The purpose of the clause is to standardise the rules relating to the date at which corporation tax is payable. After a transitional period, corporation tax will, in all cases, be payable nine months after the end of the accounting period for which it is chargeable. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) knows, there have been a number of publicised cases with potential tax avoidance in this area and that is one reason why the change has been made.

The purpose of the clause is to amend the definition of "associate" that is used when determining whether someone has a material interest in a close company, and as it applies in the case where a trust is involved. In practical terms, the proposed changes will affect two areas of tax only—the approved employee share scheme legislation and close company interest relief on loans taken out by employees to buy shares in their companies. The changes have been made principally in connection with the former Their effect is to relax the rules that determine eligibility to participate in an approved share scheme.

This clause and the next three modify the tax treatment of the income and capital gains of unit trusts. They do not change the substance of the existing treatment. The purpose of the modifications is to take account of the new regime for unit trusts provided by the Financial Services Act 1986.

The clause is designed to improve the effectiveness of the business expansion scheme for film production companies. Film production is already a qualifying activity, but to meet the conditions a company must have engaged in film production throughout the three-year qualifying period. In future, a company will qualify if it is engaged throughout the period either in the production of films or in the distribution of films produced during the period. The change will apply to shares issued on or after 17 March. I hope that this change will be of assistance to the industry.

Clause 67 increases the maximum amounts of retirement relief from £.100,000 to £125,000. The increase in the maximum amount is yet another example of the Government's continuing policies to assist small businesses and unquoted trading companies. In particular, the clause will provide encouragement for business men to plough back profits instead of investing for retirement by way of' other savings. We have increased the figure above indexation. The proposal will he a major help for entrepreneurs.

Clause 138 and the following seven clauses make minor and technical adjustments to the stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax provisions, including adjustments that are necessary to accord with definitions in the Financial Services Act 1986.

Clause 149 and schedule 14 provide for shares in a company dealt in on the unlisted securities market to be treated for inheritance tax purposes like shares in companies that have a full stock exchange listing. They also increase the rate of business relief for substantial minority holdings in unquoted companies. In addition, they introduce minor changes to the treatment of agricultural relief. I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 151, line 6, at end add—

'( ) If the value of the property when it becomes held on the trusts referred to in subsection (1)(b) above is lower than so much of the value transferred on the death of the person referred to in subsection (1)(a) as is attributable to the property, subsection (2) above shall apply to the property only to the extent of the lower value.'.

The amendment proposes to insert a new subsection into new section 57A which provides an exemption from inheritance tax in respect of the charge arising from the death of a person who has an interest in possession in settled property if within a specified period of that death, the property is put into a heritage maintenance fund. Subsection (4) specifies a number of situations in which the new exemption is to be denied to prevent exploitation of the exemption. The new subsection covers a further situation where manipulation could otherwise occur.

I want to explain the provision that is amended. Clause 50 and schedule 15 make two changes to the rules that provide exemption from inheritance tax from endowment property put into a trust known as a maintenance fund to support qualifying heritage property, commonly historic houses.

First, there is an exemption from inheritance tax in respect of the charge arising on the death of a person who has an interest in the possession in settled property if within a specified period of that death—generally two, but in some cases three years—the property is placed in a heritage maintenance fund.

Secondly, consequential changes have been made to the rules governing tax changes when property entering a maintenance fund from an interest in possession trust leaves the maintenance fund for non-heritage purposes. The revised rules will apply irrespective of whether the property entered the maintenance fund from an interest in possession trust under the new facility or under the existing exemption facility. Changes are to take effect from Budget day. The purpose is to encourage more people to put heritage property into maintenance funds. That has been difficult to encourage in the past. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is a worthwhile objective.

Clause 151 inserts a new subsection into section 233 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. The new subsection allows property offered in lieu of inheritance tax to be accepted on terms providing that the tax will cease to carry interest from a date earlier than the date when the property is formally accepted if the acceptance of the property is based on its value at that earlier date.

We very much hope that this clause will enable us to retain more works of art in this country and in our galleries. As hon. Members will be aware the acceptance-in-lieu system recently enabled us to acquire Constable's "Stratford Mill". I hope that the House will welcome the proposal as it has been welcomed by the art world in general.

Clause 153 and schedule 16 provide for the establishment and operation of a crude oil nomination scheme for petroleum revenue tax. Under the scheme, a participator in an oilfield may nominate proposed sales at arm's length of crude oil that he has produced himself and proposed appropriations of transfer of such oil to associates for refining purposes. The nomination is to be made within two business days to the Revenue—in practice, the oil taxation office.

As the House may know, the scheme has been introduced in response to developments in the oil market that have enabled participators to pick and choose with hindsight which of a range of contracts and prices should form the basis of their PRT liabilities. There is provision for modifications to be made to the scheme by regulation, thus enabling it to be adapted to meet any significant change in the market.

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 162, line 12, after 'purpose', insert

'which, subject to subsection (IA) below, are'.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 51.

The new relief for oil-related research expenditure set out in schedule 19, specifically excludes expenditure on exploration and appraisal. It achieves this by excluding any expenditure for purposes specified in section 5A(2) of the Oil Taxation Act 1975, namely exploration and appraisal activities in the territorial sea and the continental shelf. It was also intended that the new relief should exclude onshore exploration and appraisal expenditure but, following the Finance Act 1975, onshore expenditure is no longer included in the section 5A(2) purposes. The two amendments therefore ensure that the objective of excluding all exploration and appraisal expenditure from the scope of the new relief is achieved, by deeming, for the purposes only of this provision, the territorial sea to include also the United Kingdom.

I have a question about clause No. 161. It seems that the definition of foreign currency in that clause excludes the ecu. Why is that?

The ecu is not in itself a foreign currency.

I beg to move, To leave out Clause 20.

Congratulations are in order on the way in which you conducted the Committee stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know how many words per minute you uttered, but I am sure that the speed exceeds most records and perhaps it should be checked for the "Guinness Book of Records".

We went rather quickly through many technical or unexceptional clauses in the Finance Bill and it is not necessary for us to comment at length upon them. However, I should like to make one small point. In the final version of the Finance Bill, clause 58 was left out. That clause spoke about the Inland Revenue's response to Lloyd's of London and it caused Lloyd's underwriters severe anxieties because it looked as if the Inland Revenue would be more assiduously after them than before. One can only express regret—I shall leave it at that—that the clause was left out of the Bill.

Over the last few weeks, I seem to have done endless reading on the Budget and the Finance Bill. A comment in an article in the New Statesman of 13 March seems to sum up the whole debate that preceded the Budget and the debate itself on the Finance Bill. The comment fits the Chancellor rather well. It says:

"The art of the successful pickpocket lies in diverting the victim's attention at the right moment."

In the run-up to the Budget and during the debate on the Finance Bill, the Chancellor and the Government conducted a successful propaganda operation and diverted the attention of the victims, many taxpayers, at the right moment.

Far from the presentation in the Budget that most taxpayers would be better off as a result of that Budget and the changes in the Finance Bill, we know that that is not the case. Those on average and below-average incomes will find that the 2p off the standard rate of tax on or after 18 May, depending on their pay, will make virtually no difference to the proportion of their incomes taken in tax and national insurance contribution.

Much as I hate to keep reminding the Financial Secretary of the extremely detailed and most useful answers to my written questions, I am afraid that I must do so. I received a written answer on 27 March, which occupied a number of pages from column 311 onwards and it makes the Government's position on tax and national insurance quite clear. The tables show for 1978 to 1987–88 the proportion of income taken in tax and national insurance contributions from those on half average earnings, currently £113 a week, from those on three quarters of average male earnings, that is to say £170 a week, and from those on average earnings. Most of those people have suffered a substantial increase in the tax take. That substantial increase ranges from about 4 per cent., but it is sometimes even higher.

It is only when we move on towards the end of those pages of tables and look, for example, at a married man with two children who earns 700 per cent. of average male earnings—that is someone earning £1,500 a week this year—that we see that in 1978–79 the proportion of his income that was taken in tax and national insurance contributions was 58 per cent., but that it has now fallen to 48 per cent. That is a 10 per cent. fall, which is a huge drop for those whose incomes are well above average. However, the average taxpayer or someone on below average incomes is now paying more in income tax and national insurance contributions as a proportion of his gross earnings, in terms of the Financial Secretary's figures. I am sure that he read the parliamentary answer most carefully before he signed it and allowed it to go forward in his name.

Would not the hon. Lady's case have greater credibility if it were not for the fact that she is now seeking to remove clause 20 from the Finance Bill? If that clause is removed, she will injure still further those on average incomes whose champion she claims to be.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been following the argument. The point is that even the changes proposed in the Finance Bill, which we are now finally considering and voting on, will make virtually no difference to the proportion of income taken in tax and national insurance contributions last year and this year.

To help the hon. Gentleman, I shall give those figures. Before the changes in the Budget, or rather in the Finance Bill, a married man with two children who is on 50 per cent. of average earnings would find that 16·7 per cent. of his gross earnings were taken in tax and national insurance contributions. Assuming the changes that we are discussing, in this financial year 16·6 per cent. of his gross earnings would be taken in tax and national insurance contributions. Therefore in proportional terms, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, there is virtually no change.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I would like to continue my argument. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to study the matter.

rose—

No, I shall not give way. I wish to continue. I have already made it perfectly clear that if one is talking about the proportion of earnings taken in income tax and national insurance contributions, the figures are all there.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Apart from the percentages to which she has referred, has she not overlooked the fact that many millions of retired persons will benefit from the 2p drop in the standard rate of tax? National insurance contributions do not come into that calculation.

I was going to consider such matters, so I shall incorporate my answer to the hon. Gentleman into that. The question I was asked just now—

Answer the question.

The hon. Gentleman should not be so impatient. The point that I was making was that withdrawing the 2p cut, or abandoning the changes that the Government have proposed, would make little difference to most earners who pay tax and national insurance contributions. If one makes those changes, and especially if one requires the higher rate taxpayer to make a fairer contribution to the Exchequer than he or she has been making during the past eight years, we shall use those resources, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well is our policy, to raise pensions by £8 a week for married pensioners and by £5 for single pensioners. We shall also ensure that a heating allowance of £5 per week is paid from December to the end of March to all pensioners on supplementary benefit.

All that would be far more beneficial to the majority of pensioners than 2p off the standard rate of tax. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if I take as an example—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is completely out of touch with the way in which most people live. In my constituency, for example, 4,000 pensioners are on supplementary benefit, and a heating allowance during the winter months would be far more beneficial to them than 2p off the standard rate.

indicated dissent.

If the hon. Gentleman does not understand, I suggest that he goes away and does some homework on that matter.

On tax, a Conservative Member mentioned from a sedentary position the increase in earnings after tax and national insurance. I should like to point out to Conservative Members that the poorest wage earners have seen only a 2·9 per cent. increase in their real earnings between April 1979 and April 1986. However, the top earners have seen a 21 per cent. increase in their post-tax earnings.

Where is the evidence and what is the average?

The evidence is the Treasury's own analysis. I think that the average is about 8 per cent. However, it is an extremely distorted average figure—[Interruption.] The average is certainly not 21 per cent. The Financial Secretary had better study the tables that are provided by the Treasury. Perhaps he simply put his name to them, or glanced at them without giving them any consideration. The increase is 21 per cent. for the top earners and for the lowest earners it is 2·9 per cent. For the median of earnings—which is not quite the average—the increase is about 9 per cent. However, many people have seen only an extremely small increase in their real earnings. Furthermore. under the present Government, the top earners have increased their share of post-tax income from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent. Again, those are the Government's own figures.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I have given way two or three times already and I do not want to prolong this debate. I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman—

rose—

No, I shall not give way. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman all over again in case he does not understand the point. If one considers those earning anything from 700 per cent. to 2,000 per cent. of average male earnings, one finds a substantial drop in the proportion of tax and national insurance that is taken from their gross earnings.

rose—

No, I shall not give way. I have discussed the proportions and spelled out the tables. I suggest that before the election, the hon. Gentleman goes away and reads the appropriate columns from the Official Report of Friday 27 March. Perhaps then, unusually, the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents the truth about taxation under the Tories. I can assure the House that Ministers and other Conservative Members most certainly do not.

We have seen the direct tax burden increase on those on below average incomes, and we have also seen indirect taxation increase during the past eight years. Those taxes hit the poor disproportionately. Currently, the poorest 10 per cent. of households—those on just £3,500 a year—pay nearly one quarter of their incomes—23 per cent.—in indirect taxation. However, the richest 10 per cent.—those on more than £28,000 a year—pay only one sixth of their incomes—16 per cent.—in indirect taxes. The doubling of VAT that occurred under the previous Tory Government has hit the poorest households hardest, and it continues to place a heavy burden on them.

Should we have the misfortune to have another Tory Government, we know that their hidden manifesto proposes to extend VAT on food, children's clothing and other items. It would not be the first time that the Chancellor has done that. He has already extended the base for VAT—for example, by charging it on take-away food. We know that that is what the Government have in mind and, indeed, that is a consequence of their commitment to the internal market of the EEC. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Prime Minister prevaricated on the issue in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party during Prime Minister's Question Time the other day.

4.30 pm

In the past eight years the tax system has been deliberately distorted to make those on average and below-average incomes pay for the tax cuts of the rich, whether through direct or indirect taxation. That is the truth of the matter. Every examination of what has occurred, and even the Government's answers to questions, show that to be the case. This year's Finance Bill makes changes in inheritance tax which in a full year will cost £170 million, but the Government choose to boast about a special tax relief for the over-80s on which they can afford to squander all of £10 million. That shows clearly where the Government's priorities lie.

We have tabled the amendment simply to give us another opportunity to attack the Government's record on taxation and to show the public the truth of the matter before polling day.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that I am replying.

We have taken the opportunity of this debate to show the public that they have been paying from their pockets for the benefit of the few. The Government will squander billions of pounds, as they already have done, to benefit those on £1,000 or £2,000 a week, while those who have little more than that to live on a year are paying through the nose to line the pockets of the rich.

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) has drawn the attention of the House to new clause 20 and I should like to make some brief remarks which point in entirely the opposite direction from those which she has just been making.

The duty of the Treasury—it is one to which I hope the Treasury will return in coming weeks when the House returns after the election—is to provide the greatest possible stimulus to the economy by the adroit use of taxation reform. From the point of lightening the administration of the tax system the Government should also head towards extreme simplification of the tax system for its own sake. I should therefore like to repeat a recommendation which I made at an earlier stage in our discussion of this clause. We should be moving now towards a single rate of tax on all incomes. We should end the anomaly arising from the impact of national insurance on earned income which has the effect of providing a higher rate of tax on earned income than is normally charged on investment income.

We must treat women as entirely separate persons for tax purposes in future. I should also particularly like to repeat my recommendation that we should end higher rate tax altogether. In this way the Government would be adding to the incentives of investors to take risks which would add enormously to the profitability of companies and to the activity of the economy. It would also serve quickly to increase the total yield of tax rather than the reverse. My recommendations, therefore, would lead to a situation in which everyone would gain and nobody would lose.

This short debate comes at an opportune time. First, I must comment on the curious way in which democracy sometimes operates in this House. The sight of the Treasury Bench defeating large sections of its own Bill is an amusing end to this Parliament. I only wish that we could dispatch Finance Bills and many other Bills as speedily as we have done this afternoon. It is a great pleasure to see Ministers defeating large sections of their Bill in order to dispatch the House to the country to fight the general election.

If we in the alliance had been framing the Budget we would not have proceeded to make a 2p cut in income tax at this time. For that reason we have consistently voted against it and will do so again today. Since the publication of the Red Book and the Chancellor's Budget statement we have reviewed all our public expenditure commitments and have published the outcome today. Hon. Members will no doubt obtain details of that extended review in due course.

I shall say a few words about our expenditure commitments in the light of the amendment to delete the 2p cut in income tax. One of the most striking aspects of the Government's Budget forecasts and the Red Book was the scale of the fiscal adjustment and the amount of revenue available to the Chancellor in forthcoming years. It was much higher than had been anticipated by many, certainly until just before the Budget and even on the eve of the Budget. The Red Book showed that there were substantial forecast funds and we must take the Treasury at its word. The forecast was that the funds were in the region of £3 billion for 1988–89, £5 billion for 1989–90, £7 billion for 1990–91 and £9 billion for 1991–92.

Our view, which we expressed during the Budget debates, is that any available funds should be devoted to helping those who have been hit hardest by the recession and to building up the long-term strength of the economy and industry. In our review we have sought to achieve those ends. For that reason we have proposed a package of almost £5 billion to help ensure that the long-term unemployed can obtain work. The long-term unemployed are the section of our community who have been hit hardest by the economic recession and we give them top priority in our expenditure proposals.

We propose several tax cuts to give an incentive to employers to take on more labour, in particular by cutting employers' national insurance contributions in assisted areas, by providing tax incentives to encourage wider share ownership and more investment in industry, and by extending the Government's proposals for profit sharing which were included in the Finance Bill, but which the Government have dropped as a result of the general election. We would change the form of their profit-sharing proposals, but, as I said in our earlier debates on the Bill, we support the principle that the Government have outlined in the Bill.

In addition, we believe that the funds available should be used to help those who are in dire poverty at the bottom end of the income scale, particularly families with children and the long-term unemployed. We propose a substantial increase in expenditure over the next five years to help them and to improve education, health, industry, overseas aid, the arts and the Home Office. Understandably, people will ask how we would finance that increase in expenditure. Our plans imply an increase of some £4 billion in borrowings over five years. Before hon. Members on the Conservative Benches start crowing too much about that, we would have borrowings at a lower percentage of gross domestic product than the Government have had for the majority of their term of office, so it would hardly be an excess of spending.

The borrowings we suggest, compared either historically or with any other country in the Western world, would be a very modest increase. Those borrowings would be necessary to underpin the growth in industry and the economy and to build up the health and education services, which people want to see improved and strengthened. That could be done without restoring the 2p cut in income tax proposed by the Government.

Our proposals have been carefully costed and would be achievable over the coming five years. We would not reverse the 2p cut, but we believe that the Government were wrong to embark upon that road when over 3 million people are unemployed, waiting lists in hospitals are growing and schools do not have the equipment or resources to give children a proper education.

The House is following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, but neither I nor some of my colleagues can understand why, the hon. Gentleman having said that his party would not restore the cut, he voted against it.

Our judgment is that the Government should not have embarked upon this road when many people are unemployed and the education and health services should be upgraded. In the light of the figures in the Red Book and the forecasts by Ministers, it is quite clear that we could achieve the objectives we have set without restoring the cut in income tax. One of the alliance's aims is to stop the sharp reverses in policy which have taken place, when one party has reversed the proposals of another party on taxation and other matters.

As the Red Book was published on the day of the Budget, why did the hon. Gentleman vote against the tax cuts in March but decide in May that his view is different?

The Minister knows how long it takes the Government to go through their detailed expenditure proposals and come to a conclusion. No other party in opposition, including the Conservative party, has ever costed its proposals, had them reviewed by Coopers Lybrand and published the full figures, as the alliance has today, in order to make it clear to the country that at least one party in opposition provides a credible alternative to the Government and can carry out its pledges. That is clear from the proposals published today.

We could have easily come back within 24 hours of the Budget statement and the publication of the Red Book and, off the top of our heads, made a decision about what we would do, but the alliance wanted to act responsibly and to review the expenditure proposals in the light of what the Government have done. We have completed that review and the findings have been published today. We can achieve our priorities and targets within the expenditure outlined in detail in the proposals and without restoring the 2p cut in income tax. We have no desire to increase the burden of income tax on people beyond what is necessary to achieve the targets we have set. It is credible and desirable that we should achieve both those objectives.

For that reason I am sure that we will gain much support, because undoubtedly the country wants to see the education and health services improved and the jobless cared for. People do not want taxes to be raised more than is necessary. I hope that the vote tonight will be the last chapter of the Finance Bill proposals. We shall go into the election campaign with a fully costed programme which, I am sure, will gain the support of the electorate.

The speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was characterised during its closing moments by a claim that it was an example of the credibility of the Social Democratic party. I do not know what the fate of the hon. Member for Stockton, South will be when his speech is read in the Official Report tomorrow morning by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). but in so far as the hon. Gentleman may be an official Treasury spokesman for the Social Democratic party, that is not a position he is likely to hold should he be re-elected in the next Parliament.

His speech was one of the most breathtaking speeches to which we have listened in the House. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong when I assert that he is an official Treasury spokesman for his party. If I have got that wrong, I will gladly give way. The hon. Gentleman said that he was opposed to the reduction of 2p in the pound income tax, but that, the proposal now being before the House, he will not vote against it. The characteristic courage of the Social Democratic party was shown in the hon. Gentleman's act of heroism in the closing stages of the Parliament when he led us to believe that he will abstain.

No one from the Government wishes to misrepresent the Social Democratic party, and if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman and he will take his courage in his hands and vote in favour of my right hon. Friends who sit on the Treasury Bench, I shall gladly give way. On the other hand, he may vote with his former colleagues in the Labour party. I fully understand that he has not yet been cured of the disease from which they still suffer, because he is wearing his red tie today and he was the supporter of a Government who borrowed where they dared not tax and printed when they could not borrow.

The hon. Gentleman said that he proposes a mere £4 billion extra borrowing. The hon. Gentleman did not say, either to the Chief Secretary or to the Finance Secretary, what would be the effect upon interest rates of that extra borrowing. He did not tell the House, although he had the opportunity to do so, what would be the consequences for interest rates or extra Government expenditure because of the interest the Government would have to pay on their loans.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will remember that the late Lord Butler described the Liberal party as a band of visionary missionaries with neither vision nor mission. The hon. Gentleman has climbed into bed with the Liberals and I hope that he will make many more speeches before the House rises.

I wish to oppose the Opposition's proposition that clause 20 should be deleted from the Bill, but before I do so I want to make one comment on a remark made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) about other parts of the Bill. I am sure that he would not feel that it would be right for the House to pass major pieces of legislation on important subjects for the Government without any scrutiny, and that is why we took the view that we did on those clauses today. But let me assure him that the Government propose to reintroduce all those provisions which have had to be left out of the shortened Finance Bill as early as possible in the next Parliament.

When we debated the 2p reduction in income tax in the House less than two weeks ago, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) accused the Government of showing judgment

"as mistaken as it is cynical"—[Official Report, 29 April 1987; Vol. 115, c. 332.]

in choosing to reduce income tax. It is his judgment and the judgment of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) which is mistaken, both in what the hon. Member for Dagenham said then and in choosing to highlight the clause again today. I can assure the Opposition that the clause could never be regarded as cynical. We have always stressed our determination to reduce the basic rate of income tax with a target of 25p in the pound. This move this year is entirely consistent with that—open, plain, right and popular, and not to be reversed, as the Labour party would do. Therefore, I am delighted that our major debate at this stage is on this clause. Nothing underlines the difference between the Conservatives and all other parties on tax policies more, and the country now has the opportunity to make the choice.

Let me briefly restate why we believe that it is right to take action to reduce the basic rate of income tax. The basic rate of income tax is the marginal rate for about 95 per cent. of all taxpayers. Therefore, reducing the basic rate of tax directly improves the incentives for some 21 million taxpayers. It allows them to keep more of the rewards of their own efforts. It is good for incentives and motivation, and the British economy benefits. If those lower tax bills feed through into lower pay settlements, there will be a directly beneficial effect on employment.

On the other hand, the Opposition's attitude is clear. They believe in high taxes for their own sake. They believe that allowing people to keep more of their own money is—they used this phrase in the previous debate—"givIng money away", not giving it back. The Opposition see the tax system as some great engine of social change, penalising those who aim to better themselves and their families. They do not recognise the language of incentives, effort or motivation. They recognise only the language of egalitarianism and interference. They are only happy when they are spending other people's money for them. They do not recognise the moral benefits to the family arid the practical benefits to the economy of enabling people to keep more of what they earn to spend as they consider right and appropriate.

The extent to which we have won this ideological argument was demonstrated by the extraordinary attack on the Budget by the hon. Member for Dagenham in the previous debate on this clause, and the hon. Member for Thurrock was at it again today. True, the hon. Member for Dagenham did at times imply—as did the hon. Member for Thurrock—indeed, he stated, that the Opposition did not think that we were right to give priority to reducing income tax. But that was sotto voce. Those were the muted passages in both speeches.

The Chief Secretary cannot be allowed to get away with that sort of nonsense. He knows that it is nonsense. We have made our priorities clear inside and outside the House. We have made it clear that our priority is to raise child benefit and pensions, and, indeed, the tax burden on those on well above average incomes will be increased. That is only fair and we are looking for fairness. To suggest that there are no social priorities and no priorities for jobs is utter and complete nonsense and the Chief Secretary knows that.

But the thrust of the hon. Lady's speech today, and that of the hon. Member for Dagenham the other week, was to accuse us of not having cut tax enough. The hon. Lady was trying to say that we had not succeeded in cutting tax enough. Only sotto voce, and only when pressed, do they concede that they will raise taxes. The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we are not just talking about taxes on, in her own words, the better-off. Her proposal today to restore the 2p tax cut means an increase in taxes on most people and certainly an increase on taxes on all taxpayers. Therefore, the thrust of the Opposition's onslaught is not that we are cutting taxes but that we have apparently not cut them enough. That is an almost unbelievable position for the Opposition to take, given their tax and spending policies.

I can only assume that the Opposition are taking that position for one reason: to accuse us of not being successful enough yet in cutting income tax was, in their judgment, more likely to receive a better response from the country than to tell them what Labour would do. It is just about the most convoluted position for the Opposition to take up than I can imagine and it will fool no one.

Let me face the charge head on. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have often made clear, we wish and intend to do more to cut income tax, which is in itself an acknowledgement that we have not yet done enough. That is in no small part due to our success in, and the priority that we have given to, reducing that other burden, the level of public borrowing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) referred. That was another inheritance from Labour that we had to tackle first.

It is interesting to observe that, with current levels of Government expenditure, if we had had borrowing at today's prices at the same unsustainable rate as we had under Labour in 1975–76, there would be hardly any need for income tax. Under Labour today, we would have had all three much higher then they are now—Whigher spending, higher taxes and higher borrowing, and, of course, higher interest rates too.

Why does the Minister not deal with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) about the burden of indirect taxation, which has been substantially increased in eight years of Tory Government? Why does not he answer the point, repeatedly made, about what the Government would do, if re-elected, about those items which are at present not subject to VAT—children's clothing, food and so on? Is not it clear that any re-elected Tory Government are likely to take action that would mean that millions of people would suffer as a result of those items being subject to VAT?

I was dealing with a separate point, but let me come to that directly. We have made our position on VAT clear on many occasions. The Opposition are making the most extraordinary charges in order to try to make their claims credible and they are failing.

Let me quote from a letter from the hon. Member for Dagenham to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the other day:

"It is common knowledge among higher levels of the Inland Revenue that a team of five senior officials from the Policy Division are working on the extension of VAT to goods currently exempt, including both food and children's clothes."

If the Opposition do not know that VAT is handled by Customs and Excise, not the Inland Revenue, it demonstrates how incredible their charge is.

Let me come directly to the hon. Gentleman's other point on indirect taxes. What is also clear is that for a person whose real earnings—that is, after inflation—are the same as they were in 1978–79, which is a perfectly fair test to take, taxation today is much lower than it was at all income levels. For example, a married man on half average earnings in 1978–79, whose earnings have gone up in line with prices, would pay tax and national insurance contributions of 12·9 per cent. under our regime now, instead of the 16 per cent. that he paid in 1978–79. Because that is in real terms and includes prices, it takes account of VAT.

But that is not all that matters. What is much more important—this is the point that the hon. Member for Thurrock is constantly missing—is the increase in earnings that people have been able to achieve under the Government. That is why the hon. Lady's figures were not relevant. The most telling comparison of all is—this is the real comparison, including the increase in earnings and the tax changes—that the real take-home pay of the man on average earnings has risen by 21·5 per cent. under this Government. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not know that, but that is the fact. That compares with the tiniest increase under the last Labour Government of 0·6 per cent. which is well under 1 per cent.

The figures that I used were the Treasury's own figures taken over the years 1979 to 1986. The 21 per cent. increase was for the highest decile only. The Treasury must make up its mind which are the true figures and which are the false figures. It is clear that the true figures are the ones that the Government find most uncomfortable.

The right hon. Gentleman made his little joke about the collection of VAT, but he did not answer the question. If the EC Commissioners recommend imposition of VAT on food and other zero-rated items would a Conservative Government accept that recommendation? Yes or no?

On the first point, the hon. Lady is quite wrong. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replied to certain specific questions that she asked. The two sets of figures that I have put before the House are the relevant ones—the difference in tax burden for people whose real earnings have remained the same as they were under the Labour Government and, above all, the difference in real take-home pay. The 21·5 per cent. increase is in the real take-home pay of the person on average earnings.

As for any recommendation that might come from the European Community, that is hypothetical because we do not know what the Commission will recommend so the hon. Lady's question is on a par with the ludicrous final question that the hon. Member for Dagenham put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

The income tax cuts proposed by the Government will appear in pay packets from 17 May onwards. A married man with average earnings will be £3·87 per week better off and a married man on half average earnings will be £1·59 better off. Those increases in take-home pay will come into effect at the end of this week, but the hon. Members for Thurrock and for Stockton, South wish to prevent that. A reversal of the Government's proposals would have two consequences. First, there would be chaos in companies. Many employers with computerised payrolls will already have run their monthly pay for May and many others will have calculated pay in advance on the basis of a 27p basic rate, so it would not be possible to ask them to reverse the tax cuts at this stage.

Secondly, therefore, and much more important for the country, employees would receive the tax cuts only to have them clawed back. That is what the Labour party, the Liberal party and the SDP are saying. They intend to claw back the increases in pay resulting from the tax cut. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton, South cannot get away with this. He has been wriggling throughout proceedings on the Finance Bill about the position of the SDP and Liberal parties on clause 20 but he has said that he intends to vote against clause 20.

indicated assent.

The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. Plainly, if the SDP and Liberal parties succeeded in their intentions today, employees throughout the country would receive the tax cuts at the end of this week only to have them clawed back.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it all ways. If he votes against our proposal today he will be relying entirely on Conservative votes to ensure that the tax cuts appear in employees' pay packets. The consequence of a vote for the Opposition parties on 11 June would be not just a clawing back—that is, a 2p increase in income tax—but in the case of the Labour party much higher taxation to finance huge increases in public expenditure. The hon. Member for Dagenham has been no more successful than his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in stemming the torrent of commitments from his colleagues, so a vote for Labour is a vote for higher taxation and borrowing, leading yet again to the familiar spiral of high inflation and deteriorating economic performance which typified Labour economic management in the 1970s.

As the speechof the hon. Member for Stockton, South has shown, the SDP and the Liberals want it all ways. The hon. Gentleman gave a most tortuous explanation in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark). There is a saying that even though a dog has four legs it cannot move in two directions at once. The hon. Gentleman has only two and he endeavours to move in two directions all the time, but the electorate will not be fooled.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the Red Book and the fiscal adjustment in future years because, in so doing, he showed the strength of the economy built up by the Government. I remind the House, however, that those are forecasts and they will come about only with the continuation of our economic policies and our prudent management. To judge from what the hon. Member for Stockton, South has said, typically again the SDP and the Liberals are making huge spending promises without economic policies to produce the necessary growth. It is clear that they, too, are on the side of higher taxes and higher spending financed by higher borrowing when they are forced to come clean about it.

I agree with the Opposition in one respect at least. This proposal is the centrepiece of the 1987 Finance Bill and it continues our firm progress down the path towards lower taxes for all taxpayers. Next week, the effect of these reductions and the higher tax allowances will start to be felt in pay packets. The young married police constable will be £3·07 per week better off, the train driver £3·61 and the average manual worker in the water industry £355 better off. That is not a cynical pre-election bribe.

What is it then?

We have made our tax objectives clear throughout. It is not a bribe. It is the dividend of eight years' prudent and sound economic management—the same prudent and sound economic management which allowed us to reduce borrowing to 1 per cent. of GDP and to increase our spending in priority areas by £4·75 billion this year.

That is the prospectus on which we shall fight the election, not the fictions dreamed up in Walworth road and laced with recurring Labour nightmares about their period in office. Our prospectus has already redynamised the British economy after years of failure and it allows me to offer the House the following assertion which, as we have learnt from today's debate, no other party can offer. The next Conservative Government will seek to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 25p as soon as we prudently can. This clause is strong evidence of our ability to achieve that aim in the next Parliament and I urge the House to pass it today.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 35, leave out 'section 3(5)' and insert `subsection (5) of section 3'.

With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5.

Hon. Members who served on the Committee that considered the Bill will recall that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) were displeased by the use of the words "retransmittal" and "retransmit" in clauses 2 and 3. I admitted that I too found the words distasteful and undertook to consider whether the drafting could be improved without undermining the intention. This group of amendments is designed to remove the controversial words in clauses 2 and 3 and make minor consequential amendments. Hon. Members will see that the terminology employed in the amendments is "transmit". This probably does not go as far as the hon. Member for Garscadden would like, but, as I explained in Committee, "transmission" is the normal term for the handing over of proceedings from one court to another.

I commend the amendments to the House.

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 29, after 'accord', insert

',or on the application of the prosecutor or of the person (or on their joint application),'

In Committee the hon. Member for Monklands West (Mr. Clarke) moved an amendment to allow the prosecution or the defence to move for the High Court to remit a question of exceptional complexity to the Court of Sessions. I admitted that I saw force in the argument and undertook to look at the matter again. I have now done so and this amendment will give effect to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. If the amendment is agreed to by the House, in addition to the court so deciding, the prosecution or the defence, or both, will be able to move the court to remit where they perceive the point at issue as one that ought properly to be resolved by the Court of Session.

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 12, line 4, leave out 'such'.

This is a drafting concession in response to remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Committee.

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 12, line 39, after 'order', insert

'or, in relation to that property, under section 12 of this Act'.

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 21, line 19, at end insert:

',or by virtue of section 24A of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (recognition and enforcement in England and Wales of orders and functions under this Part of this Act)'.

Clause 26 allows the Court of Session to order compensation to be paid where, inter alia, a person has suffered substantial loss or damage as a result of anything done in relation to various orders made by the Court of Session under the Bill, such as those for the restraint of assets or the realisation of property. However, new clause 13, which was added to the Bill in Committee, inserted a new section 24A into the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which allows orders made in Scotland to be enforced in England and Wales. It is therefore conceivable that someone could suffer a loss as a result of something done by the High Court in England and Wales. This amendment allows compensation to be ordered in such cases by adding section 24A of the 1986 Act to the list in clause 26.

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 26, line 26, leave out 'enforcement of confiscation orders' and insert 'taking of action'.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.

Hon. Members will recall that in Committee we inserted a new clause, now clause 32, dealing with the enforcement in a designated country of confiscation orders made by the High Court. However, following discussions that the Home Office has held with several countries, we now realise that the clause, as drafted, will not be sufficiently flexible to cater for the various types of agreement that may be reached. This group of amendments effects the necessary changes to make the clause more flexible.

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 31, line 26, after 'construction', insert

'the reference in subsection (2)(a) of that section to a permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration shall be taken to include a reference to a trustee in a sequestration and'.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 14.

These are simple technical amendments to Clause 37, which provides protection for insolvency practitioners to deal with property subject to a restraint order when they have reasonable grounds for believing that they are entitled to do so. These amendments simply make transitional provision to protect, respectively, trustees in sequestration and official receivers in bankruptcy proceedings commenced before the recent reforms in bankruptcy law in the 1985 Act and the Insolvency Act 1986 before these came into force.

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 36, line 2, leave out from beginning to "a" in line 5.

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 15, in page 36, line 1, leave out from 'trafficking' to (a) in line 5, and Government amendment No. 21.

I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gascadden (Mr. Dewar), in anticipation of his amendment, which is within this group, that we are able to accept the principle of his amendment. I hope that he will not take it to heart if I tell him that his amendment makes for unfortunate drafting. He does not have the same access to the services and advice of parliamentary draftsmen as I do, and I hope that he will agree that the two manuscript amendments in my right hon. and learned Friend's name will make for more effective drafting of the offence in clause 42, which does meet the point that he makes.

Perhaps I could detain the House for just a moment. Obviously, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. This is a comparatively minor matter, but it is of some practical importance. We were talking here about an offence and when it should be possible to proceed—what the trigger point should be. I think that the amendments which we moved in Committee raised a perfectly sensible difficulty.

5.30 pm

I am grateful that the Minister has seen fit to meet that point with his manuscript amendments. There are many things that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and I might have said if the Minister has not been in such a reasonable frame of mind. That shows that there is reward for the virtuous. I hope that it concentrates the Minister's mind in the next few minutes. After that, I trust that his state of mind will be entirely irrelevant.

I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 37, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert

`it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so may impose a fine but such a fine shall not be imposed if an order under section 1(1) of this Act is being made'.

The amendment relates to a rather odd passage between the Under-Secretary and myself during the Committee stage. Hon. Members who were involved in earlier stages of the Bill will remember that we are putting on the statute book a very complicated series of provisions, which will allow the courts to impose a sentence of imprisonment in drug trafficking cases—probably substantial, and rightly so, given the current trend of legal opinion and sentencing policy. In addition, the Bill allows for forfeiture and confiscation based on the assumed profits of a course of drug trafficking on the part of the accused. It is a draconian power, by any standards. I must stress that, as it is an important part of my argument for amendment No. 16. It is assumed that any assets that have been acquired during the six years before the point at which the court is considering a confiscation order have been acquired illegally in the course of drug trafficking. That assumption must be rebutted if any assets are not to be potentially subject to the forfeiture order.

It is against that main point of the Bill that we deal with what is now clause 44, which strikes me as an odd clause. It puts forward the possibility of offences relating to controlled drugs, and the imposition of fines for those offences. It has been proposed—and I put this to the Minister—that an individual might appear in the High Court, or certainly might be indicted, and, having been sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, might then be subject to a confiscation order, and he or his family might be left with no assets of any kind. Moreover, clause 44 contains the assumption that the court may impose a further fine if it considers that appropriate.

It seems remarkable that someone who has suffered the major penalties that I have described should suddenly find himself the subject of a further fine. I consider it a strange proposal for two reasons.

We have gone to great trouble to put on the statute book the confiscation and forfeiture provisions, and in doing so we have repealed the provisions for a fine which we put on the statute book only 18 months ago. We are doing that because it was said, or at least clearly implied, that the Government felt that a fine was not really an appropriate way of approaching the problem; if someone was going to prison, to add a punitive fine was something of a legal nonsense, and it would be much better to go for confiscation and forfeiture.

On the whole, I sympathise with that argument, arid I have given it broad support. However, it seems a bit de trop then to turn round and, having substituted the machinery of confiscation and forfeiture, to reintroduce in clause 44—if not by the back door, at least by a side door—the principle of fines in cases involving drugs. I do not see the use of that—here I come to the specifics of the amendment—if we are also going to have a confiscation order.

The Under-Secretary—I believe it was him; my memory is reasonably good—was very forthcoming, as he often is. Indeed, sometimes I think that he is too forthcoming for his own good. He shows a touch of naivety occasionally. He described to me exactly the reason why the Government want the clause on the statute book. I did not like that reason, which is why I put down my amendments and why I wish to pursue the matter in debate.

The Under-Secretary said that I had misunderstood the position. Let me paraphrase, I hope fairly, what he said. He gave an example in which a person accused and finally convicted of drug trafficking was given a 10-year sentence. We were to assume that his assets were £200,000, that there was consideration of a confiscation order, but that when it came to the point, the presumption was rebutted for some portion of those assets. Let me repeat an example that I used in Committee. Suppose that the drug trafficker could prove that £20,000 of shares that he held in company X had come to him indirectly from the will of his old aunt Euphemia, whose reputation in relation to drug trafficking was beyond reproach. He had therefore clearly rebutted the presumption that all of his assets had come from drug trafficking, and the £20,000 could not therefore be the subject of a confiscation order.

In such circumstances, the man would receive a 10-year prison sentence and £180,000 would be the subject of a confiscation order. However, his family would have saved from the wreck the £20,000, because they had been able to establish that it had nothing to do with his histDry of crime.

The Minister said, I thought rather doubtfully. that it would be possible to put such people in a catch 22 by using clause 44 and fining them £20,000. Although the offender had managed to use that tightly-drawn loophole, rebut the presumption and save some money from the confiscation order, he could then be told, "Your endless ingenuity, my man, has done you no good. I hereby fine you £20,000." If that is the theory on which we are being invited to put this power on the statute book, it does not seem to me to do much for the legal system or the courts. The more that I have thought about the matter, the more I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to do without it.

I am not suggesting that clause 44 should go entirely. That might be going too far, and I am as anxious as anyone that the courts should have adequate powers to deal with cases involving controlled drugs. The effect of amendment No. 16—at least, I hope so; I am always a little nervous about my own drafting—would be to leave the courts, in cases relating to controlled drugs, with the power to impose fines. I feel that that is perfectly reasonable. However, it would be made clear that those fines could not be imposed when there had been a confiscation order under clause 1(1).

This is not a wrecking amendment. If it were, it would not have been selected. It is not even an attempt to undermine the intentions of the Government. It is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I accept, and indeed support, the confiscation concept. I also think it right that, when there is no confiscation order, the courts should have the power to fine. However, I do not think that they should say, "We will get you with a gaol sentence and hit you with a confiscation order, and when you manage to avoid some of the consequences quite properly by using the legal machinery on the statute book, we will finally get you with a catch-all fine provision." That seems to be going too far. That is why I tabled amendment No. 16, and I hope that the Government will consider it favourably.

The amendment would not in any way damage the power of the courts to deal properly and severely with drug offences. It merely makes it clear that the provisions and powers in clause 44 will not be available where a confiscation order has been imposed. There is the power to impose a fine under clause 1(1), but we object to the use of clause 44 and are attempting to strike at it in a way that I hope I have made reasonably clear

Perhaps I was too forthcoming in our debate in Committee on what was then clause 41. I remember it well. Referring in Standing Committee to subsection (5), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said :

"I have read that only three times, but re-reading it has only added to my confusion."

The hon. Gentleman then asked for "a fairly lucid explanation", after which he said:

"I must be getting tired and old."

However, in the next column he said:

"Yes, I now begin to see the intensity of the pursuit."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 28 April 1987; c. 136–38.]

We have today covered much of the ground that was dealt with in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has said nothing new to persuade me that we should remove the discretionary power of the High Court to impose a fine in addition to a compensation. order. I do not anticipate that this power will be used, except on rare occasions, but, as the considerations underlying the imposition of a confiscation order and a fine are quite distinct, there is no reason in principle why they should not be combined, if the High Court sees fit.

A confiscation order is designed to remove the profits that the trafficker has gained from his illegal activities and to deprive him of assets that he should not have. A fine is, in general, a penalty that may be imposed as a punishment without reference to any profits made from the offence. Clause 1(3) ensures that if, exceptionally, the High Court decides to impose both a confiscation order and a fine, it must take account of the provisions of the order in determining the amount of the fine. The general requirement, that fines must take account of the offender's means, also applies. There is, therefore, no danger that the offender will be asked to pay more than he can afford.

Apart from removing the High Court's discretion to impose a fine as well as a confiscation order, if it sees fit, the amendment also removes the requirement to impose the profit-related fine on drug traffickers that was introduced by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This provision came into force on 30 December of that year, and by September 1986 it had been used on seven occasions. It will remain useful as an alternative to a confiscation order in the case of those traffickers who have derived some profit from their crimes but who have no extensive history of trafficking.

This special type of fine relates to the profits of crime, but only from the crime or crimes of which the offender was convicted. I expect the courts to continue to use such fines in appropriate cases.

This amendment is technically defective. It fails to address the consequences for the general scheme of the Bill that would follow, if it were accepted. Clause 1(3) would become redundant if the House accepted the amendment, and it would be impossible to make sense of clause 44(2) that refers to paragraph (a), which the amendment would delete. Therefore, for technical reasons and for important reasons of principle, I urge the House to reject the amendment.

I am not surprised by the Minister's reply. He said that in Committee I said that I must be getting tired and old. It must have been what the Minister said that did it, including the arguments that he used then that have been rehearsed again briefly this afternoon. Did I understand the Minister to say that the power to fine under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 will remain on the statute book and that it will be available as an alternative to the power to confiscate?

Section 193B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 that was inserted into that Act by section 39 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act is re-enacted by this clause.

I am grateful to the Minister. I see that the Minister's mind is made up, but his arguments are not convincing. He says cheerfully and with insouciance that the courts will impose a fine only when the accused is in a position to pay it. But the accused will be in prison if he has been convicted of a serious drugs offence, and his chances of being able to pay the fine, except in the circumstances that I have described, in which some assets have been left, despite the confiscation order, will be very few. We are piling penalty on penalty, and it does nothing for the system of which this House is the guardian.

5.45 pm

I am not content to let the matter rest there, but at this stage I have no other practical option. We shall be interested to see how useful the courts find these powers. If my suspicions are justified, they will turn out to be lumber in the basement of Scotland's statutes, to which reference will seldom be made. That argument will be settled by experience. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 67, line 35, at end insert—

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—

I am conscious of the pressures of time and I shall speak briefly.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in my place in the Chamber when the debate on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill began. I am astonished that I did not hear your remarks. The first thing that I heard was the Minister's name being called.

Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman—I hope that I do not have to repeat it—that I drew to the attention of the House the fact that Mr. Speaker had reconsidered and had selected the new clauses. I called the hon. Gentleman's name. He was neither within my sight, nor did he respond. We cannot go back now.

The brevity of my remarks in support of the new clause indicates that there is special business in the House and does not detract from the importance of the proposal.

The House will be aware that, under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, a woman who is suffering violence or whose children are suffering violence can apply to the court for a protection order, provided that the man causing the violence is her husband and that the children are a product of their marriage. No such facility is available to a co-habitee in respect of herself or her children. If a man inflicts violence upon a woman with whom he is living, and upon their children, that woman is unable to apply to the courts simply because the couple are not married and the children are illegitimate.

It seems to me that the Bill provides us with an appropriate occasion on which to remedy that defect. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be aware that the Justices Clerks Society and the Magistrates Association wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department suggesting that illegitimate children should receive the same protection as the children of a married couple and that this Bill provides the ideal opportunity to ensure that that happens in future. I understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department suggested that the Bill was not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of the facility, because such a provision would fall outside the long title of the Bill. Indeed, the House may recall that in Committee I tabled a new clause to deal with the matter which was ruled out of order. I therefore discussed the matter with the Justices Clerks Society which produced the present new clauses. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that they meet the objections as they are confined to the children of co-habitees and do not refer to the co-habitees themselves. They thus appear to fall within the long title of the Bill.

I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate my point—that this would be a valuable extension of the law to offer protection to illegitimate children. After all, the object of the Bill is to remove most of the disadvantages that illegitimate children suffer at present. Despite my short speech and the pressures of business, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will feel able to accept the new clauses.

I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). It is unfortunate that, owing to the circumstances in which we are to deal with the Bill, it cannot be given more careful consideration. In particular, we shall not be allowed the opportunity to say that clause 27 should not have been included. It is an abomination, and in including it, we shall be legislating a lie. That ought to be said before the Bill is passed.

I, too, very much regret the inclusion of clause 27. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I understand that he intends to alter some of the more obnoxious aspects of the Bill and that he may be tabling manuscript amendments to do that. We thank him for that, but we still do not like clause 27.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is well aware of the grave concern felt by many people in the House and outside that page 1 of the Bill, makes it clear that the principle of clause 1, and, indeed, the general principle of the Bill should be:

"Parents not being married to have no effect in law on relationships."

To most of us in the House, that principle is not tenable. The principle of marriage deserves every support because it is under attack from every quarter. Unless we can sustain marriage and keep good family relationships, the whole of our society is bound to suffer. I know my right hon. and learned Friend, and feel sure that those words are not his. Surely, anyone outside the House would be concerned to learn that Parliament was considering introducing legislation to the effect that marriage should have no effect in law on relationships. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend—

Order. The fault may be mine, but I find it difficult to understand the relevance of the hon. Lady's remarks to the new clause.

If I am out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall certainly not repeat my remarks later. I took my cue from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and perhaps I was wrong to do so.

The hon. Lady has beaten me to the punch. Has she concluded her remarks?

I was about to conclude by suggesting to my right hon. and learned Friend that he take note of what has been said and, indeed, that he take action on it.

I, too, shall be protective of the time of the House.

The subject dealt with in the new clause was discussed on Second Reading but not in Committee, where the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) were not called for debate. While I think that it is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to bring these matters before the House again, I believe—and I suspect that this may be the Government's view—that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for the change that he suggests. As promised, I considered the matter carefully after Second Reading and concluded that the arguments advanced by the Solicitor-General on Second Reading were essentially sound.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that the Bill is a vehicle to give illegitimate children legal protection equal to that now enjoyed by legitimate children. But it is not true to imply—I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows this—that such youngsters now have no remedy in English law. There is a remedy, and the amendments are concerned with the question of precisely where that remedy lies. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not feel that this is the right way to deal with the matter.

If I may try your patience for a second, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was being a little naughty when she said that the words

"Parents not being married to have no effect in law on relationships."

embodied the principle of the Bill.

It is in the Bill.

The hon. Lady made the point that the Bill says that. As was patiently explained in Committee, that is said in the margin note which does not form part of the law of the land. Unfortunately, the margin note is in shorthand, which does not convey the Bill's real intent. It is not true to suggest that the Bill is intended to undermine the institution of marriage. It is unthinkable that the Solicitor-General would bring forward a Bill to undermine the institution of marriage. I cannot conceive of such a thing, and the hon. Member for Edgbaston is naughty to suggest it.

The hon. Gentleman has just said that this is an inaccurate description of the Bill. Surely, if it is inaccurate, we should put the matter right and make the position clear. I am merely saying that that is what the Bill says as a general principle and, like the hon. Gentleman, I feel that that cannot be right. I am not trying to be naughty. I can be a lot naughtier to much greater effect. I am merely suggesting that it might be wise to straighten this out.

I am sure that the hon. Lady and I can agree that the margin note is clumsy.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for giving us the opportunity to consider the issues raised in the new clauses put forward by the Justices Clerks Society with, I think, the support of the Magistrates Association. It would not have been possible to listen to what my hon. Friend had to say without feeling sympathy for the object that he sought to serve—to secure for illegitimate children the same protection by way of intervention by court order, if necessary taken speedily and summarily, that is available under existing legislation to legitimate children.

The new clauses seek to amend the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978. That Act was based on a Law Commission report in which, rightly or wrongly, the view was taken that the new jurisdiction proposed for magistrates courts should be limited to married couples. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst knows, the main content of the Bill is concerned with the implementation of the Law Commission's recommendations contained in two reports dealing with illegitimacy that have been produced in recent years.

I have to say—rather reluctantly, I must confess—that it is the Government's view that it would be better that the Law Commission should be involved in any exercise entailing substantial amendment to the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act. My hon. Friend's suggestion will be put to the Law Commission's family law team, which intends to review this aspect of the law in the near future. I can offer that hope and reassurance. I ask the House to resist these new clauses on the ground that to make the suggested change at this stage would be premature and at odds with the majority of the Bill's provisions, which are the result of careful consultation.

The Law Commission's recommendations have been made as a result of extensive consultation with organisations and people with special interests. No such consultation has been carried out on the proposals in the new clauses. I think that it might be wise to do so. I doubt that I would accede to the advice that I have received if I did not know that the matter will be immediately referred to the family law team and that it intends at an early stage in the near future to review it. I fear that I have to advise the House not to accept the new clauses.

Since the new clauses bear on the Bill's scope, it would be sad if I were not able to respond to the observations of my hon. Friends the members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I shall deal first with the description of the provisions in clause 1. In Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Edgbaston and for Lancaster made clear their anxiety that no provisions should go forth from the House that might be seen to cast doubt on or to devalue the importance attached to the institution of marriage. Of course, in that regard, there is nothing between my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who introduced the Bill, myself, any Conservative Member and any other hon. Member.

The principle contained in clause 1 is simple. There shall be a new rule of construction—the presumption of illegitimacy when construing a relationship between any two people—the father or the mother—is to be irrelevant. We are talking about the consequences in law of the fact that there has been an illegitimate birth. That is expressed in clause 1, which states:

"unless the contrary intention appears"

relationships are to be construed without regard to the marital status of the parents at the time of the child's birth. That lawyer's language is necessary to pave the way for the Bill's main provisions which are designed to relieve illegitimate children from the sins—if one likes to put it that way—of their fathers or their mothers. The Law Commission took the view after careful consideration, and it is the Government's view, that, whatever one may think about the rights and wrongs of engendering children whose birth will be illegitimate, it is wrong to take it out on the children, in the sense that they are subjected throughout their lives to handicaps imposed by law.

I understand that the margin note—

"Parents not being married to have no effect in law on relationships."—

can create the impression about which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston is so naturally and properly anxious. I agree that not everyone who sees the margin note is likely to read the clause and not everyone who reads the clause is likely, on a first reading, to understand it. I offer this reassurance: I am prepared to give an undertaking that, when the Bill is printed as an Act, that shoulder note and, with it, the corresponding entry in the index relating to clause 1 will be deleted and the words "general principle" alone will be substituted. That will show that clause 1 contains the general principle of the Bill.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston for having drawn our attention to this matter. It strikes a chord. Perhaps we should have seen it earlier. With her accurate eye for this kind of thing, my hon. Friend has done the House a service. If she is content with that, perhaps we can proceed. The question is whether we intend to continue taking out on illegitimate children the circumstances of their birth. The whole thrust of this part of the Bill is that we will not do so.

I should like to say something about clause 27, which has been raised. Whatever view one may take and whatever view Parliament may take in future about whether, and if so in what circumstances, artificial insemination by whatever means may be permitted in law—no doubt, we shall take those decisions after consultation has been completed on the Warnock committee's report—the clause simply says that any child who is the result of a birth that is the result of artificial insemination by donor shall not carry for the rest of his or her life the handicap in law of illegitimacy but shall be treated for all purposes in law as the child of the mother and the child of her husband, provided that the husband has consented. That is all that it does. It says nothing about the circumstances under which AID may be permitted in future. In those circumstances I hope that the House will consider that it would be an omission had a Bill dealing with the consequences of illegitimacy said nothing at this stage. Much remains to be debated about the rest of the Warnock report, but that is the purpose of including this provision.

Is it not the case at the moment that any child born to a couple who are married to each other is automatically assumed, perhaps sometimes wrongly, to be the child of that couple at law? It was our understanding that the position at law now is exactly what clause 27 will bring into law; therefore, it puzzles us why it is in the Bill.

Whether a child is a legitimate child or an illegitimate child is a matter of law. It is a matter of status conferred by law. The entry in a birth certificate is evidence but is not conclusive evidence of which status is appropriate. One of the matters that I fully understand causes anxiety to certain hon. Members is that clause 27 has the consequence that an entry in a birth certificate shall not reveal the scientific facts. The other side to that aspect is that a birth certificate at present contains only that which Parliament has said it shall contain. In other words, the column headed "Father" in a birth certificate is intended to provide a space for the entry of that person who, by the definition that Parliament has imposed, constitutes the father. If clause 27 is enacted, that definition will be enlarged. I do not believe that this is really at the head and forefront of what we have to decide.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend confirming that henceforth, on a birth certificate, it will be possible for the name of the man who is the husband of the child's mother to be entered as the father, which may be untrue, and that therefore, we might be legislating for a lie?

I do confirm that. However, I do not confirm the consequences that my hon. Friend says will follow, because what will be entered in the birth certificate in those circumstances will be consistent with what Parliament has authorised to be entered. As a matter of practice, it is well recognised that, in many cases where a child has been born as a result of artificial insemination by donor, the child's name is entered in the birth certificate as the child of the mother who gave birth. That is a matter of practice. Nor is it possible in most cases for that to he detected. Where the medical advice to couples who are infertile has been to continue to have sexual intercourse with each other after artificial insemination by donor has taken place, it will not he possible to determine from which father the conception has taken place.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that, if "father" is interpreted as meaning the father in wedlock of a child, there will be some deception, I suppose one could say. However, we have to look at whether there is some irregularity at law. If Parliament has so defined "father" in the context of a birth certificate, all that will be entered is the name of the person that Parliament has ordained shall be entered. I respectfully say that this should not be at the forefront of the argument. The argument centres around whether artificial insemination by donor should be permitted at law and, if so, under what circumstances. As to that major issue, Parliament will have the opportunity to express its view at a later stage, as I have already indicated. The clause merely says that if and when there is birth as a result of AID, the resulting child—and after all, it is the child we ought to have regard for primarily—shall not carry the handicap of being illegitimate in the eye of the law.

I shall not yield to the temptation to react to all the points that have arisen as a result of the wide-ranging debate on my new clause, save to say that I made my own views on clause 27 clear in Committee and that I in no way resile from them. I am naturally disappointed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General does not feel able to accept the new clauses but I am grateful for his helpful and sympathetic comments. In the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have carefully considered the Bill in Standing Committee and again today and I believe that I would be wearying the House if I were to do more than formally move its Third Reading.

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 17, leave out clause 2.

With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 2, 5, 16 and 19.

There was a short delay before I moved the amendment because I was transfixed with new clause 1, which I believe has been withdrawn. That threw me into temporary confusion. I assure the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that I had no intention of confusing anybody, particularly as I have written a special limerick for the anniversary of Edward Lear's birthday in 1812, which was not a good year for Napoleon. I was ready to read my limerick but, lo and behold, the clause has been withdrawn. If possible I will try to fit in reading it on Third Reading as I would not like to deprive the House of hearing it. It is in good heart and I am sure will be critically enjoyed by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) who has just resumed his seat on the Labour Front Bench. I trust that he is better and that the debate will not worsen his health in any way but will bring about his revival.

In the circumstances, the Government have decided not to proceed with the housing provisions of the Bill in the present Session of Parliament. The first three amendments delete those provisions, and the other two are consequential. However, we intend to reintroduce in the new Parliament the provisions in clause 2 to give local housing authorities an explicit new power to give financial assistance in connection with the provision of privately let housing. We also intend to reintroduce the provisions in clauses 3 and 4 that require the Secretary of State's consent for the exercise of this or any other power by local housing authorities or county councils to provide financial assistance or a gratuitous benefit in this connection, except in the circumstances set out in clause 3. The need for consent will be made retrospective to 6 February this year as it was in the present Bill. The new Bill will, like this Bill, also provide that any transaction entered into after 5 February in contravention of the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent will be void.

Meanwhile, we intend to continue to issue general consents and special consents for individual projects submitted to us where appropriate. These consents will be issued as if the new Bill were in force. We shall ensure that general and special consents already issued continue in force. My Department will be writing to all the authorities affected drawing their attention to this announcement to prevent any further misunderstanding.

I certainly do not wish to deprive the Minister of the opportunity of letting the House and the country hear his doggerel. I have had a preview of it and although it might not make its way into "Palgrave's Golden Treasury", I hope that the good people of Brent and elsewhere are entertained by it in the dog hours of this Parliament.

We do not oppose the amendments that the Minister has moved. Whether the clauses are resurrected depends upon the outcome of a contest on 11 June. It is not our view that in government we would resurrect the clauses. In any event, it would be conducive to poor administration if the clauses were introduced in their present form because we showed in Committee that the scheme of controls is, in principle, so draconian that a whole string of general and specific consents would be required to make it remotely operable. While the officials, who will not have much to do in the next three and half weeks, are preparing the briefs for incoming Ministers, they may wish to consider how, as an exercise in good government, the powers could be improved.

The statement by the Minister that this Administration in its closing weeks will continue to operate as if the Bill had been passed, is touching on the arrogance with which we shall charge the Conservative party during the election and it does not make for good administration. We also pointed out in Committee that, although the Government had said that the powers under clauses 2, 3 and 4 had been introduced ostensibly to provide new powers for local authorities, their effect was actually to secure new controls on local authorities and to undermine the imaginative scheme for new housing that Sheffield and other authorities had pioneered.

I believe that we are dealing with amendments that delete clause 7:

"Land held by public bodies."

That deletion is welcome.

I should like to be part and parcel of the obsequiousness on certain sections of the Bill and to make the point that at least on this occasion I arrived, although a little late, in time to take part. On the previous occasion when the three of us—the Minister, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself—were supposed to be performing in another place—not down the corridor, but somewhere else altogether—thanks to British Airways I arrived 20 seconds too late, having been up from 4·45 am. Therefore, I am glad to be here. I am interested in the doggerel that we may hear. I recall a recent cartoon in the New Statesman where a sign on a house door said, "Beware of the Doggerel". I hope that that does not apply to us.

On the matter of the housing provisions, I ask the Minister to address himself to one point. If those sections of the Bill are to disappear, how will he stand up to a legal challenge in the weeks ahead for those local authorities that may wish to drive through those provisions? By the very nature of the powers that the Minister is trying to take under that section, he assumes that there are local authorities whose attitude to those financial measures about housing are not those of the Government and which may wish to take advantage of that gap. If there is to be no statute dealing with that at this time, I fail to see how the Government can maintain the 6 February retrospective date in the face of legal challenges that might come. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that.

On the early clauses about creative accounting, the Minister knows that my party has certain difficulties with the text. Nevertheless, it is accepted that something has to be done about those authorities that have gone to extremes. Therefore, it seems a pretty fair bargain that we opt out of the housing clauses but leave the early clauses in. Therefore, we raise no objection to what has been proposed today.

The early clauses—clause 1 and schedule 1—validate a decision made by the Government last July about which we said we would legislate. I believe that midnight on 22 July 1986 was the date. We took action in February for another line of action we wished to take and we said that we would put that into law. We did not state when we would do that; we just said that we would. The date of 22 July is now validated in the Bill and we wish to put it on record that, because of the pressure of time and the constraints of other activities of which we are all aware—the political marathon on which we are now entering—we cannot put the other date into law in this Bill. However, we are putting it on record that we stand by what we said. I am advised by our lawyers that that is perfectly legitimate.

I beg to move amendment No. 15 in page 7, line 34, leave out clause 7.

With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 17 and 18.

These provisions are also the victims of the circumstancess to which I referred casually earlier. The House has a great deal of business to attend to this week and I shall not delay it with improvements to the land register system, important though such improvements undoubtedly are in the long run. However, I put it on record that we shall reintroduce provisions along these lines in the new Parliament.

I have been waiting for a chance to discuss this for a long time. I am certainly not going to delay the House, but I want to put something on record. This clause raised my hopes that at long last something was going to be done about a problem that my constituents have faced for a long time; the problem of gipsies. The gipsies that concern my constituents in the area south of the river in Leeds—I live there—are not real gipsies. They have a lot of money and one sees the television sets and cars without taxation that they have.

The Government responded quickly about a year ago when down in the south of England the television cameras discovered the problem in a different respect. I remember saying in the House then that we had had that problem for 25 years. However, people are not really concerned about the so-called inner-city areas south of the river in Leeds. People do not write to the papers in the same way. There is a problem as to who owns the land and I receive telephone calls when I am in London asking what is going to be done about it.

The officer at Leeds city council who attends to such matters is an overworked man. He does what he can. However, on the day before polling day last week, 30 caravans came into my area. An argument then raged over who owned the land. When the Government introduced this amendment as a response to the southern problem, at least there would be a speedy way of learning who owned the land. It is now very difficult for my constituents and me to learn to whom the land belongs. It might take us a week and a visit to the High Court to find out.

6.30 pm

I raise this matter for the record and I know that the problem affects Manchester. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken to me today and told me that the problem affects other parts of the country. Down in Hunslet—which has been part of my constituency for 24 years—and in Holbeck which is now in Leeds, Central, but was in my constituency and is where I live, the problem is obvious. We must do something about it. We must do something about the smell and the articles that are left when these people leave. I believe that the Minister is aware of the problem. He will be aware of what happened in Fryent way, which I believe is in his constituency. Indeed, I used to know that area very well. The problem there caused a rumpus. However, if the people in Fryent way could see what we have to put up with, the rumpus would have been 50 times louder.

South Leeds has put up with enough. When the Leeds corporation decided that the camping sites had to be spread around the city, there was a terrible outcry. It is all very well for the south of the river to have the lot. As I have said, the River Aire is about the size of the Rhine and the Vistula put together when it comes to getting something done. Very few middle-class people live south of the river. Therefore, it is all very well for the camps to be on the south of the river, as long as the camps are not on their doorsteps.

I have made this intervention to make a point. We can play games about which party will be in power after the election. However, whatever party is in power, I will chase this matter. We have had this problem to my knowledge for 25 years. We must do something about it. We must assist the real gipsies and the real Romanies. However, south of the river we have endured enough of the others, who frighten old ladies, knock on doors, rob and do not pay taxes. The whole of the city of Leeds must bear the burden. Indeed, the whole of the country must bear this burden.

I want an answer on this point. I have spoken to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. We must do something about this problem. In a way, I am glad that the outcry in Leeds came from up north of the river. A consultation document proposed that new gipsy encampments should be sited in that area. My goodness, that proposal shifted them. If they had had half the trouble up north of the river that we have had south of the river over the years, something would have been done. We cannot take action on a narrow political basis. We must take action in recognition of the real problem.

I know Fryent way and the outcry that was created there. I can offer the Minister a solution to the problem. All the senior officers on local authorities, the permanent under-secretary at the Department of the Environment and the deputy secretaries should be made to live in the areas where these problems occur. At the same time, the architects who built some of the houses should be pulled out of goal—where I would have put them a long time ago—and made to live in those areas. My goodness, if that happened they would shift fast enough.

In my final five or six years-plus in this House of Commons, I will be talking about gipsies every day until something is done about the problem. I hope that the Minister will give me a sweet little response even in advance of the election.

As usual, I tried to discover whether I would be in order. I was given advice from my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches, from hon. Members on Conservative Benches, from the Chair and from behind the Chair. In my last few days before my retirement from this House, I thought that I would go out with a clean bill of health. I decided to consult all my hon. Friends on how to approach this subject. The advice that I was given was to go for an Adjournment debate on my subject. However, when I went to Mr. Speaker's Office, I discovered that I had to go through a procedure that I had been through before. I was suddenly told that the Minister responsible would not play on the Adjournment. So I thought that the best thing to do was to find another approach. Sure enough, I found a solution. After all the advice, I discovered that I could get in in the debate on Government amendment No. 15, despite the advice of some of my hon. Friends.

The amendment applies to clause 7 entitled:

"Land held by public bodies."

The Local Government Act 1974 created many problems and made many mistakes. It produced local government reorganisation and we have had headaches ever since the 1974 Act was passed. When I had an opportunity to speak about the matter several years later, I stressed that the problem was compounded in 1983. I stressed that the Opposition did not compound the problem. Rather, the Government of the day, who began the mistakes, compounded them. We now end up with the child that the Government conceived, nurtured and developed through local government reorganisation and that child, I believe, is called the metropolitan county council. The Conservative Government conceived those councils, nurtured them and developed them until they were 10 years old and then they strangled them and got rid of them. The Conservatives created the problems in 1974 and 10 years later they strangled the product of those problems.

By strangling the metropolitan county councils, the Government removed a level of representation that the Government had constructed. In doing so, they imposed liabilities on several district councils that those councils had not expected to encounter. What happened? Responsibilities fell on those district councils that those councils had not envisaged when they were set up in 1974. The councils were confronted with those responsibilities. The metropolitan county councils were selected for abolition while other county councils remained. When it suited the Government they did not get rid of the councils, but when things were going against them they abolished them. So, after abolition, the Government decided to carry out a marvellous privatisation job. Everyone will know that I have tabled early-day motions on this point. I have had consultations with Ministers, I have met residuary body chairmen and I have been like a ping-pong ball going from one side to the other. I was told that it was not the responsibility of the residuary body and then that it was not the Minister's responsibility. I have 152 signatures to my motion—and that figure may have increased today—and only one opponent. I have been through that process and only five minutes ago I spoke to the Minister responsible for removing land, accommodation and a beautiful building in Wakefield about which I am very concerned,

I will fight for that site after I leave the House. Like an old Yorkshire terrier, I will not let go. I may not be a Member of Parliament, but I will be there. Even if I cannot send a direct letter in a pre-paid envelope, my message will come via another method. It will work on the triangle. I will not let go until county hall belongs to the people who owned it in 1898.

I believe that there is a ten-minute job on this debate and I have always been peculiar on time. However, I want to refer to comments made about county hall. I have this calendar.

Can we see the picture?