Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 268: debated on Tuesday 5 December 1995

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

House Of Commons

Tuesday 5 December 1995

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

Health

Accident And Emergency Departments

1.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority to discuss the situation in local accident and emergency departments. [2172]

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.

Is the Minister aware that there is a serious crisis in accident and emergency departments in Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, that Whipps Cross hospital closed on 14 November and told doctors not to send people there, that King George hospital has regularly told ambulances to go away, and that some of my constituents have had to wait on trolleys for 10, 12, 14 or, in one case, 24 hours? In one case, a constituent was questioned about an incident by the police in front of other people in the area. Is not that a disgrace? When will the Government do something about the crisis in accident and emergency departments in Redbridge and Waltham Forest?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point clearly because there are problems in those two hospitals in his constituency. However, he has exaggerated the problems. I can tell him that both the trusts involved are looking at the situation closely. They are taking short-term measures, and, to deal with bed management, are recruiting additional staff and so forth to cope with the problems. The problems are caused by a higher demand for A and E treatment throughout north London, which is also being examined by the trusts. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that things are improving.

I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in his new responsibility. Is he aware that the A and E service in the adjacent Barking and Havering area is already under strain as a result of the decision to concentrate casualty at Harold Wood rather than at Oldchurch hospital in my constituency? If the service at King George hospital, Ilford—the hospital to which many of my constituents will in future have to turn—is also to be terminated, that will result in an unacceptable reduction in standards of access in an emergency.

Again, I understand my hon. Friend's point. I would be very concerned if the A and E department at King George hospital were to close. I have no information to that effect. On the contrary, I understand that there is no intention of closing the A and E department at King George hospital.

Does the Minister accept that the picture which has just been painted is a national one? Accident and emergency departments are currently closing their doors because of a shortage of beds, and patients are waiting hour after hour on trolleys in corridors. The Minister should recognise that A and E departments are twice penalised by the internal market: a lack of bed space means that they cannot meet patient charter times, but because they cannot meet those times, purchasers are withholding payment. The Secretary of State has announced this morning the Government's so-called blitz on bureaucracy. Given that the Government created the internal market, will his announcement be followed by an apology to people who work in health and to the British people about the mess, and will he listen to what the British people want from the NHS, that is, proper patient care and not the privatisation that is creeping in at hospitals throughout Britain?

That sounded like a statement of Labour party policy in a nutshell. Labour Members have nothing more to say. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman in his calmer moments will surely realise that he is exaggerating. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) was rightly referring to a situation in his constituency and that was perfectly fair, but in London as a whole 35 A and E departments are open 24 hours a day. Some £37 million have been spent over the past five years and things are definitely improving.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this is by no means a national situation, and will Opposition Members appreciate that there are some hospitals in the country that run their affairs efficiently? I have today heard from the head of the accident and emergency department in Lancaster that we have no problems because we treat our staff well and we have a good reputation. Other hospitals might try doing likewise.

I am delighted to hear it. As a Lancastrian, I am delighted that Lancashire is once again leading the country.

Gp Fundholders

2.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current percentage of general practitioners who have moved to fundholding status; and what is his estimate for the percentage of GP fundholders over the next two years. [2173]

4.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to evaluate the impact of GP fundholding. [2175]

Independent evaluation has repeatedly demonstrated the benefits of fundholding. That is why the Government are committed to further development and expansion of the scheme. Over 39 per cent. of general practitioners in England are already fundholders and this is expected to rise to over 50 per cent. by next April, with more practices preparing to join in 1997.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply, which shows that by next year, half of Britain's GPs will have to operate like small business men. Can he answer a more important question? According to figures that he gave me last week, £66 million is now spent on the bureaucracy of administrating fundholders. That £66 million is almost exactly equivalent to the cost of the 15,000 hip operations on hospital waiting lists. We are all delighted this week that the Queen Mother came out so well from her operation. Will the right hon. Gentleman stop that money being spent on bureaucracy and give people on the hip operation waiting list some hope?

I am certainly not doing anything to undermine the development of the fundholding scheme. All the research that has been done on that scheme demonstrates that the extra administrative cost, which is certainly there, delivers improved value to national health service patients. The question is for the Labour party. Does it agree with its previous health spokesman that it should abolish fundholding, or with the present incumbent of that post that it is not a matter of abolition but replacement?

How does the Secretary of State justify ignoring clear evidence provided by GPs in my constituency of a two-tier system arising directly from fundholding?

Is not it scandalous that 36,000 of my constituents are, according to their doctors, receiving a second-rate service as a result of the status of their GPs? Is not it true, as one GP who wrote to me said—that letter has been seen by the Minister for Health—that those who deny the two-tier system arising from GP funding are talking a lot of twaddle?

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was right. The hon. Gentleman is behind the times. First, of the five cases that he mentioned the last time that he raised the issue in the House—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact—two have had their operations in less than 12 months and the other three are on a waiting list for treatment in less than 12 months at Pinderfields hospital. Furthermore, both the fundholding and the non-fundholding GPs joined Wakefield Healthcare last week to issue a jointly agreed statement which said:

"As far as Wakefield Healthcare and GPs, both fundholders and non-fundholders, are concerned there should be no difference in the way patients, whether they go to fundholders or non-fundholders, are treated."
That is the policy of every GP in Wakefield, whether a fundholder or a non-fundholder, and it is also the policy of Wakefield Healthcare.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a recent interview with the hon. Lady for Peckham (Ms Harman) in Doctor magazine in which she says of the Opposition's plans for fundholding:

"We don't call it abolition, we call it replacement."
Does my right hon. Friend think that fundholding doctors will be reassured at the prospect of being replaced and not abolished?

No, I do not think that they will be remotely reassured. Every fundholding GP in the health service wants to hear what the Labour party would do if it ever found itself in government. The previous Opposition health spokesman said:

"We can live with a whole range and variety of models."
She also said that the Opposition are committed to abolishing fundholding. Are they or are they not committed to abolition?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an increasing percentage of GPs in Suffolk are in fundholding practices and that that is bringing benefits in the forms of increased personal counselling, chiropody for diabetics, and better diagnostic and physiotherapy services—all very much to the benefit of patients?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His experience in Suffolk is repeated throughout the health service. One of the two questions that I have answered jointly asked what steps I have taken to evaluate fundholding. My hon. Friend has offered a local evaluation, but it has also been evaluated by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the Fabian Society, the OECD and the health service research unit at the university of Oxford. They have all published evaluations of fundholding, and the only problem with them is that they have been inconveniently optimistic for the Labour party.

Since it is the intention to offer primary-led health care, do the Government intend to change FP10 to allow GP fundholders and others to provide new treatments for leg ulcers in the community rather than in the secondary sphere, which is more costly?

I shall certainly consider that specific proposal. We need to ensure that the maximum range of clinical care that can safely be delivered by practitioners in the primary care context is delivered. Such care has been provided throughout the country as a result of fundholding. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific idea, I should be happy to look at it.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Isle of Wight has one of the highest percentages of GP fundholders in the country? Does he attribute that success to the fact that the Liberal Democrats opposed such a scheme before the election and then, after it, led the charge in forming a fundholding consortium on the Isle of Wight, which has given us such a high percentage of fundholders?

The Liberal party has had just as much difficulty as the Labour party in deciding its policy on the issue. Both parties forecast that there would be no support for fundholding when the scheme was launched. Both have found themselves embarrassed by the fact that, next year, more than half of all GPs in the health service will have opted voluntarily to join the fundholding scheme. My hon. Friend is quite right.

Can the Secretary of State tell me what the reaction of fundholders and other purchasers of health care in Birmingham will be when they look at the small print of the Budget? They will find that a promised 1.1 per cent. increase in funds will turn out to be equivalent to no more than a half per cent. increase, which will mean around £6 million cuts wherever health care is purchased. When the Secretary of State visits Birmingham next week, will he explain to the local people why their community services will be cut?

This is a question about primary care. One of the best bits of news in the Budget about primary care is that it allows for the continued growth of the family doctor service through the 4 per cent. real terms growth in resources available to it. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might welcome that.

Many thousands of people in the Dartford constituency have benefited from GP fundholding. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Conservative party is the only party that supports that scheme? The Labour party is totally opposed to it now, as it always has been.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Conservative party, and its Government, is the only party committed to the development of fundholding. Every fundholding GP and their patients want to know the policy of the Labour Front-Bench team. When the Opposition appear before a fundholding audience they say that they recognise that the freedoms available under the scheme have produced improvements. They give a soft message to fundholding doctors, but once they get back into the television studios they say that they are committed to abolishing the scheme. What is their policy? We are waiting.

I presume, Madam Speaker, that I am supposed to ask a question rather than answer one. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that one of the effects of GP fundholding has been extra administrative costs. Is not it the case that as a direct result of the Government's NHS reforms the cost of NHS bureaucracy is an extra £1.5 billion every year? That money should be spent on patients, not on paperwork. I welcome the publication of the NHS bureaucracy league tables, which the right hon. Gentleman made available this morning, but can he explain to the House why it is that the worst health authority in the country—the one that spends most on bureaucracy—is Huntingdon, the Prime Minister's constituency?

The hon. Lady might have welcomed the fact that in that same health authority there is to be a 10 per cent. reduction in administrative costs next year. As she raised the subject, she might also have welcomed the fact that the announcements I made this morning represent a shift of resources out of grey suits into white coats of £280 million next year. There will be £280 million extra next year for the treatment of patients. When will the hon. Lady welcome that?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that by April next year 100 per cent. of my constituents will be treated in GP fundholding practices? Does he agree that that is the result of decisions by GPs in order to give their patients the best possible level of primary health care services? In the light of that, is it not an absolute disgrace that the Labour party proposes either to abolish or emasculate GP fundholding?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. GPs in his constituency have chosen to operate a completely voluntary scheme because they believe that it will improve care to their patients. In that they agree with the Fabian Society and a wide range of other commentators who have looked at the scheme. We are still waiting for an answer from the Opposition Front Bench as to why they will not support the scheme.

Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee

3.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Pharmaceutical Services negotiating committee; and what was discussed. [2174]

Officials regularly meet the Pharmaceutical Services negotiating committee to discuss issues that affect community pharmacy contractors. Ministers meet the committee whenever it is appropriate.

I am sure that the Minister will have heard about the committee's anxieties and the cash flow problems that pharmacists are facing because his Department is an extremely bad payer. As he must be aware, small pharmacists in particular are concerned that they are not receiving within a proper time scale payment for prescriptions that they have already dispensed. That is making it impossible for them to solve their cash problems and they are creating redundancies. Should the attitude of the Minister's Department and the Government be causing redundancies at a time of massive unemployment? The Minister should stop his Department being such a bad payer and get on and pay the people the money that the Department owes them.

I read the briefing note that the hon. Gentleman is clearly using. It misses out a fact that perhaps the pharmacists did not discuss with him—if he had discussions with them and did not just read the note. A voluntary agreement that was negotiated with the pharmacists has been in place for some time. It sets out how the payments are structured so that they can be made as quickly as possible after the Prescription Pricing Authority has processed them. That agreement was highly welcomed when it was put in place and I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is being honoured to the letter and payments are being made in the context of the agreement. Of course I recognise that pharmacists are business men and have to run their businesses in a proper way. They make a valuable contribution to the community and if there are any ways of taking that forward that we can discuss with them, I am always happy to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, like all other interest groups, pharmacists have a legitimate case? If the Opposition take up the arguments of every interest group in the community and ask the Government to pay 100 per cent. of their claims, public expenditure is bound to get out of control. Although it is certain that the Opposition will temporarily become popular with farmers, lawyers, civil servants and every other interest group that wants to get its snout into the public trough, that is a clear indication that public expenditure under Labour will get grossly out of control.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every time that there is a request for additional funding, the Labour party accedes to it in the same breath as it suggests that taxation can be brought down, but those attitudes are incompatible. Unlike Labour, the pharmacists are always responsible when entering discussions. Last year the global sum from which they were paid was increased by some 2.5 per cent. The pharmacists also agreed to a change in the structure of the payments made to them, so that we can ensure that more payments go to pharmacists who provide more professional services. That was a welcome way to approach added public expenditure for added value. Labour says that payments should go up for no reason.

Is the Minister aware that many people on regular prescriptions complain that chemists are giving short weight—that the doctor writes a prescription for 30 tablets but that the chemist dispenses only 24 or 26 tablets? People on regular monthly prescriptions are having to pay as much as one month extra per year because of that short measure. The pharmacists blame the packaging. Nevertheless, many members of the public feel cheated when they have paid more than £5 for a prescription but receive too few tablets. Will the Minister get together with the pharmaceutical and packaging industries to ensure that the customer gets what he pays for?

Rather curiously, the hon. Gentleman asked a question that might have more point in six months' time, as we introduce patient pack prescribing—which is in its early days and has not yet been generally introduced. Pharmacists must dispense the appropriate medicine according to the doctor's prescription. That will be the case when patient pack prescribing is introduced. It will ensure that the patient is given the appropriate amount of medicine to treat the symptom for which he sought a prescription from the doctor.

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the important role played by pharmacists in helping people with self-medication, which contrasts sharply with Labour's health policies—which are all diagnosis and no prescription?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Community pharmacists play an important role in providing medical care, and it is one that we are extremely keen to encourage through the payment of the professional allowance for displaying pharmacy practice leaflets and health promotion literature. Pharmacists, as health care professionals, are keen to develop that important role.

Breast Cancer

5.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's progress towards the use of specialist breast units for the treatment of breast cancer. [2176]

The Calman report forms the basis of our strategy for the development of cancer services. We have charged regional directors with the task of taking that forward and, where necessary, reconfiguring services to treat common cancers, including breast cancer, in specialised units.

Given that the Calman report regarded as urgent the move to specialist breast cancer care units, which was endorsed by the Health Select Committee report, is sufficient urgency being shown by the Department? I think not. Is not it important that the Government move rapidly to establish a network of such units, so that the fears that haunt many women in this country can be allayed by the provision of prompt, effective and thorough treatment in every area? Is not that absolutely necessary? Why are the Government so dilatory in moving to that position?

The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically ungenerous in not acknowledging the work being done by the NHS. Calman reported only in April, since when regional offices have been working on the recommendations. Calman set out a structure of primary care refering to cancer units for diagnosis and treatment and cancer centres at which rarer types of cancer—and particular specialist services, such as radiotherapy—would be available. The hon. Gentleman needs only to look in his own back yard. The United Leeds teaching hospitals have developed fine services that include a specialist unit. That is the way forward for Leeds, and the hon. Gentleman might have paid tribute to that development. We are looking to see how to develop services throughout the country for the benefit of patients.

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Royal Marsden hospital in Sutton, in my constituency, which offers an excellent breast cancer service with particular expertise in early detection and palliative care? Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the extra budget allocated by the Chancellor should go to that superb service?

I am happy to pay tribute to the Royal Marsden, and I was able to do so yesterday because I was at the Queen Elizabeth II centre when it received a charter mark award. I congratulate the hospital publicly again today. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the resources that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has negotiated with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—£1.3 billion more for the coming year; a 1.6 per cent. increase in real terms. I have no doubt that some of those resources will lead to further improvements in our cancer services.

In view of the concern about high mortality rates for breast cancer, will the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that a reduction in the mortality rate for breast cancer is a key part of the "Health of the Nation" strategy? Will he also confirm that he is satisfied with the progress that is being made to achieve the target of a 25 per cent. reduction by 2000? Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to monitor progress at the district health authority level; and does he agree that the development and publication of local targets at DHA level is vital if the "Health of the Nation" strategy is to mean anything?

There were about five questions there. I have already announced that our regional offices will examine the configuration of services, and will build on that. Of course we stand by our "Health of the Nation" targets. Progress has been made, and we want to see more. That is why we are developing services; why we are investing in services; and why much research is being done. I pay tribute to the range of research conducted by Government and by the voluntary sector and pharmaceutical companies.

Infant And Perinatal Mortality

6.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the change in (a) infant and (b) perinatal mortality rates in the last 15 years. [2177]

Infant and perinatal mortality rates are at their lowest levels ever. Deaths of children aged under one year—the infant mortality rate—fell by half between 1979 and 1994. Stillbirths and deaths of babies less than a week old—the perinatal rate—fell by nearly 40 per cent. over the same period.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, which reveals a staggering reduction in the number of fatalities. Does he agree that that is due principally to three factors; first, the great advances in medical technology; secondly, the increasing skill of our doctors and nurses; and, thirdly, the vastly increased amounts of taxpayers' money put into the national health service? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures underline the increased quality of infant health care, like so many other NHS services, for the benefit of the whole nation?

My hon. Friend is precisely right on every count. Those indicators are interesting, because they are some of the relatively few health outcome indicators that are directly comparable with those in different countries. Such indicators tell heavily in favour of the good value and efficient health service delivered by the NHS, which has been consistently supported by the Government and which we shall continue to support.

Has the Secretary of State had a chance to look at the King's Fund's recent publication, "Tackling Inequalities in Health", which confirms—as is to be expected—that over the past 10 years there has been a widening gap between the rich and the poor, and that that gap is reflected by widening differentials in mortality rates for adults and infants? If that is so, what is the Department of Health doing to ensure improvements in health nationwide by increasing equality in wealth and income for all citizens?

I talked yesterday about some of the things that we are doing to ensure that we deliver, nation wide, the objectives of the national health service. The establishment of proper purchasing arrangements for the health services within the reformed management is designed precisely to target resources on health need. The Government's commitment to weighted capitation— I announced a further step towards its delivery yesterday—is also intended to eliminate variations. That commitment is precisely directed to answer the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be welcome, fair and right if the media sometimes concentrated on the remarkable advance that has been made in this part of the health service as in others, and that tiny babies are saved today who would not have had a hope of life even 10 or 12 years ago?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is a dry statistic that tells a very human story of which anyone interested in the NHS should be proud. It is a comparison between health care in Britain and health care in virtually every other developed country and it tells in favour of both our national health service and the Government's support for it.

Although the overall fall in death rates is clearly welcome, will the Secretary of State explain why last year both the South Tyneside and the Sandwell health care NHS trusts had a perinatal mortality rate of 13.7 per 1,000 live births, while in Kingston and Richmond the rate was just 3.4 per 1,000 live births? Will he also confirm that, if all infants and children enjoyed the same survival rates as those in social classes I and II, up to 3,000 deaths a year might be prevented? Does that latter figure not show that the price of widening social and economic inequality under the Government is being paid for in the health of poorer people?

What the hon. Gentleman does not cover is two facts: first, that health outcomes are improving for all social classes in Britain; and, secondly, that the Government have put in place reformed management of the health service, precisely to ensure that health resources are targeted at health need. It is precisely for that reason that we changed the management of the health service. Since the hon. Gentleman raises the subject, I assume that he would now like to welcome that.

Huddersfield Health Care Services Nhs Trust

7.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the development package recently announced by the Huddersfield national health service trust. [2178]

I very much welcome this £10 million development programme. It will provide improved health care facilities for the people of Huddersfield, in the context of a modern health service.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this £10 million development programme, across a range of health facilities in my local hospital, represents a remarkable investment in improved health care for the people in and around Huddersfield and is the sort of good news about which we never hear from Opposition Members? Is he aware that I get far fewer complaints about my local hospitals than, for example, about my local Labour council?

I am not surprised to learn of the content of my hon. Friend's postbag, because he does indeed have an excellent local hospital. May I, in the words of the trust chief executive, point out that

"Never before have we had so many new developments planned on this scale … together, they form a major step forward for patient care"?
That is a great improvement, in the context of that particular hospital. What the Labour party always fails to acknowledge is that such things are happening throughout the country. Perhaps when it happens in the areas of Opposition Members, they might table the sort of question that my hon. Friend tabled today.

Does the Minister accept that what happens in Huddersfield impacts on Calderdale, because they share the same purchaser? Is he aware that the development about which he talks means that in Calderdale we will lose 300 badly needed beds?

Yet again, we have the hon. Lady complaining about investment in the health service which will benefit the whole range of the population that this hospital trust serves. Of course we understand that it is up to local health authorities to decide where they purchase their health care; now they will be able to do so on behalf of my hon. Friend's constituents and those of the hon. Lady. Those people can be served by this hospital through updated facilities in which £10 million is being invested. I would have thought that the hon. Lady might welcome that.

Haemophiliacs

8.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about making an ex gratia payment to haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C. [2179]

Representations include seven earlier parliamentary questions, and five early-day motions. There was also an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend on 11 July and a short debate in another place. Ministers have received 291 letters.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to the Department of Health. Since his promotion, has he had a chance to read the impact study produced by the Haemophilia Society, which has been made available to his Department, which demonstrates the physical, financial and emotional hardship suffered by haemophiliacs? As the cause of that hardship, infected blood products, is the same as that which passed on the HIV virus to haemophiliacs, should not the Government's reaction be the same?

First, I congratulate the Haemophilia Society on its sensible review and my hon. Friend on his relentless questioning over many years, which has already achieved quite staggering results. I have not yet read the full review, but I shall do so as a matter of priority and I shall obviously take its conclusions most carefully into account.

Does the Minister realise the stress caused to the families of individuals, such as a 13-year-old youngster in my constituency, who not only have to cope with haemophilia but have now been totally devastated by having to cope with the effects of hepatitis C? Please may we have an early and sympathetic decision to bring some hope to those families?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the problem will always receive sympathy from me.

Residential Care

9.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will clarify the criteria used to assess voluntary groups providing high standards of care in residential settings for those with challenging behaviour, in respect of the application of necessary minimum levels of proper discipline and restraint. [2181]

Regulations require that the owners and managers of homes should both safeguard and promote the welfare of residents. We expect statutory authorities to ensure that service providers should have clear, written policies on the management of people who may cause harm to themselves or others.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not an easy job to look after the severely mentally handicapped, and that common-sense disciplines should prevail over fashionable, impractical social services' ideologies which are certainly not in the best interests of the residents themselves?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. When we are talking about difficult to manage individuals, we must ensure that the restraint and control used are sufficient to prevent a person from hurting himself or herself, other people or property. That is common sense, which must always take precedence over political correctness.

Human Fertilisation And Embryology Authority

10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to privatise the role of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [2182]

Is the Minister not concerned that access to in vitro fertilisation is so variable around the country, and barely exists at all in my part of Devon? Instead of talking about privatisation and hiving off, what action does he intend to take to ensure that that authority makes that vital service available to young couples throughout the country?

The hon. Gentleman accuses me of talking about privatisation, but when he asked me what plans I had for privatisation, I said none. That is hardly an accusation that can be made to stick. With regard to the development of IVF, I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might welcome the fact that that is a new science which has been developing fast within British hospitals and which is being made available by different health authorities in different parts of the country to the people of their areas. We have always made it clear that that is a matter for local decision making within individual health authorities, reflecting the health priorities of their districts.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there can be little public confidence in a body whose members and employees are involved with and generate their income from destructive experiments on living human embryos? Is it not a positive disgrace that not one person has been appointed to that authority who believes in the sanctity of human life and who reflects the majority view in Britain that such experiments are repugnant?

Strong views on the subject are held on both sides of the argument, the resolution of which, as the House knows, was achieved by a free vote during the passage of the legislation. The authority's membership is intended to reflect the necessary scientific expertise and the commitment to apply proper ethical standards to the use of that science. My hon. Friend may not like every member of the authority, but I hope that she will at least endorse the objectives that guide the authority's deliberations.

Hospitals (Emergency Admissions)

11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of trends in the numbers of emergency admissions to hospitals. [2183]

The number of emergency admissions to hospital increased by an average of 3 per cent. each year in the five years to 1993-94. That is broadly in line with the increase in total admissions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that staffing levels in Bradford royal infirmary's accident and emergency department are far worse than those in any comparable department in the country? Has he any intention of meeting regional and district health authorities to set minimum staffing levels so that patients charter standards are met?

Patients charter standards define the standard that a patient is entitled to expect when he or she approaches the health service for care, whether through an accident and emergency department or through any other department. It is obviously the responsibility of trust management, in consultation with the health authority, to make certain that those standards are delivered. I am sure that that will be the guiding principle in Bradford, as in every other part of the country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures demonstrate the need for hospitals to have proper systems in place to ensure the prompt admission and speedy discharge of patients? Is it not vital for social services departments up and down the country to get their act together to ensure the proper discharge of elderly patients into the community?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The relationship between the health service and social services departments in every part of the country is the key to the delivery of the objectives of both the health service and social services departments, and it is given a high priority throughout the health service.

Prime Minister

Gp Fundholders (Lichfield)

Q1.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet a delegation of general practitioners from Lichfield to discuss the future of fundholding. [2202]

Fundholders' views on developing the success of the scheme are always welcome. Any detailed recommendations will, of course, be considered.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that every general practitioner in Lichfield will be a registered fundholder? The reason is that those GPs believe in the Conservative party's crusade for choice: they believe that it is right for them to be able to choose the consultant and the hospital that are right for them. Does my right hon. Friend realise that they are appalled at the Labour party's plan to abolish fundholding? Does that not give the lie to Labour's crusade for schools, which is evidently empty rhetoric—just another empty soundbite?

I agree with my hon. Friend that GP fundholding has improved patient care and increased patient choice up and down the country. An increasing number of doctors are choosing to become fundholders, and I welcome that, in Lichfield as elsewhere.

There is, of course, all the difference in the world between a policy that genuinely believes in choice—as ours does in relation to both health and education—and one that believes in choice for marketing reasons. We saw an instance of that this morning.

Engagements

Q2.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2203]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with all the other users of the Great Western main line from Paddington to south Wales and the west of England, that the signals for railway privatisation are now firmly stuck at red? Now that the consortium Resurgence Railways, led by the Prime Minister's Huntingdon Tory crony, Mike Jones, has been rejected because it cannot raise the money, and the second-choice preferred bidders—led by the present management team at Western Region—cannot raise the money either, should we not be singing the old song "Let's call the whole thing off"?

That was rather contrived, I must say. Rail privatisation is going ahead, for one simple reason: it will deliver a better service for rail passengers. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends really think that, over the past 40 years, the public have had the rail service that they would like, I do not know where he has been.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that, if he appointed Scottish-based Members of Parliament to key Cabinet posts such as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Chief Whip, and then proposed to set up a Parliament in Edinburgh that failed to address the West Lothian question, that would be good for the Union of the United Kingdom and for relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK?

I do, of course, have a number of very distinguished Scots in my Cabinet and in my Government, but I certainly agree with the thrust—[Interruption.] Not at the moment, it is true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is distinguished, but he is not a Scot. The thrust of my hon. Friend's point is surely right—if the devolution plans proposed by the Opposition parties were to proceed, they would undoubtedly lead to conflict between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that, even at this late stage, the parties advocating those policies will consider what they would mean in practice both for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom and will decide that extra taxation for Scots alone is not a way to improve the prosperity of Scotland.

Does the Prime Minister agree, as the Government's report "Lifetime Learning" which was published today confirms, that Britain's skills and education attainments are nowhere near where they should be? Rather than encouraging a small number of children to leave state schools for the private sector, should we not be raising educational standards for the 7 million children who are educated in the state sector, many of whom do not get the education that they deserve?

Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have produced a whole series of plans to raise educational standards over recent years, many of which, alas, have been strongly opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know where in the education sector there is failure, he might look at Hackney for example. [[HON. MEMBERS: "Islington."] I shall come to Islington. The right hon. Gentleman might look at Lambeth, where the secondary schools are so bad that the Office for Standards in Education has to inspect every one of them. He might, of course, look at Islington, which has just come absolutely bottom in the table of GCSE results. What is consistent among all those is that they are all Labour-controlled education authorities.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate SCM Chemicals in my constituency, a subsidiary of the Hanson Trust group, which yesterday announced a massive expansion of its titanium dioxide plant? Is that not clear evidence that international investment is making my constituency the chemical capital of the world?

My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate for his constituency and his constituents. I hope he will agree that Government policy as well as his advocacy might have played some part in bringing that investment to his constituency.

Q3.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2204]

Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Cornwall and Devon why they should accept the Government's conclusions today that Government spending in the region compares favourably with that in the rest of the country, when every independent report shows that spending in the region is 10 per cent. less Department by Department, education to industry, than that in the rest of the country, despite high unemployment, low wages and a high cost of living?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a number of measures to deal with those problems in the west country and elsewhere, and it is extremely important that those problems are dealt with. We are determined to address them and to improve the living standards and opportunities for people in the west country. That is what we have been doing and what we shall continue to do. It is pity that the hon. Gentleman seeks to denigrate every effort that is made.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of the disgraceful intimidation and browbeating that is going on in Hurworth in my neighbouring constituency where the Labour party is trying to prevent a local school from opting out? Apparently, the whole affair is being organised by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, aided by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn.)

I believe that any form of intimidation of parental choice is to be condemned. Parents have a natural and a legal right to decide whether they want the school to which their child goes to opt out and they should be able to exercise that right without intimidation, either by the education authority or by anyone else. If there is evidence of that, I hope that those implicated in it will examine it without delay.

Q4.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2205]

My question concerns the appalling human rights abuses in Nigeria, together with reports in the press today of confidential information from Home Office files being leaked to Tory central office and thence to the press. Will the Prime Minister order an immediate inquiry into those leaks and further assure the House that there will be no deportations to Nigeria of people at risk from that murderous regime?

As the hon. Lady knows, our position on Nigeria is clear and, in company with others, we set that out clearly at the Commonwealth conference. The case in today's newspaper to which she refers was one where the applicant or his representative had chosen to make public details of their cases and allegations about their consideration. In those circumstances, the Home Office gave information that was necessary to set the record straight in response to telephone inquiries that it received and, subsequent to the information being given by the Home Office, it was also used by others.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the outstanding success of Operation Christmas Cracker? Is he aware that some 12,000 police officers in 40 force areas today made a number of staggered raids in which more than 2,000 suspects were arrested, and recovered property ranging from bicycles to reptiles? Does he agree that that is one of the best Christmas presents that people could have?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who touches on a matter that is of importance to everyone. I certainly welcome the priority given to today's operation, which involves some 40 police forces and has occasioned more than 2,000 arrests. There is no doubt that, over the past couple of years, innovative policing methods have made a distinct impact on the crime level, and we are now beginning to see the crime statistics fall. It is policing of that sort that can give people considerable reassurance. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff about crime falling, but it is a matter of importance to the public out there.

Q5.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2206]

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

Has the Prime Minister seen the astonishing reports in the press that the official video of the party conference has been doctored to make the party chairman appear good, and to play down the popularity of the Secretary of State for Defence in the party? If the Conservative party cannot tell the truth about its own conference, is it any wonder that no one trusts it on tax?

From the party that has more spending pledges and higher tax in the pipeline than anyone else, I find that ironic. On the newspaper reports, the hon. Gentleman should look at reality, not newspaper reports.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that high-quality textiles from Yorkshire were used in the new James Bond film? James Bond may be ruthless in what he does to his enemies, but he is also particular about what he wears. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three west Yorkshire textile companies that were involved in that project?

I am certainly happy to congratulate west Yorkshire and the textile industry and I hope that, as a result of that extra advertisement, they will sell far more of their textiles at home and abroad.

Q6.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 December. [2207]

The Prime Minister describes himself as a one-nation Tory. Will he therefore tell us which is fairer—abolishing capital gains and inheritance taxes or implementing a starting rate of income tax of 10p?

I see that the shadow Chancellor is here. One of his hon. Friends, also a Front Bencher a year or so ago, referred in very scathing terms to precisely the sort of proposition that the shadow Chancellor made. It is a gimmick and the shadow Chancellor knows it. What is fair is to lower the basic rate of tax to 20p, which is what we are doing by raising thresholds so that one in four people now pays tax at 20p, by cutting the tax on savings for all basic-rate taxpayers so that they only pay 20p, and by reducing the basic rate of tax.

The hon. Lady reveals the deep innate distaste of the Labour party for cutting taxes. It is a spending party and a tax-raising party, while we cut taxes.

3.30 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I gave you prior notice. You will have just heard the Prime Minister refer to what appears to be a major change in the long-standing policy of the Home Office not to disclose to a third party confidential information concerning anyone involved in immigration or asylum applications. In view of the disclosure by Conservative central office of information concerning a Mr. Igbiuidu, a Nigerian national seeking asylum in this country, could you, Madam Speaker, arrange for the Home Secretary to make an early statement about what changes the Home Office has made in its policy of not disclosing information about individual applications?

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of his point of order. I certainly heard the Prime Minister's response today. I understand that the information was released by the Home Office. I, as Speaker, have no responsibility for the actions of Government Departments, but even so I took the opportunity this morning to look at the matter and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is precedented.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to look in the Official Report tomorrow at question No. 1 to the Prime Minister, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). He asked a closed question. We all understand the ground rules. A closed question prevents any supplementary from being asked, other than in relation to the subject matter of the question.

My complaint is that the Prime Minister did not respond either in detail or by implication to the question, which specifically asked whether he would meet general practitioners from Lichfield. There was no mention of Lichfield in the Prime Minister's reply, and certainly not in relation to general practitioners. If the rules are to apply, a Minister has to respond to a question, or it is unfair to Opposition Members.

Sit down. I am taking no further points of order on this matter. Indeed, it was not a point of order anyway. I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers. We shall now get on with the business of the House.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us could not hear what you said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). For clarification, could you tell us whether you said that the procedure was precedented or a precedent?

It is precedented. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come to see me I will give him the information.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw to your attention the happy fact that, after 15 months, I am back in service?

It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman back. I shall look for quality contributions from him in future.

Bill Presented

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland)

Mr. Secretary Forsyth, supported by Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Dorrell and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to enable licensing boards to make byelaws including licensing conditions relating to certain events involving music and dancing and to make new provision for the composition of licensing boards for licensing divisions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

That the Income-related Benefits Schemes and Social Security (Claims and Payments) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2303) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Orders Of The Day

Ways And Means

Order read for resuming debate on Question [29 November].

Amendment Of The Law

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  • (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply, acquisition or importation otherwise than by—
  • (i) zero-rating or exempting supplies of goods which are, or are to be, subjected to a fiscal or other warehousing regime; or
  • (ii) zero-rating or exempting supplies of services on or in relation to such goods;
  • (b) for refunding any amount of tax otherwise than to persons constructing or converting buildings in cases where the construction or conversion is not in the course or furtherance of a business;
  • (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or
  • (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
  • Question again proposed.

    Budget Resolutions And Economic Situation

    I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the first Ways and Means motion. It may be convenient if at this stage I also announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the motion on public expenditure which is being debated together with the Budget resolutions.

    3.35 pm

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had three principal objectives in his Budget: first, to maintain the Government's determination to make this country the enterprise centre of Europe; secondly, to enhance still further the priority that we give to three vital public services—education, the health service and the battle against crime—while reducing overall public expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product; and, thirdly, to pursue the Government's objective to allow people to keep more of their own money through a programme of significant tax cuts. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for producing a Budget that achieved all three of those objectives. He has delivered a Budget that will get borrowing down, secure our reputation for governing responsibly and in the national interest, and continue to promote a sustainable, lasting recovery.

    I referred to our determination to build in this country the enterprise centre of Europe. We have recognised as a Government—perhaps more frankly than any other Government—that over the past 100 years, our position as a trading nation, from about 1860 onwards, has been one of relative decline. As a Government, we inherited in 1979 an economy heading for still more serious decline—structurally unsound, grossly overmanned, seriously unproductive and ridden with industrial disputes. It was widely acknowledged that in 1979 this country was the sick man of Europe.

    Today, we are among Europe's fastest growing economies. The United Kingdom grew faster than G7 average growth in 1993 and 1994, and we are set to do so again this year. The International Monetary Fund expects us to join Germany at the top of the G7 growth league in 1996. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has praised the change. Its survey of the UK noted:

    "the UK's sweeping structural reforms are yielding dividends in a more flexible, competitive, and less inflation prone economy."

    The Minister refers to sweeping structural reforms. Has he noted the sweeping structural reform in my constituency, where an American company, Campbell Soups—60 per cent. of its share capital is owned by one family—was able to take a decision which closed one of the most advanced food-producing plants in the country, owned by Home Pride, effectively wiping out 123 jobs at a stroke? Home Pride was profitable last year; it made £4 million. The entire food industry is outraged, and my constituency is outraged, yet the Government stand back and do nothing. Who is going to step in to stop such companies wrecking the local economy in my constituency? If the right hon. Gentleman has any honour, will he stand at the Dispatch Box and join me in appealing to the British people to boycott the products of the company—Campbell soups and Fray Bentos corned beef—so that it knows that we will not stand aside and watch it wreck a constituency such as mine?

    Of course I do not like unemployment being created in any constituency in any circumstance. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) seriously. Was he saying that a future Labour Government would become involved in preventing companies from closing down? Would a future Labour Government be prepared to offer subsidies to such a company? Is that one more—

    No, I will not give way. This is a question not for the hon. Gentleman, but for Front-Bench Members of his party. What faces us today is old Labour anticipating old demands that it will make to a future Labour Government. Perhaps the deputy leader of the Labour party will tell us how much money is tucked away in the coffers of a potential Labour Budget to save jobs in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described.

    I noticed another characteristic of old Labour when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke against inward investment, cynically attacking one of the most successful aspects of the British economy.

    Why does the right hon. Gentleman not carry out his promise of a short time ago, when he talked at the Tory party conference about intervening before breakfast, before dinner and before tea? Why, in this respect, does he not intervene before the soup?

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, I and my right hon. Friends have intervened time and again and the result has been that there have been more than 4,700 inward investments into this country which are creating or safeguarding 700,000 jobs. That is the sort of intervention in which we believe, creating an enterprise economy which is making us the most successful enterprise centre of Europe.

    It is interesting that this is the new Labour party. At any sign of success, any inward investment by overseas companies or any decision to cause a redundancy, the Labour party is up in arms with indignation. There is nothing new about the Labour party. Labour Members are the oldest men and women, psychologically, in British politics.

    There is no point in my giving way when the Labour party has given way to every intellectual argument that this party has paraded over the past 16 years. Labour Members—the whole lot of them—do not realise that they are intellectually flat on their backs.

    The people of this country must make a decision. Do they want this country's economy to be judged by the standards of the Labour party, or by the standards of the men and women running the world's most successful international companies who, in the freedom they enjoy, are choosing to invest in this country—a country that the Tories have made the most successful in Europe? Which is the right judgment? Should people choose Labour's restrictionism, which harks back to yesterday, or the Tory party's bringing the investment that will create prosperity and jobs tomorrow?

    The Deputy Prime Minister closed the pits and put 30,000 miners out of a job. Why are new mines now being opened in the north-east of England? Why are companies opencasting half my county? Why is that happening when the right hon. Gentleman put 30,000 miners on the dole?

    I took that most uncomfortable decision for the same reason as Labour Ministers took exactly the same decisions year after year after year, in the unhappy circumstances when they sat temporarily on the Treasury Bench. They took that decision—as I did—because the industry was uncompetitive. The reason why the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) can point to the fact that new mines are being opened, new opportunities are being created and coal is being exported is that under the private sector, the coal industry is competitive. That is the transformation which has come about.

    Bearing in mind the fact that I voted against the coal proposals to which my right hon. Friend has referred, but moving further forward, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Labour party demonstrates its utter hypocrisy by continuing to cavil and complain about how we are running the economy, when the Labour party was behind the exchange rate mechanism and is in favour of further integration into monetary union? Will my right hon. Friend say here and now that the United Kingdom will never go back into an exchange rate mechanism? It is precisely because we are outside that system that we are now competitive and have all the growth to which my right hon. Friend has rightly referred.

    Now that my hon. Friend has reminded me of the facts, I recall that he disagreed with me on the issue of the coal mines. But the day when my hon. Friend and I agree on all aspects of policy will be a day for the Tory party to rejoice from one end of the country to the other. I only suggest to my hon. Friend that he should use his considerable rhetorical skills not to attack the record of the Government but to attack the Labour party, which will otherwise take the place of the Government.

    I think that it is only fair that the Opposition spokesmen should have a chance to speak in the debate, as opposed to allowing the whole thrust of Labour party policy to be dictated by its Back Benches.

    I am being fair to the Labour party because I understand that it cannot make up its mind which way to vote tonight. Perhaps I should give Labour Members more chance to debate these matters between themselves. I will not give way to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd); she will forgive me. The fact is that international opinion and world commentators now praise the remarkable changes that have occurred in the British economy. To quote only one, the chairman of BMW said earlier this year:

    "structural change has made Britain by far the most attractive place to invest in Europe."
    The fact is that the change is happening in manufacturing, the service industries and in the vital super-highway industries of tomorrow. The people who have to make the judgments upon which so many jobs and so much investment depends know that the British economy under the Conservatives offers the best tax climate, excellent industrial relations, low inflation and a climate of enterprise which the Government are systematically extending and expanding year after year.

    There can be no clearer indication of the success of our policies—it is one that was at the heart of the Labour party's preoccupation—than the fact that unemployment has fallen by almost 750,000 over the past two and a half years. The United Kingdom now has more people in work than any other major European Union economy.

    I shall expand on some aspects of the Government's continuing agenda of competitiveness, to which the Chancellor referred in his speech. I shall start with the deregulation initiative and the burdens on industry. After the outstanding work of the task forces, first under Lord Sainsbury and now under Francis Maude, far more than 1,000 regulatory provisions have been earmarked for repeal or amendment. Some 500 will have been dealt with by the end of this month, and many more are in the pipeline.

    We are now saving companies hundreds of millions of pounds per annum, which of course feeds through into enhanced competitiveness, investment and jobs. Out of the hundreds of regulatory provisions, I shall give the House three examples. First, merely by simplifying the food temperature control regulations, the Government will have helped save industry about £40 million a year. Secondly, we have increased the proportion that charities can invest in equities from 50 to 75 per cent. On the charities' own estimates, that could increase their investment returns by some £200 million a year. Thirdly, the simplification of trade marks legislation is already generating savings of some £30 million a year.

    I am pleased to announce today the progress that we have made on a major area of regulatory concern—bringing in greater joint working by the Inland Revenue, the Contributions Agency and Customs and Excise to make dealing with Government more straightforward and less burdensome for business. Anyone in business will know that every year, two heavy documents arrive, one explaining the tax system, the other explaining the national insurance contribution system: two systems, two organisations, two sets of inspectors, two documents.

    Today, Peter Wyman, senior tax partner of Coopers and Lybrand and a member of Francis Maude's task force, has agreed to oversee and drive forward the project of joint working between the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency and to ensure that this delivers real early benefits to business. We are talking about concrete things that really matter to people who run businesses: like having just one initial audit visit covering both PAYE and national insurance; like a single telephone help line to deal with queries and to cut out the duplication of paperwork. Peter Wyman will bring exactly the external experience and perspective that we need for this task.

    I referred earlier to our inward investment. One third of all inward investment in Europe is now based here. Forty per cent. of all American and Japanese investment in Europe is here—world-class companies transforming management practices, our employment prospects, our research expertise and our export markets. This investment from overseas, together with very optimistic forecasts for domestic investment, is helping the transformation of our economic prospects. But there is more to it than that.

    Does my right hon. Friend believe that if the Government were to sign a sweetheart deal with BT allowing it to compete against the new entrants into the cable market, we would get the information super-highway built quicker? Would that have the effect of cutting off inward investment from such companies?

    I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would bear with me. I had it in mind to return to that subject a little later in my speech.

    This is not just about our industrial and commercial base. Britain is being modernised and rebuilt in what will be seen in perspective as the greatest period of urban renaissance since the 19th century. None of this is luck; it is as a deliberate consequence of the strategies that the Government have pursued.

    First, trade union reform and the privatisation of our nationalised industries played a critical part in restoring the wealth-creating ethos in this country. They have become established here despite the in-built resistance at every stage of the Labour party, which is characterised now only by its abject surrender on all those major issues of principle for which it fought so hard in the 1980s.

    No, we know into which Lobby the hon. Gentleman went all through the 1980s. We know the record.

    The fact is that our reforms in the restructuring of our economy and the privatising of our industries have become so entrenched here that they are the subject of intense investigation across the world. There is virtually no country today that is not exploring and experimenting with the ideas that we developed in the 1980s. They are established here and admired across the world. The fact is that we are moving on to new ideas that again will become part of the world culture change.

    Talking about new ideas, or perhaps rehashed old ideas, my right hon. Friend has been discussing regulation and competitiveness. I understand that there are one or two parties in the House—or even three—that have a proposal for a Scottish Parliament. What would that do for the competitiveness of industry and deregulation in Scotland? My right hon. Friend may intend to deal with that later, but if he does not, perhaps he could tell the House what he thinks about it.

    It is difficult to be sure how much extra tax it would lead to because I would have to know how much extra tax was going to be imposed by a future Labour Government across the national economy. As I understand the specifically Scottish dimension, the cost of an assembly in Scotland would be of the order of 3p. That, I think, is the tartan tax. That, broadly, would be the sort of cost that the people of Scotland would have to pay. The effect on inward investment in Scotland would be dramatic, but it would, of course, be hugely advantageous to England, Northern Ireland and Wales, because we would get the inward investment that socialism in Scotland would deter from going there. Those are the obvious consequences of a Scottish assembly, and that is why I do not expect to see it happen.

    We are now pioneering further developments that will affect the culture of public and private sector co-operation on a world scale. The first of those is the progress and vast potential of the private finance initiative. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear last week that we will also be extending the reach of another Government innovation—challenge funding. In many ways, the cultural shift implied in challenge funding is among the most pervasive and ambitious of our proposals.

    I well remember, 15-odd years ago, the hostility that greeted the concept of the urban development corporations, the enterprise zones and the urban grant. But once again, as in so many other areas where we have pioneered, others have been forced by events to follow the lead that we set. We have seen, and will see through regional challenge, city challenge and the fund for the single regeneration budget, billions of pounds of investment from the private sector being levered in by the stimulus of public money to regenerate and revitalise our inner cities.

    No one who has any experience or understanding of east London, Tyneside, Clydeside, the Tees, Merseyside, inner Birmingham, central Manchester or Cardiff bay can question that it is Conservative policies which have transformed those formerly dispirited urban areas. They have done that by creating a genuine public-private partnership, which has added hugely to what the public sector could ever have been able to afford.

    We have not just created a physical renaissance—we have changed the culture of co-operation at local level. We have forced the inward looking, self-serving local Labour authorities to work effectively in partnership with their local communities, which they have been elected to serve.

    Challenge funding has brought the Government, local authorities, training and enterprise councils and the private sector together. Regional challenge involves the European Commission in the same process. As a consequence of such partnerships, those involved have overcome differences and worked together for the benefit of the entire community. In order to win the competition for challenge funds, local authorities must now consult and involve their local communities. They must talk to tenants, teachers, the police and the industrial and commercial communities as they develop their plans and their priorities.

    That is the politics of progress. That is how one truly builds the concept of one nation in the most deprived parts of our country. That change has been brought about because the Government have changed the assumptions that local authorities can simply expect to use taxpayers' money to finance irresponsibility and dogma.

    The Secretary of State for the Environment has now proposed an expansion of challenge funding in local authority capital programmes. Shortly, the President of the Board of Trade will announce the result of the competition for the £160 million available under the regional challenge, which we have run with European funds.

    I cannot help but notice the continuing murmuring of anti-enterprise slogans from the Labour party. The most interesting thing about sitting on the Conservative Benches is to note that the only thing that ever excites the Labour party is yesterday's slogans. The more the leadership of the Labour party talks about new Labour, the quieter the Labour party becomes. The more it lapses into yesterday's jargon, the more hysterically reminiscent it becomes of the old Labour party I know and love. [Interruption.] I should have thought that with so much self-evident success, benefiting the Labour constituencies of this country—[Interruption.]

    Order. I refer to Mr. Campbell. I will have some order now from the Opposition Front Bench below the Gangway.

    I am referring to falling unemployment, which now creates derision among the Opposition. I am talking about inward investment in their constituencies and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) sneers. My right hon. Friends spend hour after hour trying to persuade companies to come here instead of the south of Ireland, Germany, Holland or anywhere else and all that we get from Opposition Members is sneering at the results that bring jobs to their constituencies.

    That is characteristic of what we know about the Labour party. They are never happier than when they are talking Britain down. The Labour party has latched on to the 1995 world competitiveness report. It is a report in which Chile comes top for having corporate boards which safeguard proper practices and Peru is thought to be the second most likely country in the world to have a low inflation rate in the next 12 months, despite the fact that the present inflation forecast for Peru in 1995 is 20 per cent. To cap it all, it is a report in which public confidence in financial intermediaries in Colombia surpasses that in all G7 countries except Canada.

    Not content with that piece of fantasy, the Opposition turn desperately to some of the OECD figures that the Government used in the competitiveness White Paper. The OECD figures do not help them enough, so what do they do? They stick Hong Kong and Singapore into the OECD league tables of GDP per head and select the position just above the United Kingdom in which to put them. They have no idea as to whether they should put them there, so they do whatever suits their political propaganda.

    The Opposition are not comparing like statistics with like, but that does not matter. It may not fit the facts, but it serves the narrow, knocking purpose of the Labour party. They leap about and start crowing that the United Kingdom has apparently slipped from 13th position in 1979 to 16th now and when they include Hong Kong and Singapore, it is 18th. However, they overlook inconvenient facts, as they always do. We might explore whether the Opposition are prepared to get rid of the unemployment benefits and the welfare benefits that we have here but do not exist in Singapore in order to raise the investment levels in Britain to those in Singapore. Perhaps that is new Labour policy, and that is how Britain's competitiveness is to improve, but we might be let into the secret this side of a general election campaign. Perhaps they have it in mind that people should live in conditions characteristic of those in some of the fastest growing economies of the far east. If they would be prepared to allow those housing conditions to exist here, people should be entitled to hear about it.

    I am not absurd; it is absurd that the Opposition are attempting to compare Britain with those two economies for their own narrow, selfish party purposes, although they were not included in the OECD figures.

    Even if one were talking about the events of the 1980s and 1990s, and considering the countries that were included, in 1979 we were the sick man of Europe. Nobody seriously argues with that. I cannot believe that the Opposition would defend it; that would imply that they wanted to go back to it. They certainly would go back to it, but they do not want to imply that intention.

    In 1979 we inherited the disasters of restrictive practices, rampant inflation and soaring debt. Thanks to that legacy I concede at once that we slipped to 19th place in 1981. I wholly fail to understand how anybody can imagine that in the immediate aftermath of the winter of discontent we could have seen anything other than the deterioration of the British economy. Where the whole game plan comes unstuck is that from 1981 onwards, we have worked painstakingly and steadily to right the effect of those years of decline. We have achieved something that the socialists opposite never achieved—real, lasting success. While Labour fiddles with statistics, we have been tackling the competition head on.

    It is not us who have been doing the fiddling, such as on the unemployment statistics.

    Use the word "fiddle" and the deputy leader of the Opposition wakes up. That is his stock in trade, and he is expert at it. I suggest that he calms down because I shall be coming to the deputy leader in a few minutes. Give me a minute or two to deal with the facts before we get to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Since 1981, we have seen a significant recovery in this country's status as a world economy because we have systematically put in place the conditions for competitiveness. Although Labour has changed its language, it has changed none of its instincts or ambitions. Labour in the end is the party of the producer, not the consumer. It is the party that will always serve the interests of organised labour as opposed to the interests of the market place. In the end, the Labour party will put its interests above those of the nation at large.

    If anyone wants to understand how little Labour has changed and how little it understands of the responsibilities of government—and of how one does not fiddle in Government—consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). The leader of the Labour party stitched up a deal with BT, which he announced with maximum publicity at the Labour party conference. If we in Government behaved like that, we would be in the courts for abusing our legal restraints. No wonder the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has been spending his time ever since trying to persuade the cable companies, which we encouraged to invest billions in Britain, that he had not done a deal with BT. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he has done a deal with BT that no one in the Government could do within the constraints of the law, in which case the right hon. Gentleman does not have any idea of the responsibilities of government, or he has not done a deal—in which case he deceived the British people into believing that he did. With the Opposition, if votes are for sale the price is of no regard.

    One of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to preside over the regulatory climate and to operate, objectively and on advice, within the law. I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who is an Opposition spokesman and could find himself in a responsible position and required to study evidence and listen to advice, in taking a wholly analytical and detached view of problems put before him—for that is the job that the hon. Gentleman shadows. Before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central received any independent advice or heard what the regulators had to say, he wrote to me:

    "Bskyb is abusing its market position by restricting consumer choice and disabling potential competitors."
    I read in the newspapers that the deputy leader and the Leader of the Opposition ordered the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central to withdraw that letter. After all, what is the point of flying all the way to Australia to suck up to the executives of the Murdoch empire if one's official spokesman back home is trying to carve up one piece of that empire at the same time as one is trying to win votes in Australia? I will give Mr. Murdoch a simple word of advice. Before he listens to the organ grinder, he should keep his eye on the monkeys back home. Nothing shows more clearly what Labour would be like in power and that it has no idea of the responsibilities within which a Government must operate. Labour is not fit to govern.

    Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I will get the letter.

    While the Deputy Prime Minister is getting the letter, I can tell him that legal advice was taken on the BT deal by the Select Committee. In fact, we took three sets of legal advice. We were told that the proposals in the Select Committee report were attainable, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said.

    I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might do better in government if he did some of the things that he suggested when he was in opposition. I also suggest that if he revisited his book "Where There's a Will", he might gain more backbone to take on the Treasury—as he said that he intended—and that might be helpful in the future.

    I am glad that I gave way. I read the Financial Times and

    If the hon. Gentleman had read my book, he would not have made such inane observations.

    If the BT deal announced by the Leader of the Opposition in his bravura performance was real and of value, why is he now telling the cable industry, to quote the Financial Times[Interruption.] I shall give way if anybody wants to tell me that what the Leader of the Opposition told the Financial Times is not true.

    The Opposition cannot have it all ways. What the Leader of the Opposition said at the party conference was designed to give the impression of a deal that would change the world. What he said today to the cable companies "at a private meeting"—not on the platform at the Labour party conference, not at a great gathering of the Labour party and with no trade unionists there to check the minutes—was

    "that BT would only be allowed access to the market after 1998 if it presented a detailed programme for the construction of a nationwide "broad-band" cable network—the so-called information superhighway."

    We are talking not about what the Select Committee said, but about what the Leader of the Opposition tried to con the British people into believing at the Labour party conference. Obviously, he was trying to have it both ways. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in government, he would have been in the courts—and the Opposition know it.

    The Budget debate has had the flavour of the old Labour party. One after another, Opposition Members have been demanding higher levels of public expenditure. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) wanted a community action programme. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) demanded investment in the construction industry. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) wanted —20 for the disabled. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) wanted more family credit. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) wanted regional development agencies.

    Opposition Members want policemen, money for roads, housing benefit, money for education, investment, money for lone parents and more overseas aid. Their wishes were all summed up by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) when he said:

    "Greater expenditure is justified in many areas."—[Official Report, 29 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1283.]
    All that at 10p in the pound income tax!

    I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) cannot answer the questions that have been put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and other colleagues. One after the other they have intervened, but they have received no answers. Not only is the Labour party not fit to govern, but its sums do not add up.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question that will be in the mind of a typical teacher in his constituency? "If I am to get £9 more a week out of the Budget, I would need a pay increase of 4 per cent. If I got a pay increase of 4 per cent., schools would not get another £848 million because that entirely depends on the teachers' pay settlement being much lower. Which do I take?" Surely the same Budget cannot offer both.

    The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of understanding the Chancellor's language. My right hon. and learned Friend referred clearly to the average income rising by £9 a week next year. He said time and again that that increase takes into account a range of factors, such as wage settlements, bonuses and overtime earnings, which will vary as between companies, employees and industries. That is bound to be the position, and everybody understands it, but the fact is that we have a conflict: a shadow Labour Chancellor who cannot answer any of the questions, and a Labour party that is determined to try to seek increased expenditure in programme after programme.

    I was interested to see a question that was tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), which read:

    "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in a full year of introducing a new 30 per cent. tax band on £3,000 of income above the basic rate band; and what would be the yield from introducing a 60 per cent. upper rate at a 40 per cent. rate limit of (a) £50,000, (b)£70,000 and (c)£100,000."—[Official Report, 2 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 426.]
    If that was an idle question from some relatively new and inexperienced Labour Back Bencher, I doubtless would do my best to draw that to the attention of the House, but it may not have quite the credibility that it has when it comes from a Labour Front Bench spokesman. What possible interest has a shadow Treasury spokesman of the parliamentary Labour party in asking the Treasury to calculate the product of a 60 per cent. upper rate tax band? Is it idle curiosity, or is it to help with the arithmetic? If it is the latter, it would help the shadow Chancellor to answer the questions, but at least we should know that this side of a general election campaign. [Interruption.] I read out the question. I did not get it wrong. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is a Front Bench spokesman. [Interruption.] If I have revealed that I was not sure that the hon. Gentleman was a Treasury spokesman, have I revealed something else: that there is a split between hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench—between the Treasury trying to keep expenditure down and some other departmental responsibility trying to find the money to pay for increased expenditure? I do not mind which way it is; all that I tell the people of this country is that the Labour party is planning a 60 per cent. tax rate and it is doing the calculations on that basis.

    Of course, the Labour party may try to suggest that one is raising claims about its policy that cannot be substantiated, but in the real world its own party members are asking the same questions. I happened to notice what the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said on the "Today" programme:

    "Gordon—
    I would be more respectful if I was referring to the shadow Chancellor—

    can say anything he likes if he thinks that is going to win the election. When Labour is in power they will be looking for other priorities apart from tax cuts".
    I have to say, of course, that the hon. Lady is a young and enthusiastic Member of the Labour Back Benches, so perhaps again we can dismiss it as an isolated occasion, but I have always been interested in the old hands who have been around a little longer, one of whom is our old friend the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was on the "Clive Anderson Talks Back" programme. [Interruption.] I understand that Labour Members do not want to hear it, but hear it they will, not just from me but from their right hon. Friend. Let me quote what he said:

    "The Labour Party doesn't want to cause trouble because we want to get this bunch of crooks out of Government." [Interruption.]
    We can unite the Labour party on that. He goes on to say:

    "And that's absolutely right".
    Now get the cheer ready, boys.

    "And then when we come to power, then you'll find the Labour Party is the same … party as it's always been."
    So there we have it—a party determined to egg up expenditure at every moment; a shadow Chancellor refusing to answer any of the questions; a shadow spokesman asking for calculations of the product of 60p in the pound income tax; and the old hands of the Labour party saying, "Let them say what they like as long as we get into power, then we will revert to type."

    I am not telling the Labour party anything that it does not know. It knows that the shadow Cabinet is torn apart by the traumas of the debate that is going on—the shadow Chancellor talking about 10p in the pound income tax.

    Well, the hon. Gentleman should go and tell the shadow Foreign Secretary that, because he blew his top when he first heard about it.

    Yes, he did.

    "Shadow Chancellor talks about denying welfare payments to those people who do not present themselves for work."
    The shadow Chancellor just did not tell his colleagues in advance, so the shadow Foreign Secretary flipped his lid when he was first told.

    The only thing that can be said for the deputy leader of the Labour party is that, as no one ever tells him anything, he cannot be blamed if anything goes wrong. I do not want to give the House a misleading impression about the deputy Leader of the Labour party. I do not want to give the impression that just because no one talks to him they do not love him. It has become abundantly clear through the media of The Times that at least someone loves the deputy leader of the Labour party.

    I was intrigued today to see that a young lady, Fleur Adcock, has written a little poem to the deputy leader. It reads:

    "In the dream I was kissing John Prescott—
    or about to kiss him; our eyes had locked
    and we were leaning avidly forward,
    lips out-thrust, certain protuberances
    under our clothing brushing each other's fronts,
    when my mother saw us, and I woke up."
    I must say, it was a merciful release for somebody.

    We are back with the essence of a Budget which has left the Labour party floundering with a wholly inadequate response. It is a Budget which will deliver an extra £9 a week to the average income in Britain. It is a Budget which has seen us pursue our priorities of extra expenditure on the health service, on education and on the police. It is a Budget which has seen us march on a journey which is intended to take us to our 20p in the pound tax rate. It has revealed, by the Labour party's abject inability to make up its mind which way to vote tonight, that it is a party of opposition and not fit to govern.

    4.22 pm

    On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate your guidance on a matter of some importance before the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) rises to move the amendment on the motion on public expenditure. The amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal party, which has not been selected, includes an honourable declaration of interest by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The amendment in the name of the leader of the Labour party includes a call to switch resources

    "to investment in transport from the cost of rail privatisation".
    Would not it have been helpful if the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East had also declared his interest arising from his sponsorship by a rail union?

    I have made my views known on this matter before and I shall not get further involved in it. The hon. Gentleman has raised such issues before, and I refer him to the Official Report.

    4.23 pm

    I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in line 4, after `tax', insert

    `other than in respect of value added tax on fuel and power for domestic or charity use'.
    The amendment gives the House an opportunity to vote again on the issue of VAT on domestic fuel.

    It was sad to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister today. I have much respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He has written a lot on many issues; I am in common accord with him on some, and in strong disagreement on others. But he rather treated the House to a speech that did not address the issue. It was more in accord with the circus than with a debate in the House of Commons. I am sad about that, because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is capable of making a more serious speech about the important issues involved in the Budget. The Budget debate is one of the most important debates in which the House engages in discussing the nature of the economy and the prosperity of the country.

    The Deputy Prime Minister is, in fact, more concerned with being the chief propagandist of the Tory party, an art in which he proved himself proficient today. We have heard of the fiddling of statistics from a Government who have fiddled the unemployment figures—among others—to such an extent that the responsibility for recording those figures has been taken from the Department for Education and Employment and given to the Central Statistical Office. At least they are now reported more honestly.

    The right hon. Gentleman's speech was indeed a propaganda speech. It continued much of the argument that he advanced on this morning's "Today" programme, when he spoke of the "sacrifice" that had to be made if we were to achieve the success to which he referred this afternoon. It is not a sacrifice made by millionaires such as the right hon. Gentleman, and the many other millionaires who have done very well under 16 years of Tory government. It is the low-paid—people who desperately need assistance—who have suffered, and have borne the heaviest tax burden.

    I find it offensive that it is those who have made the decisions in Cabinet who have benefited from those decisions, while launching an attack on people who desperately need the protection of a minimum wage. That is little enough to expect when more and more people are being driven down into poverty pay. That is what has happened in the 16 years of this Tory Government, and it is a disgrace to the country.

    Yes, a sacrifice has been made; but it has been made by the millions whom the Government have put out of work, often by deliberate acts of policy. Millions of low-paid people have been denied the protection of a minimum wage, and driven into poverty pay by exploitation.

    Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, on behalf of his party, to guarantee jobs for those who become unemployed as a result of a minimum wage?

    I will not take any lectures from any Tory Member about the level of employment, but I give the hon. Gentleman this guarantee: we shall be committed to putting employment at the top of our list of objectives as a Labour Government. We believe that there are certain things that the current Government could do now to return more people to work, rather than allowing them to waste away on the dole. I am talking about real jobs, not the "skivvy" jobs offered by the Budget.

    That is the challenge for us, and we readily accept it. I might add that it was a Labour Government who, after the war, produced full employment for the first time, despite the opposition of the Tory party of the day. That is a matter of record.

    If by some mischance the right hon. Gentleman manages to gain power, will he and his party bring back the national dock labour scheme, which ruined the port of Hull and turned it from the country's third port to its 15th? Hull is now recovering, and has doubled its trade since the Conservative party did away with the scheme.

    The hon. Gentleman is living in the past. Let me tell him what I would bring back: I would bring back a minimum wage, which would help an awful lot of employees in his shop who are earning very much less than that wage would be. Can the hon. Gentleman honestly say that those people are at least guaranteed the level of wages introduced by the Wage Councils Act? No, he cannot. He should look at his own business before he starts lecturing us about the conditions of people in jobs.

    A week has gone by since the Chancellor announced the 18th Tory Budget. The common theme—this year's Budget is no exception—is that these are Budgets for recovery. Every Tory Chancellor has said at the Dispatch Box, "This is another Budget for recovery." Lord Howe said it in 1983; the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said the same in 1992. According to the Government, we are always recovering, but we can never quite shake off the illness from which the country has suffered over the past 16 years.

    We have had time to study the Budget much more closely since it was announced last week, and we have had judgments from the media, economic experts, industry and hon. Members. It is clear from the general view that the Budget has failed to meet the needs of the nation. According to The Sun:

    "It was about as inspiring as a cold kipper."
    The Daily Mail questioned:

    "Where's the magic?"
    The Daily Express announced:

    "It's too little, too late."
    Those quotes are just from the Tory press, never mind anyone else. The CBI's welcome was distinctly lukewarm, and even senior members of the 1922 Committee are critical of the long-term failure to cut public expenditure and taxes even further. As most people have agreed, the Budget is the first step towards a grubby attempt to win the next general election.

    After the biggest tax hike in history in 1992, what has the Chancellor done to redress the balance? What principles are behind his new tax policies? Are they honest? No, they are deliberately misleading. Are they sustainable? No, and they show no desire to secure a more prosperous economy and greater employment. Do they reward hard work and provide opportunity? Certainly not in terms of providing real jobs and training. Are they fair? No, they are not.

    I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study the Budget. Last week, I asked the shadow spokesman for Trade and Industry whether there was any tax reduction in the Budget that her party opposed. I asked her whether there was any spending ceiling in the Budget that her party would increase. She found those questions difficult, and was unable to answer either of them. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has studied the Budget. Which tax cuts does he propose to vote against, and on which services will he advocate more spending?

    We have made it very clear that we disagree with the Budget's general strategy. I am moving an amendment to reduce value added tax on fuel. That is an important step, and hon. Members disagreed with the Government and supported us on that matter. We will undoubtedly approach taxation in a fair way. The Government do not. For the past 16 years, they have followed an unfair and regressive tax system. That is why we shall be fundamentally different.

    In the context of spending, we shall operate much more fairly the private finance initiative, which I was one of the first to advocate. [Interruption.] Conservative Members think they have discovered private finance initiatives, but when we spoke about them in the House, the Government constantly told us that we could not have them. The Chancellor will certainly confirm that. We disagree with the strategy, and we have made it clear that we disagree with the Government's taxation principles. We shall vote accordingly.

    The Budget hides multitudinous unfairnesses. Some 5 million people on benefits will not share in the 1p in the pound tax cuts or the widening of the 20p band. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister said that his objective and that of the Chancellor was to reduce the burden of taxation. I am afraid that is not the case, because it has been increased, even on the Chancellor's figures. The overall tax burden has increased, and the Chancellor agrees that people are £670 worse off than they were after the last Budget. By any measurement, that shows that, on their own criteria, the Government have failed to be fair on taxation.

    The right hon. Gentleman is again drifting away from the point. He cannot just be against a Budget strategy but not against any of its measures. A Budget is a combination of tax reductions that allow people to keep more of what they earn and what they save, and a series of public spending judgments about how much will be spent on each service. It strikes a balance between the interests of allowing people to spend their own money and providing good-quality public services.

    Is there any tax decision or spending decision in the Budget with which the right hon. Gentleman's party disagrees? If not, how can he oppose the Budget strategy? He is just saying that he does not have an opinion at all on the Budget's contents.

    I can well understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer continually wants to explain his Budget: the rest of the country has certainly not understood it, and gives it the thumbs down. We have an entirely different strategy from the Chancellor. For example, the Government have made great play—he keeps talking about it—about the windfall tax that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed, which they disagree with, but it is a proposal. We identify that extra tax with jobs, and we are entitled to do that.

    We disagree with the judgment exercised by the Government in cutting the resources in the training sector, which is vital. We disagree with the judgment in respect of the reduction in public expenditure. We disagree with the Budget's fundamental drift and direction, and we are entitled to do that. We are called the Opposition at this stage, not the Government, and we are discussing the Government's proposals.

    The Budget hides a multitude of unfairness. Five million people on benefits will get no share of the Government's 1p in the pound tax cut or of the wider 20p band, yet those people must still pay VAT on fuel. In Britain, deaths from hypothermia are much higher than in Scandinavian countries, where climates are colder. Today's cold weather reminds us that pensioners cannot afford to turn up their heating as easily as we can in the House of Commons.

    It is a disgrace, and an indictment of the proposal in the Finance Bill to cut £30 million from the energy conservation budget, that that money could have been used to put people back to work in decent jobs, providing energy conservation so that pensioners could live with a little more heat and a little less insecurity. That is what we call jobs and social justice, where we meet the need for a real job and for people who are desperate simply to have the essential requirement of decent heat in winter. That is one clear example.

    If the Chancellor really had some money to spare, would it not have been fairer to the old, the low-paid and the unemployed to cut VAT on fuel? That is what we will offer the House the opportunity to do. Again, it might be the only tax reduction that has ever been forced on the Government, apart from last year's VAT cut, when the Government were prevented from putting up VAT on fuel. We will give the House the opportunity to do that again.

    An awful lot of Conservative Members have made it clear that they support that. Why? Because they think that it is a more progressive way of tax than the regressive measures that identify much of the Government and Budget proposals.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on VAT on fuel, and I will join him in the Lobby this evening, but will he explain why, when the Scottish National party and its allies gave the House the same opportunity on 21 January this year, he and his colleagues abstained, calling it a cynical ploy? Why was it a cynical ploy in January and right tonight?

    The hon. Gentleman must make his own judgment on this matter. We have given the House an opportunity to vote, and we are the only party that is likely to achieve victory. If the SNP and other political parties join us, we will have achieved that objective, and many pensioners, people who are dependent on heat, will be very pleased that again the Labour party has led the way in making another tax reduction.

    Why was it a cynical ploy in January and the whole Opposition strategy tonight?

    I keep getting an explanation as to why it should be. I stick to my argument, which is that we have put the case and given the House an opportunity to cut VAT from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. As the House knows, we cannot reduce it any further than that, because of the requirement of European Community regulations. We will provide the House with that opportunity.

    These Budget tax cuts are unfair, dishonest and typical of many of the Tory tax proposals: the more one has, the more one gets. These tax proposals give nothing to millions of people, but their tax burden keeps increasing. Despite what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, the burden has increased from 34.7 per cent. of gross domestic product to 36.5 per cent. this year. Does he accept that figure? I assume that he does—they are the Government's figures. He suggests that the Government's objective is to reduce the overall tax burden, but nothing in the Budget reduces that burden. Even on the Chancellor's projections, it increases the burden.

    What did the Leader of the Opposition mean when he told the CBI recently that, under a Labour Government, there would be no return to the old penal rates of taxation, such as 80 per cent? Did he mean a return to 70 per cent. or 60 per cent?

    We have made it clear that we will not return to penal rates of taxation. The hon. Gentleman has a reputation as someone who is concerned about the less fortunate in our society. Perhaps he should concern himself with the penal rates that affect people on welfare—if they take work, an 80 or 90 per cent. penalty is imposed on them. I wish that as much attention was paid to that problem as Conservative Members pay to penal rates or the top rate of tax.

    We will make a judgment on the different levels of tax rates at the appropriate time. My right hon. Friend has taken an important step forward by stating our policy on the lower end of rates. I understand that Conservative Members are arguing whether 10p or 15p is practical. It is certainly practical in other countries. It is an important step towards measurable wealth which will help us to find the best ways to get people from welfare into work. It is an important point, and I shall deal with it in more detail later.

    Are the right hon. Gentleman and his party considering at some stage increasing the top rate of tax from 40 per cent? If so, what parameters is he thinking about?

    We will make a decision about that level of tax at the appropriate time. It is fair to assume that there will be another Budget before the general election, and I do not know what the Chancellor will include in it. We have an obligation to make clear, at the appropriate time, our precise approach to taxation at all levels of income.

    What characterises this Budget is that the Chancellor gives with one hand while he takes away with the other. Council tax, car tax, petrol tax and cigarette tax are all going up—while for a few top earners there will be huge pay increases. They will be hundreds of pounds better off, yet the average family will be £670 a year worse off than they were at the last general election—and that is before the rise in council tax is taken into account. As many of my hon. Friends have said, it is a 7p up, 1 p down Budget. It is unfair, regressive and a flop.

    I do not have much time, and I have given way a number of times already.

    At the end of the Budget speech, the Chancellor boasted that it would put Britain on course to becoming the enterprise centre of Europe—a soundbite if ever I recognised one. On what basis does he claim that, when the public sector borrowing requirement will be £29 billion—£6.5 billion higher than the right hon. and learned Gentleman predicted a year ago? I am worried by the Chancellor's promises, because every time we have measured his promises against reality, he has been way off target. The PSBR is an example of that.

    The PSBR is going up, inflation is rising, growth is slowing down, and the balance of payments is deteriorating despite a massive 25 per cent. devaluation. The Government have made great play about Labour Governments and devaluation, yet they introduced a 25 per cent. devaluation in one go, and then claimed the credit for the increase in exports.

    With such a devaluation, there should have been a trade surplus—but that has not happened under this Tory Government. Instead, there is an increasing deficit in the balance of trade. It is the slowest investment recovery from any recession this century. Investment in manufacturing—that crucial area of wealth creation —is 20 per cent. lower than it was in 1979, and it is falling as a proportion of gross domestic product. It is a catalogue of failure.

    The Deputy Prime Minister made great play about the world prosperity league. The right hon. Gentleman's own report, "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead", published this year, contains a table showing that Hong Kong and Singapore have overtaken Britain. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that Hong Kong and Singapore had done well because they did not provide the sort of unemployment benefits or housing programme that Britain provides.

    Will he tell me which of the following countries—they are all ahead of us in the prosperity league—do not have unemployment benefit or a housing programme: Luxembourg, United States of America, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Iceland, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Australia? All those countries have done better than Britain. Will he tell us which one of those countries does not have a housing programme or does not pay unemployment benefit? Can he tell us that, or was he mistaken in his remarks?

    The right hon. Gentleman was talking about those countries that had done better than Britain, and he suggested that Singapore and Hong Kong had done better because they did not pay unemployment benefit or have a housing programme. I do not know whether he reads his Department's publications. Obviously not: otherwise, he would know that all the countries I mentioned have done better than Britain. It is nonsense for him to suggest that that has anything to do with benefits or the social costs involved in providing decent housing.

    Another interesting fact is that almost all those countries have a minimum wage. Why have they done better than Britain when the Government say that a minimum wage would be a problem for our economy? The people who make that claim should face facts. Most of those countries have a minimum wage, but they do far better than Britain in the world prosperity league. Does the right hon. Gentleman look at the evidence and take it into account, or does he just ignore it? A few years ago, the right hon. Gentleman used to believe in a minimum wage. He has changed his mind. However, the principle is still right, even if he has moved away from it.

    As well as the world prosperity league, we should study what the OECD has said—an organisation that the right hon. Gentleman claims has said Britain is doing well. I accept that it has said some good things, but it has also said some bad things. It, too, has leagues, and they show that employment in Britain is lower than it was in 1979, that Britain has plunged to 21st in the investment league, to 24th in the skills league, and to 35th in the world education league.

    Those figures show the total and chronic failure by the Government to provide the essentials to make Britain a prosperous country. That is why Britain is falling down the leagues: we do not train our people sufficiently, and we do not give them a good enough education. We do not invest sufficiently in our industries. All that has happened while the Government have been in power, and it has contributed to our dismal fall from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league. In addition, most of that happened while the Deputy Prime Minister, in previous jobs, has been in charge of competitiveness. He has been in charge of that area of policy over the past five or six years, but it has been nothing but a dismal failure. I do not know whether the fact that he is Deputy Prime Minister will make any difference. Perhaps he can now take on the Treasury. We hope that Britain's position will improve, but our judgment is that the Budget will not do anything to bring that about.

    The international tables are clear proof of the long-term failure of Tory economic policy, yet the Chancellor thinks that it will put Britain on course to be the enterprise centre of Europe. What will the Budget do to reverse Britain's decline? Nothing. All it has done is give us new theories and new targets.

    In the 1980s, we were plagued by the theories of Friedman and the money supply—now generally discredited. Now we have the target of reducing public sector expenditure to below 40 per cent. of GDP. We are told that, if only that can be achieved, we will have the self-sustaining, non-inflationary growth the Government talk about continually. Do they not realise that it is not just how much they spend, but where they spend it? Labour spent money on investment and kept people in work. There were fewer than 1 million unemployed when the Government took office.

    It is sheer arrogance for the Government to say constantly that somehow they have improved the employment situation—the number of unemployed people has risen from 1 million to 2.5 million, even by the fiddled figures. If the Government remain in power, there is the possibility that we will go into the next century with more than 2 million people unemployed. That is not only morally unacceptable, but creates massive problems with public finances which we are now trying to address. We are identifying the problems of failure.

    We have to make it clear that the Tories—apparently spend more on keeping people out of work than using it to get them back to work. That is one of the essential differences between the Labour party and the Tories. They have cut public investment and increased public consumption—despite the enormous opportunities for investment. In the history of this country, no Government have ever been blessed with more resources in such a short period—from the £100 billion that they have taken from North sea oil to the £120 billion from privatising nationalised industries at a knockdown price.

    That money has largely been wasted on keeping people on the dole. No Government in our history have had such resources, or, indeed, ever had such an opportunity to do something about fundamentally changing the relationship between investment and consumption to achieve greater prosperity in this country. That has always been our case, and the problem which we have always tried to address. It is not easy to deal with politically—I readily accept that—but, with such vast resources, the Government had an opportunity to make that change. No other Government would have squandered those resources like this Tory Government.

    As last year's excellent report on manufacturing competitiveness by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—said, investment is the key. The Committee catalogued the decline in manufacturing, which it said was due to the lowest levels of investment, training, qualifications and skills among our people. It pointed out where the failures lie.

    If one reads the report's conclusions and looks at what this Budget—and the one before—have done, one sees that it has made no recommendations along the lines of those suggested by the Committee designed to deal with problems in reversing the decline in our manufacturing industry. The Government have ignored the Committee's recommendations. We have to invest if we want the economy to grow. That is the crucial variable in every successful economy which one studies. We need long-term investment in capital, infrastructure and people.

    In Germany, Japan, the United States and any other major competitor country, investment, with an industrial strategy, is the key to economic prosperity. Why should industrial strategy be considered an ideological difference between the parties in Britain, when Governments of the left and right in various successful countries have managed to deploy a proper role for Government in developing one?

    Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Deputy Prime Minister has often advocated the case for such a strategy. I thought that he was right to do so, and I wait to see whether he is successful in his new job in challenging the rather short-term view of the Treasury which has often dictated matters.

    No.

    Such a strategy is also the key in the Asian tiger economies, about which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister often talk, and on which the Deputy Prime Minister is so keen. In those economies, public and private finances work together in partnership, and the Government have a proper role to play. That is true of Singapore, as it is of Hong Kong. Any visitor to those countries notes that their deserved prosperity is as much to do with public as private investment. That is also true in Italy and Norway and a number of other European countries, because they invest more in capital and people. It is about not simply wages, but skills and productivity.

    It is a mistake to suppose that the inward investors of whom we hear so much, and whom we welcome, come to Britain to take advantage of low wage rates or to dodge the social chapter. That is just not true. If that were the case, why has three times more investment left this country than come into it in the 16 years of Tory government? Of course, in a global economy, money flows in and out, but one cannot make the judgment that the money coming into this country is doing so simply because of cheap wages, and that the money leaving countries is because their wage levels are usually higher than ours. One cannot assume that that is somehow an indictment, and that we must therefore aim for the lowest costs with lower wages, and get rid of the social chapter. Such conditions have often been present in the countries where the money has gone.

    Inward investors come to Britain because of the international advantage, and we should recognise that. Such an advantage is often down to our language —a common language and culture. Of course, we are also close to Europe. Those are the reasons why companies invest in this country.

    That demonstrates that persistence pays off. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he think that one of the reasons—just one—why companies invest in this country is that we have the lowest rate of corporation tax? While we are at it, does he support the 1p reduction in income tax, given that a year ago he said that he would not support the Labour party if it were ever to go down the road of cutting income tax?

    I thought that the Whips gave out only one question, not two. I shall deal with the first one. Again, if one looks at the OECD figures and the levels of taxation, whether corporation or personal, one sees that no common criteria produce a successful result. In some countries, conditions are very different. From the evidence, one can see that even those countries with high corporation tax have done better in getting more people back to work and attracting more investment. In some cases, low taxation has had that effect. [Interruption.] I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the OECD figures—

    Order. I deplore seated interventions, especially given the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has already been allowed to make certain interventions quite properly.

    Basically, investors come here because of the access to markets, especially Europe. Of course, the devaluation of the pound by 25 per cent. has been attractive too.

    Investors come, and they are welcome, but we cannot rely only on inward investment for future growth. We have to boost the indigenous investment—that is another thing that the Budget has failed to do. It has failed to provide any additional incentive for private investment in manufacturing. Industry has made that absolutely clear. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made it clear that we would do more on allowances. Again, there is disagreement between the parties on the allowances that investors get against tax, but at least we argue the case.

    The Budget has certainly failed to provide any additional incentive for small and medium firms. They clearly do not think that there has been much in the Budget to help them. There has not been any additional incentive for private investment in plant, training and public investment, on which much of the private sector is dependent, especially in construction and manufacturing. It is often not understood, and rather unfortunate, that much private investment is very much dependent on public sector investment, whether in housing or in various other industries. It is very important for manufacturing companies.

    Yet the Government have been pursuing cuts in public expenditure—by 6 per cent. this year and 11 per cent. for 1996. It is hardly a Budget for investment. Given that investment is crucial to the development of prosperity and to moving up that league of prosperity, the Budget had to be designed to deal with investment. Frankly, it failed to do so.

    The only argument given by the Government is that of the private finance initiative. We have heard it in every Budget since the Tories stumbled on the idea. I have spent a number of years at the Dispatch Box opposite various Chancellors and Secretaries of State for Transport arguing that there was a role for a private finance initiative—indeed, a very good role. I think that the Chancellor concedes that. I wish him well, so that public and private finance meet in investment.

    Such investment should be in addition, but the Government's problem is that such investment often hides cuts in public expenditure; it is used as a smokescreen. It is often suggested that extra money through private finance will replace cuts in public expenditure, but, frankly, that does not happen. The Chancellor knows that to be true; the figures are very clear on it. Nevertheless, the idea is sound—it should be: it came from the Labour party. But the Government have ruined it through incompetence, sheer ignorance and blind ideological prejudice.

    On transport, it was Labour's plan to bring public-private leasing into British Rail that forced the Government into a £150 million leasing deal two years ago. It was in our manifesto, after all. The Chancellor must have read it at the time. It was a good idea. They used to tell me that it could not be done. Yes, it was a leasing agreement, but leasing deals can be involved in private finance. We showed them that it could be done, but now it has been ruined. The whole process is being undermined by a Treasury still wedded to arcane principles and run by people who do not understand what they are doing.

    I know that the Chancellor has sent a number of his civil servants away for training and education to break the cultural logjam in attitude, and I wish him well. That is absolutely right. Indeed, it was one of the recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East and myself on changes in private finance.

    The Economist said that the Government's proposals were a "dog's breakfast". The PFI has replaced actual investment with expressions of intent. We have seen the growth of the PFI in the Government's wish list—from 78 projects in 1993 to 1,500 today, worth almost £27 billion. But only 64 of those projects have been completed, and less than £500 million of private finance has been levered into public investment. The private finance initiative has been a smokescreen for the Treasury, behind which it can cut hundreds of millions from public investment, which is set to be cut by a further 18 per cent. over the next three years.

    The right hon. Gentleman has made many disparaging references to cuts in public expenditure. He has also said that he fundamentally questions the whole Budget judgment. In the view of the Labour party, what percentage of gross domestic product is it appropriate for the Government to take?

    At the time of the general election, the hon. Gentleman promised that the Government would cut taxes. I do not know how he answers that point now. The quality of public expenditure is as important as the quantity. We suggest that, instead of wasting money on keeping people on the dole—about £20 billion—we should use it to put people back to work. I will come back to that point in a second.

    The real point about private finance is that our transport infrastructure is crumbling and our construction industry is on its knees. Our businesses are not getting proper access to the markets in the United Kingdom and abroad. The Birmingham northern relief road should have been built in 1992. It has been delayed, and is still not being built, despite all the arguments about private finance.

    Good, modern railway works in York were closed down, simply because the Treasury would not approve any more leasing agreements, which would have enabled the carriage works to produce the trains. Yet more than 50 per cent. of the trains on Network SouthEast are over 25 years old. The leasing agreements were a simple way in which to finance new trains, which would have kept people in work instead of putting them on the dole. If people are in work, they can pay taxes and contribute to providing other services. That is the question we face today.

    The east coast main line is more modern than the west coast main line, which is falling down, because it has had the investment. When the Chancellor and I were walking to another place, I said to him that, yet again, there was a Bill on the channel tunnel rail link. There has been a Bill on the channel tunnel rail link every year since 1986. Why is that? It is purely because the Government could not deal with the problems involved in financing the link.

    The Secretary of State for Transport at that time, Lord Parkinson, told us that the link would not be built if the Government could not find private money, yet he is leading one of the consortiums bidding for about £2 billion of taxpayers' money to pay for the link. In the meantime, we have lost the benefits that come from a modern transport infrastructure.

    That kind of disaster has plagued Britain in dealing with these matters, and one hopes that there will be a sensible compromise on the problems, with which I know the Chancellor is dealing. The issue is how we deal with sharing the risk between the public and private sectors. I had intended to say more about that, but time prevents me from doing so. It is an important question, and unless we solve the problem, we shall not be able to unlock the tremendous amount of private funds that are available to help us build the infrastructure. The infrastructure must be modernised, so that our regions can compete as they desperately need to do.

    Regions are important, yet they are not mentioned in the Budget statement. We need to expand investment in training, jobs and regional economic development. We believe that that can be done, and that public and private finance can play their part. The release of local authority housing receipts must be a classic way in which to release funds. The Government admit that £4 billion or £5 billion is still held in the accounts.

    We are paying about £2 billion to keep a quarter of a million building workers on the dole. We have record levels of homelessness. Why can we not release people from the dole, provide jobs, train our youngsters in apprenticeships, and meet the requirements of jobs and social justice? That is what we think needs to be done. Construction jobs are real jobs—one can give many more examples.

    The Government's only contribution to employment has been to propose the workfare scheme. This is the Government who told us in 1979 that Labour was not working. Unemployment has now grown to 2.5 million even on the Government's fiddled figures, yet all they offer is a workfare scheme. That came about as a panic measure. After the Budget was received badly, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister went on an assault over the weekend to improve people's attitude toward the Budget.

    There were two proposals. The first was workfare—chain gangs—which does not mean proper jobs. There will be no education, no training and no connection with the real jobs my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East talked about when introducing our welfare-to-work proposals. The Government are forcing people to depend on the welfare services.

    There was a second element in the assault this weekend on people's attitudes to the Budget. Can the Deputy Prime Minister answer this question, once and for all? He has been asked this before, and I have written to him to this effect. Is it a fact that people will be £9 better off as a result of the Budget? If so, does the figure include a 4 per cent. rise in earnings? Are the Government calculating that there will be a 4 per cent. increase in earnings next year in reaching the figure of £9?

    Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us? If he will not tell us, I assume that that must be the case. The Government are now telling us that they have a 4 per cent. wage policy; no doubt that will be noted. Is that what the Deputy Prime Minister wants? Is that what he is saying? The House and the country will note that the Deputy Prime Minister has no intention of doing anything.

    I was going to save the answer for my winding-up speech, but there is little else for me to answer, as the right hon. Gentleman has not yet mentioned one measure in the Budget with which he disagrees.

    The figure of £450 a year better off next year is the usual figure that is given if one asks the Treasury to make assumptions about the growth of the economy, about inflation, about earnings and about the effect of all the Budget changes. That includes changes that mean that tax goes up, such as the increase in tax on tobacco, and those that mean that taxes go down, such as the reduction in income tax. Every year, the Opposition ask the Government those questions, and the Treasury answers the questions on the basis of those assumptions.

    The answer this year is the best forecast that could be made for next year. The average family will be £9 a week better off as a result of our best forecast of the economy and the Budget measures next year. That is what I said when introducing the Budget. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is deliberately misusing the figure and claiming that I said that there would be a £9 a week reduction in taxation. I did not say that. I talked about what matters to people—the money in their pockets, and the extent to which they are benefiting from the economy's recovery.

    It is very clear that the figure means that there will be a 4 per cent. increase in earnings. The Chancellor has not rejected that argument—indeed, all his arguments take that point into account. We have deduced from his figures what the tax reductions will be and what their effect will be on the average family. When we deduct that from the effects of the other changes, it is clear that the figure of £9 a week assumes an increase in wages of 4 per cent.