To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has undertaken into family life and Sunday church attendance in Scotland.

The Scottish Office has sponsored a number of research projects which touch upon various aspects of family life in Scotland. Full details are given in the 1992–93 edition of the Scottish Office Register of Research, a copy of which is in the House library.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware that other research has shown that more people regularly worship in Scotland on Sundays than in England and Wales? Is he aware also that Scotland is unique in the United Kingdom, in that people are able to shop legally on Sundays in Scotland? Does my hon. Friend agree that England and Wales have a lot to learn from Scotland and that shops in England and Wales should be allowed to trade on Sunday, too?

Both countries have a lot to learn from each other. Scotland is, as my hon. Friend suggested, a God-fearing nation. The situation in Scotland works very well, in large measure because Sunday opening has evolved in accordance with the wishes of the majority of residents. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for such matters, will take those points into account when he reviews the position in England.

Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, and notwithstanding the position of the Scottish Office, church attendance in Scotland could stand improvement? It was said in The Scotsman on Tuesday that I criticise the Church of Scotland, which of course is correct, as it was I who wrote that in the first place. Does the Minister agree further that Sunday trading in Scotland, as in England, is a matter for the people concerned, that it is no business of ours how people trade in England on a Sunday, but that most Scottish people support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. A substantial number of people support both the Church of Scotland—the national church—and the Roman Catholic Church. There are more than 752,000 names on the Church of Scotland congregational roll and more than 745,000 on the Roman Catholic Church roll. That is the reality, and we would do well to keep it in mind.

Thirty-one per cent. of the Scottish population attend church. That is twice the number of Scots who support the Government's current policies. If we look at the Government's record on the family, we clearly see that "suffer the little children to come unto me" is not a motto which guides their actions. There are 800,000 people in Scotland on income support—that is one sixth of the population—and half of them are likely to be children living on the margins of society.

I am glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that nearly £80 billion is spent on social services throughout the United Kingdom, which is an enormous sum. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that we are undertaking research into vital sectors which can be of assistance in Scotland. They include the impact of the Child Support Act 1991 on civil law and strategies for integrated local authority child care. We will continue in that process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of chambers of commerce to discuss industrial and employment trends in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

My ministerial colleagues and I have frequent opportunities to discuss a range of industrial and employment issues with representatives of chambers of commerce and other organisations. I visited Aberdeen chamber last December and Glasgow chamber in February, and I attended the first annual dinner of the Scottish chambers of commerce in Edinburgh at the end of April.

The Secretary of State will know that Aberdeen chamber of commerce, among many other organisations, is concerned about the impact of the oil tax changes that were announced in the Budget. The best estimates are that it could cost 10,000 jobs in the north-east of Scotland. Is it possible to have a straight answer to a straight question from the Secretary of State on this issue? Treasury Ministers have told the House that other Departments were consulted before the tax changes in the Budget. Was the Scottish Office consulted, and if not, why not?

Consultations on all kinds of aspects of the Budget take place with a number of Departments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, internal consultations within Government are never disclosed. What is clear from the changes proposed to the petroleum revenue tax is that some companies will benefit and some will suffer. What is also clear is that, in the longer term, there is every prospect of improved after-tax cash flow to companies as a result of the reduction in petroleum revenue tax.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the percentage of the working population in Scotland in employment is one of the highest in the European Community, way ahead of that of Germany, France, Italy and Spain? That is most encouraging news, which we never hear from the doom and gloom mongers opposite.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Only two countries in the European Community have a higher percentage of their population in employment. The encouraging statistics in the north-east of Scotland, where my hon. Friend's constituency is located, reinforce the encouraging prospects we face throughout the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State will recall that I have visited his Department on several occasions regarding the industrial devastation that has been wrought on my constituency. The latest casualty is Babcock in Renfrew, where we are to suffer yet another large redundancy, probably of 450 people. That is on top of 500 last month at Rolls-Royce. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), I have continually asked for an initiative in Renfrew district to tackle the industrial problems we face. The Secretary of State has continually refused that. Will he now reconsider the matter?

The hon. lady is being extremely unfair. There have been a number of initiatives in Renfrewshire over the past few years. The establishment of the Renfrewshire enterprise company is a major new initiative to encourage the regeneration of the economy of that area. The hon. lady should draw comfort from the Scottish Chambers' survey which shows optimism up in almost every quarter and in almost every sector of the economy in Scotland.

In his discussion with chambers of commerce, has the right hon. Gentleman had representations on the importance of maintaining the dockyard at Rosyth, not only in terms of jobs in Fife, but in terms of jobs throughout the Scottish economy? Those jobs include more than half the engineering apprenticeships in Scotland. Given that his predecessor, lord Younger, has said that if the contract for the refitting of the nuclear submarines goes to Devonport, it will be an unacceptable breach of faith, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put his job on the line for the jobs of thousands of Scots?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well where I stand on that issue. I am sure that he is well aware of my involvement in the consideration of these issues within Government. However, as the matter is not yet resolved and not yet decided, I cannot say any more in detail about it today, except to underline to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I shall lose no opportunity to ensure that every argument in favour of Rosyth is advanced.

Does the Secretary of State accept that that was a miserable reply, as the future of Rosyth is one of the most serious issues that Scotland has faced since the war, and certainly since Ravenscraig? Is he prepared to see 18,000 jobs lost? Is he prepared to see the merchant shipbuilding industry largely lost, along with an important dockyard? Will he, in addition to the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) who has some say in this matter, get off his backside and make it clear to the Prime Minister that if Rosyth closes, the Secretary of State is willing to go as well?

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my previous answer or to the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence some weeks ago. He made it clear that there would be two yards regardless of where the Trident refit contract was placed. The Opposition would carry more conviction on this issue if they had not systematically campaigned against our nuclear submarine and had not systematically campaigned for the cancellation of the last Trident submarine. They therefore carry no conviction on the issue whatever.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional nurses and doctors have been employed in the NHS since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

At 30 September 1992, there were 11,192 more qualified nurses employed in the national health service in Scotland than there were on 30 September 1979. The number of doctors, including general medical practitioners, increased by 1,448 over the same period.

When there are more doctors and more nurses, whose pay has risen by more than 40 per cent. in recent times, when nurses and junior doctors have shorter working hours, and when there are new hospitals and new clinics, why do Opposition Members always tell us that the morale of staff in the health service is at a low ebb?

As always, my hon. Friend is entirely right to say that, on this issue, as on other Scottish issues, Opposition Members are in the disinformation business. In real terms, NHS expenditure has increased by 45 per cent. since 1979–80, and on every indicator, the provision of services by the NHS in Scotland has improved steadily under this Government.

Is the Minister aware of the concern among nurses and patients at Falkirk royal infirmary about the current threat to the hospital's urology department, and the general tendency of the Forth Valley health board gradually to run down the Falkirk royal infirmary and centralise everything at Stirling? Will the Minister intervene to ensure that that trend ceases and Falkirk royal infirmary can provide the full range of services that the people of Falkirk district need and deserve?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that those are decisions for the health board. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that the resources made available to Forth Valley of £139·6 million for the current financial year represent an increase of 3·3 per cent. over the 1992–93 base purchaser allocation. That is a sign of the resources available, but detailed decisions must be for the health board to make.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the excellence of the health service in Scotland and elsewhere is such that people now, God willing, enjoy a much longer life? Is that not vividly illustrated by the fact that, in her first year on the throne Her Majesty the Queen sent 210 telegrams to 100-year-olds, and that last year she sent 2,800 congratulatory telegrams—[HoN. MEMBERS: "All to Scotland?"] No, not all to Scotland. Does that not illustrate the merits of the national health service during the past 14 years under Conservative Governments?

My hon. Friend is correct to say that more and more Scots are living longer and longer. My hon. Friend has given the House a useful indicator, and all other signs point in the same direction. Under this Government, the number of in-patients treated per annum has increased by 27 per cent. and day patients by 180 per cent. Every figure underlines the effectiveness of this Government's commitment to the national health service in Scotland.

Does the Minister agree that the health service is the most caring and compassionate profession? It is the profession's duty to protect the sanctity of human life, and a shiver has been sent through the old, the hospice movement and the disabled by the Bill on euthanasia. Will the Minister oppose it with all his might, and will the Government oppose it?

All hon. Members will take their own decisions on that Bill in the light of their own consciences. Speaking as an hon. Member, not a Minister, I have received a large number of representations from constituents and from those invoved in the hospice movement, and they accord with my personal view, which is one of opposition to the Bill.

Will the Minister tell us this afternoon about the growth in the number of senior managers in the last year? His own statistics, published by the Scottish Office, show that the number has risen by no less than 30 per cent. in one year alone. How many nurses and midwives in training have we lost in the past 12 years; and how many beds have been lost in the past 12 years? More importantly, will the Minister state categorically what cuts he is contemplating for the health service when the Treasury comes looking for his share of the £50 billion deficit?

There has been no increase in senior management numbers in the health service; there has merely been a redefinition of the number of positions previously allocated to staff groups but now separately identified.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the choice of alternative landlords which is available for Scottish Homes tenants.

It is for Scottish Homes, in consultation with its tenants, and within the scope of the guidance issued by my right hon. Friend, to make decisions on the choice of alternative landlords. Any proposals that secure the agreement of tenants are subject to his approval.

Can the Minister think of a suitable name for a Government who legislate to allow tenants to choose new landlords but then refuse to allow the tenants to choose their preferred alternative landlord? Will he acknowledge the fact that three quarters of Scottish Homes' tenants in East Lothian have made it clear that they would prefer to choose East Lothian district council'? Is he aware that that district council urgently needs more housing stock, and that the only obstacle to those tenants achieving their choice is a thrawn Tory in the Scottish Office who is not prepared to allow them what they want'?

I am aware that East lothian has a growing population—a factor which we will take into account. The current arrangements do not prevent a local authority from proposing to acquire Scottish Homes stock. It will be for Scottish Homes to decide whether there are special circumstances that would enable the local authority to become a suitable landlord.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's unrelenting hostility to public sector housing is creating a kind of housing apartheid in Scotland? Council housing is reduced to the status of a safety net for those who cannot afford anything else, and there is a real danger of creating in Scotland the sort of demoralised ghettos which have for so long scarred the American urban experience.

About £1 billion is spent on public sector housing each year. When the hon. Gentleman speaks about ghettos, he should bear in mind the fact that huge sums have been poured into Whitfield in his constituency, which both he and I have visited. The scheme is strongly supported by his constituents. The whole drift of our policy is to prevent what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I read a few days ago that the Labour candidate had a good chance of being re-elected against a Militant candidate because of the success of Conservative party policies.

The Minister's original answer is totally misleading. Does he not know that the number of tenants in Berwickshire that he referred to is six? We are not talking about special cases made to Scottish Homes but about the right of tenants generally to be able to choose either a private landlord or a local authority. Why cannot they be given that choice?

They can be given that choice in special circumstances. I anticipate that Scottish Homes would examine such considerations as the number of properties involved, their location and the percentage of houses already held by the local authority. Obviously, in some areas the local authority may be virtually the monopoly provider of housing. Scottish Homes is justified in its approach. For operational, practical reasons it has decided that the ballot paper will contain two options—the status quo and a move to a specified landlord. The tenant's independent adviser should be able effectively to feed to Scottish Homes the tenants' views about who the preferred bidder should be.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he has taken to assess public opinion in Scotland on his White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a partnership for good".

The White Paper "Scotland in the Union —a partnership for good" has received a very positive response.

The dogs in the street are laughing at that answer. As the Secretary of State surveys the sea of. troubles in which his unrepresentative rump is floundering, does he ever gaze across the water to Barcelona, where the Catalan conservative party, Convergence in Union, is outstandingly successful notwithstanding its conservative free-market views? It is successful because it flies its free market colours as well as its Catalan colours and is not seen as a traitor to its own people.

In terms of unrepresentative rumps, I am not sure whether I can hold a candle to the hon. Gentleman, since he quite clearly disagrees with, and is disagreed with by, the rest of his parliamentary party. When I look for public opinion support in Scotland, I look at a recent by-election in Turriff, which was won by the Conservative candidate with an increase of 300 in his vote. He beat the Scottish National party into second place by 700 votes. That is an endorsement by public opinion in Scotland. The Labour party's membership throughout Scotland has fallen to 17,834. That is representative of very little.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that before any political party in Scotland can claim to speak for and, indeed, be representative of the Scottish people, it must first be representative throughout the length and breadth of Scotland? By its own admission, the Labour party, with only 17,000 members, may be many things, but it is not representative.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was quite clear from the result of the last general election that the policies espoused by the Labour party were not supported.

Have we not reached a pathetic and sorry pass when an English Tory, the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) could recognise in Question 1 the distinctiveness—indeed, he used the word "uniqueness"—of Scottish culture better than the Secretary of State for Scotland?

It was my noble Friend lady Thatcher who described a referendum as device to defeat democracy. I believe that the proposals in the White Paper will lead to the improvement of the handling of Scottish business here. I have written to the leaders of the other political parties and I am glad to say that the leader of the Scottish National Party has written back to me indicating that she is willing to take part in discussions on behalf of her party over the implementation of the proposals in the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—a partnership for good."

Does the Secretary of State intend to convene an all-party conference in Scotland on the White Paper? If he does not, does he appreciate the contrast between himself, who apparently does not want talks but has a policy, and his colleague the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who wants talks but does not have a policy?

I do not propose to call the conference to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have indicated my willingness, indeed my enthusiasm, to discuss our proposals in detail with the leaders of the other political parties in Scotland. One of the distinctive features of the United Kingdom is the diversity of its component parts and one of the purposes of the White Paper is to accommodate that diversity as it is reflected in Scotland.

Will the Secretary of State own up to the fact that public opinion in Scotland is of marginal interest to his beleaguered Administration? Does he not accept that only 16 per cent. of public opinion now supports the Conservative party, that 98 per cent. of public opinion overwhelmingly opposes the madcap idea of privatising water and that 80 per cent. of Scots want substantial constitutional change rather than Tory tinkering at Westminster? Surely the Secretary of State will accept that if public opinion is to triumph, he must mend his ways.

Public opinion polls are, of course, of interest to the Labour party as its popularity is shown rather highly in them from time to time. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I regard them with a certain detached approach, given their predictions before the last general election. The poll which matters in a democratic country such as ours is the general election poll. That is the poll which leads to the choice of a Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of (a) the implementation of EC water directives over the next 15 years and (b) other water investment over the same period.

The capital costs of meeting European Commission water and waste water directives and other investments is estimated at some £5 billion over the next 15 years divided equally between the two categories.

Does the Minister realise that the Scottish people are sick and tired of the figures he has given today being used as a cover for water privatisation? Does he not understand that people in my constituency do not want front door water privatisation or back door water privatisation, whether by franchising or competitive tendering? Why cannot water investment be paid for by public borrowing? Why on earth should that mean cuts in other public expenditure, as Ministers have claimed? If the Secretary of State has difficulty in persuading his Cabinet colleagues, why does he not remind them that the figure of £5 billion over 15 years announced by the Minister today was exactly the same as the water debt written off at one stroke by his Government in 1989 as sweetener to the newly privatised English water industry?

It is rather sad that the hon. Gentleman never listens to Questions in the House and apparently never reads the answers. I have explained to him and his Opposition colleagues time and again that they have to be patient. Another few weeks will make all the difference. They will find out what policy we intend to introduce from the six, seven, eight, nine or 10 options before us. If he waits until then he may have quite a surprise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members have consistently opposed standing charges in public services? Is he aware that Labour-controlled Strathclyde regional council has just imposed a standing charge on water services? Does he not think that that is shameful'?

My hon. Friend is well aware of the situation in his constituency and in surrounding areas. Water costs are extremely high in Scotland and have increased year by year, particularly over the past three years. That must be carefully considered in deciding our future policy.

Has the Minister considered allowing publicly controlled local water authorities access to private money markets in a way that does not count against the public sector borrowing requirement? That would solve at a stroke the problem to which he referred earlier of the need for capital investment without the ideological difficulties that will be created by privatisation. Earlier, the Minister said that we might get a surprise when the announcement is eventually made. That can only be interpreted as meaning that the Government are abandoning their privatisation plans.

The hon. Gentleman might be wrong again. If he is prepared to wait a few more weeks, he will find the answer to his concerns. His proposal is one of many that are being considered, and it has not been lost in the pile of results that have come in from all over Scotland.

The Minister has been listening to the comments by some about the uniqueness of Scottish culture and morality. Will he go with that trend and give an assurance that we will not be surprised by the Government's abandoning the safeguard whereby in Scotland users cannot have their water supplies cut off—and that there will be no repeat of the terrible scenes in England and Wales, with rising dysentery and the loss of water supplies that are vital to people's lives? Will he give an assurance today that he will not abandon that basic tenet of Scottish morality and civil law?

Regional councils have many ways of getting people to pay their water bills. Until we have the legislation, the hon. Gentleman must be patient.

As the need for investment on a much smaller scale was a major reason given by the Government for abandoning water privatisation in Northern Ireland. will the Minister similarly abandon plans for privatisation in Scotland, where it is not needed—or is it simply a case of double standards?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's rebellious approach to water would have stopped him asking any more questions. like the rest of his colleagues, he will have to wait to see.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from residents of Springside and Crosshouse on preservation of the system of general practitioners dispensing drugs to their patients; and what response he has made.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received any representations from residents of Springside and Crosshouse on the preservation of the system of general practitioners dispensing drugs to their patients.

That answer surprises me because the service that is on offer in Crosshouse is under severe threat. A chemist has decided to open for business, and that jeopardises a long-term solution that was in place, whereby Crosshouse general practitioners dispensed drugs themselves. Given that the Minister has heard nothing, will he meet my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and myself to discuss the matter?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I understand the situation. He is correct in saying that a Crosshouse pharmacist applied for and was granted a national health service dispensing contract. The health board received correspondence from Crosshouse and Springside residents and a petition from Crosshouse community association. The board's pharmacy practice committee was aware of that correspondence when it reached its decision. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter went to the national appeals panel on 27 April, when the pharmacist's application was upheld. It would not be sensible for my right hon. Friend to intervene, given that all the appropriate procedures were observed.

The point that the Minister is missing is that elected representatives have tried to intervene and we have been told by the council that we have no authority to act on behalf of our constituents—which I think is a damned cheek. More than 90 per cent. of the people in Crosshouse said that they were happy with the situation as it existed, but that was completely ignored by the committee and the appeals committee. What kind of patients charter is it when 90 per cent. of people are satisfied with the service but are overruled by a committee which takes no consideration whatsoever of their views?

The point is that a pharmacist did apply for a NHS dispensing contract, which was granted. I think there are powerful general arguments for continuing the separation of prescribing and dispensing—where that is generally sensible—because where there is such a separation the person writing the prescription will not be in a position to gain financially depending on the choice of drugs prescribed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the proposed review by the board of Caledonian MacBrayne at Gourock.

No review by the board of Caledonian MacBrayne has been proposed. However, the Government have decided to review options for the future organisation and structure of Caledonian MacBrayne, including the possible scope for introducing private sector participation in the provision of Caledonian MacBrayne's services.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, once again, he has created tremendous uncertainty in the Inverclyde area by the threat of privatisation and possible job losses? There is also a threat to the islanders, who have already stated that they expect privatisation to mean increases in fares, less frequent services and, at the end of the day, islanders once again being driven off the islands and back to the mainland. I know that the Secretary of State was born in Greenock. Another infamous character called Captain Kidd was also born there, and I must say that the Secretary of State will look like a pirate if he continues with this mad stupid policy to privatise any part of the Caledonian MacBrayne services.

The hon. Gentleman is unfair to Greenock; I was actually born in Glasgow. I hope that he shares my anxiety to remove any uncertainty and alarm among the people who use the Caledonian MacBrayne services. Caledonian MacBrayne provides services to the mainland and 23 islands, and we are committed to maintaining and advancing the economic and social conditions of the islanders. The question at issue is whether the present arrangements are the best way of fulfilling that commitment or can be improved on.

Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the findings of the Halcrow Fox report in regard to the impact of ferry fares and ferry costs on island businesses will be published and not covered up? Does he recognise that islanders view the prospective privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne as the poll tax at sea? The last thing that island businesses need at this time is a prolonged period of uncertainty about Caledonian MacBrayne's future.

The Halcrow Fox study has not yet been completed, let alone submitted to us. There is no question of its being buried away, as the hon. Gentleman implied, and not being taken into account. I know that the hon. Gentleman has tabled a written question, and that will be answered in due course. As to the islanders, I cannot believe that they hold the view of the Caledonian MacBrayne services that the hon. Gentleman describes. The revenue deficit subsidy stands at £7 million this year, and that represents some 18 per cent. of the company's total costs. We have substantially increased shipping subsidies—they now total over £17 million in Scotland as a whole—to ensure that the economic and social conditions of the islands are upheld and advanced.

Why is the Secretary of State returning to the matter? We went through it all in 1988, when it was made clear that the privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne would lead to higher fares, increased freight costs, no cross-subsidies from profitable to unprofitable routes and no back-up vessels being available—all a body blow to the islanders. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much this latest consultant review is to cost? Does he admit that he is in danger of being pushed around by a london-based Treasury, which does not give a tinker's damn about what happens to the islanders of Scotland?

I cannot at this stage tell the hon. lady the cost of the survey, since we are still waiting for submissions from the various possible consultants who might be contracted to undertake it. Most of the 1988 review as concerned with the Clyde, whereas what we are reviewing at present is the Caldeonian MacBrayne services to all 23 islands that it serves and also P&O services to Orkney and Shetland, which are privately owned services subsidised by the taxpayer. It is because the cost of that subsidy and the support for both shipping lines have advanced so substantially that we want to make sure that we are using the most effective and efficient way of maintaining our commitment to uphold services to the islands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to measure and reduce the health risk to children of living in damp public sector housing.

In preparing their next housing plans and housing capital programmes, due by the end of August, all local housing authorities have been asked to set out strategies and targets for tackling housing in their areas that is subject to condensation and dampness.

I thank the Minister for that somewhat idiotic reply. We have had many surveys of housing in Scotland and yet nothing has been done to alleviate the suffering of the people of Scotland from damp housing, the high mortality rates of children who live in damp housing, and the schooling of kids in Scotland which is affected. All this, and all we get from the Minister is the same rubbish every time: £900 million for the whole of Scotland's housing. It is a disgrace that the hon. Gentleman, a Scotsman, should stand there and tell me that. Why does he not stand up and fight for the people of Scotland?

The sum of £900 million is certainly not a disgrace. It is very substantial funding if it is properly applied. The hon. Member must realise that the targeting of resources where they are most needed is what is required. We have laid down condensation and dampness as one of the three strategic priorities that local authorities must put forward in their housing plans. The hon. Member must bear in mind that figures resulting from the preliminary findings of the national house conditions survey show that only 2 per cent. suffer from very severe problems of condensation and dampness, and that top priority should be given to resolving those problems as quickly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the lothian health board to discuss the plan for a major new teaching hospital to replace the Edinburgh royal infirmary.

Officials of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department regularly discuss the provision of hospital services with lothian health board and keep Ministers fully informed. Policy on the provision of acute hospitals in Edinburgh is primarily a matter for the board, subject to public consultation and the approval of my right hon. Friend.

But since it is two years since the lothian health board decided to replace the Royal with a major new teaching hospital in the south of Edinburgh; since a site has already been acquired, why are the Government still not giving the go-ahead for investment? Is the Minister aware that we need not only a new hospital but a major new medical school? Will we get an early and positive decision on this or will the Government sabotage Edinburgh's reputation as an international centre of excellence for medical teaching and research?

I do not agree with the hon. Member's analysis of the present situation. Perhaps I can put it in context for him. The board consulted widely on the delivery of acute services in Edinburgh, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), then Secretary of State, endorsed the outline conclusions in autumn 1989, including the teaching hospital in the south-east of Edinburgh and the substantial rebuilding of Edinburgh Royal, as the hon. Gentleman has said. The board is currently and sensibly reviewing that strategy against the background, for example, of the dramatic changes being experienced in the delivery of patient care.

I am very surprised at the Minister's answer because, in consultation with my colleagues and hon. Members representing the lothian region, the hospital board told us that this hospital is a keystone because there will be only three major hospitals left—St. John's in livingston, the Western general and this one that is not even built yet. The alternative is to close down about seven other hospitals, with the exception of the sick children's. If we know that, the Minister should know that. I would like to know when he will give the go-ahead for this particular hospital.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear exactly what I said, which was that I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review, but I have no reason to believe that a new teaching hospital will not figure in the new proposals. The revised strategy will require ministerial consent. That will be given only if we are satisfied that the proposed changes will lead to a better standard of care and will, therefore, be in the interests of patients. There will, of course, be an opportunity for public consultation when the proposals are known. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are welcome to have full meetings with my right hon. Friend on the details.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with representatives of (a) Grampian regional council and (b) the European Commission on the details of potential allocation of objective 5(b) status to west Grampian.

The European Commission's proposals for the future operation of the structural funds are currently under discussion at official level in the Council of Ministers. Until negotiations on criteria for the selection of objective 5(b) areas are further advanced it would be premature to discuss the possible allocation of 5(b) status to west Grampian.

Does the Under-Secretary not understand that there is a cross-party, Grampian-wide campaign to ensure that structural funds are allocated to the rural areas, which are very fragile, given their dependency on the fishing and farming industries? Why, therefore, is the Under-Secretary not prepared to meet an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament, representatives of the regional council and representatives of the district councils? I accept that meetings do not always lead to agreement, but does the Under-Secretary not understand that there is a desperate need for a meeting to take place very quickly, because decisions could be taken by the Commission as early as July?

I most certainly appreciate just how serious the situation is relative to west Moray, the north Moray coast and the fishing areas. I appreciate the strength of the case put forward by Grampian regional council and the local enterprise company. I can assure the hon. lady that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to meet a delegation, which has already been suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). I am sure that my right hon. Friend will enjoy having the company of the hon. lady as well.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will meet a delegation. I had understood, however, that he told the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that he did not think that a meeting was timely. If that view has changed, I welcome it. Will the Minister take on board the fact that people who live outside Grampian often feel that it is a rich area? Although part of it is rich, the west Grampian part of it is very deprived. Income levels there are 75 per cent. of the European average and 71 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. Serious consideration, therefore, needs to be given to the allocation of 5(b) status to west Grampian.

Yes, I appreciate that the percentage of unemployment in west Moray, in the Forres area, is particularly high. My right hon. Friend is prepared to meet an all-party delegation and will look forward to doing so.

May we have the matter absolutely clear? I received a letter this morning from the Secretary of State in which he said that it was premature to have a meeting and that it might have to be delayed until later in the year. Is the Under-Secretary telling us that the Secretary of State has reconsidered and that a meeting is now on offer? If so, can that very small delegation include Members of Parliament from the region?

Yes. My right hon. Friend will do that.

Will the Minister explain, on behalf of the Secretary of State, why the people of Grampian, or anybody else, can have faith in the Government's influence upon European affairs? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland told the Under-Secretary how the Home Secretary achieved five extra seats in Europe, the Secretary of State for Wales one extra seat for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland none whatsoever for Scotland? In view of that, what advice does the Secretary of State for Scotland intend to give to the Sycophantic Scottish Tory press so that it can present that as a success instead of a spectacular failure?

That was very much a last-minute gasp by the hon. Gentleman, and he knows that it is far removed from anything to do with objective 1 or objective 5(b).

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to standardise the availability of infertility treatments through the NHS in health boards in Scotland.

All health boards in Scotland provide infertility services, the extent and level of which are—[Interruption.]

Order. I should be much obliged if the House would settle down.

rose—[Interruption]

Order. The House must come to order.

All health boards in Scotland provide infertility services, the extent and level of which are for boards to decide in the light of local needs and circumstances.

The Minister clearly is not aware that level 3 infertility treatment is available free of charge in Glasgow but costs £400 a time in Dundee and more than £1,000 a time in Edinburgh and Aberdeen—the only places in Scotland where such treatment is available on the national health service. A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman had the gall to say that Labour Members were guilty of spreading disinformation. That comes rich from a man whose Government have reneged on a pre-election commitment given by the Scottish Minister then responsible for health that such services would be provided centrally. If the Under-Secretary is not prepared to honour that pledge he will not only be accused of disinformation but will be guilty of colluding in what will be seen as a cheap and cruel vote-catching gimmick on thousands of childless couples in Scotland. Will he now give that commitment?

Of course I am fully aware of the detailed provision of infertility services in Scotland—at level I, which represent treatment offered by a GP or general gynaecologist, at level 2, which represent secondary or specialist care available at a district general hospital and are widely available on the NHS in Scotland and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, at level 3, with free in vitro fertilisation service at the Royal infirmary, Glasgow. Health boards must decide whether to provide or purchase those services from the resources allocated to them. That situation is not unique to Scotland; it applies throughout the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in vitro fertilisation is a very complex and costly procedure and that the success rate of the four centres to which he referred is far from consistent? Will he join in welcoming Grampian health board's move to reinvestigate the funding of IVF treatment in its area so that my constituents can be treated at a more favourable cost within the Grampian health board area?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right to give that example of a health board deciding to investigate what is sensible in the light of local needs and circumstances in its area.

Is not there a need for not only the regulation of treatments throughout Scotland but for the supervision of all treatments throughout health boards? The recent scandal of the Inverclyde royal hospital showed that stark fact. When will the committee of inquiry publish or present to the Minister its report on matters at the Inverclyde royal hospital, and is the Minister satisfied with the remedial action that was taken by the hospital to diminish and give comfort to the women who were caught up in that needless and dreadful scandal?

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is yes, and I hope that he will be reassured by the meetings that he has been offered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to discuss matters in detail. The answer to his first question is that there will be a full investigation under the inquiry conducted by Dr. McGoogan. The report will be made to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State and to the health boards. It will be made public. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and the report will be completed as soon as is possible and practicable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of work in respect of the bridge to Skye.

The second caisson for the south pier of the main bridge is due to be placed on the sea bed this week. As with the first caisson, this marks a very important milestone in the construction of the bridge. The contractor is confident that the bridge will be completed on programme by mid-1995.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor recognise the importance of the Skye bridge and are here for this question. As the Minister is aware of the sense of blatant injustice felt in Skye and lochalsh about the principle of a privately toll-funded bridge and high tolls being levied on locals for anything up to a generation, the related problems of Caledonian MacBrayne and the roll on/roll off service between Mallaig and Ardvasar, will he use the opportunity of the summer recess to accept the invitation that I have twice extended to him to meet the local people and hear what is being said about the massive economic and social implications that the structure, as presently constituted, will have?

I will meet the hon. Gentleman any time, but he must remember that the bridge will be of enormous benefit not only to his constituents but to the people of the Western Isles. As for the toll, he must remember that when traffic increases, this could reduce the toll or shorten the toll period. That is a factor which he and his constituents would be wise to bear in mind.

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the Prime Minister's betrayal of election promises and commitments on economic and social policy; deplores the Government's intention to make the users of public services pay the price of Conservative economic and financial mismanagement; further deplores the failure to make changes in policies towards unemployment, industry and the skills revolution; and calls for new policies in these areas to strengthen British industry and the British economy, to end mass unemployment and to improve public services.

"We will not have to increase taxes. I cannot see any circumstances in which that will be necessary."

"We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT."

The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to cynicism, and talked about style and purpose. It would be helpful to the House if he could comment on this. He has made it clear that a Labour Government would not reduce public spending. Indeed, his party is committed to policies that would increase public spending. At the same time, the shadow Chancellor has said that a Labour Government would not increase taxes. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore explain to the House how the Labour party, if it were in government, would pay for its policies?

The hon. Gentleman brings to our attention the parlous state of our public finances. What we need to do above all is to deal with public finances, bring down unemployment and get back on course for economic growth—[Interruptioni.]

Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must settle down—[Interruption.] let us have order below the Gangway. I call Mr. Smith.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) knows perfectly well that the main reason why we have such a high public sector borrowing requirement is the cost of unemployment, which is the result of Government policies. It does not matter whether it is the fault of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) or the Prime Minister, as the right hon. Member implied: the fault lies with the Conservative party.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really think that a deficit of £50 billion this year can be brought down by the reduction in unemployment that 2·5 or 3 per cent. growth would create? If he is opposed to public spending cuts, why does he not admit that the only alternative would be massive increases in taxation? His arguments today have justified the Government's public spending policy.

If that is so obvious, why did the Prime Minister say during the election campaign—when he knew the exact state of our public finances—that there was no need for increases in taxation? He said that there would be tax cuts and no cuts in public expenditure, which would be maintained. Of course, there is an explanation for that, to which I shall return. We were not told the full truth about our public finances at the last general election.

I did not say that.

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that. I think that there are plenty of people who attended the Press Gallery lunch who are now in a good position to report it.

"I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]

"Raising national insurance contributions would be a back-door stealth tax."

"If we were going to cut public expenditure, we would have done it before and I don't believe it is economically right. I have said that in the past, and there is no need to do it whatsoever. So you can rule out any prospect of that."

any prospect of public expenditure cuts emphatically ruled out—before the election.

"cavalier approach to massaging or falsifying statistics for political reasons."

"The Budget executed a great deceit on the electorate. Since the election campaign of a year ago, honest dealing by the Tories has been rare. The first 1993 Budget provided evidence of the cynicism behind the smirks and mock sincerity on the faces of the First and Second lords of the Treasury."

rose—

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clear up the matter.

The leader of the Opposition is indulging in the most disgraceful and irresponsible speech, and he knows it. He is frightening the most vulnerable people in our society. Is he aware that, as long as he fails to answer the questions that were put to him about the public sector borrowing requirement, the people of this country will conclude that he does not have the guts to tackle the most difficult economic question facing this country and that he is not fit to be leader of the Opposition. let alone Prime Minister?

Every time we refer to the Government's likely cuts, we are told that we are scaremongering. That allegation appears in the amendment to the Opposition motion. No doubt it has been drawn to the hon. Gentleman's attention that he might make that point during the debate. He has done it.

"Following a series of unfounded and irresponsible scares from the Labour Party, the Prime Minister"—

"has confirmed that the Government has no intention of raising VAT further."—

"There will be no VAT increase. Unlike the Labour Party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need to raise VAT to meet them."

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

No. I am dealing with the last intervention.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

No.

"I was amazed,"

"at how insensitive they were to spending large sums of money on things that were no good."

What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view on testing? Would he abandon the three children in 10 who leave school still unable to read and write properly? How does he intend to drive up education standards? What is his education policy?

There is a perfectly good case for sensible tests agreed with the teaching profession and with parents —as is occurring in another part of this country which is not England or Wales, but which happens to be governed by the same Government. That is how the issue is being approached there, and there is no reason why the same cannot be done in England and Wales. It is not the principle of testing that is in question but the ham-handed, arrogant and foolish way in which this incompetent Government have handled it.

Were not the same arguments deployed against bus privatisation, which has been an overwhelming success?

I do wonder about the Conservative party. One does not have carefully to prepare traps for it—it invents its own. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of what the people of this country think about bus privatisation? I dare say that he has not been on a bus for some time.

"an apparently permanent shift in the structure of the economy towards excess consumption and away from manufacturing, investment, exports and employment"—

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

I have given way already.

"to leap at the opportunity of adopting a policy full of common sense and compassion that efficiently targets the homeless, the housing market, the construction industry, and the South East."

What are you frightened about? Why will you not answer a question on the nepotism and corruption on Monklands district council? [Interruption.]

Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat and stays there, I shall take disciplinary action against him.

The people of Britain do not want any more years of high and debilitating unemployment, which destroys opportunity, squanders talent and wastes our resources. They want economic policies which support steady growth and rising employment, and which give our young people a chance to succeed.

I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof

'welcomes the widespread indications of economic recovery in the United Kingdom at a time when many other major economies are in deepening recession; recognises that the interests of industry are at the heart of the Government's policy and acknowledges the comprehensive programme of training and employment opportunities for unemployed people that the Government has put in place; welcomes the Government's commitment to its Manifesto pledges including its commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services through the Citizen's Charter; deplores the scare-mongering stories about public spending peddled by the Opposition; and applauds the Government for its determination to maintain low inflation, sound public finances and firm control over total public expenditure upon which a sustainable economic recovery depends.'.

Order. The House must settle down. Hon. Members do not have to listen, but whoever is speaking has to be heard. There is a great distinction between those two statements. The Prime Minister.

My right hon. Friend and I faced crises both before and after September last year. We worked together towards objectives that we shared, and we were always agreed as to our main goals: low inflation, sustainable economic growth, an increase in prosperity for all our people as medium and long-term objectives. I believe that history will look favourably on my right hon. Friend's economic and financial skills, but a strong Government need political skills as well— [Interruption.]—when leading a democratic society and, in particular, when handling a lively House of Commons with a small majority.

"I do not think that Members of Labour's Front Bench would have even two ideas about what to do with the economy if they came to power…a series of sound bites glued together and called an economic policy is not an economic policy."—[Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 420.]

rose—

I will give way later.

"threatening to cut pensions and benefits for the worse off."

"What's going on…will lead to the privatisation of the NHS."

Will the Prime Minister give way?

later.

"We"

"should be prepared to re-examine everything. I have not ruled anything out".

Could the Prime Minister, First lord of the Treasury, tell us what he was doing during the long period of recession, which has caused so much misery throughout the country? Was he looking the other way? Was he train spotting? Was he walking into cupboards? Has there ever been a more wimpish approach to the problems that face this country than that which he has shown?

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman directly: we have been presiding over a policy that brought inflation down to 1·3 per cent. and interest rates down to 6 per cent. so that this country is now poised for the largest growth in the European Community this year, next year and probably for the years beyond that. We have been taking the long-term view, not the short-term, option. That is what we have been doing-I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point that out—while he has opposed every policy that has brought down inflation and interest rates.

"Liberal Democrats advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy…The UK is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT on domestic fuels…we would press forward…by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel".

"Zero rating on items such as food, fares, books and children's clothing should remain as an essential part of the VAT system."

"We will also use the tax system, as well as regulation, to help protect the environment."

So have the voters.

So did the voters, says the right hon. lady. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention is that he was the Energy Minister who let electricity prices rise. What was the increase—5 per cent., 10 per cent., 15 per cent.? No, it was 30 per cent. over and above inflation. What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to help the less well-off? I shall tell the House what he did—absolutely nothing. The position is clear.

Will my right hon. Friend explain why, if the Opposition are sincerely worried about the disadvantaged people of this country, they demand more and more overseas aid, day in, day out? [Interruption.]

Order. We all like a little bit of fun and hilarity, but we also want to hear the Prime Minister.

The fundamental point about overseas aid is that, in order to sustain it as the Government have done, one needs to pursue the right economic policies, as we have also done.

When the Prime Minister went on his trip down memory lane to Brixton and other ethnic areas, did he tell the people that he was going to take away the right of appeal for visitors?

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member that the great improvement in race relations in this country is directly related to the firm but fair immigration policies pursued by this Government. I am surprised to hear him venture down that track, in view of his record of favouring good race relations.

"I make one Budget forecast—that, after the Budget, unemployment will rise this month, next month and for months afterwards".—[Official Report, 17 March 1993, Vol. 221, c. 289.]

Order. Hon. Members must come to order. The bawling and shouting coming from the Back Benches this afternoon is utterly disgraceful. [Interruption.]I know who the Members responsible are, and I need no one to point them out for me.

Some time ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East admitted:

"we change our policies as we move towards a different election…We'd be a very foolish Party if we went into an election in…1995–96 with exactly the same policies".

"We must be prepared to examine in an open-minded way some of the fundamental features of our approach. What is the right balance between universal and selective benefits".

There will be a widespread welcome throughout the party for what my right hon. Friend has just said to the House, and there will be great support for the policies that he has enunciated throughout his speech.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted to have a party at ease with itself.

"bears the primary responsibility for tax and economic policies that lost Labour the election."

"know what Labour stands for".

"Where was the Labour movement"

Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly? [Interruption.] Order. Come along.

I believe that what we have heard and seen this afternoon is nothing less than the beginning of the end of the right hon. Gentleman's premiership. I say that not because of the lack of success of his speech—although I have to tell him that, if he had bothered to turn round he would have seen his fate indelibly written on the faces of Conservative Members. I say it not because of the effectiveness of the speech by the leader of the Opposition, although, in its way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's was an effective speech, typical of the speeches that he delivers [good for a knockabout but not providing too much revelation about Labour party policy.

"Neither now, nor at any stage in the future, are my reshuffles going to be preceded by assassinations of my colleagues."

The right hon. Gentleman speaks as though the recession is an entirely United Kingdom fact and has nothing to do with Europe. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, a passionate advocate of a united states of Europe, realises that the recession has applied throughout the Economic Community. If the right hon. Gentleman is really saying that the recession is entirely home-grown, he is revealing himself to be even more economically illiterate than I would have given him credit for. Is he admitting that or not?

Of course I concede—I have always conceded it—that there is a worldwide recession in place, but the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has to address the question that was so clearly put by his colleague the ex-Chancellor. He made it quite clear that the depths of our recession, particularly in 1987, 1988 and 1989 when the Prime Minister himself was Chancellor, area direct result of the Government's economic ineptness in those years. The ex-Chancellor put the blame for the special position of our country and its deep recession and the damage that has been done on his Government's own policies. I invite the hon. Member for Teignbridge to read that speech.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I have not the slightest intention of doing so again.

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's plan is to try to secure a victory in the Christchurch by-election, but he talks about fairly sharing the burden. He is talking in the context of raising taxes. let me explain to him that in the first 10 years of the Tory Government the richest 1 per cent. in Britain had £26·2 billion in tax cuts. Instead of calling upon working-class people in Christchurch or anywhere else, the right hon. Gentleman should be supporting the idea of clawing back that £26·2 billion from the richest 1 per cent. They have had the money, and they must foot the bill.

I hope that Labour Front-Bench Members heard the statement by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). They are the ones he needs to persuade. They are the ones who will not say the kind of things that he has said. The hon. Gentleman has asked me what our strategy is for the Christchurch by-election. It is quite simple. It is to have the strategy that we had in Newbury—to tell the blunt truth to the people of this country. They want to hear and are prepared to hear about the seriousness of the economic position and about what must be done to solve it.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the blunt truth. He said earlier that any public expenditure savings could be only marginal. Will he now tell the House the blunt truth? By how much would his party wish to increase the standard rate of income tax to close the deficit?

The hon. Gentleman's own Chancellor could not at this stage give him figures about the public sector borrowing requirement and could not tell him what he will do in the autumn of this year. The hon. Gentleman makes a brave try, but I shall not answer his ludicrous question.

Why not?

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) asked a question that his own Chancellor would not answer. I have made it clear—I have said something that the Labour party will not say—that rather than cutting into the bone and the body of the welfare state, if we have to balance our public sector borrowing sensibly and responsibly by finding tax, we shall take that view.

How much?

The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) asks, "How much?" He knows perfectly well that the figures are not yet available to anyone—not even the Government. The right hon. Gentleman should realise that I have laid down some clear principles about how we should deal with the PSBR. His party will not do that.

The motion makes no reference to the size of the deficit. However, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) quite properly identified the deficit as the subject that will give rise to growing political debate and differentiation between our approaches to economic problems over the remainder of this Parliament. As he has discovered, it is a topic on which one enters with some trepidation, as there is a natural desire for quantification which may take the general principles rather further than political prudence suggests. However, unless we are prepared to do that, this will he a missed opportunity.

indicated assent.

I see that I have the nodding acquiesence of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I think that he would agree that it is none the less a realistic target if the political will is there.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the figures in the Red Book for 1995–96 show that, of the tax increases proposed of £10·6 billion, about £8 billion will be increases in income tax. That is a substantial increase, and to increase the standard rate by 2p in the pound would produce only another £4 billion. Therefore, I think that the Government have the balance about right.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will be pleased to have the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), which makes my right hon. and learned Friend appear as a moderate against my own left-wing extremism.

My right hon. Friend has made a statement which has important implications, not merely for the conduct of our economic affairs, but for the debate between the so-called left and the so-called right inside the Conservative party. My conversations in recent weeks with Conservatives in my constituency, which my right hon. Friend knows well, have revealed that Conservatives—both retired and employed—would give the measure considerable support.

The prospect of my becoming a folk hero among Tory activists is not a career move that I sought in the autumn of my days.

One factor has become clear during the debate: one of the problems facing the country is that it is led by a man who is visibly incapable of carrying out the office that he now holds—a man who does not sound, look or behave like a Prime Minister. The first few passages of his speech this afternoon contained the most demeaning stuff that I have heard from a Prime Minister in my 28 or 29 years in the House.

"as we have for the last 13 years".

"We will honour the increases in retirement pensions which were promised just before the election".

"We shall continue to care for those in need"

The tone of the debate was set by the leader of the Opposition. The matters that we are debating are of tremendous importance to all our constituents because their prosperity and welfare depend on the solution to the problems of economic management that face us. The leader of the Opposition is totally incapable of dealing seriously with these matters, and trivialised them throughout his speech. Those who have suffered throughout the recession from which we are now emerging will not have regarded his speech as amusing. When he sought to deal with the problems, he made no attempt whatever to analyse them.

I had the privilege of serving on the tax credit Select Committee. We were very much in favour of it and it would have been simple to implement such a scheme then before the figures became too astronomic. We were fully committed to bringing it in, and it was a disaster that the Labour Government put it to one side.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement, because the idea is certainly worth looking at again in the context of the relationship between benefits and taxation.

This day and this debate have acquired a significance that none of us had envisaged. We did not know about the dramatic events earlier today, but they form an essential part of the debate. I do not say this with any particular relish, and certainly not with malice, but we have seen the disintegration of a Prime Minister. We are witnessing also the disintegration of the Government and of a regime and of an ideology that sustained that regime over many years. When people look back on this day, they will identify it as the moment when that became clear to everyone.

"over-aggressive tax cutting in the 1980s".

The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) seems to have a very favourable view of what took place in the 1970s. My recollection is somewhat different. He seems to regret that many of the nationalised industries have been privatised, that action has been taken to reform the trade unions, and even that taxation has been reduced. My recollection of the 1970s is that we did indeed live in times of severely nationalised industries and total control of the Government by the trade unions. I remember a White Paper produced by Dame Barbara Castle, called "In Place of Strife", which had to be withdrawn.

My right hon. Friend must also consider how, in such circumstances, we would co-ordinate fiscal and monetary policy.

In exactly the same way as it is co-ordinated in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, where the independent central bank is given a responsibility to control inflation. For that reason, it is totally in control of interest rates.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1979, and we should look back to that time and see what has happened since then.

I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his appointment, although I wish that the circumstances of his appointment had been somewhat different.

"will set policy in the medium term to ensure that the United Kingdom meets the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty".—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 51.]

"welcomes the widespread indications of economic recovery in the United Kingdom at a time when many other major economies are in deepening recession".