Nevertheless, the West Countryman was still twitchy as he read out notes on each beast walking before him.These commentaries were typical Pipe: a blend of formbook-speak and the blindingly obvious ‘Miinnehoma won at Newbury and then the National,’ he said ‘It was a great thrill for all the team. Last April’s Grand National hero was part of a 12-strong consignment paraded for the visitors, to the accompaniment of a Pipe soundtrack.The trainer has never been an easy performer before the press and yesterday, in a Maplins jacket with a microphone in hand, he was about as relaxed as he gets. A gathering yesterday at his Pond House stables at Nicholashayne was a most lavish affair, ostensibly an occasion to publicise the 1995 Grand National.There was champagne, a parade of expensive horses and, surreally, a rainbow over the village which suggested the pot of gold was half-way up Pipe’s gallops, which could pass as one of the Eiger’s more formidable sections.There was also Barrie Cope, the racecourse seafood specialist, who has accounted for more life from the oceans than the bickering British and Spanish trawling fleets put together.Praise was so effusive for Cope’s fare that Miinnehoma, came off a very poor second best in adulation. In fact, no-one has been in the slightest bit interested.But even though Pipe might be down to 100 horses from a maximum of 140, he is not about to ask for directions to the local soup kitchens. For those who believe the recession is over, there was sobering news from Somerset yesterday. Martin Pipe, the man who has rewritten more records than Norris McWhirter, has flipped the cardboard sign in his window round from ‘no vacancies’. National Hunt racing’s most prolific trainer has empty boxes at his yard and there is no conga of the sort that stretches from Russian provisions stores to rectify matters ‘It could be the economic climate,’ Pipe said.

‘Money is tight.’
It could also be informative when diagnosing the body racing to learn that the man who regularly sends out 200 winners a season has had something of a lukewarm response while searching for a stable sponsor. As for the report, I fear it is little more than a long political menu from which Mr Blair will be able to choose courses when and if he desires.The writer is Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield and former Secretary of State for Social Services (1981-87).(Photograph omitted). I would keep the basic pension uprated by prices, but for those without the advantage of an occupational scheme or substantial savings I would pay an extra credit.Perhaps, then, Sir Gordon has provided one useful service, in helping to start a fresh debate on the future of the welfare state and what should be provided by the taxpayer and what by the individual. But there remains the position of retired people living on just their basic pension. I have long advocated that their position should be improved by a new pension credit scheme. Now the Borrie commission is prepared to abandon that position on the ground that it sees no case for state help going to wealthy families.

It intends to target child benefit on those who need it.And are there any lessons for the Government? Again, I think there is one.While Labour agonises, seeking to reconcile the irreconcilable conflicts in its pensions policy, we have the opportunity to act.Improved occupational pensions and new options such as personal pensions have transformed the financial position of many families living in retirement. The conventional wisdom has been that child benefit was a replacement for a tax allowance, and that it would be ironical, not to say wrong, to make it taxable. The pension guarantee implicitly accepts that we cannot afford the cost of earnings upratings of pensions for everyone.But the biggest change of heart comes on child benefit. If you try, you end up with inadequate universal benefits – such as the old death grant to which Labour was so attached – and prevent proper help going to those who need it.

That was one of the main proposals of my review.Now, ever so gently so as not to offend anyone, the report accepts the principle. They ignored the inescapable conclusion that it is impossible to provide universal benefits, irrespective of need, in all circumstances. For years Labour’s social security spokesmen have spoken about ‘targeting help’ as if it was the work of the devil. This report is about the principles to be followed, they will say, and should not be confused with the sordid question of how it can be afforded.So are there any new principles that can be welcomed? There is certainly one.