House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 May 1991

Column 311

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman should try to catch my eye later.

Mrs. Beckett : The ceiling of national insurance contributions for teachers is £20,300. The average salary for teachers in primary education is £16,279 and the average salary for teachers in secondary education is £17,166.

Between 10 and 15 per cent. of teachers at most would be affected by the change in national insurance contributions. It is impossible to assess exactly how many would be affected because they would be affected only if they received either London or incentive allowances, or both. Most of the people who will rise above the ceiling when they receive those allowances are in groups just above the national insurance contribution ceiling so the effects on them are small. An article in the Daily Mail said that the change would be a disincentive and great blow for somone earning slightly above the ceiling, but the loss for the example they gave would be about £50 or £60 a year, which is less than the cost of buying the Daily Mail for a year.

Mr. Ian Taylor : Many teachers in my constituency will be fascinated by that answer, because they are highly qualified teachers--some of them are even headmistresses. They will notice that the Labour party's plans to remove the upper limit on national insurance will cost them several hundred pounds at the levels they earn. If the hon. Lady believes that that is an isolated incident in the south-east, she should look closely at teachers right across the country who will be similarly affected. Some 2.11 million basic rate tax payers in this country will be savagely impacted by what the hon. Lady proposes for the upper rate national insurance.

Mrs. Beckett : That was a lot of huffing and puffing, but it does not alter the fact that the figures on schoolteachers show that, on average, their salaries are £16,000 for those in primary education and £17,000 for those in secondary education. Some teachers, but not very many, will be affected by lifting the national insurance contribution ceiling.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett : Just a moment.

We have never denied that some teachers will be affected ; nor have we tried--unlike Conservative Members--to conceal from them the impact that the changes will have. We want teachers to know what a Labour Government would propose and we want them to know where the money will go. Many of the teachers whose income is near the ceiling and will rise above it, will be net gainers from the switch from national insurance contributions when the sum is pooled into child benefit--another fact that the hon. Member for Esher forgot. A small number of teachers will be affected, and only if they receive incentives.

Mr. Knapman : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett : I want to finish this point, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman eventually.

Conservative Members also mentioned nurses. I do not know why they bother with all this fuss because we know--they must know in their heart of hearts --that only a small number of people in those employment categories

Column 312

will be affected. I do not know who Conservative Members think that they are conning. When the people who work in teaching, nursing and the groups that Conservative Members mentioned, hear the figures, they think, "I do not earn that--what on earth are they on about?" There is no point in Conservative Members trying to deceive people. A typical staff nurse earns between £10,000 and £15,600 a year--no more than 3 per cent. of all nurses, even including London weighting, could possibly be affected by the abolition of the ceiling. About 12 per cent. of police officers--the other group mentioned--might possibly be affected by the abolition. Most ordinary police officers would not be affected by the change.

The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) accused me of asking rhetorical questions. I do not recall asking Conservative Members any questions at all, but I shall ask them one now. Why should a police constable pay national insurance contributions on his earnings, while his superior--a police inspector or police sergeant--does not? What is right or just about that? Will Conservative Members defend that?

Mr. Tim Smith : I am astonished that the hon. Lady does not understand the answer to that. We are talking about a national insurance contribution scheme that has a ceiling on the amount of pension that can be paid. It is a contributory scheme, and it is right that the contributions should be related to the amount of pension.

Mrs. Beckett : The hon. Gentleman talks about what has happened to the pension ceiling. He has picked a particularly unfortunate case. It was precisely the difference between the pensions and earnings of police officers that was so severely affected by this Government, who made unilateral cuts and changes in breach of contract. From the hon. Gentleman's point of view, it is a great pity that he brought up that case. The Government have treated police officers very badly over pensions.

My basic point is simple. At present, we have a system where there can be two people living in one household who earn £20,000 each and pay national insurance contributions on the total £40,000 income, and next door one person who earns £40,000 pays national insurance contributions on half that income. That is unjust and illogical. This Government increased those national insurance contributions from 6.5 to 9 per cent. This Government have lifted the ceiling on employers' contributions, thereby loading the effect on business costs right through the earnings range. This Government have applied national insurance contributions to company cars.

Mr. Quentin Davies : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett : I do not know why the hon. Gentleman seeks to make such silly points. He knows perfectly well that we are discussing the fact that we are going to raise the ceiling.

Last week I challenged the Chief Secretary and asked him whether, as the Government had lifted the ceiling on employers' national insurance contributions and were making criticisms, would he give a categorical undertaking that the Government would not, in this Parliament, or in the unlikely event of their having the opportunity in the next, lift the ceiling on employee contributions? Will he give us that undertaking?

Column 313

The Prime Minister made criticisms of the married couple's allowance and the extra mortgage interest relief and then the Government implemented that policy

Mr. Quentin Davies rose--

Mrs. Beckett : I am perfectly prepared to give way if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to tell me whether the Government will lift the ceiling on national insurance contributions. If he is not prepared to do so, I shall not give way but shall wait for an assurance from Ministers. They charged us about the married couple's allowance, they attacked us on mortgage relief and are now attacking us on national insurance contributions, but what about all the poor nurses and teachers about whom they made such a fuss a moment ago?

Mr. Tim Smith : This is outrageous--that is Labour party policy.

Mrs. Beckett : Yes, it is our policy and we are prepared to stand by it-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It does not help the House or the hon. Lady when hon. Members from each side of the House are shouting at each other.

Mrs. Beckett : I have one last thing to say about national insurance contributions. Not only do all the people involved know that we are making this proposal, but they know that we are pledged to do it and they know where the money is going. The money is going to pensioners and families with children--where it is very much needed. People can make their decision in the light of the very clear choice that we are setting before them. Labour's policies involve no deceit and hiding.

Mr. Maude : The hon. Lady says that people know where the money is going, but do they understand that the Labour party regards education as its first priority, training as a key priority, Government support for manufacturing investment as a key priority and spending 0.7 per cent. of GNP on overseas aid as a top priority? To which of those priorities is the money going? Is it to go to them all? Will the hon. Lady answer the question that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary asked her? Are those matters all priorities? If not, which are not priorities?

Mrs. Beckett : I suggest that the Financial Secretary should read Hansard and see what I said earlier. I have already answered that question twice and see no point in answering it for a third time. I shall now return to the Government's plans because I have been speaking for long enough. They contain the flaw at the heart of the Government's case, which is that there is a choice between cuts in income tax and cuts in public services or increases in value added tax--or, under this Government, both.

On the "Today" programme the other morning, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was asked about the demands of the welfare state and what he described as the Government's ambitious programmes for cuts in direct taxation. He said that it was quite simple :

"Any attempt to reduce income tax to 20p in the pound will have to be phased over a considerable period of time and in my view, it is as likely to be in the context that we decide that we're going to be taxed more in our spending capacity and less in our earning capacity and as evidence for that I

Column 314

would point just to the recent Budget, where the decision was taken to increase VAT and to increase excise duties but not to increase income tax."

Mr. Knapman : I understand that the principal contribution to economic affairs of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is an annual consultation with his abacus, but does the £20 billion which has suddenly been manufactured include the money to be used to renationalise the water companies?

Mrs. Beckett : The hon. Gentleman knows that I have already addressed the point about the £20 billion several times. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are saying that that is an illustrative figure of the revenues that come from growth without having to raise taxes.

The hon. Member for Stroud asked me about water. We have made it extremely plain that, although we think that, in the long term, the water industry belongs in the public sector, it is not one of the policies that we expect to implement soon after coming to power. We intend to tighten regulations and try to ensure that the water industry is responsive to public need.

There is a question mark in the much longer term over the pattern of control of the water industry. There are those who argue that there should be more regional control than control from the centre. That question would arise in overall discussions about the shape of regional government and the powers that may be devolved from central Government. The hon. Gentleman will readily recognise that the debate about the shape of the industry is a matter for the longer term. There is a strong possibility that the Government will increase VAT to pay for their income tax cuts--that is, if they do not now say that they will discard them, which is always a possibility. Income tax cuts have to be paid for either by cuts in public services or by increases in VAT, national insurance contributions or something else. Lest anyone imagine that Conservative Members have no track record on the issue, let me remind the House of what the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said in the general election campaign on 21 April 1979. He said that he would like to correct "inexcusable errors" in a Labour party-political broadcast of the time ; and added :

"We have absolutely no intention of doubling VAT."

Seven and a half weeks later, almost to the day, in his Budget, he raised VAT from 8 to 15 per cent. I concede that that was not exactly doubling it, but if the Financial Secretary wishes to tell the British people that the Government will not raise VAT to 22 per cent., but they might raise it to 21 or 21.5 per cent., or even to 23 per cent., all of which are compatible with denying that they intend to raise it to 22 per cent., I am sure that the British people would be interested to hear it.

Let us come back to reading the book, as the Chief Secretary earlier invited us to. The Government boast--the Chief Secretary was at it today-- that they have funded public services not just adequately but generously. They must believe that their funding is generous, because they have so often, even in the boom years, put in less than the economy could afford. Under this Government, the inspectors have identified dilapidation in schools that will cost £3 billion to £4 billion to put right. Under this Government, for the first time ever, paper sheets and pillow cases have appeared in hospitals ; and waiting lists have soared. Under this Government, some trains have become not just a disgrace but death traps.

Column 315

The Labour party promises no miracles and no magic wand. We tell the electorate bluntly that it will take years to repair the damage and restore the neglect of these years, and that many of the scars will always show. I do not usually use large chunks of other people's words in my speeches, but I read a Daily Mirror editorial on Friday which should be shared with the House, especially with Conservative Members, who almost certainly do not read the Daily Mirror. That editorial did what the Chief Secretary asked us to do and looked around at the consequences of 12 years of Tory rule :

"Look at the rising toll of the unemployed and be thankful for the present figure, for it will not stop increasing before it reaches three million.

Look at the schools whose walls are crumbling and whose pupils lack the textbooks to teach them the basics of learning and be grateful that they are being taught anything at all.

Look at the homeless in the centres of London, Manchester and the other great cities of these islands and wonder why they don't go out and get a mortgage.

Look at the traffic perpetually stuck in jams because spending on the road system has been neglected and ask why they can't be bothered to walk.

Look at the squalor of British Rail, the late trains, the dirty carriages which itself is an eloquent testimony

Look outside your door at the rubbish in the streets, the lamps which don't light, and the police who are not there. Examine your bills for water and gas and electricity, all outrageously increased because the Government wanted to privatise to feather the nests of its friends.

Look at the profits which have been made in the City of London and then look at the losses of those living in bed and breakfast hostels because they have been evicted.

Look at the endless queues for the NHS, while doctors and nurses are being sacked.

Feel the pain of those who need operations but cannot get them, at least not for years.

Look. Feel. See. Use your own experience, your own knowledge." We want the people of this country to read the book of the Government's record.

Sir David Mitchell rose --

Mrs. Beckett : I will not give way. I am on my last sentence. We share the Chief Secretary's view that the people of this country should read the book of the Government's record, as set out in their public expenditure history and forecasts ; and when they have read it, they should resolve to turn a new page and elect a new Government. 5.36 pm

Mr. Ian Stewart (Hertfordshire, North) : In the public expenditure White paper the Government have set out clearly their plans for the coming years. Like many other Members, I came to the House this afternoon in the hope that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would explain with equal clarity what the Labour party planned to do if they got into Government. I am sorry to say that we have been seriously disappointed, because, although several of my hon. Friends intervened to ask pertinent questions, and the hon. Lady said that she would deal with those matters later in her speech, in the end she managed to avoid answering them. So I must ask her some of those questions again.

Over the past hour we have been waiting for an explanation of some of the extraordinary things that Opposition economic spokesmen have said on behalf of

Column 316

their party. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition can be classed as one of the Labour party's economic spokesmen, but in view of his role it is fair to assume that what he says carries the authority of the party that he leads.

The first matter which the hon. Lady made even more unclear than it was before she spoke was the status of the £20 billion that the economy would yield for public expenditure in relation to the Government's published expenditure plans. That £20 billion is much less than the figure in the Government's public expenditure plans. If the labour party is substituting that figure for the Government's, what will it cut to get spending down to £20 billion from the £38 billion Government figure? The hon. Lady has not explained that, although she was repeatedly asked to do so.

Mrs. Beckett : I must intervene to save the right hon. Gentleman more embarrassment. I made it plain that there is no direct comparison--and certainly there is no comparison between the figures that he mentions. The £38 billion that he cites is cash, whereas the £20 billion is in real terms.

Mr. Stewart : In real terms the figures still come out as a substantial part of the £20 billion. The crucial question is : does the hon. Lady argue that the £20 billion is a substitute for the figure in the White Paper, or is it meant to be additional?

Mrs. Beckett : I made it absolutely clear that our figure had nothing to do with the figures in the White Paper. It is an illustration of the fact that 2.5 per cent. growth over five years would yield about £20 billion in revenues. No suggestion of a comparison was made by my right hon. Friend. Only Conservative Members, through stupidity or malice, are trying to make such a connection.

Mr. Stewart : If there is no connection, why on earth did the leader of the Labour party quote the figures?

Mrs. Beckett : I have told the right hon. Gentleman this four times and I will tell him a fifth. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was responding to the lie put about by Conservative Members that the only way to get revenues for extra public spending was by increasing the basic rate of income tax. That is not true and it never has been true. I trust that it never will be true--unless the Government stay in power for longer and we have a recession every year.

In a normal year, there is growth. With 2.5 per cent. growth, on a moderate estimate, there can be £20 billion for spending. If there is less growth, there is less money ; if there is more growth there is more money. We can get more revenues, therefore, without raising the basic rate of tax. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says that we have never done that, but he knows that it is untrue. Is he trying to ruin his reputation? He must realise that members of the general public who are economically literate and follow such debates are well aware that there is growth under every Government, whether Labour or Conservative. He makes a fool of himself by pretending otherwise.

Mr. Stewart : I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her lecture. I did not need it, because I know a fair bit about these matters. The Leader of the Opposition claims that £20 billion will be available for public expenditure out of

Column 317

growth. Does that substitute for the hon. Lady's commitment to public expenditure out of growth that is already contained in Government figures? If the Leader of the Opposition has not explained that to the shadow Chief Secretary, it is no wonder that the Opposition are getting a bad press on their handling of their economic plans.

The hon. Member for Derby, South should have clarified matters, but she avoided the question whether revenue from future growth in the economy is regarded by the Opposition as extra money that is available for public expenditure. If it is not, why on earth is she, as shadow Chief Secretary, allowing her colleagues to go up and down the country saying that every single area of public expenditure that they can think of is a top or key priority?

Mr. Tracey : My right hon. Friend speaks about Opposition spending pledges. In the presence of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow spokesman on transport, said in Derby at the beginning of the month that a Labour Government would electrify the main line all the way to the midlands to bring benefits to Derby. Presumably that is a first-line priority pledge. Does the hon. Lady deny that?

Mr. Stewart : I do not know what the hon. Lady will deny or confirm. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that this was an overriding priority. Is an overriding priority greater than a top priority and is a top priority more or less important than a key priority? We have heard that water privatisation has a low priority.

Mr. John Garrett : What does the right hon. Gentleman think of the Government's spending plans?

Mr. Stewart : They are sensible in relation to the available resources. They are a continuation of record public expenditure carried out over 12 years during which we have been able to reduce the rate of income tax and reduce, and for a time eliminate, borrowing, of which we inherited a great deal from the last Labour Government. Through careful control of overall public expenditure, we have been able to increase public expenditure in key areas.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) should reply to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) about a pledge made in Derby in the hon. Lady's presence? Many people in the east midlands suspect that it is the sort of pledge that Labour, if it ever came to power, would not be able to redeem. Would there be a firm pledge by an incoming Labour Government that the midland main line would be electrified? The hon. Lady must say yes or no to that question.

Mr. Stewart : I will happily give way to the hon. Lady if she wishes to respond. She does not. Did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East consult the hon. Lady before he said that such a major commitment was an overriding priority? What about the other commitments? Did the hon. Lady speak to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) before he said that education was Labour's first priority? Which comes first, a first priority or an overriding priority? One would think that an overriding priority would take precedence over even a first priority.

Column 318

The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) says that education and training are key priorities. If Labour's spending commitments are to appear credible, the Opposition must tell us whether they categorically repudiate all the priorities spread about the country by Labour spokesmen. If those priorities are not commitments, spokesmen have no right to say that they are key, top and overriding priorities.

The same thing always happens under Labour Governments. As soon as they are elected they go on a spending binge, because before elections all their spokesmen go round the country saying that more spending on this and that is a top, a key, an overriding or a first priority. They cannot be held at bay. It is not possible for a Labour Government to finance such spending commitments without increasing the burden of taxation.

The Opposition have an extra difficulty. They have said that they would not proceed with our plans for privatisation which, over the next three years, will produce £5.5 billion each year. That is a total of £16.5 billion and almost gobbles up the Opposition's £20 billion before they have even started. Where will a Labour Government get that money? They will either have to cut spending in other areas of public expenditure, raise taxes or increase borrowing. That is because the Opposition have not focused on the fact that a public expenditure programme must be identified in advance and must be within the means of the Government to fund it. Everything that the Opposition have said about priorities fails to meet those criteria. It is completely dishonest to speak about top priorities when there is no intention in the foreseeable future of doing anything about them.

Much of the hon. Lady's speech was devoted to the White Paper. She said there was not enough expenditure on health, education and transport, and she was robustly supported by her hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that much more should be spent on transport, health and education. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that a great deal more should be spent on local government. How would a Labour Government cope with that, when the Opposition say that they are committed to spending on only two matters and that all the others are for the birds?

Anyone who reads Lord Barnett's book about the experience of the Labour Government in the 1970s will see that any Labour Chief Secretary will find pressure to increase public expenditure irresistible. Those irresistible pressures to increase public expenditure would inevitably result in financial problems which could be solved only by tax increases or by borrowing. If public sector borrowing is increased to fund such extravagant commitments, the debt service burden will increase not only immediately, but for all the years ahead. That adds to the increases in public expenditure to which Labour is committed.

One reason why we have been able to restrain public expenditure in recent years and have been able to devote more money to useful functions in the public service instead of to debt interest is that we have reduced the public sector borrowing requirement and have repaid a substantial part of the national debt. As soon as the process goes into reverse, it becomes not a virtuous circle but a vicious one, and public expenditure increases year by year to service the extra money borrowed.

Column 319

Mr. Beith : The hon. Gentleman will surely concede that the documents that we are debating do precisely that--they put the process into reverse. The documents show a substantial public sector borrowing requirement for reasons that arise out of the recession.

Mr. Stewart : The hon. Gentleman's final words explain the position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) explained a few years ago that the Government's policy, over time, was to have a balanced budget. In some years of the economic cycle there will be a surplus, but in others there will be a deficit. Public expenditure cannot be increased in absolute terms without increasing taxation or borrowing to pay for it.

In recent years, the Labour party has said that interest rates are too high and should come down whatever their level has been. If the amount of borrowing is increased, there will have to be higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case. That is an inevitable consequence which again increases the burden on public expenditure. It is likely that the Labour party's solution would be the same as in the past. There would be major increases in taxation on incomes.

I well remember that, during the first general election campaign in 1974, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that he would raise taxes on the rich and squeeze them until the pips squeaked. He did not say at that time that his definition of the rich included those with below average earnings. That is always the way, because the majority of taxpayers are at the lower end of the scale. If a significant amount of extra money is to be raised from income tax, it is not sufficient to pile on high rates at the top end. If extra revenue is to be raised, taxes have to be increased throughout the scale. That is what the Labour party did in the 1960s and 1970s, and the only reason why it did not do so in the 1980s was that it was not in a position to do so.

The hon. Member for Derby, South told us to examine the evidence of the past. However, Labour Governments have traditionally and invariably increased public expenditure sharply and increased tax rates on average incomes. That would happen again. The hon. Lady has shown that the arithmetic in the Labour party's financial plans cannot be trusted. It says that it could spend more without increasing the tax burden on ordinary people. That is a false prospectus. The Labour party has been rumbled in the House and it will be rumbled in the country. What happened in the past could happen again.

High public expenditure and high taxation are a way of life for the Labour party. It has said nothing today to change our view of what it would do if it were ever in power again.

5.53 pm

Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : First, I shall refer to the form of the public expenditure document, because nobody else is likely to and because I believe that, as in architecture, form should follow function, but the function of the reports is to obscure the facts. It is remarkable that we conduct these debates as if the departmental reports made any sense at all. I shall shortly demonstrate that they do not.

I am in the 23rd year of a campaign to require the Treasury and other Departments to set out not only what they are spending in each programme, but their objectives and the outcomes of past programmes. I first raised the

Column 320

issue with the Procedure Committee in 1969, and in that year the first public expenditure White Paper had 81 pages, with one page each for health and welfare and one page for defence, and very helpful it was too.

This White Paper has 1,500 pages in 20 volumes. It costs £200, so some university departments are unable to afford it. If one adds the estimates, the appropriation accounts, the next steps agency report, the next steps agency framework documents and the trading fund reports, 3,000 pages are now produced annually on spending. But there is hardly more information that we had in 1969.

There is no reason why the estimates and the appropriation accounts could not be organised in columns against each of the spending programmes. The first year's programme is next year's estimates, and last year's completed programme is last year's appropriation account. That would save 28 volumes of information.

When Treasury officials were asked in the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service why there had to be 28 extra volumes, they could not answer. They had never asked the Committee whether the information was required in the estimates or the Public Accounts Committee or the Comptroller and Auditor General whether the information was needed on the appropriation accounts.

Many of the reports are drab, with a few hazy graphs. Of all the Departments, the Home Office has produced a volume which would not look out of place in the reception area of an advertising agency. Graphic graphs are printed over pictures of prisoners at work, over what appears to be a fire in a chip pan, over computers, with a signed foreword topped by a photograph of a smiling Home Secretary. The report by the Office of Arts and Libraries, which has a spend of £500 million, has 34 pages--20 per cent. longer that the report by the Ministry of Defence which spends £22,000 million.

The report from the Ministry of Defence is largely narrative, with virtually no analytical back-up. It says that its efficiency programme to improve the cost of that great Ministry by 2.5 per cent. a year is going well, and it gives us some descriptive examples such as cancelling the overhaul of nine aero engines. A Department that spends £22,000 million tells us that it had forgone the overhaul of nine aero engines. The report does not provide any basis for parliamentary scrutiny of efficiency. It tells us that its new management strategy will be set out in a departmental plan which will include objectives and performance measures, but it fails to tell us whether that plan will be published.

The best report is that of the Inland Revenue, and it is called a management plan. It sets out its purposes and aims, its management strategies, its capital spending by project and such efficiency indicators as the cost per pound collected in revenue, the cost per taxpayer, and a wide variety of measures of past and future performance.

Elsewhere, the information can only be described as haphazard and whimsical. The reports usually set out in great detail what they are spending, but there are few meaningful indicators of their targets or what has been achieved in the past. A few examples will give the flavour. The Minister for the Civil Service gives the ratings on, for example, accommodation and catering given to the Civil Service college by its students. However, it does not

Column 321

mention or report any progress on equal opportunities policies in the service--a matter for which it has responsibility.

The Department of Employment record no objectives for youth or employment training, and I am not surprised, given the cuts in those services. It gives no information on the placement of young people gaining qualifications or jobs. It explains that those targets will be agreed later with training and enterprise councils, as if it had no responsibility whatsoever for setting them.

The huge report of the Department of the Environment--the largest, at 178 pages--sets out page after page of detail on future spending, but contains no past analyses or future targets for the improvement of, for example, the quality of air or water. It reports its interest in preserving the landscape, but fails to report the extent of damage or destruction to sites of special scientific interest. It mentions the extent of homelessness, but offers no indication of how much it expects to reduce it. We are told at length of the Department's spending on inner cities, but we are given no clue to what improvements it is aiming at in quality of life for their residents. The Department of Social Security report informs the reader of the ways in which take-up rates for benefits can be calculated, but gives no analysis of what they are, or of how they might be improved. There are many useful statistics in the Department of Health's volume--statistics on the costs of its services, the number of out-patient attendances, the average length of in-patient episodes, immunisation take-up rates, general practitioner list sizes and prescription costs. It contains mortality rates for a number of diseases, and targets for coronary grafts, hip replacements, cataract operations and bone marrow transplants. Unfortunately, all those series of figures end in 1989 or 1990, so there are no indicators of how the Government expect them to improve. We are told what special funds have been allocated to reduce waiting list sizes, which is a key indicator, but we are given no idea by how much the Department expects them to be reduced.

Those of us who have argued for the past 20-odd years that public expenditure White Papers should set out as many spending programmes as possible, and should give the social and economic indicators which will enable us to know the objectives of spending, can only record dismay at all this, as these first departmental reports are ridiculous. They either mean that Departments are trying to swamp the reader with meaningless numbers or, what is more likely, they simply poured into them any old figures that they had to hand--except for the Treasury, which reported virtually nothing.

The Treasury's slender report has an interesting selectivity ; it grandly informs the reader that one of its objectives is to maintain a general oversight of the financial system and to help maintain its integrity. Another aim is to manage Government debts and financial assets effectively and prudently. That is very worth while, and we understand that those are two of the Treasury's jobs. Therefore, one might have expected the report to include some measures relating to City failures and the effectiveness of investor protection, or to the Treasury's competence on debt management and custody of assets. However, a suggestion to that effect in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee was greeted with surprise by Treasury officials.

Column 322

On the other hand, the Treasury report tells the reader about the productivity of pay clerks in the Chessington computer centre, and offers an unintelligible graph, showing the caseload of clerical staff in the pensions administration office. The Treasury does not tell us anything about its grand duties of safeguarding Government's debts and financial assets, but tells us in great detail what some poor clerk achieved in the Chessington computer office or the pensions administration office. That is typical of the amateurism that has always run through the British civil service, especially the Treasury, whose mandarins are only too happy to apply measurement to the work of their clerical staff, but not to themselves.

The presentation of statistical indicators reaches a somewhat eccentric peak in the report of the Welsh Office, which is one of the best of the departmental reports. There is a section on "Indicators of a Healthy Lifestyle," between 1985-88, which records the percentages of the Welsh population using semi-skimmed milk and eating fruit daily. [Laughter.]

There is promise of more to come, as the section on indicators of health tells us that the Department is considering the production of an indicator on emotional health and relationships. In a future report, we shall see a performance indicator of emotional health and family relationships among the people of Wales, but the Treasury will not tell us how it proposes to manage the nation's assets. Really, these reports are merely a mandarin's playpen--they do not make any sense at all. They threw in any statistic they could find, and it is ridiculous that we are expected to treat them seriously. Last week in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the Treasury said that each report set out for each Department a set of ordered priorities and the criteria by which policy changes are assessed, but it could not find an example of either. There is no example of either in any of those in the departmental reports, yet they are required of Departments by the Treasury.

Not surprisingly, the Treasury also told us that the division concerned with applying quality controls to these reports does not have a management accountant in its employ, and it hopes to seek the advice of management accountants from somewhere else. It is no wonder that this kind of information is nonsense.

Our Select Committee would be well advised to take this matter seriously. We are being swamped with information in reports which carefully omit the information we need if we are to scrutinise the work of the Departments.

This week, the National Audit Office reported the Treasury as saying that it was satisfied with performance indicators in 26 of the 34 Departments. In other words, the Treasury is perfectly happy with what we are getting. I guess that these reports are the state of the art as far as the Treasury is concerned, and we are not going to get any more. Select Committees should watch that carefully.

I shall refer only to one programme as an example of the content of the White Paper, because it is of special concern and it is referred to in our amendment. The report of the Department of Employment reveals a real-terms cut in youth training of £100 million in the next three years, at a time when the automatic pilot running our economy will take unemployment to 2.5 million this autumn, and it is quite likely that it will reach 3 million this winter.

Next Section

Home Page