It is easy to warm to Mr Gordon Brown for his Calvinist earnestness in pursuing what he perceives to be the good for the greatest number. Yet in that respect, and in particular on the evidence of yesterday's outline statement on next year's Budget, he is strong on ends but is lamentably weak on means. This is a pity, for it is clear that the chancellor wants to encourage a debate about the direction in which the nation should be moving. But for any debate to work it must have facts to chew on, options and alternatives to weigh, and an openness on the part of government which alone ensures that arguments and discussions take place within a meaningful framework. Yes, it would be wonderful if child care was cheap and available, if fewer people were on welfare and more in employment, if access to skills training was simple, and if everyone from the boardroom down (and especially in the boardroom)

took a responsible attitude to remuneration. All of these are goals of New Labour, and rightly so, but New Labour is not at all good at telling us how we will achieve such various and happy states.

It can be argued with some truth that an outline statement on a forthcoming Budget is not the place for setting out a detailed route-map. Certainly, the chancellor used the occasion with some political skill, and in particular in the passage where he filleted the Tories neatly by easing the fuel problems of the elderly this winter by using surplus cash from our European Union account. Mr Lilley, who does not impress as one of life's robust souls, looked as if something essential had been removed from his innards at that point. Apart from that important and timely measure we still must wonder what yesterday's event was all about. Detail on almost anything of real interest was missing. It would have been nice to know how the various government reviews of policy options are going but there was scarcely a word. There was supposed to be an element of greenery in the statement but it must have

wilted somewhere, for the boost to the Home Efficiency Scheme through the reduction of VAT on energy-saving materials used in the scheme is modest, if worthy. We heard no detail on inheritance tax, on car tax, on capital gains, on the 10p tax ambition, or on tax credits. In other words, on all the really radical areas he said least.

There are some puzzling elements in those measures which were announced. Mr Brown has cut corporation tax by 1% in 1999 to 30%. Why? the obvious answer is that it is intended to encourage investment, but by that time, and by his own admission, growth is expected to have declined and any British firms wise enough to invest for the long-term will have done it already. We can ask what is the point, but there is no coherent answer. Then again, the boost in after-school clubs and child care sounds mightily impressive, but where are the 50,000 young carers to come from; who will train them, and will there be jobs for all those who have been released from the home? Again, there are no answers. In all, it is worthy in intent but if we are to applaud we need facts and options and we need them fast.