is most necessary for the housing market is stable inflation and the lowest possible interest rates. We have achieved a better position on inflation than we have seen for generations and a better position on interest rates than we have seen for very many years. That bodes very well for the housing market.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend share a sense of intrigue with me at the speech yesterday of Commissioner Kinnock in which he said that major events in Europe were unlikely to happen until well after 1999? Does he agree that this was not so much a statement of the policy of the European Commission as an indication of the state of nerves of the British Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very intriguing speech and, like every other Member of the House, I read it with a great deal of interest. I believe Commissioner Kinnock is approaching this matter with a greater clarity of vision than right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. I think what he has had to say is to have had the audacity to admit what we have been saying for ages: that Europe may well not be ready for a single currency in 1999 and that, if it is not ready to proceed without Europe being ready, that would he disastrous not just for individual countries but for every country in the European Union.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November. [842]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davies: How can our nation be at ease with itself, an ambition that the Prime Minister set five years ago, when one in five non-pensioner households have nobody working?
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that what one needs to ensure that a nation is at ease with itself is a range of different factors that we are now producing. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what they are: first, the smashing of the inflationary psychology and the protection of pensioners' savings; secondly, the best economic outlook for generations, which we now have; thirdly, the largest fall in recorded crime for over 40 years, which we now have; the lowest rate of unemployment among large nations in Europe, which we now have; and a range of other factors which this Government have put in place and which no earlier Labour Government matched in any way.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November. [843]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend seen the news today that the Honda motor company is proposing to create

    1053
    500 new jobs at its plant in Swindon? Is this not excellent news for the motor industry in this country, which was on its knees under the last Labour Government? How would the prospects for investment such as this be affected if Britain were to sign up for the European social chapter, as advocated by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming this news. I think it is good for Britain and I have no doubt that it is good for my hon. Friend's constituents. They join the workers of Black and Decker in Sedgefield, they join the workers of NEC in Livingston, they join the workers at BSkyB in Dunfermline, all of whom have benefited as a result of that sort of investment, and that sort of investment would not have taken place but for the success of this Government's economic policy and this Government's other policies.
    The reality is that signing up to the social chapter will add unnecessary cost to employers and put our record for inward investment at risk. [Interruption.] Opposition Members shake their heads, but they know that the social chapter is not a pick-and-mix option, as the Leader of the Opposition says. Once we have signed up to it, we have it; and if we have it, we might well not have those sorts of investments.
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November. [844]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spellar: On the fifth anniversary of his premiership, how does the Prime Minister justify having doubled the national debt during that period?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of successive Labour Governments, he may
    1054
    wish to withdraw that question. He will see that we have financed our borrowing properly. The last Labour Government increased debt by an unprecedented amount.
    Mr. Wilshire: Further to my right hon. Friend's understandably cautious replies about Northern Ireland, can he confirm that a start to decommissioning remains a precondition of all-party talks in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: Those who have read the "Building Blocks" paper which we published recently will see that it sets down specific requirements for the body's report. It also says that the international body is not being established to recommend when decommissioning should start. That position has not changed.

  BILL PRESENTED
    CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK
    Secretary Sir George Young, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Gummer and Mr. John Watts, presented a Bill to provide for the construction, maintenance and operation of a railway between St Pancras, in London, and the Channel Tunnel portal at Castle Hill, Folkestone, in Kent, together with associated works, and of works which can be carried out in conjunction therewith; to provide for the improvement of the A2 at Cobham, in Kent, and of the M2 between junctions 1 and 4, together with associated works; to make provision with respect to compensation in relation to the acquisition of blighted land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 7.]
WAYS AND MEANS

  Budget Statement
  [Relevant document: The unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 26th July 1995, concerning the Council Recommendation to the UK with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive deficit in the United Kingdom, prepared in regard to Article 104c(7) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that, at the end of the Chancellor's speech, copies of the Budget resolutions will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

  INTRODUCTION
  3.31 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have already said publicly that I have been looking forward to this year's Budget. I am enjoying each Budget a little more as I get nearer to my aims—[Interruption.] My aims are very worth while.
  The British economy has now been growing for almost four years. The recovery has created more than half a million new jobs. We have more of our people in work than any other major country in the European Union. Inflation is enjoying its best run for almost 50 years. All the major western economies have slowed down this year, but our recovery remains stronger than most. The International Monetary Fund has forecast that, next year, we shall be joint top, with Germany, of the G7 growth league table.
  Few Chancellors have delivered their Budget against a background of such strong economic fundamentals. But getting this far has not been easy. It has required tough decisions on tax and spending over the past three years. This Budget builds on the hard-won gains that this Government have made and keeps Britain on course to be the enterprise centre of Europe: a Britain that creates more jobs and generates the greater wealth and personal prosperity in which all can share; a Britain in which everyone can keep more of what they earn or save to spend as they choose, not as the state chooses; and a Britain where more money is spent on the things that everyone cares about—our schools, our hospitals, our police. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes.
  The people of this country believe in those goals. Only this Government are committed to the means of achieving them. We are keeping inflation low. We are keeping control of public spending. We are keeping Government borrowing on a downward path. And we believe in the policies of low taxation, which all countries must follow if they want to be world-class economic powers.
  These are the people of Britain who are hard working and take responsibility for themselves and their families. They are the people who want to get on in life, who run their own businesses and who create jobs. And they are the people with that great British virtue—a social conscience—[Interruption.]—people with a real social
  1056
  conscience, who want to see a successful economy first earn the wealth, in order to give the weak and the less fortunate a helping hand.
  This Budget addresses the aspirations of the people of this country in an economically and socially responsible way. It controls public spending overall while shifting more money towards schools, hospitals and the police. It keeps Government borrowing on a clear downward path and fiscal policy tight so that the recovery will be sustained. And it cuts taxes. For all those reasons, that is why I have been looking forward to this year's Budget.

  THE RECOVERY
  Before moving on to specific tax and spending measures, let me deal briefly with the economic background. In 1994, the economy grew by around 4 per cent., fuelled by the success of British exporters overseas. No mature industrial economy could easily sustain those rates of growth without risking a rise in inflation. That is why towards the end of last year I raised interest rates. In the event, slower growth in the world economy has reduced the growth of British exports. British exporters are well placed to compete in markets overseas. For example, we now have a current account surplus with the so-called tiger economies of south-east Asia. But our key markets in America and Europe are growing by less than they were in 1994.
  The growth in this country will be sustained because the fundamentals of the economy are strong as a result of our economic policies. We have low inflation, sound public finances and more competitive businesses. The change in the pace of growth this year is not unique to Britain and has been seen in the United States, Germany and elsewhere. No recovery ever proceeds at a constant rate of growth throughout. In fact, this recovery is proving to be the steadiest seen in Britain for a generation.
  Many commentators confidently predicted that the higher tax and lower public spending of the last three Budgets would knock the recovery off track. They were wrong. Consumer spending has been on a firm upward trend since the recovery began. With the necessary tax increases behind us, consumer spending should grow further next year and the year after.
  Businesses have responded to the economic recovery by investing for the future. Manufacturing investment has grown by 12 per cent. over the past year. The conditions for further increases in investment—low inflation, low interest rates, low corporate tax rates and healthy company balance sheets—remain in place.
  For the economy as a whole, the forecasts, which I am publishing in the Red Book, are for growth of 2 per cent. this year and 3 per cent. next year.
  My last two Budgets have strengthened the foundations of the economy and put the recovery on to a secure footing. I have reduced public spending and borrowing plans to create more room for the wealth-creating part of the economy to grow. I have helped businesses. And I have improved the workings of the labour market.
  The decisions I took and the policies I pursued in those Budgets have helped to reduce pressure on me to increase interest rates further, without jeopardising my inflation target.

  INFLATION
  We have got inflation under control. Inflation has picked up over the past year as the impact of last year's worldwide increase in commodity prices has fed through the price chain. Those cost pressures are now steadily easing. Underlying inflation may be close to its peak and should resume its downward path during the course of next year. It remains on course to meet the Government's target of 2 ½ per cent. or below by the end of the present Parliament. The House might care to remember that last August was the 20th anniversary of inflation in this country reaching a staggering 26.9 per cent.

  THE PUBLIC FINANCES
  We have got inflation under control. We have also got the public finances under control. The Government have delivered last year's tough public spending plans. Indeed, we expect to undershoot them. However, tax receipts have come in lower than expected this year. That is partly due to lower inflation and to lower growth. The public sector borrowing requirement is the difference between two enormous numbers, so that forecasts for public borrowing have always been notoriously difficult to make—under whatever party. I have therefore been cautious and prudent this year in setting out the latest projections for the PSBR. I now expect the PSBR to be £29 billion in the current financial year. That will be £7 billion less than last year and £16 billion less than two years ago. I am determined to follow a consistent course and I have taken more public spending decisions to keep it that way.
  I have no intention of throwing away the gains we have made in recent years in getting public borrowing down. We will keep on track towards balance in the medium term because I do not want the future strength of the recovery put at risk. Overall, our decisions on public spending and the tax measures I shall describe shortly will be broadly neutral in their impact on the downward path for the PSBR over the next three years.
  That downward profile for Government borrowing sets the overall framework for my Budget this year. I am not prepared to take any action that would put at risk my fiscal target of moving towards balance in the medium term. I had to make the difficult judgments and decisions about the balance between the levels of taxation and public spending. This year, as in previous years, I have made those judgments and taken those decisions with the dominant priority of improving the long-term health of the British economy. Our tax and spending policies must promote our aim of becoming the enterprise centre of Europe.

  PUBLIC SPENDING
  In each of my three Budgets, I have reduced public spending plans substantially. This year, I have once again kept a firm grip on public spending, helped by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. My right hon. Friend and I have at least three things in common. We have both been in charge of big spending Departments, so we are both poachers turned gamekeepers. Neither of us could be described as adopting the slash and burn approach to public spending. But we are both convinced that the share of national income taken by the state in public expenditure must be reduced to below 40 per cent. if we are to remain competitive in today's world. It is essential to give the private sector more room to generate the jobs, the investment and the wealth that will make people and their families more prosperous.
  That goes hand in hand with our commitment to a modern welfare state. In the rapidly changing world of technological advance and a more flexible labour market, 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. That is why we are modernising the welfare state so that it underpins the British economy, and does not undermine it. We are changing the welfare state to ensure that it serves the needs of today, not of 40 years ago; that it serves those who genuinely need it; and that it is affordable to the taxpayer.
  Those objectives are being achieved in the face of huge pressures for higher public spending that come rolling in year after year. But this Budget proves that we can have good-quality public services and spending control. Unlike our critics, we understand that good services depend not only on how much one spends, but on the way that one spends it.
  That realistic but socially responsible approach has guided me this year. I have limited the growth of spending overall. But I have also provided more money for the public services that the British people care about most—schools, hospitals and the police. To pay for that, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I have found savings elsewhere from our continuing drive to modernise government.
  Let me deal first with the priority areas where I have been able to increase spending plans.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Having cut them last year.
  Mr. Clarke: None of them was cut last year. That was an ill-thought-out and inaccurate interjection.
  I shall turn to what we are doing to the national health service. This Government are committed to the national health service. I am proud that since 1979 spending on the NHS has increased by more than 70 per cent. in real terms. We are continuing to deliver our commitment to increase spending on the NHS in real terms. That is what we said that we would do, and we are doing it.
  Public spending on the national health service will increase by over £1 billion next year. In addition, patients will benefit from improvements in efficiency, including reductions in NHS management costs. All those savings—around £650 million next year—will be ploughed back into patient care. Privately financed projects will bring nearly £700 million of extra investment over the next three years without in any way undermining the fundamental principle that health care should be free at the point of service. It is no good the word "private" producing curls on the lips of Labour Members. The money is on top of the additional £1 billion of public expenditure, and it all represents additional resources for our free national health service.

  SCHOOLS
  The Budget allows for spending on schools to rise next year. We have already increased spending per pupil by some 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. We devote a higher proportion of our public spending to education than Japan, Germany or France.
  Our achievements have been impressive. Post-16 staying-on rates have risen dramatically, from 42 per cent. in 1979 to 72 per cent. now. Almost one in three young people go on to higher education, up from one in eight in 1979. We have a higher graduation rate than any other major European country. We have achieved many improvements in our schools: introduction of the national curriculum, more rigorous schools inspection, measures to tackle failing schools, greater choice for parents, better vocational education and extension of free nursery education. That is not just good for our children; it is good for our future and good for our economy.
  Our reforms have delivered better standards of education for each pound that we spend—but we are also spending more pounds. The plans that I am publishing today allow for an increase in spending on schools of £878 million. Within that, over £770 million will be channelled through the local authority settlement. Parents will rightly expect local authorities to carry that funding through to school budgets, and they should ask their local authorities how the extra money for schools will be spent on their children.

  POLICE
  Since 1979, spending on our police has almost doubled even after allowing for inflation. Next year, the resources available to fight crime will be increased again. Money is being provided for. an extra 5,000 police officers over the next three years. That is on top of the 32,000 increase in the police service since 1979. The plans also allow for an extra 10,000 closed circuit television cameras in town centres and elsewhere.
  I have found those extra resources for important programmes because we are changing government to ensure that it meets the needs of people today, not those of 20, 30 or 40 years ago. We are cutting Government bureaucracy, cracking down on fraud, getting Government out of activities in which they need not be involved and using private sector skills and finance to provide better public services. That is the hallmark of a Government who are looking to the future needs of a modern industrial state.

  RUNNING COSTS
  We are now making spectacular efficiency gains as a result of our civil service reforms of recent years. I remind the House that in my last Budget I cut provision for central Government running costs by 10 per cent. in real terms over three years. This year, I will go much further on top of that. The cash cost of Whitehall will be £860 million lower in three years' time than it is today. In real terms, that represents total savings of 12 per cent., which is equivalent to a saving of nearly £2 billion a year. But we must never delude ourselves that more resources for schools, hospitals and police as well as tax cuts can be paid for just by eliminating waste in the public sector. Life is not that simple. We have also had to look elsewhere.
  Three years ago, before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security very skilfully put in place a programme for long-term reform, we were expecting social security spending to grow by more than 3 per cent. each year in real terms. We now expect real
  1060
  growth in planned spending of around 1 per cent. per year over the next three years. That reduction in growth will build up year on year to a cash saving of huge proportions. The changes that we have made and that we are making are an assurance for future generations. We are going to leave our children a welfare state that works and a welfare system that they can afford.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce the details of this year's settlement to the House tomorrow. I shall set out just the main points. Increases in social security spending next year will be well within the growth of the economy. We will ensure that all that spending represents legitimate spending on people in genuine need. That is why my right hon. Friend will give details of a further intensive campaign against fraud. He will also announce measures that will mean that people who apply for asylum on arrival in the country will cease to receive benefits after an unfavourable adjudication.
  My right hon. Friend will announce steps to close the gap between single parents benefit and those paid to other families. The right approach to single parents is neither to penalise them nor to favour them. The costs and responsibilities of having children are the same for couples as they are for single people.
  We intend to build at the same time on our previous measures to help more mothers move from benefit dependency into work. My right hon. Friend will announce a package of measures to encourage work, including a further increase in the child care allowance in family credit from £40 to £60 each week.
  Next is housing benefit. The housing benefit system should not be an inducement for young people to leave their families before they need to. My right hon. Friend will announce measures to restrict the amount of housing benefit paid to single people under the age of 25 to a maximum that more sensibly reflects their circumstances. The benefit system should offer a real incentive to young people to rent within their means, improving their incentives to work rather than dependency on the social security system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Opposition Members are so predictable. It is by restricting spending in those areas that we can protect people in greatest need and stand by our pledges on pensions and child benefit. Others apparently claim to be thinking the unthinkable. I have yet to see evidence of their thinking at all.
  This Government have acted decisively to put in place policies to bring social security spending under better control. Let no one underestimate what we have achieved. The measures that I have announced in my three Budgets will reduce planned social security expenditure by £5 billion each year by the end of the century.
  Social security is a good example of how more money can be found to be spent on areas that we care most about, by trimming back elsewhere. We have applied that principle to most other programmes. When hon. Members examine the full details of our spending plans, they will find that, in practically every Department of Government, we have found significant savings while protecting the front line of public service delivery.
  Let me give two examples. We have found further efficiency savings in defence, but we maintain fully our commitment to a strong front line and, in a tight public spending round in the Foreign Office, the planned

  1061
  allocation for bilateral aid is likely to be little changed from that set out in last year's departmental report. British bilateral aid is internationally recognised for its high quality and for the substantial share going to the poorest countries in Africa and Asia, and that will continue.
  We are also doing more to get the Government out of activities that they simply need not be involved in. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is today announcing his intention to transfer ownership of the Ministry of Defence married quarters estate to the private sector. That will improve the management of the estate, which will be good for the services, and good for service families. We plan to privatise the Housing Corporation loan book, and to encourage the banks to provide student loans.

  PRIVATE FINANCE
  There are many services that the Government have a duty to ensure are provided as public services, but where private sector management skills and expertise can improve delivery to the public. That is where the private finance initiative comes in.
  Under the private finance initiative, the public sector does not simply sign a contract to buy a prison, a train or a computer system. It pays to have specific services supplied at guaranteed levels of performance—available prison places, trains running reliably on the Northern line, national insurance records kept up to date. [Interruption.] The Opposition had better make up their mind whether they agree with that policy or not. It rather depends which day of the week it is or which spokesman is speaking, as far as I have been able to see. The Government choose the quality services that the public require, and then go out and acquire those services from private companies with the finance and expertise to deliver.
  The key point is that the initiative delivers infrastructure projects of higher quality at a lower overall cost to the British taxpayer. That is because the private sector puts its own money at risk and brings its own management skills to bear.
  The initiative means that better public services will be provided by better private means. The service remains a public service and the taxpayers get a better deal. No wonder some of our critics have decided to copy our innovative policy. [Interruption.] We are now, as the deputy leader of the Labour party demands, far beyond the stage of simply identifying projects. The money is starting to flow. We expect actual capital spending under the private finance initiative to be around £2 billion per year and rising over the next three years. We expect to have agreed contracts worth at least £14 billion by the end of 1998–99.
  That money is replacing old-style public sector capital spending and it can deliver big gains in value for money for the taxpayer. In the past, cost overruns and delays were typical of public sector capital projects. The private finance initiative is delivering better-quality projects. To take two well-known examples, the PFI contract for Northern line trains specifies reliability levels that are nearly four times above the best fleet currently operating on London Underground. The service that we shall get from the new national insurance records system could have cost up to twice what we shall pay under the privately financed deal that we have struck. As a result of those flows of private finance, we have been able to find
  1062
  savings in publicly financed capital while maintaining overall high levels of investment activity and high-quality investment.
  Let me just illustrate progress with another four projects that demonstrate the extent to which the private finance initiative is spreading to all parts of Government activity. First, I can announce a huge new package of privately financed roads, five new projects with a capital value totalling £500 million. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced today that a £35 million deal is going ahead to modernise two hospitals for the South Buckinghamshire NHS trust. Thirdly, we are tendering for the refurbishment of Lowdham Grange prison, a £50 million project to add to the two new prison building contracts at Bridgend and Fazakerley, which will be signed shortly. Finally, full bids will be due on 5 December for the £45 million water project in Inverness and Fort William. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be publishing more details tomorrow on the real progress of the private finance initiative.
  In the 1980s, our privatisation programme brought enormous benefits to the British economy. Our private finance initiative can and will do the same in the 1990s and beyond.

  CHALLENGE FUNDING
  We are also rapidly developing our innovative idea of challenge funding. Challenge funding invites groups to compete for public funds to improve local services. That is another way in which the quality and value for money of public services is improved.
  The first single regeneration budget challenge fund bidding round ensured that every £1 of public money attracted another £1 of private funding. Some £250 million has been made available for the third and fourth bidding rounds for the single regeneration budget challenge fund. That will help to regenerate many areas, including inner cities. More than £300 million of challenge funding will be made available to speed up the transfer of deprived housing estates to housing associations and other private landlords.
  Challenge funding has enormous potential for projects of all kinds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering more challenge funding for a wider range of local authority capital provision, and he will be making an announcement in this debate later this week. Challenge funding ensures that the best possible projects get the money, while fostering genuine local commitment to the project.

  BUDGET STRATEGY
  Public spending as a share of national income varies from year to year, but under this Government's policies—and I have described our policies, which are policies of change and of priorities—over the past 16 years, the trend has been downward.
  In the mid-1970s, when public spending peaked, it did so at 47¼ per cent. of national income. The next peak reached 45½ per cent. in the early 1980s and the last peak was 43½ per cent. in the recession of the early 1990s. I now expect total public spending to be 42 per cent. of national income this year.
  When I became Chancellor two and a half years ago, I said that we should aim to push the ratio below 40 per cent. and keep it there. The decisions I am announcing today will

  1063
  achieve that aim. The ratio will be below 40 per cent. from 1997–98 onwards. That is far below the ratio in any other major European country. Controlling public spending is crucial to our goal of making the economy more successful and the enterprise centre of Europe.
  I have now taken £53 billion out of projected public spending in my three Budgets. I judged that necessary to reduce Government borrowing following the international recession of the 1990s. Even with the extra money for schools, the extra money for hospitals and the extra money for the police, I now expect total planned public spending to be kept broadly unchanged in real terms over the next three years.
  When we first set out our public spending control totals three years ago, most of the pundits did not believe that we would stick to them. The doubters have been proved wrong.
  Not only have we stuck to our plans, but I have managed to reduce them again, for the third year running. Next year, the control total will be £3¼ billion below the level that I set in last year's Budget. That is £12 billion below the level we expected it would be for that year when I was first appointed Chancellor.
  Having carefully reviewed the latest projections for public borrowing in the light of those decisions, I have concluded that we can now return to the task of starting to cut taxes again. [Interruption.] I hope that some Labour Members begin to understand that there is a correlation between the two in a well-managed economy. I am able to make tax cuts broadly equivalent to the spending reductions, with Government borrowing still falling to zero by the end of the decade.
  After the Budget measures are taken into account, I expect the PSBR to continue to fall at roughly the rate we have now achieved in the past two years. I expect it to fall from £29 billion this year to £22½ billion in 1996–97 and £15 billion in 1997–98. Broad balance should be reached after a further two years. The financial deficit is now expected to be close to the Maastricht reference level of 3 per cent. of GDP in 1996–97 and to fall well below it in subsequent years.
  So fiscal policy will remain tight. That is why the measures in this year's Budget are economically and socially responsible. I have made it clear all along that every Budget I deliver will be dominated by the long-term interests of the British economy. Let me now turn to my tax proposals.

  INDIRECT TAXES
  I have had to consider carefully where tax cuts might fall. Since 1979, this Government have shifted the tax burden away from direct taxes, which fall on income and employment, and towards indirect taxes on spending and consumption. That is the best way to encourage enterprise and investment and it is the best way to improve the long-term performance of the British economy. Before moving on to direct tax, let me run through my proposals for indirect taxes.

  LANDFILL TAX
  Last year I proposed a new landfill tax, which is a charge on the disposal of waste in, for example, tips and
  1064
  old quarries. That will come into effect on 1 October 1996. It will be charged at a standard rate of £7 a tonne and a lower rate of £2 for inactive waste.
  That is a tax on waste in order to enable me to reduce the tax on jobs. The money raised by the landfill tax will allow for a matching cut in the main rate of employers' national insurance contributions by a further 0.2 per cent. to 10 per cent. from April 1997. That will cut the cost of employment by half a billion pounds and will make it cheaper for businesses to create new jobs.

  ROAD FUEL
  Next, I intend to stick to my commitment to raise road fuel duties by at least 5 per cent. on average in real terms. From 6 pm this evening, tax on petrol and diesel will rise by 3½p a litre. I also plan to increase the tax on super-unleaded petrol by a further 4p next May. That reflects its higher emission of pollutants such as benzene and the dangers to the Revenue of switching to super-unleaded from leaded petrol. Despite those increases, petrol prices in this country should remain lower than in any other major European country.
  Last year I froze the duty on gas used in road vehicles, that is, liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas, pending further work on their impact on the environment. Studies since then have confirmed that those are relatively clean fuels. The Government would like to help to encourage further use of those fuels, and I propose to reduce the duty on them by 15 per cent.

  VED
  We expect emissions of most pollutants from vehicles to fall over the next few years, but emissions of some pollutants may remain at high levels, so the Government now intend to look into ways of using vehicle excise duty to encourage low-emission vehicles. [Interruption.] I am glad that someone welcomes it.
  This year, the tax disc for cars will rise by £5, but I am freezing the rates for lorries for the sixth consecutive year.
  Honest motorists are irritated by tax disc evaders. The Secretary of State for Transport and I are publishing today a revised proposal on continuous licensing, which will make it easier to enforce the collection of vehicle excise duty, but we shall not be requiring licences for vehicles when they are kept off the road. To make sure that the new system does not penalise vintage and classic car enthusiasts, many of whom run their cars on the road only occasionally, we shall be exempting from duty all cars and motor cycles over 25 years old, taking 150,000 historic vehicles out of tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Well done."] My parliamentary private secretary is not the only hon. Member who approves of that.

  GAMBLING
  The national lottery has been an outstanding success and over £1 billion has been raised for good causes over the past year, but its success has affected other parts of the gambling industry in Britain.
  I am satisfied that the industry's concerns arc genuine and I propose to cut general betting duty by 1 per cent. The benefits should be spread between the betting industry and horse and greyhound racing. If satisfactory agreement can he reached quickly, the duty cut can take effect from 1 March.
  The pools companies have also been affected by the success of the national lottery. I propose to reduce pool betting duty by a further 5 per cent. from 3 December on top of a similar cut that I made last year. I am willing to reduce pool betting duty by a another 1 per cent. from 5 May, if the pools companies will agree to pass on that extra 1 per cent. equally to the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. That reduction will help the trust and the foundation to continue their valuable work, and I am sure that it will be welcomed—indeed, it has been—on both sides of the House.

  TOBACCO
  In my 1993 Budget, I gave a commitment to raise duty on tobacco by at least 3 per cent. a year in real terms in future Budgets. I thought then that that was the most fair and effective way of backing up health warnings on smoking and I remain convinced of that today. From 6 pm this evening, the tax on a packet of 20 cigarettes will increase by 15p, on a packet of small cigars by about 6p and on a 25 g packet of pipe tobacco by about 8p. I intend to freeze duty on hand-rolling tobacco this year because it is proving to be by far the easiest product to smuggle.

  ALCOHOL
  Next is alcohol. Cross-border shopping and the smuggling of alcohol is a serious problem for the retail drinks industry in Britain and it affects Government revenue, although our total revenue is still rising. Shopping abroad is one of the greater freedoms gained for consumers in the European single market. But smuggling is a crime that we will continue to fight.
  Our duty levels are higher than those of our continental neighbours. Each member state must retain its freedom to set its own tax levels and we accept the downward competitive pressures on tax in a single market. We therefore have to address the legitimate concerns of the British drinks industry, but at the same time minimise losses of revenue that would otherwise have to be raised by other taxes.
  This year I propose to freeze the duty on beer and wine. Tax as a share of the cost of a pint of beer will be the lowest that it has been in this country for more than 20 years.
  There are two changes that I propose to make to other duty rates here at home. Very strong cider is at present undertaxed compared with other drinks and I intend to raise its duty by 8p a pint from next October, without disturbing the rate for ordinary ciders.
  High rates of duty at home have made it difficult for the Scotch whisky industry to press its excellent case for lower duty rates in other countries. Scotch is one of our most important exports. Spirits duty will therefore be reduced by 4 per cent. from 6 pm today. That is equivalent to 27p off a bottle of whisky. [Laughter.] I have just had the last sip of the expensive stuff.

OTHER TAXES

  WINDFALL TAX
  I turn now to the utilities. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will speak about the regulatory regime that protects consumer interests in his speech in the Budget debate on Thursday. I have been
  1066
  looking at the case for a windfall tax on the utilities. I have been told that it has many splendid qualities. It is a one-off tax, often described as if it hurts nobody. It is claimed that it has no impact on the economy and apparently can be used to pay for up to 10 public spending proposals which cost far in excess of the amount of tax that it actually raises. What a potential pot of gold; an elixir to cure all the ills of some people.
  Of course, a windfall tax is nothing of the kind. It would damage investment and threaten the quality of customer service. It is an illusion that a windfall tax is paid by the company. It is paid by its shareholders, including many small shareholders and pension funds, and it would mean higher future prices for customers. The whole point of privatisation is to benefit consumers, not simply the Exchequer. I have no intention of introducing such a tax. [Interruption.] If that decision is meant to be a help to the Labour party, heaven help it. I do not think that it can make much of that.

  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
  Let me turn to some other proposals that I do not intend to make. I have no plans and I never did have any plans to change the rules that allow the first £30,000 of redundancy payments to be received free of tax. I also never contemplated any increase in insurance premium tax, nor air passenger duty. Those ideas were inventions of the newspapers that wrote about them.
  Tax law has become too long and complicated. That campaign is certainly well founded. Some experts have described tax law as incomprehensible. The Inland Revenue will shortly be publishing a report on tax simplification. We shall propose that the Revenue tax code is rewritten in plain English—a major task. The House has a duty to set out clear legislation, which in that area we have not done. We in the House will need to look at our procedures, to see how that tax rewrite can be sensibly handled.

  HOUSING
  The Government's commitment to home ownership remains as strong as ever. Today there are 16 million homes in the United Kingdom occupied by their owners—40 per cent. more than when we came to power in 1979. All surveys show that the vast majority of people still want to own their own homes.
  We therefore have a target in our housing White Paper of a further 1.5 million home owners over the next 10 years. I reaffirm that mortgage interest relief will remain unchanged for the lifetime of this Parliament.
  We have already introduced measures for mortgage lenders to make it easier for people with negative equity to move home, and the Finance Bill will pave the way for housing investment trusts, which will encourage investment in private rented housing.
  I have considered very carefully the case urged upon me for special measures to revive the housing market. Many housing experts, sadly and reluctantly, are forced to the same conclusion as I am—that none of the affordable proposals would actually make any difference.
  The problem at the moment is not the cost of house purchase to the purchaser. There have never been such bargains on the market. An average mortgage costs only around £180 per month, far less than renting an equivalent property, and houses are more affordable than they have been for years.
  I remain convinced that what the housing market needs above all is steady growth in the economy and low inflation. That is what this Budget delivers. This Budget will reinforce my ability to keep interest rates and mortgage costs down. That matters most of all to the housing market. All the major lenders expect prices to start to rise next year, and as confidence grows I expect the market to start to move soon.

  DIRECT TAXATION
  I now turn to my proposals for direct taxation. I want to do four things this year. I want to give people more security by ensuring that their needs will be met in old age. I want to help people to have a greater personal share in the prosperity and success of the businesses for which they work. I want to encourage enterprise, particularly small businesses. And I want to allow people to keep more of the money that they earn, or that they save, to spend as they choose, not as the state chooses. That is essential in a modern dynamic economy.

  LONG-TERM CARE
  In this Budget I shall be helping people who are earning and people who are saving. But I also want to help the people who have worked and saved all their lives. Some of them may be unfortunate enough to need care in residential or nursing homes in their old age. If they do, they may find their savings eaten away quickly to pay for that care. Of course, that is one of the rainy days for which people save. But the balance between the state paying and the family paying must be right. If it is not, many prudent people will complain that they are being treated unfairly compared with those who were unable or unwilling to save at all.
  To help people who have already put money aside, it was recently decided to exempt from VAT some forms of care provided in someone's own home. I now have two important further proposals.
  First, I intend to exempt from tax the benefits from a range of insurance policies that provide long-term care benefits. We should encourage, not penalise, people who decide to take more responsibility for themselves.
  Secondly, at present only people with assets worth less than £3,000 are not asked to make any contribution from their capital towards the costs of residential or nursing home care. People with assets worth more than £8,000 receive no financial support from the Government. When applied to care in residential and nursing homes, those limits are far too low.
  From April, and sooner if practicable, we shall more than treble the lower threshold, from £3,000 to £10,000, and double the upper threshold, from £8,000 to £16,000. That means that people in residential care who have worked hard and saved will now keep more of their own money. It will give many elderly people and their families more financial security and greater peace of mind. But we also want to find more ways of helping people who are now in work or recently retired and want to plan ahead to prepare for their old age.
  We shall be consulting shortly on an innovative range of proposals to encourage people to make provision for long-term care. We are studying in particular the concept
  1068
  of so-called partnership schemes. The essence of those schemes will be that individuals who plan ahead to meet a proportion of long-term care costs themselves will be able to retain more of their assets above the £16,000 capital threshold.
  State-funded care will, of course, still be there for all those who need it, but those who have provided for themselves will be able to keep more of their savings. The partnership approach combines state provision for the needy with reward for the thrifty who make provision for themselves.
  In addition, I have asked the Inland Revenue to consult on the possibility of extending to members of occupational pension schemes the option to take a variable pension. That could provide a larger pension in later years, when people are more likely to need long-term care, in exchange for a smaller pension earlier on. For future generations, long-term care will be a growing problem for the finances of many families. The Government have put in a lot of work to put together a package to meet their concerns. We shall now go out and consult and explain our ideas in detail.
  For all retired people living on their savings, the pensioners bonds that I introduced have proved a very popular National Savings product. The House will recall that I introduced them two years ago. I am today announcing that we are reducing the qualifying age for purchases of those bonds from 65 to 60.
  Taken together, this package of measures covering the big problems of savings and long-term care for the elderly is the mark of a Government who care about our elderly, their families and their sense of security. It also shows yet again that we are a Government who look to the long term in all those difficult areas of social policy.

  EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP
  I am proud of our record of wider share ownership, which has seen the number of shareholders in this country treble. There are now 10 million shareholders in Britain. Thanks to our policies, shareholding is no longer a minority interest.
  All the old-fashioned distinctions between employee and employer, between capital and labour, are being broken down in our modern enterprise economy. Most employees understand that their rewards depend on the success of the businesses for which they work. Most businesses believe that the best way to motivate staff is to let them share in the rewards of success. The public's willingness to embrace and understand those principles has been a major culture change over the past 16 years.
  An important part of that change has been the spread of employee share ownership, which is one of the most attractive features of what has become known as popular capitalism. Holding shares in the company for which they work gives people a stake in the company's future success. Nobody in the House has advocated the cause of performance-related rewards and employee share ownership more than I have over the years, and I started doing so well before those ideas become fashionable.
  We have two tax-privileged schemes to encourage share ownership for all employees: save-as-you-earn schemes that encourage share ownership through share options linked to savings plans and profit-sharing schemes that allow employees to receive free shares. There are around 1 million people in each scheme. I want to build on those successes by improving both schemes.
  The minimum period for saving under a SAYE scheme will be reduced from five years to three and the minimum contribution will be halved to £5 a month. The holding period under profit-sharing schemes will also be reduced from five to three years. Those changes will increase significantly the attractiveness of those employee share-owning schemes. But I am going to do more.
  In July, I withdrew the tax privileges attaching to some so-called "executive" share options. The overwhelming majority of companies used those options for their more senior employees. I approved of such options so long as they were linked to genuine performance, but I did not see any justification for maintaining their tax privileges.
  The resulting debate brought out the fact that there was a demand for a third type of wider share ownership scheme, to provide a more flexible basis of granting options to lower-paid employees. I am, therefore, introducing a new tax relief that will enable companies to grant options, under a scheme approved by the Inland Revenue, up to a limit of £20,000.
  The conditions for the new relief will be similar to the conditions that applied for the old one. The relief will also be available to schemes in existence at 17 July 1995, which qualified under the old rules subject to the £20,000 limit.
  Those changes go further than ever before in creating a climate in which employee share ownership can become the norm. I hope that companies will offer all their employees, not just their executives, the chance to enjoy the economic benefits and the sense of ownership that shareholding can bring.

  HELPING BUSINESS
  I have said several times in this speech that the Government's aim is to turn Britain into the enterprise centre of Europe. [Interruption.] That is where we are going. We are encouraging more innovation, investment and growth. That means allowing people to keep more of the income that they earn, and I shall have more to say about that in a moment. It means encouraging people to save more, to invest more and to build up more personal wealth. It also means helping small businesses. The backbone of our modern, dynamic, successful economy is an active small business sector. Small businesses are the seedcorn of our future prosperity.
  I have some important measures this year to help businesses, and small businesses in particular.

  BUSINESS RATES
  First is help with business rates. Many businesses faced lower rates bills following the five-yearly revaluation of rateable values, but many others faced higher bills. To help that group, I announced in last year's Budget that real terms increases in rates bills would be capped to a maximum of 10 per cent. a year. I have looked at that cap again and I no longer consider it to be low enough. For 1996–97, the maximum real terms increase in rates bills for all businesses will be reduced from 10 per cent. to 7½per cent. Small businesses will get extra help. The maximum increase for small properties will be 5 per cent. instead of 7½ per cent. One million two hundred thousand business properties will benefit from those changes, including 870,000 small properties.

  CAPITAL GAINS TAX
  Investment is important for prosperity. Investment depends on capital. We want to reduce taxes on capital to encourage and reward the investment that the millions of people who work for private businesses depend on. We remain committed to abolishing capital gains tax when resources allow.
  The starting point must be help for those who have built up their own businesses and want to be sure that they can sell up and enjoy the rewards of their own hard work in managing the business that they own. Tax relief for the owners of businesses selling up on retirement was substantially increased in 1991 and again in 1993, so that capital gains of up to £1 million now benefit from that relief. This year I am going to extend further the relief for owners who have worked hard and created their own businesses by reducing the qualifying age from 55 to 50.
  That will reward the success of more of those who own and manage their own business. It will increase incentives for those who are going to work in their own business in the future. It is the mark of a Government who back enterprise. [Interruption.] If I repeat it often enough, the Labour party might eventually at least discover how to spell it. At the moment, it is not up to speed on it in any other way.

  INHERITANCE TAX
  It is not just businesses that create wealth. Thanks to this Government's policies, ordinary hard-working people have a bigger personal stake in the wealth of this country than ever before. In our property-owning democracy, more and more people have the opportunity to own their own homes, have occupational or personal pensions, invest in TESSAs and PEPs, build up other savings and own shares. Those benefits are now being enjoyed by the many and not just the few.
  Many people who do not consider themselves rich work hard and save for their families throughout their whole lives. They pay their taxes when they work. They want to pass on their family capital without having it taxed again when they die. Many people want to pass on an inheritance to their children and their grandchildren to give them a better start in life than they had. That is a natural instinct in families. Inheritance is now an issue for middle Britain. It is to help middle Britain that we aim to abolish inheritance tax as soon as we can afford to do so.
  It is a myth that inheritance tax is paid only by the very rich. In fact, the very rich are well placed to dispose of their wealth in their own lifetime. Most people hit by inheritance tax are those who would not consider themselves rich at all. These are people who bequeath not much more than the present tax-free allowance of £154,000. They may be people who own their home and a few modest investments. There are many more people like them who fear that their assets will be hit by inheritance tax. I therefore propose to increase the tax-free allowance substantially to £200,000. The number paying inheritance tax will be reduced by one third and only one in 45 estates will now pay that tax.
  Inheritance tax can also have a direct effect on enterprise. A family company, for example, may have to be broken up when the owner dies. We already recognise that problem through the existence of business property relief for qualifying unquoted companies. I now propose to remove the problem altogether by extending 100 per cent. relief to unquoted shareholdings, whatever their size.

  INCOME TAX
  Finally, I turn to my proposals for income tax payers. In the post-war era, when Britain went into comparative economic decline, Britain had high rates of taxation on income. Those rates damaged the economy and stifled prosperity. We had a tax policy that was based on envy.
  When this Government came to power, the basic rate was 33 per cent. The top rate on earnings was 83 per cent. Rates on so-called unearned income were as high as 98 per cent. There was nothing fair about taxation before we started to make it fairer. During the past 16 years, we have cut the basic rate by around one quarter to 25 per cent. and abolished all rates of income tax above 40 per cent.
  But the income tax burden is about more than just tax rates. Tax allowances matter as well. I propose to increase allowances for married couples and people receiving related allowances by £70, in line with indexation. It is a myth that the tax system penalises marriage and that single people are better off than married couples within the British taxation system. Any young couple contemplating living together and starting a family will pay less tax by getting married.
  As the economy continues to grow and create jobs, more people, as they return to work, will find themselves earning more than the tax threshold. I believe that we should relieve as many of the lower-paid as possible from the burden of income tax. I therefore propose to increase the basic personal allowance by £240—that is £100 more than indexation. That will provide an incentive to work to those at the bottom of the income scale. More than 200,000 people will be kept out of tax, compared with indexation of allowances.
  People who do not consider themselves rich now find that their incomes may bring them into the top rate of tax. That has a lot to do with the growth of the economy over 16 years and the growth in personal incomes. I do not want more people to be taken into the 40 per cent. band next year. I therefore propose to raise the higher rate threshold by £1,200—that is £200 more than indexation.
  But in the longer term, of course, we have a clear and achievable goal for income tax—moving to a basic rate of 20 per cent. as soon as we can. This year, I can move much faster towards that goal. I propose to increase the 20 per cent. band by a further £700—that is £500 more than indexation. That will bring an extra 1 million people into that band. That means that around a quarter of all taxpayers—that is, over 6 million people—will pay tax on their income at just 20 per cent.
  There were many who doubted the credibility of our goal of a 20p basic rate when we first set it out in 1992. We are now making big strides towards achieving it. Some people are even having to resort to trying to outbid us, I discovered in recent debates. But widening the lower rate band is not the only route to 20p. I want to make progress on another front. I therefore also propose to reduce the rate of tax on all savings income for all basic rate taxpayers to just 20 per cent. That will apply to the tax deducted from interest on bank and building society accounts, for example, and it is equivalent to an increase in interest rates for savings income. Around 14 million
  1072
  savers will gain from that tax reduction and they will see the income from their savings increase. As a result of that measure, people will gain an extra £5 from every £100 they receive in interest from their building society account.
  Many of those who benefit will be pensioners, who will gain £75 a year on average. Some could stand to gain £500 a year or more. So, again, those who have earned and saved will be able to keep more of their own money and benefit more from their own money; and the measure is another and decisive step to a 20 per cent. basic rate for all income.
  I propose to reduce the small companies rate of corporation tax to 24 per cent. The reason I am able to reduce the small companies rate of corporation tax is that the small companies rate has for many years been pegged to the basic rate of income tax. My final proposal in this Budget is therefore to reduce the basic rate of income tax by one penny to 24p in the pound. [Interruption.] It is no good laughing. That was the shortest smile, on the face of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), that I have seen even from him in a very long time, because these three steps—widening the 20p band, a 20p tax rate for savings income and a penny off the basic rate—move us much closer to a 20 per cent. base rate of tax for all income. We have a clear commitment—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should listen to the Chancellor.
  Mr. Clarke: We have a clear commitment to the 20p basic rate. We believe in it and we can achieve it. As a result of the measures in this Budget, a married couple with only one earner on average earnings with two children will pay £190 less tax, but overall, their real take-home pay after tax will rise by around £450 next year. They will be £700 a year better off than they were at the time of the last election, and that is extra money for families to spend as they wish.
  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 and, when we can afford it and when it is in the interests of the economy, we will cut taxes again. Good economics is good politics.
  This Budget puts Britain on course to be the enterprise centre of Europe; a Britain that creates more jobs and more wealth in which all can share because business can flourish here in a secure climate of low borrowing, low taxation, deregulation and free trade. That is why this Budget controls overall public spending while shifting more money towards schools, towards hospitals and towards the police. That is why this Budget keeps Government borrowing on a downward path and that is why this Budget cuts taxes. I have achieved that hat trick—controlling spending, downward borrowing and cutting taxes—only because the Government have followed a consistent economic policy.
  Only we, in this House, have clear objectives and we know how to achieve them. We are aiming at borrowing falling to zero; public spending below 40 per cent. of national income; inflation below 2½ per cent; and a 20 per cent. basic rate of income tax. This Budget puts us on a path to meet all those goals and I commend it to the House.

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

  (a) Spirits (rate of duty) (motion No. 2);

  (b) Wine and made-wine (rates of duty) (motion No. 3);

  (c) Hydrocarbon oil (rates of duty and rebate) (motion No. 5);

  (d) Tobacco products (rates of duty) motion No. 8);

  (e) Vehicle excise duty (increase in general rate) (motion No. 13);

  (f) Vehicle excise duty (electrically propelled vehicles) (motion No. 14);

  (g) Vehicle excise duty (steam powered vehicles, etc.) (motion No. 15);

  (h) Vehicle excise duty (vehicles capable of conveying loads) (motion No. 16);

  (i) Vehicle excise duty (old vehicles) (motion No. 17);

  (j) Value added tax (supplies of gold) (motion No. 23).—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke]

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

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That 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 of 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.]

  4.41 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: I suspect that what we have just seen is the shortest lasting cheer on the Conservative Benches in all the Budgets that we have witnessed. If this Budget is supposed to relaunch the Conservative party, it will fail. It will be known as the "7p up, 1p down Budget". After all, the people of Britain are not novices dealing with the Tories; they are battle-hardened today. Their innocence has given way to experience, their faith to mistrust.
  They have learnt two hard lessons from these masters of political deception. First, with 16 years' experience, they know above all else that what they are given with one hand is taken away with the other. One hand may hold open the public purse, but the other is usually in the citizen's pocket.
  The Tories say that income taxes have been cut over the years. But then came the other taxes, charges, costs and fees: dentists; prescriptions; rail, bus and tube fares; school books; repairs to school buildings; rent rises; water bills; and insurance premiums. [Interruption.] Tory Members do not like being reminded of those, but that is Conservative government.
  The second lesson is that, in the end, what matters is the real strength of the economy. Behind the year-to-year decisions on tax, especially those made before an election, stand the big questions that dwarf the rest into insignificance. People have learnt something about that, too, after 16 years. They know that, for 16 years, Conservative Chancellors have stood at the Dispatch Box telling us that we were about to have an economic miracle, that we were about to overtake all the other nations of the world, that this time it would be different, and we should trust them again.
  People also know that, after 16 years, their living standards have fallen compared with other countries, from 13th to 18th place in the national prosperity league. They

  1075
  know that, despite the tax changes, these Tories who call themselves tax cutters take a higher proportion of national income in tax from ordinary families today than they did 16 years ago. They also know that, during those 16 years, these people had the benefit, as no other Government had, of £120 billion-worth of North sea oil. That has gone, and £18 billion-worth of the nation's assets have been sold. They have gone, and the money has been spent.
  People know that, whatever promises were made before the last election—those promises are identical to those made today—we ended up with the largest peacetime tax rise in British history, to cover the largest borrowing ever in British history. They know that, even with today's tax cut, the public sector borrowing requirement will be £29 billion—£6 billion up on what the Tories forecast last year. Is it not right that, for next year, it will be £22.5 billion—£10 billion up on what they forecast last year?
  Of course we welcome certain aspects of the Budget, such as those relating to long-term care. However, we shall study the details of that proposal carefully, because I suspect that a large number of families will be left out of it altogether. We shall return to that issue in the debate. We also welcome the landfill green tax, help for employers on national insurance, and employee share ownership.
  Taken as a whole, however, this is not a Budget for Britain's long-term future. It gives with one hand what it takes with the other in a host of costs and charges. It ignores completely the fundamental weaknesses of the economy. It does nothing about the unemployment, social division and social decay in Britain today. As I shall show, it does not deal with, but rather avoids, the key issues on welfare. On tax, it gives people back 1p on the standard rate, but after taking 7p.
  People have had enough punishment. We know that, and will now oppose it. But they will remember "7p up and 1p down". The Budget gives back only a fraction
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose—
  Mr. Blair: Frankly, no one is less qualified to lecture us on tax than the Liberal Democrats.
  This Budget gives back only a fraction of what has been taken away. As a result of the tax rises since the last election, people will remain £700 a year worse off after this Budget. That is a fact, and the Tories cannot deny it. They won power promising to cut tax year on year. They swore blind that they would never raise it, and they have.
  Mortgage tax relief has been cut; national insurance contributions are up; the married man's allowance has been cut; new taxes have been imposed on insurance policies, households and holidays; and VAT has been imposed on fuel and power. [Interruption.] Tory Members want us to forget about this. They do not want us to remind people of it. I shall tell the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that we shall remind people of it from now until polling day.
  It is not merely that people will have lost all that money. More people pay the top rate of tax now than ever before, and at lower levels of income. Tax today starts at a lower level than it did in 1992. Many people on the
  1076
  bottom rate face marginal tax rates of 70, 80 or 90 per cent. Here we have our old Tory friend—give with one hand and take with the other. Rail fares have risen by more than the rate of inflation, other taxes have risen, and council tax has risen. If the figures are right, those charges may be up to twice the rate of inflation—possibly up to 11 per cent. To give with one hand and take with the other is Tory tax policy.
  Whereas the Government could have introduced the fairest tax cut of all—VAT on fuel and power—they did not, despite having promised at the last election that they would never raise it.
  Surely the most fundamental point is that, in the end, tax and spending depend upon economic strength. The real reason why taxes have gone up, living standards have fallen and we have slipped down the prosperity league from 13th to 18th is the deep-rooted nature of our economic problems. The Budget, after we have taken account of some of the bits and pieces here and there, does nothing for investment and skills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] We will decide on the evidence produced in the debates this week, but I think I am right in saying that the budget for skills and training is to be cut. The very thing necessary for our long-term economic strength is to be cut.
  As for the Chancellor's glowing record of our economic prospects, let us analyse from his own Red Book the figures that he has given. He has said that the growth rates are all booming, but, in actual fact, I think I am right to say that he has had to revise downwards the growth rate for this year. He has said that investment is booming, but, according to the figures released today, investment is set to rise by 1 per cent.
  The actual forecast on imports is that they will rise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we have a trade surplus with the Asian tigers, but we have a trade deficit with members of the European Union, who are our main partners. All that despite a 25 per cent. devaluation of our currency under the Conservatives. Surely that is the serious point. With the currency devalued and the pound worth 25 per cent. less than it was a couple of years ago, one would expect that we would be able to be in trade surplus, but even now we are unable to achieve that. The problems remain.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the Asian tiger countries. Let us remind him of one fact. The real lesson to be learned from them is their levels of investment, because it is that investment which makes the difference to a country's strength in the future. In some cases, they have levels of investment approaching 40 per cent.—Japan invests more than 30 per cent.—but the United Kingdom invests below 18 per cent. If we are still 35th in the education league, no wonder we have problems with our economy for the future.
  The Chancellor omitted to tell people one or two things as he was going through the Budget. Let me draw attention to some of them. As I understand it, the community programme, which is designed for the long-term unemployed, is to be phased out this year. There it is :40,000 places for those in most need are to be phased out.
  One very big spending rise has been forecast in the Budget—the amount of money to go to the common agricultural policy is set to rise to more than £3 billion for the first time. [Interruption.] I do not know whether

  1077
  that worries the Chancellor's colleagues more than my colleagues. In any event, it is a curious thing to be cutting our own skills budget and raising that money for the CAP.
  When people examine the Budget, they will start to ask what are the Government's priorities. The Chancellor told us about the increase in health spending, but if we look at the figures, as we have just done, we see that those figures forecast that almost 17 per cent. is to be cut from the capital budget of the health service programme. The health service programme is to be cut by 17 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the PFI?"] Do not worry: I can assure Conservative Members that I will deal with the PFI in a minute.
  That 17 per cent. cut in the health programme could have been saved by removing tax relief on private medical insurance. That would almost make up the shortfall in full. The failure to do that reveals the difference in priorities.
  The Chancellor has said that all the cuts in capital investment will be made up through the PFI, which was relaunched yet again today. It has been relaunched almost as many times as the Prime Minister, and often as successfully. It is the case that the Government assume that the PFI will provide the answer. Last year, the Government said that there would be £5 billion-worth of new projects. I think I am right in saying that just £500 million has been spent. Now the Government say with a great flourish that, in the next few years, £14 billion of PFI money will be available.
  All the difficult questions relating to public spending and capital investment are suddenly to vanish, and all will be switched to the PFI. This is not a Budget—it is a wish list. The Government have no grounds for thinking that that will happen. That will take place long into the future—long after the Conservatives have gone, of course. We are entitled to judge the Government by results.
  The PFI is right in principle. We have supported it, and in many ways we have been advocating it.
  Mr. John Prescott: We initiated it.
  Mr. Blair: It should not be manipulated to cook the books of public finance.
  Some of the capital spending that is all to be transferred to the PFI will not be replaced—there can be no guarantee of that. The PFI is a concept about financing, it is not a commitment to finance projects.
  If the Government want to do something for the housing and construction industries, they could take up our proposals and phase the release of the capital receipts in local authority accounts to get some houses built for the people.
  The PFI may save a capital sum this year if that capital money is removed from the Government's account, but in future years the taxpayer will face a recurring liability. That is why it is a classic example of giving with one hand and taking with the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] Hon Members may deny it, but that is precisely what will happen.
  The Government envisage that, instead of the public sector financing the construction of a hospital or a prison, the private sector will build it. It will then lease it back to the public sector, but, at the end of that period, recurring charges will he levied on the project. The same could be said about the married quarters held by the Ministry of
  1078
  Defence. The transfer of those assets gives the Government the appearance of having taken tough decisions, but a cost and liability will fall on the public sector in future years.
  We will not support anything in the national health service that is a back-door route to privatising clinical services. If the Government want to get health spending down, they should reduce the bureaucracy that they have created in the NHS.
  Welfare bills are the true bills that have risen. There has been remarkably little change in the overall level of spending, but there has been a remarkable change in the composition of it. We now spend about as much on housing benefit as we once spent on housing investment. One in three families are dependent on welfare; one in five non-pensioner households have no working member; and young people, who will often be roaming the streets with nothing to do but crime and mischief, have never worked—some at the age of 25. If we are to deal with those issues, we need to take firm action.
  The Chancellor has opposed a windfall levy on the privatised utilities for one simple reason—they are the vested interests of the Tory party, and the Government dare not challenge them. Excess profits have been made. A few days ago, the National Grid was sold. It was worth £5 billion, but it was sold for £1 billion. Half the water companies pay no mainstream corporation tax. The electricity companies have made record profits, even at the height of the recession.
  The case for taking on those vested interests and funding a decent education and employment programme for our young people was overwhelming, and it should have been adopted. If that had been done, we could have made a real attack on the root causes of higher welfare bills under the Conservative Government—higher unemployment, higher social decay and higher social breakdown. Many of those young people who have been in that situation for years looked for something from the Budget, and got nothing.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blair indicated dissent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition is not giving way. While I am on my feet, may I say that I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) would desist from making sedentary interventions.
  Mr. Blair: There were three aims that the Budget had to fulfil. If it was to succeed and to be anything more than a makeshift in the days of a dying and decaying Government, it had to tackle those fundamental problems of the British economy. It had to raise investment and skills, and it had to tackle the problems of social division and the lack of social cohesion that have so harmed this country over the past 16 years. Nothing of that sort was proposed.
  The only anxiety ever betrayed by Conservative Members was when the Chancellor spoke about taxes. That was the only time they showed any interest, and the only time even a flicker of concern for anything more than themselves came across their faces—except, of

  1079
  course, that that concern was not for anything more than themselves, because it was their own skins they were interested in.
  What was extraordinary about the Budget speech was that it gave no sense of a great strategic vision for the country's future. There was nothing—no all-encompassing horizon of achievement for this nation. The Government have given up trying to steer the ship of state, and are simply looking for the nearest lifeboat to climb into. Government Members have truly had enough of power; they cannot exercise it in the public interest any more—people know that.
  If the Government think that, when the British people listen to the Budget, they will be inspired to re-elect them, I can only assume that the Government have been out of touch for so long that they do not know what to do to get back in touch. They would not know the British national interest if it got up and slapped them in the face. Indeed, it does that frequently, and the Government still do not know it. They have given up on any serious vision for this country's future. The Government wanted to hail the Budget as a turning point, but the British people know better. It is another milestone on the Government's road to defeat—and the sooner, the better.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Unless my judgment is wrong—and it is shared by all my right hon. and hon. Friends—one of the curious aspects of the Chancellor's Budget was that it received more welcome for some of its smaller measures from the Opposition than it did, overall, from Conservative Members. That is a measure of the Budget overall.
  Even what the Chancellor did in terms of cutting some taxes was done—as he well knows—at the risk of gambling irresponsibly in the long term with the country's economy. The tax cuts that he gave—particularly the basic cut in income tax—were done by a simple sleight of hand. He achieved those cuts by extending the borrowing, which he knows is sensible and right for this country, over the long term. I shall return to that subject.
  It should have been a Budget to save our schools but, instead, it was designed to save seats for the Conservative party. We have heard the last shot in the Tory party's locker. That is it—there is nothing more. The Government's message in the Budget was simple and brutally clear: "Please can we buy your vote for a 1p cut in income tax'? We have nothing further to offer you, but we believe that that will be enough to fool you into voting for us again."
  In deciding how to respond to that offer from the Government, the people of this country might do well to remind themselves of an old Russian proverb which is clearly borne out in this Budget: free cheese comes only in mousetraps. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made that offer to the country.
  The Government seem to think that they can fool the people of this country once again, just as they have done in the past. They think that we are fools and will not notice that they said last year that the economy was so bad that they would have to make record tax rises, but,
  1080
  although it is even worse this year, we can now have tax cuts. They think that we are fools, and will not remember that they pulled that trick last time.
  The Government produce tax cuts to buy votes before the election; after the election there will be job losses, home repossessions, higher mortgages and broken businesses, as the British people have to pay for the tax promise. The Government think that we are fools, and will not notice that the lower taxes that we are given today are but a fraction of the higher taxes that they have taken off us in the past two years.
  The British people will not be conned by the Budget. It is a Budget not for Britain's future, but for the Conservative party's survival, and it will not work. It is not a Budget for securing the country's long-term future, but for saving Conservatives' skin. We know that from no better source than the Chancellor himself, who in this House last July said:
  "borrowing is actually taxation deferred."—[Official Report, 12 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 979.]
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated assent.
  Mr. Ashdown: The Chancellor was right, and I see that he assents to that proposition now. But last year, borrowing was only £1 billion above the Government's target; this year, it is £9 billion above the Government's target, according to the Chancellor's estimates. Those estimates have always been wrong in the past, and I bet that the figure will actually be higher in the outturn. If, according to the Chancellor, borrowing is taxation deferred, the Budget is taxation deferred until after the next election.
  The Budget combines cynicism with irresponsibility. The Tory party has shown itself to be the party not only of devaluation and high borrowing, but of economic irresponsibility. The Chancellor's figures show that the economy is now growing at half the rate that it was last year. Inflation is growing outside the targets. Borrowing has long ago bust the Government's set targets. It is worse: the Chancellor has extended the borrowing targets for next year and the year after, in order to have money for tax cuts this year. The Chancellor's proposition to the country is to live now and pay later.
  Last year, the Chancellor said that the PSBR for next year would be £13 billion. In fact, it is going to be £22.5 billion. Last year, the Government predicted that the PSBR for 1997–98 would be £5 billion. The Chancellor's figures show that it will be £15 billion. But, despite that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to gamble his own reputation and the sound management of the nation's finances simply to purchase Tory votes at the ballot box.
  For what? The Government have nothing further to offer the country, and nothing further to say to the people of this country. They have exhausted their ideas and energy, and they long ago exhausted the patience and trust of the people of Britain. If they gained power again, they would not have a clue what to use it for, except for themselves.
  The Chancellor knows perfectly well the Budget that he should have introduced today; he knows what he should have said. He should have introduced a Budget for education and for the country's long-term future. He would have done himself and his party much more good if he had the courage to introduce such a Budget.

  1081
  The Budget should have said to Britain: "We want lower taxes, and we want you to have them, but lower taxes must be earned, and Britain has not yet earned them." The Budget should also have said, "This year, low interest rates and investment in our future are more important than low taxes. Therefore, this year we shall invest in people's skills for long-term economic success, and we shall cut borrowing and interest rates to sustain recovery and create more jobs."
  Above all, this should have been a Budget for education; but it was not. Last year's Budget led to cuts in schools amounting to more than £700 million—£50 less in education expenditure for every primary school pupil, and £200 less for every secondary school pupil. As a result, 5,000 teachers were sacked, there was a one-third increase in classes of over 40 pupils, and thousands of schools used up their last precious reserves. One in eight of our further education colleges is now severely in debt, and the long-term survival of many may be threatened.
  The figures will show that this year the Government have not even restored last year's cuts. Of the £870 million, £500 million will go on inflation alone. Another £120 million will go on doubling the assisted places scheme, and another £100 million on the Government's misguided and misplaced voucher schemes. The money is gone—and that does not even account for how it will be generated. Will it be the Government's money, or local authorities' money? I predict that this Budget will do nothing to improve the dangerous, devastating condition of schools and education.
  It is, above all, our children who will pay the price of the tax cuts. It is their future that will suffer, so that the Tories can dangle a tax bribe before an electorate whom they believe to be stupid and gullible.
  It was with some sadness that I heard the comments of the leader of the Labour party, who said that the Liberal Democrats could not be trusted in taxation matters. Year after year—and this year—we have produced an alternative Budget: we have said how we would pay for what we wanted to be done. Labour has never done that.
  This year, Labour Members have been full of comments, attacks and criticism, but they have not said what they would do. They have come up with no alternative Queen's Speech, and no alternative Budget. That is not the way in which to win the trust of the people. It is easy to criticise the Government, but the time for "oppositionism" has passed; the Opposition should be saying what they stand for.
  Moreover, it appears from what the leader of the Labour party told us today—although he dealt with this item rather quickly—that Labour will abstain in the vote on the 1p cut in income tax. Is that the best that Labour can do? Why will its members abstain? Over the weekend, the leader of the Labour party said that the Budget must pass four tests: honesty, sustainability, employment opportunities and fairness. As his own speech demonstrated, it did not pass one of those tests. What is the right hon. Gentleman waiting for?
  How can the Labour party claim to be strong enough to look to the country's long-term interest if it cannot find the strength to vote against a tax cut that is designed for the short-term interests of the Conservative party? How can Labour Members say that they would put education first if they were in government, when they are not prepared to do so in opposition? If Labour will not vote
  1082
  against a tax cut that puts the Tory party before the country, why should we not conclude that it would put the Labour party before the country if it were in government?
  I have a good deal of personal admiration for the Leader of the Opposition, and a great respect for the things that he has done. He is not in his place at present, but let me tell him that, if his party joins the Tories in this crazy competition, this auction of fantasy tax promises—"anything you can tax, I can tax lower"—the people who will suffer most are the poor, the deprived and the dispossessed, and the thing that will suffer most is the cause of progressive politics. We have seen the depth of the Government's cynicism today, and the depth of their irresponsibility; but the way in which Labour will vote will tell us about the depth of its timidity in the face of a general election that is only a year away.
  In 1988, my party voted against tax cuts introduced by the then Mr. Lawson. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was then our Treasury spokesman, was alone in warning that those tax cuts were irresponsible, that they would damage the country's finances, and that they would have to be paid for by ordinary people in the end. He warned that the Budget was "unfair and unsound". That was not a popular or an easy position to take, but it was the right position.
  Of course there are aspects of the Budget that we can support on the margin. We welcome the encouragement of thrift and savings, employee share ownership, the package for small businesses and enterprise and the Government's indexation—even over-indexation—to assist some of the poorer people in the country. Overall, however, this is a Budget that sacrifices good, sound economic management of the country's finances—and, above all, sacrifices the education of our children—for a 1p cut in the basic rate of income tax.
  The Government think that people want lower taxes, rather than lower interest rates and more jobs. I think that they are wrong. They think that people want more money in their back pockets today, rather than sound management of the economy in the long term. I think that they are wrong. They think that the British people would prefer a tax cut to investment in our children and our country's future. I think that they are wrong. That is why we shall vote against this irresponsible Budget, and propose in its place a responsible Budget for education and for the country's long-term future.
  5.15 pm
  Sir David Knox: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on his third Budget speech. It was well delivered, as were his earlier two Budget speeches, and it was commendably brief, particularly in view of the ground that must be covered in a unified Budget. I remember past speeches on Budgets that were not unified lasting for two hours or more.
  My right hon. and learned Friend produced an interesting Budget, which also contained some surprises. There were no surprises in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, however: we were told last weekend what he would say, before he had even seen the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not wish to be confused by the facts. His speech was littered with the usual meaningless soundbites, which he mistakes for substance and which are becoming a trifle boring.

  1083
  Let me make just one point about the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that the cost of the common agricultural policy would go up to £3 billion. That is not true; it is total agricultural expenditure that will go up to about that amount. There is rather more than CAP expenditure in the total agriculture expenditure bill.
  The leader of the Liberal party did not even include any soundbites in his speech, but I found it extraordinary that he should suggest that the poor had been hurt by the Government. Let us consider, for instance, the increase in spending on the national health service since 1979—an increase of 80 per cent. in real terms. The proportion of the national income that is devoted to the NHS has increased from just under 5 per cent. to just over 6 per cent.
  The right hon. Gentleman made much of education, but today we are spending 50 per cent. more per school pupil than was spent 16 years ago. That is a pretty fast rate of increase—and, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be realistic, he should bear in mind the fact that it is not a rate of increase that can be continued indefinitely.
  In the preparation of any Budget, it is extremely difficult to get the various decisions right. The macro-economic decisions are particularly difficult, because they cannot be made on the basis of the current economic situation. Any Chancellor must try to anticipate the position in 18 months to two years, because there is a time lag between the taking of any action and that action becoming effective. My right hon. and learned Friend therefore had an extremely difficult task in that respect. Then, of course, he must weigh the desirability of public expenditure against the reduction of taxation. He must decide not only the total public spending level but its priorities.
  In the past few months, my right hon. and learned Friend has been subject to widely varying advice, which has ranged from suggestions that 5p should be taken off the standard rate of income tax and that public expenditure should be slashed to suggestions that he should retain present tax rates and increase public expenditure. He has got the balance about right today. He has increased spending on health, education and the police in real terms—we will spend more on those sectors next year. At the same time, he has increased tax allowances generously and reduced the standard rate by a modest but real amount. Of course, he will not have pleased the simple souls who like extreme measures, but I have no doubt that he will have pleased the great majority of those of moderate opinion throughout this country.
  Of the specific measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has suggested, I welcome in particular his decision not to increase beer and wine duty. Even more strongly do I welcome the decision to reduce the spirit duty on whisky by 4 per cent. That may show my preference in terms of beverages. The Chancellor has faced up to the cross-border shopping problem in the European Union and taken a small step towards trying to bring sense into that matter. In the not too distant future, I should like duty on alcohol to be the same throughout the EU. That would be much more sensible, but it would require some reduction on our part and some increase on the part of the other countries in the EU.
  1084
  I am pleased that, in his attempt to deal with vehicle licensing fraud, my right hon. and learned Friend has managed to avoid penalising vintage car owners. In the past 12 months or so, that matter has caused many of our constituents much concern. Like most right hon. and hon. Members, I have had much correspondence about it. I am glad that he has managed to meet the fears of those people, because one does not wish to damage what is essentially a hobby.
  I welcome the reductions in the general betting duty and in the pools betting duty. There is no doubt that betting and particularly pools betting have been affected adversely by the lottery. Those duty reductions should ease the problem a little. I say that as one who, for the past 40-odd years, has done the football pools with very little success.
  I am pleased about the assistance for people in nursing and residential homes. At this stage, it is difficult to comment, and I await the details that will, no doubt, be forthcoming in the next day or two, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend was right to deal with a problem that, again, is causing great concern to many of our constituents.
  One of the most encouraging of the developments that affect the British economy has been the pattern of wage settlements in the past year. Whereas during the 20-odd years after the war the main constraint on the British economy was the balance of payments, since the mid-1960s the main constraint has been the level of wage and salary increases and, consequently, the growth in earnings.
  For most of the period from the mid-1960s until recently, wage and salary increases have been well ahead of inflation and of the rate of growth. Except when there have been short-term incomes policies or when unemployment has been very high, wage and salary increases have been at levels incompatible with low inflation. Consequently, over the past 20 years, under Labour and Conservative Governments alike, one of the main weapons to constrain wage and salary cost inflation has been a reduction in the demand for goods and services, to effect a reduction in the demand for labour to produce them and so a reduction in increases in the price of labour—in other words, a reduction in increases in wages and salaries.
  Although that policy has been effective in preventing higher inflation levels, it has never been completely successful in eliminating inflation, even when unemployment has reached the 3 million mark. Moreover, its impact on inflation has been limited when unemployment has been below the relatively high level of 2 million. I have always found that policy unacceptable and I have been astonished that the British people have put up with it for so long. Whether they will continue to do so is a moot point.
  In the past year, however, there has been an unexpected, but welcome, development in pay bargaining as wage settlements have been running behind the inflation rate. Moreover, there is no evidence of the build-up of a pay explosion that could reverse that development. That runs against all recent experience. It is especially encouraging because the recent inflation increase, which in any event seems to he falling back sharply, has had no effect on the position.

  1085
  Of course, that may merely be the short-term consequence of recession, but that is doubtful because we have been moving out of recession for more than three years. It may be that it is due to the fact that unemployment is still more than 2 million, but that is also doubtful, because the pressure of demand in the labour market today is higher than it was last year or the year before, and in both years wage and salary settlements were ahead of the inflation rate. It may be that we are at long last experiencing some of the benefits of greater labour market flexibility.
  Whatever the reason, for the first time for many years we are experiencing a more sensible attitude about pay bargaining. As a result, wage and salary increases are being determined much more realistically. If that continues, there is even greater cause for optimism about the economy than at the time of last year's Budget. Then, we had controlled economic growth, a much-improved balance of payments position, low inflation and falling unemployment. Today, the economy is still growing and the balance of payments, although not quite as strong as it was a year ago, is still much stronger than in most years in the past decade. Despite the pressures generated by a further year's growth, that development concerning pay bargaining means that the prospects for inflation are much better than last year, whereas we would have expected them to be worse.
  Realistic pay bargaining also means, however, that the demand for goods and services, and so for labour, can be increased to a significantly higher level without provoking wage and salary cost inflation and bringing the expansion grinding to a halt. Consequently, realistic pay bargaining means that the prospects for further reductions in unemployment are much better than they were last year. Of course, at this stage, we cannot be certain that the pay bargaining pattern will not return to previous bad practice. There have been some ominous signs in the motor industry, but I hope that that will not happen, because the reduction in unemployment to levels that we have not experienced since the mid-1970s is vital for social and economic reasons.
  First, unemployment is a severe affront to human dignity. The fear of not being wanted is an insult to the great majority of those without work, whose only wish is to have the opportunity to earn their living and support their families. Secondly, unemployment hits the good worker just as it hits the bad worker; it hits the hard worker and the lazy worker and the skilled worker and the unskilled worker alike, because unemployment does not discriminate. The great majority of the unemployed lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
  Thirdly, the effects of unemployment on our society are very serious. It undoubtedly embitters those affected. It undermines their belief in our democratic system. It adversely affects the quality of their whole life, and not just during the period when they are out of work. Fourthly, of course, unemployment is economically wasteful. If the unemployed were in work, they would be producing more goods and services and so adding to our national wealth. There would be more for all of us to share in the form of higher real incomes and better social and public services.
  I hope that the restraint in pay bargaining that has been shown during the past year can be maintained. The benefits in the form of lower inflation are evident: those in the form of lower unemployment are no less real.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall touch on some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox). It took a long preamble to get to the basic and simple point he was making—unemployment is a curse. The communities that I represent have always believed that; they believe it as fiercely and passionately now as they did when unemployment was 65 per cent. in the 1930s.
  I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 28 years, and I find that the whole nature of Budgets and Budget debates has changed. The pattern of post-war Budgets was that they were statements of fiscal measures, rather limited in claim and scope. Frequently, the Budget was an annual fine tuning of the economy. I often heard Chancellors claiming that they were cooling down or stimulating the economy with a variety of tax and credit measures and interest rates.
  Now the Budget is different. I am not exactly a fan of the decision to link public expenditure to the fiscal considerations, but it has broadened the nature and character of the Budget. The Chancellor's speech illustrated that point unequivocally. That decision has broadened the whole Budget debate so that it is about broad social and economic issues. In return, the public have come to expect much more of the Budget statement and of Chancellors.
  The public expect that these big moments in parliamentary life will address the broader social issues. The Budget and the expenditure plans are meant to hit the big issues that face our society. One of the curious features of that developing pattern is that the Budget has to be a Budget for something. We have to have a slogan—a Budget for enterprise or a Budget for the family. The press have even mooted recently a Budget for marriage.
  Increasingly, bewildering social and economic change is occurring in society and therefore Ministers and Chancellors are expected more than ever before to address big issues. The Budget has been presented as a combination of expenditure plans and tax changes and, therefore, I feel entitled to address this simple question to the House: how far has this combination of Budget and expenditure plans addressed the challenges and the problems facing the communities that I represent?
  Let us have a look at what has happened to the communities that I represent. In the past 20 years, our world has been turned upside down in terms of jobs, employment, family and community. I do not exaggerate and I shall give some figures to illustrate the point. This year, we have celebrated the 50th anniversary of the birth of the welfare state and the end of the war, and the birth of full employment as the centrepiece of Government economic and social policy.
  Beveridge's mission statement, to borrow a modern phrase, was the White Paper on employment. That White Paper stood us in good stead for the best part of 30 years in my community, which entered the war with 65 per cent. of people out of work and for most of the 1950s and 1960s had unemployment rates of 2 or 3 per cent. at most, rising in a bad year to 5 per cent.
  Beveridge's image and vision of full employment in post-war Britain now reads very quaintly. Let me remind the House what he said. Beveridge envisaged that a man

  1087
  would work for 48 hours a week, for 48 weeks of the year, for 48 years of his life, in probably one job. His description of the family was:
  "A family will consist of two persons, a male and a female, and their offspring. Women as housewives and mothers would have the vital duty of ensuring the future of the British race and the British ideal."
  In 1995, what a quaint description that is. However, that was the social basis upon which I was brought up, and that attitude was behind the assumptions that we made about the nature of community, society and the family. We cannot now, as I shall illustrate, assume in my communities that the family will consist of two persons—one male and one female.
  Social change has been telescoped and accelerated in a way that people like me coming into the House more than 25 years ago could not have believed would happen. I have watched the expectation of jobs and careers, and a reasonable prospect of regular employment, disintegrate in the communities that I represent.
  The belief that there was regular employment was the social cement of post-war Britain and post-war south Wales. That cement has been dissolving rapidly during the past 25 years. Increasingly, we do not believe some of the figures in the Red Book. Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion that once again the improvements described in the Red Book are bypassing my communities. The Red Book states, in a paragraph on the labour market:
  "Employment has continued to rise".
  In the county of Mid Glamorgan, on the most recent figures available, the number of people in employment has fallen quite significantly in the past three or four years. It has fallen from a high of 186,000 in the late 1970s to 145,000.
  The most important test is the number of wage packets—however big or small they may be—and by that test the number of people in employment has begun to fall. The assumption we made in post-war south Wales and throughout the country was that, whatever levels of unemployment might occur cyclically, the levels of employment would continue to rise. That trend has disappeared in the past five to 10 years within the communities that I represent.
  The character of employment has changed. The assumption that Beveridge made about the man being the wage earner has been stood on its head in the past 20 years. That has profound effects on the argument about tax. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, for most of the 1950s and 1960s, the work force were two thirds male and one third women. The most recent set of figures for the county of Mid Glamorgan—that traditional area where the industrial revolution started and developed—show that there are now more women than men in employment. I make no case about the rights and wrongs, but that shows a social change, the consequences of which we have not thought through. Combined with declining numbers of people in employment, that interesting and important change will affect social patterns.
  The number of manufacturing jobs in the communities that were at the heart of the manufacturing economy of this country has fallen from 50,000 in 1981 to 40,000 now. That is at a time when, I read in the
  1088
  Red Book, the anticipated increase in the manufacturing deficit will rise in the coming year to £9.5 billion from £8.5 billion.
  Whatever else the Government's economic strategy is supposed to have done, it has certainly not tackled one fundamental problem. It was not until about 10 years ago that Britain first had a manufacturing deficit, yet it now approaches almost £10 billion. At the same time, the number of manufacturing jobs in my community has fallen. We must reverse that trend quickly.
  The other factor that has been prominent over the last 20 years is the so-called average wage. I do not know where the Government get their figures. I furiously hunt around my community trying to find the so-called Mr. or Mrs. Average earning £250 to £300 a week—on average. I can tell the Paymaster General that the 900 people left working at the Hoover factory do not get anything like £250 a week, even though Hoover is supposed to be one of the better paying employers. Even in the new, modern manufacturing sector, the average going rate for a full week's work is £150 to £160.
  Wages and incomes in my community have fallen in percentage terms compared with the rest of the country. In Mid Glamorgan, earnings are only 69 per cent. of the national average. Therefore, not only is there a fall in the number of people in employment, but those in employment have less pay and lower incomes than the rest of the country. The feel-good factor is missing not only among the unemployed but among those in work in my community.
  I have two other major concerns. The first relates not to the levels of formal registered unemployment but to the levels of economic inactivity in my constituency. Some 35 to 40 per cent. of men of working age are economically inactive in Merthyr, Rhymney and parts of Mid Glamorgan. It takes us back to the 1930s, in one form or another.
  The second matter that worries me desperately, especially in the light of what I have just read in the public expenditure programme, is that we cannot account for one in five school leavers in Mid Glamorgan. We do not know where they are. They are not in work, they are not in training, they are not receiving benefit, they are not scrounging and they are not in any form of institution. One fifth of our school leavers have disappeared from our community. Perhaps they are at home or hanging around the streets; they are certainly not registered anywhere. Yet those are the very people who could become—I hate this American term—an underclass.
  One in five school leavers are not registering for training, are not staying on at school and are not even collecting benefit. We cannot account for them. They should be connected somehow to work and to the community. They should be on some community programme so that they can begin to feel wanted. However, if we do now find them and try to make the connection with society, it will be too late because, just at the time it is most needed, the Government are abolishing the whole of the community action programme. I have never been a fan of that programme, but no one has come up with anything better. It is being abolished just at the time we need to make the connection with a highly significant group of young people who are not registered within our society as doing anything.

  1089
  How does the Budget measure up to those needs? In a curious way, I was slightly relieved, because it was a little fairer than we expected. Perhaps that is why it went down so badly with Conservative Back Benchers. The income tax provisions were scattered through the tax bands, but Conservative Back Benchers wanted a huge cut in the 25p rate. With a bit of luck, if there is a little more money in people's pockets, more people will buy washing machines—that is desperately necessary for Hoover in my constituency. Perhaps the Budget will encourage more consumption.
  The Budget does not deal with the problems of either the resigned middle-aged or the resentful young unemployed. As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands said, it is time to put employment at the centre of economic and social policy. Unemployment has been the Government's anti-inflation instrument of the past 15 years; it has been the industrial relations instrument of the past 15 years; it has been the wages policy of the past 15 years. I can recall a Conservative Chancellor panicking when unemployment reached 1 million in 1973, and bringing in a Budget for jobs to counter that. We now live with 3 million people out of work, many of whom, of all age groups in my community, have been unemployed for far too long.
  Sir David Knox: The hon. Gentleman pretends that the use of the level of demand in dealing with inflation has happened only during the past 16 years under a Conservative Government. I take him back to a previous Labour Government and the policies pursued by Denis Healey—they were exactly the same. In fact, the great break with the post-war consensus was in the mid-1970s, not at the end of the 1970s.
  Mr. Rowlands: I would love to go back to the unemployment levels of 1978–79. If we had those levels of unemployment in my community, many of the social problems that I have described would not have become so significant. We have never supported—I hope that the hon. Gentleman would never support—the view expressed by the Bank of England in "Bank Briefing":
  "Unemployment probably remains above its natural rate."
  Do the Government believe in a natural rate of unemployment? Is it just a Bank of England view or is it shared by the Treasury? Is there such a thing as a natural rate of unemployment? If so, what is it?
  When the Chancellor meets the lugubrious Mr. George at his monthly meetings, as well as talking about the fine tuning of interest rates do they sit at the table and talk about the natural rate of unemployment? If so, what is it? We have never been told. I find the whole concept offensive, just as I found offensive the statement of a previous Chancellor that unemployment was a price worth paying. The concept of using unemployment in the way that it has been used over the past 15 years is offensive.
  Employment and jobs should be put back at the centre of Budget judgments—and with that must come proper training. One of the real tragedies of the past 15 to 20 years has been the destruction of training opportunities. Measures to promote skills and work have been like a patchwork quilt. If we are to create a new skilled work force, skills training and jobs must be the centrepiece of our economic and social policy. If that is not done, the social trends that I have described will continue to undermine the stability and the social fabric of our communities.
  1090
  Ministers boast about the extra money that is to be spent on policing to deal with crime; instead, they should deal with the prevention of crime. At the centre of much of the social tension and anti-social behaviour in the communities that I represent are the younger generation's lack of prospects and lack of hope for the future of their communities.
  5.49 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I think that I have been in the House a tiny bit longer than he has, but we have the same memories. I appreciate very much his concern about the unemployment problem, which his constituency has, perhaps, tragically experienced more than many others. I also share the views on unemployment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox), who has always given a very sincere view on that issue.
  I do not share, however, the pessimistic view taken by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I was glad that he referred to 1973, because I recall the occasion when unemployment hit the 1 million mark. We were in government. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) came across the Chamber and thumped the Dispatch Box in front of the then Prime Minister. There was a great hullabaloo. I had some responsibility at that time—I do not claim I was solely responsible—for regional development policy, and, before we were unceremoniously thrown out of office, unemployment had come down to 700,000, which was gratifying.
  Mr. Michael Foot said that that level of unemployment was disgracefully high, and that it would not be tolerated. No sooner did Mr. Michael Foot take charge, however, then unemployment went up again, this time to 1.5 million—and it continued to rise.
  Therefore, I do not think that the problem of unemployment can be solely attributed to one party or the other. Indeed, if I think back further, I think that I am right in saying that no Labour Government in this country have left office with unemployment lower than when they took office; it has been higher every time. Let us not have too much humbug on that issue.
  I must declare all my interests, which are in the Register, but I shall certainly not be advocating them in any way, whatever that means. I am sure that, if I step out of order, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will immediately bring me to order at once.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Just for clarification, the hon. Gentleman must remember that it is for him to declare any interests that he has. It is not for the occupant of the Chair to decide the matter.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I shall certainly not be advocating anything in any way, except the general interest of the public as a whole.
  I have spoken in debates on many Budgets and Finance Bills during my 30 years in the House, and I have had the experience of no fewer than 10 different Chancellors of the Exchequer. This may be the very last occasion that I am able to speak in a Budget debate.
  I have always believed that it is important to lower taxation so far as possible. I said that in the 1988 Budget debate and in the 1989 Budget debate. I said that I could

  1091
  never see any morality or merit in the authorities collecting vast sums of money from a vast range of people, sloshing and churning it around in a vast and expensive bureaucracy, and then doling it out to those who create the loudest clamour for more money. I do not believe that there is any morality or merit in that whatsoever.
  Many years ago, long before the Conservatives came into office, I said that there was a need to shift the burden of taxation from direct taxation, or tax on work, to indirect taxation, which is tax on spending. I think that that has happened, and rightly so. I am glad that the Chancellor referred to that this afternoon.
  I also believe, however, in a low interest rate policy. I think that the folly of the rollercoaster years that occurred under my Government in the 1980s, when low interest rates rocketed, came home to roost with a vengeance in the disastrous effect that they had on the housing market and, in particular, on small firms. Those are two causes—the spread of ownership, either through shares or house ownership, and the interests of small firms—which I have espoused in the 30 years that I have been in the House.
  I therefore congratulate the Chancellor and the Government on the way that, in recent years, they have restored low interest rate stability, while at the same time containing inflation. I believe that that is the achievement of the present Chancellor and of the Government, despite the circumstances that they inherited.
  I think that there has been far too much hype in the House and in the press on the reduction of taxation, although, as I say, I welcome it and I want it. There was far too much talk of pennies here and pennies there; talk of 3p or 5p off the standard rate raised expectations unnecessarily. I am a great believer in Chancellors going into purdah and not saying anything until they come to the House to present the Budget.
  No good can come from lowering taxation if it revives inflationary fears which result ultimately in higher interest rates, because of a belief in the markets that inflation will take off again. In a sense, therefore, I believe that the Chancellor was right to be modest. The Budget was reasonably modest in the face of some people's high expectations of tax reductions. It could be described as a responsible financial policy, or what he would call a prudent one.
  The Chancellor has avoided the peril of high interest rates, but, having said that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will pass on to the Chancellor my sincere hope that it will be possible to reduce interest rates further when the time is right. That more than anything else would encourage the two sectors that have suffered so much and which to a large extent reflect the feel-bad factor—the housing market and small firms, especially people starting up small firms. I leave it to the Chancellor to decide when the time is right—I accept that it may not be now—but I hope that interest rates will come down steadily. That, I understand, is the wish of industry and business generally.
  I should have liked one further tax reduction. I have long advocated the complete removal of stamp duty on property transactions. I know that it would cost £700 million, but it is a ludicrous tax. Speaking in a Budget debate some years ago, I said that I could not
  1092
  understand how it had ever arisen. Now I know. It arose in the reign of William and Mary when, because of transport problems, it was very difficult to collect income tax or anything of that nature. It was easier to levy tax on property. However, those days are gone, and the sooner we see the back of stamp duty on property transactions, the better. Its removal would encourage movement in the housing market, which we all want.
  Although the Chancellor said, I think, that mortgage interest relief at source was not going to be changed—at least not adversely—in the next two or three years, I hope that he will be flexible. If he wants to boost the housing market, it may be necessary to alter MIRAS. More important, however, is the need to keep interest rates stable, and preferably low. That, I hope, is the theme of the Budget, which I warmly commend.
  The press and many Opposition Members said that the Budget would be one of bribes for the electorate, but I did not believe that. Every political party, of whatever political complexion, has since the dawn of mankind sought to bribe the electorate one way or another. However, the electorate are like the great Sir Francis Bacon who, when challenged, said:
  "Certainly I take bribes—but I never allow it to affect my judgment!"
  I think that the British electorate are just as sophisticated.
  The reality is best expressed in these words, which I have cited in previous speeches:
  "If you want to retain power you have got to listen to what people … say and what they want. If you talk to people in the factories and in the clubs, they all want to pay less tax. They are more interested in that than the Government giving money away in other directions."
  Those are very wise words. They were uttered on 14 March 1978, in an address to the Labour national executive committee, by no less a person than Lord Callaghan.
  I agree with him, he is absolutely right, and I am glad to say that we are following precisely his precept. When people urge greater public expenditure and say that they are prepared to accept higher taxes to facilitate it, I find that they invariably mean that other people's taxes should be higher, not their own.
  The Budget could be considered in the context of an election—undoubtedly the press and everybody else is considering it in that context. But in considering the Budget's effect, the electorate will also consider the alternative to it. As I said, I go back 30 years, in which there have been three Labour Chancellors. What is absolutely clear at the moment is that the electorate have not the faintest idea about the Opposition's policy on interest rates, inflation, borrowing, or how the Opposition's taxes relate to their spending. None of those policies has been revealed.
  I am reminded of the late, great Aneurin Bevan, who used to say, "Why gaze into the crystal ball when you can read the book?" We can read the book. After 30 years and three Labour Chancellors, I can read the book. I remember very well that Lord Callaghan introduced corporation tax—adverse to business—capital transfer tax, selective employment tax and purchase tax increases. Then multi-rate VAT was introduced. Then Lord Jenkins, no longer a member of the Labour party, raised taxes more than any other Chancellor since the war. Then, of course,

  1093
  Lord Healey—amazing how all these peers seem to be involved—made such a hash of matters that we had to call in brokers from the International Monetary Fund.
  The book of what the Opposition have done is available for all to see. The trouble is that, at the moment, it is wrapped in a plain cover, rather like those smutty books that used to circulate. Undoubtedly, the book will have to be opened at some time in the future, and when it is, the electorate will get a nasty shock, and will regard today's Budget as a winner.
  The Budget passes the test that I always apply of whether it helps or harms small firms, wider share ownership and ownership generally. I return to employment, with which I began. We will increase employment only through the encouragement and development of small firms. Such an increase is not going to come from great big organisations—that has passed. The development and taking on of one, two, three or more people in a vast number of small firms will diminish the hideous curse of unemployment, in Wales and elsewhere.
  The measures announced on the business rate, of which I very much improve, and the corporation tax concessions, are very helpful to small firms, so the Budget passes my test. The Budget passes the test of encouraging continued improvement in employment and of maintaining financial prudence, and it will contain inflation, which is absolutely crucial if we are not to have another boom-bust situation.
  In due course, because the Budget passes the test of encouraging business confidence, which is so important to the welfare of people generally and not only business, it will pass the test of the British electorate when the time comes.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant). I always listen with great interest to what he has to say, although I must confess that I do not always agree with him. None the less, he has a great deal of experience in the House. In fact, I am sure that he can remember being in the House when Conservative Governments would never have tolerated the high levels of unemployment which our people have had to suffer over the past 16 years.
  I think that I heard the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire saying that this may be his last Budget debate. I do not know whether it was a statement, or a hint, that he may not be standing again at the next election. If he is not going to stand, I wish him well. I do not think that he will be the only Conservative Member for whom it may be the last Budget debate. I watched very closely the facial expressions of many Tory Members of Parliament during the Chancellor's speech. They were hoping and praying that the Chancellor would deliver something to save their skins. Even on that narrow criterion, this Budget is doomed to failure.
  The Budget also fails on criteria much more important to the people we represent. Let us consider the Government's taxation strategy, for example. A fair system of taxation is progressive, so that people who can afford to pay more in taxation do so, and people who cannot afford it pay less, or none at all. I would have thought that that was just common sense and basic justice.
  1094
  But the Government have given priority in their taxation strategy to increasing the burden of VAT—of course, a very regressive tax—while at the same time using the income tax system to grant concessions, whether real or imaginary. The only people who have really benefited from that strategy are those earning very high incomes. The net result of the Government's policies is that most people pay more tax.
  The Conservative party used to boast that it was the party of low taxation. That claim is now exposed as a myth, despite the Chancellor's decision today to cut the basic rate of income tax by 1p. Since the last general election, the Government have in fact introduced 21 new taxes, and increased taxation by the equivalent of 7p on the standard rate of income tax, costing the average family more than £800 extra a year.
  If the Government were really serious about reducing the burden of taxation in a fair and reasonable manner, they would look at some of the unjust taxes which they have imposed over the past few years—and they could start with VAT on domestic fuel.
  Last year, almost a year ago to the day, the Government suffered a humiliating defeat on the Floor of the House in trying to increase the rate of VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. Despite that defeat for the Government, which was a great victory for us, many people on low incomes are still suffering hardship, and are dreading another long, cold winter, because they simply cannot afford to heat their homes. The Chancellor should have had the humility to admit that he had blundered by imposing VAT on domestic fuel.
  I would like VAT on domestic fuel to be abolished completely, but I understand that that is forbidden by European Union law. I should have thought that, at the very least, the Chancellor could have announced today a reduction from 8 per cent. to, say, 5 per cent. The cost of such a reduction would be £500 million—quite a lot of money—but if he had wanted, the Chancellor could have raised at least six times that amount by imposing a windfall tax on the profits of privatised utilities. Yet he refused to do so, and tried to deride that proposal.
  I sometimes wonder whether, when the Chancellor is sitting and smiling in his well-heated home at No. 11 Downing street, he really appreciates the frustration and anger of old-age pensioners, who are sitting shivering in their homes because they cannot afford to pay the heating bill. They dread the day the bills come through their letter box from the privatised utilities. Yet their generation helped to build those fuel companies, and the companies used to belong to them—and to all of us—before the Tory Government sold them off.
  When pensioners sit freezing in their homes, fat cats such as Cedric Brown and all the rest of them on the boards of the privatised utilities are laughing all the way to the bank, with their bloated salaries and share options. The Government are imposing that obscene situation on our pensioners, and on many other people on low incomes.
  A windfall tax on the privatised utilities would not only help to cut VAT on domestic fuel, but could be used to fund a public investment programme for creating real training opportunities and real jobs, especially for young people.

  1095
  There could be public investment in the construction industry, for example, to help build houses for homeless people and to provide jobs for all the construction and allied workers in the dole queue. There could also be public investment to modernise and electrify our railway system instead of selling it off, which most people in this country do not want to happen.
  We could have public investment to expand the home energy efficiency scheme. It is a national scandal that, in Scotland alone, 800,000 families cannot afford to keep warm, and that 270,000 homes in Scotland suffer from dampness. A properly funded home energy efficiency scheme organised throughout the United Kingdom would cost £1.25 billion per year, but it would be money well spent. Indeed, it would be money invested, bearing in mind the fact that the scheme would create up to 40,000 jobs and could save the national health service up to £1 billion per year—the sum spent on treating cold-related illnesses.
  Instead of introducing such common-sense measures, the Chancellor has decided to go for the old Tory strategy of income tax cuts and public expenditure cuts. The recipe has been tried before, and it has failed. It will do nothing to help the unemployed, and will punish the recipients of social security benefits, including young single people under 25, and refugees seeking asylum. Despite the Chancellor's protestations, it is a recipe that will further threaten the national health service, education and social services for the elderly, the sick and people with disabilities.
  No doubt many Tory Members of Parliament desperately hope that the Budget will do enough to save their skins. I do not think it will. The people of this country will see it for what it is—the last desperate act of a discredited Government whose time is up. The sooner the Government go, the better.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: One always takes a chance in standing up to speak directly after the Chancellor sits down. All over the Chamber one sees everybody's head down, as hon. Members try to figure out exactly what has been announced. Many of us find out that about half of what we thought was there may not have been there—and I have been doing much the same myself. However, hoping that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will forgive me if I make one or two errors, I shall press on, try to summarise what I think are the main features of the Chancellor's announcements, and welcome those that I consider the most necessary, which I should like to think the whole House will welcome.
  We have managed to announce a Budget with the backdrop of a stable economic performance. Notwithstanding some problems, in general we have the most stable economic position that I can recall. That is in no small part due to the great changes that we made in the early 1980s. It is often too easy to talk about such matters in isolation, as if one needed to think back only two or three years. But our present position should really be seen in the perspective of the past 15 or 16 years.
  For example, we sit here today without the usual threats that used to he made at about this time. I refer, of course, to the spending programmes that resulted when the great
  1096
  trade union barons used to put their tanks on Mr. Wilson's lawn and make threats about what would happen if everyone did not have higher pay.
  We do not even discuss such threats now, and no mention has so far been made of them. I make a small prediction that problems with trade unions will not be mentioned in any of the speeches, because that problem has been dealt with and has gone. We now have more rational and reasonable relationships in industry. Most notably, we have the fewest days lost through strikes, probably anywhere in the western world, and certainly in western Europe.
  However, certain things needed to be done with regard to the economy, and the Chancellor has been faced with one or two problems that he now has to resolve. We have had to bear down on public expenditure, and we must continue to do so. It is not good enough to look for short-term measures.
  My right hon. and learned Friend is right to talk about a short or medium-term target of 40 per cent., but in the longer term, if we are to compete with the rest of the world—and its growth rates represent very serious competition for us—we must bring expenditure levels down even further.
  It is no coincidence that our main competitors outside Europe have public expenditure percentages in the low or mid-30s. I refer to north America and Japan, although in the so-called tiger economies of the far east public spending is even lower. I do not believe that things will stay like that in those countries, but our target must certainly be the mid-30s as an overall percentage of public expenditure, once we have got through the 40 per cent. band. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend began to deal with it.
  We on the Conservative Benches often fail to deal with the serious philosophical difference that divides us from the Opposition. That difference is wholly legitimate, and it is important that it be raised during the debate. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are now trying to claim the territory, to throw a blanket over their true position and to make claims that they think the public will accept.
  However, it is we who believe in the concept of reducing taxation; it must be at the core of our strategy and we must never let up on it. Whatever else has happened over the past two or three years, for a Conservative Government to leave office with levels of taxation higher than when they came into office would be a problem for us. I recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend has begun to tackle that today, and I see that as a continuing saga over the next 12 months, to bear down on levels of taxation.
  We believe that money is best spent by the people who earn it, not by the Government, and the only way to bring that about is to bear down on public expenditure. In that context, I welcome the overall reduction in public expenditure by about £3.2 billion. But I make no bones about the fact that I had hoped for more. It would be wrong of me to say that I hoped for £3 billion; I hoped for £5 billion, and aimed in my mind at that figure, simply because I believed that it would have been possible to obtain more.
  However, I understand the constraints under which my right hon. and learned Friend must act, and later I shall talk about the reason why I believe that he set that course, and the basis on which I support it.

  1097
  I notice the reserve at £3 billion. I understand that that represents a measure of justifiable caution, but it gives us greater scope later in the financial cycle to bear down further on public expenditure, so I hope that the £3.2 billion reduction is not the end of the story by any means. I welcome the measure on that basis.
  I was particularly glad to see the measures to crack down on waste and fraud, the two big things that the Government seem to discuss every year. That crackdown will apply not just to social security spending, but across the board, and will include a reduction in central Government administration. The Government's intention to look at ways of cutting back on central Government expenditure is most welcome.
  The running costs cuts predicted by my right hon. and learned Friend today of £2 billion by 1998 will be particularly welcomed by most of the public, who are having to earn a living and who—in some cases—are in tenuous positions regarding employment. The protection of employment for civil servants does cost, and it is only fair that we bear that in mind. Every extra civil servant place costs extra in taxation, and both the civil service and the general public should understand that bearing down on that cost is justifiable.
  I am particularly interested in the social security budget, and I think that we have not given enough credit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who has, during a period of some three or four years, set about changing the way in which the social security system is delivered. I feel—I am sure that he would accept this—that he has further to go. After inflation, growth in social security spending was running at some 3 per cent., and my right hon. Friend is now predicting a reduction to 1 per cent. That is below growth rates predicted three years ago, and it is welcome. That heartens me, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that we have further to go than an increase of 1 per cent.
  I was particularly concerned to note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor today enhanced the Government's stance on fraud. I am keen on the new financial incentives for local authorities to combat fraud, and I only hope that they will deliver them efficiently. My knowledge of some local authorities—particularly my own—does not lead me to believe that they will deliver as much of that as we might hope, but we live in a period of hope. The Government should consider holding local authorities to the reduction target of some £2.5 billion by next year, as we shall provide the resources for them to do so.
  The shift in direction back towards traditional families is welcome. Many of my constituents who have chosen to have families and to seek to provide for those families have felt for too long that there are far too many ways in which those who have a less coherent approach to life may be able to jump the queue, whether in housing or in obtaining greater levels of benefit. The policies that my right hon. and learned Friend put forward today, which will be enlarged upon tomorrow, are moving some way towards putting right that situation. We should not shy away from showing to the country that we believe in traditional families.
  I am particularly keen on the measures on housing benefit. Many of my constituents raise the matter regularly at my surgeries. The fact that single people under 25 have such access to benefit leads to the spiralling 239912 S
  1098
  cost of rented property in places such as Waltham Forest. We should encourage the return to the tradition of people spending greater lengths of time at home while looking for a stable environment and a stable job, and the housing benefit measures will help us to do that.
  Because of the limited time, I have only glanced at the Red Book so far, but while I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's restrictions, it seems that we have some problems with regard to receipts. One has only to glance at the forecasts for the estimated outturn with regard to income tax to see that there has been a serious reduction, and the same goes for corporation tax, VAT, fuel duties, business rates and social security contributions. I accept that my right hon. and learned Friend has not had quite the scope that he would have hoped for because of the lessening of those receipts, but what do the receipts tell us? They tell us that the economy has slowed, and that problems are emerging because the predicted receipts from a growing economy are not there.
  That leads me back to my point on interest rates. Last year, I stood here and said that I did not think there was any need for interest rate rises. I can put my hand on my heart and say that publicly, and hope that Hansard recorded it. But what I said has been borne out by events. Shopkeepers and particularly manufacturers in my constituency told me last year that they knew about the price hike in raw materials, and they said that, in the run-up to Christmas, they were all trying to push up their prices. But I was also told that the consumer was not bearing that increase. The consumers walked away from the shops for a period and the prices came back down again. So, in effect, the manufacturers bore the price hike in raw materials.
  The Bank's predictions that we were rushing into a huge increase in inflation did not come true. For a few months—in an attempt to justify its position—the Bank bashed on at my right hon. and learned Friend. He raised interest rates last year, but resisted the pressure, rightly, later on. The Bank now says that the risks
  "are more evenly distributed around the central projection than earlier in the year. Consequently, although not the most likely outcome, there is now a somewhat greater chance that inflation will be below 2½ per cent. in two years time."
  Well, it must be lovely for the Bank of England to push politicians to make decisions and changes, but as the economy began to slow, I did not hear the Bank saying, "Of course, we expected that." The reality is that, in a sense, the Bank has power without responsibility. The Government are responsible for those matters, and the Bank only gives us advice. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's resistance to the pressure all through this year.
  I understand that this is a two-pronged Budget, the second prong being interest rate reductions. There is absolutely no question but that what has been delivered today has been a cautious but welcome Budget that reduces the levels of personal taxation. The Budget has found extra money for three key areas—education, health and law and order—to which the public wanted more to be applied.
  I hope and believe, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend has in his back pocket the knowledge that he is going to reduce interest rates. If he does, we shall certainly be on course to make the economy grow over

  1099
  the next few years in a sustainable way. Businesses up and down the land will then get some real benefit from that growth.
  I welcome all the tax reductions that have been made. The basic rate has been reduced to 24p in the pound, and I admit that I wish we could have gone lower. I expect that we shall go lower before the next election. That is not because tax reductions are some sort of bribe—I see some smiles from Opposition Members—but because of the philosophical divide between the parties. I do not believe that the Government have any right to stick their hand in my constituents' pockets to take their money before they get a chance to spend it. I would much rather let them spend it and find ways of levelling Government expenditure downwards so that we have to take less in taxation. So the focus on the family in the Budget today was welcome.
  Many of us have said that those who have been most hit are families in which there is one major earner. I am most glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend has raised the tax allowances by some £70. I should like to see him go further and make the allowances fully transferable so that we can see single-earner families gain even greater benefit. After all, they are probably the ones with the smallest margins. I urge even further progress on that, but in the meantime I welcome the measures that he announced to assist the family.
  Perhaps the most welcome of the measures in the Budget and the one that has taken greatest account of one group who feel themselves hard done by is the measure to increase capital thresholds for residential and nursing care. We all know from our constituency surgeries that, although we have tried to encourage people to save, those who have saved wonder why they are penalised with regard to residential and nursing care. We have all faced up to that and said that it would cost to lift the thresholds. Yet we have to balance the incentive to save against provision and Government expenditure.
  I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend looked again at that problem for pensioners and raised the limit for nursing care from £3,000 to £10,000 and the limit for residential care from £8,000 to £16,000. Yet it was most intriguing that we did not hear a word from the Leader of the Opposition about that measure. He may not have heard it. I am assuming that he heard it and that he understood it. He may not have done. Not one word came from him in his Budget speech on that measure. So pensioners up and down the land have no idea whether the Labour party welcomes the measure or does not. I should have thought that it would have been the first thing that he mentioned and that he would have wholeheartedly welcomed it. He did not and he missed an opportunity, but I welcome it.
  The Budget has paved the way to a serious interest rate reduction. It has given us the opportunity to demonstrate to people who have savings, who are on marginal incomes and who wish to create better lives for those around them and themselves that we believe in giving them that power. The reduction in taxation is giving back, not a bribe. It is saying to people, "We believe you can have more of your money. The economy needs the boost and you need the boost, and we want you to spend it on yourselves."
  I look forward in the next 12 months to seeing the economy grow even more at sustainable levels and to demonstrating to the public, who had perhaps begun to
  1100
  lose a little faith, that we believe in them as responsible individuals who can take more power for themselves and who display much better community spirit and understanding than any amount of central Government expenditure can produce.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: It is interesting to see Conservative Members putting on a brave face after listening to the Budget. One could feel the penny drop this afternoon as they listened quietly to the Chancellor's statement. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not welcome the measures for the elderly. That is not true. He did, but he said that they were far too little too late. One could feel the penny drop as Conservative Members realised that what was hyped up this morning by the media and their spin doctors as the big bang Budget that would save the Tory party at the next general election would not save them. They realised that many of them will not be in the House after the next general election as a result of the Budget.
  The Budget demonstrated the arrogance that the Government have displayed in the past 16 years. The Government hoped that ordinary people and the Opposition would forget what had gone on during the past 16 years and the waste of people. A generation of people are without work. The figures show that 800,000 people have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Resources have been wasted. We heard today about North sea oil and gas, which could have helped to create a booming economy and put people back to work, but public borrowing has been greater under the Tory Government than under any previous Government. We have heard about the horrendous sale of public assets at knock-down prices, but direct and indirect taxation are at their highest ever level.
  The Budget continues the theme of the Tory Government—a Government who are so divisive. The Tories will never be forgiven by the British people. The key statistics which will rout the Government from office are on the distribution of wealth. They have created a society in which the real income of the top 10 per cent. has grown by 62 per cent. while that of the bottom 10 per cent. has dropped by 17 per cent. We have a two-tier society and a society that confines pensioners to living in poverty. Many young people are unemployed. They will now be homeless because they will not receive the housing benefit to which they are entitled. Many families live on welfare benefit. A third of the population in my city live on some form of benefit. We have a Government without vision governing a country which cries out for leadership.
  There are several ways in which the Government could have stimulated the economy to create an effective environment for growth. They chose not to do so but to continue with a stop-start economy that relies on outdated, unjust and unfair cures. It is scandalous that the country spends £20 billion on keeping people out of work rather than improving the economy by providing desperately needed jobs in our communities, thereby raising people's self-esteem and letting them make the decisions that they want to make in their lives.
  The manufacturing base has been destroyed. Communities such as Bradford have suffered greatly in the past 16 years. The history of Britain in the past

  1101
  16 years could be seen as the inevitable effect of the decline in investment in our people, our infrastructure and our industry. The Tories have almost given up on Britain. The task facing us today is to equip Britain for the future by securing investment in industry and infrastructure and meeting the needs of people in today's society. Today's Budget did nothing to meet that task.
  It is almost three years since the recession officially ended, but as we entered the Budget debate today Britain had a faltering recovery. There are still more than 2 million people unemployed. Borrowing is higher than expected. Inflation looks likely to overshoot the Government's own targets. Perhaps of much greater concern, we have critically low levels of investment.
  The Tories have presided over the two deepest recessions since 1979. The economy does not have the capacity for strong growth. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development calculations show that Britain has fallen down the prosperity league from 13th place in 1979 to 18th in 1993. The main reason why we are falling is simple. We do not invest enough. In 1979 Japan invested 56 per cent. more, Germany invested 21 per cent. more and Belgium invested 11 per cent. more than Britain. Now the gap has grown even wider. Japan invests 141 per cent. more, Germany invests 60 per cent. more and Belgium invests 35 per cent. more than Britain.
  The real issue in the Budget is not that income tax is a penny down but how we can increase investment and boost the economy. The fundamental difference between the Conservatives and Labour is that while Conservatives believe in a minimalist state in which the Government abdicate responsibility for investment, Labour believes that the only route to success is high investment in infrastructure, people and technology. They believe that investment will follow success; we believe that success will follow investment.
  Conservative Budgets have consistently failed the country. The Conservative party's key promise in 1979 was that it would reverse Britain's decline. Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, said in his 1979 Budget:
  "in the last few years the hard facts of our relative decline have become increasingly plain, and the threat of absolute decline has gradually become very real."—[Official Report, 12 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 237.]
  That is a prospect that I am not prepared to accept, and nor are the British people.
  The Tories' record of the past 16 years is one of Britain's falling further and further behind. As originally pointed out by the Bank of England in its August 1995 inflation report, investment has been weak in the present recovery. In two years of the recovery, business investment has increased by only 4 per cent., compared with 28 per cent. in the 1980s and 16 per cent. in the 1970s. Weak investment and skill shortages are laying down the foundations of the next recession.
  In 1994, total investment was more than 10 per cent. below the level that it was in 1989, before the recession. The investment share of the economy has fallen for six years in a row—from 24 per cent. in 1989, to 17 per cent. in 1994. In 1993, the United Kingdom was 20th out of the 24 OECD countries in terms of the share of the economy devoted to investment.
  Investment is the key macroeconomic variable for growth, inflation, unemployment and trade. Not only does spending on investment increase output in the current
  1102
  period, but, as an addition to the capital stock, it can be used to produce three times as much output in the following period. With a higher capital stock comes higher capacity, which means higher growth rates can be sustained without inflationary pressures.
  For all the reasons that we have heard, Britain has too small a manufacturing base. It no longer meets some domestic demands, so we have to import, which worsens the balance of trade. Higher investment is not only the key to growth and, therefore, to lower unemployment, but the means by which sustained low inflation can be achieved.
  The Chancellor was keen to point out that manufacturing investment is 12 per cent. higher than a year ago, but it is still about 14 per cent. below the peak of 1989. In real terms, manufacturing investment in 1994 was 20 per cent. below the level of 1979.
  The Government portray the United Kingdom as the enterprise capital of Europe. We heard it again from the Chancellor today—I think that he said it three times. He said that we achieved that status by receiving one third of all inward investment into the European Community in 1993 and more than 40 per cent. of Japanese and foreign investment. What is not generally recognised is that even more investment is leaving the country. Inward investment was £6.6 billion in 1994, but outward investment was £16.4 billion. Since 1979, the cumulative balance of inward investment less outward investment was a deficit of £58 billion. In 1979, manufacturing accounted for around 30 per cent. of the output of the economy. By 1994, that figure had fallen to 21 per cent., with a loss of more than 2.5 million jobs.
  It is clear that, without tackling the problems of capacity in the economy, we face the re-emergence of the problems of stop-go and boom-bust, which have historically afflicted the British economy. Throughout the 1980s, the Conservatives argued that high unemployment was a price that had to be paid for low inflation. The reality is that high unemployment and high inflation are products of under-investment.
  It is no good Conservative Members talking about the scourge of unemployment and how hard it is for people who are out of work, when the Government do nothing to sustain the economy. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who said that the Bank of England and the Chancellor talk about the "acceptable" level of unemployment, but that there should not be an acceptable level. We must study ways to avoid it.
  Unemployment is a waste of people and it shows an enormous lack of investment in the British people by the Conservatives. The Prime Minister took office in November 1990, and in June of that year the work force in employment stood at 27.186 million. By June this year, it had fallen to 25.7 million—a drop of 1.46 million. There are grave doubts about the accuracy of the unemployment figures. I have given the Government figures. There might really be more than 4 million people out of work. We see that in the large number of our constituents who do not have jobs.
  Another worry is that the country has a problem with skills. There is a mismatch between the skills of the unemployed and those required by industry. That fact is accepted, not merely by Opposition Members but by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has called for a job skills

  1103
  audit. The unskilled and the poorly educated have suffered most from the rise in unemployment. The Tories have failed to invest in new technologies and industry and in the skills of the work force. In an internationally competitive global economy, where investment capital is mobile, a highly skilled work force is the key factor in competition.
  The United Kingdom lags behind all OECD countries except Turkey in the proportion of 17 and 18-year-olds in education—180,000 of our 17 and 18-year-olds are not in education, work or training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, they have gone missing.
  The Government have slashed the training for work budget by 29 per cent. since 1992. In 1994, the economic adviser to Lloyds bank warned that Britain was in danger of becoming a low-skill economy unless the levels of investment and training in manufacturing were raised. He said:
  "Low skills will discourage industry from adopting best technology, further undermining the need for better training. This downward spiral is probably the greatest threat to the opportunities now facing the UK".
  Those are the words, not of a Labour sympathiser, but an economist looking at the facts.
  After 16 years of Tory government, it is funny that they are asking us to draw lessons, not from Britain, which they have been governing, but from the Asian tiger economies, where very different policies have been pursued. As usual, the Tories have drawn the wrong lessons from the Pacific rim. The main reason that they have been so much more successful than Britain in recent years lies not in the difference between levels of public spending, but in the much higher levels of investment, both public and private. They have achieved those higher investment levels by encouraging higher levels of savings and competitive domestic markets and by investing in education and infrastructure. They have promoted a culture that values long-term investment, not short-term return.
  The Tories reject that role for government. That is why Britain has fallen so far behind in investment since 1979. While Hong Kong and Singapore invested £1.3 and £1.1 respectively for every pound per head invested in Britain in 1979, today they invest nearly £3. The lesson to be learned from Hong Kong and Singapore is not that public spending necessarily creates economic success, but that high investment does. Indeed, the lesson that those countries could teach us on public spending is that economic success can cut the need for public spending.
  Essentially, there are two options for Britain—carry on with the failed prescriptions of the past 16 years, or adopt a new common-sense approach. For Britain in the 1990s and heading towards the 21st century, the central challenge of economic modernisation is to overcome the long-standing problem of under-investment in people and in our social and economic fabric to expand the capacity of the economy.
  Investment must be a priority, and the Budget does not achieve that. We must ensure that investment is long-term. The Government have been too complacent for too long about investment and have ignored warnings from business, industry and the Bank of England.
  1104
  The Budget is not about a choice between investment and tax cuts, but about increasing investment as the only route to decent public services and a sustainable economy. For the past 16 years—too long—we have suffered the political dogma of the Conservatives, and they have accused us of political dogma. The British public will not fall for the bribery of tax cuts. Conservative Members wanted cuts in the region of 4p or 5p, not the 1p announced today. The British public will not be bribed in the way that the Tories feel that they can be.
  Last year, I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Finance Bill, which was an interesting experience in itself. A key phrase for Tory members of that Committee was the difference between tax evasion, which is illegal, and tax avoidance, which is legitimate. That subtlety allows disabled people to pay tax on benefits, while huge corporations employ expensive accountants to find ways not to pay it.
  This Budget does nothing for people with disabilities, even though campaigning groups such as the Disablement Income Group continually ask the Chancellor for tax allowances similar to those available to people who are registered as blind. Why is there discrimination between disabilities? In a written answer on 9 March 1995, in column 265 of Hansard, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied that it would cost "£20 million" to implement a clause that would give equality of treatment to people with disabilities. That would have been money well spent. Instead, the Chancellor has hit hardest those who can least afford it.
  The Chancellor's action in taxing disability living allowance without ensuring a fair taxation system is nothing short of scandalous. I am sure that we will return to that issue when the Finance Bill comes before the House.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House exactly how much extra the shadow Chancellor has committed the Labour party to spend on the disabled?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: The shadow Chancellor has said that, when we are in government, we will have to inspect the books. We will have to consider what money is available for us to spend. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) introduced the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year, but it was seriously disrupted by the Government—their Bill, now the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, did nothing to enhance the position of people with disabilities. The disabled are not the only group that are disadvantaged in many other ways. They look both to national Government and to local government to provide efficient and effective public services, yet with the cuts in public spending, local government will carry the can disproportionately.
  Last year's local government settlement failed to meet the cost to councils resulting from inflation, pay increases and the growing number of school children and old people. As a result, there were cuts in services and dramatic increases in charges for those that were left. My authority has faced cuts, including this year's anticipated cuts, of up to £60 million over the past three years. Our city's schools are falling down and have inadequate temporary classrooms. We cannot afford to allow our children's education and future to be jeopardised by poor conditions through lack of proper Government funding.

  1105
  When, on deputations, we meet Ministers, they say that they are sympathetic to what they hear, but the reality is that the Budget does not allow local authorities to spend money. We know that the Government do not like local authorities, especially Labour-controlled local authorities, and that that is why they consistently attack them. Equally, the Government suffer the consequences because, in adversity, Labour councillors enjoy the support of the majority of electors.
  The Government claimed today that they intend to spend more money on education. That is a necessary step, as we hear from teachers, parents and governors. Let us not have a sleight of hand whereby the education standard spending assessment is increased, but other services are cut and expenditure on other items reduced. That is not increasing the spend. We shall examine the documents that the Government produce and see whether we will get real, extra finance or whether what is given with one hand is taken by the other.
  The council settlements should be based on priorities, not political favours—Westminster council obviously comes to mind. Failure to provide adequate funding for local authorities means that people pay more for less. As has been said often today, what the Government give with one hand, they take back with the other. The poorest people cannot afford to accept that.
  The Budget fails Britain, as Government policies have been failing Britain for the past 16 years. It is without doubt time for the Tories to go and let in a Labour Government that could do much better in a shorter space of time.
  6.51 pm
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's description of his Budget as economically and socially responsible. I think that that is a fair assessment.
  Apparently, the Budget lacked what the Leader of the Opposition described as great strategic vision, but we did not get much clue from his remarks as to what made up his great strategic vision. He mentioned that people were paying too much tax and he was critical of specific taxes. He is presumably trailing his coat. If he says that too much tax is being paid, the implication is that he would reduce it. If there are certain taxes that he does not like, the implication is that he would remove them if he had responsibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) was wrong when he said that the Leader of the Opposition made no reference to my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for long-term care; he did. In an aside, he said that, while he welcomed them, he doubted whether all families would benefit when it came to the small print. Presumably that is yet another spending commitment by the Leader of the Opposition. If he thinks that what my right hon. and learned Friend has done is insufficient, he would top it up if he discovered that some families were not going to benefit as much as he thought.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend know whether the Leader of the Opposition would
  1106
  support the proposals in the Budget or oppose those proposals, which I believe are progressive, long overdue and much needed?
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: No, we did not get a clue on that. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) just left it open. If he thought that what had been done would be insufficient, he might oppose it. Clearly, another spending commitment was lurking around there.
  The Leader of the Opposition thought that one of the consequences of the Budget would be a possible increase in council tax. He said that disapprovingly, so we must assume that, if he had responsibility, he would not allow council tax to increase. The only way in which one can do that is either to cause spending to be reduced, or for further amounts of money from the central taxpayer to go out in grant to local authorities.
  The Leader of the Opposition deplored the fact that the Chancellor had done nothing to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. Presumably, had he had responsibility, he would have introduced measures to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) estimated that a reduction to 5 per cent. would be worth £500 million. That is another commitment that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition. He also referred to the possible demise of the community programme, implying that he would not cause that programme to disappear; presumably that is another spending commitment.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: When I learned Latin at school, I had immense difficulty with future negative conditionals, which are what the hon. Gentleman is offering us. Could he spend less time on what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, and tell the House whether he thinks that 1p off income tax is enough to save the Tories at the next general election?
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: I will come to that. First, I shall deal, as I am entitled to in debate, with the great vision thing which the Leader of the Opposition was implying should be in the Budget for the forthcoming year. I am trying to find the items in his speech which were to add up to this great vision thing. All I have been able to find are commitments to further expenditure or reductions in tax.
  The Leader of the Opposition deplored the 17 per cent. cut in the capital programme, so one presumes again that he would restore that cut if he was dissatisfied with the role played by the private finance initiative. He went on to say that he would want council house sales receipts phased into public expenditure—another commitment to expenditure.
  Frankly, it does not add up. It is not a vision; it is not even a responsible alternative to what is being proposed. It is all, by implication, saying that the Labour party disapproves of anything that involves disadvantage to people, but is in favour of anything which people might find advantageous.
  The only thing that the Leader of the Opposition had the grace not to mention this afternoon was the 10p rate of tax. At least he spared us that insult on top of all the expenditure commitments that were implicit in his remarks.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) began to sound as though he were the most orthodox iron Chancellor in history. He deplored the fact that the

  1107
  Government were not being sufficiently responsible in bringing down the public sector borrowing requirement. The fact that it is coming down, and is scheduled to come down by £7 billion per annum, was apparently not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman.
  If that is the case, he implies that he would bring it down faster. At the moment, the British economy needs that sort of extra discipline like a hole in the head. The PSBR is being brought down responsibly, but it seems that the Liberal party wants to impose much greater controls on the economy, which could only cause recovery to disappear.
  The one fixed idea of the right hon. Member for Yeovil is that the standard rate of tax should go up. The right hon. Gentleman's increase in the standard rate of tax to pay for education is always 1p ahead of where the Government stand at any one time. How he could combine in the same speech the fact that he would want to spend extra on education, while at the same time offering a grudging welcome to the changes in allowances that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced today, I do not know. It is yet another Opposition party whose ideas simply do not fit together and make absolutely no economic sense.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: He did not like the Labour party, though.
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: At least he had that going for him, but they did not seem to like each other much.
  The Government are accused of being out of touch, but I was glad to see that the Chancellor has been listening carefully to what members of the public have been saying to us over the past year. That is evidenced by the fact that there is to be increased expenditure on education, health and the police. That expenditure will be welcomed.
  On a slightly lower key, the fact that some help will be given on betting duty will also be welcomed by people who have put that point to us. Although one cannot brush aside the revenues of between £3 billion and £4 billion that the Government legitimately receive from alcohol, the fact that the Chancellor has recognised the problems caused for the licensed trade as a result of duty on alcohol, and has tried to help in a small measure, will also be welcomed. My right hon. and learned Friend's proposal to help people with the cost of residential care will strike a chord with a great feeling in the country at present.
  Three other problems worry people and cause them to be disaffected with the Government. Those worries have allowed the Opposition parties to cash in on that disaffection. The first is job insecurity, which is one of the great fears in the country. Unemployment is undoubtedly an extremely unpleasant experience for anyone to face. It is the Government's responsibility to try to run the economy in such a way that employment opportunities can be maximised. The key to that is maintaining a low-cost, low-inflation economy, which is exactly what this Budget has been designed to achieve on a sustained basis.
  The Budget also provides help for small businesses, which is extremely welcome, because we must look to the small business sector if we are to maximise job opportunities in the future. That is a more sensible approach than believing that a minimum wage and a windfall tax are a magic formula to transform the economy.
  1108
  Secondly, people are upset by what has happened to house values. I recognise the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has not felt it appropriate to take direct action today, but if we can establish low inflation as the underlying basis of the economy, it will have a good effect on the housing market and help to boost confidence.
  The general climate that the Budget attempts to create will have an indirect beneficial effect on the housing market. If my right hon. and learned Friend's judgment is right in that respect, we may also see a fall in interest rates, which will directly benefit not only present home owners but future ones. Reductions in mortgage interest rates have already been announced, but many people whose interest is calculated annually will not yet have benefited from any reductions. So good news is in the pipeline for home owners and potential home owners, and I hope that that will be sufficient to boost the housing market.
  Another issue that has been at the heart of the debate so far is whether tax is of central importance to the vast bulk of people. Some people say that it does not affect how they will vote in a future general election, yet that does not seem to sit easily with the thrust of the remarks that we have heard from Opposition Members today.
  It was interesting that, at the end of the Chancellor's speech, the cry of derision audible from the Labour Benches was, "Goodbye." It implied that Conservative Members had something to fear at the hands of the electorate because the Chancellor had not made bigger tax reductions. What do Labour Members think the British public want? Do they believe that they want lower or higher taxes? My instinctive feeling is that, naturally, the public want decent public services, but they want lower taxes.
  The Chancellor has framed his tax reductions in the right way, because he cannot be seen simply to have gone for a crude election gimmick. Rather, he has tried to bring help where it is needed and can most fairly be applied. There was a strong case for some fiscal relief to sustain economic recovery. So the idea that one should simply reduce taxes for party advantage is nonsense against the judgment of many economic commentators.
  The Opposition give themselves away by being unclear about whether they think the public are keen to have tax reductions. They realise in their hearts that the public want low taxes. If that is true, the public will see through the fog of confusion that characterises Labour's economic policy. Ultimately, it will come down to whether people believe that they will have a fairer regime under the Conservatives than under Labour. The Budget will enable important public services to be sustained at a satisfactory and improving level.
  If the economy continues to expand at the rate predicted, and if people's confidence grows—with extra money in their pockets as a result of these measures, they are likely to spend more, thus boosting VAT receipts—it will have a beneficial effect on British companies, so that corporate taxation receipts will also rise. It can be demonstrated that it is possible to boost tax revenues for important public services while taking a smaller chunk out of individuals' earnings in the process. It is perfectly possible to combine those two measures. If taxes are reduced, it does not necessarily follow that less will be available for public services.

  1109
  Throughout the 1980s, Conservative Governments showed that it was possible to reduce rates of tax while improving public services, and I believe that we are on our way to doing that again next year and for as many more years as people are wise enough to trust the Conservatives with the administration of their affairs. If they change track, they will return to a party that, by its very instincts, will tax higher because it wants to interfere and meddle, believing that it knows better than private business and can outwit the market in spending public money to achieve a given effect. The Labour party has always been shown to be wrong in the past, and, if it ever has the chance, it will be shown to be wrong in the future.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has judged the situation right. His claim that this is an economically and socially responsible Budget will be vindicated in my eyes and those of the wider public as the months unfold.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I will not follow the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) in his adventure in the pluperfect subjunctive, but I noted with interest that he had more to say about what the Labour party has advocated than about his party's Budget. That is probably a wise course.
  There is an old saying that a Budget that plays well on the day is viewed as pretty disastrous six months later, whereas a Budget that is disastrous on the day is viewed better six months later. Frankly, that is the only hope for the Budget, because it is a rag-bag of pits and pieces. A curate's egg is good in parts—the Budget was a crate of curate's eggs. That is surprising, because the Budget was an opportunity for great ingenuity and inventiveness.
  We have a Conservative party with its back against the wall, facing defeat, and an inventive Chancellor. I am an admirer of the Chancellor. He is extremely clever, insouciant, fun, and capable of clever footwork. If there were rabbits in the hat, he would be the Chancellor to find them. Those rabbits would be numerous, slightly overweight perhaps, and wearing big double bows and Hush Puppies. They would he beautifully fluffed and spruced up, ready to be exhibited to the country. Not a rabbit did we see. That must suggest either that things are worse than the Chancellor has told us, or that the Government's position is more desperate than we thought.
  The only rabbit pulled out of the hat was deep-frozen—the public finance initiative. It is a way of pretending to do something; a policy of build now, pay later. If one gets private finance to invest in the public sector, it means that one does not have to pay for a building to be built, but, over the years, a bigger bill must be paid to the people who built it in the first place. We will not even get those buildings soon, so it is clear that it is a policy of building slightly later than the Government need to, and letting a Labour Government pay for it when they come in.
  Mr. MacShane: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the Chancellor has a rabbit in his hat, but is saving it for a little later next year?
  Mr. Mitchell: I do not know. It is getting desperately late for rabbits, as the season is getting colder. Rabbits do not have much chance of surviving as we reach the end of November. I do not offer great prospects for rabbits. The Budget spells myxomatosis for those rabbits.
  1110
  We are confronted by two problems, one political and one economic. We are confronted by a recovery that is flagging and at the end of its tether and a Government who are flagging at the end of their tether. The Chancellor did not do much about either of those problems. The political problem is that of a party that is addicted to cutting taxes. It is now quite rightly seen by the public, however, as the high tax party. They believe it is the party that increases taxes.
  The Chancellor did nothing to dissipate that image. There was a useful reduction in tax on income from savings, which I welcome, because it is an obviously sensible measure. I also welcome the increase in allowances to take more people out of tax. It is right to do that. Both those measures are good, but they will not have people dancing in the streets of Grimsby or elsewhere, because they were not major measures.
  Conservative Members' reaction to the reduction of 1p on the basic rate of income tax had all the warmth of an open fridge door. That reduction will not offset the increase in taxes for which the Government have been responsible since the election. It will not offset people's sense of betrayal about those increased taxes. My leader was perfectly right to describe the Budget as the "1p off, 7p on" Budget. That is the keynote of the Government's policy, and that is what the public will remember.
  That 1p reduction would not get past consumer protection legislation were it a sale offer. A reduced sale good has had to have been on sale in the store at the price from which it was supposed to have been reduced, but to increase taxes by 7p and to reduce them by 1p does not fulfil the terms of that legislation. That measure will not help the Conservatives at the election, because the people will not be fooled again. It will not get rid of the feeling that the country has been treated abominably by the Government, who promised not to increase taxes but then increased them massively.
  The Budget has failed disastrously to overcome the second problem of the economy. We had a welcome and belated recovery as a result of the Government being forced out of the exchange rate mechanism. They were right to come out, because we should never have gone into that insane trap in the first place. By coming out it, the Government were allowed to reduce interest rates, which allowed the recovery to develop.
  Our recovery was not as great as the Italian one, because the Italians wisely devalued by more than we did, and became much more competitive. They were helped in that procedure by something that should be adopted in this country, too, because the Italians took most of the Government politicians off to gaol. The result was a collapse in confidence in the lira, which made Italian manufactured exports even more competitive. It is a very good economic management to take one's politicians to gaol. It destroys confidence in the currency, which makes exports competitive and taxes imports. I commend that strategy to the Government, who should start looking around their Benches for those appropriate for that treatment.
  We witnessed an economic recovery in the country, but it is clear that the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England between them set out deliberately to dampen that recovery, if not to abort it, because the Bank of England is obsessed with not letting manufacturers

  1111
  increase their manufacturing prices. Those manufacturers constantly' receive sermons from the Governor, who knows nothing about the dynamics of manufacturing.
  Through the ERM deflation, British manufacturers kept exports going without a profit, just to keep their markets and their production going. They were in a desperate situation. They were starved, anorexic, because of the pressures on profits. They needed to increase prices to generate profits to pay off the debts accumulated at that time. When they did so, however, they were lectured by the Governor, who was determined to stop those price increases.
  British manufacturers had to increase their prices, because one of the main causes of our tragedy is that the rate of return on manufacturing is half the rate of return on other commercial undertakings in other markets. It is also less than the rate of return on manufacturing in competitor countries. That is why we are not investing, and not expanding production. We are not producing enough profit—enough return—to finance the investment that the country needs.
  Manufacturing needed a devaluation because of the way it had been squeezed and hit by deflation. Devaluation represented an opportunity to generate more profit, and it had to be taken. The Bank of England, however, determined as ever to maintain its discipline, and empowered by the published minutes of its meetings with the Chancellor, which give the Governor a platform from which to preach his usual ritual insanities to the country, was determined not to give manufacturers that opportunity. As a result, interest rates were kept far too high when the rate of inflation was coming down. As a result, the value of the pound was kept at a level far higher than it should have been.
  In the past couple of years, real interest rates, allowing for inflation, have been double the historic average of real interest rates since the war. The result was an overvalued exchange rate, which was made worse because interest rates were then increased. The fall in those rates was halted, and the value of the pound was pushed back up. By those procedures, the recovery was aborted. I do not know why. Was it to be communautaire? Was it to show a spirit of good will and shared suffering with the French? Was it motivated by a desire to discipline manufacturers?
  What was supposed to be an export-led recovery has been halted. Imports have begun to rise again. In the three months to August, United Kingdom exports—trade with the world, including the European Community—went up by 5 per cent., while manufactured imports went up 9 per cent. Manufactured output went up 1 per cent.
  The latest non-EC figures, which come out in advance of those EC figures, are even worse. The export-led recovery is tailing off, and imports are beginning to rise again. Imports have a dominant share of our current market—that share has trebled to about 50 per cent. of the market for manufactures. As a result, the manufacturing trade deficit is now widening again. It was £7.1 billion in 1992, but this year the figure, at an annual rate, is £8.9 billion. Such is the deficit in manufactured trade.
  Because of the rise in the value of the pound, our relative export trade prices are now 10 per cent. higher than they were in the fourth quarter of 1986. It is no wonder, therefore, that the growth rate is slowing; that
  1112
  manufacturing production has not returned to the level achieved in 1990, and is only a few points above that achieved in 1973. What an abysmal record. It is a record that has been beaten only by a few other countries. Nearly every country has increased manufacturing production by more than half in that period. Very few countries have not increased it. Our pathetic record explains the huge rise in unemployment, which is basically due to the reduction in manufacturing jobs.
  The recovery that we have experienced since our departure from the ERM gives us an opportunity to reverse the record. The best way to do that—the action that the Chancellor needs to take now to atone for his failure to do anything in the Budget—is to reduce interest rates. He should take the Governor by the scruff of the neck and tell him, "Eddie, reduce interest rates."
  They should be reduced by 2 per cent.—3 per cent. would be better, but 2 per cent. would provide some help, if that is the most that can be forced out of the Governor. A reduction in the exchange rate will turn the economy round, and manufacturers will realise that investment will pay off because exports will pay and the recovery will be sustained. Unless we take that action, we shall not obtain the investment in increased production that we need. The only way to boost exports, to tax imports and to increase productivity—which always increases with production—is to have a competitive exchange rate.
  We need to turn round the economy, and the Chancellor needs to take steps to do that now. He has a great opportunity to do so while Europe is immersed in the monetary union folly, and while the French are sacrificing their economy to the policy of the franc fort. Here is our opportunity to revive our economy and boost a recovery that began with our departure from the ERM, but is now petering out. That recovery desperately needs boosting—we can and must boost it by reducing interest rates.
  The Budget does nothing to boost the recovery, and must be summed up as a do-nothing Budget. It does nothing for housing, except to promise cuts in the money given to housing associations. It does nothing for local government, except promise increases in council tax. It does nothing for unemployment, except promise cuts in the training budget. It does nothing for the under-25s, except reduce their housing benefit.
  It does nothing for a Tory party which is desperate for tax cuts to try to con the electorate back and to win their favour. It certainly does nothing for a nation that cannot wait to get going again when the economy revives, and cannot wait to get the Government out.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is always a great pleasure—I mean that—to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Gentleman and I share a number of common campaigns, one of which he has highlighted today when talking about his support for manufacturing industry and for increased investment in it. I also share that campaigning spirit with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who heads an important Committee of the House, the Public Accounts Committee. On many occasions in the House, I have heard him speak with knowledge and fervour about what the Government should do for manufacturing industry, which is perhaps the only source of non-inflationary sustainable economic growth.

  1113
  The manufacturing industry is vital to a sound, stable economy. Over many years in this place, under—dare I say it—successive Governments, I have highlighted the importance of manufacturing. The benefits that manufacturing can bring to this country have not been properly appreciated by successive Governments.
  Like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I welcome the fact that we came out of the exchange rate mechanism, which had slaughtered industry and enabled us not only modestly to devalue but to reduce interest rates, which were such a penal impost on investment, which is so essential to manufacturing industry. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and I also share common ground on the subject of the Governor of the Bank of England; our views are identical. I have said it before and I will say it again: I would award Mr. Eddie George his P45. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that the Governor has no understanding of manufacturing industry, of what motivates those in manufacturing industry and what motivates people to create wealth.
  I am delighted that, earlier this year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor resisted the tremendous pressure brought to bear on him by the Governor of the Bank of England to increase interest rates. We all knew that, if interest rates had been increased, the impact on the economy would have been disastrous. I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend resisted that pressure; in hindsight, he was shown to be absolutely right and Mr. Eddie George was shown, yet again, to be absolutely wrong. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who stressed the importance to genuine wealth creation in this country of our industrial and commercial sector.
  I did not have much sympathy with the contributions made by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), or the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Leader of the Opposition appeared to criticise the Chancellor, not on what he said in his Budget speech but on matters that the Opposition consider to be their strengths. The Opposition did not say what they would do with the economy and I hope that, during the Budget debate, they will spell out to us and, through the House, to the people of this country precisely how Her Majesty's Opposition, the Labour party, would seek to manage the economy.
  I understand from what I have heard since my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats spoke that Her Majesty's Opposition will not vote against the 1p reduction in the basic rate of tax. I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's responsible decision not to cut the basic rate of tax by more than 1p. Many Conservative Members would like to have seen a much greater cut, but I believe that, if my right hon. and learned Friend had reduced the basic standard rate of tax by more than 1p in the pound, the policy would have been misunderstood. I warmly congratulate him on his prudent and responsible move—a move that will not be perceived as the Government seeking to bribe the electorate of this country with their own money. I warmly welcome that decision, which was perhaps not welcomed by Conservative Members as warmly as it should have been.
  To continue with my right hon. and learned Friend's strategy, he was entirely right to increase dramatically the tax thresholds. We all know that, if thresholds are raised, the lower-paid benefit to a much greater extent than if the
  1114
  basic rate of tax is reduced. My right hon. and learned Friend has increased the threshold—from the lower rate to the basic standard rate to the higher rate. That will be warmly received and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his policy.
  Ultimately, the people of this country will judge my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. Tomorrow we shall see what the economic pundits say in the columns of both the heavy and the tabloid press. We shall also hear what the City, the Confederation of British Industry, engineering employers and the smaller business community think of the Budget.
  Dare I say to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) that I see the Budget—I have not been prompted by anyone to say it—as the first stage of a package. The second stage will be seen this time next year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the strategy of the Budget. We have laid the foundations for the Budget of November 1996, and the benefits of today's Budget will arrive in people's pockets in April, May, June and July next year.
  I accept that the benefits—which may be substantial—in next year's Budget will not arrive in people's pockets until, possibly, the 1997 general election campaign; indeed, I believe that will happen. We may be in an interesting position then, however: if the sound, stable economy of November 1996 allows the Chancellor to announce some goodies—if this year's satisfactory economic position is improved further—the election may be contested on the basis of whether the official Opposition support those extra tax reductions.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Earlier, in an intervention, the hon. Gentleman commended the Chancellor for not attempting to bribe the electorate with their own money. Is he now saying that there is a better time at which to do that—this time next year?
  Mr. Winterton: No, I am saying that, by this time next year, it will be clear that we have a strong economy. In terms of economic activity and strength, we shall be at the top rather than the bottom of league tables. I do not merely quote Tory party sources; I quote the International Monetary Fund and the OECD. Many people now predict that the United Kingdom's economy will become stronger.
  In his interesting speech, the Leader of the Opposition emphasised that only a pathetic 1 per cent. tax reduction had been made, as against the 7p increase that had taken place under a Conservative Government since the last general election. Is it not appropriate, however, for the country to return to its people some of the money that has been, and is being, taken from them, if it can afford to do so? I predict that—given the responsible, prudent, constructive and progressive Budget that has been announced today—we shall build on the strength of our economy.
  We want low interest rates and low inflation. We have that, and I predict that, before Christmas, there will be a modest reduction in interest rates. That will give further confidence to industry and commerce; our exports will benefit, there will be more investment and we shall have a stronger economy. That will enable us next year to repay to the taxpayers some of the money that they currently entrust to the Government of the day.

  1115
  I look forward to the future with confidence. If there is an aspect of the Budget that makes me a little sad and disappointed, it is the decision of the Chancellor and his advisers not to introduce a package to help the housing market. As many hon. Members know, I have championed the property-owning democracy for many years, and it is generally agreed that the housing market is in a very depressed state. We need to give it a kick-start—and we could do that in a way that I have suggested publicly in the House.
  We could help first-time buyers by raising the MIRAS threshold from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent., and raising the threshold for tax relief eligibility from £30,000 to £50,000. The arrangement could be limited to five or 10 years, but it would kick-start the housing market without creating the property inflation of the late 1980s that led to the severe inflation problems faced by the Government as a result of certain decisions made by Lord Lawson when he was Chancellor.
  I am prepared reluctantly to accept the Treasury's judgment. I believe that the Chancellor is right in saying that the housing market will recover in any event, as long as we have a low inflation economy with low interest rates. If I may be party political for a moment, however, I must add that I do not expect that improvement to feed through in time to assist the Government in a general election in the spring of 1997.
  I feel that this Conservative Government owe a great deal to those whom they encouraged to buy homes—council houses, newly built houses and houses in the private sector. Home ownership has proved to be a successful policy, and has served the Conservative party well in many general elections; I only hope that the Chancellor's expressed belief that the housing market will recover is proved right. Sadly, I do not think that any such recovery will produce the confidence that will help the party to win the next general election.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has felt the pulse of the nation. When I ask my constituents—and those in other constituencies that I visit, particularly in the north-west—about their main concerns, they cite the national health service, education and law and order. The order in which they mention those concerns may be reversed, but they represent people's priorities. The Government have allocated substantial additional resources to all three. An extra £878 million or so is being given to education, of which some £774 million will be channelled directly into local education authorities. I hope that the money will then be channelled into the classroom, so that children can benefit.
  I was saddened by the attempt by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil, to undermine that substantial additional tranche of education spending. I wonder what would appease him. What would he like us to do? Since 1979, the Government have dramatically increased the additional sums spent per pupil: spending has increased by some 50 per cent. in real terms.
  Another subject close to my heart is the national health service. Opposition Members will doubtless accept that my commitment to the service is second to none in the House; it is shared by many, if not all, Opposition Members, and by a pretty good number of Conservative
  1116
  Members. I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has decided to increase NHS spending by £1.3 billion in the next financial year. That is necessary if people's expectations are to be met and if we are to be able to take advantage of the huge advances in medical technology and medical science; so we should do just that.
  Again, on law and order, as we know, there will be additional money for 5,000 more police officers. What is more—here I have a vested interest in relation to my constituency—the Government will provide resources for 10,000 closed circuit television cameras. Macclesfield's application for closed circuit television cameras in its town centre failed in the current year. I hope that any new application will be much more sympathetically considered, bearing in mind that additional sums are being allocated, and that it will be successful.
  Again, my credentials for believing that the Government must be involved in infrastructure expenditure and have a duty to provide communications, whether by rail, road or air, to ensure that we are as efficient as possible, are, I think, second to none. Obviously, I have long supported the initiative that money should be attracted into infrastructure from the private sector. I hope that the private finance initiative will come up with the resources that the Government have estimated and have put to the House in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.
  If industry is to be successful, if we are to increase exports and if, for instance, we are to take advantage of the channel tunnel—I mean not just the south-east but the north-east, the north-west, the northern region, Scotland and Wales—clearly, we must have considerable investment not only in our rail infrastructure but in our road infrastructure. I am delighted to support the proposal, and I encourage banks and other investors to find out how far they can go to take advantage of the private finance initiative to assist this country to be as competitive as possible.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been prudent—perhaps I am repeating some of my remarks. I am one of those Conservative Members who would have been upset and concerned if the basic rate tax reduction had been more than the 1p that he announced. It would have given the wrong signals. It might have resulted in an increase rather than a decrease in interest rates, and therefore it would have done a disservice to this country's long-term economy.
  I hope, however, that the Paymaster General will take back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer my congratulations on his imagination, prudence and responsibility. I sat on this Bench deeply concerned that we might have sacrificed a golden opportunity to give the Government a chance to continue governing this country after the next election. I have no hesitation in supporting this Budget and the prudent resolutions that will result from it, especially in relation to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst): the position of the elderly and of people who may need to use either private nursing homes or private residential homes in their declining years. My right hon. and learned Friend's imaginative proposals to enable those people to receive tax relief on the savings and policies that they will take out to help pay for that cost are long overdue and will prove to be popular.

  1117
  I have met many people who feel considerable resentment because they have worked hard, been prudent and saved during their working lives but, having saved, have been expected to pay the full and heavy cost of nursing home care or residential home care. Such facilities—again, I have crossed with my party on this—were previously provided by the national health service free at the point of delivery in hospital geriatric wards. We can all say that that was not ideal and that people's quality of life there was not as we would have wished. That may be true, but I have come across some desperate cases where people who have saved £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000 have gone through that money in two and a half years because of the heavy cost of certain nursing home fees, especially if they required an exceptional level of care, with fees up to £500, £550 or even £600 a week. It does not take a great mathematician to know that £500 does not go into £50,000 that many times.
  The move of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice today will be warmly received and will remove the anger and frustration of many people who have felt that, having have been prudent, all their hard-earned savings will go merely to pay for residential care.
  I warmly welcome the pronouncements of my right hon. and learned Friend. He is building for the future and I look forward with immense confidence to the Budget this time next year.
  7.46 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: As I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, I asked myself the questions: what does this Budget do for Britain and what does it do for my constituency? To try to visualise what effect this Budget will have, I tried to picture groups of my constituents and to assess their reaction to what the Chancellor said.
  I think first about parents in my constituency who are extremely angry about local government funding and about the enormous cuts that took place last year. I think not only about their anger, but of their concern for educational standards, the level of cuts that schools have experienced, local library closures, cuts in community education and all the things that we care desperately about in our communities. I also think about parents who are dependent on child care, about the real lack of child care that we experience in this country, and about the difficulty that parents have in finding work that allows them to take proper care of their children because of the lack of public child care facilities.
  I think about council tenants and housing association tenants because in Cambridge more than 4,000 families are on the waiting list for public housing. Nothing in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced today will help those people or give them hope for the future. That relates not only to people who are homeless, but to people who are inadequately housed.
  During my advice surgeries, often, families with two or three children come to see me. They occupy two-bedroom flats, often they live on the second or third floor, where there is nowhere for the children to play. We should be doing something about the pressure and stress that those parents feel when they look after children in such conditions. We should be trying to help.
  1118
  I know that many people are employed in temporary work. They are concerned about job insecurity. Nothing has been done in the Budget to help them. We have seen some measures to help small businesses, which certainly need more Government help. I want to describe a business that belonged to two of my constituents. The measures announced today would have done nothing to help them.
  Yes, there are tax cuts and I believe that they will be welcomed by those on low pay who are finding life a struggle. However, that must be measured against the background of the 7p that has been put on taxes since the last election. The Budget has reversed just 1p of that. We have a 7p up and a 1p down Budget. I believe that taxes should not have been reversed in that way. I would have liked to see a reduction in VAT on fuel. That would have helped more people who are struggling now to make ends meet.
  A short time ago I was visited by two of my constituents who ran a transport business. It was a very successful business which was expanding rapidly. It was the sort of company that the Government would feel was a shining light and an example to others of how to conduct a business.
  Two or three years ago, the Bonfields found it necessary to buy new lorries, which were purchased on credit agreements. I understand from different manufacturers that the lorries proved to be of unmerchantable quality. They suffered multiple mechanical breakdowns, not so much in this country as in eastern Europe and elsewhere. My constituents found that, despite promises that had been given at the time, there were totally inadequate servicing arrangements, and the business rapidly began to lose money. It lost money to such an extent that the Bonfields went out of business.
  When my constituents set about trying to sue the finance companies which had supplied the money to pay for the trucks, they found that, because of an exclusion clause in the contract—it was a completely standard contract between a finance company and a small business—they were prevented from taking any legal action.
  My constituents were so concerned about that that they came to me to see whether I would lobby the Department of Trade and Industry about trying to improve the regulations applying to contracts between the larger finance companies and small businesses. I received an answer from the Department which told me that the Government, far from trying to tighten the regulations, were thinking of abolishing them completely. That illustrates well that the Government's attitude towards small businesses consists of just warm words. Describing small businesses as the engine of the economy is fine, and I believe they are, but we are not giving them the help they need if they are to conduct their business successfully.
  So often we find that the stakes are raised in favour of large businesses and large finance companies and the small businesses have no teeth in the face of that. Small businesses could be given more help and, although I welcome what is in the Budget, we could be doing far more to ensure the survival of those important companies.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Lady tell us what she would do for small businesses?
  Mrs. Campbell: I just described a situation which arose because of a lack of regulation. Nobody wants red

  1119
  tape, but we want to see proper protection for small businesses, particularly when they are dealing with large finance companies which are cleverly trying to raise the stakes to ensure that they do not suffer if anything goes wrong. That is unfair to the small businesses.
  Today we have seen a small amount of help given to families with the child care allowance for those on family credit. I welcome that, but it does not go far enough and is not sufficient to help many of those families get out of the poverty trap. The child care allowance for those on family credit was introduced in a previous Budget and I believe that a pathetically small number of parents have been able to take advantage of it so far. The problem is not with the allowance but with the fundamental changes that are needed in the social security system which will allow people to climb out of the poverty trap.
  The real problem is that, because of the way in which the tax and benefits system works, parents often find it more beneficial to be on benefit than to go out to work, even if that work is not particularly low-paid. This is some attempt by the Government to try to reverse that, but it does not go far enough and I do not believe that it will help many parents.
  Over the past few years, we have seen a real rise in the number of single-parent families. Often that is not because parents choose to live as single-parent families. It has been found that 60 per cent. of single-parent families have been through divorce, separation or bereavement. Only 4 per cent. of those families are women under the age of 20 who have had babies out of wedlock. We should be giving families more help to climb out of the poverty trap.
  I was struck by the case of another of my constituents who came to see me. It was a woman with two children who believed that she was in a stable relationship. She had a part-time job. Unfortunately, because of a breakdown in the relationship with her boyfriend, he threw her out of the property in which they were both living. She found that she was unable to continue working because of the way in which the tax and benefits system operated. It was a crazy situation. She found that the Government were paying her £600 a month in benefit, whereas, if they had instead been prepared to pay her £200 towards the cost of child care, she would have been able to continue working. That is the sort of absurdity that creates real difficulties for people.
  Many such families are living in dire poverty. They do not have enough to eat and cannot buy proper clothes and shoes for their children. Surveys have shown that 90 per cent. of single parents wish to return to work. Cambridge has a high number of lone-parent families and, at the same time, the city has a skills shortage. It seems absurd that we cannot marry up the women, many of whom have high skills levels, with the jobs that need to be filled, because of the way in which the tax and benefits system works.
  We want to see not just straightforward cuts in benefits and the fiddling around the edges that have been announced in today's Budget, but a real restructuring of the social security system, which will alleviate the poverty trap and allow parents to return to work without being worse off.
  1120
  In Cambridge, we are taking an innovative approach by setting up a series of one-stop shops to give parents the advice they need when they are trying to get hack to work. Such parents need advice on benefits child care, jobs and training. That information is usually scattered, and it is difficult for parents to travel around the city or to make telephone calls to obtain advice from different places. We are hoping that putting all that advice in one place will prove to be a real boost to parents who want to return to employment.
  As I said earlier, there is major concern about the effect of the Budget on education. I have been doing a little arithmetic while hon. Members have been speaking, trying to work out what the local government settlement will mean for education in my county. Last year, it meant that Cambridgeshire county council had to cut its spending by £17 million. In fact, it took £10 million from its reserves, so the cut in expenditure was only £7 million. I say "only £7 million", but that still meant huge cuts in school budgets, with the loss of more than 100 teaching posts and many auxiliary posts. Some schools escaped the consequences by taking money from their reserves. However, unless there is a huge injection of money, there will have to be further cuts in the coming year.
  There have also been huge cuts in the library service. Opening hours have been reduced and there have even been some full-scale library closures. My local library, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary, will, I am sad to say, close next year. It is well used by elderly people and those with young families. Indeed, from an early age all my children borrowed books from the library when learning to read. There have been huge cuts in community education. Youth Action, a club in the Cambridge area which teaches young people socially useful skills, has suffered huge cuts and there is now a danger that it will have to close.
  What does the Budget mean for Cambridge and Cambridgeshire? The usual calculation is that the county gets about 1 per cent. of the money that goes into the general budget, so 1 per cent. of the £780 million that the Chancellor announced today will mean, if my calculation is correct, that Cambridgeshire will get about £8 million. However, we must remember that last year we had to cut expenditure by £17 million, so we are still short of £9 million on our 1994–95 settlement—and that is in cash terms, without taking account of inflation.
  Many of the parents who have worked so hard writing to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for the Environment and everybody else they could think of, will be bitterly disappointed. When today's announcement is translated into the effect on their schools, libraries and community groups, I fear that the cuts will be as bad as we had all imagined they would be. Although the £8 million will make up for some of last year's cuts, it is not anything like enough to reverse their effects completely. There will be a real reduction in the standard of education in Cambridgeshire as a direct result of the cuts that today's Budget has not reversed.
  I want to raise two other matters. First, I welcome the additional help for elderly people who have to pay for residential care—although again I have to say that it is too little, too late. It will do nothing to help those who have to

  1121
  sell their homes to pay for private residential care, because the amount by which they have to reduce their income to prevent them from having to contribute is too small.
  I also welcome the increase in tax on tobacco. My personal view is that smokers cost the national health service millions of pounds for care that they would not need if they did not smoke, so it is right that they should be taxed to pay for that. Of course, not only do the smokers suffer from their own smoke: non-smokers inhale cigarette smoke which can lead to breathing difficulties and even cancer and heart disease. I hope that the tax increase will encourage people to stop smoking.
  The measures in the Budget are minor. The Chancellor is fiddling while Britain burns. What was needed was a Budget to raise investment levels, to reduce unemployment—especially among the young—and to increase the real level of prosperity among our people. The Budget tackles none of those, and I do not think that the Chancellor intended that it should. He wanted a Budget that would set the Conservatives on course to win the next election. That will be a difficult task. It is five years since John Major was elected leader of the Labour party—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she must refer to the Prime Minister by his title or by his constituency.
  Mrs. Campbell: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  It is five years since the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was elected leader of the Labour party—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Campbell: In a moment.
  I want to explain what has happened since that momentous event. On average, there have been six tax rises every year; unemployment has risen by almost 500,000; average economic growth, excluding oil, has been only 1 per cent. per year; annual house repossessions have more than doubled; more than one third of those who bought houses in the year that the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister now have negative equity; the number of households dependant on income support has risen by 40 per cent.; the cost to taxpayers of benefits resulting from Government failure has risen by £750 per taxpayer; and recorded crime has risen by 12 per cent.
  Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give way now?
  Mrs. Campbell: Not at the moment.
  What has happened will not be easy to reverse through a simple Budget tax cut—and certainly not by a 1p in the pound tax cut. The Chancellor has failed dismally, as was evident from the expressions on the faces of his Back Benchers. We saw the looks of dismay as the Chancellor sat down and they realised that that was it. The underlying weakness of the economy and the trade deficit that was announced last Thursday—the worst ever—show why the Chancellor has been wholly unable to satisfy his Back Benchers. The lack of investment, job insecurity and the lack of any increase in prosperity will not be reversed by the Budget. It is no wonder that the Tories were so dismayed by what they heard.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who made a cogent and caring speech.
  I wanted a Budget to create employment, to invest in our manufacturing industries and to create a climate of job security. There is a climate, but it is a climate of fear of losing one's job. Whether one is a humble labourer or a princely manager, that sense of fear intensifies as each month goes by. I do not believe that the Budget will dispel that fear in any way. That is my main complaint about and greatest disappointment in today's Budget. The fear of losing one's job exists even in the cradles of industrial activity in the northern regions, in Wales and in Scotland, just as it exists in the previously prosperous settlements of Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey.
  I had hoped for a strategic Budget. I had hoped for a Budget for secure jobs. I had hoped for a Budget that would put manufacturing first, above all else. It should have been a Budget to restore Britain's manufacturing greatness to what it was in yesteryear. Instead, it was a Budget to restore the electoral fortunes of the Conservative party. It was a Budget that was clearly conceived in panic, designed to meet a coming electoral crisis and, I thought, crafted with old-fashioned political cunning. Certainly it was a speech delivered with great panache and steely resolve by the Chancellor.
  The Budget speech was competently and confidently delivered by a Chancellor who, most of us would say, had earned a political reputation as a mugger—a mugger of teachers, policemen, doctors and nurses. I must say, however, that he is a cheerful bully—a very cheerful bully—but today he was a parliamentary conjuror. What were the balls in the air? They were taxes, concessions, impositions, cuts, statistics, benefits, promises and giveaways.
  I summed it up in my own mind as the Budget of the short term. It does not deal with Britain's pressing problems, specifically that of getting young people back into work. In my view, that is a gigantic task, and the Chancellor ignored the challenge. One in 12 people are out of work; one in six young people in our country are now jobless; 41 per cent. of young black men are out of work; and 61 per cent. of young black men are jobless in Greater London.
  Chronic long-term unemployment persists. I understand that more than 800,000 people have been out of work for more than a year, and that 650,000 18 to 24-year-olds are out of work. By any measure, they are the statistics of despair. They guarantee more crime—more drugs-related crime—and they demonstrate an unforgivable injustice. Those statistics put to shame recent Administrations who have received £120 billion of oil revenues since 1979. Those same Conservative Administrations have also received about £80 billion-worth of revenues from privatisation receipts. It is clear that this Budget is a great missed opportunity.
  I wanted a Budget to get young people off the streets and to give them work, better training, hope and self-respect. If we do not find meaningful work for the tens of thousands of young people, our society will fall apart.
  On the bigger estates in my constituency, there are homes in which neither father nor son has work. There are streets full of citizens who are out of work and have

  1123
  no reasonable prospect of gaining jobs. That is an injustice and a scandal. It is also a dangerous failing that bodes ill for the future of our society. In my county of Clwyd, some 13,000 people are now out of work. There are 2,500 unemployed people in my constituency, and Wales as a whole has a major problem with long-term unemployment.
  The priority must be to create real jobs with real wages and real status. Too many young men and women now leave school and college with no prospect of meaningful employment. Too many housing estates are suffering a terrifying drugs problem; burglary is rampant; there is perpetual vandalism; pensioners suffer foul-mouthed verbal abuse; and women are fearful of going about their business.
  Lack of employment is the main problem for 18 to 24-year-olds. The Budget offers no certain remedies for those who have no work, but fear stalks the employed in the now embattled steel and coal communities in my country of Wales. We have made huge sacrifices in our country. We have co-operated constantly in demanning; we have increased productivity and ensured flexibility at work, but the fear of losing one's job remains.
  My own community of Alyn and Deeside in north-east Wales experienced Europe's largest ever redundancy scheme in 1980. There were 8,000 Shotton steel job losses in only three months. The losses occurred between new year and Easter. They were a severe blow to my constituency, and the effects of such titanic losses remain to this day. I can report that we have made a new economy, but it is not large or prosperous enough to offer work to all those who lost out in the steel closures. Many of the new jobs are part-time or for women only; many are unskilled and often pay lamentably poor wages. Fear and unemployment remain.
  A further problem is that my excellent constituency district council of Alyn and Deeside is to be merged with another on 1 April to form the new county of Flintshire. The leadership of the unitary Flintshire county council fears that we shall start the new financial year with a large budget shortfall. Flintshire fears that the quality of services in, for example, community care and housing will decline or that council taxes will rise considerably. We are millions of pounds short. So that the new Flintshire county council might begin its life with a just and fair apportionment of money from the Welsh Office, I plead with the Chancellor, even at this late hour, not to starve Flintshire of cash. It simply wants fair play, so that it can continue to deliver first-class services and avoid a major increase in council taxes.
  The Budget is supremely indifferent to the long-term needs of the economy. Our manufacturing base has shrunk, the balance of trade is wretched, our industries need investment, there are major skills shortages, our society is divided and there is a large underclass that has no prospect of meaningful work or prosperity.
  The Chancellor was applauded noisily by Conservative Back Benchers as if he had performed a heroic parliamentary feat, but it was a hollow triumph, if triumph it was. When the cheering fades, the industrial landscape of a once great Britain will still be littered with the awesome wreckage of our once mighty manufacturing industries. The following list is frightening: the coal,
  1124
  shipbuilding, steel, aerospace, cement, brickmaking, motor, rolling stock and textile industries comprise a grim roll-call of decline, shrinkage and disappearance. They have experienced a blizzard of redundancies since the early 1980s.
  A terrible reckoning lies ahead for the Government and the Chancellor. That reckoning will come at the election. Clearly, from what has been said today, that election will be in 1997—probably as late as May in that year—not 1996. But whenever the general election takes place, it will be a disaster for Her Majesty's Government—a disaster approaching Canadian proportions.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) did a service to the House in reminding us of the differential impact of unemployment on young people. If there is a discernible difference throughout the United Kingdom between young blacks and whites, as there is in Northern Ireland between young Catholics and young Presbyterians and young Protestants, such problems need to be tackled if we want to be fair to people. Whether it is a matter of expectations or of opportunity, we have a duty to ensure that one cannot tell whether someone is likely to find work because of the colour of their skin or the denomination under which they have been brought up.
  I hope that, in Northern Ireland, we will not be able to say that a 16-year-old or 18-year-old young Roman Catholic will be three times as likely to be unemployed as a Protestant. I hope that, in London and other cities, we will not be able to say that, just because someone is of an Afro-Caribbean or Asian background, or just does not appear to be the normal sort of colour of people who have been here with different employment experiences, they are more likely to be unemployed. We must tackle the issue and show that there are reasons to work at school and to get training, and reasons why people should be chosen for jobs—their qualifications—rather than disqualified on prejudice.
  I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have tackled such issues openly. The problem needs tackling in employment, in terms of clubs, in housing, everywhere, so that people are judged on their merits, needs, talents and abilities, and not on what appears to be the colour of their skin. I look forward to the time when the colour of someone's skin is about as interesting as the colour of someone's hair or eyes or height or weight. It may be noticeable, but it should not be what determines how people are treated.
  I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that, besides a slip in her copious notes about the party in which the Prime Minister has been for all his time in Parliament, her arithmetic was not quite right to suggest that, for each year that my right hon. Friend has been Prime Minister, unemployment has grown by 500,000. I thought that we were celebrating the end of his fifth year as Prime Minister. If unemployment had risen by 500,000 each year that he has been in office, the figure would now be 2.5 million. It is less than that, and the figure was not zero when he took over.
  So my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister deserves congratulations on helping to get unemployment down. Those congratulations should be shared with people in industry and the services, who have helped to create the

  1125
  jobs. In the end, customers guarantee jobs. Indeed, customers around the world and in this country have caused the resurgence in our motor industry, and have helped by buying typewriters, electronic processors, computers and television sets made in this country.
  Many things which we previously thought were always going to be made overseas are now being made here. I have in my pocket my Psion computer, which is made in Greenford in Middlesex. Who would have guessed that 16 years ago, during the last days of the Labour Government?
  In this debate, many hon. Members have spoken about the major issues, and I shall not repeat what has been said, except to echo that if the so-called average family gains by £450 a year, that is a bonus, and it is far better to receive it in tax reductions than by artificial pay increases which lead to a resurgence of inflation.
  We can rightly say that one area of agreement across the Floor of the House is on the belief that inflation is bad. It is bad for employment opportunities, and there needs to he the kind of rigour that we have seen during at least the past three years, and which it would be right to say that we saw in the last three years of the Labour Government up to 1970. In times in between, both the Labour party and the Tory party forgot about some of the essentials.
  I turn to one or two details of the Budget. I welcome some of the changes to the taxation of motor vehicle fuels. To recognise the lower levels of pollution caused by liquified petroleum products and compressed natural gas is worth while, and builds on the changes made to charge a lower excise duty, and therefore a lower retail price for unleaded fuel.
  I welcome what the Chancellor has done to take away the tax subsidy for super unleaded, which I regard as an unnecessary fuel. It is not important, nor does it have a real market share, and the sooner that people decide on commercial grounds to get rid of it, the better.
  Having said that, for those who use petrol, I think that I am right in saying that about a third of vehicles are still refilled with leaded fuel. When I was at the Department of Transport as an assistant Minister from 1986 to 1989, it was calculated that only 10 per cent. of vehicles needed to use leaded fuel. That means that, for every vehicle that should use leaded fuel, probably twice as many use it unnecessarily. I recommend that people contact their motoring organisation or the car's manufacturer, and check whether their car can use unleaded fuel or can be adjusted to use it. That would be a saving in the pocket.
  The Treasury team have missed one opportunity to extend the alteration of fuel duties on environmental grounds. They should look at what I call low-sulphur diesels—otherwise known as city diesel, which is not a proprietary name. I am aware, as a result of the parliamentary answer that I received today, that, in fact, most of its low levels of sales are made through one supermarket chain of stores.
  If there were a sensible rearrangement of the duties on that low-sulphur diesel, not only would more people think of using it. but more of the major oil suppliers would think of making it available on their forecourts. As they get rid of the super unleaded, there would he an opportunity to provide the cleaner diesel.
  1126
  I cannot go into the full air quality details in a short speech, but if the Government chose to make an adjustment at some stage during the year rather than waiting for the next Budget, it would be greatly welcome. At the moment, many people who have moved to diesel wonder whether they were right. I suspect that providing the opportunity for a low-sulphur diesel would be welcome, and the tax regime should give it some encouragement.
  While on that subject, I hope that some vehicles which are used almost exclusively in towns and cities—taxis and metropolitan buses—should also be given great encouragement to use a low-pollution fuel. I suspect that it would be possible for such vehicles to move on to the use of liquified petroleum gas or compressed natural gas, which would produce far fewer pollutants than diesel. I do not know the difference between low-sulphur diesel and those cleaner fuels, but such a move would be sensible. Vehicles which are working virtually all day in built-up areas must be contributing a fair amount to pollution.
  I congratulate the Chancellor on not giving supernatural adjustments to the married person's tax allowance. Back in the days when Lord Healey was Chancellor, he claimed that, instead of raising child benefit, he would raise the married man's tax allowance, on the grounds that it would help people with children. Half the couples receiving the married man's allowance have two earners, so there is no need to have a super-allowance, and half the people getting the married person's allowance do not have dependent children at the time, so, in those cases, children would not be helped at all.
  Such help is very badly targeted. In time, I suspect that the best thing would be to be able to transfer the personal allowance from a non-worker of a married couple to the earner, as a way of applying some adjustment in a one-earner household.
  That brings me to child benefit, and I urge the Government again to make two changes to it. I re-emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is right in emphasising the remarks made by Lady Thatcher, that it is correct to have an allowance for children. When one goes from having two incomes and two mouths to feed to having—normally—one income and three mouths to feed, taxable capacity goes down, needs go up and an allowance is worth while and justified.
  The second question is whether it should be a tax or a cash allowance. For two reasons, it would be better to provide a cash allowance. The first is that a tax allowance gives greater help to people on higher rates of tax—who justifies that? Secondly, a flat allowance is available whether someone is working or not, and whether they are separated or not. The money is a reliable source of income, and in practice, the only reliable of source of income in a household with children.
  The mistakes we made were to say that it was to be set in theory by the Secretary of State for Social Security. In practice, it is not an income support measure, relating to means testing. It should be settled openly by the Chancellor as part of the Budget and in line with other tax allowances. That would avoid the Chief Secretary to the Treasury asking the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he really wanted an increase in child benefit, or whether that increase should be given to those who are really poor.

  1127
  In any one year, we should always try to give cash to those who are really poor. If we do that for a succession of years, we take away the citizenship of benefit for children. I would call it the child cash allowance, and have it settled by the Chancellor. I hope that, during the next year or two, the Government will do that.
  I am glad that the Chancellor did not change the arrangements for mortgage relief. I am a great supporter of the idea that those who want to buy their own homes should be able to do so, regardless of whether they are housing association tenants or other social tenants, and whether or not they are starting for the first time. I am also a great believer in the idea that people who want to move from home ownership to being tenants should be able to do that, too.
  Those who argue for house price inflation are, I believe, missing the point. We want to make homes affordable for people, and there is no reason why most of people's disposable income should go towards having a more expensive home. It would be better to put more of their money into a small business, or some other such investment, rather than all their assets and everything else being tied to the value of their home, while they make the highest mortgage payments possible.
  I welcome the fact that the changes over the past two or three years have encouraged people to pay off their mortgages when they can. That strikes me as proper. Five or 10 years ago, the system encouraged people to have as large a mortgage as possible, and to keep it going as long as possible, well into retirement. That was perverse, and the present arrangements encourage people to pay off their mortgages as and when they can.
  My last argument is about bringing the family life cycle and the family perspective into social and economic policy. The Budget can help with that. Over the past 40 or 45 years, we have often made the mistake of looking at still photographs of society and saying, "Here are the apparently unchanging elderly; here are the people who are out of work; there are the lone parents; there are the people of one ethnic background or another."
  Instead, we should look at the things that people have in common—the ups and downs of needs and resources, as we change from being dependent children to being independent, and as we move to family formation, and sometimes to family deformation. We move from being in work to being out of work, from being ill to being healthy; we may become disabled, or we may retire. We may be retired and well, and then retired and looking after elderly parents, which is the lot of many people as they move into retirement.
  Those predictable ups and downs affect each of us differently, but the general pattern is obvious. When we look at the children born today, we are looking at the pensioners of 55, 65, or 75 years' time. The arrangements that we make now give them signals about what would be good for them or for society, about what contributions they can make, and about what they can expect both privately and publicly.
  We should ask the Government every five years or so to feed a family life cycle analysis into social and economic policy. That would he a way of trying to open up some
  1128
  of the targets that might be useful for people—and I can give one example of it that has nothing to do with the Budget.
  When I brought the family perspective and the family life cycle into the treatment of drink-driving, we managed to cut out two thirds of drink-driving, and then two thirds of the deaths, in two years, with no change in law, in sentencing or in enforcement. It was a change of culture—the sort of change in understanding that leads to a change in behaviour, which in turn leads to a change in consequences. The same approach could be used in many other areas that matter.
  Finally—I apologise to those who have heard this from me too often before, in private as well as in public—I do not approve of cutting the overseas aid budget. This country has been getting wealthier over the years. Our long-term commitment has been to give 70p in every £100 of our national wealth to countries far worse off than ourselves, yet at present we give about 31p, if that. As we become wealthier, we should give more, not less.
  I recognise that, calculated on any proper basis, the cut is only about 5 per cent.—less than that made by the Americans or the Swedes, and, for all I know, by the Germans too. But it is this country for which we are responsible. Were I to take off the same proportion of three-line Whips as the Government have taken off overseas aid, I should be looking forward to taking off one vote in every 20, at my own convenience, as a way of expressing my views on overseas aid.
  Whatever arguments may be advanced by some people who claim to be more right-wing than I—although I think that in fact I am more right-wing than they on most subjects, such as mortgage interest relief and the married man's tax allowance—I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to put the overseas aid budget back on some kind of path, however long-term, that leads towards meeting the Government's commitments. I shall go on saying that as long as I remain in the House.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The Budget has already been called the "7p up, 1p down" Budget, and we shall continue to remind the people of this country that, after it, the typical family will still pay £650 more in tax than at the time of the general election.
  We shall also point out that the fundamental reason for those statistics is the weakness of the economy, and the continuing high levels of unemployment. The faces on the Government Back Benches at the end of the Chancellor's speech showed that Conservative Members were not deceived about those basic facts, in spite of the Chancellor's bluster at the beginning of his speech, when he spoke of "our strong economic fundamentals", as illustrated by "consumer spending on a firm upward trend" and "our current account surplus with the tiger economies".
  In his selective presentation of facts, the Chancellor omitted to say that our current account deficit was a record £1.2 billion with the non-European Union economies last month, and that our consumer spending in the most recent quarter grew by all of 0.1 per cent. That was because of continuing job insecurity, economic inequality and unemployment.

  1129
  But the Chancellor could not conceal some more fundamental figures. Indeed, the public sector borrowing requirement of £29 billion is at the heart of the Budget—up £8 billion from his prediction last year. He said that the difference stemmed from lower inflation and lower growth, but inflation was more or less what he predicted, so he really meant that the reason was lower growth.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's prediction of last year that growth would be 3.25 per cent. this year has today been reduced to 2.75 per cent. Unfortunately, some people say that even that may be too optimistic. For example, in the previous quarter, growth was only 2.1 per cent. With the build-up of stocks, there are also worrying signs that destocking may mean a cut in output in the next quarter and thereafter.
  Today, Goldman Sachs even predicted a growth rate next year of 1.6 per cent. We must hope that it is wrong, but the growth figures are certainly gloomy, and in a spiralling decline. The result of those figures is the continuing high level of unemployment, illustrated by the staggering fact that one in five non-pensioner households has no adult in work, compared with one in 12 in 1979. The underlying cause of that, and of the low growth, is the failure of investment to take off in the economy—the continuing failure of investment that we have seen for many years under the Conservative Government.
  It is significant that the Chancellor did not give the investment figures in any detail today. He did not say that, over the most recent quarter, investment had increased by only 0.6 per cent., and he did not point out that business investment has increased by only 4 per cent. since the trough of the recession—less than the increase after all previous recessions this century for a comparable period.
  The only figure the Chancellor gave was the better figure for manufacturing investment, on which he placed great emphasis. The only investment figure that he gave had increased by 12 per cent. However, last year's levels were absolutely flat, so the increase was from a very low base. Even that increase will probably result only in the replacement of worn-out machinery, not in creating new capacity in the economy.
  The fundamental problem in the economy is lack of capacity; that is what leads to high unemployment and low growth. That is the problem, and that is the question that the Budget should have addressed. Yet there were no measures to help investment. In fact, there were several measures with a negative effect on investment, especially in connection with the training budget.
  The Chancellor would have been far wiser to examine the Labour party's proposals to put investment at the heart of the Budget process—for example, by increasing capital allowances in the first year for new plant and machinery, and for new capacity in general. Our proposals for regional development agencies would bring more investment into small businesses, as would our proposals to re-examine the idea of tapering capital gains tax, so that long-term investment would be encouraged.
  In fact, the Government should have dealt with the whole area of corporate taxation. Our investment has declined by almost 4 per cent. since the Government came to power, and dividend payments have increased correspondingly, from 1.9 per cent. of GDP in 1979 to 5.4 per cent. today. As I have said before, the Government were considering that problem until Lord Hanson told a previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now the
  1130
  Secretary of State for Health, that he was a socialist. Then the whole matter was forgotten. The fundamental problems in investment have been totally ignored in the Budget today, but the Labour party puts them at the heart of its economic policy.
  Unemployment would be helped by more investment, but other specific measures should have been taken. Once again, the Labour party put forward a specific proposal to fund the abolition of long-term youth unemployment through a windfall tax on the utilities. This proposal was dismissed today by the Chancellor, who showed poor reasoning in doing so.
  One of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made was that such a tax would result in increased prices, but there is a regulatory regime for the utilities which can fix prices. There is no reason why a windfall tax should lead to increased prices in gas or electricity. A previous Conservative Chancellor, Lord Howe, imposed a windfall tax on the banks, so there is no reason—even in terms of the Conservative party's history—why that should not be done.
  Labour sees the evil of unemployment—I mention again the staggering fact that one in five non-pensioner households has no adult in work—and that is why Labour has prioritised an attack on unemployment with the first tax gains through the windfall tax. We will carry forward the proposal, so that no young person is without a job, a training opportunity or the right to full-time study after being unemployed for six months. I would have to emphasise that there are four options, and that all four will be made available to all young people.
  The Government should have looked at many other measures proposed by the Labour party, from whom all the creative thinking on the economy is coming. Another aspect of unemployment is the question of how much people earn when they get into work. The minimum wage is one of our central policies, but we also propose in the long run to have a starting rate of tax of 10p rather than 20p. Anybody earning under £7,000 a year will not be helped in any way by the widening of the 20p band. But if that widening of the 20p band was replaced—for the same amount of money—by a 10p band, it would give a great incentive for many people to go into work at that end of the income scale.
  Let us remember that people at the bottom end of the income scale are being taxed most heavily by the Government. The bottom 20 per cent. of people are now paying 39 per cent. of their income in tax, while the top 20 per cent. are paying only 35 per cent. I would have liked to see more measures in the Budget to help people at the bottom end of the income scale.
  One measure I welcomed was the extension of the child care disregard. There is a slight improvement there, but it does not address the fundamental problems that the child care disregard has thrown up. I asked a question which referred to Scotland, and was told that only 2,000 families had benefited in the first year of the scheme. The problem is that many people cannot get the benefit of the disregard if they are on maximum family credit or anywhere near it. That problem has not been addressed by the extension of the disregard from £40 to £60. Some of the poorest people on family credit will still not be able to get the advantage of the disregard.
  There are many other problems with the disregard. For example, it only applies to children up to the age of 11—I wonder why that is? It also applies per family rather

  1131
  than per child, and it does not cover the full costs of child care. Nevertheless, I welcome the extension, which is a slight step forward.
  Unfortunately, it was outweighed by the fact that the Chancellor could not resist making an attack on single parents in his speech today. I suppose that we should be thankful for small mercies—he did not abolish the lone parent premium or the single parent benefit paid when single parents go into work. Full details will be given tomorrow, but I understand that the Chancellor has frozen those benefits.
  But he did so by talking about "closing the gap" between single-parent families and couples, as if single-parent families were somehow advantaged. I could not believe my ears when I heard that. Single parents have a slight additional premium of £5 because of their additional costs. An obvious example of that is fuel bills. The same fuel bills have to be paid, whether by a single-parent household or by a couple.
  The Chancellor's rhetoric, that somehow single parents were advantaged, was pandering to the lowest prejudices of certain people, and I was very disappointed by that. I would have liked to see measures to help far more lone parents into work. Some 40 per cent. of lone parents have incomes of less than £100, while the figure is 4 per cent. of families that are couples.
  Perhaps the Chancellor should remember that before he makes any more remarks about the so-called "privileged position" of lone parents. If the benefit is being frozen, I certainly hope that Labour will unfreeze it, because the single parent benefit is a work incentive for lone parents. The lone parents premium is also related to in-work benefits.
  Another group picked on in the Budget—equally disgracefully—were asylum seekers. The measure had been announced before, but it was repeated by the Chancellor. Some of the most vulnerable people in society will be deprived of benefit in January to provide some meagre savings to the social security budget. That measure will, of course, be vigorously opposed by Labour in the new year.
  I agree heartily with the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who pointed out that there was to be a cut in the overseas aid budget. I know from my post that that cut is objected to by a large number of my constituents, and the Government are underestimating people if they think they can get away with such a cut without increasing their unpopularity.
  The priorities of the Conservative party have been shown most clearly in the proposals on inheritance tax, and the repeated intention to do away with capital gains tax in time. The Government are giving money to some of the richest people in society by raising the threshold for inheritance tax. Only 16,000 families at present pay inheritance tax with the threshold at £154,000, and that threshold is now being increased to £200,000.
  Millions of pounds are to be given away to some of the richest people in society, while VAT on fuel—which affects the poorest members of our society—is left at 8 per cent. What kind of Government put more emphasis on giving extra money to people who inherit £200,000 than to pensioners and other people on low incomes who need reductions in VAT?
  1132
  The Government should bear in mind the whole question of home heating, particularly at this time of year. I would have liked to hear something about the home energy efficiency scheme, which I hope is being continued. In his Budget speech last year, the Chancellor said that funding for the scheme would be increased by £10 million a year, and I hope that that is the case. The funding should be increased by far more, and the all-party warm homes group—of which I am a member—proposed that the present budget be doubled. That would help not only people living in cold homes, but the economy as well.
  There are a whole series of measures in terms of modernising and improving houses which could help people in need and the economy. But I am afraid that housing in general is another area that will be badly affected this year. I do not know the figure for Scotland, because it is not out yet, but I anticipate that there will be cuts in funding for housing in Scotland again, as there have been in the past few years.
  I welcomed some of the measures in the Budget. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out—contrary to what some Conservative Members may say—Labour welcomes the changes which apply to elderly people who go into nursing homes. As a Member from Scotland, I also welcome the cut in the excise duty on whisky. The duty should never have been put up last year, and the Chancellor did so only in a fit of pique, because the Opposition had defeated the Government on VAT on fuel. In doing so, we brought about the only tax reduction in this Parliament until today.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not wish to anticipate the hon. Member's speech, but is it not perverse that the increase in the duty on spirits led to an income for the Treasury that was £53 million lower than it excepted? The Government were not just defeated on the rate of VAT on fuel, but also by the increase in duty—and consequent reduction in Treasury income—on whisky and other spirits.
  Mr. Chisholm: I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I also agree, unusually, with Adam Smith on that point. He said that one often reaches a point at which revenues go down. If taxes are too high, they encourage smuggling, people buy less and we end up with less revenue. I think that revenues from spirits were £62 million lower in the first five months of this year. Perhaps that was the main fact that influenced the Chancellor.
  I do not mind what influenced him. He certainly moved duty in the right direction. I should have liked to see more done in terms of alcoholic content. Whisky is taxed at twice the rate of wine. The excise duty on whisky should continue to be reduced. I should like to see it reduced by, say, 4 per cent. a year until it was equal with duty on wine. However, so far as it goes, I welcome the reduction.
  The whisky industry is a massive industry in the Scottish economy. It is the biggest net exporter, and a massive employer. Some 15,000 to 20,000 people are employed directly by the industry, but there are another 40,000 related jobs. The materials for the whisky industry are from Scotland or the United Kingdom in general rather than imported. It is an important industry. I am glad to be able to welcome something, even though I would have liked the Chancellor to go further.

  1133
  Many of the other tax changes give with one hand and take away with the other. A good example of that is the emphasis on the private finance initiative, which in many ways we support. We should like to make it work better. Howeber, the Government are using it as a cover for reductions in vital capital expenditure. The Chancellor openly admitted that the Government were reducing capital expenditure programmes.
  For example, the health capital programme for England will be reduced by 17 per cent. They are trying to fill the gap with the PFI. It is by no means certain that the gap will be filled, because the Government's promises so far about the PFI have not come to a great deal.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the announcement today of a £35 million project for a new hospital for the South Buckinghamshire and Amersham health authority is illusory, or a real illustration of just how well the PFI can work?
  Mr. Chisholm: Obviously, some money has come from the private finance initiative. It is not illusory. I am aware of the PFI in health. In Edinburgh, a project for a hospital costing £100 million is out to tender. We also have an extension to the Western General hospital for £60 million. I have serious concerns about the PFI in health. The Health Secretary said last week that it would not affect clinical services, yet in Stonehaven in Scotland, a whole hospital, including clinical services and everything else, is being put out to the private sector. In general, I support the PFI, but I do not support its use in the health service, except under strict conditions.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Earlier today, I had a meeting with the chair and chief executive of one of our local hospital trusts. They expressed great relief that their capital investment was more or less through the pipeline, and they would not be caught up by the bureaucratic mess that is the private finance initiative. We have to consider the long-term cost. Private business which puts up the capital will expect a return on its investment. That will create greater debt servicing costs than straightforward public sector borrowing.
  Mr. Chisholm: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The on-going costs are fundamental to the PFI in the health service. Over time, it will be more expensive to pay for the lease of a building, and that will have effects on patient care because it will affect the revenue budgets. I have serious anxieties about the PFI in the health service. The Chancellor talked about delays in traditional capital expenditure programmes, yet the long-drawn-out tender process of the PFI creates the most enormous delays. There are many problems connected with it.
  Another example of giving with one hand and taking away with the other is in local government expenditure. It is widely believed that the council tax will rise way beyond the rate of inflation to cover some of the cuts that have been made today. Promises were made about two specific areas of expenditure that affect local authorities—the police and the education service.
  We do not yet have the Scottish details. The situation in Scotland is different from that in England. In Scotland, it will be difficult for local authorities to put more money into schools or policing if their general
  1134
  allocations from central Government are cut. Certainly, in Scotland, local authorities receive a general block of money for such services, and it is up to the council to do the best it can.
  I feel that the promises will turn out to be deceptive in Scotland, and that may well be the case in England, too. I am told that a promise of 1,000 extra police in England was made three years ago, and we now have 1,000 fewer police than in 1992. We shall wait and see, with some scepticism.
  There were slight tax reductions in the Budget today which will be welcome to people, but they do not compensate for the tax rises that they have put up with during the past three years. Although there are some slight improvements in the tax situation, there are no improvements in the general economic situation. That is our fundamental concern as we look forward.
  The economic statistics all look very bad, in spite of what the Chancellor said at the start of his speech. I hope that some of the more dire predictions do not turn out to be true, but I fear that the economy will not begin to recover until we have a new Government. That cannot come too soon.
  8.56 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: We are approaching the Christmas pantomime season. I hope to take my son James to see Cinderella at Hackney Empire. As the Chancellor reached the climax of his speech and his announcement of 1p off income tax, we felt like shouting, "Look behind you", as if we were a pantomime audience. His colleagues massed on the Benches behind him looked gutted. A desperate Tory party had been looking to the Chancellor to bribe the electorate with ludicrous cuts in the basic rate into voting Tory at the next general election. We could see from their faces that they did not believe that 1p off the basic rate was enough.
  Nothing would be enough to drive the British people to vote for this discredited Administration one more time. People have only to look around them to see what has happened to manufacturing industry, to see the rise in unemployment, to see job insecurity, to see hospital closures and to see what has happened in education. Nothing will be enough. Yes, Tory Members looked gutted.
  I intend to draw attention to some of the more cruel and inhumane aspects of the Budget. First, it is astonishing to hear the Chancellor and Tory politicians talk of cutting housing benefit for the under-25s, as though people of that age leave home on a whim, or as a casual act.
  Hundreds of thousands of young people leave home, often because they face terrible overcrowding. In my constituency, it is not unusual for families of five, six or seven to be crowded into two-bedroom council flats. Grown boys and girls in their 20s might share a bedroom. Many young people under 25 are forced to leave because of severe overcrowding in the family home, particularly in inner cities.
  It is well known to those who deal with the single homeless that many young people leave because they are being physically or sexually assaulted, the family has split up or there are tensions and stress. It is irresponsible for the Chancellor to fashion his policy on housing benefit as

  1135
  though the under-25s are leaving their family homes on a whim and only slight tinkering with financial incentives is necessary to change the pattern.
  As a direct consequence of cutting housing benefit for the under-25s, many more people in that age group will find their way on to the streets and into a floating life in hostels. Those who read the accounts of the Rosemary West trial will realise how easy it was for young, homeless, hopeless people to be drawn into the life there and to disappear. No one knew where they had gone or cared what had happened to them. This cut in housing benefit for the under-25s can only feed that stratum of society. Young people with no jobs, hopes or strong family connections will be left to drift without the means to build a life for themselves. It is a particularly cruel and unfair cut in social security.
  On the cuts for lone parents, the Government say that the right approach to lone parents is to give neither preferential nor adverse treatment. That is all well and good, but the measures in the Budget amount to adverse treatment. Of course it is more expensive for a single parent to bring up a child than it is for two people. There are all sorts of extra costs, be they fuel or child care.
  My hon. Friends have welcomed the increase in the child care allowance, but the allowance is taken up by only 23,000 families and it is not available in respect of children over 11. What on earth is a mother to do with children of 12, 13, 14 or 15? Leave them at home without child care, I suppose, and then get done by The Sun for leaving them "home alone". The child care allowance is a little step forward, but whittling away one-parent benefits and the lone parent premium are acts of pure political vindictiveness and spite.
  The Chancellor announced with pride the cut in allowances for refugees and asylum seekers. What that means is that, come 8 January, literally thousands of people in London—families with children—will be without means of support. I had to step out of this debate for a short time to take part in a meeting in which refugee organisations were planning to set up soup kitchens and other means of supplying the basic needs of people who will be without means of support on 8 January—all to enable the Government to amass money for tax cuts.
  We heard much about the private finance initiative in the run-up to the Budget and today. The P in PFI stands in my view for pure wishful thinking. How can the Chancellor talk of an illustrative list of 1,000 projects worth more than £25 billion in his Budget speech? What is such a list if not pure wishful thinking?
  It is a fantasy to imagine that the private finance initiative is some magic way to provide, at no cost, more money for capital programmes. The initiative is perhaps appropriate for certain types of public investment in which there is a natural revenue stream, such as transport. As a colleague said, however, private finance means that the private sector will want some sort of revenue stream in return. I cannot see how, if the private sector has to borrow the money more expensively and is looking for a revenue stream in time, the initiative can turn out to be cheaper than public sector funding.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), seems to be nodding. He is very attached to the private finance initiative. We will wait
  1136
  for the big Jack launch tomorrow, but, like all the Government's private finance initiatives, it will consist of the Government's announcing the same scheme—as they do year after year. It will not prove as simple as the Chancellor imagines to push many of them through the pipeline. The initiative is not appropriate to large areas of public expenditure and will not produce concrete schemes.
  On that elusive factor that the Chancellor's Budget was supposed to generate—the feel-good factor—I note that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has a constituency in the north of England. He might not be aware that what has happened to the housing market is the biggest single element underpinning the lack of such a factor in London and the south-east.
  It is interesting that, in successive Red Books, the Government have tried—whistling in the dark—to claim that an upturn in the housing market is just around the corner. In last year's Red Book, we were told:
  "On balance the housing market indicators point to renewed recovery."
  In this year's Red Book, we learn:
  "House prices are 2 per cent. lower … while turnover is over 13 per cent. lower."
  When the Government predict the same modest housing market recovery this year, we know what weight to give it.
  The Government can take 1p off the basic rate of income tax—or 2p or 3p—but for home owners in London and the south-east, many thousands of whom have massive negative equity and many more thousands of whom are in houses that they cannot sell because the housing market is so flat, there will be no return to any feel-good factor until the housing market begins to turn. That will not happen this side of a general election.
  I began by talking about Christmas pantomimes. In a sense, this Budget was a pantomime. It had little to do with the underlying strength of the economy, with the country's real needs, with bridging the enormous gap between rich and poor which has built up after 15 years of this Government or with investment. The pantomime had everything to do with this discredited Administration's last desperate hope of winning the general election. We could tell from Conservative Members' faces tonight that they believe that the Chancellor has blown it. I hope for the country's sake that their estimation of their Chancellor's Budget was right.
  9.5 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said. During his speech, I wondered whether he was planning to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on our Opposition Benches.
  I would single out the point that the hon. Member for Eltham made about overseas aid. Like most hon. Members, I have had much lobbying from constituents who are concerned at our failure to honour the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent. of GDP, the United Nations target, on overseas aid. This year it is 0.31 per cent. of GDP and it is set to fall. It will be no relief that the leaked figure of a 12 per cent. cut turns out to be more like 5 or 6 per cent.; that is still far too high. We should increase the overseas aid budget.

  1137
  I also listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and, like him, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on resisting the calls earlier this year from the Bank of England for an increase in interest rates. I also share the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the scale of the tax cuts that have been announced in the Budget. Many Conservative Members must have been severely disappointed by the low rate of giveaways in the Budget but, in one sense, perhaps the Chancellor was more responsible than most of his Back Benchers wanted to him to be. To that extent, I congratulate him.
  Another way of looking at the Budget is to say that the economy is in a far worse state than Conservative Members are prepared to acknowledge and that the Chancellor could not risk giving away more than he has because of the concern that that would have caused in the markets. The priority of most business people is a cut in interest rates, not taxation. That is because they do not share the Chancellor's view, which I think he mentioned five or six times in his speech, that Britain was the enterprise centre of Europe or that we have a modern dynamic economy.
  The view of business and finance is more along the lines of the west midlands business survey produced by Price Waterhouse, a Birmingham-based company. The survey showed the lowest level of business confidence since the winter of 1990, and said:
  "Continuation of this for a further six months could constitute the prelude to a recession."
  That is hardly in line with the Chancellor's view that all the factors are in place for a continuing recovery.
  Although the Conservatives had the bonanza of North sea oil and privatisation receipts, our economy does not have the fundamentals in place.
  Mr. Jack: If life is so bad, why did the Chancellor say in today's statement that investment in manufacturing industry had risen year on year by 12 per cent.?
  Dr. Jones: It is because we must consider the base from which it is rising. In the fourth quarter of 1994, business investment was at its lowest since 1955. Although there has been an increase since the recession, it is still not up to the business investment that we had in 1990. We cannot be proud of that record.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the fundamentals of the Chancellor's speech was his blatant attempt to convince the country that the Government had been in power for only the past three years and not for 16 years, during which time they have created most of the problems which the Chancellor now claims credit for trying to put right?
  Dr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. The Chancellor claims credit for the recovery after the Government steered us into a recession, first by joining the exchange rate mechanism at a sterling rate that could not be sustained. When we were finally bounced out of that, he claimed that the Government were responsible for the recovery. The policies responsible for the recovery were the exact opposite of those that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed were important to maintain low inflation and our competitive edge.
  We have had export-led growth but, because of the failure to invest in our economy—business investment and public sector investment in research and
  1138
  development—we do not have the fundamentals in place, which is why the recovery is now faltering. That is why the Chancellor maintains that he has succeeded in slowing down the growth of the economy to a more sustainable rate. He means a sustainable rate of growth of some 2.5 to 2.75 per cent., which is lower than the growth that we have experienced in the overall post-war period. It is certainly not the rate of growth that we need to tackle unemployment and put confidence back into the economy.
  The slump in the housing market and the failure to invest are caused by lack of confidence. People are worried about their jobs. Those in work are worried that they may lose their jobs, and the Budget has done little to deal with unemployment. That is why we must look at the whole tenor of the Government's policies over the past 15 or 16 years. The Chancellor said that a low-tax regime was important for a successful economy, but nothing could be further from the truth. Business taxation has been low under this Government, but that low taxation has not been used to invest in our economy. In other countries, where business taxation is higher, those businesses have for some reason maintained much higher investment than exists in this country.
  I urge the Government to look at the reports produced by both the Trade and Industry Select Committee and the Science and Technology Select Committee, in which they have suggested measures to encourage investment and the long-term view to be taken by our financial institutions. I am disappointed that the Government did not look at ways of managing business taxation to give incentives for long-term investment. That does not necessarily mean a cut in business taxation; one could argue that increasing business taxation in line with that in more successful economies such as Germany and Japan would bring in some revenue. That would also provide scope for tax incentives for the retention of earnings and long-term investment. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that there is a need for capital allowances to get our business community to invest.
  Even if we succeed in upping our investment rate, it is likely that that would not create more jobs. That policy would, however, succeed in stemming the haemorrhage of jobs from manufacturing and would ensure that the manufacturing sector grows and output increases. That is a priority for the wealth-creating base of this country. That policy would, however, merely ensure that unemployment did not increase in the manufacturing and the wealth-creating sectors. It would do little to create more jobs.
  We should look for job-creating opportunities through investment in infrastructure projects, for which the business community is desperate. There is a great need for investment in transportation and construction, particularly housing. That brings me on to the private finance initiative.
  I believe that the PFI is nonsense. It is a device designed to massage the public sector borrowing requirement to make it look as though Government borrowing is coming down. If we used private finance, all the signs are that, in the long term, it would be more expensive to the taxpayer. One need only consider what has happened in the social housing sector to appreciate that.
  For some time, housing associations have been able to borrow on the private markets to top up the Government grant, and thus provide social housing. Those associations have to pay a higher rate of interest to provide those

  1139
  homes than would be charged to a local authority were it permitted to do the same. It is pure dogma that prevents local authorities from borrowing on their capital assets.
  I know that, in my city of Birmingham, the private sector would be only too willing to lend to the city council to finance projects that reaped returns in income from rents and the benefit of getting people back to work. Birmingham, as in many other parts of the country, has thousands of empty houses. Conservative Members have perpetuated the myth of large numbers of empty council houses. In Birmingham, there are about 1,800 empty council homes—1.8 per cent. of the stock. That is about the minimum number when stock is subject to normal turnover, and most of those properties are let within days or weeks. There are, however, 16,000 empty homes in the private sector in Birmingham. That is due to the slump in the housing market. The Budget contains nothing to shift those homes in the market so that people can live in them.
  There is insufficient demand in the private market. Councils such as Birmingham should be given permission to repurchase a proportion of those homes and make them available for letting. That would provide homes for those who need them and create work in the construction sector, and get people off the dole. That policy would take some excess homes out of the market and help to create more demand in it.
  No such policies have been proposed in the Budget. Not even minimal help has been offered, for example, by allowing local authorities to spend their accumulated housing capital receipts. I admit that Birmingham city council does not have very much in the way of such receipts, but it certainly has the ability to raise capital on the market, and it should be allowed to do so.
  Problems would also arise if private finance were used to fund transport infrastructure projects. If private finance were used to invest in the railways, in the end the cost of raising that private capital would be a great deal more than if it had been raised by the public sector. Who would have to pay? Either the taxpayer, in the form of subsidy, or the rail passenger, in increased fares.
  It is time that the Government looked at the way in which they define our public sector borrowing requirement. It is right that we should reduce our borrowing; we should not borrow for consumption or to pay for benefits. But borrowing to pay for investment in our future is common sense—any business would agree. If we are to reduce unemployment, we need public sector investment in infrastructure.
  We also need investment in another public sector, and I shall spend a few minutes talking about next year's local authority budgets. We have heard the much-lauded announcement of an increase in spending on education which, on the surface, is to be welcomed. But, overall, the resources that go to local authorities are to be increased by about 0.5 per cent., which is insufficient to deal with pay and price increases and the other unavoidable consequences of factors such as pay increments.
  In Birmingham, it is estimated that, with those sort of spending targets, we would face a cut of between £60 million and £68 million in our budgets next year, on top of the £45 million-worth of cuts last year. Nearly 40 per cent. of the budget involves education. Birmingham city council already spends £21 million more than the
  1140
  Government standard spending assessment. That figure is taken care of in the increase in spending on education. But what is given in one hand is taken away with the other.
  It will be impossible for a council such as Birmingham to make cuts of £60 million and maintain its commitment to the £21 million that it is likely to spend over and above the SSA—we would like to spend even more. We shall be spending at the Government SSA level, but that will mean big cuts. That is a kick in the teeth to the council in Birmingham, which has given top priority to education at the expense of other services, including social services which have faced big cuts. Those cuts will result in job losses.
  The Government always say that it is important that people should keep more of their own money and that they want to give taxpayers their money back. That may be true of spending that comes out of taxation, particularly unnecessary spending due to high levels of unemployment. If the Government had invested the wealth of North sea oil and had encouraged business investment in wealth creation, we would not have the current high levels of unemployment for which the taxpayer has to pay: the taxpayer pays for the Government's economic failure.
  There are other spheres of expenditure where the taxpayer receives poor value for money. I can single out expenditure on the military, which is considerably above the European average. It would have been far better if the Government had, over time, switched money from the defence budget—which is not really a defence budget but a military budget—as happens in other parts of Europe. No one in the House would wish unnecessarily to reduce our military spending so that we do not have a reasonable defence capability. We still have 26,000 troops in Germany. There is scope for moving expenditure and investing in civil employment. There is plenty of scope for us to reduce the defence research and development budget and invest the money in civil R and D—we should do that. We could transfer funding to the DTI and science budget.
  Although I would change some aspects of Government spending, however, the taxpayer generally receives excellent value for money. Taxation is a good buy, and by reducing Government spending in some areas we are not doing our best by our citizens. We spend about 6 per cent. of gross national product on the health service, while America, whose citizens rely on private insurance, spends double that amount.
  In the case of services in which over-provision leads to inefficiency, collective provision through the taxpayer is the most efficient method. Even after the Government's introduction of the internal market—an unnecessary bureaucracy—our national health service is still effective. The same goes for many services that are provided through local authorities, such as social services and education. Cutting the funds with which local authorities provide those services does the taxpayer no favours: rather than having more money in their pockets, people will have to fork out far more than they have contributed in the past.
  As a result of last month's decision to remove the safety net for unemployed people with mortgages, the Government expect to save some £200 million in a full year. Those affected, however, are no longer confident that they will be helped with their mortgage interest

  1141
  payments if they lose their jobs, and are having to take out private insurance. Notwithstanding one building society's initiative, the majority of societies cannot provide mortgage protection policies free of charge, and premiums will be £4 or £5 a week for the average mortgage. That cut in public expenditure means that citizens will be worse off.
  It is said that we cannot afford to maintain the welfare state as we have in the past. The example of long-term care has been cited. The Chancellor announced some changes in the way in which people will pay for such care. Many people must now sell their homes to pay for accommodation of that kind—not just residential care but nursing care. In the past, the national health service made long-term care available, but apparently we cannot afford that now.
  What use is a reduction in inheritance tax to people of modest means whose only capital asset is their homes? Now they are having to sell those homes. It is good that they can now keep a little more money than they could before, but why should they have to pay for nursing care? Why should they have to give up their modest savings?
  The Government are setting up future business for the private insurance companies. The Chancellor's partnership plan is entirely in line with proposals advanced by a company called PPP, or Private Patients Plan, as can be seen in a parliamentary briefing paper entitled "Long-term Care and the Role of Private Provision". It is making the sort of proposals that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is suggesting today—a partnership scheme where the Government will top up private sector insurance.
  What will people have to pay for such insurance? The document says:
  "Savings of £60,000 will be needed to cover the cost of care for a five year period as opposed to a single insurance premium of £9,000 or £70 per month".
  The failure to maintain the fabric of our welfare state is resulting in ordinary individuals of modest means having to take out private insurance policies, and paying out about £70 a month. Tax cuts of the magnitude that we
  1142
  have had today will not make up for the sort of sums that people are having to pay for these private insurance premiums.
  All the time, whenever there is an undermining of public sector provision and its replacement by private insurance, people get a much worse deal than through the state provision. For example, people moving out of the state earnings-related pension scheme are discovering that they are far worse off as a result of taking out private insurance plans.
  Private insurance companies are rubbing their hands with glee because, as a result of the erosion of the welfare state, people are having to take out private insurance policies to cater for all sorts of eventualities that previously would have been paid for from the welfare state. When, therefore, the Government talk about getting off the backs of taxpayers, they should tell people that they may get tax cuts—although under this Government, because of the Government's economic failures, people have had only tax increases—but that they will have to pay several times over for those cuts in making private provision. They will pay more and receive less, and that is just typical of this Government and of the 16 years of misrule that they have presided over. The Budget will not do anything to recommend the Government to the electorate. The sooner we have a general election, the better.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Alan Milburn be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Ms Angela Eagle be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Burns.]

  Ordered,
  That Mr. George Stevenson be added to the European Legislation Committee.—[Mr. Burns.]

  Legal Aid
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  9.32 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: It has been an interesting few minutes when, instead of thinking about legal aid, I have listened to the authentic voice of the Labour party. I hope that Conservative central office will fillet that speech and use it for the next election campaign.
  I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his powers of prophecy because, when we last had questions to his Department, he said that I returned
  "with consistency to this subject."—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 331.]
  That was almost an incitement to call for an Adjournment debate, which I did with pleasure. I make another prophesy: whatever he and I say tonight will somehow not be reported in any of the national papers tomorrow morning, but, who knows, we may make the legal journals.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Should one notice that our hon. Friend the Minister is moonlighting and that, with his promotion to the Department for Trade and Industry, as soon as he has finished speaking, he is certain to get in the news pages as well as into legal journals?
  Mr. Marshall: I gather from that that congratulations must be in order. I did not know what the moonlighting was; perhaps we can have elucidation as the evening progresses.
  Everyone would agree that widespread public concern exists about the operation of the legal aid scheme. That is confirmed by an editorial in The Daily Telegraph on 12 January 1995, which said:
  "It has been clear for some years that the traditional system of legal aid is no longer sustainable … the Budget has been the fastest growing area of public spending … which is not surprising since nothing formally inhibits the consumption of public provision for the cost of legal services."
  We have to ask ourselves whether it is right that the legal aid budget should rise more quickly than spending on social security, the health service or any other Government expenditure.
  I should like to pay tribute to one or two of our national newspapers which have done a wonderful job in pointing out to the public some of the difficulties inherent in the current legal aid system. I should like to pay tribute to the work of The Sunday Times for its articles on the legal aid lottery, and the Daily Mail, which has done a good job in pointing out some of the idiocies in the legal aid system.
  The legal aid system has seen substantial increases in expenditure while, at the same time, the number of households eligible for it has decreased. In 1979–80, 77 per cent. of households were eligible, by 1989–90 it was 58 per cent. and today it is 48 per cent. We have seen those two conflicting trends—the substantial increase in expenditure and the substantial reduction in the number of families eligible.
  There is one issue above all else which creates a vast amount of annoyance among the general public and that is the way in which the seemingly wealthy are able to exploit the legal aid system. There was the case of
  1144
  Mr. Hashim, the former head of the Arab Money Fund, who was involved in a civil claim for over £33 million. He received legal aid despite owning several mansions in Britain and abroad. The cost of that legal aid was not petty cash. According to written answers in Hansard, Mr. Colin Ross-Munro, his QC, received £671,111. Two other juniors and another QC received £646,891. The poor guys in all this were his solicitors, who received only £644,000. The experts, however defined, received £835,000.
  We must ask ourselves why council tenants in constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pay taxes which are then used to pay the legal aid bills of nasty shysters living in much better accommodation than they are. It is socially wrong that the seemingly rich, living in large mansions, should have their legal aid bills paid for by taxpayers living in worse conditions.
  The case of Mr. Hashim is not an isolated incident. Mr. Ernest Saunders—his case was determined yesterday, so it is no longer sub judice—received legal aid which cost £1,342,465 in the original Guinness trial. Mr. Saunders is a remarkable man. He is the only person on this earth who has been cured of Alzheimer's disease—Guinness is good for you; it gets rid of Alzheimer's disease. Since then, he has been pictured skiing in Switzerland with his wife, he has been known to fly across the Atlantic on Concorde, and he gives lectures, no doubt for fat fees. He told the press that he will receive a pension of £70,000 per annum from Guinness. Despite all that, he recently received a second instalment from the legal aid fund to pay for his appeal.
  I hope that he does not suffer from amnesia as well as Alzheimer's, because one of the things that surprises me about Mr. Ernest Saunders is that he has also had a case in the European Court. One does not receive legal aid for cases in the European Court, so he is obviously able to pay for that, but when it comes to the British courts, oh dearie me, he cannot fund it and goes off to the legal aid fund. Why should those enjoying a less affluent life style than Mr. Saunders pay for his legal bills?
  Then there is Mr. Graham Foxley, who was guilty of massive corruption at the Ministry of Defence. He lived in a house worth £500,000 and owned a fleet of cars. Yes, you have guessed it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he managed to get legal aid. He stung the taxpayers twice, first as a corrupt civil servant and then as a defendant on legal aid.
  The litany of the seemingly wealthy who have been able to obtain legal aid is too long. Mr. Asil Nadir succeeded; Mr. Bryce Taylor, who was reputed to have made a substantial amount of money from taking sneak pictures of Princess Diana, had legal aid; Mr. Peter Clowes and Mr. Kenneth Sinar had it. It is wrong that apparently rich individuals—some of whom may have lied about the sources of their income, others of whom may have transferred their assets to their wives or trusts—should succeed in obtaining legal aid, paid for by the taxpayer.
  The Lord Chancellor issued a consultative document about legal aid to the seemingly wealthy. Earlier this year, the Minister said that he was assessing the results. He said in response to a written question:
  "There were 50 responses to the consultation exercise held earlier this year on the grant of legal aid to the apparently wealthy. Since that time there have been 14 inquiries on this issue from Members of Parliament or the public."—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267. c. 21.]

  1145
  We want to know when the exercise will come to end and when there will be a decision. Nothing causes greater aggravation among our electors than the fact that those who fail to get legal aid have to watch other people, who seem to be better off than them, milking the system.
  The second issue of concern is that there are few prosecutions for fraudulent applications for legal aid. In 1993, there were 1 million applications, but I have been told by the Attorney-General that there were just three prosecutions for fraudulent applications. Many of the people applying for legal aid are in fact applying for criminal legal aid. They are not the good boys of society. They would have had to be dishonest at some stage in their lives or they would not be before the courts—yet just 0.003 per cent. of applicants are prosecuted for making fraudulent applications.
  The third problem with legal aid is another about which I feel very strongly. A legal aid certificate in a civil case amounts to little short of blackmail. In a civil case it helps to have a good case, but it is even better to have a legal aid certificate. I recently received an answer from the Minister about the number of payments made by the legal aid fund to a successful unassisted party. In 1990–91 it was as low as 119. The greatest number was in 1993–94, when in 186 cases the legal aid fund had to pay costs to someone who had won his case.
  The difficulties created by a legal aid certificate were highlighted in two cases this year. One was the case of Green v. the Ministry of Defence. The MOD paid a sum into court, but the legal aid fund continued with the case. The court decided that the MOD was right, but the legal costs of £80,000 that it suffered will never be reimbursed.
  The other high-profile case involved Kevin Taylor v. Manchester Corporation and Sir James Anderton. One of the issues that led to a settlement in that case was the pace at which legal costs were escalating. It became clear that it was probably cheaper to settle the case than to engage in a fight to the death.
  There can be a real problem for ordinary individuals. Someone who came to see me at my constituency surgery had been sued by a business partner. His lawyer told him that he had a strong case; his accountant told him that he had a very strong case; so he decided to fight it. He won the case, but was hopelessly out of pocket because of his expensive legal costs. Of course, his legally aided opponent did not have any costs awarded against him. Although he won the case, it would have been cheaper for him to give way and to give money to someone who was not entitled to it.
  In another case, a constituent who came to my surgery had been given planning permission to build a garage and had bought all the materials for it. That constituent's next-door neighbour, however, said that the garage interfered with his right of light. His neighbour applied and received legal aid. My poor constituent, who did not qualify for legal aid, realised that he was on a hiding to nothing because, if he fought the case and won, he would have to pay his own legal costs and, if he lost the case, he would still have to pay his own legal costs.
  People in the legal profession have said that there is a fear that, under the legal aid scheme, certificates are perhaps given more easily than they should be. I have heard barristers say that the legal aid fund will occasionally support a case which they recommend the client not to contest.
  1146
  It is significant that the Bar Council, which one would not think of as an organisation that would seek to suppress the level of legal activity, has said:
  "the Legal Aid Scheme should be focused on cases of real merit with prospects of a worthwhile recovery. Both limbs of the merits test in civil cases should be tightened, focusing attention on real prospects of success and on whether the proceedings are reasonable".
  If that is what the Bar Council is saying, we ought to listen because, when lawyers tell us that there should be less litigation, they are sending us a message.
  The legal aid fund is part of a much wider problem, which is that the costs of litigation are too high. As The Daily Telegraph said in its editorial:
  "The inflation has been caused not merely by the unrestricted influx of taxpayers' money. The large and increasing fees charged by lawyers are mainly a function of the chronic wastage of the system. Until the legal profession tackles its own indefensible costs, the tax payer will be fleeced".
  I believe that there are three sorts of litigants: the very wealthy who can afford to go to court; those who are legally aided; and the large number of people in middle England, middle Scotland, middle Wales who may be celebrating tonight—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: And middle Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Marshall: And middle Northern Ireland who cannot afford the luxury of legal action.
  Lord Woolf has been asked to reduce the costs of the legal system. I welcome anything that can reduce the costs of litigation, because there is no doubt that many people just cannot afford the risk of going to court. I think that he also needs to look at the delays and ask whether some issues would be better settled outside rather than in the courts.
  The legal aid system in theory is wonderful because under it, no one should be denied justice because he is too poor. That was an excellent concept, but the tragedy is that the present system no longer meets that objective. That is why, during the past year, there have been 190 questions tabled on legal aid, mainly in this House with a few in the House of Lords.
  Reform is long overdue. One must sometimes ask whether lawyers are the best people to institute that reform because they may see things in a slightly different way from the rest of us. There is also some concern about the fact that legal aid in Britain is open to everyone living here. The Minister has said many times that our system of legal aid is the most generous, by which we mean the most expensive, in the western world. There are people who receive legal assistance in the United Kingdom who would not have received it in their own country. I think that that is also a source of some concern.
  Finally, although I am not usually kind to lawyers, I do think that one ought to make one point about the legal aid system that a number of practitioners in the profession would make: sometimes, there is a rather lengthy period between the case being heard in court and people being paid. The Government have asked that small business men should be paid quickly. Many of those who take part in the legal aid scheme are relatively small business men and one would hope that the legal aid fund might be able to settle bills slightly more quickly than they have sometimes been settled in the past.

  1147
  I thank the Minister for his tolerance and congratulate him on the promotion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can elucidate on the matter in his speech, since my hon. Friend was slightly elliptical in his comments.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Nobody has ever accused me of being elliptical before.
  Mr. John Marshall: I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).
  Mr. Taylor: Oh, our hon. Friend, if you please. Perhaps, none the less, I may be forgiven for addressing that point last, if time permits, because my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has raised a serious subject and he is entitled to a proper answer. A description of my circumstances can be postponed.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Adjournment debate and on giving me the opportunity to explain the reasons why reform of the legal aid scheme is needed and to outline the Government's proposals for change.
  As the House will be aware, the Lord Chancellor published a Green Paper on the future of legal aid in May. I should like to emphasise that that Green Paper was intended to canvass views on the options that had been identified, and to encourage interested parties to put forward alternatives or additions to them.
  The response has been impressive—more than 180 replies. Some were predictable, and some were negative, but others were constructive and innovative in proposing additional or alternative reforms. Hon. Members may rest assured that all the responses received by the Lord Chancellor's Department are being given full and serious consideration.
  Before I move on to discuss the Government's proposals, I should like to remind the House of the problems that the Government and Parliament must face in the way in which legal aid operates. My hon. Friend has already touched on some of them. Legal aid has about quadrupled in 10 years. In a total bill of more than £1 billion a year, we are spending some £500 million on crime, £400 million on civil cases and £350 million on family matters. That is not just due to volume and inflation. Real costs have risen and the worrying conclusion is that we are spending more and getting less in real terms. It cannot be allowed to continue.
  There is criticism from all sides that too many trivial or ill-founded cases are being litigated, which no sensible person who had to meet his own costs would pursue. That is not just bad for the taxpayer, but it is unfair to those who are threatened with being chased through the courts by legally assisted people who bear little or no risk themselves.
  We are told that unaided opponents often cave in rather than face the cost of contesting a case, and that assisted persons receive too great a degree of protection against costs under the current scheme. That is said to place some unassisted persons at an unfair disadvantage, it removes
  1148
  any incentive to try to keep costs down, and once legal aid is granted, there is little incentive to consider non-court-based solutions to legal problems.
  The Lord Chancellor and I share those concerns. The Green Paper seeks views on whether the existing protection against costs orders for assisted persons would be appropriate in a reformed scheme. I can assure the House that options for adjusting the costs balance in respect of liability for costs are receiving very close scrutiny as part of the reform process. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me with any specific suggestions that he may have, they will certainly be taken into account.
  Another problem with the current legal aid scheme is its rigidity in the services that it can provide. It is designed primarily to pay lawyers' bills and court costs. Thus, legal aid money cannot be used to fund alternative services, such as specialist advice agencies, mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution—despite the fact that those alternatives can be more effective and cheaper and, if recent research by the National Consumer Council is to be believed, are often preferred by the public over traditional legal services.
  The rigidity of the scheme also means that there is no effective way in which to target help on priority areas. A consequence of that narrow and rigid focus is that areas of the law outside traditional legal practice are not well provided for. Therefore, inadequate attention is paid to problems in areas of what the Green Paper calls "social welfare law", such as housing, debt and social security. Yet such problems loom unusually large among those who qualify for legal aid, and who arguably are most in need of help.
  Finally, I am concerned about quality. Advances have been made in the form of continuous training of lawyers, accreditation schemes, improved complaints procedures and the Legal Aid Board's progress in franchising solicitors firms that meet its quality standards. None the less, it remains a fact that any lawyer can take on any type of case under legal aid, even if he lacks experience or knowledge in the area concerned. In buying services the Government owe it to the taxpayer and the user to act as an intelligent purchaser, and to ensure that they buy services only from providers who are competent in their field.
  The legal aid Green Paper proposes tackling those problems in a number of ways. First, the legal aid budget would be predetermined. Allocations would be made to meet national priorities and subsequently refined to meet local needs identified with the help of regional legal services committees made up of local representatives.
  Secondly, the services to meet those needs would be provided through contracts under which potential suppliers would agree to provide a certain level of service for an agreed price and to a satisfactory standard.
  Finally, there would be no artificial restraint on who could bid for contracts, provided that the potential supplier could show that the service that he could provide would meet the need, and would be cost-effective and of good quality. Advice agencies with special expertise in areas of social welfare law would be able to bid for block contracts, meeting a need that solicitors do not currently satisfy.
  The overall aim of the legal aid Green Paper is to ensure that priorities for expenditure are set and assistance is given to those who have the greatest need. My hon.

  1149
  Friend raised a number of points about individual cases in which he feels that legal aid was inappropriately granted to those who did not have a real need for help, or who were apparently wealthy.
  While it would not be proper for the Lord Chancellor to intervene in the way in which the Legal Aid Board handles any particular case, or for me to comment on the reasonableness of a grant of legal aid in individual cases, I shall say a few things about the granting of legal aid to the apparently wealthy. My hon. Friend has shown much dogged persistence in his concern about the subject; let me tell him at once that the Lord Chancellor and I share that concern, and are determined to take steps to ensure that legal aid is provided only to those who properly qualify for it.
  In the medium term, we shall address that issue through our general strategy on legal aid. But our strategy for dealing with the problem is not confined to the Green Paper. A year ago, we issued a consultation paper entitled "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy", and in April the Lord Chancellor announced the measures that he proposes to take. Let me remind my hon. Friend what they are.
  First, a special investigations unit should be established to handle means assessment in both civil and criminal cases where the applicant's financial circumstances are unusually complex. The Lord Chancellor invited the Legal Aid Board to advise him on establishing such a unit, and on the practical arrangements necessary to run it.
  Secondly, legal aid regulations should be amended to provide those assessing the means of applicants for legal aid with a discretionary power to include in the means assessment the assets of friends, relatives and children where those appear to be providing a significant material advantage to the applicant.
  1150
  Thirdly, there should be further examination of the practical implications of regulations allowing the trial judge in criminal cases to release, in specific circumstances, details of the statement of means of an applicant for legal aid.
  Fourthly, applicants for legal aid should be required to transfer ownership of any assets that they fail to declare in their application to the legal aid authorities, so that the money disbursed in legal aid can be recovered from those assets. Fifthly, there should be a limit of £100,000 on the equity value in a house that is ignored in the legal aid means assessment.
  Setting up a special investigations unit will obviously take a little while, but its remit will be not only to handle means assessment in both civil and criminal cases where the applicant's financial circumstances are unusually complex, but to identify overseas assets of British nationals and of non-British nationals who apply for legal aid in this country. Cases referred to the unit will not be limited to applicants who appear to be wealthy, but there will also be people whose financial circumstances are so complex that it has proved difficult in the past to make a clear assessment for legal aid contribution purposes. That point is more important in respect of criminal legal aid, where there is no upper limit for financial eligibility levels.
  This is my swan song as the Lord Chancellor's junior Minister, and it seems to me to be entirely appropriate that it is taking place on the Adjournment of the House on the subject of legal aid reform.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Hotels
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her Department's definition of a hotel; what representations she has received(a) for the use of the word to be brought within the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and (b) for all hotels to be registered with the local authority; and if she will make a statement. [1266]

  Mr. Sproat
  There is no accepted definition of the term "hotel". In our publication "Hotels: The Consumer View" published on 14 November 1995, we used the term in its generic sense to cover all accommodation which has full or limited service, including bed and breakfast accommodation, guest houses and inns.

  There have been no representations for the use of the word to be brought into the terms of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

  Opinion within the industry is divided on whether compulsory registration is the appropriate way to ensure that hotels meet a minimum standard. I believe that this is better done by means of an effective, consumer led, voluntary scheme and I have asked the English tourist board for proposals to strengthen the crown accommodation classification and grading scheme.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the annual income of the Football Licensing Authority 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 her Department has made towards the annual running costs in each of the past three years. [2748]

  Mr. Sproat
  In the year ended 31 March 1995 the Football Licensing Authority received fees of £9,400; these have been paid to the Consolidated Fund via the Department of National Heritage. The authority employs nine full-time inspectors, seven full-time administrative staff and two part-time typists. The Department's grant to the authority was £870,000 in 1994–95, £860,000 in 1993–94 and £800,000 in 1992–93.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many statutory instruments her 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. [2460]
  524
  Mr. Sproat
  My Department sponsored 12 statutory instruments in the last Session of Parliament. Two of these are new regulations—the Open Spaces: Hyde Park and Regent's Park (Vehicle Parking) Regulations 1995, controlling parking in the royal parks, and the Football Spectators Seating Order 1995 extending the regulations affecting seating at football grounds. None of the statutory instruments was introduced to implement European Community directives, and none amplifies the minimum standards set out in an original European Community directive.

  Sporting Events (Broadcasting)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what plans she has to prohibit the exclusive transmission of major sporting events on satellite channels; [2502]

  (2) what plans she has to extend the broadcasting of major sporting events to a wider audience. [2501]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his earlier question on television rights on 22 November 1995,Official Report, column 160.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for her Department in 1993–94. [1913]

  Mr. Sproat
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. Departments' policy responsibilities are subject to change and can vary from year to year. My Department currently has responsibility for 0.20 per cent. of the Community's R and D budget.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to allow lottery funds for revenue support; and if she will make a statement. [2086]

  Mr. Sproat
  National lottery funding is already available for revenue support. The National Lottery Charities Board makes revenue grants available to caring charities. The millennium award scheme will invest in people's talent. Revenue and endowment funding is also available in association with capital projects receiving grant, where other funds cannot be found.

  The Government have always made clear that the lottery is being kept under review. It is still early days. As the lottery unfolds naturally, we see it investing in human as well as physical capital.

  Local Community Television
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what studies her Department has commissioned into the possible introduction of local community television using analogue technology. [2592]
  525
  Mr. Sproat
  None. However, the Government are keen that local television services are allowed to develop and are considering making provision in the forthcoming broadcasting legislation.

  Agency Travel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list for each of her 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. [2360]

  Mr. Sproat
  Listed are details in respect of overseas travel for the last financial year for my two agencies.

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  Cost

  Country Visited

  Post held by staff involved

  961.92

  Chicago, USA

  Business Development Manager

  374.86

  Geneva, Switzerland

  Business Development Manager

  592.00

  Switzerland

  Deputy Palace Manager

  330.90

  Germany

  Curator

  195.00

  Brussels, Belgium

  Curator

  700.00

  Canada

  Head Housekeeper

  226.90

  Munich, Germany

  Assistant Curator

  195.00

  Brussels, Belgium

  Assistant Curator

  140.00

  Amsterdam, Netherlands

  Assistant Curator

  2,492.001

  USA

  Travel Trade Manager

  3,155.001

  USA

  Travel Trade Manager

  739.00

  Germany

  Travel Trade Manager

  4,051.001

  Germany

  Travel Trade Manager

  250.00

  Barcelona, Spain

  Interpretation Manager

  201.40

  Amsterdam, Netherlands

  Member of the Textile Conservation Studio

  1 These trips were for exhibitions in which HRPA was taking part. The costs of the exhibition (including stand hire etc) and membership fees to necessary associations, are included in this figure.

  The Royal Parks Agency

  During the last financial year no one in the employ of the Royal Parks Agency went overseas on agency-related business.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 16 August on the subject of television licences. [2722]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: My Department is looking into the issues raised in the hon. Member's letter. I hope to let him have a substantive reply shortly.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of her Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium-sized enterprises. [1951]
  526
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Neither my Department nor its agencies keep a specific record of a suppliers size. The information could therefore be obtained only by incurring disproportionate costs.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the Acts of Parliament and consolidated Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [46]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 20 November 1995,Official Report, column 21.

  Risk Assessment
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the work of the independent panel of scientific experts on risk assessment. [2048]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply. The panel receives papers from time to time on individual topics and more general matters of principle and advises the deregulation task force. The task force's first report recommended that a risk assessment should be required for all regulatory proposals affecting business; that Ministers should be required personally to sign off all risk assessments; and that no regulatory proposals should be considered collectively by Ministers without a certificate signed by the responsible Minister that he has read the risk assessment and that he believes that the balance between cost and benefit has been approximately struck. The Government have accepted these recommendations and new guidance on risk assessment methodology for use by Government Departments is currently being developed.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department from whom his Department is seeking legal advice in relation to private finance initiative schemes. [1657]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Masons solicitors are advising the Court Service on contractual issues surrounding the local county court procurement project. No other current Departmental procurements have obtained such support.

  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the MORI Survey, "Public Attitudes to Marriage, Divorce and Family Mediation," will be made available in full. [3235]

  Mr. Taylor
  The survey was conducted as part of the detailed process of consultation on the divorce reform proposals. The results of the survey were considered in the White Paper, "Looking to the Future-Mediation and the Ground for Divorce," Cm 2799, published in April this year, and were included in the summary of the
  527
  consultation analysis published at the same time. The survey has been made available in full today, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimated cost of the legal advice his Department is seeking in relation to private finance initiative schemes; and on what terms that advice is being sought. [1658]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legal advice to the local county court—LOCCS procurement project is likely to cost up to £25,000. The contract with Masons is subject to normal departmental terms and conditions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations voted on the draft resolution in committee on 17 November concerning proposals to oppose nuclear testing; what consideration underlay the vote; and if he will list the nations which voted with the United Kingdom on the draft resolution. [2735]

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom voted against the resolution. We do not believe that the current testing programmes are inconsistent with commitments made by the nuclear weapon states at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference. We have made clear that it would be hypocritical and wrong for us to condemn the French decision to undertake a final limited series of tests, based on scientific advice that these tests are necessary to preserve the safety and reliability of French nuclear weapons. We regret that the resolution failed to mention either the good progress made towards achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty, or the commitment of all five nuclear weapon states to conclude these negotiations no later than 1996. Eleven other countries voted with the United Kingdom; 45 abstained and 33 did not take part in the vote. The full list of votes has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra equipment has been purchased recently for the Royal Gibraltar police to combat drugs and tobacco smuggling. [2666]

  Mr. David Davis
  Equipment provided to the Royal Gibraltar police over the last 12 months to combat drugs and tobacco smuggling includes technical equipment, vehicles and spares, computer equipment, a fast patrol launch and night vision goggles.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the reasons for the early termination of the contract of the Gibraltar Attorney-General. [2569]

  Mr. Davis
  Mr. Blackburn-Gittings, former Attorney-General of Gibraltar, decided to resign because a difference of views arose between himself and the governor.

  EU Commissioners (Earnings)
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the rules covering outside earnings and the public disclosure of income for members of the Commission of the European Communities. [2729]

  Mr. David Davis
  Article 157 of the European Community treaty states that the members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.

  International Peacekeeping
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding international peacekeeping efforts; and if he will make a statement. [827]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom is in constant dialogue with the United Nations, and other international organisations, on a wide range of peacekeeping issues. As the second largest troop contributor to the United Nations peacekeeping operations, with troops in four separate missions, we continue to take an active part in discussions to develop international peacekeeping capabilities.

  BBC World Service
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for funding the BBC World Service in the last year of the current triennium. [3095]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will write to the hon. Member immediately after the Budget statement.

  International Sanctions
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken and on what dates, to freeze the personal accounts or assets of members of regimes with whom the United Kingdom are in dispute as part of a national or international sanctions policy. [2565]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The United Kingdom has no unilateral sanctions in place against the assets or personal accounts of foreign regimes. However, we do implement the mandatory financial sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. Such financial sanctions are in place against Iraq, in UNSCR 661 adopted on 6 August 1990, and against Libya in UNSCR 863 adopted on 11 November 1993.

  The financial sanctions imposed on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in UNSCRs 757 and 820 adopted on 30 May 1992 and 17 April 1993, respectively were suspended with immediate effect by UNSCR 1022 adopted on 22 November, with the exception that certain assets frozen or impounded by UNSCRs 757 and 820 shall remain frozen or impounded. A copy of UNSCR 1022 is available in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the existing measures to ensure that specified bovine offals do not enter the human food chain. [3372]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The controls in place require the specified bovine offals, the potentially BSE infected tissues, to be removed from all cattle at slaughter and be destroyed. These controls are kept under continual review. The independent spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee again looked at all the controls to protect public health from any remote theoretical risk from BSE at its meeting on 23 November. It concluded:"Earlier in 1995 SEAC had concluded that 'provided in the slaughtering process the removal of the spinal cord was done properly, the mechanically recovered meat (MRM) process was safe and there was no reason for the Committee to change its advice'.
  In the light of the current audit reports [reported to Parliament in my answer to the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on 22 November (Official Record columns 192–193)] showing failure to remove parts of the spinal cord in a small number of carcases the Committee expressed its grave concern.
  It noted the further tightening up of controls but felt that unless and until it was clear that the removal of SBO, particularly spinal cord, was now being undertaken properly in all cases it would be prudent, as a precaution, to suspend the use of vertebrae from cattle aged over six months, in the production of MRM."

  Taking account of practical considerations, I have decided to make regulations which would prohibit the use of bovine vertebral column from cattle of any age in mechanically recovered meat. Most MRM is made from poultry, pig and sheep meat and the committee therefore made no recommendation for any other action in respect of products containing MRM. The committee also reiterated its advice that beef, including cuts such as rib of beef and T-bone steak that include backbone, was a safe product.

  I must emphasise that these, like all our controls on BSE, are precautionary measures and that there is no evidence of a link between BSE and the human disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1910]

  Mr. Boswell
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. Departments' policy responsibilities are subject to change and can vary from year to year. My Department currently has responsibility for 3.93 per cent. of the Community's R and D budget.

  Badger Setts, Paignton Zoo
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badger setts there are 530
  known to be in the boundaries of Paignton zoo; how many of these have been interfered with; in respect of how many a licence to interfere has been issued; and for what reasons the licences were issued. [2277]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter I sent him on 11 May 1995; there has been no change in the situation.

  Apples
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the likely timetable for decisions in European Community negotiations about the definition of co-operatives or producer organisations with particular reference to the intervention regime for apples; what are his objectives in these negotiations; and if decisions will be taken by majority voting; [2436]

  (2) what is the timetable for likely decisions in European Community negotiations about the intervention regime for apples; what are his objectives in these negotiations; and whether decisions will be taken by majority voting. [2437]

  Mr. Boswell
  I understand that the Spanish presidency hopes to reach agreement at the December Council of Agriculture Ministers. Any decisions will be taken by qualified majority voting.

  Our objectives include seeking a clear signal that intervention will come to an end altogether. We will also seek to ensure that the recognition criteria for producer organisations do not discriminate against those which exist in the United Kingdom.

  Farming (New Entrants)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations his Department has received on the subject of offering financial assistance to new entrants into fanning in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [2528]

  Mr. Boswell
  A number of suggestions have been made to the Department for supporting new entrants to farming. These include modifications to the taxation regime, lower interest rates, quota allocation arrangements and the introduction of assistance under EC regulation 2328/91. This measure enables member states to provide assistance in the form of installation premia or interest rate subsidies on loans for new farms; it has not been taken up in the United Kingdom. We believe that such measures are more appropriate in cases where member states' inheritance laws may lead to the breaking up of agricultural holdings and hence the need for additional infrastructure investment to maintain viability. In the UK, holdings tend to pass intact from one generation to the next. Our recent deregulatory steps on tenancy reform, in the Agriculture Tenancies Act 1995, are designed to encourage new entrants to farming, and have been widely welcomed across the industry.

  Crofting
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on low intensity croft farming; and if he will list the pilot schemes his Department has assessed. [2572]

  Mr. Boswell
  Crofting is not a system of farming which is practised in England. The Department has not therefore made any assessment of its impact.

  Poultry (Gas Stunning)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to lift the prohibition on the gas stunning of poultry. [2114]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The killing of poultry by exposure to specified gas mixtures has been permitted since 1 April 1995 under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995.

  Ostrich Farms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to monitor and control ostrich farms. [2161]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The State Veterinary Service inspects ostrich farms in Great Britain to check that the welfare standards are satisfactory. A total of 23 welfare inspections have been made since 1 April 1994. In making the inspections, the state veterinary service takes account of the guidelines on the welfare of ostriches prepared by the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Alport Dale
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if English Nature has stated any formal objection to Forest Enterprise's proposals for Alport dale. [2377]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Yes. Forest Enterprise is now.reviewing its proposals and is, jointly with English Nature, developing a management plan for the land within the sites of special scientific interest.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what options are being considered as alternatives to putting underground the electricity line supplying Alport Hamlet; and what is the estimated cost of each of these options. [2375]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: It is for Yorkshire Electricity to decide what options to consider.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters of objection have been received by(a) the Peak Park joint planning board and (b) the Forestry Authority opposing Forest Enterprise's proposals for Alport dale; and on what dates his Department received these figures. [2376]
  532
  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: I have no current information on the number of letters of objection received by the Peak Park joint planning board. The Forestry Authority arm of the Forestry Commission has received two letters opposing the proposals.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the annual saving to business which will accrue from the deregulation of the(a) Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868, (b) Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980 and (c) Corn Returns Act 1882 Orders 1995. [2025]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The annual saving to business accruing from deregulation of the Acts at (b) above has been estimated to be in the region of £100,000. This relates to the reduction of licensing-registration requirements in respect of slaughterhouses. Other benefits and non-recurring cost savings for business are detailed in the explanatory document which accompanies the draft deregulation order. The annual cost saving to business accruing from deregulation of the Corn Returns Act 1882 (c) has been estimated at £100,000. As regards the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1968, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for this legislation.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the costs involved in preparing the cost-benefit assessment contained in the explanatory memorandum for the deregulation of the(a) Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980, (b) Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 and (c) Corn Returns Act 1882 Orders 1995. [2026]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The costs associated with the identification of the cost savings to business and other benefits arising from the proposed amendments to the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1980, and the Corn Returns Act 1882 have not been estimated. As regards the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for this legislation.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium-sized enterprises. [1960]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The information requested is not available for 1994–95. In the current year, MAFF cannot separately identify medium-sized suppliers, but small businesses are being identified and the relevant information regarding the Ministry's spend with such enterprises during 1995–96 will be sent to the hon. Member in due course.

  MAFF's executive agencies do not maintain records regarding the size of their supplier companies.

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [30]

  Mr. Boswell
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 November 1995 c. 79]: My earlier reply should have made clear that the Land Drainage Act 1994 was introduced by the Earl of Lindsay, and was supported by the Government.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Photography
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what proposals the Commission has for allowing photography in the Commons. [676]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The Administration Committee reviewed the regulations governing filming and photography in the Palace of Westminster earlier this year and no amendments were considered necessary.

TREASURY

  Local Government Finance, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received about the financial settlement for Nottinghamshire county council in 1996–97; if he will summarise these representations; and if he will list the individuals and organisations that have sent them. [2755]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Treasury has received representations from a number of individuals and organisations concerning the financial settlement for Nottinghamshire county council for 1996–97.

  Private Finance Panel
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members of the private finance panel, their remit and the interests they have been required to declare. [3087]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 November to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett),Official Report, columns 260–61.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much private capital has been invested in public investment projects since the 1992 autumn statement. [84]

  Mr. Jack
  Over £16 billion by the end of 1995–96, including over £1 billion under the private finance initiative.

  European Communities (Fraud)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what actions have been taken in the last 12 months to combat fraud and maladministration within the European communities. [170]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  At the Essen European Council on 9 and 10 December 1994, the Prime Minister made a number of proposals to help tackle fraud, waste and mismanagement. These included a requirement that each member state should report on what it is doing to combat fraud against the community Budget on its own territory. Member states have now submitted their reports and the Commission has produced a framework for further work which will be considered by the Madrid European Council on 15 and 16 December.

  Separately, the new Commission has centralised anti-fraud work within its services, in particular reinforcing its anti-fraud unit and extending its remit.

  Full details of developments in this area will be published in the next "Annual Statement on European Finances". The Commission also publishes an annual report on the fight against fraud.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the cost to business of converting equipment and systems in the event of the United Kingdom joining a single European currency; and if he will make a statement. [1572]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  If the UK participates in stage 3 of economic and monetary union, there will be transitional costs to business associated with the changeover to the single currency. The Government do not have an assessment of the potential size of these costs, because no decision has been taken as to whether the UK will join the single currency, and costs would depend on decisions taken individual businesses.

  European Union (Gross National Products)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the gross national product per head of population in each of the member states of the European Union for the last year for which comparable figures are available. [1811]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information for these countries is available in the OECD publication "National Accounts", available in the House of Commons Library.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many estates in each county in England inheritance tax was paid in each year since its introduction. [2244]

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available at county level.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many estates in each county in England were allowed conditional exemption from inheritance tax in each year its introduction. [2247]
  535
  Mr. Jack
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Enterprise Centre of Europe
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the position of the United Kingdom as an enterprise centre of Europe. [1348]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 November 1995]: The Government will continue to create the economic conditions where business can flourish by further encouraging enterprise and competitiveness, through the development and growth of small and large businesses alike and promoting further deregulation. Our firm financial policies directed towards low inflation on a permanent basis and sound public finances, together with our intention to reduce the share of national income taken by public spending will help us to achieve this.

  VAT

  Excise

  VAT

  RSP pence per litre

  Total Tax as percentage of RSP

  Excise Duty as percentage of RSP

  As percentage of RSP

  Duty in per pence litre

  In pence per litre

  Leaded

  57.79

  77.43

  62.54

  14.89

  36.14

  8.61

  Super unleaded1

  58.52

  68.41

  53.52

  14.89

  31.32

  8.72

  Unleaded

  51.56

  75.64

  60.74

  14.89

  31.32

  7.68

  Diesel

  52.01

  75.11

  60.22

  14.89

  31.32

  7.75

  City diesel2

  51.4

  75.83

  60.93

  14.89

  31.32

  7.66

  LPG auto3

  42.0

  54.35

  39.45

  14.89

  16.57

  6.26

  1 The most recent RSP available for super unleaded is for September 1995.

  2 The small market in this product is dominated by one supermarket chain which retails it at 2 pence per litre more than its own price for normal diesel. This latter price is considerably lower than the average price for diesel shown in the table.

  3 This RSP is very much a 'best estimate' by the LPG Association. All other figures are correct for 20 November 1995.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the cost of the VAT exemption for cultural activities. [2504]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It would be premature to do so. The outcome of the recent consultation exercise on the scope of an exemption for certain cultural services is still under consideration.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has as to the cost of the VAT exemption to voluntary sports clubs, including the interest paid on overcharged VAT. [2506]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total amounts refunded to non-profit-making organisations supplying sporting services are estimated at £140 million plus £30 million interest.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of the VAT exemption for sports centers with charitable status. [2505]

  Unemployment, London
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of unemployment amongst ethnic minority(a) men and (b) women in each of the London boroughs; and how many are in (i) full-time employment and (ii) part-time employment. [2732]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The most recent available information is from the 1991 census of population, and can be obtained from the NOMIS data base in the Library.

  Fuels
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the retail prices and the tax elements of the ranges of petrol, liquified petroleum gas and diesel fuels, including the reduced pollution varieties, for motor vehicles. [2144]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Average retail selling prices and the respective tax elements are as follows:

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No separate figures are available.

  Deregulation
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the deregulation measures agreed by his Department during 1995. [285]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: The Chancellor's Departments have introduced a large number of deregulatory measures during 1995. Among the most significant are the orders which the Treasury has laid before Parliament, under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, to provide new flexibility in the operation of building societies, credit unions and friendly societies respectively. The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, together with the Contributions Agency, have developed closer working relations. This has resulted in, for example, trials of a new shared telephone helpline, together with a joint notification form and leaflet for businesses starting up. Initiatives undertaken by the Central Statistical Office, which are being co-ordinated under a new compliance planning system, include reductions in duplication between surveys, and simplification of the forms sent to business.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Internal Market Council, held on 23 November, giving details of all votes and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [1599]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the deputy UK permanent representative represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 23 November.

  The council reached unanimous political agreement on the customs 2000 programme on which Germany abstained, and on the flavourings directive, on which France abstained. The required simple majority were in favour of the directive on collection of statistical information in the field of tourism, which Germany opposed. Political agreement was reached on the draft directives amending public procurement directives, though a common position awaits the European Parliament's opinion.

  The council also agreed common positions on the pressure equipment directive, on which Italy abstained, and on the motor-cycle multi chapter directive, which Austria opposed. Although the UK voted against, political agreement was reached on the mineral water proposal. Denmark and Sweden also voted against and the Netherlands abstained.

  There was also an informal lunchtime discussion with Ministers from central and eastern European countries.

  Women and Ethnic Minority Staff
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of(a) women and (b) ethnic minorities are employed in the highest 10 per cent. of paid staff in his Department. [1515]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: The figures for the DTI, excluding its executive agencies, are as follows:

  Breakdown of top 10 per cent. salary earners in DTI (excluding its executive agencies)

  Number

  Percentage

  Women

  78

  15.0

  Staff of ethnic minority origin

  13

  2.5

  Total number of staff

  521

  —

  The figures exclude casual staff and staff currently out of the Department. The figures do not take account of staff transferring to the DTI from the Cabinet Office and the former Employment Department in the latest machinery of government changes.

  The chief executives of the following executive agencies will respond direct to the hon. Member—Companies House, the Insolvency Service, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, the Patent Office and the Radiocommunications Agency.
  538
  Letter from David Durham to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 28 November 1995:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question regarding the percentage of women and ethnic minorities employed in the highest 10% of staff in DTI. I have been asked to reply to you directly as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.
  The total number of staff in Companies House as at 23 November 1995 was 1087 on headcount and 937 on full time equivalent. The percentage of women employed in the highest 10% of paid staff is 28%, and of ethnic minorities employed in the highest 10% of paid staff is 5.5 %.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 28 November 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the percentage of women and ethnic minorities employed in the highest 10% of paid staff in The Insolvency Service.

  The relevant figures at 20 November were:

  Number of permanent staff

  Females in highest 10% of paid staff

  Ethnic minorities in highest 10% of paid staff

  1,411

  14–9.9%

  10–7.1%

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 20 November 1995:
  I have been asked to answer your question PQ26N to the President of the Board of Trade tabled on 16 November 1995 with respect to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist.
  Of the highest 10% of paid staff employed at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, 4% are women and 4% are from ethnic minorities.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 28 November 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the employment of women and ethnic minorities in the highest 10 per cent of paid staff.
  There are no women or ethnic minorities employed at that level in the National Weights and Measures Laboratory.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 28 November 1995:
  You asked for information about the percentage of women and ethnic minorities employed in the highest 10% of paid staff in the Department of Trade and Industry. This reply covers the Patent Office which is an Executive Agency of the Department.
  The relevant information is that the Patent Office has 88 staff in the top 10% salary bracket. Of these, 4.5% are women and none are from ethnic minorities.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 28 November 1995:
  I am replying on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your written question to the President of the Board of Trade about the percentage of women and ethnic minority staff employed in the highest 10% of paid staff in the Agency.
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of (a) women and b) ethnic minorities are employed in the highest 10% of paid staff in his Department.
  Of the highest 10% of paid staff in the Agency, women and staff from ethnic backgrounds account for 4% each.

  Disused Mineshafts
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure the accuracy of the Coal Authority's records of disused mineshafts in the Kingswood parliamentary constituency. [2941]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Coal Authority.

  Export Licences (Guatemala)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under which EG(C)O category the licence issued for export of arms and ammunition to Guatemala between 1 January and 31 August 1995 falls. [2422]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: Earlier this year, there were placed in the Library of the House detailed statistical analyses of exported licences which were granted for military, paramilitary and security equipment in the calendar years 1993 and 1994. These analyses included all countries of destination for which these licences were issued, including Guatemala. Early in 1996, I intend to place in the Library of the House a similar analysis for the full calendar year 1995. I shall write to the hon. Member when this is done.

  Export Licences (Nigeria)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what British companies have applied for export licences to supply arms to Nigeria in each year since 1993. [2876]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to reveal details of export licences or applications for licences unless the requirements of commercial confidentiality are outweighed by the public interest.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many closures of post offices in rural areas have been notified to his Department in the past five years. [2651]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In September 1990 there were 10,166 post offices in rural areas. In September 1995 there were 9,494.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of British exports is defence related. [882]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Goods identified as being defence equipment accounted for 1.3 per cent. of British exports in 1994.

  Irish Steel Ltd.
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the conformity of state aid to Irish Steel Ltd. with the provision of the treaty of Paris and EU policy. [2835]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The Commission's proposal to authorise state assistance to Irish Steel contains a proposal for financial assistance which is not permitted by either article 4(c) of the treaty
  540
  of Paris or the steel aid code. The Commission has therefore requested a derogation from the steel aid rules under article 95 (ECSC), which is subject to the unanimous assent of the Council of Ministers.

  Nigerian-British Society
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received and what meetings it has had with the Nigerian-British Society since November 1993; and if he will make a statement. [2814]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: My Department has not had any contact with the Nigerian-British Society.

  Training Schools (Textile Businesses)
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funds are available for textile businesses in the north-west to set up training schools. [2883]

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no funds directly available to textile businesses to set up training schools. Training facilities are available to support the textile industry in colleges in the north-west. Their provision is kept under review by the Further Education Funding Council in consultation with north-west training and enterprise councils, which are responsible for assessing the local labour market needs.

  Consortex
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what grant was made to Consortex in the last year; and how it has been spent. [2884]

  Mr. Eggar
  A sum of £92,500 of European funding under the RETEX programme was awarded to Consortex in the last year. Of that amount, £12,835 was spent on staff costs in respect of work carried out before the project was terminated. Attempts are being made to re-allocate the balance.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the outturn figures for regional selective assistance(a) offers and (b) payments for 1994–95; and if he will indicate how these figures relate to the original budgeted plans. [2108]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 November 1995, Official Report, column 255. These publications also provide information on offers.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average time taken by each integrated regional office to process regional selective assistance grants to(a) all businesses and (b) small and medium enterprises in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will list the minimum and maximum time taken by those offices. [1928]
  541
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Reliable data are not available on the size of businesses applying for grant. The figures provided for small and

  Integrated regional offices

  Working days

  All businesses

  Small and medium enterprises

  Minimum time

  Average time

  Maximum time

  Minimum time

  Average time

  Maximum time

  East

  1

  26

  196

  1

  26

  196

  East Midlands

  2

  61

  253

  2

  61

  253

  London

  5

  45

  102

  5

  45

  102

  Merseyside

  5

  50

  237

  5

  50

  237

  North-East

  1

  23

  187

  1

  23

  107

  North-West

  1

  39

  222

  1

  39

  222

  South-East

  2

  42

  173

  2

  42

  173

  South-West

  1

  51

  135

  1

  51

  135

  West-Midlands

  1

  27

  330

  1

  26

  330

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  2

  31

  177

  2

  31

  177

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the total sum paid in regional selective assistance to(a) British-owned firms and (b) foreign-owned firms, (i) where firms had 0 to 9 employees, (ii) where firms had 10 to 49 employees, (iii) where firms had 50 to 99 employees, (iv) where firms had 100 to 249 employees, (v) where firms had 250 to 499 employees and (vi) where firms had more than 500.

  Expenditure on regional selective assistance in England

  Size of grant application

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  UK owned

  Foreign owned

  UK owned

  Foreign owned

  UK owned

  Foreign owned

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  £25,000 or less

  6,725

  98

  148

  2

  5,266

  99

  58

  1

  4,658

  98

  93

  2

  Greater than £25,000 or less than £100,000

  131,169

  96

  485

  4

  10,294

  94

  668

  6

  10,743

  97

  286

  3

  £100,000 or less than £1 million

  21,485

  70

  8,995

  30

  14,069

  64

  7,927

  36

  16,562

  74

  5,797

  26

  £1 million or more

  16,373

  43

  21,771

  57

  7,471

  21

  28,575

  79

  8,837

  27

  24,124

  73

  Total

  57,699

  65

  31,399

  35

  37,100

  50

  37,228

  50

  40,800

  57

  30,300

  43

  Size of grant application

  1993–94

  1994–95

  UK owned

  Foreign owned

  UK owned

  Foreign owned

  £000

  Per cent.

  £000

  Per cent.

  £000

  Per cent.

  £000

  Per cent.

  £25k or less

  5,010

  98

  83

  2

  6,542

  98

  115

  2

  Greater than £25k or less than £100k

  11,020

  95

  640

  5

  15,228

  96

  566

  4

  £100k or less than £1m

  21,547

  69

  9,638

  31

  30,663

  70

  12,956

  30

  £1m or more

  15,224

  33

  31,452

  67

  17,867

  38

  29,163

  62

  Total

  52,801

  56

  41,813

  44

  70,300

  62

  42,800

  38

  542
  medium-size enterprises relate to firms with grant applications for less than £1 million. Processing times are based on decision taken during 1994–95.

  employees, indicating for each category what proportion this constituted of the total awarded for each financial year since 1990–91. [1929]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Reliable data are not available on the size of businesses applying for grant. The figures provided are based on the size of the grant requested.

  Restrictive Practices (Retail Newsagents)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake a review of the workings of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 as far as retail newsagents are concerned; and if he will make a statement. [2089]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 is designed to prevent agreements restricting competition and acting against the public interest. I see no reason to treat retail newsagent differently from others.

  Statutory Fees and Charges
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the annual income from(a) fees, (b) charges and (c) Companies House fines; what was the total number of staff employed (i) part-time and (ii) full-time

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Companies House

  917

  356

  880

  347

  878

  340

  Radiocommunications Agency

  526

  1—

  534

  1—

  541

  1—

  Export Licensing Unit

  Disaggregated information is not available

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  44

  7

  40

  8

  41

  8

  Engineering Inspectorate

  7

  0

  7

  0

  27

  0

  1 Part-time figures for the Radiocommunications Agency could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  2 The number of full-time staff in the Engineering Inspectorate in 1994–95 reduced from 7 to 6 after 30 November 1994.

  With the exception of my Department's funding of the late filing penalties scheme administered by the Companies House agency, no contributions have been made to its or the Radiocommunications Agency annual running costs in the past three years. This is because Companies House was established as an off-vote trading fund in October 1991, and the Radiocommunications Agency has retained its income to offset against its running cost expenditure since becoming a net controlled agency in April 1990. The Office of Fair Trading is independent of my Department. It is not funded from the DTI's vote. The information requested in respect of (5) and (6) is set out in the table: Disaggregated figures for (4) are not available.

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Export Licensing Unit

  Disaggregated information is not available

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  2,043

  2,008

  2,015

  Engineering Inspectorate

  383

  433

  459

  Running cost contribution to Companies House for late filing penalties work

  2,100

  1,700

  1,500

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the annual saving which will accrue to business from the deregulation(a) Fair Trading Act 1973 Amendment, Merger
  544
  and what contribution his Department has made towards the annual running costs in each of the past three years in respect of (1) Companies House, (2) the Radio Communications Agency, (3) the Office of Fair Trading, (4) the Export Licensing Unit, (5) the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and (6) the Engineering Inspectorate. [2741]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The amount of statutory fees and charges that were appropriated in aid of my Department's gross running cost provision in 1994–95 was £37.8 million. The late filing penalties collected by my Department's Companies House executive agency amounted to £16.7 million in the same period. These are treated as Consolidated Fund extra receipts and are therefore surrendered to the Treasury.

  The information requested on total staff numbers is set out in the table: Disaggregated figures for (4) are not available.

  Reference Time Limits Order 1995, (b) Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (Amendments) Variation of Exempt Agreements Order 1995, (c) Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (Amendment) Time Limits Order 1995 and (d) Resolutions of Private Companies Order 1995; and what were the costs involved in repairing the cost-benefit assessment contained in the explanatory memorandum in respect of each. [2027]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The estimates of cost savings have been considered in the respective explanatory documents. For the first two orders, savings are not readily quantifiable but include savings in management time, the cost of legal advice, and, for the second order, the potentially high cost of remaking an entire agreement; for the third order, the estimated saving is around £100,000 per year. All three orders provide substantial benefits for business by reducing uncertainty or the consequences of accidental error or oversight. The fourth order will also bring significant but not precisely quantifiable savings from speedier decision-taking, including reduced administrative and legal costs. Each cost-benefit assessment derived from the mandatory consultation with business and other interested bodies. The costs involved in preparing them were the normal costs of officials' time associated with any such exercise.

  National Coal Board Superannuation Fund
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the new trustees of the NCB superannuation fund; what are their qualifications and backgrounds; what they are each being paid as trustees; and who selected them. [2495]
  545
  Mr. Page
  The current trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme are:

  Mrs. S. Gleig (chairman)

  R. Dennis

  D. Brandrick

  M. Atkinson

  P. McNestry

  B. Chappell

  D. McIntosh

  B. Hancock

  Mrs. Gleig and Mr. Dennis are professional pensions managers from the TSB and the John Lewis Partnership respectively. Mr. Brandrick was formerly secretary of the British Coal Corporation. Mr. Atkinson is an assistant secretary in the DTI. All the above have been selected and appointed by me, in accordance with the scheme's rules.

  Mr. McNestry is General Secretary of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. Mr. Chappell is a treasurer of the British Association of Colliery Management. Each has been appointed as trustee by his union.

  Mr. McIntosh is a former senior accountant with British Coal. Mr. Hancock is General Secretary of the south Wales area of NACODS. Both were elected trustees by ballots of scheme members in their respective areas in September 1995.

  Mrs. Gleig, as chairman, receives remuneration of £15,000 per annum. No remuneration is currently paid to other trustees.

  European Funds (East Midlands)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what delays have occurred in the handling of bids for European funds at the Government office for the east midlands; and what are the reasons for these delays. [2758]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Delays to agreeing single programming documents with the European Commission have accounted for the majority of time lost to dealing with bids for European structural funds under the programmes administered by the Government Office for the east midlands. Such delays are similar to those experienced by objective 2 and objective 5b programmes across the country. Offers of European social funds and European regional development funds are now beginning to flow on all east midlands mainstream programmes.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what timetable the Government office for the east midlands has set out to deal with the RECHAR II programme; and when successful projects will be announced. [2757]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Two funds contribute to the RECHAR II programme: the European regional development fund and the European social fund.

  The deadline for first-round east midlands ERDF RECHAR II applications is 31 December 1995. A total of £10.3 million will be available. The exact timetable for announcing successful projects will depend on the number of bids received and the degree of competition for funds. It is anticipated that the working group to consider ERDF
  546
  project bids will first meet in March 1996 and that the Government office will make its first formal offers shortly afterwards. A second bidding round for an ERDF allocation of £9.1 million will have a deadline of 31 May 1996.

  The position with the ESF is more complex. Because of delays to the RECHAR II programme, it is likely that there will be no ESF bidding round in 1995. The Government have sought a derogation from the European Commission from rules preventing their making retrospective awards of 1995 ESF allocations in 1996. Although no official decision has been received, we understand that such a derogation is unlikely. In this case, 1995 ESF allocations will be rolled forward into 1996 giving a total fund of up to £4.1 million. The closing date for bids for this tranche will be 19 January 1996. The timetable for announcing successful ESF projects will be similar to that for ERDF.

  Medical Examination
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of miners and former miners examined under the PD12D regulations from September 1993 to date, broken down for each region. [1402]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 November 1995. [1493]

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

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minster if he will discuss with the UN Security Council the offer by the Government of Libya of a trial in The Hague of two Libyan suspects accused of the destruction of Pan Am 103. [1637]

  The Prime Minister
  At its 11th review of sanctions against Libya, held on 22 November, the UK's permanent representative reminded the Security Council that proposals for the trial of the Lockerbie suspects in The Hague or elsewhere were unacceptable alternatives to trial in Scotland or the United States.

  Disabled People (Policies)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Prime Minister which minister has the overall responsibility for co-ordinating policies in relation to access to the built environment for people with disabilities throughout all Government Departments; and if he will make a statement. [3012]
  547
  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People is the focal point for issues affecting disabled people.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the Czech Republic in the next 12 months. [2514]

  The Prime Minister
  I look forward to having the opportunity to visit the Czech Republic, but as yet have no firm plans.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met President Clerides of Cyprus; and what issues on Cyprus were discussed. [845]

  The Prime Minister
  I have met President Clerides on several occasions in recent months. We had a substantive discussion at No. 10 this year, addressing the range of issues affecting the UK and Cyprus.

  We met again at the VE day commemoration in May, at the Cannes European Council in June, and again at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting earlier this month.

TRANSPORT

  Railtrack
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the representations he has received regarding the level of track access charges levied by Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [472]

  Mr. Watts
  The approval of access charges is a matter for the Rail Regulator.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been received by Railtrack in track access charges for each operating division area of British Rail and for the corporation as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [474]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1994–95 Railtrack's access related income from passenger train operators was £1,995.2 million and freight revenue was £191.1 million.

  The Rail Regulator has decided that track access agreements available for public inspection should exclude details of access charges in line with his duties under section 72 (3) of the Railways Act 1993. Consistent with this policy Railtrack does not publish income figures by train operator.

  Chiltern Trains
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the cancellation of rail tours in Wales by Chiltern Trains; and if he will make a statement. [473]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department received a number of representations about Chiltern Trains last year. The cancellation of rail tours is a commercial matter for Chiltern Trains.

  Departmental Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of chauffeur driven cars used by this Department for each of the last five years. [419]

  Mr. Norris
  Expenditure on chauffeur driven cars was as follows:

  Financial Year

  £

  1990–91

  236,746

  1991–92

  280,200

  1992–93

  340,846

  1993–94

  345,138

  1994–95

  356,599

  Figures include VAT.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effects of bus deregulation in the last ten years. [2833]

  Mr. Norris
  Bus deregulation continues to be a great success. Recent statistics confirm the continuing trend of more operators running more bus miles at lower cost and involving significantly less public subsidy than previously. In addition, the long term decline in bus patronage appears to have begun to flatten out.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what were the costs involved in preparing the cost-benefit assessment contained in the explanatory memorandum for the Deregulation (Parking Equipment) Order 1995; [2880]

  (2) what is the estimated annual saving to business from the Deregulation (Parking Equipment) Order 1995. [2882]

  Mr. Watts
  The assessment of benefits to business and administrative cost savings was developed in the course of consultation. The cost of preparing this assessment cannot be identified separately.

  The order will bring savings in costs and other benefits to business as a result of reduced delay in introducing new equipment and the removal of a disincentive to innovation. However, it has not been possible to quantify these benefits.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the Driving Standards Agency's 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 Driving Standards Agency, (2) the Civil Aviation Authority, (3) the Vehicle Inspectorate, (4) the Vehicle Certification Agency, (5) the Traffic Commissioners office and (6) the Surveyor Generals Organisation. [2744]

  Mr. Norris
  In 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 the Driving Standards Agency's income from fees and charges was £47.2 million. £50.2 million, and £54.8 million respectively. This income is treated as extra
  549
  receipts payable to the Consolidated Fund. DSA does not receive income from fines. In the same years the agency employed 1,867, 1,783, and 1,728 full-time staff; 267,285 and 289 part-time staff; and, in 1994–95, 31 driving examiners on a contract basis.

  The size of the running costs contributions made by the Department depends on the nature of the financial regime under which the organisations operate. VI, DSA and VCA cover most of their expenditure through fees collected from services provided. My Department's contributions in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 were nil in the case of VCA and VI, although the Department did purchase enforcement and other services from VI and VCA at a cost of £16.1 million, £15.3 million, and £15.1 million respectively. My Department made contributions of £1.6

  Agency

  Total gross cost of overseas travel in 1994–95 £

  Countries visited

  Grade of staff involved

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  31,632

  Sweden

  Grade 3

  Latvia

  Grade 5

  USA

  Grade 6

  Holland

  Grade 7

  Germany

  SEO

  France

  HEO

  Belgium

  Spain

  Finland

  Driving Standards Agency

  Nil

  None

  n/a

  Highways Agency

  142,386

  EC countries

  Various but usually Senior Professional and Technical Officer level or above

  Austria

  Sweden

  Hungary

  Poland

  Finland

  Iceland

  Australia

  USA

  Marine Safety Agency

  295,546

  Various

  Various but generally all staff except clerical grades

  Transport Research Laboratory

  564,395

  Bangladesh

  Various, from G3 to Scientific Officer

  Belgium

  Botswana

  China

  Colombia

  Ghana

  Hong Kong

  India

  Indonesia

  Kenya

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Austria

  Czechoslovakia

  Norway

  Japan

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Sweden

  France

  Germany

  Denmark

  Singapore

  Iceland

  Switzerland

  Australia

  Mauritius

  550
  million, £1.5 million, and £1.5 million to DSA; £11.9 million, £12.0 million and £11.4 million to the Traffic Commissioners' offices; and £14.1 million, £14.9 million and £14.9 million to the Surveyor General's Organisation which became an executive agency on 1 April 1994 under the new title of the Marine Safety Agency.

  The Civil Aviation Authority is a nationalised industry and my Department makes no contribution towards its running costs.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [2359]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is in the table.
  551

  Agency

  Total gross cost of overseas travel in 1994–95 £

  Countries visited

  Grade of staff involved

  Nepal

  Pakistan

  Papua New Guinea

  Philippines

  South Africa

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Turkey

  USA

  Vietnam

  Zambia

  Holland

  Spain

  Portugal

  Finland

  Greece

  Jordan

  Jordan

  Dubai

  Jamaica

  St. Lucia

  Egypt

  New Zealand

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  103,183

  Belgium

  Various but mostly Senior Professional and Technical Officer and Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  Sweden

  France

  Italy

  Spain

  Switzerland

  Holland

  Greece

  Poland

  Hungary

  Portugal

  Hong Kong

  Singapore

  Malaysia

  Korea

  China

  USA

  Canada

  Japan

  The Coastguard Agency

  33,709

  France

  Grade 4

  Denmark

  Grade 5

  Sweden

  Grade 6

  USA

  Grade 7

  Canada

  SEO

  Uruguay

  HEO

  Germany

  EO

  Belgium

  AO

  Norway

  Holland

  Portugal

  Spain

  Iceland

  The Vehicle Inspectorate records of travel expenditure are not separated between United Kingdom and overseas travel and so the answer to this question for VI could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Road Programme
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those schemes in the national road programme for which statutory pre-construction procedures have been completed and orders have been 552
  made, the dates on which the orders were made and the dates on which they will expire. [1809]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 28 November 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 those schemes in the national road programme for which statutory

  553
  pre-construction procedures have been completed and orders have been made, the dates on which the orders were made and the dates on which they will expire.
  The relevant schemes are listed below together with the dates when the Compulsory Purchase Orders were made. Notices to Treat, warning interested parties that the Highways Agency intends to exercise its powers, have to be served within 3 years from the date of making of such orders.

  Scheme Title

  CPO Made

  A40 Western Circus Junction Improvement

  July 1991

  A40 Gypsy Corner Improvement

  July 1991

  A406/A1/A598 Regents Park Road Junction Improvement

  January 1992

  A12 Hackney Wick-M11 Contract 1

  July 1992

  A12 Hackney Wick-M11 Contract 3

  July 1992

  A13 West of Heathway-Thames Avenue Improvement

  July 1992

  A13 Wennington-Mar Dyke Improvement

  September 1992

  M66 Denton Middleton Contract 3

  March 1993

  M66 Denton Middleton Contract 1

  March 1993

  A43 Silverstone Bypass

  April 1993

  A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass

  May 1993

  A65 Gargrave Bypass

  August 1993

  A27 Polegate Bypass

  September 1993

  A34 Newbury Bypass

  October 1993

  A406 Golders Green Junction Improvement

  February 1994

  A34 Chieveley/M4 J13 Improvement

  February 1994

  A650 Bingley Relief Road

  March 1994

  A564 Derby Southern Bypass Contract B

  March 1994

  A11 Roundham Heath-Attleborough Improvement

  June 1994

  A500 Basford-Hough-Shavington Bypass

  May 1994

  A550 Deeside-A5117 (S)

  October 1994

  A1 (M) Wetherby-Walshford

  October 1994

  M4 (Heavy Loads)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the nature and the laden weight of the heavy loads notified to his Department which have created bottlenecks on the east-bound M4 on each of the last three Tuesdays; where the loads originated and terminated; how long they were on the M4 and at what speed they travelled; for what reasons they were not transported at night; who owns the loads; what costs associated with the escorts and delays are met by(a) the
  554
  transporter and (b) the owner; how many more similar loads are planned; what (i) warnings and (ii) advice were given to motorists by his Department on avoiding the delays; at what times future similar loads will be on the M4; and what assessment has been made of potential road damage. [2730]

  Mr. Norris
  The loads in question are electrical generating equipment for a new power station at the National Power plc site at Didcot in Oxfordshire. The weights of the loads vary between 135.6 tonnes and 455 tonnes. They originated at Siemens factories in Germany and entered the United Kingdom at Avonmouth docks. Each load is timed to minimise both inconvenience to other road users and the overall cost to the project. The journeys from the docks to the power station site consist of two night-time moves and a day-time move conducted outside the peak traffic hours on the M4. The day-time movement is required because all other traffic has to be stopped when two particular bridges are traversed and the police rightly believe that this can be done safely only in hours of daylight. The loads are restricted to a maximum speed of 12 mph, but in practice the speed and therefore the time taken is limited by the gradients on the roads. A further 17 loads are planned over the next 11 months. They are required to be carried on multiple axle trailers to minimise the potential damage to roads and highways structures.

  Contractual arrangements and costs are a matter between National Power plc as the customer and Siemens plc as the supplier; they, rather than public funds, have met the cost both of assessing structures on the route and the police escorting the loads.

  I am satisfied that National Power and the police forces involved on the route have provided satisfactory advance notice including warnings broadcast on national and local radio, advertisements in local media, notification to the main road haulage and passenger transport groups and the provision of recorded information on a free telephone number-0800 241 504.

  Changes between years largely reflect changes in the Government car service charges to recover the full economic cost of the service.

ENVIRONMENT

  Government-owned Empty Properties
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total number of empty residential properties owned by each Government Department, together with the average length of time that these properties have been empty; and what were the equivalent figures for last year. [315]

  Mr. Curry
  My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 23 November 1995,Official Report, column 238, included the number of homes owned by Government Departments which were empty on 1 April 1995, and targets for 1995–96 aimed at reducing the number. The table shows the number which were empty at 1 April 1994. Information is not available about the average length of time properties are empty.

  Department

  Empty at 1 April 1994

  Department of Transport

  887

  Home Office

  498

  Ministry of Defence

  11,006

  Scottish Office

  158

  Welsh Office

  43

  Secondary Liquid Fuel (Burning)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to stop the burning of secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns where there is persistent plume grounding. [1985]

  Mr. Clappison
  No. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 already provides sufficient controls for each site to be judged on its own merit.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Atkins) if the letter sent by the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 13 June constituted the Government's reply to the second report of the Environment Committee on the Burning of Secondary Liquid Fuel in Cement Kilns (HC 479) of session 1994–95. [1987]

  Mr. Clappison
  The letter contained initial comments and indicated that the Government would be considering and responding fully to the committee's report.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what level of ozone his Department issues health warnings. [1794]

  Mr. Clappison
  EC directive 92/72/EEC on air pollution by ozone sets a population information threshold of 180µg/m3 or 90ppb and a population warning threshold of 360µg/m3 or 180ppb. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, the directive requires member states to inform the public.

  In the United Kingdom, my Department provides information on levels of ozone and other pollutants through the air quality helpline, the Internet, Ceefax, Teletext and the media. Ozone levels are described as "poor" when over the population information threshold,
  556
  and very poor when over the population warning threshold. In addition, my Department and the Department of Health issue occasional press notices.

  Both the helpline and the press notices contain appropriate health advice when air quality is poor or very poor.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the number of(a) rural and (b) urban areas covered by air monitoring stations; how his Department determines each; and if he will make a statement; [1808]

  (2) what is (a) the number of air monitoring stations currently in operation, (b) the percentage of the country covered by air monitoring stations and (c) the percentage of the population covered by air monitoring stations; and if he will make a statement. [1810]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have established a number of air quality monitoring networks to monitor air pollutants in rural and urban areas. The number of monitoring stations currently in operation in each of the national networks is shown in the table.

  About three quarters of local authorities in the United Kingdom—based on 1993 boundaries—have at least one air quality monitoring site in their area. These sites are either wholly funded by the Government or run in collaboration with local authorities. Since the majority of monitoring is undertaken in urban areas a significant proportion of the population are covered by air quality monitoring.

  The objectives of the Government's air quality monitoring programmes are to understand air quality problems in order that cost-effective policies and solutions can be developed; to monitor compliance with European Community directives; to assess how far guidelines and targets are being achieved; to provide public information on current and forecast air quality; and to assist the assessment of personal exposure to air pollutants. The Government establish air quality monitoring sites to meet these criteria, drawing on advice from their expert review groups.

  Further details of the Government's monitoring programme are given in "Air Pollution in the UK: 1993–94", a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Network and Pollutants measured

  Urban stations

  Rural stations

  Total

  Automatic Urban1 (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide and monoxide and fine particles (PM10))

  27

  —

  27

  Automatic Hydrocarbon (25 hydrocarbons including benzene and 1,3-butadiene)

  11

  —

  11

  Automatic Rural1 (ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide)

  0

  15

  15

  Non-Automatic Urban Nitrogen Dioxide

  1,216

  —

  1,216

  Non-Automatic Urban Smoke and sulphur dioxide

  227

  —

  227

  557

  Network and Pollutants measured

  Urban stations

  Rural stations

  Total

  Non-Automatic Lead and Multi-Element

  20

  4

  24

  Acid Deposition

  —

  32

  32

  Rural sulphur dioxide

  —

  39

  39

  Toxic Organic Micropollutants (dioxins and polyaromatic hydrocarbons)

  3

  1

  4

  North Sea (organochlorines and metals)

  —

  4

  4

  Total

  1,504

  95

  1,599

  1 Not all sites monitor all pollutants.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what comparisons his Department has carried out of the levels of(a) ozone, (b) nitrogen dioxide and (c) sulphur dioxide in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. [1806]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department does not compile statistics of the measured concentrations of ozone, nitrogen dioxide or sulphur dioxide in countries outside of the United Kingdom. A summary of all UK monitoring data for these pollutants is presented in the Department of the Environment, "Digest of Environmental Statistics No. 17, 1995", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the latest available figures for carbon dioxide emissions for each member state of the EU and the EEA, together with the equivalent figures for 1990; and if he will indicate the targets which have been agreed internationally for reducing them. [1792]

  Mr. Clappison
  The framework convention on climate change, which the UK ratified in December 1993, commits developed countries to adopt policies and take corresponding measures aimed at returning anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. The UK is on target to meet this commitment.

  The table gives figures for carbon dioxide emissions by EU member states and EEA countries in 1990 and 1993, based on data published by the International Energy Agency.

  Carbon dioxide emissions, 1990–1993

  Country

  1990 CO2 emissions (MtC)

  1993 CO2 emissions (MtC)

  (EU)

  Austria

  15.9

  15.5

  Belgium

  30.3

  30.9

  Denmark

  14.4

  16.1

  Finland

  14.5

  15.0

  France

  101.9

  100.4

  Germany

  269.2

  244.5

  Greece

  19.8

  20.3

  Ireland

  9.1

  9.1

  Italy

  112.4

  111.9

  Luxembourg

  2.9

  3.1

  Netherlands

  43.4

  46.6

  Portugal

  11.2

  12.5

  Spain

  59.7

  60.8

  Sweden

  14.6

  14.1

  United Kingdom

  159.2

  152.3

  558

  Carbon dioxide emissions, 1990–1993

  Country

  1990 CO2 emissions (MtC)

  1993 CO2 emissions (MtC)

  (EEA)

  Norway

  8.4

  8.6

  Iceland

  0.7

  0.6

  Liechtenstein

  1—

  1—

  1 Figures not included in relevant IEA data.

  Figures converted from IEA for energy-related CO2 emissions. 1990 figures: Climate Change Policy Initiatives—1994 Update: Volume I—OECD Countries. 1993 figures: Energy Policies of IEA Countries—1994 Review

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the air pollution sites referred to on his answer of 31 October 1995,Official Report, column 177–78, are classified as (a) urban and (b) rural. [1803]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 31 October. Column 3 of the table states whether the sites are rural or urban. All of the sites marked hydrocarbon are classified as urban.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each of the last 10 years, the areas in which EC guidelines on levels of nitrogen dioxide have been exceeded. [1793]

  Mr. Clappison
  EC directive 85/203/EEC on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide sets a mandatory limit value and two non-mandatory guide values for nitrogen dioxide. The latter two are 135µg/m3 (70.6ppb) expressed as a 98th percentile, and 50µg/m3 (26.2ppb) expressed as a 50th percentile, both of hourly values over a year.

  The table lists the sites of the national monitoring network and the years where either of these guide values has been exceeded.

  Year

  Site

  1985

  London Roadside

  London Victoria

  1986

  London Roadside

  London Victoria

  1987

  London Victoria

  London Earl's Court

  Stevenage

  Glasgow

  Manchester

  Walsall

  1988

  London Victoria

  London Earl's Court

  Glasgow

  1989

  London Roadside

  London Victoria

  London Earl's Court

  Walsall

  1990

  London Roadside

  London Victoria

  London Earl's Court

  Manchester

  1991

  London Roadside

  London Victoria

  London Earl's Court

  1992

  London Roadside

  London Victoria

  London Earl's Court

  London Bloomsbury

  Manchester

  559

  Year

  Site

  Sheffield

  Edinburgh

  1993

  London Roadside

  London Victoria

  London Earl's Court

  London Bloomsbury

  Sheffield

  Newcastle

  1994

  London Roadside

  London Victoria

  London Earls' Court

  London Bloomsbury

  Manchester

  Sheffield

  Edinburgh

  Leeds

  Mr. Roy Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to implement the recommendation of the Government's expert panel on air quality standards for a standard for ozone of 50ppb. [3125]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's national air quality strategy, which we intend to publish within the next few months, will include objectives for particular air pollutants, including zone, and the steps which we will expect local authorities and others to take in order to meet them.

  About half the ozone affecting the UK has its origins abroad. Therefore, the UK believes that the most sensible approach is to act internationally to reduce emissions of the precursors of ozone. The United Kingdom has already signed the United Nation economic commission for Europe protocol on the reduction of volatile organic compounds, and is currently preparing for the negotiation of a new agreement on the reduction of oxides of nitrogen.

  EU Research and Development Budget
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1907]

  Mr. Clappison
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1995" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. Departments' policy responsibilities are subject to change and can vary from year to year. My Department currently has responsibility for 8.04 per cent. of the Community's R and D budget.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Mathew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the next report from the intergovernmental panel on climate change has been sent to his Department for comment; what is the timetable for its publication; and if he will make a statement. [1814]
  560
  Mr. Clappison
  The reports of the three working groups of the intergovernmental panel on climate change were sent to my Department for comment following extensive scientific peer review. Comments were sought from other Departments and, where appropriate, external experts. Comments were provided on early drafts and as input to discussion at plenary sessions of the working groups.

  The summary reports of working groups II and III of IPCC were approved last month in Montreal and the working group I report will be addressed at a meeting on 27 to 29 November in Madrid. All three summaries and the underlying reports are due to be accepted formally by the IPCC at its plenary session in Rome in December. An overall synthesis report will also be considered for approval in Rome.

  Final published forms of the full reports should be available in spring 1996.

  Asbestos (Building Demolition)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what obligations there are for an organisation or person demolishing a building that is known to contain asbestos to report to a local authority that it is their intention to demolish such a building; and if he will make a statement. [1703]

  Mr. Clappison
  Any organisation or individual intending to demolish certain types of buildings is required to notify the local authority of their intention to do so. Buildings covered by this requirement are listed in section 80 of the Building Act 1984.

  The local authority may respond to the notice by imposing conditions on the demolition work including removal of material or rubbish from the site and measures for the protection of the public and preservation of public amenity. Depending on the nature of the conditions, the organisation or individual must notify the local authority again 24 or 48 hours before the required action is taken.

  For buildings containing asbestos, additional requirements depend on the nature and position of the asbestos in the building. If the building contains asbestos insulation or coating this should be removed wherever possible before any other demolition work begins. Such removal should be undertaken only by contractors licensed under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983.

  Inland Waterways (Speed Limits)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons he has given advice that speed limits on inland waterways shall henceforth be notified in kilometres per hour; what consultations were made prior to such notification; what is its statutory basis; and to what rivers, canals or tidal waterways such advice applies. [1797]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Under the Units of Measurement Regulations 1995, which took effect from 1 October 1995, certain references to imperial units of measurement were converted to their metric equivalent. My Department had kept British Waterways and the National Rivers Authority informed on the proposed regulations. The regulations
  561
  apply to all waterways except those used for sea transport, where units of measurement are laid down in international conventions or agreements.

  Assured Shorthold Tenancies
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many cases have been referred by tenants of assured shorthold tenancies to rent assessment committees in each year since the introduction of the Housing Act 1988; how many determinations have been made as a result of such referrals; and what has been the average reduction of rent consequent on those determinations; [2406]

  Rent assessment committees, England—caseload for rent referrals under section 22 Housing Act 1988 since 1989

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Number of referrals

  166

  423

  638

  765

  994

  1,583

  1,520

  Number of determinations

  33

  77

  237

  240

  284

  444

  519

  Average rent reduction (pa)(£)2

  813

  979

  763

  728

  834

  1,359

  1,246

  Number of determinations declined (insufficient similar lettings)

  22

  14

  15

  10

  16

  8

  3

  Number of determinations declined (rent not significantly high)

  36

  129

  144

  173

  194

  378

  424

  Determinations may also be declined on the grounds that the Committee has no jurisdiction to make a determination and where a referral has been withdrawn.

  1 To date.

  2 These exclude the London and South Western committees where the figures were unavailable.

  My Department's consultation paper "The Legislative Framework for Private Renting" issued in June 1995, proposed to repeal the right of assured shorthold tenants to refer to committees for a rent determination under section 22 of the Housing Act 1988. In the light of responses to that paper, I have decided to retain this right of referral.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total number of tenants in assured shorthold tenancies who have been receiving housing benefit in each year since the introduction of the Housing Act 1988; and how many of these have had their rents determined by a rent assessment committee. [2407]

  Mr. Curry
  The estimated number of tenants in assured shorthold tenancies in England receiving housing benefit is as follows:

  1989: figures not available

  1990: 25,000

  1991–92: figures not available

  1992–93: figures not available

  1993–94: 300,000

  1994–95: 300,000

  These estimates are from the 1990 private renters survey and the survey of English housing. Like all estimates from sample surveys, they are subject to sampling error.

  Tenants seeking a rent determination by a rent assessment committee are not required to inform the committee whether they are in receipt of housing benefit.

  Toxic Waste Shipments
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what permits his Department has issued to
  562
  (2) in how many cases involving referrals by tenants of assured shorthold tenancies under section 22 of the Housing Act 1988, in each year since the introduction of that Act, the rent assessment committee declined to make a determination (a) on the grounds that there were insufficient similar lettings in the locality and (b) because the rent was not considered significantly higher than that which the landlord might reasonably be expected to obtain. [2405]

  Mr. Curry
  The number of referrals by tenants of assured shorthold tenancies under section 22 of the Housing Act 1988 in each year since the introduction of that Act and action taken by the committees is as follows:

  allow the shipment of toxic waste into Liverpool in the last five years; and what quantities of toxic waste have entered the port in this period. [2135]

  Mr. Clappison
  Day-to-day administration of controls over imports and exports of waste is the responsibility of waste regulation authorities. Authorisation of hazardous waste imports is a matter for the waste regulation authority for the area where the destination facility is located. This may not be the same as the authority for the port of entry.

  The following table shows the quantities of hazardous waste entering the United Kingdom through the port of Liverpool since 1989:

  Year

  Tonnes1

  1989–90

  754

  1990–91

  573

  1991–92

  1,362

  1992–93

  1,081

  1993–94

  4,566

  1 Imports under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988.

  Source:

  Digest of Environmental Statistics, Nos. 13–17, HMSO.

  No imports of hazardous wastes were notified for disposal at facilities within the jurisdiction of Merseyside waste regulation authority during this period.

  Housing Bill
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will incorporate measures in the forthcoming housing Bill to remedy problems confronting leaseholders. [2403]

  Mr. Curry
  I am aware of the concerns which have been expressed. We are considering the possibility of framing appropriate measures.
  563
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what parliamentary timetable he envisages for the forthcoming Housing Bill; and if it is his intention that it will include measures relating to construction contracts. [2404]

  Mr. Curry
  We are finalising legislation to make better provision for housing and to lay the foundations for a construction industry based on partnership and co-operation, and hope to publish it shortly.

  Planning Guidance (Shopping Centres)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his new planning guidance on shopping centres. [2867]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We hope to publish the revised PPG6 early next year.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (Scotland)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the criteria used for selecting companies to be placed on the long list of contractors suitable for selection as network installers under the home energy efficiency scheme in Scotland; [2119]

  (2) what was the value of work carried out under the home energy efficiency scheme by each network installer in Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available; [2120]

  (3) who are the network installers used under the home energy efficiency scheme for each region in Scotland. [2132]

  Mr. Clappison
  All applicants for the long list are selected by competitive tender. Applicants are required to demonstrate their willingness and continuing ability to meet specified performance standards for grant work set by Eaga Ltd. and approved by my right hon. Friend. They are also required to carry out work sensitively with proper regard to the needs of clients; and to operate in accordance with Eaga's code of conduct.

  The same criteria are applied in England and Wales.

  Information about the value of work of individual installers is commercially confidential. A breakdown for 1994–95 by geographical area is shown in table 1. Table 2 shows the installers operating in each area.

  Table 1: Value of HEES work carried out in each operating area of Scotland. 1994–95

  £

  Roxburgh, Berwickshire, Ettrick and Lauderdale, Tweeddale, Midlothian, East Lothian

  301,012.45

  West Lothian and Edinburgh

  591,223.28

  Wigtown, Stewartry, Nithsdale, Annandale and Eskdale, Kyle and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  505,371.67

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Cunninghame

  452,178.88

  Eastwood, Renfrew, Inverclyde, Dumbarton Argyll and Bute

  592,840.86

  Monklands, Motherwell, Hamilton, East Kilbride, Clydesdale

  1,117,191.97

  Glasgow North

  427,725.56

  Glasgow East

  386,129.47

  Glasgow South

  267,937.60

  564

  Table 1: Value of HEES work carried out in each operating area of Scotland, 1994–95

  £

  Clydesbank, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, Strathkelvin Bearsden and Milgavie, Falkirk, Stirling, Clackmannan

  390,646.35

  Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy, North East Fife

  445,677.16

  Dundee, Perth and Kinross, Angus

  303,737.37

  Kincardine and Deeside, Gordon, Aberdeen, Banff and Buchan

  229,544.84

  Moray, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Inverness, Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness

  244,091.88

  Orkney Islands

  49,154.12

  Shetland Islands

  76,855.80

  Total

  6,381,319.26

  Table 2: HEES network installers for each operating area in Scotland

  Area

  Installers

  Roxburgh, Berwickshire, Ettrick and Lauderdale, Tweeddale, Midlothian, East Lothian

  Everwarm KNW

  West Lothian and Edinburgh

  McSence Heatwise Ltd.; Everwarm

  Wigtown, Stewartry, Nithsdale, Annandale and Eskdale, Kyle and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  Phoenix Energy Conservation Everwarm

  Kilmarnock and Loudon, Cunninghame

  BEST Ltd. Kendon Holdings

  Eastwood, Renfrew, Inverclyde, Dumbarton Argyll and Bute

  Solas Insulation Ltd. Everwarm

  Heatwise Glasgow

  Monklands, Motherwell, Hamilton, East Kilbride, Clydesdale

  Homes Consortium Microcom Insulations Everwarm

  Glasgow North

  Heatwise Glasgow; Solas

  Insulation Ltd.; Everwarm

  Glasgow East

  Heatwise Glasgow; Everwarm

  Glasgow South

  Heatwise Glasgow; Everwarm

  Miller Pattison Ltd.

  Clydebank, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, Strathkelvin

  Microcom Insulations Heatwise Glasgow

  Bearsden and Milgavie, Falkirk

  EU Insulation Ltd.

  Stirling, Clackmannan

  Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy, North

  Heatwise Fife Ltd.

  East Fife

  Clyde Insulation Contracts (UK)

  Dundee, Perth and Kinross, Angus

  Claverhouse Services Tayside Energy Training Co Ltd.

  Kincardine and Deeside, Gordon

  SCARF

  Aberdeen, Banff and Buchan

  Moray, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Inverness, Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness

  Rosswise Ltd.

  BEST Ltd.

  Orkney Islands

  Keep Orkney Warm

  Shetland Islands

  Shetland Heatwise

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for local government revenue spending in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [2796]

  Mr. Gummer
  Every year, the Government announce the sum of money which local authorities are expected to spend. Next year's figure is £44.92 billion, up
  565
  3.3 per cent. on last year. This means an increase of £1.4 billion, and when the transitional costs of local government reorganisation are taken into account, represents a cash improvement of 3.1 per cent.

  In allocating this sum between services, I have decided to give the main priority to education. My proposal is therefore that education spending should increase year on year by 4.5 per cent. The amount actually spent on schools remains a matter for individual local authorities, but I have no doubt that parents, governors and teachers will wish to ensure that the whole of the increased funding feed through into schools' budgets.

  I propose that the level of aggregate external finance distributed to local authorities in 1996–97 should be £35.62 billion. This represents an increase of some £960 million—2.8 per cent.—compared with this year's figure.

  I also propose that the national non-domestic rate poundage for 1996–97 should rise to 44.9, reflecting the annual increase in the retail price index to September.

  I propose to set the distributable amount of non-domestic rates at £12.74 billion. I propose that the total of revenue support grant should be £18 billion. Special and specific grants within AEF will amount to £4.88 billion.

  I shall announce shortly my proposals for the distribution of Government grants, including my proposals for changes in the standard spending assessment methodology. At the same time, I shall announce my capping intentions.

  It is essential that local and central government continue to play their part in restraining expenditure. My proposals for total standard spending, aggregate external finance and the non-domestic rate poundage represent a balanced approach to funding the demands on local authority services in 1996–97.

  I look to local authorities to scrutinise their priorities and to take every opportunity to increase their cost efficiency in the delivery of services. If they do so then, even in the climate of a tight settlement, the provision I have announced will enable authorities to meet priority needs across the range of their functions.

  Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what period his Department will continue funding the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea. [2652]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department currently provides support to the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea through the environmental action fund. ACOPS has applied for further funding for the financial year 1996–97. My Department is considering this, along with all other requests for environmental action fund support and we hope to announce our decisions on all applications early in 1996.

  Rebuilding Grants
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the results of 566
  the pilot project for rebuilding grants carried out under the terms of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. [3097]

  Mr. Clappison
  We expect to publish the results of the study early in the new year.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to ensure equality in terms of competition and regulation as between housing associations and the proposed independent social landlords. [2697]

  Mr. Clappison
  All organisations that wish to receive subsidy from the Housing Corporation to provide social housing will be required to meet the same standards of construction, maintenance, management and services to tenants. The corporation will monitor these organisations to see that these standards are delivered, and will have regulatory powers to take action where standards are not being met.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the proposals from the National Federation of Housing Associations relating to the proceeds from the sale of the Housing Corporation's loan portfolio; and if he will make a statement. [2786]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government will be making a statement on this matter later this afternoon.

  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to sell to the private sector the Housing Corporation portfolio of earlier loans to housing associations. [3426]

  Mr. Curry
  Since 1989, housing associations have secured around £5.5 billion of private resources to support housing projects, and a further £3 billion in support of large-scale voluntary transfers of housing from local authorities.

  Prior to 1989, housing associations' loan finance was provided by the Housing Corporation with resources borrowed from the national loans fund. There is no reason for public sector bodies to continue to hold these loans, and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have decided in principle that the corporation's portfolio of loans to housing associations in England, and the equivalent lending in Scotland by Scottish Homes and in Wales by Housing for Wales should be sold, subject to detailed investigations of the options for sale and the prospective disposal receipt. We shall shortly be appointing advisers to carry out this investigation.

  Sale, if confirmed following investigation, will not affect the financial position of the housing associations concerned, or their tenants, or rents, or the future development programmes of the Housing Corporation, Scottish Homes or Housing for Wales.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on tax relief grant for non-charitable housing associations. [3427]
  567
  Mr. Curry
  The White Paper "Our Future Homes" set out the Government's proposals to enable profit-making companies and other bodies to compete alongside housing associations for funds to support the provision of social housing in England and Wales.

  In this context, it would not make sense for non-charitable housing associations to continue to receive tax relief grant, which currently offsets their liability for income and corporation tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have, therefore, decided that tax relief grant should be discontinued with effect from 1 April 1997, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation.

  The tax position of charitable housing associations will remain unchanged.

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if a local authority must include on its register of stray dogs information derived from(a) a tattoo, (b) an identification tag or collar and (c) a microchip which is carried by a stray dog; and if he will make a statement. [3425]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environmental Protection (Stray Dogs) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 288) set out what information a local authority must include in its register of stray dogs. This contains specific mention of information from tattoos, tags and collars, but does not include specific mention of microchips. The local authority must, however, take reasonable steps to include any information which is carried by the dog. The interpretation of these regulations is ultimately a matter for the courts.

DEFENCE

  Western European Union
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aims the Government have for their presidency of the Western European Union. [816]

  Mr. Portillo
  We intend to concentrate our efforts during the United Kingdom presidency on ensuring that the WEU can fulfil more effectively its operational role as the European pillar of the transatlantic alliance.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and decisions taken at the recent Western European Union meeting in Madrid; and if he will place in the Library copies of all Western European Union declarations made in 1995. [1575]

  Mr. Soames
  The WEU Ministerial Council met in Madrid on 14 November. Ministers approved an options paper prepared as the WEU's contribution to the 1996 intergovernmental conference, and publication of a reflection document entitled "European security: a common concept of the 27 WEU countries". Ministers also took decisions on a range of measures to strengthen the WEU's operational capability, and welcomed a statement by the UK on the programme for its presidency commencing on 1 January 1996, which focuses on the 568
  WEU's further operational development. Copies of all 1995 WEU declarations not already in the Library of the House will be placed there.

  Trident Programme
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the Trident programme. [824]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Trident programme continues to make good progress and is on time and within budget. The second Vanguard class submarine, HMS Victorious, is due to enter service around the turn of the year.

  Joint Defence Policy (USA)
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the US Secretary for Defense to discuss joint defence policy. [825]

  Mr. Portillo
  I last met the US Defence Secretary at the NATO Ministerial meeting at Williamsburg on 6 October. I shall meet him again later this afternoon.

  Mr. David Hart
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assurances of confidentiality have been provided by Mr. David Hart regarding information supplied to his Department by the United Kingdom defence industry. [826]

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 19 October 1995,Official Report, column 361.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what access Mr. David Hart has to confidential information provided by the British defence industry. [828]

  Mr. Portillo
  Mr. Hart has access to the information necessary for him to fulfil his duties as my independent adviser.

  RAF High Wycombe
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of RAF High Wycombe. [829]

  Mr. Soames
  Although some changes are proposed to the internal structure of RAF Strike Command, RAF High Wycombe will continue to play an important role as the home for HQ RAF Strike Command, HQ Allied Forces North West Europe, and the Franco-British Euro Air Group.

  Military Helicopters (Exports)
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department provides to assist companies wishing to export military helicopters. [830]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Within the Ministry of Defence, support for defence exports is provided, primarily, by the Defence Export Services Organisation, which exists to help British manufacturers market and sell their products abroad, complementing the wider range of services offered by the Department of Trade and Industry. In
  569
  addition to the DESO/DTI support, the Export Credits Guarantee Department makes available its range of export credit facilities to support defence sales.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the consequences for Eurofighter 2000 of the delay in reaching agreement with European allies on workshare. [832]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of aspects, including workshare, relating to the planning of the future phases of the Eurofighter 2000 project are being discussed between the partner Governments. It would be premature to speculate now on the consequences of delay in reaching decisions on these aspects.

  Trident Programme
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received with regard to the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement. [833]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of representations have been received regarding the Trident programme.

  RAF Pilot Training
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of advanced RAF pilot training. [834]

  Mr. Soames
  Advanced RAF fast-jet pilot training will continue to take place at RAF Valley. Multi-engine pilot training is undertaken at RAF Cranwell, but is currently the subject of a trial to explore the feasibility of conducting this activity in the private sector. Rotary wing training will continue to be undertaken at RAF Shawbury, but from April 1997 will be provided by the new tri-service defence helicopter flying school which is to be based at the station.

  French Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his French counterpart concerning nuclear testing. [836]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since their meeting in Paris on 27 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the French Defence Minister have not discussed nuclear testing.

  Empty Service Properties
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many empty service properties his Department currently possesses. [837]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 30 September 1995, my Department owned 13,898 vacant service families quarters. Of these, 3,202 were in the process of being sold while the majority of the remainder were either awaiting major maintenance work, held for unit deployments, already allocated to service families due to move in shortly or formed part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available to house entitled service personnel.
  570
  A continuing programme should ensure significant additional disposals of surplus quarters during the next 12 to 18 months.

  British-French Air Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British-French air defence co-operation. [839]

  Mr. Soames
  Excellent relations exist between the two air forces. This close co-operation was recently demonstrated by the inauguration of the Franco-British Euro Air Group.

  Military Air Crashes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all military jet airplane crashes in United Kingdom airspace since 1980 indicating the date and location of each crash or the types of aircraft involved. [2738]

  Mr. Soames
  The table lists crashes which resulted in category 4 or category 5 damage, or nearest equivalent, to one or both of the military fixed-wing jet aircraft involved:

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  1980

  12 February

  Hunter FGA9

  Isle of Skye

  5 March

  Phantom FGR2

  RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire

  12 March

  Harrier GR3

  2¾ nm SE of Lampeter, Dyfed

  17 March

  Hunter GA11

  English Channel, 10 nm SSW of Start Point

  29 April

  F-111E

  Mappenton, Dorset

  8 May

  Jet Provost T5A

  Near RAF Swinderby, Lincolnshire

  17 May

  Hawk T1

  Brighton sea front, Sussex

  28 May

  Hunter FGA9

  3 nm SE of Dufftown, Morayshire

  29 May

  Hunter T7

  1 nm S of Little Saxham, Suffolk

  3 June

  Phantom FG1

  RAF Alconbury, Cambridgeshire

  31 July

  Jet Provost T3A

  ½ nm S of RAF Elvington, North Yorkshire

  19 August

  Hawk T1

  RAF Valley, Anglesey

  12 November

  Phantom FGR2

  North Sea, 50 nm NE of Cromer

  17 November

  Nimrod MR2

  RAF Kinloss, Morayshire

  18 November

  2 x A-10A

  Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

  1 December

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  English Channel, 25 nm S of Land's End

  9 December

  Phantom FGR2

  North Sea, 10 nm NE of Lowestoft

  1981

  9 January

  A-10A

  RAF Donna Nook, Lincolnshire

  28 January

  Jet Provost T5A

  4 nm W of RAF Leuchars, Fife

  4 February

  A-10A

  East Wretham, Suffolk

  23 February

  Hunter FGA9

  Moray Firth, 20 nm N of RAF Lossiemouth

  25 March

  F-111

  RAF Fairford, Gloucester

  3 April

  Hunter FGA9

  RAF Lossiemouth, Morayshire

  8 May

  A-10A

  RAF Wainfleet, Lincolnshire

  1 June

  Jaguar T2

  4 nm NE of Kirriemuir, Tayside

  16 June

  Jet Provost T5A

  RAF Leeming, North Yorkshire

  571

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  9 July

  Phantom FG1

  RAF Leuchars, Fife

  17 July

  Jaguar GR1

  1 nm SE of Great Malvern, Hereford and Worcester

  23 July

  Lightning F6

  North Sea, 50 nm NNE of RAF Binbrook

  24 July

  Jaguar T2

  Bristol Channel, 9 nm W of Hartland Point, Devon

  30 July

  Jet Provost T3A

  2 nm N of Snainton, North Yorkshire

  6 August

  Jaguar GR1

  2 nm SW of Barnard Castle, Durham

  23 September

  Buccaneer S2B

  RAF Wattisham, Suffolk

  21 October

  Hunter T7

  St. George's Channel, 35 nm SW of Brawdy

  22 October

  Jet Provost T3A

  Holme-on-Spalding-Moor, Humberside

  18 November

  Jaguar GR1

  14 nm NW of Dingwall, Ross and Cromarty

  1 December

  Hunter T7

  1½ nm N of RAF Brawdy, Dyfed

  1982

  7 January

  Hawk T1

  RAF Bedford, Bedfordshire

  12 February

  Harrier GR3

  8 nm S of Corwen, Clwyd

  17 March

  Hunter 12

  RAF Farnborough, Hampshire

  2 April

  Jaguar GR1

  The Wash, 5 nm SW of Hunstanton

  14 April

  Phantom FGR2

  ½ nm SE of Walcot, Lincolnshire

  22 April

  Jet Provost T4

  Nant-y-Moch Reservoir, Dyfed

  4 May

  F-16

  Beccles, Suffolk

  12 May

  Tornado GR1

  RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire

  13 May

  Hunter FGA9

  15 nm SE of Aberystwyth

  17 May

  Jet Provost T5A

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse, North Yorkshire

  17 May

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset 1½ nm SW of RAF Lossiemouth, Morayshire

  17 June

  Buccaneer S2B

  1½ nm SW of RAF Lossiemouth, Morayshire

  23 June

  F-111F

  Strathconon Forest, Ross and Cromarty

  7 July

  Phantom FGR2

  North Sea, 35 nm N of Cromer

  28 July

  Hawk T1

  RAF Valley, Anglesey

  5 August

  Hunter T7

  4½ nm NW of Carmarthen, Dyfed

  13 September

  Jaguar GR1

  11 nm N of Bonar Bridge, Sutherland

  16 September

  F-111F

  RAF Leuchars, Fife

  15 October

  Victor K2

  RAF Marham, Norfolk

  20 October

  Hawk T1

  RAF Chivenor, Devon

  7 December

  F-111F

  Cullin Hills, Isle of Skye

  7 December

  F-104G Starfighter

  Irish Sea, off Brawdy

  9 December

  Jet Provost T5A

  Lake Thirlmere, Cumbria

  16 December

  Hunter T8C

  The Solent, 3 nm of Nab Tower

  1983

  21 January

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  Cattistock, Dorset

  23 February

  Harrier GR3 and Harrier T4

  3 nm NE of Peterborough, Cambridgeshire

  7 March

  Jaguar GR1

  RAF Tain, Ross and Cromarty

  30 March

  Jet Provost T3A

  RAF Elvington, North Yorkshire

  12 April

  F-104 Starfighter

  Otterburn range

  19 April

  Jaguar GR1

  North Sea, 35 nm NNE of RAF Coltishall

  16 May

  Hunter GA11

  English Channel, 2 nm off Portland Bill

  24 June

  Hawk T1

  Irish Sea, 4 nm SW of the Isle of Man

  29 July

  2 x Hawk T1

  Near Holsworthy. Devon

  572

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  29 July

  Hawk T1

  St. George's Channel, 40 nm SW of RAF Brawdy

  26 August

  Lightning F3

  Scarborough, North Yorkshire

  19 September

  Jaguar GR1

  RAF Lossiemouth, Morayshire

  27 September

  Tornado GR1

  Wolferton Marsh, Norfolk

  19 October

  Canberra B2

  North Sea

  20 October

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  2 nm SE of Dorchester, Dorset

  28 October

  Harrier GR3

  RAF Holbeach, Norfolk

  28 October

  Tornado GR1

  North Sea, 10 nm N of Sheringham

  14 November

  Tornado GR1

  RAF Honington, Suffolk

  21 November

  Jet Provost T3A

  2 nm SE of Ribblehead Viaduct, North Yorkshire

  12 December

  2 x A-10A

  North Sea, off Great Yarmouth

  21 December

  F-111F

  North Sea, off Scotland

  1984

  17 January

  Jaguar T2

  ¾ mile from A and AEE Boscombe Down

  29 February

  A-10A

  Suffolk

  11 May

  Jet Provost T3A

  RAF Linton on Ouse, North Yorkshire

  20 May

  Buccaneer S2B

  North Sea, 45 nm NE of Fraserburgh

  3 June

  Nimrod MR2

  RAF St. Mawgan, Cornwall

  12 July

  Tornado GR1 and Jaguar GR1A

  l ½ nm NW of Sheringham, Norfolk

  9 August

  F-111E

  Loch Eye, Ross and Cromarty

  15 August

  Jet Provost T3A

  RAF Cranwell, Lincolnshire

  22 August

  Jaguar GR1A

  North Sea, 20 nm ENE of Cromer

  31 August

  Hawk T1

  Sidmouth Bay, Devon

  9 October

  Tornado

  RAF Cottesmore, Leicestershire

  25 October

  Hawk T1

  Tremadoc Bay, Gwent

  31 October

  Hunter T8C

  The Solent, 2 nm off Nab Tower

  7 November

  Hawk T1

  Mona Airfield, Anglesey

  8 November

  Lightning F6

  North Sea, 7 nm E of Spurn Head

  1 December

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  6 nm NE of Fort William

  1985

  30 January

  Hawk T1A

  Bristol Channel, off Mumbles Head

  7 February

  Harrier T4N

  3 nm N of RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset

  6 March

  Lightning F6

  North Sea, 20 nm NE of Skegness

  10 April

  F-111F

  RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk

  17 April

  Hawk T1

  1 nm S of RAF Wattisham, Suffolk

  30 April

  F-5A

  RAF Kinloss, Morayshire

  14 June

  Buccanneer S2B

  RAF Lossiemouth, Morayshire

  8 August

  Canberra B2

  RAF Alconbury, Cambridgeshire

  19 September

  Lightning F6

  North Sea, 50 nm E of Flamborough Head

  7 October

  Jaguar GR1A and Jaguar GR1 and Jaguar GR1

  4 nm WSW of Alston, Cumbria

  24 October

  Tornado

  Stannersburn, North Yorkshire

  19 November

  Harrier GR3

  RAF Wittering, Cambridgeshire

  12 December

  Tornado GR1

  North Sea. off Flamborough Head

  1986

  7 January

  Phantom FGR2

  5 nm SSE of Aysgarth, North Yorkshire

  16 April

  Sea Harrier FRS 1

  North Atlantic Ocean, 120 nm W of Tiree

  25 May

  Meteor T7 and Vampire T11

  RAF Mildenhall, Suffolk

  573

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  6 June

  2 x Jet Provost T5A

  2½ nm NNW of Helmsley, North Yorkshire

  17 June

  Tornado

  Near Claerwen Reservoir, Powys

  17 June

  Harrier GR3

  RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset

  2 July

  Hawk 200

  BAe Dunsfold, Surrey

  7 July

  Hawk T1

  RAF Valley, Anglesey

  15 July

  Lightning F6

  North Sea, 7 nm N of Whitby

  24 July

  F-4 Phantom

  St. Bride's Bay, Dyfed

  21 October

  Tornado

  Otterburn range

  3 November

  Hawk T1A

  RAF Scampton, Lincolnshire

  27 November

  Jaguar GR1A

  Eskdalemuir Forest, Borders

  2 December

  Tornado GR1

  Wortham, Suffolk

  10 December

  2 x Tornado GR1

  Near Thorney, Cambridgeshire

  1987

  23 February

  F-111

  Near Newmarket, Suffolk

  19 March

  Lightning F3

  RAF Binbrook, Lincolnshire

  22 April

  Buccaneer S2B

  North Sea, 25 nm E of Wick

  3 June

  Tornado GR1

  Manby Airfield, Lincolnshire

  17 June

  Jaguar GR1A and Tornado GR1

  S of Keswick, Cumbria

  24 June

  Jaguar GR1A

  3 nm SE of Builth Wells, Powys

  27 July

  Tornado GR1

  10 nm NW of Pickering, North Yorkshire

  28 July

  F-111

  Near Lauder, Berwickshire

  26 August

  F-4J(UK) Phantom

  10 nm S of Aberystwyth, Dyfed

  7 September

  Phantom FG1

  North Sea, 50 nm E of RAF Leuchars

  15 October

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  North Atlantic Ocean, 85 nm SW of Tiree

  2 November

  2 x Harrier GR3

  Otterburn range

  16 November

  2 x Hawk T1

  Welton, Lincolnshire

  1988

  22 January

  Hawk T1A

  RAF Scampton, Lincolnshire

  11 April

  Lightning F6

  North Sea, 5 nm off Easington, Humberside

  20 April

  Phantom FG1

  North Sea, 23 nm E of RAF Leuchars

  13 May

  Hawk T1A

  RAF Brawdy, Dyfed

  30 May

  Meteor T7

  3nm NE of Coventry Airport, Warwickshire

  14 June

  Hunter GA11

  2 nm NW of RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset

  24 June

  Hawk T1A

  RAF Scampton, Lincolnshire

  9 August

  2 x Tornado GR1

  Blencarn, Cumbria

  23 September

  Phantome FGR2

  RAF Abingdon, Oxfordshire

  22 December

  A-10A

  RAF Alconbury, Cambs

  1989

  9 January

  Phantom FGR2

  North Sea, 50 nm E of RAF Leuchars

  8 March

  Jet Provost T3A

  Kirby Misperton, North Yorkshire

  13 April

  Jaguar GR1A

  Lumsdaine Beach, Borders

  17 April

  A-10A

  Near RAF Alconbury, Cambridgeshire

  24 April

  Phantom FGR2

  North Sea, 30 nm E of Flamborough Head

  14 June

  2 x Hawk T1

  6 nm NE of Aberystwyth, Dyfed

  21 July

  Tornado F3

  North Sea, 35 nm NE of Newcastle

  14 September

  Tornado GR1

  3 nm of RAF Abingdon, Oxfordshire

  20 September

  Hawk T1A

  RAF Brawdy, Dyfed

  4 October

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  English Channel, 13 nm West of Portland Bill

  574

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  1990

  9 January

  Tornado GR1 & Jaguar GR1A

  4nm E of Hexham, Northumberland

  5 February

  F-111E

  RAF Wainfleet, Lincolnshire

  6 February

  A-10A

  Near Hereford

  10 April

  Hunter T8C

  3½ nm N of Dorchester, Dorset

  30 April

  Phantom FGR2

  RAF Valley, Anglesey

  2 May

  F-111F

  Near Sculthorpe, Norfolk

  9 May

  Hawk T1

  1 nm NW of RAF Valley, Anglesey

  27 June

  Canberra E15

  1 nm E of RAF Kinloss, Moray

  14 August

  2 x Tornado GR1

  North Sea, 10 nm NE of Spurn Head

  16 August

  Tornado GR1

  North Sea, 6 nm NE of Spurn Head

  12 September

  Jaguar GR1A

  Solway Firth, 4 nm W of Silloth

  1991

  28 February

  F-16A

  North Sea, 80 nm NE of RAF Coltishall

  18 March

  Canberra T4

  RAF Wyton, Cambridgeshire

  10 May

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  1 nm NE of Parc Seymour, Gwent

  29 August

  Jaguar T2A

  Carno, Powys

  12 September

  Tornado GR1

  Bristol Channel, S of Steep Holm Island

  25 September

  Harrier T4

  3 nm N of Great Driffield, Humberside

  1992

  17 February

  Hunter T8C

  North Atlantic Ocean, 85 nm NW of Cape Wrath

  2 April

  EF-111A

  RAF Upper Heyford, Oxfordshire

  14 May

  Harrier GR3

  RAF Wittering, Cambridgeshire

  9 July

  Buccaneer S2B

  North Sea, 38 nm E of RAF Leuchars

  7 August

  Harrier GR5

  RAF Wittering, Cambridgeshire

  17 September

  F-111E

  RAF Upper Heyford, Oxfordshire

  30 September

  Hawk T1A

  RAF Chivenor, Devon

  1993

  28 June

  Harrier GR7

  5 nm SW of Heckington, Lincolnshire

  1 July

  Hawk T1

  RAF Valley, Anglesey

  24 July

  2 x MIG-29

  RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire

  21 October

  Tornado F3

  Stainmore, Cumbria

  1994

  5 Janaury

  Sea Harrier FRS2

  Bristol Channel, 5 nm SE of Lundy Island

  14 January

  Harrier GR7

  Vale of Evesham, Hereford and Worcester

  7 June

  Tornado F3

  North Sea, 45 nm NE of Scarborough

  27 June

  Harrier T4N

  RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset

  19 July

  Tornado GR1

  Moray Firth, 16 nm N of RAF Lossiemouth

  1 September

  Tornado GR1A

  Glen Ogle. Perthshire

  1995

  10 March

  Tornado F3

  North Sea, 20 nm SE of Spurn Head

  16 May

  Nimrod R1

  Moray Firth, 3½ nm N of RAF Lossiemouth

  1 June

  Harrier GR7

  Solway Firth, 3 nm SE of Burrow Head

  26 July

  Harrier T10

  RAF Wittering,

  575

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  Cambridgeshire

  10 August

  Hawk T1W

  Mona Airfield, Anglesey

  29 August

  U-2R

  RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire

  20 October

  Sea Harrier FA2

  RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset

  30 October

  2 x Tornado F3

  North Sea, 50 nm E of RAF Leuchars

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to inform hon. Members of proposed low flying exercises. [2230]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 10 February 1995,Official Report, column 463.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to review the conduct of low flying; and if he will make a statement. [2434]

  Mr. Soames
  The regulations governing the use of the United Kingdom low flying system are kept under continuous review.

  Shoeburyness Firing Range (Noise)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the number of complaints he has received in the current year from Kent residents about(a) noise and (b) vibration from the Shoeburyness firing range; how many exceptionally loud detonations have taken place; what procedures are adopted to reduce inconvenience to the minimum possible; and what is the role of the establishment within the defence strategy. [2439]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Sir Roger Moate, dated 28 November 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about complaints from Kent Residents on the activities at the Shoeburyness range has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which includes the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO), of which Shoeburyness is a part, as one of its divisions.
  You asked about the role of DTEO Shoeburyness. The site has developed over the last 140 years to provide a large land area and firm tidal sands which are used to test, trial and dispose of weapons and munitions for the Ministry of Defence. In more detail there are four main strands of activity.

  a. The Dynamic Trials Section conducts a wide variety of trials and proof testing involving guided weapons, tank ordnance and artillery systems. The use of the tidal sands gives the section the capability to observe end trajectory functioning out to 24km.

  b. The Static Trials Section conducts a wide range of trials on all explosive items and targets. The section also tests ballistic body armour and explosive suppression techniques.

  576

  c. The Environmental Test Centre (ETC) on Foulness Island is the focus of excellence within DTEO Shoeburyness for all matters relating to safe handling, transportation and storage of military and potentially hazardous stores.

  d. Shoeburyness is also a world leader in the development of Conventional Munitions Disposal techniques and has developed a modern integrated range of facilities for the safe, efficient and environmentally benign demilitarisation of ammunition and explosives.

  The number of complaints in any year is variable depending on the programme of work we have underway for the MOD. The number of complaints has increased since Shoeburyness undertook large scale demilitarisation at the end of 1993 as a result of the UK signing the 1989 Oslo Convention Agreement which banned deep sea dumping of ammunition. The staff at Shoeburyness have taken a number of steps to minimise the effects of noise on the local population. Before any firings take place an acoustic forecast is undertaken which predicts the likely noise effect over the surrounding area. If conditions are such that disturbance might be caused on any one or more centres of population then firings are postponed, where possible, until conditions are more favourable. The acoustic forecast is backed up by a number of noise monitors, three of which are on the Kent coast, which give an accurate, real time, indication of what noise is actually being propagated. If these results show an unacceptable level of noise, then trials or firings are, if possible, postponed until conditions are more favourable. The management at Shoeburyness has also implemented a policy of encouraging local residents to get in touch with staff at the site if they feel they have a complaint. Details of how to do this have been widely advertised in the local press. We have also tried, by open days at the site, to explain to local people the reason for the noise and the very important role that Shoeburyness fulfils for the Ministry of Defence. We also try to deal sympathetically with claims from members of the public who feel that our activities may have caused damage to their property.
  Since January 1995 the complaints regarding noise and vibration from residents in Kent have totalled 290 compared with 336 for the full year in 1994. There have been 26 days so far in 1995 on which one or more of the three Kent monitors have recorded noise above 130 decibels. It should be pointed out, however, that the monitors register all noise, not just that from Shoeburyness. Our statistics do not break down between noise and vibration. The vibrations are, in fact, the result of a low frequency noise side effect.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve (Chaplains)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many chaplains are currently appointed in the TAVR; to which regiments they are attached; which denominations they represent; and if he will make a statement. [2872]

  Mr. Soames
  There are at present 103 serving TA chaplains with three more in the process of being recruited.

  The 103 serving TA chaplains are deployed as follows:

  6 with Royal Armoured Corps Units.

  8 with Royal Artillery Units.

  6 with Royal Engineers Units.

  9 with Royal Signals Units.

  26 with Infantry Units.

  6 with Royal Logistics Corps Units.

  31 with Army Medical Services Units.

  There are a further 11 chaplains serving with minor units.
  577
  The denominational split of the 103 chaplains currently serving with the TA is as follows:

  Number

  Church of England

  74

  Roman Catholic

  9

  Methodist

  2

  Church of Scotland

  13

  United Board

  5

  Tornado Air Miss (Alaska)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on the air miss between two Royal Air Force Tornado GR1s over Alaska in May 1993. [1308]

  Mr. Soames
  The investigation of air misses and publication of any subsequent reports are matters for the aviation authority in whose airspace the alleged incident occurred. My Department is not aware of an air miss between two Tornados over Alaska in May 1993.

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1909]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the forward look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. My Department does not have policy responsibility for Community research and development expenditure.

  Airwork Ltd.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will respond to the report of the Defence Select Committee into the work carried out on Tornado jets based at RAF St. Athans by Airwork Ltd. during 1993. [2399]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government intend to respond by the end of the year to the Defence Committee's report on market testing and contracting out of defence support functions.

  Military Equipment Sales (Civilian Casualties)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to collate figures on civilian casualties caused by military equipment sold by United Kingdom firms. [2774]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In the case of equipment owned by the Ministry of Defence, accidents at work to MoD civilians are reportable to the Health and Safety Executive under the reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of Ministry of Defence personnel in the examination of timing devices 578
  allegedly connected with the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [1636]

  Mr. Soames
  Ministry of Defence scientists did assist the Dumfries and Galloway police. I am not prepared to give details that could prejudice criminal proceedings.

  Isle of Wight (Visit)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit defence contractors on the Isle of Wight to discuss defence production. [838]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Currently I have no plans to do so.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength, by rank, of the Ministry of Defence police; what he expects it to be, by rank, in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [2875]

  Mr. Soames
  The strength, by rank, of the Ministry of Defence police, as at 1 October 1995, was: chief constable, one; deputy chief constable, one; assistant chief constable, four; chief superintendent, seven; superintendent, 25; chief inspector, 58; inspector, 149; sergeant, 698; and constable 3,436.

  The overall manpower requirements of the Ministry of Defence police are kept under constant review. We will issue consultative documents concerning our proposals for future defence police and guarding requirements shortly.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the prospects for increased European defence co-operation; and if he will make a statement. [815]

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government are firmly committed to increasing European defence co-operation in a practical way that enhances defence capabilities and complements NATO. We hope our European partners share this objective.

SCOTLAND

  Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of state aid(a) made available to and (b) promised to Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. to locate in Lanarkshire. [338]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Details of the financial assistance offered to Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. are commercially confidential.

  The company is, however, eligible for support on exactly the same basis as any other commercial venture bringing investment and jobs to an assisted area. The greater part of the financial support package offered to the company comprised an offer of grant under the regional selective assistance scheme. In accordance with normal practice, brief details of the RSA offered to the company

  579
  will be published in "Labour Market Trends" in the quarter after the first payment of grant is made. No payments have been made to date.

  Gaelic Television Service
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received with regard to providing for an enhanced Gaelic television service within any forthcoming legislation for establishing digital terrestrial television services. [163]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has noted representations received last week from Comunn na Gaidhlig—the Gaelic development agency— and the Gaelic Television Committee which were both anxious to ensure that the needs and aspirations of the Gaelic-speaking community for enhanced Gaelic television and radio services are taken fully into account in the Government's plans for the introduction of digital terrestrial broadcasting services.

  Water Authority Chairmen
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedure was used by the Scottish Office in appointing the chairman of Scotland's new water authorities; how many individuals were considered for the posts; what agencies were employed to assist this process; and what was the value of the contracts relating to the process of appointing these individuals. [1181]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Candidates for appointment were identified from the public appointments lists and other sources. About 100 names were considered. No external agency was involved.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to restrict further the production of Temazepam; and if he will make a statement. [1580]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. Additional controls to prevent diversion from the legitimate trade in Temazepam, including import and export licences, will shortly be introduced.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of Temazepam per capita is distributed annually in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [1505]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1993–94, 99 grams of Temazepam were dispensed on prescription per 1,000 population in Scotland. In 1994–95 the figure was 89g.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to educate young people about the dangerous effects of Temazepam, with particular reference to its mixture with other drugs or injection in jellied form. [1577]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government encourage schools to tackle drugs education within a comprehensive programme of health and social education and good-quality resources have been made available to schools. The content of the curriculum in Scottish schools is, however, the responsibility of education authorities and teachers.
  580
  In addition, the Health Education Board for Scotland runs general drug misuse campaigns aimed at young people and their parents. A current campaign contains information on individual drugs, including Temazepam.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 17 October a ban on the prescribing of the gel-filled capsule formulation of Temazepam.

  Inward Investment
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the value, at current prices, of inward investment to Scotland for the last five years. [1399]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The inward investment figures published by Locate in Scotland in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of projects

  Planned investment (£ million)

  Planned jobs (new and safeguarded)

  1990–91

  63

  394.1

  10,244

  1991–92

  59

  380.9

  6,002

  1992–93

  65

  352.0

  8,059

  1993–94

  95

  587.6

  11,072

  1994–95

  97

  1,126.6

  12,329

  Totals

  379

  2,841.2

  47,706

  These figures relate only to projects handled by Locate in Scotland or the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. The figures for planned investment and planned jobs are those provided by the companies concerned at the time of the investment decision and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1438]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon Friend the Minister for Construction Planning, and Energy Efficiency gave to the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr Ainsworth) on 17 May 1995,Official Report, columns 260–62.

  Drugs (Education Expenditure)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on education on drug abuse per regional council in Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information sought is not held centrally by the Scottish Office. In Scottish schools, the life skills approach to drugs, alcohol and smoking will continue to be the core of education programmes rather than the focus on individual substances. It is, therefore, not possible to identify the money that has been spent on education on drug misuse.

  NHS Trusts (Termination Payments)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to issue guidance to NHS
  581
  trusts on the levels of severance payments to (a) NHS managers and (b) other NHS employees. [1783]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance is in preparation on the calculation of termination payments to general and senior managers for issue to the NHS in Scotland. The guidance will also be appropriate to calculate termination payments to any other NHS staff on similar contracts to general and senior managers.

  NHS Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many hospital doctors have left the national health service who qualified(a) five years previously and (b) 10 years previously in each year since 1991; [2279]

  (2) if he will list the number of hospital (a) consultants and (b) doctors who have left the national health service through taking (i) early retirement or (ii) other voluntary reasons in each year since 1991. [2280]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally. Evidence of doctors leaving the profession prematurely is available from studies published in 1991 by Professor James Parkhouse. These studies suggested that although 20 per cent. of doctors were not practising in the national health service five years after qualification, the majority of these were not lost permanently to medicine. Many were working in short-term postings overseas, to develop further their skills, while others were working in United Kingdom medical work outside the NHS, or taking short career breaks.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that individual general practitioners and other health service providers vet and properly dispose of their clinical waste. [2121]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The NHS management executive wrote to NHS health bodies on 31 August 1994 reminding them of their responsibilities for the management of clinical waste. General managers of health boards were asked to bring the letter to the attention of general practitioners, dentists and hospital/community pharmacists.

  Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how he will distribute the current central funding of artificial limb and appliance centre services to individual health boards as from 1 April 1996; [2134]

  (2) if he will list the organisations he consulted about his decision to devolve the provision and funding of artificial limb and appliance centre services from the Common Services Agency to local health boards in Scotland with effect from 1 April 1996. [2131]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  ALAC services are not a designated national service and have been purchased centrally on a temporary basis for only two years. The national services division of the Common Services Agency which is responsible for centrally purchased services set up a working group in early 1995 to look at 582
  the future provision of these services. The working group was made up of representatives from trusts, health boards and artificial limb and appliance centres; from training, therapy, supplies and primary care interests; and a consumer sub-group and a consultation network. It concluded that funding for ALAC services should be devolved to health boards, a recommendation that I have approved.

  The funding of artificial limb and appliance centres will be returned to boards in 1996–97 through the weighted capitation formula and notification of the notional allocation for each board will be included in the financial allocations for 1996–97.

  Council Tax
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he plans to take to protect Scottish council tax payers. [3236]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During the past 10 years, current expenditure by Scottish local authorities has increased in real terms by 20 per cent., even after adjusting for additional responsibilities on authorities. In the same period, there has been an increase in Scottish local authority manpower levels. Since 1987, those levels have increased by almost 6 per cent. In the same period, staffing levels have reduced in England by over 6 per cent., despite the fact that English authorities have also had additional responsibilities such as care in the community transferred to them.

  Since its introduction in 1993–94, the council tax in Scotland has risen faster than in England. The average band D tax has increased from £559 to £624 in the current year in Scotland and from £569 to £609 in England. In other words, there has been an increase of 11.6 per cent. in Scotland as compared with only 7.0 per cent. in England.

  Against this background, I have decided that action must be taken to protect Scottish council tax payers. In addition to the significant increase in Government support for local authority spending next year which I am announcing separately, I plan to take the following two further measures.

  The first concerns the use of CFCR by Scottish authorities. In the current year, authorities budgeted to spend a total of £132 million on CFCR, nearly three times the level in 1991–92. As CFCR is funded entirely from the council tax, increase in its use has pushed up tax levels. In the current year it has added £79 to the average band D council tax. Particularly in view of the predictions by some authorities of large tax increases next year, I have concluded that the use of CFCR needs to be curbed. For 1996–97 my intention is to use my powers under section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to limit consents for CFCR to a total of £62 million. As compared with the level of budgeted expenditure this year this will reduce the average band D council tax by £41. The detail of this, including how the £62 million will be distributed amongst authorities, will be the subject of discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Despite my general desire to reduce controls on local government, I have concluded, especially against the background of the growth in expenditure, staffing levels and council tax levels in Scotland, that capping must be

  583
  retained. I have therefore decided to announce provisional capping principles for the year ahead in order to assist local authorities in their budgeting process.

  I have the power to cap a local authority either where I consider that its planned expenditure is excessive or where there is an excessive increase in its planned expenditure as compared with the previous year.

  My provisional capping principles for 1996–97 are:

  Mainland Councils

  Any increase in budget for 1996–97 of more than 0.8 per cent. over the amount specified in relation to that council in a report under section 94A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is above the council's grant-aided expenditure for 1996–97—in the case of the Scottish Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Fife and Highland councils—and the council's GAE for 1996–97 adjusted to take account of the transitional scheme to deal with the mismatch problem announced by the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), on 22 November Official Report, column 162,—in the case of all other mainland councils;

  Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and Western Isles Councils

  Any increase in budget between 1995–96 and 1996–97 of more than 0.8 per cent. will be an excessive increase if the resulting budget is above the council's GAE assessment for 1996–97;

  Any budget for 1996–97 more than 12.5 per cent. above the council's GAE assessment will be excessive save that if that budget is no greater than the budget set by that council for 1995–96, the council will not be capped.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce details of the 1996–97 Scottish local government finance settlement. [3237]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have decided to improve on last year's plans and to allocate to Scottish local authorities the full amount of the extra sum added to the Scottish block as a consequence of the English settlement. Scottish local authorities are therefore being treated very favourably, despite the difficult public expenditure round. Next year, the level of local authority spending in Scotland will be 31 per cent. higher per head in Scotland than in England and the level of Government support will be no less than 44 per cent. higher.

  Within the settlement, priority is being given to the police and education services and a further transfer of resources is being made to local authorities in respect of their care in the community responsibilities.

  On the basis of this settlement, there should be no need for cuts in front-line services or excessive council tax increases, especially if the new councils grasp the opportunity present by reorganisation to streamline their management structures and take a fresh approach to the way services are delivered to ensure that both the national and the local taxpayer receives best value for money.

  The details of the settlement are:

  Government-supported Expenditure

  I propose that government supported expenditure—which is the Government's view of the total amount local authorities need to spend on providing services and meeting debt charges—for 1996–97 should be set at £6,200.7 million. After adjusting for transfers of responsibility to and from local government from 1 April 1996, this is an increase of 2.08 per cent. on the current year's figures.

  584

  Grant-aided Expenditure

  Local authorities will incur an estimated £777.7 million on loan and leasing charges in 1996–97. This is an increase of £32.3 million over this year's figure—after adjusting for transfers of responsibility. These charges are increasing at an alarming rate and I am announcing separately my plans to bring them under greater control. After deducting this sum from the GSE total, £5,423 million is available for allocation as grant-aided expenditure. This is the amount which we think local authorities need to spend on services. This GAE amount is 1.75 per cent. higher than that for the current year, after adjusting for transfers of responsibility. I shall announce GAE figures for individual local authorities as soon as possible.

  Aggregate External Finance

  I further propose that Government support for local authority current expenditure—that is, aggregate external finance which consists of revenue support grant, specific grants and non-domestic rate income—for 1996–97 should be set at £5,400.9 million. This is an increase of 2.62 per cent. on the current year's figure, after adjusting for transfers of responsibility. Proposals for the distribution of AEF to individual local authorities are again likely to be issued before Christmas.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of local authority debt in Scotland and if he will make a statement. [3238]

  Mr. Forsyth
  At the end of March 1995 local authorities' outstanding debt on general fund services was £5,338 million. This represents an increase of £2,114 million or 65 per cent. since 31 March 1987. The level of loan charges and repayments associated with that debt is an estimated £799 million in the current year, £42 million higher than in 1994–95. At over 13 per cent. of all Government-supported expenditure, these loan charges are pre-empting an increasing proportion of the resources available for local authority services in Scotland. They are also pre-empting resources for other public services since rising loan debt is a factor I have had to take into account in deciding the share of the Scottish block which is allocated to revenue support for local authorities.

  Outstanding capital debt on local authorities' housing revenue accounts has also increased since 1987, despite a 25 per cent. fall in the number of council houses over that period. Outstanding debt at 31 March 1995 was £3,938 million and debt per local authority house was £6,166, compared with £3,930 per house eight years earlier, a 57 per cent. increase. As the size of the local authority stock has declined, the burden of loan charges is being shouldered by a decreasing number of tenants.

  The high debt levels in Scotland are the product of two factors: the high levels of capital spending by Scottish local authorities, 75 per cent. higher per head than in England; and the absence of a policy which encourages the use of receipts to repay outstanding debt.

  Provided they spend them in the same year, local authorities in Scotland are currently allowed to use the full proceeds of asset sales to incur new investment, without having to pay off debt. This contrasts with the position in England and Wales where councils are in general required to use 50 per cent. of general receipts and 75 per cent. of most housing receipts to repay outstanding debt.

  I have decided that it is necessary, in the interests of future generations of council tax payers, council tenants and customers for local services, to encourage greater

  585
  prudence in the use of capital receipts. From 1 April 1996, therefore, the new Scottish authorities will be obliged to use 25 per cent. of their capital receipts for the repayment of debt. My present intention is that from 1 April 1997, the proportion of receipts to be used to repay debt will be 50 per cent. The details of the new regime, including the question of any exceptions to these general rules and the implications for large-scale disposals of housing stock, will be the subject of detailed consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the near future. As announced separately, I have also decided to control the level on capital expenditure financed from general revenues, in order to protect council tax payers.

  By allowing councils to spend 75 per cent. of their receipts next year, I am giving them an incentive to dispose of assets quickly after local government reorganisation. If councils take full advantage of this opportunity and make sufficient progress in reducing their outstanding debt, I hope to be able to allow them in future to spend 50 per cent. of both housing and non-housing receipts, a more favourable position than in England. I shall, however, keep the position under review.

  Councils' ability to incur capital expenditure at their own hand will obviously be curtailed. There is, however, plenty of opportunity for them to meet the needs of their communities by doing more to involve the private sector in meeting local needs. The outgoing councils have in general been able to pursue the outdated philosophy that where needs exist they must be met by direct public investment. The Government's approach, reflected in the private finance initiative, is that the public sector should increasingly focus on specifying the services its customers need and look to others to incur the necessary investment. By actively promoting the private finance initiative and pursuing joint ventures with the private sector, the new councils should be able to attract private investment on a scale which more than offsets the effect of these changes.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the non-domestic rate poundage for 1996–97. [3239]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Yes. I propose that the Scottish non-domestic rate poundage for 1996–97 should be 44.9p. An order prescribing the poundage will be laid before Parliament in due course. This poundage maintains the link between the Scottish and English poundages and ensures that Scottish business will continue to benefit from the Government's unified business rate policy.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the outturn figures for regional selective assistance(a) offers and (b) payments made in 1994–95; and if he will indicate how these figures relate to the original budgeted plans. [2109]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: Offers of RSA, worth £116.7 million, were made in 1994–95. As regards payments of regional selective assistance I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 November, Official Report, column 57.

  Health Boards (Expenditure)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will itemise how much(a) NHS trusts,
  586
  (b) general practitioner fundholders, (c) regional health authorities and (d) district health authorities spent on health care from non-NHS providers in each year since 1991–92 in each region. [2415]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: In Scotland, the purchase of hospital, community and family health care is primarily the responsibility of health boards. The tables are based on health board accounts and show expenditure on purchases of health care from private providers, by health board, and by general practitioner fundholders. Expenditure by NHS trusts on purchases from private providers in Scotland is not held centrally.

  Health boards also have contracts with local authorities, hospices and voluntary agencies where these organisations are registered charities undertaking specific contracted activities, but information on these is not collected centrally.

  1994–95

  £000

  Health board

  GP fundholders

  Health boards

  Argyll and Clyde

  9

  1,015

  Ayr and Arran

  21

  1,744

  Borders

  6

  1,591

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  65

  Fife

  23

  264

  Forth Valley

  54

  657

  Grampian

  199

  468

  Greater Glasgow

  8

  11,089

  Highland

  3

  81

  Lanarkshire

  2

  3,003

  Lothian

  205

  261

  Orkney

  0

  8

  Shetland

  0

  3

  Tayside

  53

  322

  Western Isles

  0

  4

  Scotland Total

  583

  20,575

  1993–94

  £000

  Health board

  GP fundholders

  Health boards

  Argyll and Clyde

  1

  1,066

  Ayr and Arran

  0

  1,504

  Borders

  3

  1,355

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  50

  Fife

  0

  405

  Forth Valley

  51

  368

  Grampian

  77

  233

  Greater Glasgow

  6

  7,730

  Highland

  0

  142

  Lanarkshire

  0

  2,625

  Lothian

  73

  237

  Orkney

  0

  2

  Shetland

  0

  0

  Tayside

  21

  474

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  Scotland Total

  232

  16,191

  1992–93

  £000

  Health board

  GP fundholders

  Health boards

  Argyll and Clyde

  0

  1,742

  Ayr and Arran

  0

  11

  Borders

  0

  463

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  29

  Fife

  0

  33

  587

  1992–93

  £000

  Health board

  GP fundholders

  Health boards

  Forth Valley

  0

  802

  Grampian

  54

  123

  Greater Glasgow

  5

  7,652

  Highland

  0

  29

  Lanarkshire

  0

  2,492

  Lothian

  72

  7,992

  Orkney

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  Tayside

  0

  107

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  Scotland Total

  131

  21,475

  1991–92

  £000

  Health board

  GP fundholders

  Health boards

  Argyll and Clyde

  9

  54

  Ayr and Arran

  0

  181

  Borders

  0

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  Fife

  0

  33

  Forth Valley

  0

  1

  Grampian

  0

  52

  Greater Glasgow

  0

  1,502

  Highland

  0

  722

  Lanarkshire

  0

  95

  Lothian

  25

  0

  Orkney

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  Tayside

  0

  1

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  Scotland Total

  34

  2,642

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2038]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The Department regularly reviews and, where appropriate, amends or consolidates relevant legislation. For example, in the 1994–95 parliamentary session there was a major consolidation of criminal justice legislation.

  In addition, the Scottish Law Commission, together with the Law Commission for England and Wales, has responsibility for statute law revision. The Law Commissions prepare programmes of statute law revision with a view to recommending in reports presented to Parliament the repeal of enactments identified as being no longer of practical utility, usually because they are spent, obsolete or unnecessary.

  In the last five years the Law Commissions have submitted two statute law revision reports. The 14th report on statute law revision was published on 22 April 1993 and was implemented by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993, c. 50. The 15th report was published on 22 March 1995 and was implemented by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1995, c. 44.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of his Department's expenditure in 1994–95 was spent on procuring goods or services from small and medium enterprises. [1954]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The Scottish Office's current financial and procurement systems have no facility for categorising suppliers according to the size of their businesses. It is therefore not possible to make any estimate for 1994–95 of the proportion of expenditure with suppliers which could be considered to be small or medium enterprises.

  Forestry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what work the Forestry Commission has undertaken to classify its woodland according to level of recreational use; if he will publish the results of such work; if he will detail how recreational use has been assessed; if he will describe the purpose of the exercise; and if he will make a statement. [2424]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Following the forestry review, we asked the forestry Commission to strengthen the arrangements for protecting public access to woodlands which it sold. This included classifying the woodlands according to the level of existing public access. The new arrangements will be set out in revised access guidelines which will be published soon.

  Campsie View Flats, Cumbernauld
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given Cumbernauld development corporation concerning Campsie View flats in Cumbernauld; and if he will make a statement. [2540]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: My right hon. Friend has approved the recommendation from Cumbernauld development corporation that, when compared to the costs of the refurbishment necessary to bring the homes up to standard, demolition of the three blocks of flats at Campsie View represents better value for money. Over the next few months, tenants will be rehoused and the corporation will repurchase the owner-occupied properties in the blocks.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an announcement on the roads programme for 1996. [2544]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on the roads programme for the next three years after he has set out his new expenditure plans for the Scottish Office.

  Lanarkshire Development Agency
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to the Lanarkshire development agency on the membership of its board
  589
  following local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement. [2541]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: None. The membership of the board of a local enterprise company is a matter for that board subject to the requirements in its articles of association. In particular, these require two thirds of the members to be drawn from senior businessmen or businesswomen from the local area. It is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise to ensure that Lanarkshire development agency complies with those requirements.

  Councillor's Earnings
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he makes for councillors to disclose earnings wholly or partly derived from their elected membership of a local authority; and if he will make a statement. [2543]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Regulation 28 of the Local Authorities etc. (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 requires councils to publish annually details of payments—basic allowances, attendance allowances and special responsibility allowances—made to individual councillors.

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met councillor Rosemary McVenna CBE JP, president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and what subjects were discussed. [2545]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: I last met Councillor Rosemary McKenna and other representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 10 November as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters. During this meeting, a number of matters affecting local government in Scotland were discussed including the 1996–97 local government finance settlement and reorganisation finance issues.

WALES

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what action he is taking to initiate further research into the incidence of breast cancer in Wales; [1147]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that all patients with breast cancer have equal access to high quality care. [1148]

  Mr. Richards
  In April, my right hon. Friend announced plans for improving cancer care services in Wales based on the report of the chief medical officers of England and Wales—"A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services".

  The report recognised that it is essential for all patients with cancer, including those with breast cancer, to have access to high quality, safe and effective care.

  An expert group on cancer services, chaired by Professor Ian Cameron, provost of the university of Wales college of medicine, was established earlier this year to
  590
  assist health authorities in Wales to implement the recommendations of the chief medical officers' report. It has already started work on identifying how effective services for all cancer patients should be provided and will report in 1996.

  International comparisons suggest that differences in the rates observed between countries and regions are due to a mixture of social, environmental and genetic factors. For this reason, the Department considers that basic research into how and why breast cancer develops is more likely to be of benefit in terms of treatment and prevention than an attempt to establish why exactly breast cancer rates vary from region to region.

  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish comparative statistics for Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the incidence and mortality rates from breast cancer. [1144]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on deaths from cancer is published separately in the annual reports by the registrars general for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for England and Wales.

  Information on cancer registrations for Scotland is given in "Cancer Registrations: Scotland", published by the Scottish Common Health Service Authority; for Northern Ireland in "Cancer Registration", published by the Department of Health and Social Security; in "Cancer Registrations: Wales", published by the Wales cancer registry; and in the series "Cancer Statistics: Registrations" by the OPCS.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths in each of the past five years are attributable to the abuse of Temazepam in each district health authority in Wales. [1508]

  Mr. Richards
  The table shows the number of deaths recorded in "The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys" due to temazepam abuse, alone or with other drugs—ICDs1 304.1, 304.7, 304.8, 305.4, 305.9—by year of occurrence and district health authority for the latest five year period available.

  Residents of:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Clwyd

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Dyfed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total for Wales

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

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

  Cancer Research
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial contribution the Government are making directly to cancer research; and how much is contributed by charities in respect of Wales. [1146]

  Mr. Richards
  The Government are committed to encouraging research into the causes, prevention, early detection and treatment of all cancers.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which received Government funding from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The council spent £13.5 million directly on research into cancer in 1992–93. This figure would rise considerably if a proportion of the council's spend on basic medical research that could yield results relevant to cancer were included.

  Charities, including the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign, play a major role in cancer research. In 1992–93 they spent £114.8 million. Information is not held centrally on the contributions made by charities in respect of Wales.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1918]

  Mr. Hague
  Table 2.1 of the "Statistical Supplement to the Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the EC budget in respect of research and development. My Department does not have any policy responsibilities for Community research and development expenditure.

  RECHAR II
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the membership of the technical group advising him on the distribution of RECHAR II money in south Wales. [2116]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office officials are currently consulting the industrial south Wales monitoring committee on the membership of the RECHAR II technical group.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount available to south Wales under the RECHAR II programme; and what consultations he has held on the distribution of these funds. [2115]

  Mr. Jones
  Some 20.21 mecu—£16.8 million at current exchange rates—will be available to the mining communities of south wales under the RECHAR II programme over the period 1994–97. Welsh Office officials are currently consulting the industrial south wales monitoring committee on how these moneys are to be administered.

  General Practitioners (Out-of-hours Systems)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each family health service authority and for Wales as a whole(a) the number of general practitioner practices and (b) the number of
  592
  practices known to operate an out-of-hours system similar to that operated by the association of Gwent doctors on call. [2314]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of general practitioner partnerships and single-handed practitioners for each family health services authority in Wales as at 1 April 1995 was as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  73

  Dyfed

  65

  Gwent

  91

  Gwynedd

  52

  Mid Glamorgan

  104

  Powys

  18

  South Glamorgan

  72

  West Glamorgan

  63

  Wales

  538

  The organisation of out-of-hours services is a matter for individual FHSAs, and information is not held centrally.

  Executive Agencies (Travel)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [2362]

  Mr. Hague
  For Cadw, the Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency, responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executive, Mr. T. J. Cassidy. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  I also have shared responsibility for the Planning Inspectorate and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service agencies. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are arranging for replies to be given separately for these agencies.

  Letter from T. J. Cassidy to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 November 1995 As Cadw is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State for Wales has asked me to write to you direct in respect of Cadw, in response to your recent Parliamentary Question about overseas travel by Cadw staff.
  Three overseas visits were made by staff in the last financial year and the information that you have requested is as follows:

  Cost

  Country visited

  Post held

  1,249

  USA

  Head of Presentation

  1,139

  Spain

  Chief Executive

  148

  Eire

  Head of Presentation

  Staff Transfer (Unitary Authorities)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Welsh county and district councils have submitted detailed plans for transfer of staff to unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement. [2477]
  593
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All county and district councils whose areas are split by reorganisation have submitted details of staff to be transferred to the new authorities, although there are gaps in some cases because of decisions which have yet to be taken by those authorities. The old councils concerned have been asked to supply the further information as quickly as possible.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many playing fields are currently under threat of development; [2587]

  (2) what area of playing fields have been sold off since 1981; [2585]

  (3) what is the value of playing fields sold off since 1981; [2588]

  (4) how many playing fields have been sold off since 1981. [2584]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Research
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much he spends annually on research in Wales, indicating the amounts spent under each heading; and if he will make a statement. [2660]

  Mr. Hague
  Estimated expenditure by the Welsh office on research in 1994–95 is as follows:

  Subject area

  Estimated outturn £ million

  Health

  1.9

  Housing

  0.1

  Environmental protection

  0.6

  Transport and Highways

  0.1

  Public services

  0.1

  Total expenditure

  2.7

  The Welsh Office also supports, through the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, basic and strategic research in universities and colleges.

  Further information is contained in "Forward Look of Government Funded Science Engineering and Technology 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the sheep annual premium was paid to farmers in Wales in each year since 1990. [2807]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Payments began in the following months:

  Scheme

  First advance payment

  Second advance payment

  Final payment

  1990

  September 1990

  December 1990

  May 1991

  1991

  September 1991

  November 1991

  April 1992

  1992

  September 1992

  November 1992

  April 1993

  1993

  October 1993

  October 1993

  May 1994

  594

  Scheme

  First advance payment

  Second advance payment

  Final payment

  1994

  September 1994

  September 1994

  June 1995

  1995

  July 1995

  July 1995

  Not yet determined

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the hill livestock compensatory allowance was paid to farmers in Wales in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995. [2806]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Payments began in February in each case.

  Professors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) female and (b) male professors there are in Wales, and if he will make a statement. [2661]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Out-of-town Supermarkets
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many out-of-town supermarkets have been opened in the last three years. [2657]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the planned expenditure for roads in Wales in the year 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [2923]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend is to announce his roads and transport expenditure plans for 1996–97 shortly.

  Listed Building Surveys
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with Cadw what measures are required to encourage tendering by Welsh-based consultants for the surveying of historic properties; and if he will make a statement. [1087]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department, of which Cadw forms a part, follows procurement procedures which promote open competition between suppliers to offer value for taxpayers' money and comply with European public procurement regulations. The procurement procedures cannot be used to discriminate in favour of Welsh companies. Of the six companies currently working on contract to Cadw, three are based in Wales. Expressions of interest were invited through the United Kingdom and Welsh press bilingually, and through the Architects' Journal. Cadw would welcome any further expressions of interest from suitably qualified Welsh-based organisations to undertake this work.
  595
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in respect of(a) each district council area in Wales and (b) for Wales as a whole the number of historic buildings surveyed by Cadw for each of the last available three years, together with his estimate of the number of properties which remain to be surveyed. [1088]

  Mr. Jones
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. T. J. Cassidy, to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from T. J. Cassidy to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 28 November 1995 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you asked for information about the number of historic buildings surveyed by Cadw in the last 3 years and the work that remains to be done.
  The Government gave a commitment to accelerate the Welsh listed building resurvey programme in response to the recommendation made by the Welsh Affairs Committee which reported on the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments some three years ago. Since that time substantial progress has been made—the Agency has resurveyed some 78 Community Council areas. This has seen the number of listed buildings in Wales increase from 14,778 in 1992 to some 17,671 today. The completion of the resurvey by 2005 should, we estimate, see the number of listed buildings increase to roughly double today's total. We have assumed that the volume of structures to be surveyed is between 2 and 3 million, and to judge by experience in England and Scotland, would expect to list about 1½%.
  In undertaking a community resurvey all buildings within each community are surveyed and those which are judged to be of special architectural or historic interest are listed. The Agency does not keep statistics of the numbers of buildings assessed in each community but I hope that the number of listed buildings will give you some indication of progress to date. To complete the resurvey within the next 10 years will require the Agency to resurvey over 700 further communities—and to do so remains a priority for the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [2461]

  Mr. Hague
  The Secretary of State for Wales makes many statutory instruments with English Ministers and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Other Departments will include such statutory instruments in their lists. In the 1994–95 Session of Parliament, 101 local statutory instruments were made solely by the Secretary of State for Wales. These relate to the control of traffic either temporarily or permanently on various lengths of trunk roads and motorways in Wales; 111 general SIs were made by the Secretary of State alone. Six of these constituted new rules or regulations prohibiting or restricting activities.Five general statutory instruments were made to implement European Community directives. None amplified the minimum standards set out in an original European Community directive.

  A449
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the access road to the A449 from Raglan to Newport will be reopened. [2547]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The southbound slip road at the Raglan interchange will be opened by the end of the year.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost to date of the reconstruction of the A449 trunk road; what is the estimated total cost; and on what date the road will become fully operational. [2546]

  Mr. Jones
  The cost to date of the renewal of the A449 trunk road is £8.6 million. The estimated total cost is expected to be £21.4 million. The future programme has yet to be determined.

  Tir Cymen and Environmentally Sensitive Area Schemes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the success of the current prescriptions of the Tir Cymen and ESA schemes; [2937]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to modify the prescriptions of Tir Cymen/ESAs to enhance the development of farmland bird communities; [2936]

  (3) what forecasts he has made about the impact of the Tir Cymen and ESA schemes on farmland bird communities in Wales. [2938]

  Mr. Hague
  Tir Cymen and ESA prescriptions are subject to a five-year evaluation monitoring exercise and five year policy review respectively. Some modifications and enhancements have been, and will continue to be made, during Tir Cymen's experimental period; and modifications of ESA prescriptions will be considered in the light of the policy review. Although neither scheme is specifically targeted at enhancing the population of farmland birds, the nature of both will help to ensure a positive impact on their populations in Wales.

  RSPB "Silent Fields" Report
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds report "Silent Fields"; and what proposals he will initiate in response to this report. [2939]

  Mr. Hague
  I launched the report in Wales at the royal Welsh show in July. I also discussed it with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds when I met it on 24 October. I will take the report into account in developing environmental and agricultural policies.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on overgrazing; if he will place a copy of all representations in the Library; and what is his assessment of the impact of overgrazing on Wales' wildlife. [2931]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received a number of complaints about specific instances of overgrazing, which we are investigating, as well as representations about the issue generally. I will place copies of the general
  597
  representations in the Library, subject to the permission of the organisations concerned. Overgrazing can have a damaging effect on habitat, which we are anxious to arrest.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of reports of overgrazing that have been investigated by the Welsh Office agriculture department in relation to the hill livestock compensatory allowance over the past five years; and how many of these investigations have resulted in hill livestock compensatory allowance payments being refused. [2933]

  Mr. Hague
  We have investigated nine cases in the period, all of which have been drawn to our attention during the past 18 months. The investigations are still in progress because of the need to study the vegetation during all seasons of the year. Where overgrazing is proven, our aim is to encourage farmers to change management practices voluntarily or reduce stocking levels to prevent further damage. There have been no cases where HLCA's have been reduced, but WOAD retains the right to do so in any cases where changes in farming practices are shown to be necessary and cannot be achieved voluntarily.

  Moorland Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for increasing the financial incentives of the moorland scheme. [2932]

  Mr. Hague
  The moorland scheme payment rates are currently under review. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been made for entry into the moorland scheme in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [2935]

  Mr. Hague
  Five applications have been approved in respect of the moorland scheme in Wales. In addition, 28 farmers have expressed an interest in joining the scheme, which suggests the potential for further take-up in future years.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring of birds is taking place or is planned in environmentally sensitive areas in Wales; what methodologies are being used; which organisations have been consulted about monitoring; and if he will place copies of all consultation documents in the Library. [2934]

  Mr. Hague
  Winter wading bird populations are being monitored in the Lleyn peninsula and Ynys Mon ESAs using the wetland bird survey and national wildfowl counts, which have been developed by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust respectively and are contained in the ADAS national strategy for ESA monitoring. A survey of breeding waders in these ESAs is also planned. The Countryside Council for Wales, as my statutory conservation advisers, has been consulted. No consultation documents are available to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Non-Domestic Rating
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his proposals are for the Welsh non-domestic rate poundage for the next financial year. [3326]

  Mr. Hague
  I propose that the national non-domestic rate poundage for Wales should rise to 40.5p to reflect the annual increase in the retail prices index to September 1995.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his proposals are for local government revenue spending in 1996–97. [3327]

  Mr. Hague
  I propose to set total standard spending in Wales for 1996–97 at £2,867.3 million. This figure includes £149.6 million for care in the community. It represents an increase of £85.2 million, 3.1 per cent. on the comparable level of funding for 1995–96.

  I propose to set central government support for total standard spending at £2,517.4 million.

  I shall announce provisional standard spending assessments and provisional capping principles for Welsh police authorities later this week. At the same time, I shall announce my proposals for aggregate external finance and for damping increases in council tax arising from the reorganisation of local government from 1 April 1996. My Department will shortly write to the Welsh local authority associations to consult them on my proposals for revenue support grant in 1996–97.

  I shall announce provisional standard spending assessments and provisional capping principles for unitary authorities in mid-December and my final decisions early in the new year.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to consult on his housing revenue account subsidy proposals for 1996–97 and what proposals he will be making. [3328]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office is issuing proposals for consultation today. Local authorities and other consultees have been invited to let us have their views by 22 December 1995. I am arranging for copies of the proposals to be placed in the Library of the House.

  We are proposing to keep guideline rents for 1996–97 at the same level in real terms as for 1995–96. This means an increase of £48 per dwelling per year, 92p per week for each authority. The flat rate increase is a transitional measure for the first year of the unitary authorities. We shall consult next year on the distribution of guideline rent increases between authorities in future years.

  To encourage efficiency, we are also proposing a change in the subsidy rules which will limit rent rebate subsidy to the guideline rent increase. Authorities with rent below the guideline will be unaffected. The proposal does not affect tenants' entitlement to rent rebate.

  For Wales total management and maintenance allowances will be around £175 million. This will allow broadly the same cash value of allowances per dwelling

  599
  as in 1995–96. However, there will be increases for authorities furthest below the target level under a formula which takes account of relative stock condition. No authority will receive less than the equivalent of their 1995–96 allowance per dwelling and all authorities will achieve at least 97 per cent. of their targeted level in 1996–97.

  Together, these proposals strike a reasonable balance between the need to constrain public expenditure and the need to ensure that housing is provided for tenants at reasonable cost.

  Housing Associations (Tax Relief Grant)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on tax relief grant for non-charitable housing associations. [3329]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration.

HEALTH

  Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1911]

  Mr. Malone
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look of Government funded Science, Engineering and Technology", copies of which are available in the Library, contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Community budget in respect of research and development. Departments' policy responsibilities are subject to change and can vary from year to year. The Department of Health currently has responsibility for 2.67 per cent. of the United Kingdom's share of the Community R and D budget.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will be responsible for alerting doctors and the medical services to test for carbon monoxide poisoning, after the introduction of competition in the domestic gas supply market. [2005]

  Mr. Sackville
  The chief medical officer will shortly be issuing a reminder that general practitioners should consider the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning when patients complain of certain symptoms. The medical profession will continue to be responsible for considering all possibilities when diagnosing illness in their patients.

  Accident and Emergency League Tables
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the next edition of the accident and emergency league tables the number of patients left on trolleys for more than two hours in each NHS trust. [1798]
  600
  Mr. Malone
  The current patients charter standard is that patients admitted to hospital through accident and emergency departments should be given a bed as soon as possible and certainly within three to four hours. This standard will be tightened to two hours from 1 April 1996.

  The next set of NHS performance tables will cover NHS performance to 31 March 1996.

  "Employer's Guide to Stress"
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the document commissioned by his Department entitled "Employers' Guide to Stress"; how many copies were printed; and what has happened to them. [2078]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department commissioned a document for internal use. The cost to the Department of this was £1,500. Subsequently, the Department has agreed that a priced version of this may be published independently of the Department by HMSO. It will be published in due course.

  Asthma
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of preventable deaths from asthma. [2227]

  Mr. Sackville
  We do not have the information centrally on which to base such an assessment. It is important that people with asthma should discuss with their general practitioner or an asthma nurse what their individual trigger factors are and how to avoid them, and what practical steps and medicines they may take to control their symptoms.

  NHS Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of hospital(a) consultants and (b) doctors who have left the national health service (i) through taking early retirement or (ii) for other voluntary reasons in each year since 1991. [2281]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require general practitioner fundholders to inform their patients of the hospital with whom they have contracted for in-patient services. [2238]

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioner fundholders are already expected to make available to patients at the practice, key information which relates to the management of their fund, including major shifts in purchasing intentions and annual practice plans. The requirement is set out in the "Accountability Framework
  601
  for GP Fundholding", published in April 1995, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed as suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the last 24 months; how many people so diagnosed had previously received growth hormone treatment; and if he will make a statement. [2312]

  Mr. Sackville
  Between 24 November 1993 and 24 November 1995, there have been 89 definite and probable cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Of these, six had previously received growth hormone treatment.

  Executive Agencies (Travel)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [2364]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lowestoft Hospital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement regarding Suffolk health authority's proposal to close 30 continuing care beds at Lowestoft hospital; [2094]

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) members of the local community and (b) medical professionals regarding Suffolk health authority's proposal to close 30 continuing care beds at Lowestoft hospital; [2095]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of Suffolk health authority's proposal to close 30 continuing care beds at Lowestoft hospital on local continuing care facilities; what alternative provision for continuing care in the area has been proposed; and if he can make a statement. [2096]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for Suffolk health authority, which is currently conducting public consultations on the proposal.

  Men's Health
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new steps he is taking to improve standards of health among men. [2129]

  Mr. Sackville
  Departmental activity to improve men's health continues through the strategy of "The Health of the Nation", which places an important focus on men's health in emphasising the reduction of avoidable illness and premature death.

  Men's health was discussed in the report of the sub-group of the chief medical officer's health of the nation working group—"Variations in Health: What Can the Department of Health and the NHS Do?"
  602
  The Department is also contributing to raising awareness of testicular cancer and carrying out research into prostate cancer.

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion administration costs form in the overall budget of the QMC, Nottingham; and what is the equivalent figure for other hospitals in the United Kingdom. [2106]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not centrally available.

  Manchester Family Health Services Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Sectretary of State for Health what reason the chief executive of Manchester FHSA gave for resigning from it; and what was his age at the time of his resignation. [2236]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for Manchester family health services authority.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS trust executive directors received annual salaries of more than(a) £90,000 and (b) 100,000 in each financial year since 1992–93; [3117]

  (2) how many NHS trust executive directors received annual salaries of more than £100,000 in the years 1992–93 to 1994–95. [3105]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Audit Commission Powers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers the Audit Commission has to carry out investigations into the reasons for and costs of the early retirements of chief executives at NHS authorities and trusts. [3115]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Audit Commission and its appointed auditors have powers to examine all areas of expenditure incurred by health authorities and trusts.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of hospital beds in each year since 1988–89; [3118]

  (2) what was the number of total available NHS acute hopsital beds in each year between 1988–89 and 1994–95. [3104]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is published annually in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Medical Examinations
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the annual number of unconsenting medical examinations on female patients; and if he will make a statement. [450]

  Mr. Sackville
  All patients with the capacity to do so have a common law right to consent or otherwise before undergoing a medical examination or treatment. Exceptions are where examination or treatment is required for a life-saving procedure and the patient is unable to indicate her wishes; where there are statutory powers requiring examination of a patient; or where the patient is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and treatment is for mental disorder. If an adult does not have the capacity to consent, medical examination and treatment can still be given if they are in her best interests but must be confined to what is necessary to preserve life, health or well-being. A court can also make orders in respect of the treatment of adults incapable of consenting.

  Information about medical examinations falling into these categories is not available.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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) amplifies the minimum standards set out in an original European Community directive. [2427]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health sponsored 222 statutory instruments in the last Session of Parliament. Of this total, 62 constitute a new rule or regulation and six were introduced to implement European Community directives. None amplifies the minimum standards set out in any of the original European Community directives.

  Migration Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the net migration figures for each of the last 10 years for which they are available; and if he will make a statement. [2337]

  Annual income

  Total number of staff employed

  Department's contribution to annual running costs

  Fees £ million

  Charges

  Fines

  Part-time

  Full-time

  £ million

  1992–93

  Medicines Control Agency

  0.021

  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

  0.647

  nil

  nil

  1

  15

  40.922

  1993–94

  Medicines Control Agency

  0.024

  nil

  nil

  1374

  —

  nil

  Good Laboratory Practice Monitoring Authority

  0.147

  nil

  nil

  4

  4

  2—

  604
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Estimated net inward migration to the United Kingdom

  Year

  Thousands of migrants

  1984

  58.3

  1985

  80.2

  1986

  58.8

  1987

  30.6

  1988

  18.3

  1989

  91.2

  1990

  88.8

  1991

  73.9

  1992

  35.5

  1993

  35.2

  Work Experience
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to hospitals about school pupils undertaking work experience in hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [2762]

  Mr. Malone
  None. This is a matter for local national health service employers.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations have been carried out in the national health service on individuals over the age of 80 years during the past 12 months. [2698]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, 18,487 patients over the age of 80 years had hip replacement or other arthroplasty of the hip operations.

  Public Bodies (Income and Staff)
  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 Laboratory Practice Monitoring Authority, (3) the Medical Devices Agency and (4) the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [2749]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  605

  Annual income

  Total number of staff employed

  Department's contribution to annual running costs

  Fees £ million

  Charges

  Fines

  Part-time

  Full-time

  £ million

  Medical Devices Agency

  30.483

  nil

  nil

  56

  5162

  5.714

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  0.907

  nil

  nil

  1

  18

  41.173

  1994–95

  Medicines Control Agency

  0.025

  nil

  nil

  —

  1399

  nil

  Good Laboratory Practice Monitoring Authority

  0.159

  nil

  nil

  3

  4

  2—

  Medical Devices Agency

  1.229

  nil

  nil

  67

  6165

  11.392

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  0.794

  nil

  nil

  1

  23

  41.353

  1Full-time and part-time counted as whole-time equivalent. Breakdown not readily available.

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

  3Figures are fees/receipts.

  4Figures include contributions from other Territorial Departments.

  5Figures at 1st April 1993.

  6Figures at 1 April 1994.

  Social Workers
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social workers there were per(a) 10,000 residents and (b) 10,000 residents over 65 years of age in each year since 1988 in each metropolitan district, London borough and shire county. [2790]

  Mr. Bowis
  It would depend on the definition of "social workers"—that is, by qualifications or by job and whether one were looking at all of such categories working in all sectors.

  The Department has published a wide range of statistical information on local authority staff which is available in the Library.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social workers qualified in mental health in each year since 1988 in each metropolitan district, London borough and shire county. [2789]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Unregistrable Children's Homes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the numbers of(a) unregistrable children's homes visited by the social services inspectorate, (b) proprietors interviewed, (c) agencies sent a questionnaire and (d) questionnaires completed, in their recent study of unregistrable children's homes. [2791]

  Mr. Bowis
  Five, six, 41 and 15 respectively.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make publicly available a copy of the questionnaire sent to agencies and proprietors managing small unregistrable children's homes as part of the study by the social services inspectorate published in August. [2792]

  Mr. Bowis
  Copies of the questionnaire have been placed in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much private capital has been invested in each NHS region and in how many projects in each year since the private finance initiative was launched, listing each of the projects and their value. [3088]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 6 November,Official Report, columns 622–23.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for the purposes of the private finance initiative in the NHS, if he will specify which clinical services are to be excluded from PFI-NHS contracts. [3103]

  Mr. Sackville
  The private finance initiative in the national health service is concerned with the provision of modern and efficient facilities for the delivery of NHS health care. It does not seek to extend private sector responsibility into the clinical area. No clinical or clinical support service will be provided by PFI partners without the support of local clinicians.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many schemes, and to what value, are currently being considered for private finance initiative in each region. [3091]

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify the PFI contracts in the NHS(a) under way, (b) signed and (c) under discussion. [3102]

  Mr. Sackville
  To ensure that national health service capital projects meet NHS needs as cost effectively as possible, the option of using private finance, under this Government's private finance initiative, must be considered for every potential capital project. Formulation of plans for projects to meet local needs is the responsibility of NHS trusts and health authorities. I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 6 November,Official Report, columns 622–23, for the available information on PFI projects that have been given approval by the NHS executive.
  607
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many officials are responsible within(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive for the private finance initiative. [3092]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 2 May 1995,Official Report, columns 775–76.

  Psychiatry (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute adult psychiatric, (b) adult rehabilitation and continuing care, (c) child and

  Wte of Consultants by each speciality in the Psychiatry Group by Region per 100,000 head of population as at 30 September 1994

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  Forensic psychiatry

  Mental handicap

  Mental illness

  Old age psychiatry

  Psychotherapy

  England

  0.6

  0.2

  0.3

  2.3

  0.3

  0.1

  Northern

  0.5

  0.1

  0.3

  2.3

  0.3

  0.1

  Yorkshire

  0.5

  0.1

  0.2

  2.3

  0.3

  0.1

  Trent

  0.6

  0.1

  0.2

  2.3

  0.3

  0.2

  East Anglia

  0.7

  0.1

  0.3

  1.7

  0.4

  0.0

  North West Thames

  0.9

  0.2

  0.4

  2.4

  0.2

  0.3

  North East Thames

  0.8

  0.1

  0.3

  2.3

  0.3

  0.3

  South East Thames

  0.7

  0.2

  0.3

  3.0

  0.5

  0.1

  South West Thames

  0.5

  0.1

  0.4

  3.0

  0.2

  0.1

  Wessex

  0.8

  0.1

  0.2

  2.1

  0.3

  0.1

  Oxford

  0.9

  1—

  0.3

  2.3

  0.4

  0.3

  South Western

  0.5

  0.1

  0.4

  2.4

  0.1

  0.0

  West Midlands

  0.5

  0.1

  0.4

  1.8

  0.4

  0.1

  Mersey

  0.6

  0.1

  0.3

  2.5

  0.3

  0.1

  North Western

  0.5

  0.1

  0.2

  2.2

  0.2

  0.1

  Special health authorities (inc Special Hospitals)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 "Zero value".

  n/a = "not available".

  Wte of Consultants by each speciality in the Psychiatry Group by Region as at 30 September 1994

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  Forensic psychiatry

  Mental handicap

  Mental illness

  Old age psychiatry

  Psychotherapy

  England

  310

  70

  150

  1,130

  150

  70

  Northern

  20

  0

  10

  70

  10

  0

  Yorkshire

  20

  0

  10

  90

  10

  0

  Trent

  30

  10

  10

  110

  10

  10

  East Anglia

  20

  0

  10

  50

  10

  0

  North West Thames

  30

  10

  10

  70

  10

  10

  North East Thames

  30

  0

  10

  90

  10

  10

  South East Thames

  30

  10

  10

  110

  20

  10

  South West Thames

  10

  0

  10

  90

  10

  0

  Wessex

  20

  0

  10

  70

  10

  0

  Oxford

  20

  1—

  10

  60

  10

  10

  South Western

  20

  0

  10

  80

  10

  0

  West Midlands

  30

  10

  20

  100

  20

  10

  Mersey

  10

  0

  10

  60

  10

  0

  North Western

  20

  0

  10

  90

  10

  0

  Special health authorities (inc Special Hospitals)

  1—

  20

  1—

  0

  1—

  0

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 101 Denotes "zero value".

  0 Denotes figure is greater than 0 but less than 5.

  England total does not equal the sum of the regions due to rounding.
  608
  adolescent psychiatric, (d) learning disabilities, (e) old age psychiatric and (f) psychotherapy consultant posts have been vacant in each of the last five years in each region. [2943]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute adult psychiatric, (b) adult rehabilitation and continuing care, (c) child and adolescent psychiatric, (d) learning disabilities, (e) old age psychiatric and (f) psychotherapy consultants there are in each region and per 100,000 head of population. [2945]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown in the tables.
  609
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) acute adult psychiatric, (b) adult rehabilitation and continuing care, (c) child and adolescent psychiatric, (d) learning disabilities, (e) old age psychiatric and (f) psychotherapy consultants there have been per 100,000 head of population in each of the last five years; [2947]

  Consultants in the Psychiatry Group per 100,000 population

  England—as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents (WTE)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Wte

  Per 100,000 population

  Wte

  Per 100,000 population

  Wte

  Per 100,000 population

  Wte

  Per 100,000 population

  Wte

  Per 100,000 population

  England total

  1,840

  3.8

  1,830

  3.8

  1,840

  3.8

  1,880

  3.9

  1,880

  3.9

  Mental illness

  1,120

  2.3

  1,110

  2.3

  1,130

  2.3

  1,120

  2.3

  1,130

  2.3

  Child and Adolescent psychiatry

  330

  0.7

  330

  0.7

  300

  0.6

  320

  0.7

  310

  0.6

  Forensic psychiatry

  70

  0.1

  70

  0.1

  80

  0.2

  80

  0.2

  70

  0.2

  Mental handicap

  160

  0.3

  160

  0.3

  160

  0.3

  160

  0.3

  150

  0.3

  Old age psychiatry

  80

  0.2

  100

  0.2

  110

  0.2

  130

  0.3

  150

  0.3

  Psychotherapy

  70

  0.1

  70

  0.2

  70

  0.1

  70

  0.1

  70

  0.1

  Consultants data rounded to the nearest 10.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) acute adult psychiatric, (b) adult rehabilitation and continuing care, (c) child and adolescent psychiatric, (d) learning disabilities, (e) old age psychiatric and (f) psychotherapy beds there are in each region and per 100,000 head of population; [2944]

  (2) how many (a) acute adult psychiatric, (b) adult rehabilitation and continuing care, (c) child and adolescent psychiatric, (d) learning disabilities, (e) old age psychiatric and (f) psychotherapy beds there have been per 100,000 head of population in each of the last five years; [2946]

  (3) how many (a) acute adult psychiatric, (b) adult rehabilitation and continuing care, (c) child and adolescent psychiatric, (d) learning disabilities, (e) old age psychiatric and (f) psychotherapy beds there have been in each of the last five years; and how many there are currently. [2948]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medium secure psychiatric beds have been available in each region in each of the last three years per 100,000 population. [2930]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 9 June,Official Report, columns 333–34.
  610
  (2) how many (a) acute adult psychiatric, (b) adult rehabilitation and continuing care, (c) child and adolescent psychiatric, (d) learning disabilities, (e) old age psychiatric and (f) psychotherapy consultants there have been in each of the last five years; and how many there are now. [2949]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Private Patient Income
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total income received from private patients by(a) region and (b) each trust in each region in 1994–95. [2952]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24 November,Official Report, column 337.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the speed which pharmacists are paid in full for prescriptions dispensed; and if he will make a statement. [3018]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Pharmacists are currently paid on time, to a timetable originally agreed with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee.

  Services and Treatment (Non-NHS Purchases)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintain on the services and treatments purchased by(a) NHS trusts, (b) health authorities or (c) general practitioner fundholders from outside the NHS. [3090]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on services and treatments purchased outside the national health service is included in the information requirements set out in the health authorities manual of accounts on form HFR25, family health services authorities manual of accounts on form FAA23 and in NHS trusts manual of accounts on form TFR3. Copies of these manuals will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Policy Board
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the NHS policy board and explain their remit. [3094]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service policy board provides a forum in which Ministers and senior managers meet regional chairmen to consider current NHS management issues. The board is non-statutory and is advisory to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The members of the policy board are:The right hon. Stephen Dorrell, Secretary of State for Health; Gerald Malone, Minister of State for Health; the hon. Tom Sackville, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State; John Bowis OBE, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State; Baroness Cumberlege CBE, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Graham Hart, Permanent Secretary Department of Health; Alan Langlands, NHS Chief Executive; Dr. Kenneth Caiman, Chief Medical Officer; Yvonne Moores, Chief Nursing Officer; Keith Ackroyd, Regional Chairman Trent; Bryan Baker, Regional Chairman West Midlands; Sir Stuart Burgess, Regional Chairman Anglia and Oxford; Rennie Fritchie, Regional Chairman South and West; John Greetham, Regional Chairman Northern and Yorkshire; Sir William Staveley, Regional Chairman North Thames; William Wells, Regional Chairman South Thames; Sir Donald Wilson, Regional Chairman North West.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on all external consultants, with special reference to management consultants in each year since 1990–91, for his Department, the national health service executive and other agencies. [2950]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health and its agencies have spent the following amount on all external consultancy.

  1990–91: £18,398,000

  1991–92: £24,258,000

  1992–93: £18,399,000

  1993–94: £15,933,037

  1994–95: £18,479,405.

  Information about expenditure on management consultancy specifically is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the quantified annual cost savings made as a consequence of spending on external consultants by his Department, the national health service executive and other agencies in each year since 1990–91. [2960]

  Mr. Sackville
  External consultants are used to assist in improving efficiency and effectiveness in the Department, but it is not possible to assess the savings which are a direct consequence of their activity.

  NHS Services
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) clinical services and (b) non-clinical services provided by the NHS. [3101]

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service provides a comprehensive range of clinical and non-clinical services for the investigation, diagnosis, treatment and care of people both inside and outside hospital.

  Medicines
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods alternative to the resale price maintenance scheme for medicines he has considered for ensuring the continued effectiveness of a nationwide pharmacy service. [3016]

  Mr. Malone
  None. The Office of Fair Trading is conducting a review of the resale price maintenance arrangement for medicines.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) medical locums and (b) agency nursing staff were employed in the NHS (i) as a total and (ii) as a proportion of permanent medical and nursing staff in each year since 1990 (1) nationally and (2) regionally. [2421]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: This information will be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Widows Pension
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  to ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed war widows and war disablement pension in each year since 1980. [1659]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the tables:

  Claims for war widow's pension

  Year

  Number

  1980

  3,400

  1981

  2,100

  1982

  3,350

  1983

  3,100

  1984

  2,850

  1985

  2,700

  1986

  2,800

  1987

  3,000

  1988

  3,100

  1989

  3,009

  1990

  4,027

  1991

  3,578

  1992

  3,548

  1993

  3,570

  1994

  4,283

  1995

  113,476

  1 January to October.

  The 1995 figure includes 9,878 claims for restoration of the war widow's pension made as a result of the change introduced in the Pensions Act 1995. The war widow's pension is withdrawn on re-marriage; the Act provided that it may be reclaimed, for instance, on subsequent widowhood or divorce.

  War disablement pension: First Claims

  Year

  Number

  1980

  5,896

  1981

  4,909

  1982

  5,532

  1983

  5,782

  1984

  4,468

  1985

  6,760

  1986

  7,225

  1987

  9,345

  613

  War disablement pension: First Claims

  Year

  Number

  1988

  13,173

  1989

  17,167

  1990

  20,214

  1991

  36,527

  1992

  116,605

  1993

  139,757

  1994

  51,947

  1995

  130,560

  1January to October.

  War disablement pension: claims for further conditions (additional disablement)

  Year

  Number

  1989

  3,321

  1990

  4,874

  1991

  6,354

  1992

  12,654

  1993

  18,089

  1994

  13,598

  1995

  110,138

  1January to October.

  This information is available only from 1989.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases a separated husband and wife have both sold their homes following a maintenance award made by the Child Support Agency. [2221]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is not available. The maintenance assessment formula ensures that parents with care and the vast majority of absent parents have their housing costs taken fully into account.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what precautions the Child Support Agency takes to ensure that no child is rendered homeless as a result of its assessments. [2385]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Absent parents who have children living with them have their housing costs taken fully into account when their maintenance payments are assessed.

  Where the agency needs to consider enforcement action, it is required by law to have regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by its decision.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many type D interim assessments have been issued by the Child Support Agency. [2014]

  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 Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 27 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency Type 'D' interim assessments.
  The type 'D' interim assessment was introduced in April 1995 to make interim assessments on cases where the absent parent has exceptionally high earnings. At 30 September 1995 this measure had been used in eight cases.
  I hope this is helpful.
  614
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the weekly maintenance due via the Child Support Agency's collection service in(a) cases which are fully paid and (b) cases which are partially paid. [2020]

  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 Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 27 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about cases using the Child Support Agency collection service.
  Information on these cases is not available in the form you have requested. However, the average amount of maintenance assessment in cases with an interim assessment is £95. In cases with a full maintenance assessment, when the absent parent has earned income,' the average amount is £39.69.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases a Child Support Agency assessment is limited by(a) the protected income formula and (b) the 30 per cent. rule; and what are the amounts of weekly maintenance due in these cases. [2012]

  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 Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 27 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency assessments.
  The increase of protected income to 70% of net income was one of a number of policy changes introduced in April 1995. It was introduced to ensure that after a maintenance assessment, an absent parent retained a minimum guaranteed income, and at the time 18,752 cases benefitted.
  Specific information is not available on the impact of this policy change on the amount of child maintenance payable in each individual case. However, I can tell you that as a result of all the changes in April where liability decreased, the average maintenance assessment reduced from £60.64 to £52.31.
  I am afraid I cannot establish what subject you are asking for information in relation to the "20 per cent" rule. The April policy changes did not include any such measure. If you write to me explaining what you are interested in, I will do my best to help.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what agencies, Government Departments or other sources the Child Support Agency has received from, or supplied to, information related to clients. [2015]

  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 Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 27 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about information related to clients.
  The Child Support Agency is registered with the Data Protection Registrar's Office in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
  This registration includes details of the possible sources, from which we may require information and to whom such information may be disclosed. The information is shown on the attached table.

  615

  DATA HELD BY THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

  Sources of Data

  Family, relatives, guardians, trustees

  Financial representatives,

  Landlords.

  Inland Revenue,

  Customs and Excise,

  DVLC,

  Local authority housing department,

  Prison Service,

  Public utilities,

  Banks,

  Northern Ireland housing executive,

  Building societies.

  Recipients of Data

  Home Office,

  Local authority social services,

  Police forces,

  The Post Office,

  Other Government Departments,

  Treasury Solicitors.

  Sources and Recipients of Data

  The data subject themselves,

  Employers past, current, prospective,

  Legal representatives,

  Nominated Representatives of Customers,

  Persons working within DSS to gain Work Experience,

  Recipients, customers, clients for goods or services,

  Department of Employment,

  Departments of Health and Social Security,

  MoD (Including Armed Forces),

  The Courts,

  Judges magistrates,

  Central Government. Departments in Northern Ireland,

  Registered medical practitioners.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases(a) which are fully paid and (b) which are partially paid, absent parents are paying child support maintenance by way of a deduction of earnings order. [2019]

  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 Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 27 November 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about deduction of earnings orders.
  The number of absent parents who were paying their child maintenance by way of a deduction of earnings order since April 1995 is 28,302. It is not possible to break this figure down into full or partial payments.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what were the total amounts paid to recipients of housing benefit in(a) Humberside, (b) Hull,
  616
  (c) North Yorkshire, (d) Leeds, (e) Bradford and (f) Sheffield in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1993–94; and if he will estimate the amounts likely to be paid out in the current year; [2146]

  (2) what were the total amounts paid to recipients of housing benefit in Bridlington in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1993–94; and if he will estimate the amounts likely to be paid out in the current year. [2147]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure figures for Bridlington are included in those given for East Yorkshire district council which administers housing benefit in the Bridlington area.

  Housing benefit expenditure

  £ million

  Counties

  1991–92

  1993–94

  Humberside

  85.9

  116.1

  North Yorkshire

  44.4

  66.3

  Districts

  1991–92

  1993–1994

  Bradford

  51.1

  68.9

  East Yorkshire

  7.3

  10.8

  Kingston upon Hull

  42.8

  55.3

  Leeds

  83.7

  109.8

  Sheffield

  63.7

  84.6

  Expenditure shown for Humberside includes the amounts shown for East Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull.

  Estimates for expenditure during 1995–1996 are not available.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of those claimants appealing against the results of the all-work test for incapacity benefit have had their appeals upheld. [2085]

  Mr. Burt
  As at 31 October 1995, 354 appeals against decisions on incapacity benefit entitlement following application of the all-work test had been heard. In 146 cases—41 per cent.—the appeal tribunal found in the appellant's favour.

  Benefit Uprating
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the new rates of benefit proposed from April 1996. [3231]

  Mr. Lilley
  As usual, the annual uprating of social security benefits will take place in the first full week of the tax year. In 1996, this will be the week beginning on 8 April.

  Expenditure on social security will be £90 billion in 1996–97, £93 billion in 1997–98 and £96 billion in 1998–99.

  I have reviewed social security benefits in accordance with section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. My proposals, which are set out in the schedule,

  617
  will increase most of the major benefits in line with inflation. The statutory instruments to implement them will be laid before both Houses for debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland proposes to introduce similar changes for Northern Ireland.

  All national insurance benefits will be uprated in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index up to September, which this year is 3.9 per cent.

  Income-related benefits will generally rise by 3 per cent., in line with the Rossi index—RPI less certain housing costs.

  As a first step in restructuring benefits for lone parents, one parent benefit and the income-related benefit lone parent premiums will not be increased in 1996.

  Some key points of the 1996 increases are:

  Retirement pension

  The standard rate of retirement pension will be increased by £2.30 per week for a single person to £61.15 and by £3.65 per week for couples to £97.75.

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  Attendance Allowance

  higher rate

  46.70

  48.50

  lower rate

  31.20

  32.40

  Child Benefit

  —only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable

  10.40

  10.80

  —each subsequent child

  8.45

  8.80

  Child's Special Allowance

  see note on child dependency increase

  11.05

  11.15

  Council Tax Benefit

  Personal allowances single

  18 to 24

  36.80

  37.90

  25 or over

  46.50

  47.90

  lone parent —18 or over

  46.50

  47.90

  couple —one or both over 18

  73.00

  75.20

  dependent children

  under 11

  15.95

  16.45

  11 to 15

  23.40

  24.10

  16 to 17

  28.00

  28.85

  18

  36.80

  37.90

  Premiums

  family

  10.25

  10.55

  lone parent

  11.50

  11.50

  pensioner

  single

  18.60

  19.15

  couple

  28.05

  28.90

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  20.70

  21.30

  couple

  30.95

  31.90

  618
  Incapacity benefit

  The basic rate of long term incapacity benefit will rise to £61.15 per week from £58.85, an increase of £2.30 per week.

  Unemployment benefit

  Unemployment benefit for a single person under pension age will rise from £46.45 to £48.25 per week.

  Child benefit

  Child benefit will again be raised in line with prices. For the first or eldest eligible child the weekly rate will increase from £10.40 to £10.80 and for each subsequent child the rate will rise from £8.45 to £8.80.

  War pensions

  War pensions will again be uprated fully in line with prices.

  Non-dependant deductions

  Increases will be made to deductions from housing-benefit, income support and council tax benefit in respect of non-dependant adults living in the claimant's home. The income thresholds will also be increased so that non-dependants can earn more before a higher deduction band takes effect.
  619

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  25.15

  25.90

  couple

  35.95

  37.05

  disability

  single

  19.80

  20.40

  couple

  28.30

  29.15

  severe disability

  single

  35.05

  36.40

  couple (one qualifies)

  35.05

  36.40

  couple (both qualify)

  70.10

  72.80

  disabled child

  19.80

  20.40

  carer

  12.60

  13.00

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  14.70

  15.30

  lower rate

  11.75

  12.25

  Non-dependant deductions aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  —gross income: £114 or more

  2.30

  2.60

  —gross income: under £114

  1.15

  1.30

  others, aged 18 or over

  1.15

  1.30

  Alternative maximum council tax benefit

  second adult on Income Support

  25 per cent. of CT

  second adult's gross income:

  —under £114

  15 per cent. of CT

  —£114 to £149.99

  7.5 per cent. of CT

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit.

  Earnings disregards:

  where disability premium awarded

  15.00

  15.00

  various specified employments

  15.00

  15.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  15.00

  15.00

  childcare charges

  40.00

  60.00

  Other income disregards:

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  10.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30 Hr Adult Allowance in DWA

  10.00

  10.30

  30 Hr Adult Credit in FC

  10.00

  10.30

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.20

  9.25

  Dependency Increases

  Adult dependency increases For spouse or person looking after children, with; retirement pension on own insurance, long term incap. benefit, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit

  35.25

  36.60

  620

  621

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  severe disablement allowance

  21.15

  21.95

  invalid care allowance

  21.10

  21.90

  short-term incap. benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  33.85

  35.15

  unemployment benefit

  28.65

  29.75

  maternity allowance / short-term incap. ben.

  27.50

  28.55

  child dependency increases, with; retirement pension, widows benefit, short term incap ben. at the higher rate and long term incap. ben. invalid care allowance severe disab. allowce, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and short-term incap.ben./unemployment benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  11.05

  11.15

  NB —The Overlapping Benefits Regulations provide for the rate of child dependency increases, guardian's allowance and child special allowance to be adjusted where the increase or allowance is payable for the eldest eligible child for whom Chb is also payable. The weekly rate of the increase or allowance is reduced by the differential (less the 75p derived from the Oct 1991 increase in Chb) between the rate of Chb payable for the oldest eligible child and that payable for a subsequent child. This gives a rate of £9.85 (1995) and £9.90 (1996).

  Disability Living Allowance

  Care component

  Highest

  46.70

  48.50

  Middle

  31.20

  32.40

  Lowest

  12.40

  12.90

  Mobility component

  Higher

  32.65

  33.90

  Lower

  12.40

  12.90

  Disability Working Allowance

  Adult allowance

  Single people

  46.85

  48.25

  Couples/lone parents

  73.40

  75.60

  30 hours allowance. Child allowance

  10.00

  10.30

  under 11

  11.40

  11.75

  11 to 15

  18.90

  19.45

  16 to 17

  23.45

  24.15

  18

  32.80

  33.80

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  Single people

  54.75

  56.40

  Couples/lone parents

  73.00

  75.2

  Disabled child's allowance

  19.80

  20.40

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards:

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  10.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  Income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent. of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  child care charges

  40.00

  60.00

  Expenses for subtenants furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.20

  9.25

  622

  623

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  Earnings Rules

  Invalid care allowance

  50.00

  50.00

  Unemployment benefit (daily rate)

  2.00

  2.00

  Unemployment benefit (maximum weekly amount)

  58.00

  61.00

  Therapeutic earnings limit

  44.00

  45.50

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  2,288.00

  2,366.00

  War pensioners' unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  2,288.00

  2,366.00

  Adult dependency increases with short-term incap.benefit

  where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  27.50

  28.55

  (b) over pension age

  33.85

  35.15

  maternity allowance

  27.50

  28.55

  unemployment benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  28.65

  29.75

  (b) over pension age

  35.25

  36.60

  retirement pension, long-term incap. ben., severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement where dependent:

  (a) is living with claimant

  46.45

  48.25

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45.09

  45.09

  retirement pension, long-term incap benefit and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

  35.25

  36.60

  severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

  21.15

  21.95

  invalid care allowance

  21.10

  21.90

  Child dependency increases level at which CDIs are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner:

  for first child

  125.00

  130.00

  for each subsequent child

  16.00

  17.00

  Family Credit

  Adult credit

  45.10

  46.45

  Adult credit for working 30 hrs+ pw.

  10.00

  10.30

  Child credit

  under 11

  11.40

  11.75

  11 to 15

  18.90

  19.45

  16 to 17

  23.45

  24.15

  18

  32.80

  33.80

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  73.00

  75.20

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  10.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  624

  625

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  childcare charges

  40.00

  60.00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.20

  9.25

  Guardian's Allowance

  11.05

  11.15

  see note on child dependency increase

  Hospital Downrating

  20 per cent, rate

  11.75

  12.25

  40 per cent, rate

  23.50

  24.50

  Housing Benefit

  Personal allowances

  single

  16 to 24

  36.80

  37.90

  25 or over

  46.50

  47.90

  lone parent

  under 18

  36.80

  37.90

  18 or over

  46.50

  47.90

  couple

  both under 18

  55.55

  57.20

  one or both over 18

  73.00

  75.20

  dependent children

  under 11

  15.95

  16.45

  11 to 15

  23.40

  24.10

  16 to 17

  28.00

  28.85

  18

  36.80

  37.90

  Premiums

  family

  10.25

  10.55

  lone parent

  11.50

  11.50

  pensioner

  single

  18.60

  19.15

  couple

  28.05

  28.90

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  20.70

  21.30

  couple

  30.95

  31.90

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  25.15

  25.90

  couple

  35.95

  37.05

  disability

  single

  19.80

  20.40

  couple

  28.30

  29.15

  severe disability

  single

  35.05

  36.40

  couple (one qualifies)

  35.05

  36.40

  couple (both qualify)

  70.10

  72.80

  disabled child

  19.80

  20.40

  carer

  12.60

  13.00

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital higher rate

  14.70

  15.30

  626

  627

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  lower rate

  11.75

  12.25

  Non-dependant deductions

  rent rebates and allowances

  aged 25 and over, in receipt of income support aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or —gross income under £76

  5.00

  6.00

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work:

  —gross income: £76 to £113.99

  10.00

  12.00

  —gross income: £114 to £149.99

  14.00

  16.00

  —gross income: £150 or more

  30.00

  32.00

  Service charges for fuel

  heating

  9.20

  9.25

  hot water

  1.10

  1.15

  lighting

  0.75

  0.80

  cooking

  1.10

  1.15

  Amount ineligible for meals

  —three or more meals a day

  single claimant

  16.60

  17.10

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  16.60

  17.10

  each child under 16

  8.40

  8.65

  —less than three meals a day

  single claimant

  11.00

  11.35

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  11.00

  11.35

  each child under 16

  5.55

  5.70

  —breakfast only—claimant and each

  member of family

  2.00

  2.05

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15.00

  15.00

  various specified employments

  15.00

  15.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  15.00

  15.00

  childcare charges

  40.00

  60.00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  10.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent. of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30 Hr Adult Allowance in DWA

  10.00

  10.30

  30 Hr Adult Credit in FC

  10.00

  10.30

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.20

  9.25

  Incapacity Benefit

  Long-term incapacity benefit

  58.85

  61.15

  628

  629

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  Short-term incapacity benefit (under pension age)

  lower rate

  44.40

  46.15

  higher rate

  52.50

  54.55

  Short-term incapacity benefit (over pension age) lower and higher rate

  56.45

  58.65

  Increase of long-term incap. ben for age

  higher rate

  12.40

  12.90

  lower rate

  6.20

  6.45

  Invalidity allowance (transitional)

  higher rate

  12.40

  12.90

  middle rate

  7.80

  8.10

  lower rate

  3.90

  4.05

  Income support

  Personal allowances single

  under 18 —usual rate

  28.00

  28.85

  under 18 —higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  36.80

  37.90

  18 to 24

  36.80

  37.90

  25 or over

  46.50

  47.90

  lone parent

  under 18 —usual rate

  28.00

  28.85

  under 18 —higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  36.80

  37.90

  18 or over

  46.50

  47.90

  couple

  both under 18

  55.55

  57.20

  one or both 18 or over

  73.00

  75.20

  dependent children under 11

  15.95

  16.45

  11 to 15

  23.40

  24.10

  16 to 17

  28.00

  28.85

  18

  36.80

  37.90

  Residential allowance except Greater London

  51.00

  54.00

  Greater London

  57.00

  60.00

  Premiums

  family

  10.25

  10.55

  lone parent

  5.20

  5.20

  pensioner

  single

  18.60

  19.15

  couple

  28.05

  28.9

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  20.70

  21.30

  couple

  30.95

  31.90

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  25.15

  25.90

  couple

  35.95

  37.05

  disability

  single

  19.80

  20.40

  couple

  28.30

  29.15

  severe disability single

  35.05

  36.40

  630

  631

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  couple (one qualifies)

  35.05

  36.40

  couple (both qualify)

  70.10

  72.80

  disabled child

  19.80

  20.40

  carer

  12.60

  13.00

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in

  residential care homes

  old age

  197.00

  203.00

  very dependent elderly

  227.00

  234.00

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  207.00

  214.00

  drug / alchohol dependence

  207.00

  214.00

  mental handicap

  237.00

  244.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  267.00

  276.00

  (b) (over pension age)

  197.00

  203.00

  others

  197.00

  203.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  34.00

  38.00

  nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  296.00

  304.00

  drug / alchohol dependence

  296.00

  304.00

  mental handicap

  301.00

  310.00

  terminal illness

  295.00

  303.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  331.00

  341.00

  (b) (over pension age)

  295.00

  303.00

  others (including elderly)

  295.00

  303.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  39.00

  43.00

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation (Daily rate)

  breakfast

  1.10

  1.10

  midday meal

  1.55

  1.55

  evening meal

  1.55

  1.55

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in:

  private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes personal expenses dependent children

  13.35

  13.75

  (a) under 11

  5.50

  5.65

  (b) 11 to 15

  8.00

  8.25

  (c) 16 to 17

  9.25

  9.55

  (d) age 18

  13.35

  13.75

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in:

  hospital

  higher rate

  14.70

  15.30

  lower rate

  11.75

  12.25

  local authority (part III) accommodation

  13.35

  13.75

  the Polish home Ilford Park

  maximum amount for accommodation and meals

  331.00

  341.00

  personal expenses for claimant

  17.35

  17.35

  personal expenses for partner

  17.35

  17.35

  personal expenses for dep children

  (a) under 11

  5.50

  5.65

  (b) 11 to 15

  8.00

  8.25

  (c) 16 to 17

  9.25

  9.55

  (d) 18

  15.55

  15.55

  632

  633

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  Housing costs

  deduction for non-dependants aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support aged 18 or over, not in work or —gross income under £76

  5.00

  6.00

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work:

  —gross income: £76 to £113.99

  10.00

  12.00

  —gross income: £114 to £149.99

  14.00

  16.00

  —gross income: £150 or more

  30.00

  32.00

  Deduction for direct payments arrears of housing, fuel and water costs council tax and fines default, and deductions for child maintenance

  2.35

  2.40

  Arrears of community charge court order against claimant

  2.35

  2.40

  court order against couple

  3.70

  3.80

  Maximium rates for recovery of overpayments ordinary overpayments

  7.05

  7.20

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  9.20

  9.60

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  25.00

  26.00

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  higher earnings

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent. of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.20

  9.25

  Industrial Death Benefit

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  58.85

  61.15

  lower rate

  17.66

  18.35

  Industrial Disablement Pension

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

  100 per cent.

  95.30

  99.00

  90 per cent.

  85.77

  89.10

  80 per cent.

  76.24

  79.20

  70 per cent.

  66.71

  69.30

  60 per cent.

  57.18

  59.40

  50 per cent.

  47.65

  49.50

  40 per cent.

  38.12

  39.60

  30 per cent.

  28.59

  29.70

  20 per cent.

  19.06

  19.80

  Under 18

  100 per cent.

  58.35

  60.65

  90 per cent.

  52.52

  54.59

  80 per cent.

  46.68

  48.52

  70 per cent.

  40.85

  42.46

  634

  635

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  60 per cent.

  35.01

  36.39

  50 per cent.

  29.18

  30.33

  40 per cent.

  23.34

  24.26

  30 per cent.

  17.51

  18.20

  20 per cent.

  11.67

  12.13

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  6,330.00

  6,580.00

  Unemployability Supplement

  58.85

  61.15

  plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  higher rate

  12.40

  12.90

  middle rate

  7.80

  8.10

  lower rate

  3.90

  4.05

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  38.12

  39.60

  Maximum retirement allowance

  9.53

  9.90

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  76.40

  79.40

  intermediate rate

  57.30

  59.55

  normal maximum rate

  38.20

  39.70

  part-time rate

  19.10

  19.85

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  38.20

  39.70

  Invalid Care Allowance

  35.25

  36.60

  Maternity Allowance

  Lower rate

  45.55

  47.35

  Higher rate

  52.50

  54.55

  One Parent Benefit

  6.30

  6.30

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) and other Schemes

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  95.30

  99.00

  Partial disablement allowance

  35.25

  36.60

  Unemployability supplement

  58.85

  61.15

  plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

  higher rate

  12.40

  12.90

  middle rate

  7.80

  8.10

  lower rate

  3.90

  4.05

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  76.40

  79.40

  intermediate rate

  57.30

  59.55

  normal maximum rate

  38.20

  39.70

  part-time rate

  19.10

  19.85

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  38.20

  39.70

  Lesser incapacity allowance

  maximum rate of allowance

  35.25

  36.60

  based on loss of earnings over

  46.70

  48.50

  Retirement Pension

  Category A or B

  58.85

  61.15

  Category B (lower) —husband's insurance

  35.25

  36.60

  Category C or D —non-contributory

  35.25

  36.60

  Category C(lower) —non-contributory

  21.10

  21.90

  636

  637

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  Additional pension

  Increase by 3.90 per cent.

  Increments to:— Basic and additional pensions

  Increase by 3.90 per cent.

  Contracted out deductions (CODs):

  (Pre April 1988 earnings)

  Increase by 3.90 per cent.

  (Post April 1988 earnings)

  Increase by *0.90 per cent.

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (GRB)

  Increase by 3.90 per cent.

  * 3 per cent. paid by scheme

  Graduated retirement benefit (unit)(pence)

  7.64

  7.94

  Graduated retirement benefit (Inherited)

  Increase by 3.90 per cent.

  Addition at age 80

  0.25

  0.25

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Basic rate

  35.55

  36.95

  Age-related addition (from Dec 90)

  Higher rate

  12.40

  12.90

  Middle rate

  7.80

  8.10

  Lower rate

  3.90

  4.05

  Social Fund

  Maternity payment

  100.00

  100.00

  Cold weather payments

  8.50

  8.50

  Capital limit

  aged under 60

  500.00

  500.00

  aged 60 and over

  1,000.00

  1,000.00

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  Earnings threshold

  58.00

  61.00

  Lower rate

  52.50

  54.55

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Earnings threshold

  58.00

  61.00

  Standard rate

  52.50

  54.55

  Unemployment Benefit

  Over pension age

  58.85

  61.15

  Under pension age

  46.45

  48.25

  Occupational pension abatement

  35.00

  35.00

  War Pensions

  Disablement pension (100 per cent. rates) private

  101.10

  105.00

  officer (£ per annum)

  5,275.00

  5,479.00

  Age allowances

  40 per cent.–50 per cent.

  6.75

  7.00

  over 50 per cent. but not over 70 per cent.

  10.40

  10.80

  over 70 per cent. but not over 90 per cent.

  14.85

  15.45

  over 90 per cent.

  20.80

  21.60

  Disablement gratuity

  (base figures for calculation purposes only) specified minor injury

  6,330.00

  6,580.00

  unspecified minor injury

  3,481.50

  3,619.00

  Unemployability allowance personal adult dependency increase

  62.45

  64.90

  adult dependency increase

  35.25

  36.60

  a. increase for first child

  9.85

  9.90

  b. increase for subsequent children

  11.05

  11.15

  638

  639

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  12.40

  12.90

  middle rate

  7.80

  8.10

  lower rate

  3.90

  4.05

  Constant attendance allowance exceptional rate

  76.40

  79.40

  intermediate rate

  57.30

  59.55

  normal maximum rate

  38.20

  39.70

  part-time rate

  19.10

  19.85

  Comforts allowance

  higher rate

  16.40

  17.00

  lower rate

  8.20

  8.50

  Mobility supplement

  36.35

  37.75

  Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

  38.12

  39.60

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  38.20

  39.70

  Severe disablement occupational allowance

  19.10

  19.85

  Clothing allowance (£ per annum)

  higher rate

  129.00

  134.00

  lower rate

  82.00

  85.00

  Education allowance

  120.00

  120.00

  (£ per annum) (maximum)

  War widow's pension

  Widow (private)

  76.35

  79.35

  Widow (NCO)

  76.60

  79.60

  Widow—Officer (£ p.a. maximum)

  4,723.00

  4,907.00

  Childless widow under 40 (private)

  17.66

  18.35

  Childless widow (NCO)

  17.93

  18.63

  Childless widow (Officer maximum £s p.a.)

  4,723.00

  4,907.00

  Supplementary Pension age allowance

  49.77

  51.71

  (a) age 65–69

  8.70

  9.05

  (b) age 70–79

  16.75

  17.40

  (c) age 80 and over

  24.95

  25.90

  children's allowance

  a. increase for first child (adjusted for ChB increase)

  14.00

  14.10

  b. increase for subsequent children

  15.20

  15.35

  Orphan's pension

  a. increase for first child (adjusted for ChB increase)

  15.65

  15.85

  b. increase for subsequent children

  16.85

  17.10

  Unmarried dependant living as spouse (maximum)

  74.30

  77.30

  Rent allowance (maximum)

  28.85

  30.00

  Adult orphan's pension (maximum)

  58.85

  61.15

  Widower's pension

  (i) Private (maximum)

  76.35

  79.35

  (ii) officer (£ per annum) maximum

  4,723.00

  4,907.00

  Widow's Benefit

  Widow's payment (lump sum)

  1,000.00

  1,000.00

  Widowed mother's allowance

  58.85

  61.15

  Widow's pension standard rate

  58.85

  61.15

  age-related

  age 54 (49)

  54.73

  56.87

  age 53 (48)

  50.61

  52.59

  640

  641

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security benefits—April 1996

  £ per week unless otherwise stated

  Old Rates 1995

  New Rates 1996

  age 52 (47)

  46.49

  48.31

  age 51 (46)

  42.37

  44.03

  age 50 (45)

  38.25

  39.75

  age 49 (44)

  34.13

  35.47

  age 48 (43)

  30.01

  31.19

  age 47 (42)

  25.89

  26.91

  age 46 (41)

  21.77

  22.63

  age 45 (40)

  17.66

  18.35

  Note:

  For deaths occurring before 11 April 1988 refer to age points shown in brackets.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy when details of the April 1996 benefit uprating are released to list(a) for each benefit and each capital or income limit which is not to be increased in April 1996, the reasons for not doing so and (b) the current value of each such benefit or limit and the value which would have resulted from increasing it in line with prices and average earnings since it was last increased or since it was introduced. [1089]

  Mr. Burt
  No. The announcement of benefit rates from April 1996 is in a similar format to previous years.

  National Insurance Contributions Review
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has yet completed his review of national insurance contributions for 1996–97. [3232]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have completed the annual review under section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. My proposals will take effect from 6 April 1996. There will be no change to the standard rates of contributions for either employees or employers. The rates will remain at 10 per cent, and 10.2 per cent, respectively, but from April 1997, I intend to reduce the main rate of contributions for employers by 0.2 per cent. The savings to employers from this measure will be equivalent to the money raised from the landfill tax. The national insurance contribution holiday for employers, also announced in last year's Budget, will take effect from 6 April 1996. This will effectively remove the national insurance costs for employers for up to a year when they take on someone who has been out of work for at least two years. I am reducing the rate of class 4 contributions paid by self-employed earners by 1.3 per cent, to 6 per cent. This will more than offset the effect of the abolition of the tax relief for class 4 contributions announced by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Employers and employees

  In line with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the lower earnings limit for class 1 contributions is to be raised to £61 a week. It is set at the level of the basic retirement pension rate for single person from April 1996, rounded down to the nearest pound.

  The upper earnings limit is to be raised to £455 a week which is slightly less than seven and a half times the new basic pension rate as provided by the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. These new earnings limits will replace the current ones of £58 and £440 respectively.
  642
  Employees whose earnings reach the lower earnings limit will continue to pay an initial contribution of 2 per cent, of that limit and standard rate contributions of 10 per cent, on that portion of their earnings which exceeds the lower but not the upper earnings limit.

  For employers, the three lower contribution rates remain unchanged at 3 per cent., 5 per cent, and 7 per cent, respectively. The thresholds for these rates will be raised so that from April 1996 they apply to weekly earnings which fall below £110, £155 and £210 respectively, compared with £105, £150 and £205 at present.

  Not contracted out employees and their employers

  Neither employees nor employers will have to pay any contributions if earnings are less than £61 a week. Employees whose earnings do not exceed £440, the former upper earnings limit, will pay 24p a week less in contributions than at present. This is because a further £3 of their weekly earnings will be subject to the 2 per cent, rate rather than 10 per cent. For employees with earnings above £440, the maximum possible increase will be £1.26 per week.

  There will be no change for most employers, but some employers will pay less as a result of the increase in the earnings thresholds. For example, where earnings fall between £205 and £209.99, employers will pay between £6.56 and £6.72 a week less.

  Contracted out employees and their employers

  Employees with earnings between £61 and £440, the former upper earnings limit, will usually pay 18p a week less. For those who earn more than £440, the maximum possible increase will be £1.05 per week.

  Where earnings are less than £440, most employers will pay 9p a week extra. This is due to the increase in the lower earnings limit which means that a further £3 of earnings is not subject to the contracted-out rebate. Some employers will pay less as a result of the increase in the earnings thresholds. For example, where earnings fall between £205 and £209.99, employers will pay between £6.47 and £6.63 a week less. Where earnings reach or exceed £455, employers will pay 36p a week less.

  Self-employed people

  The flat rate class 2 contribution will be raised by 30p to £6.05 a week.
  643
  The rate of class 4 contributions will be reduced by 1.3 per cent, to 6 per cent. The annual limits of profits between which class 4 contributions are paid will be raised to £6,860 and £23,660 from £6,640 and £22,880 respectively.

  Self-employed people who pay only class 2 contributions will pay an extra £15.60 a year in 1996–97.

  All self-employed people who pay class 2 and class 4 contributions will pay less, ranging from a few pence a year less for those with profits of £6,860, the new lower profits limit to £208.72 a year less for those with profits of £22,880, the former upper profits limit.

  Class 3 (voluntary) contributions

  The rate of class 3 contributions will be raised by 30p to £5.95 a week.

  National health service allocation

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

  Treasury grant

  The general increase in contributory benefit expenditure, which I am maintaining, means that the outgoings of the national insurance fund will continue to exceed income. In accordance with section 2(2) of the Social Security Act 1993, I propose to maintain the level of the fund in 1996–97 by means of a grant from the Treasury. I estimate that the grant required will be approximately £2.2 billion.

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

  Mortgage Protection Insurance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a summary of the information he has obtained about the quality, availability and cost of mortgage protection insurance. [897]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A summary of the information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Housing Costs (Domestic Violence)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the easement which enables women who have been deserted by their partners and who make an application for income support after 1 October to have their housing costs treated as existing housing costs, will include women who have been subjected to domestic violence and have taken legal action to exclude their partner from the house; [2787]

  (2) how he will establish that adjudication officers in judging that a woman who had been the victim of domestic violence and had taken legal action to exclude her partner from the house, had been abandoned, had interpreted statute law correctly. [2788]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Our intention is that this easement should apply to any lone parent who claims income support as a result of being deserted by his or her partner. This should not preclude a claimant in the circumstances 644
  outlined in the question from benefiting from it. However, decisions on the application of the income support regulations to individual claims are taken by the independent adjudicating authorities after applying the regulations to the circumstances of the individual case. The operation of all aspects of the new rules on income support help with mortgage interest payments, including this easement, will be kept under review.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [2458]

  Mr. Heald
  The number of statutory instruments sponsored by the Department of Social Security in the last Session of Parliament was 71. Of these, one consolidated existing legislation: the remainder therefore constituted new legislation. None were introduced to implement European Community directives and none amplified the minimum standards set out in a European Community directive.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current weekly and monthly earnings limits which do not require a person to make national insurance contributions or to be allocated a national insurance number; and what is the current estimate of the numbers of people to whom these exemptions apply. [2548]

  Mr. Heald
  The current weekly and monthly earnings limits below which an employee is not required to pay contributions are £58 and £252 respectively. In any week, some 3 million people are estimated to have earnings below £58. Any individual who enters employment and does not already have a national insurance number is required to apply for one to the Secretary of State, irrespective of the level of earnings.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many spare national insurance numbers exist at the present time.

  Mr. Heald
  There is technically no such thing as a "spare" national insurance number, or NINO. NINOs are unique reference numbers allocated to individuals. These NINOs are kept by the individual throughout their lifetime.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances an employer is not required to ask a new employee for his or her national insurance number. [2721]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the national insurance scheme is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the right hon. Member.
  645
  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 28 November 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency. I have been asked to reply to your question about the circumstances in which an employer is not required to ask a new employee for his or her National Insurance (NI) number.
  An employer is required by law to ask all new employees for their NI Number where their earnings reach or exceed the prescribed level at which National Insurance contributions (NICs) become payable.
  The NI Number is a unique reference number which is used by the Department of Social Security to identify a customer's NI record. Its use ensures that NICs paid or credited are put on the right record so that contributors will receive the correct rate of benefit when they make a claim. The NI Number is also used by Inland Revenue as reference for Pay As you Earn (PAYE) purposes. The Contributions Agency issues guidance to employers which stresses the importance of asking all new employees for their NI Number as soon as possible after they start work.
  It is in employees' own interests to give their NI Number to their employer. If, however, an employee does not know his or her NI Number, the Contributions Agency provides clear guidance to employers on what to do to get that number.
  I hope that my reply proves helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the maximum financial benefit available to claimants or families in receipt of income support in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) 1990; and when it was last uprated. [3096]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It is not possible to give figures in answer as income support, and supplementary benefit before it, is made up of different elements paid to people according to their circumstances. There is no single maximum amount available to claimants.

  The amount of supplementary benefit and income support available has always varied according to the age and the size of the claimant's family as well as any other commitments such as a rent or mortgage liability. In addition, supplementary benefit included exceptional circumstances additions, further reflecting individual household variations. Income support was last uprated in April 1995.

  Statutory Fees
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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 was the contribution his Department has made in the last three years in respect of (1) the Contributions Agency and (2) the Occupational Pensions Board. [2745]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Figures are not available for fines due to the following reasons:

  Contributions Agency

  Any fines for non-compliance with national insurance regulations are imposed by the courts and no income is received by the agency or Department.
  646
  Occupational Pensions Board

  Any fines would be imposed by the courts but no court action has been taken by the OPB in the period concerned.

  The available information is set out in the tables:

  Annual income from fees and charges

  £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Contributions agency (CA)

  346,202

  575,024

  693,146

  Occupational pensions board1, 2(OPB)

  2,746,131

  1,393,487

  1,608,639

  1 The current Pensions Levy on Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes was introduced with effect from January 1991 to meet some of the costs arising from three separate bodies, the Pensions Ombudsman, the Pensions Registry and the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service which is funded through a grant made by OPB. Only the last two of these form part of the running costs of the OPB. The total sum raised cannot be disaggregated to provide only the part used to fund the OPB.

  2 Amounts of Pensions Levy collected is normally paid according to a three-yearly cycle under which only a third of scheme pay in any one year. Special introductory arrangements covering the payments due between 1 January 1991 and 31 March 1995 required all schemes to pay the levy in 1992–93 and resulted in higher than usual revenue for that year.

  Staff employed

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  CA

  Full time

  7,668

  8,566

  9,077

  Part time1

  1,277

  1,608

  1,487

  OPB

  Full time

  121

  121

  135

  Part time

  9

  11

  13

  1 Part time is in actual staff numbers rather than full time staff equivalent. Please note that staff figures are taken as at 1 April for each financial year.

  Contribution towards annual running costs1

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  CA

  149.258

  205.325

  254.340

  OPB

  2.373

  2.625

  3.061

  1 The figures represent expenditure outturn.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoner Statistics
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the ethnic breakdown of all prisoners in England and Wales at the last available date. [1531]

  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.
  647
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. A. J. Beith, dated 28 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the ethnic breakdown of the current prison population.
  The information is shown in the attached table.

  Prison population on 31 October 19951 by ethnic origin and sex, England and Wales

  Ethnic origin

  Total

  Males

  Females

  White

  42,565

  41,056

  1,509

  Black

  6,323

  5,917

  406

  South Asian

  1,645

  1,620

  25

  Chinese and other Asian

  617

  602

  15

  Unrecorded

  878

  815

  63

  Total

  52,027

  50,009

  2,018

  1 Provisional figures.

  Prison receptions1 by ethnic origin2, England and Wales 1990 and 1991

  Year

  Total

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, mixed origin

  Unrecorded

  1990

  Remand

  60,174

  50,471

  6,171

  1,354

  1,331

  847

  Sentenced3

  67,510

  59,903

  4,748

  1,214

  1,048

  597

  1991

  Remand

  62,604

  52,796

  6,328

  1,476

  1,551

  453

  Sentenced3

  72,313

  68,873

  4,549

  1,354

  1,158

  379

  1 Total receptions cannot be calculated by adding together remand and sentenced receptions because there is double-counting.

  2 A new classification for ethnic origin was introduced in 1992. It is congruent with that used for the Census Population. Data for 1990 and 1991 is shown separately as the classification prior to 1992 is not directly comparable with that in later years.

  3 Including fine defaulters.

  Prison receptions by ethnic origin1, England and Wales 1992–19942

  Year

  Total

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Chinese and other Asian

  Unrecorded

  1992

  Remand

  57,551

  48,285

  6,156

  1,402

  192

  1,516

  Sentenced1

  69,832

  61,978

  4,672

  1,478

  143

  1,561

  1993

  Remand

  63,236

  53,442

  7,072

  1,477

  403

  842

  Sentenced3

  72,966

  65,086

  5,279

  1,384

  401

  816

  19942

  Remand

  68,414

  57,420

  7,937

  1,512

  553

  992

  Sentenced1

  89,288

  77,813

  7,408

  2,173

  691

  1,203

  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 and 1991 is shown separately as the classification prior to 1992 is not directly comparable with that in later years.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Including fine defaulters.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the number of people in prison at the most recent count by(a) sex, (b) age group and (c) ethnic group; if he will publish the same figures for 3 May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [1533]

  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.
  648
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ethnic breakdown of all prisoners received into prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [1532]

  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 Richard Tilt to Mr A.J. Beith, dated 28 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the ethnic breakdown for all prisoners received into prison in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.
  Information is only available for the last 5 years and is shown in the attached table.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. A. J. Beith, dated 28 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for a breakdown of the current prison population by sex, age group and ethnic origin and for the same breakdown on 3 May 1979.
  Table one gives the age, sex and ethnic origin breakdown of the population for latest available date, 31 October 1995. Information on the ethnic breakdown of the prison population for 1979 is not available. An age and sex breakdown is available for June 1979 and is given in table two.

  Justice Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Justice Council held on 23 to 24 November, giving details of all votes and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [1600]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: My right hon. and learned Friend represented the United Kingdom at the Council which was held in Brussels on 23 November.

  The Council agreed as A points, among other things, a draft resolution on the protection of witnesses, a draft decision on monitoring the implementation of texts adopted regarding admission of third country nationals, reports on the activities of the Europol drugs unit during the first half of 1995 and its programme of activities for the first half of 1996, the rules of procedure of the Europol management board, a draft report on simplified extradition procedure and a draft resolution on the status of third country nationals residing legally in the territory of member states of the European Union.

  Following discussion, the Council agreed to a joint position on the definition of refugee status, a joint action on airport transit visas, a report on organised crime in 1994, and standard re-admission clauses for mixed agreements with third countries. The Council discussed the question of European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the Dublin convention which deals with the determination of the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the EU member states. The Council noted the current situation with regard to the draft external frontiers convention and discussed the challenge represented by drug trafficking. The insolvency convention was opened for signature and signed by 12 member states.

  The Council had a full discussion on the issue of European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the Europol convention and on the difficulties for the United Kingdom presented by the draft joint action on racism and xenophobia. The Council also examined the draft protocol to the convention on fraud against the revenues of the European Community and the draft convention dealing with matrimonial matters. A number of issues relating to extradition were considered, and the Council discussed proposals my right hon. and learned Friend put forward to enhance co-operation in the fight against terrorism.

  The Council received information from the presidency relating to EU relations with third countries and with the European Parliament in the fields covered by title VI of the treaty of European Union. It also examined certain procedural questions regarding working methods, decision-taking and finance.

  Together with his colleagues, my right hon. and learned Friend signed a memorandum of understanding on the legal interception of telecommunications.

  Child Murder (Joint Enterprises)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about joint enterprise cases in which a child loses its life. [2308]
  650
  Mr. Maclean
  We have examined the relevant legal provisions to see whether there is any scope for changes to make it easier to secure convictions in joint enterprise cases in which a child dies. We have, however, been unable to identify any option for reform which would not itself create further injustice. The priority must be to obtain sufficient evidence in each case pointing to the guilt of one or both parties. The provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will make it more difficult for those who are guilty of such appalling crimes to hide behind their silence in police interviews and at trial. We will keep the law under review and consider any practical proposals for reform.

  Murder Victims (Family Compensation)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make it his policy to allow the families of(a) all murder victims, (b) parents of adult victims, (c) the adult children of murder victims, (d) the unmarried partners of murder victims and (e) the fathers of illegitimate murder victims who applied for compensation under the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation which was announced in April 1994 and subsequently withdrawn to make a new application under the terms of the new scheme he proposes to implement from April 1996 under the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. [2309]

  Mr. Maclean
  All applications received under the former tariff scheme fall to be considered or reconsidered under the terms of the 1990 scheme as the only scheme lawfully in force. To allow applicants in any particular category to withdraw a claim lodged between 1 April 1994 and 5 April 1995 and then reapply under the proposed new scheme would be wrong in principle and anomalous in practice.

  Not all applicants in the categories mentioned who were eligible under the former tariff scheme are ineligible under the 1990 scheme. For example, parents of adult victims may have been dependent on their children and thus qualify for an award in respect of that dependency; so too might a common law spouse dependent on the deceased partner. There may be cases where such a claim either fails, or is treated less generously under the 1990 scheme criteria than might be the case under the proposed new tariff scheme. But we cannot reasonably adopt an arrangement whereby applicants since 1 April 1994 can select which scheme they wish to be bound by according to the perceived advantages and disadvantages.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received from the families of murder victims in general and specifically from(a) parents of adult victims, (b) the adult children of murder victims, (c) the married partners of murder victims and (d) the fathers of illegitimate murder victims, under the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation which was announced in April 1994 and subsequently withdrawn. [2293]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: A total of 1,246 applications in respect of fatal cases were received under the former tariff scheme. All applications received under that scheme are subject to consideration or reconsideration under the 1990 scheme. That has meant

  651
  making changes to the data held and dispersing the case papers to board members and staff for assessment. A precise analysis of the relationship between the applicant and the victim, and the other data requested, are not therefore readily available and could not be provided without disproportionate effort. The board has, however, provided the following summary of the position.

  A total of 1,192 fatal applications were outstanding when the tariff scheme was withdrawn. About a third were from a parent or parents, some 30 per cent. were in respect of children under 18 years of age, about 20 per cent. were from children aged 18 or over, and some 15 per cent. were from spouses, whether formally married or regarded as a spouse in common law.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was paid out to the families or murder victims in total and specifically to(a) parents of adult victims, (b) the adult children of murder victims and (c) the unmarried partners or murder victims and (d) the fathers of illegitimate murder victims under the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation which was announced in April 1994 and subsequently withdrawn. [2295]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: The board advises that precise figures are not readily available.

  Its estimate is that 40 applications resulted in provisional payment of awards, including funeral expenses, totalling some £200,000.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total cost involved if all applications received from the families of murder victims and specifically from(a) parents of adult victims, (b) the adult children of murder victims, (c) the unmarried partners of murder victims and (d) the fathers of illegitimate murder victims were to be paid under the terms set out in the tariff-based scheme of criminal injury compensation which was announced in April 1994 and subsequently withdrawn. [2294]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 November 1995]: Taking account of the proportion of cases which might have failed the eligibility criteria—perhaps 20 per cent.— the total cost might have been of the order of £5 million. Assuming that 250 eligible applicants were from the specific categories mentioned, the estimate for these is in the range £1.25–£2.5 million.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual saving to business which will accrue from(a) the Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order 1995 and (b) the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 1995. [2024]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: It is estimated that the proposal in the Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order to remove the requirement for an accountant to be present when the Tote is operated will result in cost savings of £260,000 a year. In addition the industry estimates that inter-track betting will increase turnover by 10 to 15 per cent. in its first year of operation. Details of compliance costs are given in the explanatory memorandum.
  652
  No direct cost savings were anticipated as a consequence of the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order. The industry expected that the order would create new market opportunities and resultant financial benefits although these could not be quantified.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs to public funds involved in preparing the cost-benefit assessment contained in the explanatory memorandum for(a) the Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order 1995 and (b) the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 1995. [2023]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Details of costs and benefits were sought as part of the public consultation exercise on the proposed Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order 1995 and the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [2456]

  Mr. Howard
  In the Session November 1994 to October 1995, 64 statutory instruments—excluding commencement orders—were made. Of these five related to changes in fee levels affecting business; nine either removed burdens on business or provided more favourable regimes; two, relating to video recordings, tightened the law. The remainder had no significant impact on business.

  Only one of the statutory instruments implemented a European Community directive, and none amplified standards set out in an original European Community directive.

  Departmental Drugs Branch
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list 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 the drugs branch of his Department. [2750]

  Mr. Maclean
  Drugs branch is a centrally funded part of the Home Office drugs division. It has four part-time and 28 full-time staff. Annual income from fees—there are no charges or fines—and running costs for each of the past three year were as follows:

  Fees (£)

  Fees (£)

  1992–93

  318,693

  895,614

  1993–94

  358,991

  882,418

  1994–95

  409,200

  875,666

  Immigration (DNA)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dependants aged over 21 years have been allowed to enter the United Kingdom since the Government accepted DNA evidence as conclusive evidence of a relationship; and how many such dependants were allowed to enter the United Kingdom following decisions by Ministers to exercise their discretion exceptionally outside the immigration rules. [2549]

  Mr Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available. No separate statistics are maintained of dependants over the age of 21 admitted as a result of conclusive DNA evidence.

  Witnesses (Media Payments)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has regarding changes in the law relating to newspapers offering money to a witness in a criminal trial before that witness has given evidence in court. [511]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 20 November 1995]: The Government are concerned about the potential impact of payments to witnesses in criminal proceedings. We have sought reports from prosecuting counsel and others on the effect of such payments in the Rosemary West trial and will consider urgently, in the light of those reports, what further action is needed.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases in which people whose applications for political asylum were under consideration were not determined at the closest date to 31 December 1994 for which figures are available.[3143]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 31 December 1994, there were 55,225 applications for asylum awaiting initial decisions. The number of people who had claimed asylum and were being detained on this date is not known. As at 18 November 1994, 654 persons, who at some stage had sought asylum including those awaiting removal

  Number of people detained on 21 November 1995 who have sought asylum, by place of detention and stage of application

  Awaiting initial decision on application

  Awaiting result of appeal

  Awaiting removal after application refused

  Other

  Total

  Detained in prison service establishments

  63

  207

  94

  14

  378

  Detained in other places of detention

  89

  188

  57

  64

  398

  Total detained

  152

  395

  151

  78

  776

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) length of detention, (d) place of detention and (e) immigration status at the time of application. [549]
  654
  following refusal of their applications as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal, were being held in detention.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been rejected on safe third country grounds to date. [1671]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A total of 865 asylum applications were refused on safe third country grounds in 1994 and 1,205 in the first nine months of 1995. A nationality split is available in table 4.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin, "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the short procedure pilot scheme introduced in May 1995 for processing asylum claims. [1689]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend on Monday 20 November, at column 335–38.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications are currently waiting to be heard. [1686]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A total of 66,665 asylum applications were awaiting an initial decision as at 31 October 1995.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose cases(a) have yet to be determined and (b) have been determined are (i) currently detained and (ii) currently detained in prisons; and what is the average period of their detention. [986]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 21 November 1995, a total of 776 persons who had at some stage sought asylum were detained. This figure includes people awaiting removal following refusal of their applications as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figure, 267 had been in detention less than one month, 99 between one and two months, 304 between two and six months, 89 between six and 12 months, and 17 had been detained for longer than 12 months.

  Information on the stage of application and place of detention of people who have sought asylum is given in the table.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 21 November 1995, a total of 776 persons who had at some stage sought asylum were detained. This figure includes people awaiting removal following refusal of their applications as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figure, 267 had been in detention less than
  655
  one month, 99 between one and two months, 304 between two and six months, 89 between six and 12 months, and 17 had been detained for longer than 12 months.

  Information on the gender, immigration status, nationality and location of those detained, as at 21 November 1995, is provided in tables 1 to 3.

  Table 1: Number of people detained on 21 November 1995 who had sought asylum by immigration status and gender

  Immigration status

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Port case

  363

  34

  397

  Illegal entrant case

  320

  8

  328

  Deportation case

  49

  2

  51

  Total

  732

  44

  776

  Table 2: Number of people detained on 21 November 1995 who had sought asylum, by nationality

  Number

  Afghanistan

  6

  Albania

  4

  Algeria

  78

  Angola

  9

  Bangladesh

  15

  China

  48

  Colombia

  5

  Cote D'Ivoire

  3

  Cuba

  3

  Cyprus

  5

  Ecuador

  3

  Ethiopia

  3

  Gambia

  52

  Ghana

  34

  India

  106

  Iran

  9

  Iraq

  2

  Jamaica

  7

  Kenya

  24

  Lebanon

  4

  Liberia

  13

  Morocco

  8

  Niger

  2

  Nigeria

  107

  Pakistan

  31

  Peru

  3

  Poland

  8

  Romania

  35

  Sierra Leone

  8

  Somalia

  9

  Sri Lanka

  19

  Sudan

  3

  Tanzania

  5

  Togo

  2

  Tunisia

  3

  Turkey

  24

  Uganda

  8

  Former USSR

  15

  Former Yugoslavia

  9

  Zaire

  17

  Other nationalities

  17

  Nationality not known

  10

  Total

  776

  656

  Table 3: Number of persons detained who have claimed asylum as at 21 November 1995, by place of detention

  Place of detention

  Number detained

  Prisons/YOIs

  HMP Rochester

  160

  HMP Haslar

  93

  HMP Winson Green

  43

  HMP Greenock

  11

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  11

  HMP Crumlin Road Belfast

  9

  HMP Armley Leeds

  7

  HMP Liverpool

  5

  HMP Brixton

  4

  HMP Wolds

  4

  HMP Belmarsh

  4

  HMP Craiginchess Aberdeen

  3

  HMP Edinburgh Saughton

  3

  HMP Doncaster

  2

  HMP Hindley

  2

  HMP Chelmsford

  2

  HMP The Mount

  2

  HMP Exeter

  2

  Other HM Prisons

  9

  Total

  378

  Other places of detention

  Campsfield House

  164

  Harmondsworth

  99

  Gatwick Detention Centre

  44

  Dover Habour Board

  31

  Stansted

  14

  Queens Building

  13

  Newhaven

  9

  Manchester Airport Detention Suite

  5

  Dover West

  3

  Other Detention Centres

  2

  Police cells

  14

  Total

  398

  Grand total

  776

  External Frontiers Convention
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals have emerged from within(a) the Council of Ministers and (b) the Justice and Home Affairs Council to resolve disputes between member states with regard to the draft convention on external borders. [2827]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: At its meeting on 23 November the Justice and Home Affairs Council received a progress report on the state of discussions on the draft external frontiers convention. The report recorded the presidency's hope that outstanding issues could be resolved as soon as possible. A copy of the progress report is being placed in the Library.

  Nigerian Criminals
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the national criminal intelligence service has to conduct an inquiry into the flow of currency between Nigeria and Britain. [2810]
  657
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer on 27 November 1995]: None. The national criminal intelligence service is already aware of the threat to the United Kingdom posed by some Nigerian criminals and monitors the situation on a regular basis.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he held, and from which bodies he sought information, opinions and advice about asylum and immigration problems. [2538]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: We discuss these matters regularly with a wide range of organisations.

  Ethnic Minority Business Group
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the ethnic minority business advisory group meets; when it last met; who are its members; and what issues it is currently pursuing. [1936]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The ethnic minority business advisory group last met on 20 September 1994. It was formally disbanded in September 1995. Its membership consisted of ethnic minority business agencies, representatives of mainstream businesses and organisations, and Government Departments.

  Oleoresin Capsicum
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the police or Prison Service are considering oleoresin capsicum as a possible chemical incapacitant for use in their operations; [2369]

  (2) what (a) biomedical and (b) other technical testing of the chemical agent oleoresin capsicum have recently been carried out by the police scientific development branch, with particular reference to the effects of the agents when dispersed as an aerosol spray; with what results; and what further testing or trials of OC currently are taking place or planned; [2368]

  (3) what recent (a) biomedical or (b) other technical testing of the chemical agent oleoresin capsicum has recently been carried out by his Department; and with what results. [2317]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office police scientific development branch has reviewed all the available information about the effects of incapacitant products containing oleoresin capsicum. In addition, research commissioned by my right hon. and learned Friend has been undertaken into the possible carcinogenic effects of oleoresin capsicum's main incapacitating ingredient, capsaicin. That research indicates that capsaicin is not a genotoxic carcinogen.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has, however, concluded, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, that currently too little is known about oleoresin capsicum's effects on health for it to be considered for use by the police in this country.
  658
  Further work has been undertaken to determine methods of analysing oleoresin capsicum products. The Home Office police scientific development branch will continue to review any relevant research undertaken elsewhere.

  The Prison Service has no proposals to use products containing oleoresin capsicum at this time.

  Police Gallantry Awards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the rules governing the recommendations for gallantry awards to police officers, with particular reference to the circumstances in which a lesser award may be made than the one for which a recommendation has been made. [2237]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are four categories of civilian gallantry award which may be made to police officers:

  (i) of the highest order (George cross)

  (ii) of an extremely high order (George medal)

  (iii) of a high order (Queen's gallantry medal)

  (iv) not up to the foregoing standards, but entailing risk to life and meriting recognition (Queen's commendation for bravery or the Queen's commendation for bravery in the air)

  The category for which a case may be considered depends on the circumstances of the case and partly upon the risk of death to the person being nominated.

  There are three main factors which must be evident in the actions taken. Firstly, the act of bravery must be carried out in the knowledge of the risk. Secondly the act must show persistence in the face of danger and, thirdly, there must have been a degree of choice in taking positive action. A lesser award will be made than the one recommended if the circumstances of the case do not merit a higher award.

  Princess of Wales
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is taking to investigate allegations by the Princess of Wales that her telephone calls were illegally intercepted. [2366]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that no such formal complaint has been received.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by substance the total volume of illegal drugs seized by law enforcement agencies in Britain annually since 1984. [2124]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in tables 2.4 and 2.5 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Statistics of drug seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total sums spent by law enforcement agencies in Britain in detecting and seizing illegal drugs annually since 1984 in constant prices. [2122]
  659
  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available. The sums spent on tackling drug trafficking cannot be separated from expenditure on other aspects of law enforcement.

  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate and list by substance the total volume of illegal drugs available for sale in Britain annually since 1984. [2123]

  Mr. Maclean
  Since drug misuse is a clandestine activity, it is impossible to estimate the volume of controlled drugs which is circulating illegally.

  Police Support Functions
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued to chief constables in England and Wales regarding the outsourcing and privatisation of police support functions. [2128]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is the Government's policy to introduce the benefits of the market place to police support functions by extending compulsory competitive tendering to these areas. In support of this policy, the Home Office issued guidance earlier this year on the cleaning of police buildings, 19 April, on police legal services—2 March on police construction-related and property services—2 March, and on police personnel service—9 November.

  Summer Time
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the current policy of putting back the clocks by one hour at the end of the summer. [2130]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  This system of operating without summer time and keeping the clocks on Greenwich mean time plus one hour throughout the year was tried between 1968 and 1971. We have no plans to revert to it.

  Establishment

  Attempted suicides

  Self inflicted deaths

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Acklington

  4

  3

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Albany

  3

  4

  3

  6

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Aldington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ashwell

  2

  1

  2

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Aylesbury

  8

  5

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Bedford

  0

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Belmarsh

  14

  21

  24

  22

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Birmingham

  9

  5

  4

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Blakenhurst

  not open

  4

  35

  26

  not open

  0

  0

  1

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blundeston

  2

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Brinsford

  10

  10

  6

  22

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Bristol

  4

  7

  6

  11

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Brixton

  24

  26

  23

  6

  1

  1

  3

  0

  Brockhill

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Buckley Hall

  not open

  not open

  0

  1

  not open

  not open

  0

  0

  Bullingdon

  3

  5

  8

  6

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  7

  7

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camp Hill

  5

  3

  8

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Canterbury

  9

  11

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  6

  2

  1

  6

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Castington

  2

  4

  1

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Prison Ombudsman
  Mr Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many cases from Doncaster prison the prisons ombudsman has reported: and if he will make a statement. [2274]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since the prisons ombudsman began to take complaints from prisoners on 24 October 1994 he has received 26 complaints from Doncaster. Twenty of these were ineligible—19 because the prison has not exhausted the internal request complaint system and one because it came from a third party. The eligibility of two cases is currently being considered. Investigations have taken place into the remaining three complaints and in one of these cases the complaint was upheld. This case involved property stolen from a prisoner's cell, apparently as a result of a design fault in the cell windows at Doncaster. The prison ombudsman recommended that the prisoner involved should receive compensation for the loss and the Prison Service accepted this recommendation.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attempted suicides and suicides have occurred in each prison for each year since 1992. [2139]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter had 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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 28 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about suicides in Prison Service Establishments since 1992.The attached table gives the number of reported incidents of attempted suicide and the number of self inflicted deaths at each establishment for the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 (to 21 November).661

  Establishment

  Attempted suicides

  Self inflicted deaths

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Channingswood

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chelmsford

  20

  7

  8

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Coldingley

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cookham Wood

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dartmoor

  2

  16

  10

  18

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Deerbolt

  2

  5

  9

  15

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  not open

  not open

  59

  37

  not open

  not open

  2

  1

  Dorchester

  6

  2

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Dover

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Downview

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Drake Hall

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  11

  12

  21

  13

  2

  1

  0

  0

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Wood Park

  0

  closed

  closed

  closed

  0

  closed

  closed

  closed

  Elmley

  18

  9

  23

  8

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Erlestoke

  2

  4

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Everthorpe

  4

  4

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Exeter

  30

  23

  21

  9

  0

  4

  1

  2

  Featherstone

  0

  3

  5

  7

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Feltham

  16

  5

  21

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Ford

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Frankland

  8

  7

  13

  6

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Full Sutton

  3

  7

  12

  27

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Garth

  1

  6

  2

  8

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Gartree

  1

  2

  7

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Glen Parva

  9

  5

  4

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  6

  11

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grendon

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Guys Marshi

  1

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haslar

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haverigg

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hewell Grange

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Highdown

  1

  14

  20

  9

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Highpoint

  3

  4

  2

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hindley

  24

  19

  13

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  2

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Holloway

  18

  4

  7

  4

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Holme House

  9

  30

  7

  6

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Hull

  7

  12

  20

  22

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Huntercombe

  16

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirkham

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancaster

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  13

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  2

  1

  0

  8

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Leicester

  0

  5

  14

  19

  1

  3

  3

  1

  Lewes

  5

  3

  7

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  3

  6

  9

  8

  0

  3

  1

  1

  Lindholme

  15

  10

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Littlehey

  14

  8

  4

  11

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  19

  54

  33

  6

  1

  2

  5

  1

  Long Lartin

  5

  7

  6

  6

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Low Newton

  9

  16

  4

  8

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Maidstone

  9

  4

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  1

  6

  7

  22

  0

  2

  2

  0

  Moorland

  52

  58

  51

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The Mount

  2

  3

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  New Hall

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Northallerton

  2

  2

  9

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  North Eye

  0

  closed

  closed

  closed

  0

  closed

  closed

  closed

  North Sea Camp

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norwich

  18

  25

  3

  10

  2

  2

  0

  4

  Nottingham

  1

  3

  5

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Onley

  14

  15

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxford

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Parkhurst

  1

  1

  6

  12

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Pentonville

  18

  54

  25

  14

  4

  0

  0

  2

  Portland

  18

  4

  6

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  662

  663

  Establishment

  Attempted suicides

  Self inflicted deaths

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Preston

  10

  14

  9

  10

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Pucklechurch

  4

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ranby

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Reading

  4

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Risley

  46

  19

  10

  20

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Rochester

  12

  2

  12

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rudgate

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Send

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Shrewsbury

  7

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Spring Hill

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stafford

  8

  6

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Standford Hill

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stocken

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stoke Heath

  2

  3

  7

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Styal

  1

  4

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swaleside

  8

  5

  8

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Swansea

  10

  3

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Thorpe Arch

  1

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Usk

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  The Verne

  5

  0

  4

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Wakefield

  2

  2

  6

  3

  1

  3

  1

  1

  Wandsworth

  5

  19

  31

  19

  0

  2

  4

  0

  Wayland

  5

  7

  1

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wealstun

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Wellingborough

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Wellington

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  2

  2

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Whatton

  0

  0

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Whitemoor

  3

  11

  9

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Winchester

  4

  9

  2

  4

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Wolds

  0

  7

  17

  35

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Woodhill

  2

  8

  12

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  19

  21

  16

  38

  1

  0

  3

  0

  Wymott

  1

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  728

  814

  841

  683

  42

  47

  61

  55

  South Africa (Oil Embargo)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were successfully brought against individuals and organisations who breached the oil embargo against South Africa. [2243]

  Mr. Maclean
  Court proceedings data held centrally by my Department do not identify this type of offence.

  Children's Certificates
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a standardised system for the issue of children's certificate liquor licences. [2126]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Among the questions we are considering in our review of the operation of the system of children's certificates is whether there is a need for greater uniformity in the terms on which they are granted.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to ensure that applications from animal welfare charities for lottery funding are considered; [2318]

  (2) what representations he has received from animal welfare charities on the allocation of funds arising from the national lottery. [2319]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have received a number of such representations. The national lottery charities board is responsible for distributing part of national lottery proceeds allocated for charitable expenditure. My right hon. and learned Friend has issued directions to the board. These require it to take into account the need to ensure over time the distribution of money to a reasonably wide spread and range of recipients, including small organisations and those operating purely at a local level. The board—after consultation with the sector, including animal welfare charities—has announced themes for
  665
  future grant rounds which reflect this direction. Animal welfare charities are welcome to apply for grants, and in doing so will no doubt take account of the programme announced by the board.

  Invoices
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many orders and firms are represented by the 8 per cent. of invoices not paid by his Department within 30 days or in accordance with contractual agreements in 1994–95; and how many of these are related to firms with fewer than 500 employees. [939]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 November 1995]: The number of invoices not paid by my Department within 30 days or in accordance with contractual agreements in 1994–95 was approximately 46,400 out of a total of 580,000 valid invoices. Information on the number of individual purchase orders and firms to which these invoices related is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Illegal Immigration
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the employers' organisations about taking action against employers for employing illegal immigrants. [1670]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Ministers have met representatives of a number of employers' organisations to discuss this matter.

  Visitors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the cost to public funds of recording the dates on which visitors to the United Kingdom leave the country. [1990]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We estimate the costs of establishing and running an information technology system capable of providing such data would be £66 million over 10 years. There would also be considerable additional Immigration Service staffing and other costs.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the number of people who entered the United Kingdom on a visitor's visa since 1990 and have overstayed. [1991]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As the hon. Member was informed in the replies given to his questions on 29 March 1994 at column 612 and 15 April 1994 at column 312,

  Average sentence length given for persons sentence to immediate custody for offences of trafficking in class B drugs by sex, type of court and type of offence, 1994

  England and Wales

  Average sentence lengths (months)

  Type of offence

  Sex

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown court

  Production or being concerned in the production of a controlled class B drug1

  M

  —

  57.0

  F

  —

  —

  Supplying or offering to supply a controlled class B drug

  M

  3.6

  16.1

  F

  3.0

  11.9

  Having possession of a controlled class B drug with intent to supply

  M

  3.5

  14.7

  F

  1.5

  10.3

  666
  comprehensive information on which an estimate could be based of the number of visitors who remain in the United Kingdom after the expiry of their leave is not available.

  Prison Population
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prisoners currently being held in(a) Prison Service prisons and (b) privately run prisons. [1687]

  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 Richard Tilt to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 28 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners currently being held in Prison Service prisons and privately run prisons.
  On 23 November 1995, 52,411 prisoners were being held in Prison Service prisons. Of these, 2,103 prisoners were being held in contractually managed establishments.

  Prison Places
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional prison places he expects will be available for use by the end of 1995–96. [1693]

  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 Richard Tilt to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 28 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of additional prison places expected to be available by the end of 1995–96.
  The Certified Normal Accommodation available for uses in prisons in England and Wales on 23 November 1995 was 51,328. Some 1,600 additional places are currently expected to be available by the end of March 1996.

  Drug Trafficking
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average sentence handed down for trafficking in class B drugs to(a) men and (b) women. [1690]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.
  667

  Average sentence length given for persons sentence to immediate custody for offences of trafficking in class B drugs by sex, type of court and type of offence, 1994

  England and Wales

  Average sentence lengths (months)

  Type of offence

  Sex

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown court

  Offences in relation to the unlawful importation of a drug controlled under the

  M

  3.1

  51.2

  Misuse of Drugs Act 19712

  F

  —

  55.8

  Offences in relation to the unlawful exportation of a drug controlled under the

  M

  —

  49.2

  Misuse of Drugs Act 19712

  F

  —

  26.4

  1 Excludes production of cannabis (growth of plant).

  2 Class of drug not separately specified.

  Ministerial Proposals
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sectors of his Department have been involved in the drawing up and implementation of his proposals published on 12 October. [1902]

  Mr. Howard
  I draw as necessary on all the relevant parts of my Department.

  Fines
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the court procedures used in(a) Scotland and (b) England for the recovery of fines as a civil debt. [1978]

  Mr. Maclean
  A fine imposed by a court is not a civil debt. In England and Wales, magistrates' courts have a wide range of powers to enforce payment of fines and other financial penalties. The Lord Chancellor has established a working group to identify ways of improving the effectiveness of these powers. Court procedures relating to fine enforcement in Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Television Licence Fines
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total annual cost in England and Wales of imprisoning(a) men, (b) women and (c) men and women for the non-payment of a television licence fine. [1925]

  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 Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 28 November 1995.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what is the total annual cost in England and Wales of imprisoning (a) men, (b) women, and (c) men and women for non-payment of a television licence fine.Information on the cost of prisoners according to their type of offence is not collected centrally. On the basis of the number normally in custody—under 10—we estimate the costs of imprisoning these defaulters to be up to £200,000 a year, approximately 67% for men and 33% for women.
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the discrepancies of imprisonment rates for television licence fine defaulters in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland. [1979]
  668
  Mr. Maclean
  Imprisonment cannot be imposed for television licence evasion. It may be imposed by the courts only where an offender has failed to pay a fine imposed upon conviction for failing to have a television licence. A total of 763 people in England and Wales were imprisoned in 1994 for non payment of a fine imposed for television licence evasion. Information is not held centrally on the proportionate use of imprisonment for fine defaulters, where the fine was imposed for television licence evasion, as between England and Wales. Court procedures relating to fine enforcement in Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards cutting energy consumption in Government buildings for which he has responsibility in each year since 1990. [1445]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 17 May 1995,Official Report, columns 260—62.

  Final figures for 1994–95 are not yet available, but are likely to be broadly in line with those for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [1430]

  Mr. Howard: A claim for public interest immunity is normally made by the appropriate Minister. Within the Home Office central records of public interest immunity certificates used in legal proceedings have only been kept since 1992. The available figures are:

  Year

  Number of PII certificates

  1992

  4

  1993

  5

  1994

  7

  1995

  12

  669
  The certificates have been issued to protect information relating to the Security Service and information relating to the security and operation of prisons.

  Prisoners, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of inmates at Leeds gaol were(a) unemployed and (b) homeless before entering prison for each year since 1990. [1464]

  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 Richard Tilt to Mr. John Battle, dated 28 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the percentage of inmates at Leeds jail who were (a) unemployed and (b) homeless before entering prison for each year since 1990.
  This information is not available as Leeds prison does not keep records of its previous prisoners. However, research findings from the National Prison Survey 1991 (from a random sample of the prison population) indicated that approximately 13% of the prison population had no permanent home just before imprisonment and 33% were unemployed.

  Immigration
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) admissions and (b) refusals for immigration and settlement in the United Kingdom have been made in each of the last 10 years. [1551]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of persons granted and refused settlement 1985-June 1995

  Persons accepted for settlement1

  Persons overseas initially refused2 an entry clearance for settlement3

  Persons in the UK initially refused4settlement

  1985

  55,360

  n/a

  260

  1986

  47,820

  n/a

  510

  1987

  45,980

  n/a

  540

  1988

  49,280

  n/a

  490

  1989

  49,650

  7,290

  800

  1990

  53,200

  8,240

  1,060

  1991

  53,900

  6,780

  1,750

  1992

  52,570

  7,300

  2,360

  1993

  55,640

  8,690

  3,220

  1994

  55,110

  9,690

  3,020

  19955

  27,890

  n/a

  1,730

  n/a not available.

  1Including persons admitted to the United Kingdom on a temporary basis and subsequently granted settlement following a change of immigration status, as well as persons granted settlement on arrival or admitted in a category leading to settlement and subsequently granted settlement.

  2Some were subsequently granted an entry clearance for settlement following an appeal.

  3Includes applications for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode.

  4

  5 January to June, Provisional figures.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Student Costs
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total cost and what is the cost of(a) fees, (b) student maintenance, (c) student loans and (d) other to the Northern Ireland office of supporting students from Northern Ireland in places of higher education elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [1768]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: In the 1994–95 academic year, the total cost for Northern Ireland domiciled students on first degree, or equivalent courses at institutions of higher education elsewhere in the United Kingdom was £30.8 million. Expenditure on tuition fees was £15.4 million as was that on maintenance grant, including allowances and supplementary maintenance.

  The information on loans is not readily available from the Student Loans Company and could be obtained only from the company at disproportionate cost.

  Information about access funds which are administered by the higher education institutions is not available.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the ratio of provision of higher education places and qualified students in Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. [1769]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding reply 27 November 1995]: Available information relates to students studying in each of the four territories, and the number of students domiciled in each territory. The 1993–94 figures in respect of full-time undergraduates are as follows:

  (a) Full-time undergraduate students studying in territory

  (b) Full-time undergraduate students domiciled in territory

  (c) Ratio of places : students (a) : (b)

  Northern Ireland

  23,000

  30,200

  0.8: 1

  England

  755,200

  704,100

  1.1 : 1

  Wales

  52,600

  43,800

  1.2: 1

  Scotland

  117,400

  92,100

  1.3 : 1

  Legislative Repeals and Reviews
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2037]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: In Northern Ireland the Emergency Provisions Act 1991 is required to be renewed annually in order to keep the statutes in force.

  As part of the Government's deregulation initiative Northern Ireland Departments have been reviewing, on a regular basis, legislation which affects business.

  Dry Stone Walls
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) grants and (b) other support will be available from his Department for the conservation and protection of dry stone walls from April 1996. [2329]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The only scheme with this provision in Northern Ireland will be the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development. It was suspended temporarily from 24 March 1995 to allow an assessment to be made of the financial commitments to cover the applications already received. No decision has been made yet when it can be reopened.

  This scheme offered 50 per cent. grant rate on a maximum expenditure of £25,000 on a variety of items including the provision, replacement and improvement of dry stone walls.

  Electricity
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals or plans have been notified to his Department to deal with increased demand for electricity in(a) Newry (b) Armagh and (c) South Armagh. [1239]

  Mr. Ancram
  My Department has been informed by Northern Ireland Electricity that the maximum demand in the Newry and South Armagh area is increasing by 2.7 per cent per annum and in Armagh by 2.5 per cent. per annum.

  NIE plc have further advised that development plans covering these areas are currently being implemented. These include the provision of new substations, providing new 33kv and 11kv circuits, replacing obsolete equipment and carrying out extensive network refurbishment.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to resolve outstanding problems of low voltage supply in(a) Newry and (b) South Armagh. [1240]

  Mr. Ancram
  This is primarily a matter for Northern Ireland Electricity plc. NIE has informed my Department that it is implementing an extensive programme of works in these areas.

  Camlough Lake
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in determining the future ownership and usage of Camlough lake, South Armagh. [1241]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment's Water Executive inherited water abstraction rights at Camlough lake at local government reorganisation in 1973. In August 1994 it published notice of its intention to vest the bed and soil of the lake. This is necessary to ensure the sufficiency of water obtained from this source for the pubic supply and to facilitate effective protection of the quality of water supplies.

  A number of representations about the vesting proposals have been received. Discussions are currently underway with objectors, including those with parallel use proposals for the lake such as recreational development and hydro-electric power generation. The Water
  672
  Executive's position in such discussions is that any supplementary development must be compatible with the continuing use of the lake as a water supply source for the Newry area, especially in regard to the safeguarding of water quality. If agreement is not forthcoming in these discussions the Department will convene a local inquiry at which the outstanding issues can be presented and progress made to determining the lake's future ownership and use.

  It is my understanding, as conveyed in a recent letter from my noble Friend, Baroness Denton, to the chief executive of Newry and Mourne district council, that the Director-General of Electricity Supply is still considering the complex issues involved in proposals for pumped storage electricity generation at Camlough.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1)what proportion of decisions to refuse incapacity benefit have been(a) overturned on appeal and (b) are pending a decision since the benefit was introduced in April; [1242]

  (2) what is the total number of applications received for incapacity benefit since April; [1243]

  (3) what is the average length of time taken to process an incapacity benefit appeal; [1244]

  (4) how many decisions to award incapacity benefit have been issued since April; [1245]

  (5) how many decisions to refuse incapacity benefit applications have been issued since April; [1246]

  (6) what is the average cost of each incapacity benefit appeal. [1247]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Seamus Mallon, dated 28 November 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions in which you asked for some statistical information on Incapacity Benefit.
  Some 30,000 claims to Incapacity Benefit were received from 13 April 1995 to 31 October 1995. Unfortunately, records are not maintained on the actual number of claims which were either allowed or refused but I can tell you that 2474 claims were disallowed during this period solely on incapacity grounds. Not included in this figure are claims disallowed for other reasons such as insufficient contributions, last claims and dependents claims.
  As we do not maintain statistics on the number of claims refused, I'm afraid I cannot provide you with the number of appeals received as a proportion of the overall number of refusals. However, a total of 358 appeals has been received by the Agency since April 1995, 50 appeals have been heard, 19 of which were allowed by the Appeal Tribunal. Of the remaining 308 appeals outstanding, 81 are awaiting hearing by an Appeal Tribunal and the remainder, the majority of which have been received within the last couple of months, are still in the process of being prepared.
  Finally, the average length of time taken to process an incapacity appeal from the date of receipt in the Agency until the appeal papers are despatched to the Independent Tribunal Service for hearing is 36 working days. However, no information is available on the average cost of each incapacity appeal.

  673
  I hope you find this information helpful but if you require any further clarification please let me know.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [2463]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Three statutory instruments were sponsored directly by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. None of these constituted a new rule or regulation. None of them were introduced to implement European Community directives.

  In addition 16 Orders in Council were made in the last session of Parliament, under schedule 1 paragraph of the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

  Eight of the Orders in Council constituted a new rule, that is their main purpose was not to amend, supersede or replace earlier rules or regulations.

  None of the Orders in Council were introduced to implement European Community directives.

  In addition, 35 statutory instruments were sponsored by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland acting with Great Britain Departments. Four of these were introduced to implement European Community directives.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Local Government
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the Acts of Parliament including consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by her Department since January 1994. [29]

  Mr. Paice
  There are none.

  Training and Enterprise Council, Barnsley and Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC's report and accounts for 1994–95 to be published; and if she will make a statement. [2275]

  Mr. Paice
  The Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council's annual report for 1994–95 was published in August 1995. A copy has been placed in the Library. Further copies can be obtained by contacting the TEC.

  A copy of the TEC's annual accounts for 1994–95 were lodged with Companies House in November 1995 and have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been allocated to the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC for training from(a) the single regeneration budget and (b) the single regeneration budget challenge fund. [2239]
  674
  Mr. Paice
  The money for successful bids to the single regeneration budget challenge fund round 1 was allocated to the partnerships who submitted the bid, not to individual members of the partnership. I understand that successful bids for challenge fund round 2 are expected to be announced in December.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the level of administrative costs of the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC; and if she will make a statement. [2276]

  Mr. Paice
  This is an operational matter for Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council.

  Executive Agencies (Travel)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each of the executive agencies for the last financial year in respect of overseas travel by agency staff(a) the costs of the travel, (b) the countries visited and (c) the posts held by the staff concerned. [2289]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Two executive agencies report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: the Teachers' Pensions Agency and the Employment Service.

  In the last financial year there was no overseas travel by staff of the Teachers' Pension Agency.

  Details of overseas travel by staff of the Employment Service are not separately recorded and could not be provided without disproportionate cost. The number of Employment Service staff who travel overseas is however small. Visits are predominantly to European Union and former eastern block countries in connection with employment and training developments. The cost of some Employment Service visit is met from the know-how fund, the United Kingdom's programme of bilateral assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Employment services are among the priorities in these countries.

  Pupil Registration Regulations
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has further to update the Pupils Registration Regulations 1956.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Revised and updated pupil registration regulations came into effect on 1 September 1995 and copies were sent to all schools and local education authorities in England. We will consider whether any additional guidance is necessary in the light of the West case.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the area of playing fields in England that has been sold off since 1981. [2672]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  675
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school playing fields have been sold in England since the introduction of regulation DES 909 in 1981. [2589]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 19 October,Official Report, column 376.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the value of playing fields in England that have been sold off since 1981. [2586]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Education (School Premises) Regulations
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has commissioned into the impact on children's(a) learning, (b) health, (c) safety and (d) discipline, arising from the proposed changes to the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. [2715]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 were reviewed by officials and professional advisers in the Department and the Welsh Office. The views of LEAs, school governors, teachers' association and voluntary bodies were sought.

  The changes to the regulations we are considering will safeguard the health and safety of pupils. We do not believe that the changes will have any effect on learning and discipline in schools.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps she is taking to ensure that(a) the number of three-and-a-half, four and five-year-olds and (b) the quality of education of this group in nursery education in Solihull will be maintained following the implementation of her nursery voucher proposals; and if she will make a statement; [2650]

  (2) if she will estimate the number of local education authorities where the quality of nursery education for three-and-a-half, four and five-year-olds will (a) improve and (b) deteriorate as a result of her nursery voucher proposals; and if she will make a statement. [2675]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The introduction of nursery education vouchers will be accompanied by measures to assure the quality of what is provided, which will be of benefit to parents in all areas. The funding mechanism is designed to ensure that if maintained schools continue to recruit pupils as they do now, there is no financial disadvantage. However, the number of four-year-olds in state provision will depend on parental choice, and on the response of providers to the voucher scheme.

  Provision for other age groups should not be affected by the scheme.

  Teachers Pensions Agency
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of the failure to implement the Hoskyns computer system at the Teachers Pensions Agency. [2714]
  676
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost of the failure to implement the pensions administration system forms a significant component of a claim which the Department is pursuing against Hoskyns, through litigation. Since the litigation is as yet unresolved, it would be inappropriate to provide details at this stage.

  Managers (Training)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to expand the provision of postgraduate courses for the training of managers for the manufacturing sector. [2571]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for providing postgraduate courses for managers within the manufacturing sector rests with higher education institutions, who take demand from manufacturing industry into account in arranging their provision.

  Furthermore, the Government are keen supporters of the use by organisations in all sectors of the national occupational standards for managers. These were developed in consultation with industry to articulate best practice by managers at all levels. They also form the basis for national vocational qualifications.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure the expansion of postgraduate education successfully produces high quality industrial managers. [2679]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have introduced comprehensive quality assurance arrangements within higher education which apply to all subjects, including management. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has a statutory responsibility to undertake quality assessment in specific subjects; and the Higher Education Quality Council undertakes quality audits of institutions' internal quality control systems.

  In addition, the Department is taking forward its Competitiveness White Paper commitment to
  "look to Business Schools and others to contribute to improving the skills base by continuing improvement in the relevance and quality of courses".

  This has resulted in contracts being agreed with a number of business schools to develop postgraduate level courses which are competence based and which draw where appropriate on the national management standards.

  Remploy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are currently engaged in work with Remploy; and if she will indicate the locations of the work force in each case. [2662]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 28 November 1995.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how many people are currently engaged in work with Remploy and the locations of the workforce in each case.677
  A total of 10,929 people, of whom 9,357 were disabled workers, were engaged in work in Remploy at the end of October 1995. 8,682 (7,110 disabled workers) were working in 102 locations and these are listed in the attached table (Annex 1). The remaining 2,247 are Interworkers who are supported by Remploy in placements with host firms but not working on Remploy premises.

  I hope this is helpful.

  ANNEX 1

  Aberdare

  Aberdeen

  Abertillery

  Acton

  Aintree

  Ashington

  Aycliffe

  Banbury

  Barking

  Barnsley

  Barrow

  Bath

  Belfast

  Birkenhead

  Birmingham

  Blackburn

  Blackwood

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Bridgend

  Bridgewater

  Bristol

  Brynamman

  Brixton

  Bromborough

  Burnley

  Chatham

  Chesterfield

  Cleator Moor

  Clydebank

  Coventry

  Cowdenbeath

  Croespenmaen

  Derby

  Dudley

  Dundee

  Edinburgh

  Gateshead

  Halifax

  Hartlepool

  Hereford

  Hillington

  Holloway

  Huddersfield

  Hull

  Jarrow

  Leatherhead

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Leven

  London

  Lydney

  Manchester

  Mansfield

  Medway

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Milton Keynes

  Motherwell

  Neath

  Newcastle under Lyne

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Norwich

  Oldham

  Oxford

  Oxfordshire

  Penzance

  Pinxton

  678

  Plymouth

  Pontefract

  Poole

  Porth

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Radcliffe

  Redruth

  Rotherham

  St. Helens

  Salford

  Sheffield

  Southampton

  Southend

  Spennymoor

  Springburn

  Starman

  Stirling

  Stockport

  Stockton

  Stoke

  Sunderland

  Swansea

  Tixall

  Treforest

  Trentham

  Wakefield

  Wigan

  Wisbech

  Wolverhampton

  Woolwich

  Worksop

  Wrexham

  York

  Ystradgynlais

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to sell off Remploy; and if she will make a statement. [2663]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 8 November 1995,Official Report, column 934.

  Legislative Repeals and Reviews
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what legislation from her Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2028]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Statutes frequently contain provisions for the repeal of other provisions. I am not however aware of any provision in legislation promoted by the former Department for Education or the former Employment Department in the last five years which provides for future repeal or for future review by Parliament.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of new recruits to the training for work programme in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in each month since January 1994. [2425]
  679
  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: The information requested is in the following table:

  Training for work—Number of starts in period ending1

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1994

  31/28 January

  29,000

  1,800

  2,700

  27/25 February

  26,500

  1,900

  3,200

  27/31 March

  22,100

  1,600

  3,100

  24/29 April

  18,700

  1,400

  2,600

  22/27 May

  19,300

  1,500

  2,500

  19 June/1 July

  18,900

  1,300

  3,000

  17/29 July

  20,300

  1,500

  1,900

  14/26 August

  18,800

  1,200

  2,800

  11/30 September

  20,200

  1,400

  3,800

  9/28 October

  32,600

  2,800

  2,800

  6/25 November

  24,000

  1,700

  2,900

  4/30 December

  22,900

  1,800

  2,000

  1995

  1 January

  11,600

  700

  n/a

  30/27 January

  24,200

  1,800

  2,600

  26/24 February

  22,400

  1,400

  2,900

  26/30 March

  15,800

  800

  3,300

  23/27 April

  11,100

  700

  2,200

  21/25 May

  15,600

  800

  2,400

  18/22 June

  14,400

  900

  2,800

  16/30 July

  15,200

  800

  1,600

  13/27 August

  13,600

  700

  2,200

  Source:

  TEC MI returns, the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office.

  1 First date shown is for England and Wales, the second is for Scotland.

  Some trainees may have changed programmes and are therefore counted twice.

  Learning Credits
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to provide a scheme of learning credits for those aged 16 years; and if she will make a statement. [2819]

  Mr. Paice
  The second competitiveness White Paper: "Forging Ahead", published in May, noted that the Government remain attracted in principle to the idea of learning credits for all 16 to 19-year-olds, while recognising that it would have significant practical implications. We have invited comments on the Coopers and Lybrand study of learning credits which was also published in May. We are now considering how best to develop the idea further in the context of the Department's wider programme, set out in the White Paper, to improve education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school governing bodies she has consulted in respect of modifications to their published proposals for grant-maintained status. [2894]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In some 650 cases the school governing body has been consulted.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total amount of financial balances held by both local education authority and 680
  grant-maintained schools broken down by local authority. [2696]

  Mr. Squire
  For local education authority schools in England this information was given in respect of 1993–94 in answers to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 19 January 1995,Official Report, column 641–43 and 27 January 1995, Official Report, column 410–11. I shall write to the hon. Member when the Department has completed its examination of the local management of schools outturn statements produced by LEAS for 1994–95.

  The financial monitoring of grant-maintained schools is the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will compare the trends in the examination results at grant-maintained and non-grant-maintained schools. [2879]

  Mr. Squire
  Over the last four years pupils at GM schools have, on average, gained better GCSE results than their LEA school counterparts, as the table shows:

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving 5+ GCSE grades A1-C

  Percentage

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  LEA maintained schools

  Comprehensive

  34.3

  36.4

  38.5

  38.7

  Selective

  86.9

  91.6

  94.1

  94.0

  Modern/other

  18.6

  22.0

  24.1

  25.9

  Total

  35.0

  37.0

  39.1

  39.4

  Grant-maintained schools

  Comprehensive

  38.8

  40.9

  43.4

  44.7

  Selective

  89.8

  93.2

  94.5

  93.7

  Modern/other

  20.3

  23.0

  24.6

  26.2

  Total

  44.9

  45.3

  47.4

  48.8

  1 The 1995 figures are provisional.

  The difference is most marked when the performance of comprehensive school pupils is compared. In 1992 38.8 per cent, of GM school pupils had gained three or more grades A to C, compared with 34.3 per cent. in LEA-maintained schools, a gap of 4.5 per cent. By 1995 this gap has risen to 6 per cent.

  Information is not yet available on trends in results at GM and LEA primary schools. In 1994 the key stage 1 results for GM and LEA primary schools were as follows:

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 2 or above

  Reading

  Writing

  Number

  GM

  LEA

  GM

  LEA

  GM

  LEA

  84

  80

  72

  67

  85

  82

  Equivalent information on key stage one results in 1995 will be available early in the new year, together with results for key stages 2 and 3 for the first time.

  Supplementary Credit Approvals
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what applications were made by metropolitan districts for supplementary credit approvals in each of the last three years; how much of each sum granted was(a) unused or (b) not used within the time limit attached to the approval; and if she will make a statement. [2871]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested on applications is as follows:

  Year

  Sum of bids £ m

  Number of bids

  1993–94

  22.9

  94

  1994–95

  36.3

  104

  1995–96

  43.3

  103

  Further bids are likely during the remainder of the 1995–96 financial year.

  Information on supplementary credit approvals which authorities have not used is not held centrally.

  Education, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations she has received about the need to maintain and improve education services in Nottinghamshire in 1996–97; if she will summaries these representations; and if she will list the individuals and organisations that have sent them. [2756]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of such representations, many of which have requested increased funding for school budgets in 1996–97. It is not possible to list the individuals and organisations that have made these representations.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many statutory instruments her 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. [2468]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department for Education, Employment Department and the Department for Education and Employment sponsored a total of 92 statutory instruments of which seven wholly or partly were introduced to implement European Community directives. None of these amplify the minimum standards set out in the original directive.

  Departmental Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for her Department's expenditure in 1996–97; and if she will make a statement. [3233]
  682
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in a statement today, the Government intend to provide £14,040 million for the Department's voted expenditure in 1996–97. This will be in addition to expenditure on schools provided through the local authority finance settlement.

  SCHOOLS

  Provision for schools is to increase by £878 million. The bulk of this will be provided through the local authority finance settlement. Detailed allocations for individual local authorities will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 30 November. The local authority settlement will allow for an increase of 4.5 per cent. for schools. It is for local authorities to decide how to allocate the available funding, but the Government expect that priority will be given to schools. The total package of Government and local authority funding for schools—including provision for the under-fives—represents an increase over 1995–96 of 4.9 per cent.

  Schools capital

  In 1996–97, the amount available for school building will be £625 million, an increase of £40 million or 6.8 per cent. on the current year. This includes an extra £8 million for grant-maintained schools, £5 million for voluntary aided schools, and £27 million for local authority schools. Alongside these extra resources lie the new opportunities arising from the private finance initiative; the proposed legislation enabling grant-maintained schools to borrow commercially; the full use of proceeds from asset disposals by grant-maintained schools; and the relaxations on the capital controls which apply to disposals of local authority school property. Overall this is an excellent outcome which will help to maintain the school building programme at record levels and to introduce a substantial challenge fund for school renewal, further details of which will be announced shortly.

  Grant-maintained Schools

  The Government will continue to ensure that GM schools receive the necessary funding to meet their extra responsibilities and particular circumstances.

  The plans provide for spending on special purpose grants to be maintained broadly at current levels. The Funding Agency for Schools is considering the balance of provision between the various grants.

  Specialist schools

  The settlement includes £23 million in 1996–97, £28 million in 1997–98 and £27 million in 1998–99 for our specialist schools programme. Already, 101 schools are operating as technology colleges and six as language colleges. The settlement, with provision higher than announced last year, will enable us to expand the network of schools to well over 250 schools by 1998–99.

  Teacher Training Agency

  The total grant for the Teacher Training Agency for recurrent and capital expenditure is planned at £198 million, £208 million and £214 million in 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively. The grant takes account of changes in forecast student numbers which reflect, among other things, revised targets for intakes into initial teacher training courses. It also covers the Headlamp scheme, and work on the development and piloting of the new national professional qualification for headteachers.
  683
  FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

  16–19 and further education student numbers

  The plans provide for the forecast increase in demand from 16–19 year olds for education and training in schools, colleges or by work-based routes to be met. This will contribute to the achievement of the national targets which the Government have endorsed for the year 2000. The number of students in further education is forecast to increase by 50,000 students in 1996–97 overall and 20 per cent. in all between 1994 and 1999.

  Grant to further education funding council

  The total grant to the FEFC is planned at £3,069 million in 1996–97, £3,049 million in 1997–98 and £3,016 million in 1998–99. Within those totals, reflecting the priority accorded to this sector of education, the level of recurrent grant per year has been maintained at just under £2.96 billion per year, as announced a year ago. These figures imply continuing efficiency gains over the next three years to help meet the forecast increases in student numbers.

  I have set as a condition of my grant to the FEFC that it requires institutions in the further education sector to take account of the principles set out in the Chancellor's statement on public sector pay of 18 September 1995. Any failure by institutions to observe these principles may be expected to have an adverse effect on the level of grant made available to the council in 1997–98.

  Modem apprenticeships and youth training

  Government funding on modern apprenticeships and youth training is planned to increase by £116 million next year against anticipated expenditure in 1995–96 to £783 million. Plans allow for 60,000 entrants to modern apprenticeships next year, a doubling of the number of entrants to the programme compared to the anticipated level of entrants in 1995–96.

  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

  Employment service programmes

  The welcome reduction in the past year in the number of people out of work for over six months has enabled the Government to make savings in existing employment programmes. The Government have also taken the opportunity to rebalance provision so that it supports the key aims of the jobseekers allowance. The "1-2-1" programme of intensive help for individual long-term unemployed people will be more than doubled to support active job search. A new package of help and assistance with fares to interviews for people who have been unemployed for 13 weeks will be introduced. Community action will cease at the end of 1995–96, and we will conduct pilots of a programme of mandatory work experience for people out of work for two years or more, who have failed to benefit from other help provided by the Employment Service.

  Training for work

  The planned reduction in the number of people joining training for work next year—12 per cent.—is broadly in line with the reduction in the number of people reaching six months' unemployment. The programme will continue to focus on getting more trainees into jobs. Participation on the programme of people with special needs, and younger long-term unemployed people, will be maintained at broadly the same levels as this year.
  684
  Lifetime learning

  The major programme initiatives to support lifetime learning—skills for small businesses and employer investment in people—are being broadly maintained at their previously planned levels. Over the survey period some £150 million is planned to be spent encouraging employers to invest in the training and development of their employees.

  Jobseeker's allowance

  The provision that my Department has been given will include the resources required to introduce JSA in October 1996. We regard JSA as a most important step in our wide-ranging labour market reforms.

  Total opportunities

  Overall, some 1.5 million opportunities will be provided for unemployed people in 1996–97, broadly the same level as in the current year.

  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS

  Provision for programmes delivered by training and enterprise councils, at £1,437 million is set to rise by 5 per cent. from anticipated expenditure this year. TEC budgets, within these programmes, are estimated at £1,173 million, 5 per cent. more than forecast expenditure by TECs this year.

  HIGHER EDUCATION

  The Government have maintained their plans for student numbers in higher education. Within the planned totals, it should be possible for universities and colleges to expand further the numbers of part-time students and to keep the participation rate for young people at over 30 per cent. through to 1998–99. I have asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to continue to exercise tight controls over the number of full-time and sandwich undergraduate students in the next three years, in order to contain forecast spending and to protect quality.

  Tuition fees

  The maximum tuition fees reimbursed through mandatory awards in 1996–97 will be the same as for 1995–96: £750 for classroom-based courses; £1,600 for laboratory and workshop-based courses; and £2,800 for the clinical elements of medical, dental and veterinary courses. The maximum tuition fee paid through postgraduate awards funded by my Department will be £2,490 in 1996–97.

  HEFCE grant

  The total provision for the HEFCE for recurrent and capital expenditure is planned at £3,438 million, £3,381 million and £3,336 million in 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively. Within these totals, the settlement confirms the plans for recurrent expenditure announced a year ago. I have asked the funding council to have regard to equipment needs, especially equipment for research, in allocating grant to institutions. I have set as a condition of my grant to the HEFCE, and also to the TTA, that they require institutions in the high education sector to take account of the principles set out in the Chancellor's statement on public sector pay of 18 September 1995. Any failure by institutions to observe these principles may be expected to have an adverse effect on the level of grant made available to the council in 1997–98.

  Student support

  The plans allow for the level of student support through the main rates for grants and loans to be increased over the next three years in line with inflation. In 1996–97, loan

  685
  and grant taken together will increase by 2.6 per cent., in line with the forecast change in the retail prices index, exclusive of mortgage interest payments. The main allowances, including dependants' allowances, will also be increased by 2.6 per cent. in 1996–97. Planned expenditure in the financial year 1996–97 is £698 million in loans and £2,009 million on mandatory awards covering maintenance grants and tuition fees. Access funds are being maintained at £28 million a year.

  The Government decided in 1993 to accelerate the shift from grant to loan so that by 1996–97 the main rate of grant and loan would be broadly equal. The new rates provide for the main rates of grants to be reduced by about 9 per cent. in 1996–97 with a corresponding increase in the loan rates, so that broad parity will be achieved. The parental contribution scales under the awards regulations will be adjusted so that, for parents whose residual income has risen at the same rate or slower than the rise in national average earnings, the assessed contribution will continue to fall in real terms.

  FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION CAPITAL

  The Government believe that within the framework of the private finance initiative, colleges in the further education sector and higher education institutions can, and should, be enabled to make much greater use of private finance in funding capital works. Within the total grant to the FEFC, the plans provide for capital grant of £110 million in 1996–97, £92 million in 1997–98 and £59 million in 1998–99. The capital grant to the HEFCE provides for £243 million in 1996–97, £228 million in 1997–98 and £189 million in 1998–99.

  OTHER INITIATIVES

  On top of the increase in general provision for schools, extra funding is also being provided for a range of programmes designed to widen choice, enhance diversity and promote excellence across all educational sectors:

  Nursery provision

  The settlement for under-fives in 1996–97 is £37 million—of which £16 million is transferred from education standard spending. Phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme will start in a limited number of local authority areas in April 1996. The scheme will be implemented throughout England in April 1997 subject to the passage of necessary legislation.

  Grants for educational support and training

  The overall level of funding available for grants for educational support and training will increase by 6 per cent. over the 1995–96 equivalent programme. The new total will provide £264 million for schools and local education authorities to spend on a range of important educational priorities—in particular measures for improving school effectiveness. Two new grants will be introduced, providing support for improving literacy and numeracy, and pupil behaviour and discipline. The scheme to raise standards of literacy and numeracy would support the establishment, in close co-operation with Ofsted, of a network of centres which would work with groups of local primary schools to help them improve the teaching and learning of these core skills. Full details of all GEST programmes will be announced shortly.
  686
  Assisted places scheme

  The plans include provision for a further expansion of the assisted places scheme. The scheme will be doubled in size over time, with the pace of expansion depending on the supply of new places—for which I have invited bids from eligible schools—and on parental demand.

  Out-of-school care initiative

  The out of school childcare programme will continue to offer parents with school-age children the chance to participate more fully in the labour market. Funding will be available to make grants to childcare projects to cover the initial set up costs, and contribute towards operating costs for up to 12 months while the project becomes firmly established.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made with the arrangements to introduce three-year licences for TECs, and if she will make a statement. [3234]

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to be able to announce today that 13 training and enterprise councils have completed the process of meeting the rigorous standards we set for the award of three-year licences. The licences will be effective from April 1996. The TECs are:

  Central England

  Co. Durham

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Devon and Cornwall

  Dorset

  Greater Nottingham

  Leeds

  Norfolk and Waveney

  Normid TEC

  Rochdale

  Teesside

  Tyneside

  Wolverhampton

  A number of other TECs are close to completing the process. I expect to make shortly further announcements of TECs to be awarded licences from April 1996.

  This announcement brings the total number of licensed TECs to 42, over half of the TEC network in England. Our expectation has always been that the introduction of licensing for all England TECs would take until 1997.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance is given to unemployed young people or those in part-time employment seeking to establish a co-operative run enterprise as a means of creating permanent full-time employment in response to market demand. [1789]

  Mr Raymond S. Robertson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are responsible for the business start-up scheme, which assists unemployed people to become self-employed. In 1995–96, over £11 million has been allocated to this scheme. Resources are not earmarked

  687
  specifically for the establishment of co-operative run enterprises, but neither is support precluded. Assistance may also be provided through the main programme, training for work, which helps long-term unemployed
  688
  people into work. Some local enterprise companies provide financial support, via regional councils, to assist individuals and organisations, particularly in areas of high unemployment, to set up co-operatives.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

EMU: Proposed Entry Requirement
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposal to join a single European currency involves a deposit by the country concerned of a contribution to the reserves of that currency and, if so, how large a deposit would be required.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, under the provisions of Article 30 of Protocol No. 3 to the EC Treaty, the national central banks of member states that participate in Stage 3 of economic and monetary union have to provide the European Central Bank with foreign reserve assets, receiving in exchange an equivalent claim on the ECB. The amount of each participating national central bank's contribution of foreign reserve assets cannot be determined until the identity of the member states participating in Stage 3 of EMU has been ascertained and the ECB has been established.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, first, will my noble friend confirm that the sum involved will be very large? Secondly, if a country that has joined the common currency withdraws, does it get back its deposit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as to the first part of my noble friend's question, the treaty provides for transfer of foreign exchange reserves to the ECB from all participating member states of up to 50 billion ecu. Of course the actual sum that one member state will have to pay will be decided by the number who participate and the amount up to that 50 billion ecu it is decided should be put into the ECB. As to the second part of his question, what happens if a country joins and then wishes to leave is not something that has been addressed fully.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House that in addition to the deposits to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred, the same sections of the treaty provide that the European system of central banks has also the right to control the transactions with the remainder of the world outside the European Continent itself of the member states which join? And that in the case of the UK, which has wide transactions with the rest of the world, far exceeding its transactions within Europe, all of those transactions, the principles underlying them, and the rules enforcing them, will be subject to the control of the ECB itself?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is obvious that if countries participate in a single currency
512
and we have an ECB, the point of having that ECB will be that it will control the central currency. If it is any consolation to the noble Lord, all the participating member states will have a seat on the board—if I may call it that—of that central bank and an equal vote. This may be a long way into the future. The spectre that the noble Lord is trying to raise is a bit false.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I return to the Minister's answer about leaving the EMU. Does the Minister agree that in the real world the dangerous situation is that while it will be relatively easy to slide in, it will be almost impossible to come out?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is a certain amount of truth in that statement, which is why I said to my noble friend that these matters have not been addressed fully. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, makes is well worth hanging on to. It should be recalled that the Government have decided not to sign up in advance to a single currency, and that is one of the reasons why we decided that. It would be interesting to know whether the party opposite agrees with our decision not to sign up to a single currency at this point.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does not my noble friend's original Question mean that the decision whether to join made by a government of a nation state will be made only if they know the amount of the deposit, but that they will not be able to join because they cannot be told the amount of the deposit until everyone concerned has decided whether to join?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right to ask now what we might have to contribute up to the 50 billion ecu. The point surely is that as these matters progress, and, so to speak, the day of judgment for the British people and the British Parliament comes nearer, we shall have a far better idea of how many countries are likely to participate and the amount that each country will be called upon to pay. The basis upon which the amount will be determined has to do with GDP and the population, which will be relatively easy to quantify when we reach the stage of knowing who will participate.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Article 48 of the statutes of the European Central Bank states that a country which does not join the European monetary union may still be required by a two-thirds majority of the council of the Central Bank to pay its subscription to the bank's capital, whether it joins or not? Given that Mr. Clarke suggested yesterday in Brussels that monetary union is on track for 1999—not a long, long way away, as the Minister suggested—will the Minister tell us what budgetary provision the Government are making for that subscription which we shall have to pay whether or not we join?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not carry about all those different articles. As I understand the position, the payment to the central bank will be asked for from participating countries. One of the interesting discussions which was held yesterday at the

513
meeting of ECOFIN, to which the noble Lord referred, was a discussion about the relationship between participating and non-participating countries. It is worth pointing out to your Lordships that not only will a country like ours decide at the time whether or not to join but other countries do not look as though they will be able to fulfill the criteria in 1999 or, indeed, into the next century.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, what effect would the unlikely event of this country joining a single currency in the foreseeable future have on the public sector borrowing requirement of this country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one of the criteria for any member state to participate in the single currency is the ratio of the deficit, which roughly speaking is the public sector borrowing requirement, to its gross domestic product and, indeed, the debt which the country has as a ratio of its gross domestic product. We should have to do as we are doing; that is, to control the public sector borrowing requirement and keep it under control. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that it is as a result of an attempt to keep that under control that the French Government are currently having such problems with their trade unions.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, before the House runs away with itself on this issue, should we not keep a sense of proportion? We already have large deposits with the IMF. When we joined the EMS, we swapped the pound sterling and a certain amount of gold for similar reserves. Does the Minister and the House really think that, quite apart from keeping the 1999 date open, with which I agree, it would be worse to put some pounds sterling into reserves backed by the deutschmark than to keep the pound sterling on its own?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to point out that we currently have money with the European monetary institution. In fact, we have something like £75 million invested by the Bank of England in EMI. The noble Lord makes a valid point. If we reach the decision at the time which we have to make it that we should enter the European currency, depositing some of our reserves with the ECB will be part and parcel of that decision.

The Police: Bravery Awards
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to review awards for bravery to police officers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office, David Maclean, has called for a full report on how the system is operated by the Home Office. If changes are needed, they will be made.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that the
514
police are fighting a continuous unarmed battle of war against criminals? Does she agree further that we have perhaps become so inured to violence that we no longer recognise true courage?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no doubt that police officers undertake difficult and dangerous work. We do not doubt their courage and professionalism. As my noble friend knows, some police officers tragically pay the highest price to protect us from violent crime and from those who seek to undermine our democratic life. We shall rue the day that we ever lose sight of that.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should recognise good work when good work is done? I refer in particular to the West case. According to the Bridge report, a policeman on the beat knew the family, knew friends in the neighbourhood and heard what children were saying. That led him to the house in Cromwell Road. He later pursued the matter to such an extent that inquiries were made and the present case was brought to court.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any particular act of a personal nature. There is scope within the police forces for the chief constable, or the commissioner of police in the Metropolitan Police, to recognise commendable or brave service. There are other awards outside the police forces—the Queen's Gallantry Medal, the George Medal, the George Cross and a commendation for bravery, which includes bravery in the air.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, as regards the Queen's awards as opposed to local awards, is it not the case that they are made extremely late because so much procedure has to be followed? In the case of the police, the law must first take its course before those who have been brave are so awarded, but by the time the award is made the whole matter has been forgotten. When there is a clear piece of great gallantry by a policeman, regardless of what happens to the criminal afterwards, the process should be speeded up and awards made quickly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is certainly a point which could be taken into account when my right honourable friend looks at the way in which the system is working. However, it is worth noting that the highest awards are given sparingly for exceptional acts of bravery and that they are considered against strict criteria. So that it is not just Home Office officials who are involved, the original reference comes from the police force itself. It is considered by officials, and advice is taken from the inspectorate. It then goes to the Cabinet Office, moves on to the George Cross Committee and is finally considered by Her Majesty the Queen. That happens in the case of the highest awards.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I quite understand why the Minister did not wish to refer to a particular act of bravery in Gloucester. However, will the noble Baroness acknowledge—as I am informed—that the police officer concerned was a woman, although the person was referred to as "he" in the noble Lord's

515
question? However, more generally, in any review that takes place of awards for the police service, does the Minister agree that it is most important that awards should be given irrespective of rank and that we should continue to have the same principle as was properly introduced for the Armed Services in that respect?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that these awards are given irrespective of rank. They are related entirely to the particular act of bravery. However, as regards the particular case that was brought to our attention, I suspect that that is more commendable service than an act of bravery.

The Ozone Layer
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are examining, with other governments, reports of significant changes in the ozone layer, especially over Antarctica.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government receive all reports from the World Meteorological Organisation on the state of the ozone layer over Antarctica. Those reports indicate that, this year, the Antarctic "ozone hole" developed earlier than usual. However, in many other respects, the pattern of depletion has been similar to that of recent years. Some year-to-year variation is to be expected due to fluctuations in meteorological conditions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. As it was the British Antarctic Survey which first observed and reported the depletion of the layer, are the British Government leading the quest for possible action—for example, at the international conference taking place this week? Is my noble friend aware of recent increases in skin afflictions reported in the extreme south of South America which are probably due to the reduction in protection from ultra-violet rays?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords; we are, and will be, pressing hard in Vienna for further tightening of the convention to lead, we hope, to a further speeding up in the reduction of halocarbons in the stratosphere. Even under the current levels of pollution, we recognise that there are significant increases in the less dangerous kinds of skin cancer, not only in southern regions but also in temperate regions.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what is, perhaps, potentially much more serious is the depletion of the ozone layer on the Northern Hemisphere where in the spring this year it was down by 20 per cent. or 30 per cent? The Northern Hemisphere is much more highly populated and there are far more of the world's agricultural crops grown in the region. Therefore, it is potentially much more
516
dangerous. Are we doing sufficient to persuade the developing countries—such as India and China—to fall into line with the Montreal Protocol?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that many Australians will agree with the first part of the noble Baroness's question. However, as regards the second part, my noble friend Lord Ferrers is in India doing just that.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for billions upon billions of years the ozone layer has been added to or depleted without it mattering a hoot? Is he further aware that the idea of a few crackpots who think they can fiddle about with it by not using refrigerators is absolutely insane?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Lord quite correctly points out, nature is in no danger whatever from our messing about with the ozone layer: it is we who are in danger, and we are looking out for ourselves.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is some ambivalence and confusion in attitudes towards ozone because it is a poisonous and unwelcome gas when it is passed as part of exhaust fumes at ground level, but it is an essential, friendly shield when it is doing its job in its layer in the sky?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I remember in my youth going to the coast to get the ozone. There seems to be a fashion in such matters. Personally I would prefer that it stayed up where it belongs and not come down here.

EU Competition Study: Cost
2.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the likely cost of the establishment and operation of the group of academics and Commission officials set up by the Commission in 1994 "to consider an EU approach on the strengthening of international co-operation on competition" (COM(95) 359 final, 22nd October 1995) and what are the names, nationalities and qualifications of the academics concerned.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the UK permanent representation in Brussels has asked the Commission for this information. Its response will be sent to the noble Lord. In the meantime, I refer the noble Lord to the group's report which lists the names and professional addresses of the academics. It is, of course, in the House Library. On the nationality of the academics, Professor Immenga is German, Professor Petersmann is Swiss, and Professor Jenny is French, and male.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful for the response from the noble and learned Lord in which he informs me that, uniquely, the

517
Commission will communicate with me direct on the matter. I certainly welcome that information. However, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I have a copy of the report on this question in my hands? It reveals the desire of the Commission that some information should be obtained, first of all, "bilaterally", then "multilaterally" and, finally, "pluralaterally". It states what kind of information should be obtained and how it might, under certain conceivable circumstances of "positive comity" and "negative comity", respectively, be used to the general advantage. Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that I also have with me the dictionary of the single market which, of course, refers to Eurospeak and that those three terms are new and are not in the index. Nor does the document give very much of a clue as to how they could be explained.
Will the noble and learned Lord give an undertaking that approaches will be made to the Commission to stop this flood of paper nonsense from outside the Commission coming into the various countries when it is of no conceivable use to anyone and when all it does is to keep Commission officials—who, in this case, are unnamed and acting on their own account—fully occupied?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is wrong. I believe that the approach which the report would wish to take is, first, that it should be bilateral, then pluralateral and, ultimately, multilateral. The noble Lord really ought to appreciate that the report was obtained from a number of academics and certain officials within the Commission. What the UK Government do, in accordance with other member states, is to support the view that there should be a working party to look at the issues raised by the report. Our concern—and this is why we wish to see a working party established—is not the terminology adopted in the report but the fact that, within it, there seems to be little or no empirical evidence for some of the problems in respect of which it seeks to put forward recommendations. What we wish to see identified are actual problems which need to be remedied. However, given the noble Lord's stance, I should have thought that the emphasis given in the first instance to the deepening of bilateral agreements was something that he would welcome.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell us what "co-operation on competition" means? If one is competing, how does one co-operate? Alternatively, is it co-operation on anti-competitive practices? I do not understand it at all.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is precisely the position. I am sure that my noble friend supports the reduction, as best we can, of all barriers to trade. One of the barriers which the report sought to address is the respect in which the failure to enforce competition policy, in itself, amounted to a barrier to trade. As I indicated, in our view there is an absence of clear, empirical evidence that that is indeed a barrier. However, it does not seem to me to be in any way contrary to the interests of this
518
country to analyse whether there are such barriers and to consider what steps might be taken on a bilateral, pluralateral or multilateral basis in order to avoid them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I strongly approve of his previous answer? Does he not agree—this has nothing to do with some of the debates that are taking place as regards the future of the Community—that if the Community is to mean anything at all, it must be a Community in which there is free competition? Is not the point of studies of this kind—leading, we hope, to government action—to do precisely what he says, which is to remove barriers to trade of all kinds? Some of those barriers are subtle and require definite study to establish what they are. Competition policy is a favourite treadmill, is it not? Every time the Government, or their agencies, dream up ways of dealing with one kind of anti-competitive practice, industry discovers some more. Surely, therefore, one must agree that this kind of work is vital.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is more damaging for the noble Lord to agree with me or for me to have the noble Lord agree with what I said. The important matter is that this was not an expensive report. The academics involved were not paid; indeed, some of them did not even claim their travel expenses. It is a report of that character. It is there to be studied by all those who have an interest in the subject. It is clear from the United Kingdom's standpoint and indeed that of other member states that a great deal of additional work through a working party requires to be undertaken. This report is not an example of one of those gross excesses which the European Commission is sometimes accused of. It probably cost less to set it up than to answer this Question.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that irrespective of what the report states, the competitive position of the United Kingdom would be gravely damaged if indeed we were to sign up to the social chapter or have a minimum wage?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend. However, in the study that I have undertaken of the report neither issue is addressed within it.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, would not one of the virtues of the minimum wage be the fact that these academics would at least have received something for their toil?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, what we seek is Oxbridge academics coming to London and waiving their travel expenses.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I cannot let him off the hook as easily as that? Is he not aware that even the Ministers who have read this report cannot possibly understand what is in it anyway? The report finishes with the assertion that it presents a useful way of opening up further discussion on the matter. Surely, if the European Union is to mean anything at all, it should deal with practical problems. It does not require indefinite speculation by numbers of so-called qualified people who start a new language with

519
no meaning in order to enunciate its policies. This is a meaningless document and the Commission should stop issuing a mass of paper which means nothing to anyone.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Government are clear that we should work towards further liberalisation of world trade. The World Trade Organisation may be the best vehicle for doing that. It seems to me there is nothing wrong in an attempt of this kind to identify what the issues are. As I indicated, it is our view that they have not been properly identified on a clear factual basis. Therefore, we believe that a working party should be established to consider the matter further. The noble Lord can rest assured that no one is in any sense bound by the rather loose recommendations and conclusions of the report.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
3.3 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

L. Aberdare,

L. Airedale,

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Ampthill,

L. Broadbridge,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

L. Chesham,

L. Cocks of Hartcliffe,

B. Cox,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Elliott of Morpeth,

L. Geraint,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hooper,

E. Listowel,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lyell,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

B. Nicol,

V. Oxfuird,

V. St. Davids,

B. Serota,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

L. Dainton,

L. Flowers,

E. Selborne.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is not every year that my department introduces new Bills to Parliament so I very much welcome this opportunity to open the debate on the Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill this afternoon. I am particularly pleased that it is being introduced so soon after the gracious Speech.
The reserve forces are a vital element of our armed forces and the Government continue to attach the greatest importance to them. Looking back over the years we can see that the reserves have always adapted to meet changing circumstances and commitments. They have become experts in a wide range of skills and specialisms, deriving from their military training and their civilian employment. As your Lordships will know, reservists are serving in support of a number of current operations abroad. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to their dedication and professionalism in carrying out their tasks in what are often taxing situations.
It is perhaps a truism, but nevertheless an inescapable truism, that the changing international scene presents us constantly with new uncertainties. Although the threat of world conflict has abated there are still many serious crises around the globe. Our reserves can play a significant part in our military response to those crises as part of the international effort. This Bill will make it easier for them to do so. In short, the Bill is designed to bring the law governing reserves up to date taking account of the changes in society, in the economy, in the services, and in the strategic environment that we have seen in the 30 years since the previous substantial reserve forces Act.
As noble Lords will recall, the Bill was published in draft for consultation on 30th March this year. Copies were widely distributed to Peers and Members of another place, to employers, reservists and other interested parties. We invited comments and we received over 500. The great majority of those comments were generally supportive of our proposals. The many points of detail raised have undoubtedly helped us to improve the Bill. We have summarised these comments, with two principal letters reproduced in full and 30 extracts from others on specific points. This summary is available from the Printed Paper Office and in the Library of the House.

521
I know that many reservists are enthusiastic about our policy objective of using reserves more flexibly and that they welcome the opportunities the new legislation will offer them. I should like, if your Lordships will permit me, to outline briefly the main new provisions of the Bill. The first of these, covered in Part III of the Bill, enables reservists to undertake periods of full-time and part-time reserve service. This is a significant step forward from the current arrangements for the use of volunteers from the reserve forces without call-out. These currently require them to leave the volunteer reserves, join the armed forces as regulars, and rejoin the volunteer reserves when their period of duty is completed. This is a tortuous process and it can only be right to simplify it.
The employment of voluntary reservists in such circumstances will ensure more flexible use of the reserves. Importantly, it offers greater opportunities for individuals to increase their skills and to undertake a wider range of tasks. The extent of the new opportunities will naturally vary from service to service and from time to time. The 'Bill also creates two new categories of reserve. Part IV deals with one, the high readiness reserve. Members of the high readiness reserve would be individuals with skills in short supply in both the regular and reserve forces. They would volunteer, with the consent of their employer, to take on a higher liability for call-out. We aim for about 3,000 members of the high readiness reserve although the precise number will depend on further definition of the services' requirements. Its members would be subject to a nine month maximum period of call-out. Commitment to the high readiness reserve would be reviewed annually, allowing individuals and employers to decide whether high readiness reserve status is still compatible with their circumstances.
The sponsored reserve scheme to be created under Part V permits some support tasks currently performed by our regular forces to be let to contract. The sponsored reserve is envisaged as consisting of civilians belonging to a contractor's workforce who accept a reserve liability to continue to provide a contracted service, for example maintenance of equipment, in an operational environment. This would only be done in instances where two tests are passed: first, one of cost-effectiveness; and, secondly, one of not jeopardising operational effectiveness.
The concept has been welcomed by many employers who are keen to pursue the business opportunities the scheme would provide. I recognise that close liaison with employers and unions will need to be maintained if the scheme is to be implemented successfully. Indeed, the Bill requires formal consultation before regulations are made.
Part VI of the Bill re-enacts in simplified form the principal call-out powers of the 1980 Act. It also includes one of the most significant new provisions, a power of call-out for humanitarian, disaster relief and peace-keeping operations. This would enable the
522
reserves to be a part of the United Kingdom's contribution to the relief of human suffering around the world.
Part VII re-enacts from the 1980 Act the power to recall service pensioners and former soldiers without change to the circumstances in which recall is permitted. However, there is an important change in the definition of those liable to be recalled. The Bett Review has proposed that service pensions should be paid from age 55 or 60 and not, as now, from as early as age 40. If adopted, that would significantly reduce the number of individuals liable to recall. To allow for that possibility the Bill specifies the liability to recall purely in terms of the period of service since the end of regular service without reference to pensionability. Different provisions apply to officers.
Part VIII of the Bill creates two important safeguards. The first is a right to seek exemption from or deferral of call-out, exercisable both by a reservist or by his or her employer. The second involves financial assistance to reservists and employers to cover the extra costs of call-out. Those new safeguards recognise changing employment and social pressures and the importance of the relationship between employers, reservists and the MoD. We believe that it is right to take steps to minimise any financial disadvantage suffered by employers or reservists at a time of call-out. The proposals have been widely welcomed.
A compliance cost assessment has been produced in consultation with employers and reserve units. Copies are available from the Printed Paper Office and in the Library of the House. It estimates the cost to business of the call-out of reservists for nine months average across the board at £1,900. Payments under Part VIII of the Bill are intended to reduce the average net cost of call-out to business to zero.
With regard to call-out, it was suggested at an early stage in the development of the proposals that there would be more confidence in the safeguards if the department were not seen to be acting as judge and jury in its own case. Part IX of the Bill therefore makes provision for an independent system of appeal tribunals to arbitrate in the case of dispute. It is our intention to make the tribunals informal, fair and prompt.
Part X of the Bill deals with offences. It makes the current offence of failing to attend on call-out or for training applicable to all officers and men of the reserve forces. It introduces a new offence covering relatively minor misdemeanours of reservists at times when they may not be subject to service law.
Part XI addresses the territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations and updates the existing law without any substantive change. I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to their council and to the individual associations for their assistance with the development of the Bill. We value that relationship and we shall continue to consult closely with them. I should also mention the support we have received from the National Employers' Liaison Committee, which fortunately does not require a further part of the Bill.

523
I believe that the combination in the Bill of greater flexibility to use the reserves in a wider variety of operational circumstances, new powers of call-out and safeguards for individuals and employers will, if it is enacted, lay the foundations for vibrant and successful reserve forces into the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Howe.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the Bill and will commend him for the brevity and clarity with which he did so. I am afraid that I may take rather longer in explaining some of the difficulties with this Bill.
I join with the noble Earl in paying tribute to our reserve forces. As the noble Earl rightly said, they have always responded effectively to any challenge that they have been given. We are grateful for that. As the noble Earl pointed out, the Bill has been the subject of wide consultation. There was not only a rather colourful, greenish paper entitled Strength in Reserve, but also a draft Bill. In addition there has been a study by the Select Committee on Defence of another place. Therefore, we have before us a large menu of documents from which to select our comments.
I agree entirely with the noble Earl that the Reserve Forces Act 1980 is out of date. It is in that context that I wish to give a welcome to the Bill that the noble Earl has produced. Having said that, there are some points that I ought to make. There are three preliminary points, two of which I hope your Lordships will all accept, and one which your Lordships might not accept.
The first point is that we ought to be clear—and there is a great deal of defence expertise in this House—that the reserve forces, and also the cadets, are an essential means of communication between the regular forces and the general public. That role is not often recognised, but it is very important that the general public be aware of what our armed forces do. The reserve forces are a mechanism for achieving that following the abolition of National Service.
Secondly, the reserve forces become essential not only in times of war but, as the noble Earl rightly pointed out, in local conflicts where British regulars are engaged in peace-keeping activities, under whatever banner is appropriate at the time. That is equally true in respect of domestic emergencies. I support that.
The third preliminary point is perhaps a little more controversial. There is no reference to the role of women in the reserve forces. That may be a point which the noble Earl will wish to cover when he winds up the debate. We have to recognise that in the reserve forces in this day and age women are as important as men. Some of the drafting of the Bill does not suggest that.
I do not wish to dwell on matters which should be properly dealt with in Committee. However, as your Lordships are aware, this is a Bill of 133 clauses and eight schedules. Although some of those may not be controversial, nevertheless that is a lot of material for us
524
to get through. I do not wish to detain your Lordships in processing this Bill in a convenient and timely manner. We want to get the Bill through as soon as possible. However, it is your Lordships' duty to scrutinise the Bill, to ask questions of the Government and to move amendments as and when we think it appropriate.
As the noble Earl pointed out, the Bill covers three major points. First, there is the question of call-out compensation and pay. That is a difficult combination involving government, employer and employee. I shall pursue this matter in Committee and ask your Lordships whether that balance has been properly struck. I recognise that it is a difficult balance; but has it been properly struck? For instance, so far as concerns employers, I have some doubts about the compliance cost assessment that the Government have issued. It seems to be based on some rather out of date information, dating from the Gulf War. It is probably inadequate in the samples that it has taken. I doubt whether employers will be fully satisfied with the compliance cost assessment produced.
Secondly, I refer to the question of female employees. We do not know—there is no mention in the Bill—what happens to female reservists who are called out. They sign the appropriate contract, but they may become pregnant. All we know is that there may be certain guarantees of continuing employment. But what are those guarantees? When a woman or a man leaves his or her job and goes to serve Her Majesty in whichever theatre it may be, what happens not simply in terms of getting that job back but as regards the ladder of opportunity which would have been open to him or her had he or she remained in the job? There are insurance problems. I tried hard to read through the material provided by the Ministry of Defence; but so far as I can see there are no insurance arrangements for women in that position. I know this from my own experience. If someone is called out and misses out on a year in his job, when he returns he might find himself rather less popular in his firm than when he left. From the employees' point of view we shall have to explore those aspects in Committee.
The third point, as the noble Earl rightly stated, is the Government's point of view. As presented, will the Bill resolve the operational issues at which it is aimed? There will no doubt be problems of recruitment both to the reserves and to the regular forces. There may well be problems of retention in the reserves and in the regular forces. There may be problems of morale, in particular in the regular forces, when they find in certain instances that they are taken over by civilians coming out of nowhere when they themselves have been doing their duty openly and faithfully. We shall have to explore all those points in Committee. I do not wish to elaborate on them here.
I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who was a platoon commander of a reserve platoon under the command of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. We had a good deal of trouble at the time of Suez when the Z Reservists, as they were then known, wanted to go home. There was an emergency; they were called up; there was no emergency; they wanted to go home.

525
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships the story of one of the most frightening moments in my life. As the officer on guard at the time, there was a problem in the lower barracks which I had to try to sort out. The sergeant in charge (my noble friend Lord Bramall, if I may so call him, will remember him), Sergeant Wigger, was very keen on getting the guard out and loading rifles with live ammunition. He said to me quite clearly, "Well, what we do is just shoot the reservists down. There is no problem about this". I said that that was possibly not the right thing to do. I rather quickly sent for Major Bramall (as he then was) and he of course sorted the matter out in his usual delicate, diplomatic and authoritative manner.
I turn to the high readiness reserves—new categories of reserves. There will be a problem about the contract. There will be a problem about the training necessary for high readiness reserves. I say quite frankly to the noble Earl that I suspect that we shall have to await the first major call-out before discovering whether anything that the Government have in mind will really work. You can invent things in theory, but you find out whether or not they will work when you come down to practice.
I am a little more doubtful about the sponsored reserves. The success of that category will depend on the assumption that training requirements are restricted to basic military skills, whatever those are, and tailored to meet the likely operational service of each individual contractor. I find it odd to envisage this situation. The regular forces are engaged in one of the operations that the noble Earl has described. If people come from, say, British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce or elsewhere how will they fit in the proper military discipline as explained in the Bill; and how will they come out of that military discipline and return to their original employment?
There is also a problem, if the situation arises, regarding the regular forces, given the doubts that we have expressed about contractorisation—I do not have to mention the modification of Tornado F3s by Airwork Limited. We have to be sure, as I hope your Lordships will agree, that if pilots fly an aeroplane, they are satisfied that it has been properly maintained and serviced, and that they will not fall out of the sky simply because maintenance work was contractorised. That is fundamental.
Therefore I give the Bill a general welcome; but it would be absurd to suggest that it is without problems. We shall explore those in Committee. My uneasy feeling about the Bill is that the shift of functions from regulars to reservists may well be designed to pave the way for further reductions in regular forces. In other words, we on our side will have to be certain that this is not a matter of contractorising, or even privatising, our armed forces. If that is what it really is—we shall find out about that in Committee—then our general welcome will, I am afraid, turn into resolute opposition.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, finds an echo on these Benches. The purpose of the Bill must be to ensure that in a crisis the Army can draw on skilled and trained people. It
526
must not be to replace too few regulars with more reservists. We shall watch vigilantly to ensure that the purpose is not to fill gaps in the undermanned Army. The undermanning today is the worst problem facing the Ministry of Defence, and it is the Government's own fault. It arises directly from the preposterous disproportionate cut in army manpower in Options for Change. The Government's job is to increase the number of regulars now and under no circumstances to misuse this Bill by filling the gaps with reservists.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave a pleasant personal example of his views, it occurs to me that I have personal experience of filling the gaps in an undermanned Army. It has a lesson for today and if noble Lords do not object, I should like to explain why. I was a private in the Surrey Yeomanry, the first territorial unit to be sent abroad in September 1939. On call-up, we were divided into two echelons: A echelon for the trained men and B echelon for the untrained. As I had never been to camp and had spent only three evenings in the Yeomanry drill hall, I found myself not unnaturally in B echelon. However, one morning, as B echelon paraded, a sergeant major from A echelon visited us. "Hands up those with driving licences", he said. That was it. My driving licence qualified me for immediate overseas active service and before the end of September I was driving in convoy from Brest to the Belgian frontier.
When I think back to the early days of the war, I feel that it is extraordinary that we won it. Surely we must now agree that whatever else happens, we will never again permit our regulars or our reservists to go to war so shockingly unprepared as we did then. That is the spirit in which I personally welcome the Bill. There are things wrong with it and at Committee stage we shall try to improve it. However, in my judgment it is much needed. It is high time we re-jigged the reserves and high time we gave the Army the assurance that there are trained reservists available.
The Bill will give an extra edge to territorial training. The territorials will know that from now on they will have more opportunities and possibilities of using the training they receive. It may give a lift to morale in the territorials which I have to say is perhaps a little feeble today. When I say "feeble", I am thinking of the recent report of the Select Committee on Defence. We should look at the Bill in conjunction with the report. The committee had little but praise for the Bill, as indeed I have, but it shows how far we have to go before the new reserves are likely to operate as planned. The report shows a disturbingly high rate of turnover, unsatisfactory standards of leadership by officers, deficiencies in training, and evidence of excessive bureaucracy.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I believe that the Bill will improve those matters. I have given one of the reasons but there are others. We must realise that we have a long way to go before the aims of the Bill are implemented. In the meantime, I pay tribute to the way in which the Bill was produced. The thorough, useful and wide consultation that took place reflects credit on the Ministry planners and administrators. We on this side warmly welcome that.

527
My noble friend Lord Redesdale, who is a serving territorial officer, regrets that he cannot take part in the debate today. However, he will handle all 133 clauses in Committee on behalf of my noble friends. I know that he will have a number of points to make for improving the Bill.
It is necessary that the Bill should spell out with great precision the provisions for compensating territorials for loss of jobs. The Minister explained the provisions. But how will they be conveyed on the ground? Will they be understood and accepted by the soldier? I should like to know what arrangements are being made to make sure they are. I should have thought that every single soldier would have someone sitting with him to explain how the provisions affect him. Otherwise, uncertainty and doubt may make people unwilling to accept the increased commitments set out in the Bill. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that matter. I am thinking particularly of self-employed people. What kind of compensation will they receive for the long-running commitments they have and will continue to have after they are called up? Those commitments may be office rents, maintenance of vehicles, equipment and so on. The point needs looking into and perhaps the Bill can be improved in that respect.
As for the special reserve, surely we should welcome it. However, while those who sign up for it are doubtless well prepared to operate in a war zone, maintaining weapons systems, electronics and whatever, they may reasonably not wish to find themselves fighting in the front line. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain how limitations will be placed on the use of such soldiers in the war zone.
There are a number of other questions but they are more suitable for the Committee stage. The Bill reflects credit on the Ministry and my noble friends wish me to welcome it.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, as president of the London Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association, at this stage I wish to give a warm welcome to the Reserve Forces Bill. There are a number of points to be clarified at the Committee stage. As the Minister pointed out, the reserve forces have over the years provided a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the armed forces. But now, with the rundown of the regulars and the weaknesses which, as a result of a cumulative effect of Options for Change and the Defence Costs Study, have emerged in certain areas of regular capability, particularly parts of the combat arms and their immediate support and the medical services, that reserve force contribution has become virtually indispensable. Indeed, without it, we would not be able to provide and sustain for any realistic length of time an appropriate and fully balanced front-line capability. That is not only in fully warlike operations, but also in peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations. That may become all too clear in Bosnia during the course of the next year.
The new provisions in the Bill give a power of call-out for the lower intensity operations, in addition to major emergencies, and also an opportunity for
528
reservists to volunteer and to undertake productive tasks, including full-time service, without being called out or joining the regulars. I believe that the new provisions are necessary in the changed but still dangerous international climate in which we have to operate. As has already been mentioned by the Minister, they would save a vast amount of administrative time and effort which causes such frustration at the moment when one has to move volunteers into the regulars and then back to the volunteer reserves.
I also welcome the two new categories of reserves envisaged, particularly the high readiness reserve which would consist of individuals with skills now in such short supply in the regulars and, indeed, even in the reserve forces. There, the vital medical services—particularly in the fields of surgery and anaesthetics—are utterly dependent on the National Health Service releasing specialists at the proper time. It might be reluctant to do so for humanitarian operations and other low intensity operations. That may be a comparatively small aspect of the Bill, but it is nonetheless a very important one. In passing, I should also like warmly to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said about the reserve forces continuing to be what is described as the umbilical cord of the regular forces to the civilian population.
If the implementation of these arrangements, now made possible by the new provisions of the Bill, is to be successful, there must be safeguards for both employers and volunteers. Three of these, namely, making up earnings, compensation to employers and the right to seek exemption or deferral of call-out or recall, are rightly written into the Bill. But it is also very important that the willingness of those in the reserve forces to increase their voluntary service in more minor emergencies must not be abused or exploited in order to save money on the regular forces. I fear that this could so easily happen. The new powers must be used only when they are specifically needed; and there must be a cut-off date for those called out when they would be able to return to their civilian employment. It should, for instance, be something like an absolute maximum of six months.
That would meet some of the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, so correctly brought to the attention of the House. Anything other than that would be counter-productive. Indeed, if it is not done, volunteers, who by and large welcome these wider powers, as do all of us who care about the reserve forces and want to see their professionalism and dedication more generally recognised and made use of, would become disenchanted. The scheme would then collapse on the altar of any further short-sighted, and at the present time dangerous, parsimony in the regular field. Subject to that safeguard, I hope that the Bill can be enacted with all possible speed.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for bringing the Bill to the attention of the House so speedily and early in this Session of Parliament. Before I speak further, I declare an interest.

529
I hold the appointment of honorary colonel in 306 Field Hospital Volunteers. I also thank my noble friend for writing to me on 16th November emphasising the principal new provisions of the Bill.
The Ministry of Defence should be congratulated. It has presented your Lordships with a well-drafted Bill, to which I shall come in a moment. I hope that the Bill, even though it contains so many clauses, will have a quick and easy passage through this House and another place. I should think that its successful drafting was made very much easier as a result of the excellent and clearly written consultation document, Strength in Reserve. However, strength in reserve, although very necessary, does not make up in any way for lack of personnel in our regular armed forces. We must not be lulled into the false position that the armed services will be all right on the day owing to our strong reserve forces. To emphasise the point, I believe that the regular Army currently needs some 15,000 recruits if the present deficiencies are not to increase with regiments having to bear virtually impossible overstretch. I welcome this potential strength in reserve. I welcome too the fact that the consultation document achieved its three aims: to improve understanding of the provisions of the proposed legislation; to stimulate debate in advance of parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill; and to generate comments to help the Ministry of Defence to refine and improve the legislation. I recommend the issuing of consultation documents whenever possible prior to legislation being laid before Parliament. Much parliamentary time may have been saved on this Bill, especially in Committee, although there are a great number of clauses.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Overall, I believe that all seven aims, listed at paragraph 3.2 of the consultation document, have been met. As a result, the Bill will provide flexible, yet far simpler, legislation to ensure that our reserve forces are able to undertake their commitments in a timely manner and that existing volunteers and ex-regular reservists are able to elect to accept the new liabilities.
I shall now focus on several aspects which should encourage men and women to join the reserve forces and should ensure that they are able to carry out their commitments speedily. I believe that adequate safeguards have been included to protect employers and employees. I shall touch on those later.
First, I should like to emphasise some of the welcome effects of the legislation on reservists. It is proposed that there should be a new obligatory length of annual continuous training of 16 days. However, it would appear that there are no plans to change the current practice of 15-day camps. Their continuation will no doubt be welcomed by employers. Perhaps, however, my noble friend will comment in his reply on why it is necessary to legislate for the 16th day if it is not to be used.
The Bill will also permit a member of any reserve force to sign up for a period of full-time or part-time service without leaving his reserve force. Financial assistance will be available to a reservist when called out if his military salary should be less than his civilian
530
earnings. In some situations deferral or exemption from call-out should be possible for some reservists should the need arise.
Reservists and their dependants should still retain some protection against eviction from certain kinds of rented accommodation while the reservist is called out. They should also retain some protection against the enforcement of an action for personal debt or for non-payment of a mortgage. He would maintain membership of certain kinds of insurance policies subject to arrears of premiums being made up in a given period. A reservist should also be allowed protection from eviction from business premises while called out. It would appear from consultation that the proposals to make payments to those whose military salary is below their civilian earnings will permit reservists to meet their civilian commitments. They have been most welcomed by employers.
In relation to pensions, reservists have two concerns. The first is that absence from their civilian employment on call-out should cause no reduction to the benefits they expect to receive on retirement or earlier transfer from the scheme. Secondly, what will be the situation relating to benefits if a reservist should unfortunately be killed or disabled while called out? I am aware that my noble friend covered some aspects of the situation in his opening statement, but perhaps he can deal with those two matters in his reply.
Last but by no means least, it is excellent to see once more that employers will have to continue to offer a reservist his or her old job, or a job reasonably equivalent to it, on return from call-out. It will remain an offence to dismiss someone for having a call-out or recall liability.
I now turn to some of the effects of the legislation on employers of reservists. What appeared in the documents I found most welcome. There are substantial improvements in the proposed safeguards for employers in the new Bill as opposed to the regulations in the Reserve Forces Act 1980. First, payments may be made to employers whose employees are called out. Secondly, if the call-out of a key employee would have a severe impact on the business, the employer will have the option of seeking deferral or exemption from call-out. However, Her Majesty's Government should also be aware of employers' sensitivities when holding reservists or high readiness reservists within their work forces. Thirdly, an employer's consent has to be obtained before an employee can take on a high readiness reserve liability.
Call-out costs to employers were discussed in the consultation document and in the Ministry of Defence compliance cost assessment dated November 1995. It would seem that it has been generally accepted by employers that call-out costs amount to the direct costs of the one-off expenses of recruitment, the ongoing cost of temporary replacement for the call-out period and the indirect administrative costs. Cost models have been drafted. Will my noble friend inform the House whether the business community is content with that assessment? There is a welcome provision in the Bill that employers will be able to appeal to a special forces appeal tribunal in the event of dissatisfaction over a call-out case.

531
I now come to the two new types of proposed reservists. Until now it has been difficult and complex calling out individual reservists in a way that combines proper safeguards and incentives for both employer and employee. It is now proposed that there should be a high readiness reservist and a sponsored reservist. The high readiness reserve concept is to guarantee the availability of specialist skills, which are in short supply in both the regular Army and the reserve forces. Current estimates envisage around 3,000 high readiness reservists. Some of the types of reservist required are linguists, intelligence staff, public information officers, medical personnel, ambulance support staff, equipment technicians, air crew and special forces personnel.
It will be seen that medical personnel are specifically identified. I feel that I should once again draw that point to my noble friend's attention. The skill of surgeons will he in high demand. I am informed that there is a critical shortage of that skill within the regular Army. In fact, I believe that there is a deficiency of around 35 surgeons as some have been downgraded, some have taken voluntary retirement, and some are not yet ready to be consultants. The situation with regard to anaesthetists is equally parlous. It has been estimated that a 30 per cent. increase will be required over the next 10 years. Within the Territorial Army and reserves there is also a serious shortage of army surgeons and anaesthetists.
I am also very much concerned that the National Health Service may not allow specialist medical personnel such as surgeons and anaesthetists to leave NHS hospitals when the armed forces medical services require them. Are there any safeguards in place to ensure that those army medical specialists will be made available when needed in times of emergency? I should like to impress upon my noble friend my belief that a critical situation exists in the army medical services which requires closer examination. I should welcome the opportunity to have further discussion on the issue at a later date.
High readiness reserves would require the consent of the individual's employer. That consent would represent a strong commitment by the employer to release the high readiness reserve without protest when he was called out. Surely, that is a most welcome step, as employer, employee and the Ministry of Defence know where they stand and it introduces some stability into the system. On the employer's side, he would be able to seek termination of the agreement or exemption from call-out if an unforeseeable change in circumstances occurred. The maximum duration of the agreement would be for 12 months and successive agreements would be possible. Once called out, as envisaged at the moment in the Bill, the maximum period of service for the high readiness reserve would be nine months.
The second type of new reserve is to be known as the sponsored reserve. There will be no need for sponsored reserves to have previous regular Army or reserve experience and they will not be required to meet front line infantry standards. There are a number of support functions which could be carried out by civilians but which currently are carried out by regular military personnel. The sponsored reserve concept will permit those functions to be put out to contract by providing
532
that the contractor recruits an appropriate proportion of the relevant workforce who would be willing to become members of the reserve forces.
I turn to call-out for permanent service, which is currently achieved by the Reserve Act 1980 and, confusingly, by a number of statutory instruments and orders in council. The Bill simplifies the procedures of the three systems of call-out. One permits the call-out of any member of the reserve force whenever it appears to Her Majesty the Queen that a national danger is imminent, a great emergency has arisen or there is an actual or apprehended attack on the United Kingdom. A second permits the Secretary of State to make an order authorising call-out of all officers and men of any reserve force when warlike operations are in preparation or in progress. The third type of call-out is new. It permits the Secretary of State to make an order authorising a call-out of any or all of the officers and men of the reserve forces either for operations abroad for the protection of life or property or for operations anywhere in the world for disaster relief.
This is a well drafted Bill; it is most welcome to the regular and reserve forces. It simplifies many complex and tedious regulations and brings the law on reserves up to date. It contains a new power of call-out for peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations and provides an opportunity for reservists to volunteer to undertake productive tasks. It proposes two new categories of reserve and lays down adequate safeguards for employers and employees.
Finally, the reservist, who spends most of his time as a civilian, is a great ambassador for the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. In these times, when we have to survive with such small defence forces, they are able to spread the good news about our roles and the defence policies of the United Kingdom. I strongly support the Bill and wish it a speedy passage through Parliament.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like other speakers, I congratulate the Government on the consultation process that they have carried out, which was very thorough and culminated in the extremely interesting summary of the replies that they received.
I welcome the Bill. I do so primarily because it makes it easier both for the Ministry of Defence to employ volunteer reservists more flexibly as individuals and for the reservist (him or herself) to volunteer for a period of active service with a regular unit. I am afraid that it is increasingly unlikely that units—certainly battalion-sized units—of the Territorial Army will be employed as such.
The circumstances just cited by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and justifying call out under Clause 55:
"national danger … great emergency … or … an actual or apprehended attack on the United Kingdom",
are difficult to envisage. Those at Clause 57 when:
"warlike operations are in preparation or progress"
are perhaps less unlikely, if that is meant to cover operations such as the Korean and Gulf wars and the Falklands conflict. But in those events the regular forces

533
should be able, as they have been in the past, to provide all the combat units that are needed. Their problem will be, as it was in the Gulf War, to find sufficient logistic, administrative and particularly medical backup and to find a number of technical specialists in various fields.
In the case of Clause 59:
"operations outside the United Kingdom for the protection of life or property; or … operations anywhere in the world for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster",
the regular forces are likely to be able to find the units, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, they could well be short of manpower. The need would be to reinforce them otherwise than by cross-posting personnel from other units. In those Clause 59 circumstances, it might well be desirable, indeed perhaps necessary, to employ reservists, regular or volunteer. But the need to do so might not appear so urgent or so desirable to the general public, to the volunteer reservists themselves or to their employers.
In the case of Clause 59, it is highly unlikely that a significant proportion of the reservists of the same unit—I stress "of the same unit"—would be willing to be called out or that their employers would be willing to let them go. But at the same time there may well be a considerable number of volunteer reservists from different units who would be willing, indeed eager, and free to be called up for nine months under the special agreement. I welcome the Bill because it makes that aspect easier.
Thirty years ago I was closely involved in a major reorganisation of the Army's volunteer reserves. It involved a severe reduction in the number of Territorial Army units and was hotly resisted by the TA associations. However, it made it possible to give the TA a valid purpose and to equip, clothe and train it more effectively. It involved a merger of the Territorial Army with the Army Emergency Reserve, which was a volunteer reserve of individuals who contributed the skills they employed in their civilian employment and trained with the regular army, and the supplementary reserve, which was another volunteer reserve which provided additional manpower to combat and other units of the regular army with which they trained.
Those reserves were extremely cheap to train and provided good value for money. That was one of the reasons why I wished to call the reorganised reserves the Army Volunteer Reserve, in line with the Royal Naval, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserves. But that was strenuously opposed by the old and bold of the TA, resulting in the awkward compromise of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, which the administration of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, changed to the old name of the Territorial Army. An unfortunate result of the merger and the pressure from the TA was the virtual disappearance of those valuable and economic reserves of individual volunteers.
I am glad to say that the Bill goes some way toward remedying that situation by the creation of the special agreements and of the high readiness, and to a slightly lower extent, though not quite the same thing, the
534
sponsored reserves. But in relation to the Army there is a need to go further in the direction of encouraging volunteer reserves to act as reinforcements to regular units, either as individuals or as sub-units, and to train with those regular units.
I appreciate all the arguments for maintaining battalion-sized units for the Territorial Army with their local associations, as an encouragement to recruitment and morale. But it must be recognised that their employment as complete units is highly unlikely. If the best use is to be made of volunteer reservists and if active service is what the volunteer seeks—some of the evidence shows that that is the case—even more should be done than is effected by the Bill to facilitate their employment as individuals.
My final word, which has been the final word of almost everybody else who has spoken, is that the Government must be under no illusion that this Bill will somehow make it possible for them to make significantly greater use of volunteer reserves in order to economise on the strength of the regular forces.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am delighted to add my welcome and to congratulate the Government on introducing this important and, many would say, long overdue Bill. The Gulf crisis in 1990–91 was a particularly sharp reminder to us all that there was much about the existing reserve forces legislation which was highly unsatisfactory. That was a widely held view and agreed across the three services, both regular and reservist, in the Civil Service and indeed among Ministers. Attempts to correct these problems before then always foundered on the grounds that it would not be possible to find the parliamentary time required to revise the existing legislation.
So many aspects needed to be put right that it was not possible to add them on to some other defence-related Bill. They were far too wide ranging and important, and they had to be dealt with on their own account. For many years therefore we were left trying to find ad hoc and temporary fixes which gave little satisfaction to regular formations or to those reservists who were needed and wished to serve in operational situations short of major war. But I do not wish to dwell on the past and our unhappy experiences with an increasingly outdated and inflexible set of arrangements. They were geared more for a World War III than anything akin to the steady stream of "unforeseen" operations with which we have been faced over recent years.
The detailed and constructive way in which the Government have sought to enlist the support and the advice of those who really know about these matters has been most commendable. Much of the Bill before us is unquestionably sound and will be a great improvement on the current legislation. I should like to raise three points, not as a critic, but in order to seek the Government's views upon them and thereby reassure your Lordships' House that they have been fully considered in the earlier work on the Bill.

535
My first point relates to the defence medical services, also raised by other noble Lords. I remain concerned about the drawdowns in uniformed regular medical care, and particularly secondary medical care for trauma patients—those brave servicemen and women who may be hit and wounded on operations. I have raised my worries many times in your Lordships' House. Our experiences during the Gulf War highlighted the difficulties which the National Health Service and the health trusts faced to meet our requirements for consultants and other medical specialists. There will always be a conflict of interests, clinical as well as financial, between the military requirements and those of the National Health Service.
Have the Government thought through all the variety of operational and other crisis scenarios, both high and low intensity ones? In the Gulf War we faced the prospect of heavy casualties from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction if and when fighting broke out. It was essential that National Health Service personnel were ready in theatre to bolster the then much larger numbers of uniformed medical staffs than we have available today. Having arranged for those consultants to be there in good time, we could not say how long the waiting period would be, let alone how long the war (if and when it came) would last.
That was not a satisfactory situation for the many National Health Service patients whose treatment had to be cancelled or postponed while their consultants were in the Gulf waiting for developments but not actually working on their clinical duties. Your Lordships are aware of the considerable further reductions in uniformed medical staff which were made as a result of Front Line First.
The armed forces will be more reliant than ever on their reserve medical personnel, who will come from the National Health Service. The British Medical Association believes that serious problems remain. It is concerned that the National Health Service employers may refuse to release senior medical staff for what may be a substantial period of time.
National Health Service trusts are already reluctant to allow their key personnel the time to pursue medical military training with the reserve forces, even though that is now and will be an important entitlement in the new Bill. The emphasis on internal market competition in the National Health Service makes employers equivocal about the commitment that they must make to employee reservists for their training and operational commitments. It will not prove a good start to the new legislation if at the outset there are still uncertainties, equivocation or fudge in this key area of military need. I hope that the Minister will be able to speak on that point in a way which will reassure and convince this House that my anxieties are fully and satisfactorily thought through.
The Bill introduces the important concept of a high readiness reserve. I particularly welcome this aspect. It will add greatly to the flexibility of the reserves. But to be effective, it will rely on the consent of employers—and of course not just NHS employers. This in part will be encouraged by the power to make payments to
536
employers of reservists who have been called out or recalled. Will there be flexibility to vary the size of these payments, not only to ensure that the real value of the recompense is maintained, but also to take account of the economic cycle as it affects employers?
I recognise that this may not be easy to provide for very precisely within the Bill, but it seems inevitable, as the years go by, that there will be some periods when employers will be more reluctant than at other times to release their employees. Perhaps the Minister could give an indication of what flexibility could be available in this area. The average amounts which he quoted from the compliance cost assessment strike one, certainly at first blush, as very low. Perhaps they need to be better explained because otherwise they could prove to be a very sharp turn-off to prospective employers caught up in this business. It would be a great tragedy, after waiting so long to update and improve the reserves legislation, if the new Act was to prove to be unsatisfactory in perhaps only a matter of a very few months or years.
My final point is to suggest, as I did during the consultation period, that now might be an opportunity to petition Her Majesty the Queen to revise the name of the Air Force Reserve. This body is largely drawn from the men and women of the Royal Air Force and is referred to in the Bill as the ex-regular reserve forces. Has the time not come to entitle the formation which they join after their period of regular service in the Royal Air Force as the Royal Air Force Reserve? Adding the word "Royal" to the title would, I am sure, give great pleasure and pride to those ex-regulars in their new situation. If there are good reasons why this suggestion is not a "runner", no doubt the noble Earl the Minister will be able to tell your Lordships' House.
This new Bill is a major, important and long overdue piece of legislation. I warmly welcome it, and the broad thrust of its content. I should like to feel that there are no difficulties or ambiguities left for the users of the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to reassure us on the points which have been raised.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanation and introduction of this most welcome Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, pointed out the link between cadets, reserve forces and the regular forces. He has given me the opportunity to mention the Queen's University Air Squadron in Belfast, the only one in the Province. I understand that it is being disbanded at the end of this educational year due to the low number of cadets over the past few years and therefore problems with value for money. But the present ceasefire is already resulting in more support and a 100 per cent. increase in recruits to it since it was announced. Due to these special circumstances, would the Minister not reconsider this disbandment order? In the light of this Bill it must be right to give this air squadron a stay of execution and allow students in the Province to have the

537
same opportunities as those in England, Scotland and Wales—at least to give it time to prove that in the new circumstances it can become more worth while.
I come from a background of having served in the 17/21 Lancers, then in the Ulster Defence Regiment for 15 years and the Royal Irish Regiment for two years. Three years of my time in the UDR was full time, doing a second short service commission so, although not being in the TA, I have seen both sides of the coin, so to speak. This service in Northern Ireland was operational and involved voluntary duties and all too often obligatory call-outs. It also involved a training requirement and receiving bounty.
Part III of the Bill deals with training and lays down the amounts required. I would ask my noble friend the Minister to tell us whether this obligatory training is required to obtain the bounty or whether failure to complete it results in dismissal. In addition, should this be laid down in law, or should it be more flexible, if required, and be drafted in regulations. Training should be tailored so that the performance of personnel is satisfactory to enable them to support the regulars directly with minimal additional training and time lag. Is there any provision for personnel to take a year off; for instance, on an unposted list? Through pressures of marriage, family or career this may be required, especially due to the increased commitment which the Bill entails. Having returned after a year, what would be the serviceman's status at that stage? Would he be ready immediately to go on operational call-out, or would he have to go through full retraining?
I understand why there should be "special" agreements for the HRR and for sponsored agreements, but I feel that all reserve forces should have a commitment to some period of operational duty during their service, outside duty required in times of war. Those without any commitment cannot be deemed as being really cost-effective today in the post-Soviet threat era. I do not go along with the comment in paragraph C22 of annex C of the MoD's summary of comments which refers to the expansion of the role of the reserves. In it two serving volunteer reserve officers say:
"If these proposed changes in legislation are made, you may be surprised how many of the silent, patriotic majority will leave the reserves as soon as their current terms of service change".
I believe that the new expansion of role is very important and I do not believe that the above comments reflect the mood of many soldiers in the Territorial Army.
I welcome the provisions in Part VIII of the Bill for safeguards and compensation for both employers and employees. Can the Minister tell us whether compensation will also apply to extended training periods outside of call-out of up to 16 days? I ask this question from my own experience in Northern Ireland. If an employer has many reserve force members—and they do tend to join in groups of friends and workmates—he may be reluctant to allow many of them off at once. We sometimes had this problem even with Civil Service employees—after 25 years of co-operation. We are not talking about a short term
538
measure. We are talking about this going on, presumably, until we have another Reserve Forces Act or whatever in many years to come.
There are also cases where servicemen and women may have to pay out more to replace themselves than they earn during their absence on, for instance, training. In our case this happened with the self-employed. The problem arose especially where farmers had to pay a relief dairy herdsman much more than they themselves received for a week's training. It became a problem not of their employers letting them off but a purely financial problem of how they could possibly be away. Having said that, I support the length of training. It is important that it should occur.
Finally, much as there is a great deal of support for the Bill, I hope that those giving the new commitment—employers and employees—fully understand that a great deal may be required of them. The present lack of recruits to the regular forces and their increasing role world wide will result in a significant increase in the demand for reserve forces to support the regulars. I welcome the Bill. I hope that it has a virtually trouble free passage and that some of the amendments may go through.
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, it is nearly 50 years since I joined the Territorial Army and about 30 years since I retired from it and started speaking in your Lordships' House on the subject of reserve forces. Each time I hope that it is the last time that I do so, which is no doubt a sentiment which your Lordships would share. But I only do so because I am sorry that my successor as President of the Council of TAVRAs, the noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, is unable to be here today. I see from the newspapers that he is arguing the case for lower taxes on whisky; a most important subject. May we all wish him the very best of luck in another place this afternoon!
Along with others, I welcome this Bill most warmly. It has been needed for a long time and I am delighted to see that it is launched here. We wish it the fastest possible progress. Because of the very extensive consultation process which has been undertaken, it should have a smooth passage. I cannot ever remember when those likely to be affected by a Bill were more thoroughly consulted. This seems to me to be a valuable exercise which perhaps could be applied in other fields. I heartily congratulate the Government on what they have done.
It is especially important, now that the Army is so much under strength and over-committed. Indeed, the current Bosnian settlement may make that situation even worse. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, spoke in dramatic terms in the debate on the gracious Speech about the strength of the Army at the moment. It was powerful stuff. The ability to use the reserves more effectively and more quickly must be right even if it is no long-term solution to the Army's recruiting problem. As regards that problem, may I be allowed to ask that the contribution of the Army Cadet Force, which we referred to in a debate here last year, will not be

539
forgotten? I recently had the pleasure of meeting a large number of cadets voluntarily undergoing training in Germany this month, every single one of whom wanted to join the Army when he left the cadet force. One of them said that he did not know a boy in his unit who did not. So let us not forget them.
I must, however, sound a note of warning to an overstretched Army command structure. The Territorial Army will not continue to be available if it is treated only as a reservoir of part-time regulars. It relies on the goodwill and enthusiasm of a hard core of people throughout the ranks who lead the many who only serve for short periods. If we are to use the reserves full-time we must give them enough training days to reach the standards which will make them confident of their ability. They are at the moment about 30 per cent. of the strength of the Army and they may be asked to increase their productivity—I am not sure that that is the right word, but I am sure that your Lordships will know what it means. All they ask for is a 10 per cent. increase in the present allocation of training days, which will restore the number to what they had only a few years ago. The TA is already providing excellent support for the regular Army, but to starve the reserves of such resources is bad for them, bad for the Army and bad for the country. It could negate the point of this Bill and the savings are negligible.
As regards the Royal Air Force, the new Bill offers the opportunity for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force to serve in a much wider capacity than hitherto. Its members served in the Gulf War with great distinction and will welcome the chance to participate in peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations, which are roles that are denied to them under the Reserve Forces Act 1980. The RAF is committed to a full integration of its regulars, reserves and civilians into a total force, and this Bill will give them the tools which they need to be as flexible as possible when dealing with the variety of challenges faced since the end of the Cold War.
I turn briefly to some of the points of the Bill. I am particularly glad to see the power to call out reserves for disaster relief, which is something that I have argued for here more than once in the past. I believe that they are uniquely placed to help. They have a network of centres, communications, vehicles, all backed by local knowledge, as indeed they have often proved in practice. Lockerbie springs to mind.
Particularly important are the safeguards built into this Bill; for example, that the personnel called out will not suffer financially. That is absolutely vital. It is not going to be easy. In the Gulf War some reservists who volunteered did not get paid anything at all for some weeks and one distinguished surgeon whose skills were absolutely vital, earned much more than a lieutenant-general—and rightly so, may I say! It is therefore very important that we get this right.
In that connection I would like to make a special plea for the unemployed. Many TA units have a very high percentage of men on the dole, particularly where I come from. It is likely that many of them will volunteer to be called out, and why not? They have not a lot else
540
to do. There have been persistent problems for many years when they returned from their training, such as delays in payment and so on. Although the state must not be expected to pay them twice for doing one job, it has a responsibility to see that they do not suffer hardship when their services are required. I ask the Government to look carefully into this matter in case problems arise. They have been very unpleasant in the past. I do not know whether the replacement of unemployment benefit by jobseekers' allowances makes it easier or not. I hope that we can address that problem.
Equally important to reservists—perhaps even more so—is job protection. Again, it is not as easy to do as it sounds. I believe that it is covered by the little-known Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. I hope that that is adequate. It is difficult to know what else we can do, but extensive use of this part of the Bill may put a strain on the whole system.
For employers, the new powers to compensate them are of course a breakthrough and a very welcome new departure. I am afraid that I am too stupid myself to understand a single word of the compliance cost assessment document and nobody can really tell how much it will cost or be used, but let us hope that it works. It will go a long way to reassuring employers that they will not suffer should they employ reservists. It is important that we who are involved in these matters should listen most carefully to the employers in operating the system. The rights of appeal are of course extremely welcome as well. At the same time I wonder whether the principle conceded here might extend in due course to other areas; for example, used as a precedent to compensate employers whose employees are serving as justices of the peace. Let us hope that that does not become too much of a problem.
The final point I make concerns the TAVRAs, the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve Associations. Clause 120 of the Bill says that the Defence Council can alter the area or "wind-up" a TAVRA. They are of ancient lineage (1908) and I believe that they have served the country and the reservists very well. There used to be one for each county, but now they are down to 14 for the whole of the United Kingdom. Persistent efforts are constantly being made to reduce that number from 14 to something smaller, but to do so would save very little and only de-stabilise a very successful set-up. I believe that they have a vital role to play in this Bill, especially in selling its contents to employers. As other noble Lords have said, they provide a voice for defence throughout the length and breadth of the country.
I know that Clause 120 only repeats the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. I wonder whether the Government might consider a process of statutory consultations, as they have shown that they can do so well elsewhere, making the decision to alter them political rather than a military decision to alter the status quo.
Finally, the Prime Minister's generous reference to the reserves in the debate on the gracious Speech in another place was especially welcome. His endorsement of the value of the reserve forces will give great heart

541
to those who read it and to those who serve in them. I hope that his words will help to speed this Bill through both Houses of Parliament.
4.27 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I begin by apologising in advance because I may not be able to stay for the winding-up speeches due to a longstanding speaking engagement later this evening. As I believe most speakers have already indicated, this Bill is important and it has been widely welcomed throughout the reserve forces themselves, by employers, employees and throughout the country. Importantly, the Bill gives even greater acknowledgment to the role of the reserves. Particularly welcome is the tripartite relationship between the Ministry of Defence, the reservist and his or her employer. However, here I should like to sound a word of warning. There is a view that this Bill could enable the government of the day, of whatever colour, to disregard unreasonably the interests of both the employers and employees to suit their convenience rather than the needs of national security. There is a need to provide adequate safeguards in that respect.
The reserves themselves welcome the new opportunities provided by the Bill and accept that there will have to be changes in order to adjust to the new opportunities provided thereby. Currently there are a number of factors adversely affecting the recruiting of our reserve forces. There is a general lack of understanding of the importance of defence; lack of money for advertising and the starvation of man training days, which has already been mentioned earlier today.
As we have read in the press recently, the regular forces and, in particular, the Army, are very under-recruited. More and more, the day-to-day needs of the regular Army can be met, largely by younger members of the reserves. The average age of the Territorial Army recruit is currently 23½ years. A higher proportion of people younger than that is now needed.
Clause 24, which deals with the agreement to undertake full-time service, is particularly welcome. The purely voluntary nature of full-time service under the clause needs to be positively advertised. With the need for some 20,000 recruits each year for the Territorial Army alone, there is an urgent need to boost recruiting funds which are currently worth less than half of their buying power of six years ago when recruiting was much easier. Here I should like to pay a brief tribute to the National Employers Liaison Committee for its work in promoting the territorial forces and for its positive response to this Bill.
There are significant numbers of people in this country, mainly in the younger age group, whose occupations are such that they can willingly undertake a period of full-time service to the benefit of the country, for their own development and for their future employability.
The volunteer reservists feel strongly that when the Ministry of Defence has an essential need for reserves, they should be called out rather than be asked to volunteer for a particular commitment. They should not
542
be forced into a crisis choice of loyalty between their service and those close to them in civilian life. "Essential need" marks the difference between such call-out as in Clause 55 and the merely "useful" circumstances of Clause 24. That could lead to some blurring of the division between the two and the MoD not wishing to impose call-out on small numbers who may face special hardship as a result. The "Special Reserve" list may well prove useful in identifying people willing to be called out in that way, but unfortunately the system is unlikely to meet all the demands of the Territorial Army.
Guidance will be needed as to how the regulations will address the problem of limited call-out, coupled with fair treatment for those who might suffer significant hardship. When the Falklands conflict and the Gulf War took place, a threshold point was reached and the whole nation felt that we were "all in it together". During both conflicts a great many reservists were involved and there was general disruption to life and to the whole basis of financial security. Below that threshold is when reservists are used for such operations as flood relief and fire fighting, which do not capture the public imagination, and it is then a different scene altogether. In those instances, the nation is getting defence on the cheap. It is at that point that employers would have a legitimate complaint if the Government were to fail to compensate those who bear the resultant hardship, if and when the hardship is enforced.
Clause 85 allows for compensation for loss of earnings. Here, no firm limit should be set and compensation should be such as to prevent undue hardship resulting from all kinds of genuine financial burden. The following clause, Clause 86, provides relief of hardship for employers. Compensation should be paid on a basis so designed to make good any costs which the employer would have been likely to incur if the employee had been absent. An assurance should be given that all reasonable costs will be met without undue delay.
By far the hardest relief to determine is that for dependants covered by the Bill. Here, the principle that life should continue as near normal as possible should be given as an assurance. Welfare staff will be needed to assess family needs.
It may appear a somewhat trivial point, but I should like briefly to mention Clause 113. I find it somewhat archaic that the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines Reserve should be on a different footing from the other two services. That seems illogical and is an anachronism that should be eliminated before the Bill becomes law. The Minister may wish to comment on that. Other points need to be addressed at Committee stage, to which we all look forward, but I shall not detain your Lordships any longer.
This is a good Bill, widely accepted by the reservists themselves. If it is to be fully effective, it needs safeguards to be built into it. Above all, it must be adequately funded and resourced. We have very fine reserves who are capable of doing a good job and of doing it well. They cannot be asked to do more and at the same time to take their share of the cuts. There is

543
no fat. If the reservists do not like it, they can leave and may well do so if we, your Lordships' House, do not get it right. I strongly support the Bill.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, today is a rather special occasion and not just because of the Bill we are considering. This is the first occasion during my career in your Lordships' House that we have had not one, not two, but three noble and gallant Lords speaking. That shows the importance of the Bill and, above all, the way in which its importance is recognised by those three noble and gallant Lords. It is a fortunate occurrence for somebody like myself speaking from the Back Benches because I suspect that I have less military experience than any other noble Lord who has spoken since I am only a National Serviceman and my service was terminated early—thanks to a skiing accident—and I served only 18 months, not 24. It is with that brief experience in mind that I rise to address your Lordships.
I began by regarding the Bill with mild interest, but that interest has grown over the days. I have young neighbours in Scotland who are keen and professional members of the reserve forces. My views on the Territorial Army and the reserve forces have been gained by listening to others in your Lordships' House, but I was startled to discover the standard of training and professionalism of those young members of the reserve forces. I now know what they do, what they are expected to do and, above all, the fact that they undertake far more than the obligatory minimum training of 16 days, to which my noble friend Lord Vivian referred. I was startled to discover the amount of time and effort that members of the reserve forces put into their training. It is astounding. My neighbours are a young, newly married couple. They have already spent 12 weeks in the recruits class where they trained in all the essential infantryman's skills to a professional standard. They have a weekly training night. I understand that six weekends of training are required of them, together with attendance at the obligatory annual camp. Furthermore, those young people, together with their unit, train every other weekend. That is the level of commitment they regard as necessary.
They call themselves "combat medical technicians". That is no mere sergeant-speak or gobbledegook. That is what they do. My noble friend Lord Vivian said that he is honorary colonel of a field hospital volunteer unit. Those young technicians explained to me that not only do they have those technical skills but that their employment does not cover them for the particular technical skill that they use as members of the reserve forces. They have acquired a great deal of specialised medical knowledge and they know how to apply it. Above all, they are expected to carry out those duties in combat, under threat, under stress, and in great danger, and I have no doubt that they would do so if required. I became far more aware of the contents of the Bill having spoken to, among others, those two young members of our reserve forces.
544
Perhaps I may now ask my noble friend a number of questions. Some are serious, but one or two are raised out of pure curiosity. Are the special agreements detailed in Part IV a new provision? Or does the Bill consolidate a practice that has arisen over the years? I am particularly curious about Clauses 55, 57 and 59 in Part VI. I am pleased that the powers in Clause 55(8) will be used only in exceptional circumstances. I am pleased too that Parliament—that is, your Lordships' House and another place—will be informed and will be able to discuss the call-out, if required. That indicates the gravity of such a situation.
I am somewhat curious about the phrase "warlike operations" in Clause 57. I am assured that the words come from the Reserve Forces Act 1980, but I have not been given a definition. However, if that Act has managed to look after and to regulate all the interests of our reserve forces, I am sure that the provisions are perfectly satisfactory. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me, in writing if necessary, what are "warlike operations". They may mean one thing to the Secretary of State but something else to us.
I am encouraged to see in Clause 59 the references to disasters. That was a point touched on by my noble friend Lord Vivian and others. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend and noble Lords to glance at Part X. Your Lordships will see from the explanatory memorandum that Clauses 97, 98 and 102 create offences. That indicates to me something new and not merely consolidating offences created previously in relation to reserve forces and the TA, let alone the regular forces. No doubt, the proposal is necessary and has been examined by my noble friend and his department.
Clause 102 is interesting. It provides for "a person"—not a serviceman, but a civilian; it might be anyone in your Lordships' House—who,
"by any means whatsoever procures".
That is paragraph (a). Paragraphs (b) and (c) give two references to "knowing" that a person is a deserter. The clause refers to any person. It could refer to a civilian if necessary. It might be that in my neck of the woods—well known to my neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—one might find young men or young women in need of shelter. One might be able to give them a lift in driving rain or inclement conditions. If they are absent without leave or in breach of the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, what is meant by "knowing"? Am I supposed to know? Am I helping them in any way? Perhaps my noble friend can explain. Clauses 97 and 98 clearly refer to members of the forces. Clause 102 refers to,
"A person who … by any means whatsoever".
The provision might not necessarily bite on me or any civilian, but it just could. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me on that point.
I scanned the Bill and thought that there was nothing to be particularly worried about until I found that Clause 122 was headed "The lieutenancies". I have heard of a geographical area in Nottinghamshire called the Dukeries, so I thought it worth examining the clause. Schedule 6 refers to lords lieutenant, deputy lieutenants and vice lords-lieutenant. This is

545
where I have to declare an interest. I have the honour to be a deputy lieutenant for the County of Angus. I was a bit startled, because to my knowledge no one had ever explained to me that I might have any responsibility under, or have anything to do with, the Reserve Forces Act 1980. However, my worries could pretty well be redeemed, because noble Lords will see that almost the whole of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 is repealed by the Bill. No doubt I shall be able to check that. I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that the relevant sections of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (Sections 130 to 138) will continue to bite.
I conclude by thanking my noble friend the Minister for presenting and explaining this comprehensive, detailed and exhaustive Bill. It is not just necessary; it is welcome. When thinking of each and every member of the reserve forces I am reminded of Mr. Rudyard Kipling and, Thank you, Mr. Atkins, when the drums begin to play. That is true. We think of each and every member of the reserve forces today, and if there is anything that we can do to support the Bill we should do it.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for the way that he introduced the Bill. As many noble Lords have already pointed out, it has been some time in the gestation period. That is no bad thing. It is testament to the thorough consultation that has been undertaken.
I believe that there are only two people in this Parliament who serve in a volunteer unit. They are myself and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I therefore have to declare a direct interest in the Bill.
The vast majority of the volunteer reserve forces is made up of the Territorial Army. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I use the term "TA" to include all forms of volunteer reserve forces. Likewise, I recognise the great contribution women make in the TA. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be pleased to hear that my wife's TA career is somewhat more meteoric than mine as she already commands a TA recovery company.
I believe that I speak for all members of the volunteer reserve forces when I welcome the Bill positively for the reasons that the Minister and other noble Lords have already covered. The high readiness reserve and the sponsored reserve do not have my full support, and I shall explain why later.
I returned to the UK last Sunday only to find this important debate scheduled for today. I have not had the time to study the provisions for deferment or exemption of call-out, but I am worried that they may be too lenient. They might allow volunteers, or potential volunteers, to think that they can escape call-out. The financial arrangements are welcome and appropriate.
The TA's role now is to be a general reserve for the regular Army. I am not sure what is the difference between that and its previous role. However, the TA clearly provides a basis for expansion of the regular
546
Army and fills up the order of battle of a regular Army unit. For instance, many regular logistics regiments have whole transport squadrons that are TA. Indeed, I used to serve in one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, the TA also provides a link between the regular Army and the civilian world. As the regular Army becomes smaller, that aspect will become more important. There seems to be a policy that every town should have a TA centre. That has placed great constraints upon the ability of the staff to plan the reorganisation of the TA. The TA is required to help provide the defence of the nation. It is not to provide everyone who wants it with an interesting and rewarding hobby. On that point, the TA must not be regarded as a hobby that is provided at the MoD's expense. Do we need to aim for a TA centre in every town?
I should like, as other noble Lords have done, to refer briefly to the compliance cost assessment report. It appears to be optimistic in calculating the amount of time a business would have to spend on extra administration for the high readiness reserve. It suggests that one hour extra per year would be required for administering a volunteer. That is optimistic. However, whatever the costs, it would probably be worthwhile for the employer because of the other qualities of a TA volunteer.
The current cost assessment calculation of the number of work places affected by call-out is more objective. It is obvious that a 'flu epidemic would have a much more adverse effect on businesses than would a limited call-out. I doubt very much whether the NHS would recompense employers for the associated costs of a 'flu epidemic.
As I have said, I have just returned to the UK, but it appears that the military commitment to the operation in Bosnia is to be enlarged. As an excessive proportion of the regular army is already involved in operations, it is clear that some use will have to be made of the TA.
However, some of the paperwork that I have seen appears to be rather muddled. So far as I can see, a volunteer can agree to be called up and have his employment protected. The snag is that the volunteer needs to talk first to his employer, before he knows whether or not he will be accepted for service. The volunteer should be able to go to his employer and say, "Bad news, boss. I have been called up as I am one of only five qualified operators of the `FV536 widget blaster'. You will realise that you will have to keep my job open for me on my return, but the MoD has a compensation scheme which should defray the costs. I have some literature from the MoD which you may find useful". That is why we need this Bill, and it should go a long way towards meeting the volunteers' aspirations.
As I said, I do not share the enthusiasm of others for the higher readiness reserve concept. Employment decisions and decisions to release volunteers for training are made at relatively low levels in an organisation. Those decisions are likely to be affected by the advent of the HRR. The decision makers will fear that the volunteer will always be leaving at no notice in order to go on some obscure operation.

547
According to the Minister, a further definition of the services requirement is needed. I translate that to mean that we do not know what we want the HRR for, but we do want it. Another difficulty is that it could be divisive among the TA in general. Of course, it is important to keep the problem in proportion because there should be only about 3,000 HRR volunteers.
Mention has been made of the requirements of medical specialists. But to be quite blunt about that, there are already some very short commissioning courses at RMA Sandhurst and other establishments which last for two or three weeks. It would be unlikely that a consultant surgeon would have the time or the inclination to join the TA. That fast-track route might be a better route in practice, and I believe that it is already available.
I also have great reservations in relation to the sponsored reserve. The purpose of basic military training is to ensure that a soldier will perform in a disciplined, obedient and predictable manner in an operation. It is quite clear that the training proposed will be extremely rudimentary for a sponsored reservist. It is not unusual to have emergencies or disasters well behind the front line. Officers and NCOs will expect instant obedience in such circumstances. I foresee disasters occurring if people in uniform do not do as they are told or are expected to do.
A further problem is that sponsored reservists will not be true volunteers in that their service is linked to their main employment. My fear is that some will become sponsored reservists for entirely the wrong reasons.
It is certain that the TA will be involved in operations. That will have two effects on manning in the TA: those known as bounty-hunters will leave; and those of a better quality who are more adventurous will be able to volunteer for an operational tour. That will enhance the morale of the parent unit.
In principle, I welcome the Bill and look forward to its later stages.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, at the outset, perhaps I may draw attention to what I thought was an extremely interesting proposition made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that the Air Force Reserve should become the Royal Air Force Reserve. I hope that the Government will take seriously that suggestion and will look at it.
It has become very clear during this useful debate that there is a great deal of goodwill towards this legislation and a good deal of commendation for the detailed consultation which went into it before it was put before us. But as my noble friend Lord Williams made very clear, in Committee we do not intend to gloss over such an important matter. The Bill has 133 clauses which will have to be considered very carefully indeed. But I assure the Government that everything that we do in Committee will be designed to help the Government to achieve their objectives, which we largely share.
In saying that, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, underlined the complexity and the need for individual reservists almost to have somebody standing by them
548
talking them through the implications of the legislation. I believe that there may be room for still further clarification.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, with all their experience, rightly drew our attention to the importance of preserving and looking to the special needs of individual reservists. The point about farmers and the income implications for them was a very useful illustration of the sort of detail which needs attention.
At the conclusion of this useful Second Reading debate, it is perhaps just as well to pause for a moment or two to take stock of the role of the reservists in the context of the changing role of the UK armed services as a whole.
It seems to me—no doubt the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—that there are three principal tasks confronting the armed services today. The first is to provide forces for a large number of frequently critically important low-level operations; for example, peacekeeping and peace enforcement tasks in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. Those forces are infantry and personnel-intensive but also require special skills ranging from skills in engineering to civil relations. Indeed, new demands are all the time becoming clear as older demands fade.
Those demands take up a larger proportion of the Army than before, partly because the Army as a whole is smaller but also because of all the additional UN tasks that it has to undertake. Unlike the past, most infantry are needed all the time and not just in the event of a major war.
Secondly, it seems to me that the armed forces provide a relatively small ready force for high technology, mechanised warfare as part of a NATO\UN coalition for operations such as the Gulf War or the heavy element in the current Bosnian deployment. That element needs to be ready for rapid mobilisation.
Thirdly, the services provide for the possibility of contributing larger mechanised forces in the event of general war. Because such an eventuality is now unlikely to come without positive indications over an extended period of time, it is clearly not the best use of resources to maintain regularly-manned units for that purpose alone. Rather, the challenge is to maintain the capability for effective reconstitution over a reasonable period of time.
In considering this Bill, it seems to me that the Government are in line with such an analysis by the way in which they are increasingly shifting reserves from the first to the third role. That is evidenced by the reduction of reserve infantry battalions from 41 in 1991 to 29 by 1997; and by the increase in the number of armoured squadrons from 17 to 22. That is a trend which is probably worth encouraging.
During the Cold War, many reserves were infantry assigned to the protection of key UK bases in a general war. But their role in the on-going peacekeeping tasks of the infantry today is less self-evident. Indeed, many volunteers, although keen to make a contribution, simply do not want to become full-time soldiers. That is why it makes sense to switch the reserves, as it seems

549
to me the Government are doing, into the third role that I described. If—God forbid—the threat of general war were to return and if, for example, a president Zhirinovsky were to march into Poland, then those reservists could make an invaluable contribution by helping to hold the front as new regular recruits were trained and defence expenditure expanded. Having the reserves available for that role, while some residual anxiety remains about the possibility of a new Cold War, makes a lot of sense. Incidentally, it is very much in line with the German approach, where most of the tank regiments are "cadreised" to be filled by reservists in the event of crisis.
At present, regular armoured units are constantly being retrained to fill gaps in the infantry—where the biggest demands are in Northern Ireland—and the process leaves a lot to be desired. Using reserves more for armour helps open up the possibility of converting some armoured units into infantry units. The logic of an increasing use of reservists for the armoured role—and one which the Government would arguably do well to accelerate—is that it could over time help to reduce the undesirability of using armour and artillery forces for tasks for which they are not trained or equipped to undertake.
I can quite see that there may well be an understandable reluctance in armoured regiments to become infantry. In terms of morale and esprit de corps, it would be foolish to treat that lightly. However, I wonder whether this is not an area of savings already being lined up by the Ministry of Defence as it faces further budgetary stringency.
As the Defence Committee in another place reminded us, the proportion of recruits in the Territorial Army at any one time is approximately 25 per cent. Quite a challenge! Nevertheless, some units are outstanding and excellent, and all should be helped to reach the standards of the best. That is essential if they are to be up to the demands of a general war situation.
However, there are also more immediate demands on the reserves. There is the growing role in specialist areas like engineering and medicine where there is a very real need in peacekeeping, peace enforcement and humanitarian support missions. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to suggest that the greatest day-to-day requirement for the reserves may be in those professional support roles. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, spoke of their indispensability in that respect. Hence, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, put it, the welcomed significance of the high readiness reserve and of the sponsored reserves, although the morale pitfalls of a two-tier system must be avoided. I noted that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, spoke sternly about that fact.
The Government are to be commended on having stood firm on the principle that the United Kingdom, as a member of the international community—and, indeed, one with special responsibilities for leadership as a permanent member of the United Nations—must take those wider roles as an essential element in future defence policy. Of course they are right. In a highly interdependent world, talk of self-contained British interests and defence tasks is dangerous nonsense. It has
550
to be confronted. In fact, it is likely that the wider roles will be a positive attraction among more imaginative, potential service men and women, not least for the reserves.
However, here we come up against the limits of market economics out of control. As persistent and well-applied questions tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, have revealed—and he made the point again today as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Lyell— there is a grave shortage of medical personnel. I find it disturbing to hear the estimate of the noble and gallant Lord that it could have been catastrophic in the Gulf War had the most sinister weapons been deployed against us. That shortage is aggravated by the excessive market systems which have been introduced into the National Health Service. Where are the margins to enable hard-pressed civilian and medical professionals to redeploy for military purposes? The armed services themselves have been stripped almost to the bone. In the days when quality of medical service rather than market ideology predominated, there was more capacity for mutual support with civilian medical staff more able to move to the services and, indeed, with service personnel and facilities more able to supplement the NHS—a support role which, incidentally, since it has been drastically curtailed, has left some civilian communities much worse off for medical services.
The problem does not relate only to the medical profession. Indeed, in the entire realm of the availability of reserves, the inadequacy of the market may be about to be revealed. Do the Government really intend to pay the price necessary in each instance to persuade each employer willingly to release key personnel? Of course not. There will be a rational reliance on the volunteer spirit of the personnel themselves and on legal requirements on behalf of society as a whole. It is an excellent example of how good government, as has always been the case, is about the balance as regards market disciplines, motivation and intervention for the common good. That is why we need to know a good deal more about exactly how the objectives of the Bill will be fulfilled in this market age. On my reading of the Bill, it is really not altogether self-evident. In that respect, I believe that the observations in today's debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, should be taken seriously as, indeed, should those just made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his interesting speech.
It would be quite wrong to conclude without paying tribute to the enthusiasm, professionalism and goodwill of so many in the volunteer reserve forces. That sentiment was echoed today from all parts of the House. I can vividly recall the visits that I made to reserve marines and reserve ships at sea during my very interesting time as Minister responsible for the Navy. Indeed, from time to time, I still proudly wear—although I must say not today, unfortunately—ties presented to me on just such visits. In a decent, vibrant democracy the role of voluntary reserves, as my noble friend Lord Williams and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, reminded us, is to form a link between the services and society as a whole. That is crucially important.

551
We want to make it plain that we on these Benches fully endorse the objectives of the Bill in endeavouring to spell out a more clear cut and meaningful role for reserves in the future. As I said at the outset, our efforts in Committee will be to strengthen the means available to fulfil those purposes. But, as we said in the recent debate on the gracious Speech, above all, there is a desperate need for a far more imaginative, challenging and coherent presentation by government of what they see as the overall purposes of defence in the millennium ahead. It is that, above all else, which will help to build the morale and commitment, which will provide the good quality recruits, upon which and whom in the end the services and the nation must depend.
5.8 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I listened with great interest and care to all the contributions in today's debate. Your Lordships have ensured, as I have come to expect, that the debate has been both well-informed and perceptive. I am grateful for the universal welcome that your Lordships have given to the Bill. As I bring the debate to a conclusion, I take great pleasure in recalling the fact that, in the short time that I have been in office, I have seen our reserves training hard at home and with our NATO allies overseas. I know that they are held in high esteem both at home and overseas. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I do not, in the time remaining, respond to all the points that have been raised. However, I shall ensure that the points I do not cover are answered in due course. The debate has traversed a great deal of ground, as is appropriate to a Bill of this length.
Perhaps I may start with a general concern. The noble Lords, Lord William and Lord Mayhew, together with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, expressed anxiety that the Bill may be designed, or at least used conveniently, to plug any gap which may occur in the strength of our regular forces. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, echoed that point. It may be helpful if I clarified the Government's position. We continue to rely on the reserve forces to provide a substantial contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom. That, I believe, is right and proper. Every other major nation is in the same position. As we must have reserves in any case, it is cost-effective from time to time to use them for less serious crises. That use is welcomed by the reserve forces themselves, permitting them to make use of their training in a thoroughly constructive manner.
The regular forces are established at a strength to enable them to meet their peacetime commitments. When unforeseen circumstances stretch their capability, the use of reserves allows operations to be undertaken and sustained without unacceptable disruption to existing essential activities. The powers in the Bill set in place a long-term framework for the reserves of all three services. They bring the existing law on reserves up to date. The general principles were set out in an open government document as long ago as March 1992. It is quite wrong to suggest that the Bill is a response to a short-term recruiting problem in the regular Army. Nor is the Bill designed to provide, as some noble Lords have put it, defence on the cheap.
552
Let me say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, in particular, the call-out of reserves is rightly to be accompanied by schemes to make payments to individuals and employers who would otherwise be disadvantaged. This means that to rely on called out reservists in place of regulars will certainly not be cheap. If reserves were substituted for regular soldiers in large numbers for appreciable lengths of time, the sums would look far from happy.
In the regular forces it is true that currently there are manning shortfalls, principally in the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry, because of recruiting problems and inadequate retention of young soldiers. We are addressing the shortfalls with a vigorous recruitment campaign and have introduced a re-engagement bounty to improve retention. In addition we plan to use some 400 Gurkhas, who would otherwise have been made redundant, in under strength units. It is worth my making the simple point that the numerical strength of the Army should not in itself be regarded as the primary measure of front line strength, though clearly it is an important one.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to recruitment and retention in the volunteer reserve forces. The volunteer reserve forces have been structured to meet the post-cold war operational requirements. This has inevitably led to smaller establishments, reductions in strength; an easing in the recruiting effort, and perhaps some uncertainty about the future. Restructuring, on the other hand, has now brought exciting new roles which form a sound basis for future recruiting. We believe that the enactment of the Bill, giving greater opportunities for the volunteer reserves to put their training into practice, will lead to improved recruitment and retention. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, saw as one of the benefits of the wider range of operational circumstances in which reserves may be able to serve, that this will add an edge to their training. I very much share the noble Lord's view. We also believe that the provisions in the Bill will lead to better motivation of reserves through their more flexible use.
I turn now to some of the detailed points and questions posed by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, expressed doubt about the concept of sponsored reserves. I believe that the principles of sponsored reserves are well established already. The NAAFI, for example, supplies uniformed personnel to man the expeditionary forces institute and the Met Office provides civilians on RAF stations who are also RAFVR officers. Until recently some Property Services Agency posts in Germany were linked to a war role in uniform as members of the TA. Therefore, there are precedents. We may find that the principle can be usefully extended.
My noble friend Lord Vivian expressed concern that there are insufficient medical personnel in the regular forces, as well as a worry that medical reservists might not be released when needed. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, was similarly worried. There is no evidence to suggest that staff who have reserve forces commitments are discriminated against in any way

553
within the NHS. If any specific difficulties arise, we will certainly take them up with the Department of Health. On the contrary we know that a number of NHS trusts have specifically said that they regard personnel with military medical experience as extremely valuable assets. The National Employers' Liaison Committee is making a special effort to foster support for the reserves among NHS trusts. I note the noble and gallant Lord's assessment that there have been excessive draw downs in the defence medical services but I cannot share his views on that.
I take this opportunity to emphasise to the noble and gallant Lord that the medical reserves remain important. However, the defence medical services have been restructured to provide predominantly regular support for operations short of general war, for example the identified reserve component of our contribution to the NATO led implementation force in Yugoslavia includes few medical personnel. As the anticipated casualty rates in an operation increase, so the deployment of medical reserves becomes more important. For example, support for two British divisions at war casualty fighting rates would require three regular and 11 TA field hospitals.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised a number of points about training. The Bill sets down the maximum period of obligatory training. Regulations may set a lower period for appropriate elements of the reserves, just as happens now. Equally, many reservists will do much more than the minimum. Failure to fulfil the obligation can lead to discharge. As my noble friend Lord Vivian mentioned, the Bill specifies a 16 day training limit for reservists. As I have said, the Bill makes the maximum length of compulsory continuous training 16 days. This is an increase from the 15 days currently applicable to the reserve land and air forces, but less than the 30 days which could be applied to some members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Fifteen day camps will continue to be the norm for the RMR, the TA and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Sixteen days is a considerable reduction from the current 92 day limit for the naval reserves. Ships' programmes may necessitate 16 day training periods from time to time.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, recommended an upper limit of six months' service for reservists. The Bill gives clear maximum periods of obligatory service under each call-out power. For the high readiness reserve and sponsored reserves it is nine months unless a shorter period is specified in the relevant agreement. In the most serious crises call-out or recall is for up to three years in any six. The three years can be extended to five by Her Majesty by order. For warlike operations the limit is 12 months in three years, which again can be extended by order to two years in three. For peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations, the limit is nine months in any 27, which may not be extended. For each case except the high readiness reserve, the individual may elect to serve for longer. We believe that nine months is the shortest effective period for general call-out. It allows for preliminary training, six months' service in the operational theatre, a return to the UK and terminal leave before release.
554
My noble friend Lord Vivian laid stress on the need to safeguard pensions on call-out. We know that reservists wish to ensure that a period of called out service does not reduce the pension they receive from their civilian pension scheme when they retire. We are discussing with the pensions industry ways of achieving this outcome. The Bill clears the way for one of the options which would be for the MoD to continue the employer's contribution to such a scheme while the individual continued any employee's contribution. A reservist unfortunate enough to be killed or disabled while called out would receive payments from the MoD on the same basis as a regular soldier.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked about compensation for loss of earnings during extended training. As I made clear, the Bill makes a considerable step forward in introducing additional payments for reservists who suffer a loss of income. There are no plans to extend payments to training. However, it is possible for an advance of bounty to be paid at annual camp to offset any loss of income.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, stressed the need to preserve flexibility and to set the level of payments to individuals and employers carefully. I agree with him. The Bill contains powers to enable the MoD to top up a reservist's service pay after call-out in cases where his or her civilian pay is higher. Many reservists will have financial commitments commensurate with their civilian income. If that was not maintained then, clearly, financial hardship could result. The department's current thoughts are that any scheme of payments would be based on proof of civilian earnings up to agreed limits. Above that, payments would require proof of financial hardship. The intention is to develop a detailed scheme for payment for inclusion in regulations. The Bill requires formal consultation in that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, were particularly anxious about the self-employed. We accept that the self-employed are a special case and that different arrangements may be required for them. We shall continue to consult with interested parties as our ideas are developed.
The financial safeguards for employers proposed by the Bill are intended to offset the costs of call-out, ensuring as far as possible that businesses are not disadvantaged. The costs to business resulting from the call-out of an employee will, of course, vary considerably. We shall develop the details of the scheme in consultation with interested businesses, both large and small, to ensure that it provides sensible and fair compensation for employers. Employers will, of course, have the option of seeking the deferral or exemption of the call-out of an employee if his or her absence would cause severe difficulties to the business.
It is worth my making clear that a principal reason for leaving the details of the scheme of payments to regulations is that they can be amended relatively easily. That will permit the provisions to be modified in the light of experience of their use and of prevailing economic circumstances. I can therefore assure noble

555
Lords that the scheme will be able both to provide a fair payment to employers and to secure value for money for the taxpayer.
My noble friend Lord Vivian asked whether the business community was content with the compliance cost assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also cast some doubt upon the CCA. The compliance cost assessment reports information which has been provided by business. At this stage I say only that there will be a full opportunity for discussion of the elements of the cost to business during consultation on the regulations for payments to employers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, stressed his view that the safeguards for employers should be stronger. We must indeed be careful of the impact on employers of the use of the new call-out power. However, we believe that there would be national support for the concept of humanitarian assistance to overseas countries, as the financial and practical response to charitable appeals bears witness. We know that some employers are concerned. In response we propose to make the employer exemption criteria easier for this new call-out power than for the others.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, also laid emphasis on properly protecting the employee. He is quite right that the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 makes it a criminal offence to dismiss an employee because he is a reservist. Under the same Act, an employee who is called out for service has a right to return to his old job when he is released. However, we believe that additional legislation to protect reservists against discrimination in employment would be counter-productive because it would make it more difficult for reservists to gain employment.
We believe that it is preferable to persuade employers of the value of employing reservists. That is the theme of a very successful campaign run by our National Employers' Liaison Committee. Our objective must be that, far from discriminating against reservists, employers seek them out whenever they have vacancies to fill. The new safeguards for employers in the Bill should make it easier to achieve that objective.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said that any changes to the TAVRAs should require consultation. The powers to amend the number of TAVRAs are exercisable by statutory instrument, which is subject to annulment by resolution of the House. I am sure that we can rely on the noble Viscount, and many other Peers involved with the associations, to ensure that any such change, if it were ever proposed, was fully debated.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, suggested that there should be a change to the name of the Air Force Reserve to the Royal Air Force Reserve. I note his point with due seriousness. The Bill maintains the formal legal title of the reserve force to which the RAF's ex regular personnel are transferred as the Air Force Reserve. It does not include the word "Royal". That is the title it has in the Reserve Forces Act 1980. I believe that it is also the title that it had under the Air Force (Constitution) Act 1917. The grant of the prefix "Royal" is conventionally a matter for Her Majesty. It would be recognised in but not effected by a statute. However, the
556
titles of two elements of the Air Force Reserve include the prefix "Royal". They are the Royal Air Force Reserve of Officers and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. It is interesting to note, as an aside, that the Air Force Act 1955 has that title without the word "Royal" and refers consistently to the regular air force and air-force law in its provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked who will inform reservists of the provisions of the Bill. We will ensure that every member of the reserve forces knows of the provisions of the legislation, if it is enacted. They will be able to direct detailed questions to the experts in the MoD through their commanding officers.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. Whose responsibility is it to see that they are properly informed? Presumably it is the local unit.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. Our plans will be more detailed as the Bill nears its conclusion. We still have a little work to do, but I have outlined the broad intention.
I said that our reserves are held in high regard. From what has been said in this debate, I believe that all of us agree that we are fortunate to have such a body of dedicated men and women. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, they are an important link between the armed forces and the community at a time when an increasing proportion of the community has no direct experience of military life. They stand ready to provide vital support to our regular forces in times of crisis and are eager to do so. That is why this Bill is important. It enables the flexible employment that these committed personnel seek in order to play a full part in our future operations. This is a Bill which meets today's needs and which is welcomed by those it addresses. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Deregulation (Greyhound Racing) Order 1995
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the first order of its kind to be made under the new powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It represents a significant improvement in our ability to bring forward speedy legislation to ease the regulatory burdens on industry. In bringing the order before the House, the Government are fulfilling the commitments given during the passage of the Bill to give priority to deregulatory measures to assist the greyhound industry.
The order has been comprehensively examined since it was first laid in draft form before Parliament in April. The scrutiny committees examined the proposals most

557
carefully and took evidence from government officials, the industry and other interested parties. We are grateful to the committees for their constructive recommendations, which will improve the effectiveness of the order. I am happy to report that we were able to adopt all of the recommendations and have incorporated them into the order now before the House. Both committees have subsequently reported that they are now content with the order and made no further proposals for amendment.
Turning to the detailed contents of the order, Articles I and 2 provide for the interpretation, territorial extent and commencement arrangements for the order. It will automatically come into force 28 days after it is made. We hope to be able to implement the order early in the new year so as to enable the greyhound industry to derive maximum benefit from the deregulatory changes. The order extends to Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland which has its own controls.
Article 2 will allow the use of permanent betting structures on greyhound tracks. Such use will only be allowed on days when the public are admitted to the track to attend racing. This is to ensure that this concession is not used to undermine the wider requirements of the system for licensing premises used for conducting betting transactions. Similarly, the types of events on which betting may take place via on-track structures is limited to events at other tracks, so as to preserve the viability of the on-course betting market. The restriction on track owners having a financial interest in such permanent structures is also lifted.
The ban on tracks taking bets in advance of the day of the race is removed by Article 4. This will be of benefit to the industry and will facilitate the introduction of inter-track betting which is covered in Article 5.
The order provides for the operation under licence, of inter-track betting schemes—that is the linking of computerised totes so that punters can place their bets into pools on races held at other licensed tracks. The detailed arrangements for the control and licensing of this type of betting by local authorities is set out in Schedule 1 of the order. This is perhaps the most significant measure in the order, enabling the industry to take advantage of technology to create bigger pools for the benefit of punters. Greyhound promoters have banded together to form a company to administer this scheme and will be applying to the Bristol local authority for a licence as soon as these provisions come into force.
The supervisory regime for this form of betting is via the approval by the local authority of a specific scheme drawn up by the inter-track operator. This scheme is required to set out operational details such as the arrangements for the pooling of bets, security of equipment and other related matters. The scheme is also specifically required to meet the criteria of affording reasonable protection to customers placing bets. The licensing authority is empowered to refuse a licence application if the scheme does not provide adequate protection for punters against potential fraud or equipment failure. The criteria for the grant of a licence also include tests of the applicant's fitness and propriety
558
to operate a scheme and due diligence in ensuring that the terms of the scheme are met. Thus the order gives priority to ensuring that adequate consumer protection is maintained.
The schedule also provides for oversight of the operation of the scheme by a local authority-appointed accountant who must consider information supplied by the inter-track operator and who has rights of access and inspection to all relevant records and equipment. The accountant has to report any irregularities or breaches of the scheme to the licensing authority. Provision is made for revocation of an operator's licence if the licensing authority considers that the operator is no longer a fit and proper person to operate the scheme or that he is not capable of ensuring compliance with the terms of the scheme.
The order provides for a five year renewable licence and empowers the local authority to set and recover fees for the grant and continuance of the licence. Article 6 allows track operators to have an interest in bookmaking at their own tracks, but only in respect of events taking place at other venues. Article 7 relaxes certain of the requirements controlling the operation of single track totes. In particular, consumer protection is improved by requiring that the statutory notices giving customer information are displayed in all tote betting areas.
A number of other changes are also made. The statutory ceiling on the level of deductions a tote operator may make from bets is removed (but as I have said, the charges must be displayed). New provision is made for the rounding of tote dividends.
A sensible change, which has been commended in this House in earlier debates, is the removal of the requirement that local authority accountants must attend tracks in person when the tote is operated. I am sure the accountants will be pleased to be freed from the burden of having to give up their evenings and Sundays to attend the tracks. This requirement dates back to the early days of totalisators and has been made redundant by the advent of computerised totes. This is exactly the sort of unnecessary burden on industry which the deregulatory power was designed to remove.
The order represents a significant modernisation of the controls on betting at greyhound tracks. It will enable track operators to improve the range of betting opportunities to customers. The industry will be freed of many of the outdated controls and the whole sport will benefit from a freer commercial climate. I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
5.36 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing the order. In so doing, I must declare my interest, having been chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board for over 10 years. It is, of course, a non-profit making organisation representing the industry, and I am very proud to represent it today.

559
Some think that greyhound racing is still a cloth cap entertainment. However, it now covers all aspects of society, people from all walks of life. There are a large number of solid, lower-paid people but the audience continues upward to a great number of diners sitting at tables behind glass, watching the racing, enjoying excellent dinners and making discreet wagers on the estimated order of dogs passing the winning post. This, of course, is known as betting; and now it will be easier to lose your money if you so wish.
Greyhound tracks are very smart places to be, and a great many charities use the restaurants to make money for their charities. It is definitely family entertainment, especially on Sundays. That is not only true of London. Tracks such as Wimbledon, Walthamstow, Hackney and Wembley, about which people may know, all have excellent facilities. So also do many provincial tracks—a total of 37 in all.
So much for the advertising, my Lords. The order is an important step forward. As my noble friend the Minister said, it is a new measure. However, it is only a first step which I hope will soon lead to horse racing and greyhound racing having the same starting point. The horse racing industry and ourselves agree on many issues. And the racing world as a whole hopes for further easing of restrictions. I took two Private Member's Bills through this House in 1979 and 1984. They became Acts in 1980 and 1985. Their purpose was to ease the strict and unnecessary regulations on greyhound racing.
Over the past 10 years the industry has been most grateful to the Home Office for its co-operation and understanding, although in earlier years it allowed us only small crumbs and titbits as regards what we wanted. Today we have good news. The Chancellor has listened to our pleas and has reduced betting tax by a further 1 per cent. That should bring in a considerable amount of extra money to the industry to pay for improvements in integrity, safety, homing of greyhounds, prize money and the good of the whole industry which has been so strapped for cash for so long. We thank the Chancellor very much.
Today's order will also make an enormous difference to the greyhound industry which is, after all, the second largest spectator sport after football. I offer my congratulations to the Government for their initiative in arranging the new procedure and to the Members of both Houses who made up the deregulation committees. The greyhound industry welcomes the order emphatically, especially as it is the very first one.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, we have heard reference to the "totalisator". If you have a machine which adds up, and do not wish to call it an "adder" for fear that it might be confused with the poisonous snake, you might, I suppose, call it a "totaller". To call it a "totaliser" would be superfluous. To call it a "totalisator" is grotesque.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches we give a welcome to the proceedings before us. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, indicated the wide
560
range of punters who enjoy a night at the races. For a moment, I thought he had me in mind when he illustrated the benefits of having a fine meal and watching the racing. From time to time I enjoy attending Walthamstow races. All the good things the noble Lord mentioned about the quality of the racing and attempts to ensure that people who attend are comfortable should be kept in mind.
We on this side look upon this first essay into what deregulation means with appreciation. One starts from the basis that the regulations which are being deregulated were at one time seen as necessary. At some stage the Government, prompted by industry or individuals, made regulations because they felt that they were fit and proper at the time. We now have the first essay by Parliament to remove from legislation matters which the Government believe are extraneous or even injurious to the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, has the great respect not only of the industry but also of this House. He stated fairly that the industry would benefit from the order and we, who take an interest in the subject, not only see nothing wrong in it but also a great deal that is right.
The Government are to be congratulated not only on their first attempt to make the legislation understandable and digestible, but also for the fact that they listened to the pleas and the case made for various amendments. I am glad that the Government did that.
From my limited knowledge of the benefits that will flow from the order, I can see that the inter-track betting aspect will be of great use to those who enjoy the sport. I shall certainly not stand at this Dispatch Box and welcome the liberalising of the betting regime with its encouragement for more people to spend more money on betting. There are good illustrations of problems—for example, the National Lottery—where one needs to be exceedingly careful because a good idea may run away with itself. There are consequences which, to be fair, no one may have foreseen. However, I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Newall, made that greyhound racing needs to be seen—to use a clumsy phrase—on a level playing field. I had to get that one in! Greyhound racing is entitled to receive the same benefits. I am unaware of what the Chancellor may have done on a wide range of matters, but the proposal about which the noble Lord, Lord Newall, told us must be welcomed by the industry and many other people.
This is the first order to come before the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It shows how valuable the committee is to the House and to Parliament. I believe that it is to be welcomed. I wonder whether the Minister can help us in regard to the Keeling schedule. I understand that at one stage there was to be a Keeling schedule relating to the 1963 Act, but it does not appear to be in the order as finally presented to us. I may have misunderstood my notes, but I raise the matter and perhaps those who assist the Minister will be able to throw some light on the absence of the Keeling schedule. It was considered that it would be helpful to the legislation, but it does not appear to have been included.

561
We on these Benches recognise that the industry is satisfied that the Government have acted properly and I believe that the House also should be satisfied. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not here because he is not backward in coming forward and drawing the attention of the House to the value of the Keeling schedule and explaining what it is. I cannot do so and would be grateful if the Minister could help us. Meanwhile, we give a warm welcome to the Government's action.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, first perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the general welcome to this deregulatory measure. I claim no responsibility for the ugly words contained in my speech: I am attracted by the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but I cannot apologise for it.
My noble friend Lord Newall enjoys the greatest possible respect from an industry which I believe he represents extremely well in this House. I accept what he said with some pleasure and am glad that we have
562
been able to respond positively. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has been able to respond equally positively to the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was worried about encouraging people to bet. The stand which the Government have taken is that the order represents sensible deregulation but, as regards betting, it is very much a matter for people to make their own choice and they should be free to choose.
The noble Lord's point about the Keeling schedule is referred to in paragraph 29 of the report by the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. The paragraph states:
"We expect departments sponsoring future deregulation orders to supply the Committee with a clearly legible version of the Act or Acts to be amended, accurate, up to date and certified as such. We would also expect to receive Keeling schedules of text to be amended, where the complexity of proposed amendments to legislation makes this appropriate".
All I can say is that I shall follow up that query and report to the noble Lord, possibly in writing. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before six o'clock.

  Prison Building Costs
  Prison Building Costs
  Prisoner Numbers by Length of Sentence
  Prisoner Numbers by Length of Sentence
  Prisoners Sentenced for Burglary and Drugs Offences
  Prisoners Sentenced for Burglary and Drugs Offences
  Male Farmers in Wales: Deaths from Injury and Poisoning
  Male Farmers in Wales: Deaths from Injury and Poisoning
  Murder: Defence of Provocation
  Murder: Defence of Provocation
  Service Housing: Management
  Service Housing: Management
  Prisoners in Scotland: Early Release
  Prisoners in Scotland: Early Release
  Prisoners in Scotland: Cost per Place
  Prisoners in Scotland: Cost per Place
  Prisons in Scotland: Capacity and Population
  Prisons in Scotland: Capacity and Population
  EU Nationals on Remand in Scotland
  EU Nationals on Remand in Scotland
  Recycled Paper: House of Lords Use
  Recycled Paper: House of Lords Use
  Game Licences
  Game Licences
  Treaties: "Ponsonby Rule"
  Treaties: "Ponsonby Rule"
  British Citizens' Property Claims in Former GDR
  British Citizens' Property Claims in Former GDR
  The Homeless: Poor Diet
  The Homeless: Poor Diet
  Social Security (Income Support Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations
  Social Security (Income Support Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations
  Income Support and Mortgage Protection
  Income Support and Mortgage Protection
  Armistice Day: Two-Minute Silence
  Armistice Day: Two-Minute Silence
  Mr. Nicholas Soames
  Mr. Nicholas Soames
  M.1: Extension to Central London
  M.1: Extension to Central London
  Marriage, Divorce and Mediation: Survey of Public Attitudes
  Marriage, Divorce and Mediation: Survey of Public Attitudes