House Of Commons
Thursday 17 October 1991
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Private Business
London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill Lords (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 7 November.
King's Cross Railways Bill (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 7 November.
East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May],
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 7 November.
London Underground (King's Cross) Bill
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill Loans
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended in the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be considered and ordered to be read the third time;
Ordered,
That no further 'Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Oral Answers To Questions
National Finance
Inflation
1.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence today. He is attending the annual meeting of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Bangkok.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the 12-month all items retail prices index inflation rate was 4.1 per cent. in September—the lowest level for more than three years—and, since August, is below the European average for the first time in four years.I thank the Minister for that reply. All sensible people welcome the decline in the high and unacceptable rate of inflation, but the price that has been paid for that has been enormous in terms of the erosion of our manufacturing base. I do not ask to be forgiven for referring in particular to the position in Scotland, where it could be argued that in previous recessions some of our old basic declining industries were impaired. But now we see the impairment of our high technology manufacturing base. That is an unacceptable fact. That loss should be halted as soon as possible. What are the Chancellor's proposals on that?
Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. As he rightly says, we should all welcome the news on inflation because plainly it is a condition precedent to full economic recovery, and in particular to the reduction in unemployment, that we should have a climate within which British industry can expand and compete on favourable terms with that on the continent. The fact that today our inflation rate is within 0.2 per cent. of the German rate is extremely good news to those who look for economic recovery. The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the unemployment figures published today are encouraging in Scotland.
Has not the prestigious Item club made it clear that in the unlikely event of a Labour Government's being elected, the current levels of inflation would be doubled within a short period? Would that not be a tragic end to the great successes that we have achieved in lowering inflation in the past 18 months?
As time goes on, people will look more and more closely at the Opposition's policies, and on issues that worry them about our handling of the economy they will ask where the Labour party would differ and what would be the consequences. The Item club is the last in a long list of forecasters who on every key indicator show that the Labour party's policies would make the position worse.
As the Government's policies were responsible for high inflation in the first place, there is clearly no room for self-congratulation. How many people will lose their jobs? How much further will unemployment rise? How much further will manufacturing industry be eroded and undermined as is happening in the west midlands, which suffered badly enough 10 years ago and is now hit by the second wave of recession? Do the Government intend to do anything whatever about unemployment?
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government invented inflation. When he was a Back-Bench Member supporting a Labour Government, inflation averaged 15 per cent. The long run average for inflation under this Government has been less than half of that and is well in touch with our European competitors. British industry has come well through this recession. Export volumes are 5½ per cent. up on the year to the end of August. We are well set for a recovery which will undoubtedly take people back into jobs. Before the hon. Gentleman smiles too much, may I say that I am sorry that that is a matter of sadness to him? He knows full well that the last time there was a peak in unemployment in the 1980s, it was followed by more than three years of continuous falls in unemployment, totalling 1½ million. There is no reason why that success should not be repeated, if there is a Conservative Government.
Is it not a remarkable achievement that, contrary to the forecasts of pessimists, since sterling joined the exchange rate mechanism just over a year ago the United Kingdom has enjoyed stable exchange rates, lower inflation and lower interest rates? Is not that the only recipe for sustained economic growth?
Yes, indeed it is. The ERM disciplines have proved to be well worth while for this country and the Government are committed to them. The evidence is there for all to see.
Share Values And Investment
2.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the percentage changes in (a) the total value of shares quoted on the international stock exchange and (b) total investment in manufacturing industry since 1979.
The increase in the total value of shares quoted on the international stock exchange between March 1979 and June 1991 was 560 per cent. The value of the manufacturing capital stock at current prices doubled between 1979 and 1990.
Whatever gloss the Treasury seeks to put on those figures, manufacturing investment between 1979 and 1990 rose in real terms by a pitiful 10.6 per cent. whereas the market value of United Kingdom and Irish equities rose in real terms by 214 per cent.—20 times more. Surely that is eloquent testimony to the fact that market forces are not working and that capital markets and institutional investors are failing British industry abjectly. What do the Government intend to do about that?
I hope that the Labour Front Bench will listen to that critique of capitalism because they no longer believe what the hon. Gentleman believes. He cannot draw those conclusions. Stock market valuations are higher because companies are more profitable, better run and paying less in tax, and therefore worth more. A good deal of that—some £70 billion—is accounted for by privatisation. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so unhappy about the level of manufacturing investment. It may interest him to know that the average annual level of manufacturing investment between 1979 and 1990 was £9,788 million a year and the average between 1974 and 1979 was slightly less, at £9.77 billion.
Can my hon. Friend confirm a change that has taken place which is of immense importance to our economy and nation—that for the first time in living memory the number of individual shareholders exceeds the membership of trade unions? Long may that continue.
My hon. Friend is right. We think that it is excellent that more and more people own shares in companies, but it seems that that opinion is not shared by Labour Members, who hate any form of private ownership.
Income Tax
3.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on personal income tax.
The basic rate of income tax has already been reduced from 33p to 25p in the pound. We intend to reduce it further to 20p in the pound over time.
Does my hon. Friend agree that people do not want to pay higher taxes? Indeed, they want to pay less tax. If people wanted to pay more taxation, the Labour party would not be so desperate to hide the truth about its extravagant spending policies.
It is conspicuous that the Labour party has not contested a single one of the spending pledges that we costed last summer. I assume that it accepts that every one is correct, and they are increasing almost day by day. My hon. Friend is entirely right that it would be impossible for any Labour Government to fund those extravagant spending pledges without raising the basic rate of income tax as, indeed, every Labour Government, except Ramsay MacDonald's first one in 1924, has done.
As it has been the Chancellor of the Exchequer's declared policy for quite some time to reduce income tax to 20p, what is holding him back? Is it the fear that public services are already so stretched for resources, particularly in areas such as education, that further cuts are not possible? Or is it the fear that the boom consequences that were generated when the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was Chancellor would be generated by a sharp cut in income tax rates?
There is nothing very dramatic about the position. We managed to reduce the basic rate of income tax over a period of years and, along with the whole tax-paying nation, we were glad that we did. We shall continue to reduce taxes when it is possible, prudent and safe to do so. In a time of recession, when tax revenues are inevitably less buoyant and when public spending increases, as it always does in a recession, it is not possible to do so at present.
Is the Minister aware that the Inland Revenue's new method of assessing mileage by voluntary drivers for hospital and other community work is causing a measure of dismay and confusion? Is he further aware that unless the method of assessment is modified, a number of those voluntary drivers will be deterred from offering their services?
I am aware that there has been a good deal of concern about the matter. I should stress that it is only the extent to which any mileage allowance exceeds the cost to the driver that is chargeable to tax. That has always been the case. That is the law as it has stood for many years, but as it is well understood that people who have been receiving the allowances have not been charged tax on that basis I have decided that the introduction of the charge to tax should be phased in gradually over a number of years.
In view of the state of our education and health services, and particularly of training and transport, will the Minister explain how it can be wise stewardship for the Government to contemplate using resources for tax cuts rather than for investment?
As the hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to rise to her feet, she may care to explain from which of the Labour party's pledges she is now resiling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will give the hon. Lady a straight answer. In the middle and late 1980s, we managed at the same time to increase spending on all those desirable objectives to which she referred, to run a substantial budget surplus and to reduce tax, and we shall be able to do so again.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the only possible consequence of placing an additional tax on savings income would be to reduce savings, which would be a thoroughly inept and dangerous policy for this country to adopt?
At a time when the consensus everywhere, outside the ranks of the Labour party, is that savings should be encouraged, it is remarkable that Labour Members cling to their antediluvian ideas about taxing savings ever higher. The Labour party hates people having savings, hates people being independant and wants to tax people's savings so as to discourage them from having any.
School Uniforms
4.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt school uniforms from value-added tax irrespective of size.
No. Under the EC VAT sixth directive, member states may neither widen the scope of existing zero rates nor introduce new ones.
I remind the Minister that I received precisely that reply long before the regulations relating to the EC were introduced. Is she aware that the myth that children's clothes are exempt from VAT is easily exploded by the fact that children grow much faster than the rate allowed for by the Treasury? With the increases in VAT, thousands of parents suffering unemployment, combined with family poverty, are having to pay VAT on children's shoes for school, which can cost £25 or £26, and full VAT on school uniforms. Will the Minister find a way to enable uniforms designed for children to wear at school, and the wearing of which is compulsory, to be exempted from the tax?
I have explained that under the sixth directive, member states may neither widen the scope of existing zero rates nor introduce new ones. The hon. Lady will also be aware that the sizes and measurements in the schedule take account of the average sizes of children up to their fourteenth birthday, which is a suitable cut-off point. Even if we were allowed to do it, the problem would be to make certain that the benefit of zero rating was confined to children. As those who followed the Jaffa cake saga will know, definitions are a great problem in the VAT system.
In addition to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), may I ask my hon. Friend to comment on VAT on horses?
Not unless they wear school uniform.
When children wear school uniform to ride horses, can my hon. Friend say anything about VAT on horses?
I am not sure whether I am allowed to reply to that question. You seem to be nodding, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, depending on the answer.
All right. There have been considerable problems for the bloodstock market caused by distortions within the European Community which have disadvantaged the bloodstock industry in this country. We have agreed to enter into discussions with the industry to see whether we can work out an acceptable agricultural flat rate scheme. That will depend on discussions with the industry, but progress is being made.
Child Poverty
5.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government's economic policies on child poverty.
My right hon. Friend met representatives of the CPAG in June 1990.
Is the Minister familiar with the report of the Select Committee on Social Security which says that more than 3 million children in the United Kingdom are now living in conditions of poverty? Will he confirm that the level of child benefit in relation to earnings is now lower than at any time since 1948? When he next meets the Child Poverty Action Group, will he consider seriously its advice that an immediate substantial increase in child benefit is needed to offset the worst consequences of his economic policies on those who are most vulnerable?
It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the increase in child benefit in the Budget the CPAG wrote congratulating him, saying how pleased it was with the increase.
The statistics on the number of people living in poverty are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, completely meaningless as they rely on a totally artificial definition of poverty—[Interruption.] I did not say that there was no poverty, but that the figures on how many people live in poverty are artificial. They rely on taking a notional percentage of income and saying that everyone below that level lives in poverty. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not so. Under this Government, real incomes have risen at all levels and the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. of households have risen by 9½ per cent.When my hon. Friend next meets the Child Poverty Action Group, will he discuss the role of legislation in relation to accounts submitted by politically motivated charities? Is he aware that for the past 10 years Christian Aid has not submitted full accounts and that there is grave disquiet about the performance of Oxfam?
That is a little wide of the Child Poverty Action Group.
Will my hon. Friend ensure that the CPAG submits full accounts for the current year and for subsequent years?
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The whole question of charities' accounts is being considered.
Imports (Tax Arrangements)
6.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that all tax arrangements and other regulations in regard to products available for sale in the United Kingdom shall apply to imported items with at least the same stringency as they apply to items produced in the United Kingdom.
The Government are fully committed to removing distortions in the market between home-produced and imported goods.
While I support the idea of restrictions likely to reduce smoking and improve health—indeed, the Opposition have a greater commitment to that idea than the Government have—does the Minister agree that to implement regulations so as to place a greater onus on home-produced items than on imported items is likely to endanger jobs in this country to the benefit of jobs abroad, without any balancing improvement in health? Will the Minister undertake, with colleagues in other Departments, to review the Government's approach to the matter?
The hon. Gentleman clearly understands that the Tobacco Products Labelling (Safety) Regulations 1991, based on the EC directive to which he referred, are a matter for the Department of Health. The directive applies partial harmonisation, so there appears to be a little room for manoeuvre above the 4 per cent. of the surface area of the front pack that has to be devoted to the health warnings. From a tax standpoint, the important issue is that all products manufactured to be sold in the United Kingdom will be required to display English language warnings, whatever the text or size permitted, so that packs of cigarettes being imported which do not bear that warning are likely not to have had duty paid on them. That will be useful from a tax point of view.
Will my hon. Friend look particularly at those European countries to which we export goods and which impose high rates of VAT upon those goods? Most of the tax raising in those countries is done by indirect taxation through VAT. Does that not give an unfair advantage to people who export goods to us, given that we impose a low rate of VAT compared with the European average? Surely, the evening out of VAT throughout the European Community would be good for industry and we should not resist that.
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are fully committed to removing the distortions, whichever way they work.
Have not the Government also agreed to increase dramatically the duty paid allowances for travellers from Europe coming to Britain, including returning British citizens? In so doing, the Government have forgone more than £1 billion in duty, mostly on cigarettes and spirits. Can the Minister tell the House how that duty forgone will be made up? Do the Government intend to increase VAT again? Do they intend to extend the public sector borrowing requirement still further or to cut expenditure on the national health service to encourage people to smoke cheaper cigarettes? It surely requires a peculiar incompetence on the Government's part to lose £1 billion of revenue and to encourage cigarette smoking at the same time.
It seems that the hon. Gentleman has been reading some rather misleading figures. For example, the Tobacco Advisory Council claimed that the effects of the single market would mean a £1 billion loss in revenue, but that claim is far too high as it assumes that every traveller who smokes will bring in 2,000 cigarettes for his own use each time he passes the border. As things stand, travellers who smoke by no means use up their allowances. The Government estimate that the loss in that particular case might be about £200 million.
Economic Convergence
7.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to measure convergence between the economies of European Community member states.
This is being discussed in the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union. The criteria should include measures of price stability, the sustainability of public finances and monetary stability.
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a degree of inconsistency in the way in which the various member states of the European Community measure economic developments of one kind or another? Does he therefore believe that there is a case for harmonisation in the way in which economic trends are measured so that countries cannot claim to have converging economies when they are diverging?
Inevitably, there are different measures of economic convergence. I have mentioned just some of them, and those are the ones that we believe are of particular importance for the purposes of economic and monetary union being discussed at the intergovernmental conference. There are accepted common measures of convergence which are applied for the purposes of comparison between various member states.
Does the Minister agree that whatever rules are adopted to measure convergence, notice must be taken of money available in Brussels for regional development? Will the Government therefore now honour the commitment that they entered into to supply money to the coal mining regions of Britain under the RECHAR scheme? Those regions rightly regard that scheme as extremely important. After all, such money is not part of a budget rebate to Britain—it is part of a scheme intended to provide additional and direct benefits to the regions concerned.
I am well aware of the issue, as my constituency is one of those which should be in line for some of the money from the scheme. I hope that the hon. Lady will use her contacts with European Commissioner Millan, whose decision it is to withold those funds from Britain. My constituents—and, I suspect, the hon. Lady's constituents—have a pretty strong grievance against that Commissioner for his refusal to give that money which is due to Britain.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever measures of convergence between the economies of European states are used, they are still such a long way from a degree of convergence that could support any form of economic or monetary union as to make it dangerous to talk about practical steps in that direction in the near future? Will he ensure that that reality is reflected in the British position in the negotiations?
I assure my right hon. Friend of that. From the inception of those discussions it has been our view that any monetary union that was not founded on real and sustainable convergence would be doomed to failure and disaster from the outset. As we have argued that case quietly, firmly and persuasively, we have won others to the cause. There is now a growing consensus among the 12 member states of the Community that strict convergence is of paramount importance before any moves to full monetary union take place.
Does not real convergence depend not only on the headline rate of inflation and interest rates but, crucially, on levels of growth, unemployment, investment and output? On all those fronts do not we lag miles behind our European partners? Will not this country continue to lag behind unless and until we have a proper industrial strategy for manufacturing industry?
That is one of the most fanciful outbursts that I have heard for a long time. Our rate of unemployment has been consistently below those of most of our major competitors in the European Community. In any event, it is not essential as a precondition for monetary union that there should be comparable levels of growth or output. Within any country or confederation that is an economic union there are wide disparities in all those measures. The measures in which it is essential that there should be convergence are those that I mentioned: interest rates, inflation rates and—I should have thought this was of some importance to the Labour party—the state of public finances. Any country that did not get a grip on its public finances and get its public deficits under control would have serious problems. On all those measures our record is exceptionally good. The hon. Gentleman mentioned rates of growth, but he may have failed to notice that, during the 1980s, our rates of growth outstripped those of every other member state of the European Community.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the discipline of exchange rates in the exchange rate mechanism is one way to ensure that there will be ultimate convergence within the Community? However, that also provides the possibility for competitive instincts on taxation and fiscal policy. Has not the Government's record of keeping taxation low for direct taxes and the corporate sector led to an inflow of inward investment from outside the Community? Forty per cent. of non-Community investment has flowed into this country, forcing other countries to adopt lower taxation, too.
It is certainly correct that the very favourable environment for business that we have created in this country has led to the lion's share of inward investment into the Community coming to Britain which we warmly welcome. I am sorry that, at its conference, the TUC chose to describe Japanese inward investment as being alien. When a Labour spokesman climbs to his feet he may wish to say whether the Labour party associates itself with those offensive remarks, which are completely against the national interest.
Endangered Species
8.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of items seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise belonging to endangered species of animals have been disposed of in the last 12 months.
Disposal by customs of items belonging to endangered species is normally done locally. Thus, central records are not compiled. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in the year to 31 March 1991, 2,395 such items were seized and all will be, or have already been, disposed of.
I thank the Minister for that reply and I am sure that the entire House would wish to congratulate Customs and Excise officers on their excellent work in trying to stamp out the vile trade in endangered species. However, many of them think that they are only scratching the surface of that trade and that more officers would enable better results to be achieved. Has the Minister considered that? Moreover, will she make it clear that, wherever possible, prosecutions will take place, because I understand that in 1990 there were no prosecutions of people caught bringing in endangered species.
The other question that I would like to ask—One question. It is not fair on others.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned prosecutions. There were prosecutions in the year ended 1990 and I believe that the hon. Gentleman has had a written answer to that effect. There was only one prosecution in the year ended 31 March 1991, with the result that two people were gaoled, one for 30 months and the other for 15 months. Obviously, the seizure of the items and their confiscation is also a penalty. From the point of view of the court, the difficulty with the prosecutions is that there has to be proof that the offence has been knowingly committed. That is always the problem; it is not confined to these cases.
On the number of customs officers concerned with such work, we are satisfied that they are doing an excellent job. One of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues recently wrote to congratulate us on the seizures of coral.May I press the Minister a little further? The current Customs and Excise report says that 1,230 live animals and birds, 1,092 plants and 2,395 articles such as elephant tusks, stuffed animals and birds were seized. The Minister could do more by increasing substantially the publicity at United Kingdom ports which would help to secure more convictions. The report says that criminal proceedings were taken against only five people. That is not enough. I earnestly urge the Minister to do everything that she can to ensure that those who carry on this vile and obscene trade face the full rigours of the law when they are caught passing through ports in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that display cabinets have recently been erected in many of our ports to show the type of items that are not permitted. That is a useful initiative which will bring to the attention of the public in a visual and concrete form the endangered species and their parts and derivatives that are not allowed.
Banking
10.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss matters relating to the British banking system.
My right hon. Friend meets the Governor from time to time to discuss various matters.
When the Chancellor next meets the Governor, will he raise with him the question of political contributions made by banks in the United Kingdom? Is not it true that Bank of Credit and Commerce International associate companies paid money to the Conservative party? Can those moneys now be returned to the banks for use by the liquidators so that at least some people will get their money back?
Hear, hear.
Hon. Members should be careful before saying "Hear, hear". The hon. Gentleman is in the habit of making unsubstantiated but very serious allegations in this place. To make one the day after the chairman of the Conservative party has said that, to his knowledge, no contributions were received from BCCI or from any of its senior executives surpasses even his usual low standards.
When my hon. Friend next meets the Governor of the Bank of England, will he impress on him the great disillusionment felt by industry, especially manufacturing industry, about the way in which the clearing banks have been behaving, particularly in the past few months during the recession? Is he aware, for example, that a number of companies are bypassing the banking system altogether and placing money through solicitors so as to avoid arbitrary action by the banks? Will he ensure that the Governor makes it perfectly clear to the clearing banks that they are a service industry and that it is their duty to ensure that their customers, as the wealth creators, prosper before the banks take their cut?
As my hon. Friend will know, the Treasury and the Bank of England looked into the whole matter of the banks' treatment of small businesses in considerable detail. They asked the banks to come up with codes of conduct in relation to their dealings with small business customers. I am delighted that the Midland bank has already published its code, which we will study carefully. I believe that the other banks will publish their codes before the end of the year. If my hon. Friend has any specific instances of what he mentioned, I should be grateful if he would let me or the Governor know of them.
Now that the Abu Dhabi authorities have announced that there will be no restructuring of BCCI because the alleged fraud amounts to $10 billion, what will the Government do to help and support British depositors and former members of staff?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bank of England stood ready to look at any proposal made to it for restructuring the bank. Unfortunately, that has apparently not been possible—no such proposal has been made to it. On 2 December, the date to which the hearing was adjourned, the deposit protection scheme will come into operation. It is more generous than the one which the Abu Dhabi authorities offered. So depositors with sterling deposits in United Kingdom branches of BCCI will receive 75 per cent. of their money up to a maximum of £15,000. Employees have been paid up to the middle of September, or the beginning of this month—I am not quite sure which—and I understand that they will receive their full redundancy payments in the near future, although complications surround that.
If there are further measures that we can take, I will be happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman's advice, but we have gone to considerable lengths to publicise the arrangements made with the other clearing banks to help former business customers of BCCI to establish alternative banking arrangements. Those arrangements have been re-publicised recently, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that anything else can be done, I shall be happy to hear what he has to say.Is not there a strong case to be made for separating the banking supervision responsibilities from the central banking responsibilities of the Bank of England, as happens in Germany, France and Switzerland? Given the conflicts of interest that can arise between supervisor and central banker and the need to maintain the special authority of the Governor of the Bank of England, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the decision that the Government took back in 1985—that this was not the right course of action? In the light of events, we should now consider a more fundamental restructuring.
Since my hon. Friend invites me to think about that, I will, but I doubt whether I shall come to a different conclusion—or whether the Chancellor will. The supervision of banks and the knowledge that the central bank has of its major bank customers from dealing with them seem to me inextricably and valuably linked. My hon. Friend quoted examples of countries with separate authorities, but there are many other countries in which the authority is the same and the United States is experiencing difficulties from having had banking supervision fragmented among different authorities. There is quite a lot of advantage to be had from a central bank having supervisory powers as well.
Economic Recovery
11.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress towards economic recovery in the United Kingdom.
Recent developments are entirely consistent with the Budget forecast for recovery in the second half of the year.
Will the economic recovery this time mean a real fall in unemployment and business bankruptcies, or will it be like the so-called improvement in the British economy between 1979 and 1989, where there was a 39 per cent. increase in consumer expenditure, but only a 10 per cent. increase in British consumer production, leading to a 94 per cent. increase in consumer imports and a colossal balance of payments deficit?
That is an extraordinary description of 10 years which I suspect many people found to be among the most prosperous and successful they have ever lived through. At the beginning of that period Britain was bottom of most of the industrial league tables; at the end of it we were at the top. That is the true record of the 1980s.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that economic recovery is being assisted by the Chancellor's acceptance of the unanimous view of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that the automatic stabilisers should not be inhibited at a time of recession? Is not it entirely appropriate to run a larger public sector borrowing requirement at a time of recession to assist recovery; and is it true that this should in no way undermine international confidence in the position of the economy?
I am most grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks. We aim for a balanced budget in the medium term. In some years a surplus on public finances has been achieved; in others, such as this year and next in our forecasts, we shall certainly run a public sector borrowing requirement, but within manageable levels—unlike the 9½ per cent. PSBR that the previous Government ran up 15 years ago.
Are the Chief Secretary and the Government at all concerned about the dramatic fall in investment in the manufacturing sector? Can he explain how we can possibly recover by means of an investment-led recovery if investment in our manufacturing sector keeps falling? How will we ever manage to counter the unemployment that is raging through the manufacturing sector, with more and more redundancies announced every day? How can we do any of those things if investment keeps falling? What do the Government intend to do about this serious situation?
The facts are totally contrary to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. Any fall in investment during this recession has been from historically high levels—[Laughter.] Since the Opposition find it amusing I shall give them the figures. At 1985 prices, the average investment per year in manufacturing for the six years of the Labour Government was £9.8 billion. For the past six years of this Government the average was £10.9 billion a year. Gross domestic investment in plant and machinery in Britain at 1985 prices was £19.7 billion in 1979 and £32.6 billion in 1990.
Prime 'Minister
Engagements
Ql.
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.
I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to join me in condemning the waste of money by Barnsley district general hospital, which is paying for a number of employees to go on a luxury holiday fact-finding mission to a Paris hotel as part of the hospital's move towards NHS trust status? Is that another example of the Government allowing hospitals to waste money in pursuit of their NHS reforms?
I did not know of that incident. Our reforms are achieving considerable savings right across the board, all of which are being directed at patient care.
If, as has been reliably reported in the press this morning, the Government are—doubtless from the most admirable motives—offering training and education to civil servants from the African National Congress, are not we in danger, first, of assuming an outcome to the constitutional process in South Africa which may be disproved by events? Secondly, are not we in danger of racial discrimination against a significant and admirable people, the Zulus?
What is being proposed is training for people who will participate in the Government. The training that we could offer should greatly help with the whole question of race relations and the future of South Africa.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unemployment in Britain has risen by over three quarters of a million in the past 12 months, that there have been more than 340,000 job losses in manufacturing industries over the same period and that unemployment in our country is rising faster than in any other European Community country? Is not it clear that the Government's policies are doing long-term damage to the British economy? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to belong to a Government who are doing Britain down in so many ways?
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at his own policies and realise that they would lose more jobs more permanently.
As a direct result of the policies of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman serves, output and investment continue to go down. Government borrowing continues to rise and unemployment is heading towards 2.5 million for the second time in 10 years under this Government. Is not it clear that the longer that Cabinet members hang on to their jobs the more other people will lose theirs?
For every day that the Government have been in office, on average 220 new jobs have been added, nearly 100 new businesses have been created and 880 families have bought new homes. That is our record. Employment is higher than it was four years ago and higher than it was under the last Labour Government and it is higher than the European average. Investment over the period is substantially up. That is why we have been able to achieve this record, which is way ahead of anything that a future Labour Government would do.
For the past three years and for next year Britain will be bottom of the investment, jobs, growth and other leagues of the major industrial countries. In Britain, more than 1,000 jobs a day are being lost in industry and services and manufacturing is bearing the brunt of that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can be proud of nothing in that record. Is not that manifested by the shuffling off of the autumn statement until the end of November because the Government are afraid to bring it forward at the proper time?
That latter point is entirely irrelevant. The decision on when the autumn statement should be made will be taken in the normal way. In the period as a whole, just as in recent times, there has been considerable success in getting inflation down to the levels of our major competitors overseas. That is the issue that most guarantees jobs long term.
As for manufacturing industry, the director general of the CBI said in the summer:in the era of Government interference, lost orders, strikes and horrific inflation. That was the era of the last Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about policies that effectively improve competitiveness, investment and productivity. That is what we have been achieving."Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better than it was"
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition spokesmen seem to take particular delight in talking down the British economy—[Interruption.]
Order.
rose—[Interruption.]
Order. This takes up time.
—and the Government's achievements in the economic sphere? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the amount of inward investment is proof positive that the foreigner has confidence in this country because the economy is not only sound but is better than it ever has been?
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and I apologise if I interrupted him. The Labour party simply ignores all good news and there is a deal of it at the moment. My right hon. Friend is right to draw to our attention examples such as the substantial bringing down of inflation and the high regard of overseas companies, which is shown by their rates of investment in this country.
South London
Q2.
To ask the Prime Minister when he will make his next official visit to south London.
I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an official visit to south London in September and intends to do so again in the future.When the Prime Minister or other Cabinet Ministers next come to south London, will they say whether they agree with the comment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, made half an hour ago in Church house, that the inner cities of Britain suffer from severe and divisive inequalities and severe deprivation? If they accept that that is the case, is it Government policy to increase the gap between the richest and the poorest, as has happened over the past 12 years, or will Government policy change under the new Prime Minister, so that the gap between the well off and the poorest will narrow in the years to come?
I understand that the Archbishop also paid tribute to the Government's inner cities programme, which has been substantial—
indicated assent.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that now, but he forgot to include it in his supplementary question. The inner cities programme and many others, including the urban initiative, have greatly improved the prospects for all our inner cities. There are many examples of that. One of the things from which inner cities suffer is Labour councils.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that an improvement in the teaching of economic history in our schools—
Order. This question is about inner London.
I should have said inner London schools, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every child in inner London should be taught that every Labour Government, without exception, have increased unemployment?
My hon. Friend is right. Labour Governments have increased unemployment, increased waiting lists in hospitals and hugely increased the public sector borrowing requirement to the level to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, if the PSBR were at the level that was reached under the Labour Government, it would be about £50 billion.
Engagements
Q3.
To ask the Prime Minister if the will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.
I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of State with responsibility for health in Scotland is still hell-bent on pushing the Royal Scottish National hospital to opt out, despite opposition from the overwhelming majority of the staff, the local community and relatives of the mentally handicapped patients? Given the Prime Minister's fine words last week about the power to choose and the right to own, will the right hon. Gentleman defend the people's right to choose that their hospitals remain owned and administered by local health boards instead of self-governing trusts?
There is no doubt that self-governing trusts are already considerably improving the management of the hospitals concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be considering the application to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as others, in the light of consultations.
Q4.
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.
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 agree with the chairman of Granada Television, who said yesterday that the Independent Television Commission had exercised its judgment in favour of quality? Does he recall that it was a Conservative Government who created ITV? Conservative Governments also created independent radio and Channel 4 in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. Will not yesterday's decisions mean that the second rate and the incompetent will give way to those who are professional and entertaining? We could not expect the Labour party to begin to understand that.
My hon. Friend is right. Both choice and quality of television have increased under Conservative Administrations and there will soon be a fifth television channel. We have seen the birth of satellite and cable television, which has expanded the range of programmes that people watch. My hon. Friend is right, too, to suggest that in setting up the Channel 3 and Channel 4 licensing systems, the Government aim to achieve a balance between market forces and quality and to maintain quality. I believe that that is what is happening.
When the Government did their U-turn on child benefit in the Budget and finally increased it after freezing it for several years, in a peculiar act of meanness they took £1 from the allowance of widows with dependent children. Will the Government recant on that act of meanness and give widows back their £1?
The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a considerable increase in all social security benefits over the years. There has been a considerable increase also as a result of the targeting of priorities.
Q5.
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.
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 recognise the need to revise the arrangements for the payment of European regional development funds, with specific reference to additionality? Is he aware that many people in the regions that have been identified as in need of additional investment believe that we are unable to benefit from the additional resources? Of the £45 million allocated to Cornwall and Plymouth, it will be possible to take up only £27 million because of restrictive measures.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has taken steps to resolve the problems arising from the specific targeting of aid at local level and I shall bring my hon. Friend's concern to his attention.
Given the Prime Minister's personal pledge to assist in the regeneration of Lanarkshire and the precedent that has now been set of political intervention in the decisions of British Rail, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will be using their influence to ensure that the new Eurofreight terminal in Scotland is sited at Mossend in Lanarkshire? If it is justifiable politically to intervene in the decisions of British Rail to protect political interests in the south, is not it equally justifiable to protect the economy and the regeneration of employment in Lanarkshire and Scotland?
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am familiar with Lancashire—[Interruption.] I am familiar with Lancashire because I have just been there, but I meant to say Lanarkshire, where I was born and brought up. The hon. Gentleman's specific point is not one with which I am familiar, so I shall draw it to the attention of the appropriate Minister.
Business Of The House
3.30 pm
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week, please?
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 OCTOBER—Debate on a Government Motion entitled "The Prime Minister's pledge to continue free hospital treatment in the national health service for everyone". Consideration of a Lords amendment to the British Technology Group Bill. Motion to take note of EC documents Nos. 5896/91 and 4051/91 relating to financial and technical assistance to developing countries in Asia and Latin America. Details will be given in the Official Report. TUESDAY 22 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill. Thereafter, subject to the progress of business, the House is expected to be prorogued.[Monday 21 October:
Relevant European Community Documents
(a) 5896/91 Financial and Technical Aid to Developing Countries
|
(b)4051/91 Financial and Technical Aid to Developing Countries
|
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 29-xxiii (1990–91)
|
(b) HC 29-xii ( 1990–91) and HC 29-xxiii (1990–91)]
|
Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a statement in the Chamber next week on benefits and pension upratings, so that the House will have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Social Security before prorogation occurs? Should not the statement be made here, rather than announced after the House has been prorogued?
Will the right hon. Gentleman further confirm the press reports today that the Government intend to delay the autumn statement on the Government's public expenditure plans? Is it not clear that, as the recession bites ever deeper and the Government have to borrow even more —not for investment, but for consumption—their spending plans are in disarray? Should not the House have the earliest opportunity to question Ministers on that very important statement? Can we have an assurance that it will be made as soon as possible after the state opening of Parliament? Finally, on behalf of my right hon. Friends and myself, I want to say how delighted we are that the Government have at last acceded to our requests for a debate on their total mismanagement of the national health service.On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social. Services will make a statement as soon as possible. As a great deal of work is involved, I cannot give a definite assurance that my right hon. Friend will make his statement before the House has been prorogued. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to make a statement in the House, and I assure him that that will happen.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there is no intention to delay the autumn statement, and I do not go along with the remarks in the press this morning. The autumn statement will be made in the usual way. I cannot at this moment give a date, but there is nothing unusual in that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. On the third point, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all on this side of the House greatly welcome the opportunity for a debate on the national health service. I have been looking for an opportunity for that, and I am delighted that we can have a full day's debate next week —when we will nail the Labour party's smears and fears.I am delighted that we are to have a health debate, having pressed for it during the week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition clearly ducked out of having a health debate yesterday because they are running scared about the truth about the NHS?
My hon. Friend is right. I know that he was keen to have a debate on the health service this week, as we would have liked to do. I know also that what he wants to do, as we will be doing on Monday, is to put the positive side of our case on the health service and in particular in fulfilment of the statement, in the terms of the debate. I agree that it was more than surprising that the Opposition decided not to run that yesterday. I am sure that the reason was that they know that there are so many holes that can be blown in their charges and policies on the NHS.
Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Minister responsible for health in the Scottish Office will take part in Monday's debate on the health service so that he can announce the results of the applications for trust status for hospitals in Scotland which, as the Leader of the House knows, are opposed by the majority of people there? It is important to put an end to the damaging uncertainty and the waste of time, money and effort that has gone into this fruitless exercise.
No, I cannot give that guarantee, because the debate will clearly range over the whole country. On the hon. Lady's request for an early decision on trust status, I know that, in the case of one Scottish hospital, the consultation period ended only last week, so it must be reasonable for my right hon. Friend to have time to consider all aspects of the board's application. I cannot give her a firm date, but I will pass on her concerns and comments to my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend may not be aware that, throughout the negotiations relating to the channel tunnel rail link, British Rail blackmailed both the major competitors to a degree which I think most people would regard as wholly unacceptable. Since then, it has made its contempt for the Government's decision only too public. I understand that my constituents are still to be denied the opportunity to discuss in detail what the plans mean to them because British Rail is still forbidding Ove Arup to come to talk to them. May we have a debate on that matter?
No, we have only two days next week, so there is no chance of a debate next week. No doubt my hon. Friend will wish to raise the subject in his own way in the House when it returns.
Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a great deal of public concern about battered women who are provoked by persistent domestic violence and who are penalised excessively when they react because present case law takes no account of the effect of cumulative violence? May we have a statement next week from the Government and their response to early-day motion 1240?
[That this House believes that the present case law on provocation discriminates against victims of domestic violence, resulting in wide and unacceptable variations in sentences; regards the case law criterion of 'sudden and temporary' loss of control as too restrictive because it prevents consideration of the effect of cumulative domestic violence; and calls for legislation to enable juries to take account of cumulative provocation and to provide that any consequent loss of control does not have to be sudden.]Without going into the legal implications, I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern on the issues that he raises and the kind of incidents that occur in families, and I share that concern. I cannot promise a debate next week, because, as I have already said, we have only two days.
Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the national health service debate until 11.30 pm, because I am not often called in such debates and I want an opportunity to put before the House the outstanding achievements of the NHS in building a new Burton hospital, and in increasing the number of clinics and consultants which serve my area?
I understand my hon. and learned Friend's anxiety to do so and I am sure that that will be shared by a large number of my hon. Friends who will also want to stress the Government's positive record in the NHS. However, other business is being taken on Monday evening, so it will not be possible to go beyond 10 o'clock.
When will the Leader of the House find time to defend the Government's view that the north of Scotland is a suitable place for reprocessing and storage of the world's nuclear waste? Can he explain the apparent double standards in a Secretary of State for Energy who is willing to campaign against nuclear dumping in his constituency but who also wants to designate Dounreay as the world's nuclear laundry?
I am not sure what incident the hon. Gentleman is referring to. If it is the Iraqi nuclear waste, he will know that there is a strong and important commitment to dealing with that issue, and that can only be done at Dounreay and in France. I should have thought that there was a general recognition that that is an important contribution which the United Kingdom can make, and it is a comparatively small aspect of what happens in Dounreay. Beyond that, I cannot promise a debate next week, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that issue again, he will have to find an opportunity to do so.
Now that the last initiative for a settlement in Northern Ireland has finally expired, and even the Government of the Republic seem to be flagging in their interest, surely it is time for the House to have some responsibility and to take a closer interest in the affairs of the Province by appointing a Select Committee to assist the people of that part of this United Kingdom in their deliberations and in the solution to their problems?
I am sure that it is no one's wish or view—it is certainly not the Government's view—that the last initiative has failed. I do not think that that is the case at all. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland hopes to be able to reach agreement in due course on a basis for fresh political talks. If that proves possible, the way in which Northern Ireland's affairs are handled and scrutinised at Westminster could be one of the issues for discussion.
The Leader of the House echoed the claims of recovery. He would probably appreciate that, if there is an economic recovery, the engineering steels industry should be becoming much busier, and that there cannot be much of a recovery unless that industry is active. Will he please take careful note of the problem now facing the engineering steels industry, which is being compelled to curb production significantly as a result of the electricity supply industry's prices and patterns of charging? Since the Department of Trade and Industry seemed to be utterly unaware of the problem yesterday, and since the Department of Energy seemed to be utterly uncaring about it, could he ensure that some members of the present Government take an interest in the matter? It is of real significance to my constituents and to the country at large.
I think that I would be out of order if I gave even further reasons—and there are many—why we make the comments that we do about economic recovery and the increasingly successful effects of Government policy. I shall draw the matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned to the attention of my two right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Energy.
May I add my voice to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)? We ignore Ulster at our peril. Day after day, we hear of assassinations and murders, and we appear to ignore them. We should have a debate on that subject as soon as possible.
As a supplementary question—Order. We do not normally allow supplementary questions.
While we are talking about Ulster, might we have a short debate on why the air conditioning in this place makes it more akin to an ice cream factory than a place for effective debate?
I think that my hon. Friend has stretched his supplementary question rather a long way. On his point of substance, as I have already said, we very much hope that agreement will be reached in due course on a basis for fresh talks, and that could obviously be one of the subjects. The Government's response to the Procedure Committee's report on Select Committees made it clear that we see a need for further consideration of the desirability and practicality of such a territorial Committee. However, the right way to take that forward is, as I have said, in fresh talks.
May I press the Leader of the House? On 18 July, there was unanimity in the House that there should be a Select Committee. What relevance is there in delaying the implementation of such a Select Committee because of the possibility of other talks, since, whatever happens in those talks, the affairs of Northern Ireland require the scrutiny of this House, and it is the responsibility of the Leader of the House to bring such a motion before the Chamber?
To add to what I said earlier, the work of the Northern Ireland Office and of Northern Ireland Departments, and Northern Ireland issues, can be scrutinised by Select Committees. For example, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry looked at Harland and Woolf, and the Energy Committee will shortly consider the Northern Ireland electricity industry.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that much remains to be done in encouraging charitable giving? Is not a debate on charities and the implementation of the Woodfield report long overdue? That report seeks to reduce abuses in charities, increase public confidence, and in turn to improve the level of giving throughout communities.
I share my hon. Friend's view about the importance of reforming charity law. He will know that the Government warmly welcome the Woodfield recommendations to update charity law and supervision, and our White Paper "Charities: A Framework for the Future" sets out our proposals for implementing them. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important issue, and I hope that we will be able to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity.. If that does not come quickly enough for my hon. Friend and provide an opportunity for the debate that he wants—as opposed to a debate on the substance of our proposals and the action to be taken—no doubt he will find other ways of raising the topic.
Will the Leader of the House consider the situation in respect of EEC funding? Conservative Members have argued for some time, and did so again in yesterday's debate, that each EEC country should adhere equally to the rules. Why does a different situation exist in respect of RECHAR? Other European countries have received their RECHAR grants, but because of the Government's ideological stance, Britain has not done so. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are affected, and rather than continue to blame Commissioner Millan, we should lay the blame where it belongs—with the Government, for their intransigence in not adhering to the EEC's policies when all its other member states are doing so.
That is a question of policy, and the hon. Gentleman knows that this is not the appropriate moment for me to respond. As to consideration of that matter, there is no scope for a debate next week.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any procedure whereby a debate that potentially could have taken place this week could be reopened next week due to fresh evidence? I refer specifically to the moving of the writ for the Hemsworth by-election yesterday by the Opposition Chief Whip—since when it has come to light that Labour leaders are leaning on their local constituency party to prevent a Mr. Ken Capstick, who is one of Mr. Scargill's leading lieutenants, from embarrassingly being selected as Labour's candidate. Many of us would like to debate that matter next week.
That is a matter for members of Labour's Front Bench and for the Opposition Chief Whip, not for me. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has taken note of my hon. Friend's comments.
Will the Leader of the House undertake an urgent investigation into the latest evidence of creeping privatisation in the Bradford health trust? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has introduced a charge of £60 for women wishing to undergo osteoporosis screening, with a discount for those who subscribe to private health care plans? If, after investigation, the Leader of the House agrees with me that there is clear evidence of privatisation, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to announce in next Monday's debate that he has arranged to have that monstrous charge cancelled?
As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The service is free to national health service patients, so there is no question of "creeping privatisation." Spare capacity is being made available to private patients, which is bringing more income into the national health service. No NHS patient is being disadvantaged. What is more, there is no waiting time for that service. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop raising smears and fears that are totally unjustified.
In his excellent recent speech at Blackpool, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment referred to the "won't pay" syndrome among some local councillors in respect of their community charge liability. My right hon. Friend spoke of possible moves by the Government to impose a "can't vote" rule. Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment as to when that excellent measure will be brought forward? It will be very popular among the public, particularly given the bad example set by some Labour councillors and Opposition Members.
It will not be next week. My hon. Friend must await the Queen's Speech to see whether that proposal will be in the legislation. I certainly agree with him about the merits of it.
Is the Leader of the House aware that a full-time female manual worker in Yorkshire or Humberside can earn only 52 per cent. of the gross average wage? Is it not time that we had a debate on that gross inequality? If he grants time for a debate, could he find a woman Minister to reply to, or at least open, the debate?
I obviously cannot comment on a single pay question. Nor do I believe that a single instance of low pay merits wide debate in the House in Government time. It is a much wider issue. A single case such as the hon. Lady raised—
It is not a single case.
I must have misunderstood the hon. Lady. But such issues can be raised in economic debates; we should be happy to have them raised, and to discuss all the surrounding issues.
May I press my right hon. Friend a little further, following his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay)? What opportunity will there be next week to raise the disarray within the Labour party ranks over the emergence out of the Labour woodwork of this left-wing pro-Scargill candidate in Hemsworth in Yorkshire? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the deputy leader of the Labour party is up in Yorkshire right now trying to suppress this further evidence that the left wing of the Labour party is still alive and kicking?
However ingenious I am, I cannot see a way of raising that in Government time in the business next week. But, as my hon. Friend makes a good point, I have no doubt that he will be ingenious in finding other ways of pressing it home.
Will the Leader of the House once again turn his attention to the fact that the dioxin-contaminated milk in the Bolsover area is getting worse? In the past three weeks, another incident has been recorded by the Ministry of Agriculture at another farm. There were two incidents in June and the latest is the highest ever recorded incidence of dioxin—one of the most deadly poisons—in the area. Yet despite all the calls for a public inquiry, the Ministry refuses to hold one. I have called for a statement at least three times and the Leader of the House has made various promises.
Surely it is time that the people of Bolsover, the farmers and the consumers in the area were given the opportunity to go to a public inquiry so that they can speak their minds, in some cases without getting the sack from various organisations. We need a public inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of who is causing the pollution, and proper compensation can be paid. This is a scandal that is going far beyond the area of Bolsover, and it is time that the Government turned their attention to it.When the hon. Gentleman raised that early in the summer, I took it seriously, as I do all such issues. I discussed it straight away with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and I know that he took action on it immediately. If there have been further developments—I do not know of them—I will arrange to have them brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend again; I shall do that this afternoon.
Could my right hon. Friend clarify one small point about the health debate on Monday? During the summer recess, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) came to my constituency and signed a petition to keep Standish hospital open. I agree with him, but we are not helped by a Labour district councillor who is also on the community health council. The name of that Labour councillor is Mr. Cook. I wonder whether my right hon. Friends feel that they are one and the same person.
Perhaps that is a point which my hon. Friend can raise again on Monday.
Will the Leader of the House make a statement on Monday or Tuesday about the Select Committee on Members' Interests' report on commercial lobbying? As he knows, it recommends that there should be a register of commercial lobbying organisations. The Committee is concerned about the growth of influence and the hidden nature of many inducements to Members of Parliament, which gave rise to the publication of a recent book, "MPs for Hire". The Committee also recommends that there should be a Select Committee to supervise the registration of these invidious commercial lobbying organisations. The Leader of the House has had the report since 30 September. Does he intend to do something about it or to turn a blind eye and allow this degradation and commercialisation of Parliament to continue?
As the hon. Gentleman may know, I gave evidence to the Committee, and I am now studying its report. Clearly we cannot do anything in the remaining two days of this Parliament. We shall have a busy Session when we return, so I cannot promise when the House will debate the matter. Certainly we shall have to look at it when the House returns.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the economic, social and political implications of a national minimum wage? Many of my constituents, particularly those in tourism, are worried when they look across the Channel and see that the effect there has been gross exploitation of workers, a growth of the black economy, tremendously vicious exploitation of immigrants and the growth of neo-Nazi parties. They do not like what they see, and they do not want it here.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the many implications. I am sure that when we return there will be many opportunities to raise the matter in the House.
Since we have apparently seen the end of the cold war and the arms race, could we have an early debate to discuss the transition to peacetime working of companies such as Ferranti in my constituency, where many people are likely to lose their jobs? It is a matter of importance, and I should like the Leader of the House to consider it urgently.
I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who urged much bigger cuts in defence expenditure. Now he wants to have it both ways. I cannot give any time for that issue next week.
Would my right hon. Friend repeat the subject of Monday's debate? I think I heard him say that it was about the Prime Minister's personal commitment not to privatise the health service or our hospitals. If that is the case, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, if there were any privatisation under our Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's position would become untenable, and that anybody who continues to say that the Prime Minister intends to privatise the health service must be somebody who has no principles himself and for whom the word "honour" has no meaning?
I am happy to repeat the motion for Monday: "The Prime Minister's pledge to continue free hospital treatment in the national health service for everyone."
Monday will give us the opportunity to demonstrate clearly that that pledge is there and has always been there, and that those who try to suggest that it is not simply are not prepared to face up to the truth of our position. There will be plenty of opportunity on Monday to deal not only with that matter, but with many of the smears and fears that are so unjustifiably being raised about the health service and that are greatly to the detriment of patients and all those who work in the health service.Will the Leader of the House therefore ask the Secretary of State for Health to introduce a code of conduct for the trusts, particularly on the way in which they intimidate their staffs when those staffs attempt to give accurate information about what is happening within the trusts? Would his right hon. Friend like to investigate the suggestion that. in the Crewe area, someone has been asked to pay £40 for the transmission of their medical records from a trust to another medical unit before being allowed access?
I will draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend may have heard of the chaotic and potentially dangerous situation which occurred over London this morning, when, following a fire in an air traffic control tower at Heathrow, the surveillance radar was put temporarily out of action. In fact, it took half an hour for a standby system to be put on line. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State for Transport, after consultation with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority about the flight safety implications of the incident, will be available to make a statement to the House next week?
I would not want to give a commitment about a statement next week without first looking into the matter. But I shall discuss it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
When the Prime Minister is telling us next week about his various pledges, will the Leader of the House ask him to explain why Lanarkshire health board has informed hon. Members who represent the area, of whom I am one, that all future planning for geriatric care will be passed into the private sector? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that will mean the elderly being means-tested, having their savings and pensions taken from them and being robbed of their family inheritances? Will he ask the Prime Minister to square that with the pledge he gave to the Conservative party conference about cutting inheritance tax? Many of the thousands of pensioners and elderly folk who are being robbed by what is now going on will be sorry to hear what we expect the Prime Minister to say next week.
The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise the health point in the debate on Monday.
I welcome Monday's debate. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Royal Free trust, which serves part of my constituency, has increased substantially the number of patients it serves and has reduced waiting lists since it became a trust hospital?
I hope that my hon. Friend gets in on the debate on Monday, although he will have a lot of competition, because many of my hon. Friends will he keen to make just that kind of point and to demonstrate the successful record of many hospitals in their constituencies under the national health service.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is unlikely to be objected to by the Government of the Irish Republic since that Government would recognise that such a decision was a matter solely for this House and not in any way linked to any future talks?
No, but there are issues which affect the future government of Northern Ireland and which link in, so I believe it is an appropriate way of trying to proceed.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday there was an official disclosure confirming that five members of the Special Air Services Regiment and several members of the Royal Air Force endured appalling torture at the hands of the Iraqis during the Gulf war? Will he ensure that there is time, either next week or soon into the next Parliament, for us to discuss that? Will he also ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary meet together to make certain that the individuals responsible for that appalling misconduct are identified and that warrants are issued, so that, should they ever venture into the civilised world, they will be immediately arrested and brought to justice?
The whole House will have been appalled to read yesterday the way in which those citizens were treated. It underlines the horrendous nature of the regime, and there can be no doubt about the attitude of the British Government towards it. I shall draw my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the problems caused by illegal camping and parking by itinerants in the city of Leicester and many other cities in the east midlands? Does he agree with the view expressed to me today in a letter by the chief constable, whose officers have just moved many caravans off a site in Beaumont Leys, in my constituency? He writes that they are simply moving the problem from one place to another and that the only solution lies in the county council honouring its statutory obligation to provide permanent sites for the people involved, which is what they want so that their children can be educated. That is also what local people want, so that they do not have the anxiety, fear and distress caused by that kind of parking. May we have a statement on the subject? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to inquire into it?
I do not think that it would be appropriate to provide Government time for a debate on issues which affect a particular county council. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be pursuing the matter locally and that he will find other ways to raise the matter in the House.
I welcome the debate on the health service on Monday. Will it be relevant during that debate to mention the extraordinary contradictions, poor homework, sloppy thinking and complete financial irresponsibility which have gone into Labour policies for the health service?
Yes, indeed. All that will be highly relevant; and I am sure that we can add considerably to the list.
Can we have an early debate on party political funding? In such a debate, would it be possible for Ministers to try to defend their party's willingness to receive a substantial sum from a Greek citizen who supported the dictatorship in Greece? If the Prime Minister is so concerned about human rights, why does he allow his party to receive such sums from such a tainted source? Such money should be refunded. It shames the Tory party to receive money from someone who supported a fascist dictatorship.
I do not know of those allegations. There will be no opportunity for such a debate next week.
Will the Leader of the House do me a favour? [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I was not going to ask him that. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement next week on the Rothschild report on the mining industry? As he knows, the contents of the report have been leaked, and are causing controversy throughout Nottinghamshire. There is a threat to close many pits. The right hon. Gentleman's PPS is tipping him off—he did not know about the report. People back home want to know exactly what is to happen in terms of pit closures. If the Secretary of State for Energy made a statement to the House, we would all know where we stood.
The reason that I was smiling is that I have been keen to do the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) favours, and have sometimes done them in the past. I consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) only because he knows Nottinghamshire better than anyone, and I was trying to get clear—
He is an implant.
Not at all. My hon. Friend is an outstanding representative of his Nottinghamshire constituency and is my guide and mentor in all matters concerning that county. That is why I turned to him.
You were not listening to me.
I would rather listen to my hon. Friend.
As for the request for a statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already made some statements on the subject. Certainly I shall consult him again.Points Of Order
4.8 pm
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Exceptionally, before the Leader of the House finishes, in view of the contents of a letter from the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) which has apparently just been published, may I ask him to arrange an urgent statement by the Home Secretary about the Government's position on television franchises?
In a letter to TV-am chief Bruce Gyngell, the right hon. Member for Finchley said:"When I see how some of the other licences have been awarded I am mystified that you did not receive yours and heartbroken. I am only too painfully aware that I was responsible for the legislation—
Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly where the Government stand on all this?
I have not seen the letter, so I would not wish to comment on it. The operation of the system and the allocation of the licences is a matter for the Independent Television Commission, not for the Government. The ITC made the decisions.
rose—
Mrs. Clwyd.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the Leader of the House.
No, I called Mrs. Clwyd.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have seen reports today about events in Kurdistan—they now appear almost daily in the press and on television. It is becoming clearer by the day that the Government's safe havens policy is now failing and that we urgently need a statement from the Leader of the House. Saddam Hussein continues to bomb the Kurdish people; winter is approaching; 750,000 people are still without shelter and cannot go back home. Many people are losing their lives as a result of Iraqi mine laying, the Iraqi authorities are blocking both water supplies and repairs to the infrastructure, and Iraqi security forces are refusing to allow the return of hundreds of thousands of Kurds to Kirkuk, creating many no-go areas. Iraq is refusing to sell oil, as recommended by the United Nations, to buy food and medicines. Despite all the promises, the western powers appear to be standing by as the whole awful tragedy unfolds again. We need a statement, and we need it now.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will have heard what the hon. Lady said.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the Leader of the House—
Well, to me then.
Indeed. Of course, it is your responsibility to ensure that statements are accurate.
That is too heavy a responsibility to put upon my shoulders.
Indeed it would be. You must ensure, of course, that statements are honest. When the Leader of the House replied to the question about the Bradford hospital trust, he said that national health service patients were not being denied a service, but that is not true.
I do not know about it and that is as may be, but that is just the sort of point that the hon. Gentleman might raise on Monday in the debate.
Very good. Thank you very much" Mr. Speaker: that guarantee is what I have been waiting for.
I was not allowed to finish my sentence. I should add, if the hon. Gentleman is called.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can help me, because I misunderstood the answer given by the Leader of the House. Which channel will give me the answer because the right hon. Gentleman misled the House as—
Order. Let us keep our standards up here. The Leader of the House would not mislead the House; he may have misled the hon. Lady. What is the hon. Lady's point?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently misled the House. I should explain that the Leader of the House should know that, under the new market system, if one comes from an area that does not provide the screening service—a service which, before the market system. one could get under the NHS—one cannot