Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 127: debated on Thursday 11 February 1988

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Thursday 11 February 1988

The House met at half-past Two o'clock


[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business


Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 February.



(By Order)




(By Order)


(By Order)

(By Order)


Orders for Second Reading read.

Oral Answers To Questions

National Finance

Government Shareholdings


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the disposal of Government-held shareholdings in the light of the National Audit Office report on the sale of the Government's shareholding in Rolls-Royce plc.

The Government will clearly take NAO's observations into account as they press ahead with the privatisation programme.

Will the Minister give the House his opinion on the statement of the National Audit Office about the £63 million put into the company prior to privatisation? Does he agree that, in the Government's besotted efforts to achieve privatisation, business ethics are at stake? Normally, when one takes the assets of a company, one takes its liabilities. That no longer seems to be the fashion. Should we not revert to ethics?

I certainly do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman implies. The capital injection into the company was a decision made as a result of negotiation and on the basis of professional advice. However, we shall he giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee very shortly and we shall reply to those points in detail.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Rolls-Royce shares closed at 126p, against an issue price of 170p? In the intervening period the price has fluctuated between 96p and 240p. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in those circumstances the conclusion of the National Audit Office, that it is now hard to say whether the share price was set at a level that maximised the proceeds from the sale, is not unreasonable?

My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I only wish that Opposition Members, who are so quick to say that issues are under-priced, would sometimes notice when shares fall to prices below the issue price.

As regards the points made by the National Audit Office, I cannot anticipate what will be in the evidence, but we shall be replying to the points in detail.

When may we expect a statement about the Government's intentions on another very important Government shareholding—the golden share in Britoil?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of employees at Rolls-Royce were delighted to buy shares in the company in which they work? In Derby, it is even rumoured that a few Socialists bought shares when the company was sold off. If there is any message to the Government arising from the sale of Rolls-Royce, should it not be, "Carry on the good work."?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's opinion is shared by workers at Rolls-Royce. I cannot comment on whether Socialists bought shares in Rolls-Royce, although perhaps that is what Paul Foot meant when he said:

"I hope bloody Bryan Gould bought millions of shares."

Given that the Government have decided that there should be no specific requirement to deepen or widen share ownership in the Rolls-Royce privatisation, what considerations of the public interest led the Chancellor to disregard the views of the Government's advisers, Samuel Montagu and Co., and concede the £63 million debt write-off? Is it true that the Government were effectively blackmailed by the Rolls-Royce chairman's threat not to support privatisation if he did not get the extra money?

As I have already said, in reaching a decision on the capital structure and the capital injection we took into account the views of our advisers and the company, and we shall be detailing why we did that in our reply to the Public Accounts Committee.



To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the state-owned commercial sector which has been transferred to the private sector since 1979.

Since 1979 we have privatised getting on for 40 per cent. of the state-owned sector of industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of the state as an employer in the commercial and industrial sectors of the economy has been wholly unprofitable for the state and for its employees? The long-term prospects and prosperity of those enterprises would be enhanced if they were returned to the private sector as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that privatisation benefits the company, its employees and the economy as a whole. The employees of the companies concerned see this very clearly, as is evidenced by the fact that they are very anxious to acquire shares in the company for which they work as soon as it is privatised, and the great majority of them hold on to them.

Will the Chancellor confirm, or deny, that on 27 January, at a meeting with merchant bankers from the underwriting houses, Treasury Ministers said that public sector corporations were being sold and must be sold at

"20 per cent. less than their real worth to attract investors"?
Did that take place? Was that good husbandry on behalf of taxpayers? Will water, electricity and other forms of public commercial assets be sold in the same way at bargain-basement prices?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, because it gives me the opportunity categorically to deny that absurd story. No such statement was made. It is not the Government's policy, and, as usual, The Observer got it wrong. I am surprised that Labour Members believe it.

Is not the success of the Government's privatisation policy evident in the way in which productivity has improved? In some cases profits have doubled or trebled, and in the case of the National Freight Corporation they have increased ninefold.

Almost every company that has been privatised has done signally better since privatisation than it did before. Many chairmen of the companies have made that point at their annual meetings. The National Freight Corporation, to which my hon. Friend rightly alluded, has been an outstanding success.

Nhs Expenditure


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of recent representations, he will increase planned public expenditure for 1988–89 on (a) National Health Service provision and (b) education and training.


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in relation to his published expenditure plans for (a) the National Health Service and (b) Government expenditure generally.

The White Paper plans for next year already include increased provision for the Health Service, education and training, as part of the £4·6 billion increase in the total for programmes.

The Government's attacks on the National Health Service and on the education service are nothing short of political vandalism. Is the Minister aware that in a recent poll 86 per cent. of the people questioned suggested that it would be better to give money to the National Health Service, even if that meant increasing taxation? If cash is available on Budget day, it should be given to improve the National Health Service and the education system, rather than to line the pockets of the Minister's friends in the City.

The Government are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about the National Health Service. The public expenditure plans for next year and for the two subsequent years show an increase of over £1 billion for the Health Service. It is the most substantial cash increase over a period that the Health Service has ever received.

Does the Minister agree that, instead of fiddling around with this large sum of money, it would be better to spend some of it, not only on the Health Service, but on increasing rate support grant for local authorities such as ILEA, which will probably have to make 3,000 teachers redundant? My authority will have to make cuts amounting to £45 million this year. Would it not be better for him to use some of the available money to alleviate the suffering and poverty that the Government have caused?

As to the Health Service, I reiterate the point that I made a moment ago: there will be substantial increases in programme expenditure next year amounting to £4½ billion. ILEA, for all the expenditure that it has lavished, has failed to provide a decent education service in London, and I shall be glad to see the end of it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one subject on which Opposition Members are expert is spending other people's money? Does he also agree that throwing public money—taxpayers' money—at, for example, ILEA, with its poor academic record, would be a complete and utter waste of money, just as lavishing taxpayers' money on the National Health Service without cuts — [HON MEMBERS: "Cuts?"] — without improvements in efficiency would be a derogation of the Government's duty?

The Government are certainly keen to see increased efficiency in the National Health Service, and the cost-improvement programmes have provided that to a certain extent. We hope to see more efficiency in the future.

ILEA is a uniquely high-spending authority. Moreover, I doubt whether it gives value for money. It employs two and a half times as many administrators per pupil as the average; twice as many non-teaching staff per pupil as the average; and its spending on the youth service is two and a half times that of even the most generous inner-city partnership. Clearly, it spends far more than it ought, and in the wrong way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us have noted that in real terms the Government have spent a lot more on the National Health Service, but, all the same, many of us believe that the problems of the NHS are much more complex and cannot be solved just by throwing more taxpayers' money at it? A radical review of the whole service 40 years on would be better than spending extra money willy-nilly.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and hope that we shall have such a radical review. I take my hon. Friend's point about the increase over retail prices. The increase in expenditure is well over 30 per cent. since 1979, which far outstrips that provided by any previous Government.

Does the Chief Secretary not recognise that, in real terms, taking the level of price increases in the economy as a whole, the increase for the Health Service this year is only 1·2 per cent., that it is likely to be less than that when the generally higher costs of the Health Service are taken into account, and that it will be nothing at all if the health authorities are expected to fund any part of the nurses' pay review? Why does he not respond to the massive public concern on that matter?

I take the hon. Gentleman's underlying point that "real terms" can be defined in more than one way. We are both aware of that. However, in terms of the normal definition of "real terms", with the income-generation schemes and the cost-improvement schemes, the National Health Service will receive a real terms increase of about 3 per cent. next year.

On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we will, as usual, consider that matter when we have the report of the Nurses Pay Review Body, and we shall then decide whether we can accept it. Other matters will follow from there.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's expenditure plans show that spending on social security, health and education alone account for 60 per cent. of total Government expenditure—the highest proportion ever? Does he agree that those areas of massive public expenditure show rises even after the application of the overall GDP deflator?

The figures may be even larger than my hon. Friend suggests, but his underlying premise is entirely correct.

Does the Chief Secretary not find it surprising that no one — the British Medical Association, the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales or the Royal College of Nursing — agrees with him that the Health Service is properly funded? Given that he has had to concede that he has a Contingency Fund of £3·5 billion, will he now allay the fears of health authorities throughout the country which are faced with having to budget for cuts and closures? Will he state today that he can and will fully fund the nurses' and health workers' pay settlements?

The provision for the National Health Service for next year has been substantially increased. Those who question the size of the increase simply have not taken into account the enormously increased provisions that have been made. It would be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman would concern himself with reality rather than with fiction.



To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he anticipates will be the yield from taxation on cider in the year 1987–88.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that since the tax heights of 1984 to 1985 tax revenue has failed to come up to expectation? Since then more than 500 jobs in the cider industry have been lost in Hereford alone and sales are stagnant across the industry despite massively increased promotional efforts. Will my right hon. Friend bear that point in mind in formulating his Budget proposals?

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but he is fully aware of the views and the circumstances of the cider makers and will take them into account when he makes his Budget decisions.



To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received over the present taxation status of forestry development.

As is customary at this time of the year, my right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on a wide range of subjects.

I thank the Minister for such a full and helpful answer. Does he accept that there has been widespread criticism of that relief from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and many others? It is rumoured that Prince Charles is to make a speech in the other place that will be critical of that relief— —

Many others have argued strongly that we should not destroy the natural environment of Britain by the indiscriminate planting of trees. If the Government are not prepared to take away that tax relief and use the money more usefully in the Health Service, will they consider using it for the planting of hedgerows, which would be much more useful environmentally?

The points that the hon. Gentleman has made have been among the representations that we have received. However, the encouragement of forestry is extremely important to the rural economy and it has been Government policy for many years.

I commend the Government for encouraging tree-planting schemes, not least because I am president of the Arboricultural Association. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not the tax regime that needs changing to promote forestry development? It is necessary to ensure that trees are planted in the right places, and not in environmentally sensitive areas.

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. There has been some recent criticism along those lines.

Does the Minister accept that the tax regime on trees has not led to any significant increase in planting? Instead, it has provided a tax haven for pop stars and film stars. Does the Minister accept that he has allowed the taxpayer to be ripped off?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot accept that there has been no increase in planting. Indeed, the environmental concern is that there has been too much planting of conifers.

Manufacturing Investment


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.

Manufacturing investment is projected to increase by 11 per cent. in real terms in 1988, according to the Department of Trade and Industry's latest investment intentions survey.

Those figures are just the tonic for those concerned about the growth of manufacturing industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the significant increase in industrial productivity since 1981 means that investors should hold their nerve and that their confidence should remain high? Confidence is threatened only by the Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Since 1979 manufacturing productivity growth has continued at a substantial level, and for the past year at a rate of 6½ per cent.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's quarterly survey from the Manchester chamber of commerce and industry, which represents by far the largest part of industry in the Greater Manchester area? Will he note that expected manufacturing investments are less than they were previously? They all seem to want reductions in interest rates to reverse that trend. As the report was published only after the increase in interest rates, what does the Minister intend to do to restore the expectation of manufacturing investment?

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the survey is as pessimistic as he painted it. It paints an optimistic picture, and rightly so. Manufacturing investment is growing strongly. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the CBI's January quarterly trend survey showed that investment intentions still remain strong. Manufacturing investment is doing exceedingly well at present, and I share the right hon. Gentleman's wish that it should continue to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ford pay dispute is unfortunate because it inhibits investment and is a clear sign of overheating in the economy?

With great respect to my hon. Friend, it would be unwise to read overheating into every indicator. Improvements on the supply side since 1979 mean that firms can operate at a much higher rate of capacity utilisation than before, and my hon. Friend's concern may be a little overdone. In any event, if overheating were to appear, there is no doubt that the Government would not hesitate to take action against inflationary pressures.

When will the Chief Secretary realise that he cannot fool all the people all the time on manufacturing investment? The reality is that, in real terms 1980 prices, manufacturing investment now is 10 per cent. below what it was in 1979. Even if the CBI forecast of an 8 per cent. increase this year were achieved, the 1979 level would still not be reached, and this is at a time when the world economy is slowing down. When will the right hon. Gentleman pursue policies which, in the long term, will ensure that savings go into manufacturing investment so that we can rebuild the competitive economy?

The end product of investment is productivity and profitability, and the quality of investment, as well as its quantum, are extremely important, and those have improved. The evidence of higher profitability and better productivity suggests that investment has been running at a high level and that it has been quality investment.

Business Starts


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much business starts have exceeded stops between 1979 and 1986.

Over the seven years from January 1980 to December 1986 the net increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT averaged 500 a week.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on creating the economic framework that has led to the successful figures that he has announced, and will he join me in congratulating those who create the wealth —mostly the self-employed, small business men and the enterprise agencies — on achieving that magnificent figure?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's enthusiasm. Since 1979 the number of self-employed is estimated to have increased by more than a third to 2·7 million up to the end of 1986. Of those companies registered for VAT, a majority have a turnover of less than £250,000 and constitute 20 per cent. of the nation's turnover, and enterprise agencies now number 350. I agree with my hon. Friend on the contribution that all three have made to the creation of jobs.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's original answer, that 500 extra businesses per week register for VAT, hide the real fact that there were more than 100,000 bankruptcies and insolvencies in the business sector between 1979 and 1986 — the highest record at any time in Britain's history? That is one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) was able to point out that manufacturing investment is lower now than it was in 1979 when that lot on the Conservative Benches came into power.

The hon. Gentleman is correct in thinking that I was quoting a net figure. There is always an element of risk in setting up any business, but that is what enterprise is all about. The hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to hear that bankruptcies last year were falling.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 6,000 new firms come on to the market in the north-east of England every year and that about 10,000 people are self-employed on Teesside alone? Is that not convincing proof that the Government's policies in the north-east of England are working just as well as, if not better than, they are in other parts?

I salute my hon. Friend for his constant championing of firms in the north-east.

Tax Relief

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what average income tax relief has been received by a taxpayer earning £50,000 each year since 1979 at 1987 prices.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 14 January 1988 at colunm 390 in the Official Report.

I do not think that I have a direct interest in this question. However, how can the Minister possibly justify the giving of tax handouts of well over £10,000 a year to the richest 1 per cent. of people in the country at a time when the National Health Service, its patients and staff, are suffering the effect of a financial squeeze? Why should hospital patients in my constituency face the closure of their hospitals to subsidise the very rich?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have noticed that cutting rates is quite compatible with increasing revenue. As all my hon. Friends behind me know, the top 5 per cent. of income groups now pay a larger proportion of income tax than they did before the Government's tax cuts. It could be said that as a result of those tax cuts there has been more, not less, money for the National Health Service.

Does not the deplorable term "tax handout" imply that the whole of an individual's income belongs in the first place to the state, and that it is at the discretion of the state that he is allowed to enjoy some of it?

I wonder whether the Minister will give us an assurance that his priority this year will be to ensure that those who have done well from his economy will be enabled to support the Health Service, and not to profit personally in the way that he has described them as being able to do in the past six years?

The purpose of my right hon. Friend's Budgets in the past has certainly been to produce policies that benefit all the people in the country, and the result of our tax cutting has been that the take-home pay, or disposable income, of a person on average earnings has increased by more than 20 per cent. That is how the policies of this Government have been in the interests of all the people.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whereas the Labour Government attempted to squeeze until the pips squeaked and collected only about £800 million from the higher rates of tax, this Government, by increasing growth in the economy with the consequent increase in incomes, now collect some £3,800 million from the higher rates of tax? Does that not augur well for a Budget in which tax cuts among the higher rates might be considered?

As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget. However, I entirely agree with his point about the results of cuts in the top rates hitherto. The top 5 per cent. were previously paying some 24 per cent. of income tax revenues. That has now increased to nearly 30 per cent., amply illustrating my hon. Friend's point.

Does the Financial Secretary deny that those earning £50,000 a year or more have been gaining £10,000 a year under his regime? Does he deny that anyone earning £450 a week or less is now paying more tax—both in real, cash terms and as a proportion of income—than in 1978–79?

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that now produces a disincentive effect, with the top rate at 60 per cent., and that there is therefore a case for cutting it? Or does he believe that the rich are due for yet another handout? If he believes the former, what is his hard evidence, as opposed to hearsay? If he believes the latter, will he simply admit it?

As I said, I shall not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget. The only point that I was making about the cuts in higher rates was that, in my opinion, they have been in the overwhelming interest of the country, and the revenue figures show that. The figures also illustrate that those on half average earnings have done a great deal better under this Government than they did under the Labour Government.



To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of productivity in the United Kingdom economy over the period since 1980.


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of productivity in the United Kingdom economy over the period since 1980.

From 1980 to the third quarter of 1987 output per head in the whole economy has grown at an average rate of 2¾ per cent. per year, similar to that of Japan, and faster than all other major industrialised countries.

How does the figure that my right hon. Friend has just announced compare with figures in the 1970s?

Productivity growth in the whole economy has averaged about 2 per cent. per annum since the cyclical peak of 1979. That is nearly twice as fast as the average annual growth between 1973 and 1979, when, as I recollect, another party was in power.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very low productivity which used to characterise our economy and which got to the heart of our national economic ills has now been replaced by increasing and increased productivity, which is why we shall compete so effectively and why we are the envy of our Western industrialised competitors?

I totally concur with my hon. Friend's question. It is significant that United Kingdom manufacturing output per head has increased since 1979 at six times the rate it increased between 1973 and 1979.

Given the issue of investment, will the Chancellor reflect on exports and imports? Is the Chancellor proud of the fact that since 1979 manufactured imports have risen twice as fast as exports? Why has the Prime Minister broken the pledge she made in 1979 that the Tories would create conditions for our factories and workshops that would produce manufactured goods, so that the customers of the world would be scrambling over each other to buy them? Is it by design, or by sheer incompetence on the part of the Government, that such a disastrous imbalance in manufactured goods has been achieved?

The question that I was asked related to productivity rather than to investment and exports, but manufacturing output and productivity have been increasing even more rapidly than the rest of the economy.

How can the Minister concur so boastfully when, as recently as 1986, Britain imported cars, textiles and steel to the value of £8 billion? Is that not a ruinous rate of imports? What will he do about that?

As I remarked a moment ago, the question related to productivity rather to than imports.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in productivity has resulted in a significant increase in profitability and that the taxes from profits pouring into the Treasury will give the Chancellor the opportunity in the Budget to do what no Chancellor has been able to do in the past 50 years—to balance the budget, reduce taxation and increase public expenditure by the £4·6 billion laid down in the White Paper on public expenditure?

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but the scenario my hon. Friend describes sounds attractive.

If the Minister is correct in obtaining some satisfaction from productivity figures, why did Britain have a surplus in the balance of trade on manufactured goods of £5 million in 1979 and a deficit last year of £8 billion, which is deteriorating? What is the point of so-called increases in productivity if we cannot compete successfully with our competitors? What will the Government do about the balance of payments?

The economy is competing successfully and we have maintained our share of manufactured exports in world trade in a manner unknown in recent generations.

Tax Changes


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the distributional effects of the changes in direct and indirect taxation have been since 1979.

The effect has been that real take-home pay has increased by at least 18 per cent. at all multiples of average earnings.

Does the Minister accept that most commentators now take the view that the burden of increased taxation since 1979 has fallen more heavily on the lower paid, part-time workers? Is he aware that if he takes the opportunity coming to him in the next few weeks to indulge in across-the-board cuts that will simply mean that the relative advantage will be given to those on higher levels of income? When will he take steps to redress the balance?

The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my answer, which was that all income groups have enjoyed increases in take-home pay of at least 18½ per cent. When one considers the proportion of tax and national insurance at all levels of income and compares that with the regime that we inherited in 1979, if that had been adjusted only for inflation, it will be seen that everybody is paying substantially less tax and national insurance at all levels of income.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Social and Liberal Democrats are really concerned to help the lower paid they would be better advised to look beyond ideas such as putting VAT on children's clothes, and look instead to the example set by the Labour Government in New Zealand, where they are abolishing all higher rates of income tax, thus giving a real boost to productivity and growth, and to everybody's income?

I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am sure that he will understand if we are extremely careful in responding when we are so near to the Budget.

Will the Minister rule out now the destruction of jobs that will take place if VAT is put on newspapers?

Borrowing Requirement


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he now anticipates a public sector surplus rather than a public sector borrowing requirement in 1987–88.

Is it not clear that there is now every prospect of a balanced Budget, or a public sector lending requirement surplus? Will this not be the best performance since the early 1950s, with the exception of the year 1969–70? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townsend) said, does that not offer the prospect of a tax-cutting, expenditure-rising, balanced Budget on 15 March?

My hon. Friend will understand that there is no way in which I can anticipate my Budget today, but I can tell him and the House that public finances at present are fundamentally sounder than they have been at any time since the war, and I intend to keep them that way.

Does the Chancellor remember that the last Chancellor to anticipate a public sector borrowing surplus was Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins? Does the Chancellor expect that his career will follow the same glittering progress?

I have never before been compared to the noble Lord Jenkins. [Interruption.] I have long since given up drinking claret. He was, of course, Chancellor of the Exchequer for only a relatively short time.

Will my right hon. Friend give top priority to raising the tax thresholds in his forthcoming Budget, to help restore incentives to work and help the lower paid generally?

My hon. Friend is quite right. He has been waging a campaign for a long time pointing out the importance of reductions in income tax to create incentives and to help the lower paid, and indeed all those in the economy, to make the economy stronger. I think he will agree that the economy is now very much stronger, and one of the reasons for that, although not by any means the only one, is that we have been pursuing a policy of reducing levels of income tax.

If Britain's public finances are as sound as the Chancellor says, why are the Government not spending the money where it is desperately needed, in the National Health Service? Or does the Chancellor now tell us that enough is being spent on the Health Service? Will he give us a direct answer?

I shall say two things to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in answer to an earlier question, we have provided in this most recent public expenditure White Paper for the biggest ever increases in spending on the National Health Service in the next three years. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, health provision is currently under review by the Government. Finally, I make it clear to him that anybody who knows anything about provision of health care in the National Health Service in this country knows that the problems—and there are problems—go far beyond the simple question of funding.

Personal Disposable Income


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real personal disposable income since 1983.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that excellent figure shows that policies that promote enterprise, competition and fiscal prudence certainly deliver the goods?

Is the Chancellor aware that figures put forward by the Family Studies Institute suggest that, under this Chancellor, the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer? Should we not have a strategy against poverty, beginning with the scrapping of the notorious social fund, which the Government are determined to introduce in April?

The studies to which the hon. Gentleman referred were based on incorrect data and we are writing to the institute to point that out. The truth of the matter is that, at all income levels, the vast majority of the people of this country have seen a substantial increase in their living standards since the Government came to office.

Overseas Assets


To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net assets overseas.

At the end of 1986 the United Kingdom's net assets overseas were estimated at £114 billion.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is a huge increase in recent years? Does he agree that the net income from those assets is highly beneficial to our economy? Does not all this underline the success of the previous Chancellor's decision eight years ago to abolish exchange controls?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is right in both his propositions. The net income in the first three quarters of the present year amounted to £5·4 billion, and the abolition of exchange controls was wholly welcome and beneficial.

Prime Minister



To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons
(Mr. John Wakeham)

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is in Brussels for a meeting of the European Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take time today to put pressure on his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to answer the criticisms of the Comptroller and Auditor General about the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance factories, one of which is in my constituency? The Minister refused to answer those criticisms, which point out that that privatisation cost this country tens of millions of pounds, that dividends were waived to make the company more attractive and that the delay in the transfer of pension rights and redundancy pay made this whole operation exceedingly expensive. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, before further privatisation takes place, some answers should be given to the complaints of the Auditor General?

I think that the hon. Lady misses the important point. The important point is that there were difficulties in the armaments procurement industry. That industry will do much better under privatisation than it ever would under state control.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the quite astonishing economic progress report, published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which shows that the average British family is having to spend £11 per week more for food, simply because of the price support for the CAP? Does he agree that in no circumstances should the Government agree to extra resources going to the EEC as long as the Common Market is spending £233 million per week on dumping and destroying food and £50 million per week on financing fraud?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Brussels at the European Council dealing with some of those very difficult issues. I know that she goes with the best wishes and strong support of the vast majority of the British people.

Is the Lord President aware of the growing concern, both in this country and among our allies, over the Government's deplorable decision not to follow the Stalker-Sampson report with appropriate prosecutions? Does he realise that it is now essential that the affair — the shoot-to-kill RUC conspiracy and Special Branch involvement—be cleared up by a judicial inquiry? Are the Government prepared to set up such an inquiry?

The Government are not prepared to set up a judicial inquiry. The matter has been the subject of a very thorough and detailed investigation, at the end of which the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland reached his decision. A further inquiry would be unnecessary and inappropriate.

Does the Lord President not realise the damage that that answer does both to our reputation abroad and to the prospects of lasting peace in Northern Ireland? How can the Government hope to establish the rule of law in Northern Ireland if they manipulate the law themselves? How can they expect to end the domination, dominance and role of the IRA if they are prepared to allow criminal conspiracy to go ahead without taking appropriate action?

Those are disgraceful remarks. Surely if any damage is done, it is by allegations that the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland did not act independently and properly in accordance with his duties.

The Lord President either deludes himself or seeks to deceive others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]

I withdraw that at once. The Lord President either deceives himself or seeks to delude others. The Attorney-General made it absolutely clear that there was a case to answer but that he chose not to answer it. The Lord President has to defend that, and not some other charge.

The Attorney-General made a clear statement in the House and indicated the reasons why, in the national interest, he had made his decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement in the House on the disciplinary matters and matters of control of the RUC that arise from that decision. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that.

When the Prime Minister in Brussels talks to the Taoiseach, with whom she got on very well on an earlier occasion, will she tell him that the British people are prepared to accept the interference of the Irish Republic in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom only to the extent that he is prepared to accept British interference in the affairs of the Irish Republic?

I am not privy to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will say to the Taoiseach in Brussels, but I know that she will seek to deal with the matter in the best way possible, that is, to recognise that the Anglo-Irish accord is something that we believe to be important, and hope to get over some of the difficulties.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that since 1969 166 people who were not members of paramilitary organisations and were not involved in violence have been killed by the security forces in Northern Ireland? Will he further confirm that in those 166 cases there have been three convictions? What plans have the Government to ensure that the law will apply in Northern Ireland without fear or favour equally to every person?

I cannot confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave. He may well be right. I think that in anybody who atempts to deal with the difficult issues in Northern Ireland a recognition of some of the people who are the victims of terrorism would be appropriate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the many remarkable achievements of Comic Relief was the quality of the films used to educate the British public about events and about the handicapped at home and abroad? Will he therefore consult his right hon. Friends about the possibility of the BBC and ITV making available— —

—to Departments these remarkable films for the use of voluntary organisations?

My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, I was appearing on a rival channel while that was going on. I shall certainly pass the remarks of my hon. Friend to the appropriate quarters.


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

In the light of the Appeal Court decision yesterday, will the Lord President of the Council acknowledge that the Government have brought confidence in the public security services in this country into disrepute by identifying the Conservative Government and party interest with the national and public interest? In the light of the judges' comments yesterday, would it not now be appropriate to set up a Committee of the House, composed of senior Privy Councillors, to help restore confidence in the objectivity of determining what is the national security interest?

I do not believe that by his question the hon. Gentleman meant to impugn the integrity of the judges who dealt with the case. The case remains before the courts, and I have no intention of commenting. The Government remain determined to uphold the principle of confidentiality, without which the security services could not function effectively to protect our freedom.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, for solely demographic reasons, the number of 18-yearolds available to enter the nursing profession is likely to decline dramatically. Is it, therefore, not regrettable that so few health authorities encourage, retrain and consider the special needs of young nurses who have young families and who wish to re-enter the profession after having been married?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am sure that all those who have responsibilies for the matter will take it on board.


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is the Lord President of the Council aware of a letter sent to hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-west by Dr. Thistlethwaite and other paediatricians in the north-west region about cutbacks and closures at St. Mary's hospital in Manchester? Does he realise that those paediatricians warn of the dire consequences if those closures and reductions in service take place, and that they may result in the deaths of babies? Will he recognise that there is a crisis in the Health Service and that the solution lies in the Government's hands? When will they adopt it?

I do not recognise the analysis that the hon. Gentleman gave. The Health Service is receiving this year the greatest increase in income it has every received. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister left me a note for the hon. Gentleman when she went away. She told me that I was to remind him that capital expenditure in his district increased by £16·5 million—[Interruption.]


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend share my deep concern about the organised violence—not merely the mindless hooliganism — at sporting events recently, including that at Bingley Hall in my constituency at the world title fight, and that reported today as having occurred in the Greater Manchester area? Will the Government consider taking improved powers to apprehend these thugs before they create havoc such as they created at those events?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern, and I believe that the House would wish to congratulate the police on their excellent work. The measures taken by the Government, the football authorities, the clubs and others have helped to tackle the menace of football hooliganism. There is still some way to go, and the disgraceful scenes on Sunday were deeply disturbing. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep his suggestions—and others— in mind as possible ways of tackling the problem.


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Rachmanism is flourishing in Lambeth under a company called Toddingtons Ltd., in which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is the majority shareholder? This week it is evicting a Mr. Fisher, who has lived there with his sick mother for 14 years and who is unemployed. He is being evicted on the grounds that his mother has had to go into hospital.

Is it not outrageous that Rachmanism still abounds? Does the Leader of the House agree with the Labour party policy that people in the private sector should have the same right to buy from absentee landlords?

I am somewhat sceptical about what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows perfectly well that if he has anything of that sort to say he should deliver it to the police and not try to make party capital out of it. The fact of the matter is that no hon. Member would want anything to do with Rachmanism or anything like it. The Housing Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend and at present before Parliament will do a great deal more to improve the housing conditions of millions of people in this country than anything done by the Opposition.

Returning to things that are the responsibility of the Government, is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the Prime Minister's visit to the Channel tunnel, I have written to her asking whether she could obtain, for the benefit of the House, precise information as to the levels of investment and the criteria for that investment as between the French Government and SNCF on the one hand and the British Government and British Rail on the other? Will my right hon. Friend assist me and the House to obtain that information so that we may assess the relative actions of the two Governments in providing the necessary public infrastructure to maximise the advantage of the tunnel?

I will certainly refer that matter to my right hon. Friend. I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he wants here and now.


To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Lord President turn his mind again to the question of Northern Ireland? Is there not a pervasive and growing stench about the refusal of the Attorney-General to engage in prosecutions in connection with the killing of those people, who were unarmed, especially the young man in the hay shed? Does he not realise that if there is not a judicial inquiry under the 1921 Act this will grow and grow? It will not go away, and it will sour relations with the Republic.

The first thing that the hon. Gentleman must get absolutely straight is that it was not the decision of the Attorney-General; it was the decision of the DPP not to prosecute.

Business Of The House

3.31 pm

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons
(Mr. John Wakeham)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock private Members' motions.

Debate on agriculture on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the EC document relevant to the debate will be given in the Official Report.

TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY — Remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.

Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order.

WEDNESDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Debate on a Government motion on the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

Supplemental timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill.

Motions on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1986–87, (No. 4) 1983–84 and (No. 4) 1984–85.

THURSDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock motions relating to Social Fund regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Motion on the Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order.

FRIDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the British Steel Bill.

[Debate on Monday 15 February

Relevant European Community Document:
4165/88Agricultural Land: Set aside and extensification
Relevant MAFF Documents:
UnnumberedExplanatory Memorandum dated 27 January 1988
Agricultural Land: Set aside and extensification
Addendum dated 12 February 1988
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee: HC 43-xiii (1987–88) para 1.

Debate on Thursday 18 February 1988

Social Fund (Application for Review) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 34).

Social Fund (Recovery by Deductions from Benefits) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 35).

Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 36)].

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.

In view of his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when does the Leader of the House intend to find time to debate the Stalker-Sampson report, which raises fundamental issues affecting the rule of law? Will he give an undertaking that if any prosecutions following that report are to be announced, they will be announced in this House and not in some hole-and-corner manner?

While we welcome the extra time given to debate the Inner London education authority, surely the Leader of the House realises that what is needed is a new and separate Bill—that is, if he cannot persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to abandon this vandalistic measure altogether.

Will the Leader of the House take steps to ensure that Thursday's debate on the rate-capping orders does not clash with the Committee stage of the poll tax Bill, because even the Secretary of State for the Environment cannot be in two places at once?

When will the House have the opportunity to debate the new packaging around the DTI, particularly as a debate on that is already scheduled for the House of Lords?

Can the Leader of the House tell us when there is likely to be a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, and also when there is likely to be a debate, in Government time, on the arts?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. First, on the Stalker-Sampson report, I have already said to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement to the House shortly. I believe that any other questions of debate and so on can be left until after that statement has been made.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on ILEA next week. He suggested that it would be easier to proceed my means of a new Bill. I do not agree. Indeed, in last week's debate he suggested that the amendments to the current Bill would be out of order. If that is true, the hon. Gentleman will be proved right, but I believe that the amendments will be in order. I shall be arranging for the supplemental timetable motion to be tabled this afternoon. In addition to the day's debate that I have announced for next week, provision will be made for a further day on Report stage of the Education Reform Bill as well as additional time in the Standing Committee.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the debate on the rate limitation order and wondered whether the Committee should sit while that debate took place on the Floor of the House. That matter can be discussed through the usual channels.

I recognise the need for a debate on DTI matters in view of the number of initiatives that my right hon. Friend has taken. I shall certainly refer the matter to him, but I cannot promise a debate immediately.

There will be a debate fairly soon on public expenditure, but we are awaiting the report of the Select Committee.

I recognise that a debate on the arts is an extremely important matter and it is something I have in mind for the not too distant future.

With reference to what is happening in Austria and the responsibility, in one aspect, of the British Government, is my right hon. Friend aware that the six British commandos, captured off Greece in 1944, were done to death under Hitler's infamous commando order? Everyone in the German Army at that time, whether their name was Waldheim or anything else, knew about that commando order. Indeed, two years previously six British Royal Marines—the Cockleshell heroes—were done to death under that order. In that case, however, there was a reckoning after the war and a war crimes trial. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the action of those who destroyed the evidence in the case of the commandos captured off Greece will be questioned and that there will be a thorough inquiry? Can the appropriate Minister make a statement to the House next week?

I recognise my right hon. Friend's concern about these matters and I know that it is shared in many parts of the House. The British Government take seriously all allegations, especially when British service men are involved. We shall look at all the new information, but I cannot promise an early statement on the matter.

Has the Leader of the House seen the following early-day motions:

No. 653:

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve ( Part-time) (Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 8), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]

No. 654:

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints etc.) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 9), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]

No. 655:

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988 (S.R. (N.I.), 1988, No. 10), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]

No. 656:

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints) (Informal Resolution) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 11), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]

The Leader of the House will note that they are in the form of prayers set down by myself and my hon. Friends relating to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the right hon. Gentleman provides time for those prayers to be debated, it will enable us to discuss the Stalker-Sampson inquiry in the light of the Attorney-General's statement and the forthcoming statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I hope that he will respond positively to that suggestion.

I recognise that that might be a way out, but I think that I should best discuss it through the usual channels.

Will my right hon. Friend again consider early-day motion 372: [That this House believes that honourable and Right honourable Members should keep their speeches to 10 minutes or less when requested by Mr. Speaker in order to give more backbench Members of all parties an opportunity to speak, excepting only the four principal speakers in each debate.]

It is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and concerns the limitation of speeches in the House. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will restore the experiment that was extremely successful in the previous Parliament. In view of the decision that was made this week about televising our proceedings, is it not even more important that there should be a better chance for hon. Members other than Front Bench spokesmen, Privy Councillors and wind-bags?

I shall not go down that road, but I recognise that there is a demand for such a change. There are a number of other procedural matters that I would like to bring before the House. I am having discussions through the usual channels and with other interested parties, and I hope to make progress as soon as possible.

Further to the answer that the Leader of the House gave his right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) about the Austrian question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Austria's many friends are deeply disturbed by the reports of the international historians' commission to the effect that, despite President Waldheim's denials, he was well aware of atrocities in the Balkans and in Greece? Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have either an early statement or a debate about this matter — particularly about the report in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph that President Waldheim was aware of the torture and execution of six commandos in Salonica in Greece?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter and of his concern. As I understand it, the international commission of historians has delivered its report to the Austrian Government and the Austrian Government are now considering its report. The British Government will be prepared to consider any reports arising from that inquiry.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of my long-standing interest in this matter. I can only reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) have said. The fate of those commandos is of genuine national interest. What happened so long ago is of interest to us as a nation and as a European power. The full truth must be revealed. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ask his colleagues what happened to those files in 1978 that were deliberately destroyed?

I shall certainly ensure that the contributions of my hon. Friend and of other right hon. and hon. Members are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer early next week on Britoil and the Government's intentions with regard to the use of the golden share? There have been discussions between the Treasury and BP on the one hand and the Treasury and Britoil on the other, but the House has not been informed of the line that the Government have taken in those discussions. In Scotland there is a keen interest in the question whether the Government are genuinely trying to protect Scottish interests in this very important matter or whether they are simply engaged in a sell-out to BP.

I do not think that I can add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said when he answered a private notice question on this subject at the beginning of the month. However, I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's points to him and, if he feels that it is necessary to make a further statement, I am sure that he will.

As we have witnessed the signing of the INF agreement and passed the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill to make arrangements for observers and inspectors, and as there is a need to harmonise all the European forces' weaponry, may we have a debate including a discussion of conventional weapons and chemical weapons reductions and, most important of all, the future of the Western European Union as the European pillar of NATO?

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has taken the words out of my mouth. I was going to say that, with a little ingenuity—of course, this is a matter not for me, but for you, Mr. Speaker—my hon. Friend might well find that some of his points are relevant to today's debate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between "shortly" and "as soon as possible", which was how he described last week the timescale in which we might expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Has he any concept of how the people of Northern Ireland feel after three weeks in which the Secretary of State has warned us of a renewed terrorist assault and told us about the new brigade organisation to defend the border and how they feel about the details of the Stalker affair? Can the Leader of the House imagine how the people of Northern Ireland feel about the fact that foreign politicians have been able informally and formally, at Prime Minister level, to discuss matters affecting their daily lives? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how they feel about their elected representatives being ignored day after day? Two years ago I asked his predecessor whether the elected representatives of Northern Ireland were redundant. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are redundant?

How many times has the hon. Gentleman asked to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but been refused? The hon. Gentleman asked what was the difference between "shortly" and "as soon as possible". "As soon as possible" cannot be shortened, but "shortly" could be shortened.

As to the substantial and serious matter that the hon. Gentleman raised— I do not treat these matters other than seriously—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that he will make a statement. I recognise the concern that the statement should be made as soon as possible. I am sure that the House will recognise that there are serious and weighty matters to be considered. Hon. Members would not want my right hon. Friend to make a statement without having considered all those matters extremely carefully.

As to next week's debate on the revised guillotine motion on the Education Reform Bill, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that revised motion, and any subsequent motions relating to the Report stage, leave plenty of time for proper discussion of the role of universities, given the concern about the present drafting of the Bill?

My hon. Friend is right. I said during my speech on the timetable motion that the purpose of introducing it was to ensure that all parts of the Bill were properly discussed. As the part of the Bill dealing with universities comes at the end of it, I had that in mind as much as any other matter.

I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 499.

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 2182), dated 16th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of praying days allowed for it will be exhausted by next Friday? Will he confirm that there is no provision for it in next week's business anyway? When does he intend to make provision for it, and will he assure the House that that provision will be made on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee?

I recognise the concern of a number of hon. Members about this matter. A Labour Member raised this matter with me last week. I said that any debate on the subject would have to be agreed through the usual channels. There is a lot of business that we need to get through, but we shall do our best to find time if that is the general wish.

Following the clear decision of the House on Tuesday regarding an experiment in the televised broadcasting of our proceedings, will my right hon. Friend say what he thinks the next step in this process will be and reaffirm, as he said with such alacrity after the debate, that the Government intend to introduce measures and proposals as soon as is reasonably possible?

I cannot add anything to what I said in my speech earlier this week. The first step is to set up a Select Committee to look into the matters required of it by the House. Discussions are taking place to work out the best way forward.

Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate the recent activities of the Economic League, which has been spying on innocent British citizens? Will he note that more than 100 hon. Members have signed my early-day motion on that subject? Will he find time for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet to discuss the needs of the Health Service in Scotland? I am sorry to raise two separate issues, but they are both important, and I hope that that is acceptable.

I advise the hon. Lady that I regard one of those subjects as especially important. Her earlier point was about the Economic League. I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate on either subject in the immediate future.

In view of the timetable motion that has been announced today for next week's business after the usual statutory virility period in that Committee, would it not be sensible to reopen the report of the previous Procedure Committee and to reconsider this matter because it is becoming a farce?

I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on that matter. In my speech on the timetable motion, I said that I certainly do not accuse the Opposition of any filibustering on the Bill. I brought in the timetable motion to meet many of my hon. Friend's objectives—to see that there is an orderly discussion of the Bill, right the way through its stages, so that all parts of the Bill can be discussed which, I believe, is what the House would like to see.

Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the confectionery industry? I have a special interest because I like the product, but at the same time a massive inflow from abroad is affecting the balance of payments and jobs in the confectionery industry in this country. I should like in a debate to refer to Rowntrees and its Black Magic box. Rowntrees has stopped putting in the liquid cherries. I am not going to buy any more boxes and there will be other people like me. That is bound to affect jobs, so we need a debate to try to overcome the problem.

One gets all sorts of questions in this House. I am not sure that the confectionery industry would be much improved by a debate, but it seems to me that it would be much improved by taking on board some of the better economic conditions in this country and the opportunities for enterprise that have been created under the Government. Let us hope that there is more competition in the industry.

Notwithstanding the fact that next week the Prime Minister will presumably be making a statement on the European summit in Brussels, would it not be helpful to have a debate soon so that hon. Members of all parties can say clearly to our European partners that we are not prepared to see any increase in the European budget until or unless expenditure is brought under control, which it manifestly is not at the moment?

These are important issues on which there will have to be time for debate. Although I cannot promise a special debate next week, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Monday's debate on agriculture to which some EC documents will be relevant. That seems an opportunity on which, with a little skill, my hon. Friend may be able to make points that he wants to make.

Is the Leader of the House aware that allegations are circulating in the north-west of England that the recent liberal agreement reached with Turkey to allow tremendous imports of acrylic yarn into this country was a quid pro quo by the Prime Minister so that when she visits Turkey shortly she will be able triumphantly to announce that we have obtained a large civil engineering contract? Should not the right hon. Gentleman leave a note for the Prime Minister asking her to come here next week either to confirm or to deny those rumours?

I cannot give any credence or substantiation to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I will refer the matter to the Prime Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend concede the demand from hon. Members of all parties for an early debate on Northern Ireland? That would give the Government the opportunity of explaining how it is right to give the Irish Republic the right to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland when the Minister of Justice for the Irish Republic appears to think that it would be normal and proper in this country for the Government to interfere in the workings and considerations of the Court of Appeal in respect of the Birmingham six case.

I recognise that my hon. Friend speaks for a large number of hon. Members. We shall have to see what can be done. I stick to my point that we should first have the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) calling for a statement on the Waldheim affair? Meanwhile, will he ask the Foreign Secretary whether we have in our control any documents that have been removed from the Public Record Office referring to those commandos and seek an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that until the matter is sorted out no British diplomat will attend any function in Austria that is attended by President Waldheim?

I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's strength of feeling. I take on board his point, but I cannot add to what I said to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members have sympathy with his difficulty in fitting the large amount of legislation into the parliamentary programme? In particular, he will know of my concern about the lack of debate on the proposals of the Select Committee on European Legislation that should be debated in the House before Ministers go to the Council of Ministers and make decisions on our behalf, particularly in regard to steel. He will be aware that the Prime Minister is in Brussels, but the House has not had the opportunity to discuss the European Economic Community budget since 1986.

Is it not time to look again at the way in which we deal with European legislation? Would it not be a good idea to set up the Procedure Committee and ask it to make recommendations to the House on how we should properly consider European legislation?

The way that my hon. Friend has suggested might be helpful. Certainly I recognise that some consideration of European matters has not been as good as it should have been. I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for that, but there were special circumstances. It would be right to set up the Procedure Committee. Discussions are taking place, and if a decision is made to discuss that topic, it will have my blessing.

As the Prime Minister is away and we can all talk freely, may I assure the Leader of the House that I believe him to be a good loser and that he will not attempt to frustrate the decision taken by the House about televising our proceedings? I do not have similar faith in the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. I am convinced, having watched her seethe, that she is probably planning at this very moment some hideous and bloody revenge. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Select Committee will not be so packed as to thwart the decision of the House and that the Government will give a firm pledge that they accept that decision and that we will have a fair chance to consider the report of the Select Committee?

When the hon. Gentleman talks about good losers and congratulating losers, I bow to his greater knowledge and experience in such matters and take it as a compliment. The Prime Minister has always felt that television in the House would benefit her and the Government, and no doubt she will take advantage of the benefit that the House has bestowed upon her. However, she thought that television was not in the interests of Parliament, and that is why she voted as she did.

The House has made a decision. I accept that decision and feel that we should implement it as best we can. The Select Committee will be charged with that task, and I hope that it will represent all sections of the House. I do not believe that any hon. Member should go on that Select Committee and attempt to frustrate the will of the House. That is how we deal with such matters.

As someone who voted in favour of the principle of televising the House but who does not want to be on the Select Committee, may I urge a cautious timetable on my right hon. Friend? When he spoke on Tuesday, he suggested a possible starting date of October. May I suggest that such a deadline is less important than giving the Select Committee plenty of time to examine the technical options? Perhaps it should not conclude its deliberations until the Government bring forward their proposals on the future of broadcasting which will mean more cable and satellite channels which would allow parliamentary programmes to be more generally spread across the spectrum without being squeezed into the duopoly channels that we presently have.

I do not think that I should add to what I said in the debate. However, I recognise that I put forward an ambitious timetable. We shall set out to do what we can, but I agree that we must have the right answers for a proper experiment. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend does not want to serve on the Select Committee. It might be easier if we were to reverse the normal process so that those who do not want to be on the Select Committee write to me and those who do not write I shall assume do. I shall receive fewer letters that way.

Did the Prime Minister leave the Leader of the House a note saying that she has had second thoughts about robbing many pensioners and others on low incomes of their full entitlement to compensation for the Government's mistake in calculating the retail prices index? The Prime Minister may be one of Britain's richest pensioners, who does not even need to draw her full parliamentary salary, but will the Leader of the House send her a note, while she is wining and dining her way round Europe, saying that many people, such as my constituent, Mr. Jackson, can ill afford to be robbed of £8? This is a matter of public confidence in good government. There is no excuse for the Government robbing pensioners and others on low incomes of their full entitlement.

The Prime Minister did leave me a note explaining how, when the Government had dealt with the problem of the computer error, which regrettably resulted in an under-payment in pensions, the matter would be put right in a way which was generally acceptable to most people.

In framing the future business of the House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that early-day motion 275 on the abolition of the dock labour scheme now has 210 signatures?

[That this House believes that the National Dock Labour Scheme is an anachronism which both endangers the viability of jobs in the scheme areas and acts as a deterrent to job creation by new ventures; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to abolish the scheme, and open negotiations immediately with employers and unions to bring that about.]

I recognise that, but I cannot add anything to what I said on that question some weeks ago.

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider further the contents of early-day motion 574?

[That this House notes the assurances given to the House on 31st March 1982 and 1st April 1982, Official Report, columns 333, 334 and 450, by both the present Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and by Lord Gray of Con tin, the then Minister of State for Energy, that the 'golden share' would offer effective safeguards for Britoil's independence; questions whether this has been shown to be the case; and calls for a full debate on the guidance given to the House by Mr. Chancellor and the noble Lord on the efficacy of the 'golden share' provisions when they were seeking honourable Members' approval for the privatisation of BNOC.]

Given the importance of an independent Britoil to the Scottish economy and the oil industry, and given the importance to the House of Commons of ensuring that promises made in 1982 are fully honoured in 1988, is there not the strongest case for a full debate on the matter, rather than a series thus far of ambiguous statements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when my right hon. Friend made his statement. I suggest that he re-reads it because it was an authoritative statement. As I told the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will make another statement should it be necessary.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on the dissemination of information? [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made only one correct statement since I became a Member of the House 10 years ago, and that was this afternoon.

May we debate the dissemination of information by local authorities so that I can draw the Secretary of State's attention to a mendacious document, circulated by post at public expense to all council tenants in Ealing, telling them that their council homes could be removed from them under housing legislation currently going through Parliament? That has frightened many pensioners and others, yet the members of Ealing council and many others know, or should know, that under that legislation no secure council tenant will be transferred to any other landlord against his or her wishes.

That is not right. The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. I am a member of the Committee that is considering it.

One of the advantages of living in Ealing is that one is represented by my hon. Friend. He makes his point well, but I cannot arrange a debate on the subject next week.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prison Officers Association has now started to refuse people on remand entrance to certain London prisons? Indeed, it now appears that the number of prisoners detained in London police stations is once again rising quickly and alarmingly. Bearing in mind the exorbitant cost of housing prisoners in police stations and the damage that that does to police efficiency and manpower resources, will the Leader of the House persuade the Home Secretary either to come to the Dispatch Box in the early part of next week, or arrange a short debate in the week following, so that we can once again try to tackle the problem which is becoming alarming in its frequency?

I recognise that it is a serious problem and I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He will be answering questions in the House next Thursday and that will provide an opportunity to question him if he does not feel it right to make a statement before that time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grossly inaccurate reports that have been circulated on the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster fund, that the trustees have been extremely successful in collecting £6 million which will be dispensed to the needy within one year, that the trustees are grateful to the Government for their contribution of £1 million, and that the trustees do not intend to see a large tax payment? In fact, the Government are unlikely to see much tax at all because the children and orphans will be paid their money out of interest and should be able to reclaim tax paid on that. In addition, can my right hon. Friend confirm to the great British public who contributed to the fund, for which the trustees are grateful, that they will not see any of their contributions going back to Exchequer in tax because the only substantive amount of tax that is likely to be paid is on the commercial sale of records, not on the public's contributions?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I have seen the statement issued by the chairman of the disaster fund in which he said that he had chosen to establish the fund as a discretionary trust rather than as a charity, knowing full well the consequences of doing so. The object was to give the trust more freedom to make payments as it saw fit. The trustees are grateful to the Government for their prompt donation of £1 million, as they are for the donations from everybody else.

In view of remarks that were made earlier, will the Leader of the House be a little more positive and ensure that we have a statement next week on the position of the commandos who, after being captured, were handed over to the Gestapo to be murdered in cold blood by an army unit which had first questioned them in which Waldheim was involved? Can the Austrians be forewarned, in the most diplomatic way possible, that the overwhelming majority of the British people, regardless of their political views or lack of them, find it difficult to understand how someone who, during the war, was an active accomplice of mass murderers can now be President of Austria? That stinks in the nostrils of ordinary people.

I am not in a position to comment on the substance of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I recognise his strength of feeling and that of the House, and I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Patrick Cormack
(Staffordshire, South)