asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the rise in the accumulated level of personal debt.

Over the last five years personal sector financial liabilities, including borrowing by unincorporated businesses, have been rising at a steady rate, matched by similar growth in personal sector financial assets.

Will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that the official figures do not tell the full story, because they do not include things such as building societies, families, friends and employers who lend money? Has he seen last year's estimates by the market research analysts Mintel? They show that consumer debt was increasing at £8 billion to £10 billion per annum. Does he think that that level of increase is sustainable? Does he agree that the consumer debt increase is simply contributing to the worsening trade figures?

The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that building society lending and things like that are included in the figures that I have quoted. Although lending has been going up, as I have said, assets have been going up as well. An important point in this context is that net financial wealth, which is assets minus liabilities, has increased by nearly 150 per cent. since 1980. Obviously. it is important that people should borrow prudently so that they can service and repay their debt. It is clear that, on balance, consumption is rising at a moderate level, and investment is rising at about the same level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the biggest item of personal debt for most people is the mortgage repayment? Is he doing his best to try to get interest rates down in the interest, apart from anything else, of the counter-inflation policy?

A mortgage is certainly a major item in a person's financial affairs and it is healthy that more and more people have the opportunity to obtain mortgages. There is a question about interest rates later on the Order Paper, and I will deal with that point when we come to it.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that irresponsible pressure is brought to bear on some people by credit organisations which make no effort to ensure that loans can be repaid? Is there not some way in which he can protect consumers against these ruthless people who are behaving in an irresponsible manner, damaging individuals and the economy?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, consumer protection is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Bank of England recently issued a letter to all lending institutions urging them to observe prudent lending measures in their lending. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction has echoed that point to the building societies in respect of lending for housing. It is important that these institutions observe prudent lending policies. I believe that, coupled with prudence by those who borrow, that is the best way to deal with the matter.

If it is right that we should be concerned at the accumulated level of personal debt, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely right to be extremely concerned at the level of accumulated debt by local authorities in London and the level of debt incurred by this country in public spending?

The question concerns personal debt.

Of course, the growth on both sides of the balance sheet—and I have said that this has occurred not only in borrowing but in the level of financial assets that people have acquired—is seen in most industrial countries. My hon. Friend's point about local authorities in London is a separate matter. Those authorities identified by the Audit Commission have been showing grave imprudence in the way in which they have managed their financial affairs.

Now that the Chancellor has arrived at a position, 15 years on, that is considerably worse than that provided for by Lord Barber, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is so much in favour of individuals borrowing to consume, but so against the Government borrowing to invest?

I have said that I am in favour of individuals borrowing to build up financial assets and to consume, provided they do that prudently. The Government have been borrowing prudently, and we have also been investing. Capital investment has been maintained in real terms under this Government, whereas under the Labour Government it substantially dropped in real terms.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken to combat the debt crisis in Africa.

The United Kingdom has helped directly to relieve the debt burden of African countries by a combination of rescheduling and converting loans to poor countries into grants. Our bilaterial aid to the poorest countries is now all in grant form and so does not contribute to their debt. United Kingdom bilaterial aid to Sub-Saharan Africa amounted to £285 million in 1985.

Is Oxfam in Leicester right to say that in many of these countries in Africa, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa, the amount paid each year to service debts—the amount of interest—actually exceeds the amount of aid that they receive, so that the debts increase each year? While I welcome efforts that this and every Government make to assist, does the Minister recognise that, in the light of the mass starvation and misery in those countries, the efforts are totally inadequate at present?

I welcome the opportunity to reply to that question, because the point that Oxfam has made is not correct. The total aid flows to the 29 poorest countries in Africa are twice the level of debt service payments in 1984. Oxfam's point is therefore not correct.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that such a question from a Labour Member of Parliament shows that even the Opposition recognise the strength of our international and national financial stature at the moment, which enables us to contemplate giving financial assistance to the whole of Africa? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Labour Government could not succeed in running the national economy or balancing the books at home?

My hon. Friend is right. Because of our financial strength we have been able, through retrospective terms agreements, to convert £240 million of old aid loans to countries, including Ethiopia, into grants. That is what UNCTAD had urged us to do. Britain is the second among OECD countries in converting loans into grants.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if I can find out the latest figures on debt, so can he? Is he further aware that in 1985—not 1984—the total aid given to African countries by charities and Western Governments was $3·5 billion and that in that year the 29 poorest countries repaid exactly twice that sum in debt service charges? Given that in those countries one child dies each second from malnutrition and hunger, is not the real solution not just sympathy and charity, but cancellation of the leaching of the banking and commodities system by the cancellation of debts to those countries?

The figures that I gave are correct, and I stand by them. I do not believe that the figures for 1985 will show a different picture. I do not have the figures for 1985.

I do.

The figures that have been quoted by Oxfam are not correct. The Government have taken substantial measures to help the poorest countries of Africa. It is also a fact that 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries, whereas the OECD average is 60 per cent. That shows that our aid has been concentrated where it ought to be—on countries that face a very serious problem.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in resolving the financial problems of the European Economic Community since the last meeting of the Council of Finance Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

Since the last ECOFIN, the Agriculture Council has agreed important reforms in the milk and beef sectors. The Budget Council has rejected the Parliament's proposals for exceeding the maximum rate of increase in non-obligatory expenditure in 1987.

As the indications are that the Common Market is likely to exceed its legal spending limit by £3 billion this year, can my hon. Friend explain how Britain will obtain the payment of its corrected rebate for 1986, which he has said is a substantial sum, without the supplementary budget that we were promised would not happen this year?

A substantial amount of the abatement is already in the existing figures. In forthcoming budgets we have secured that the amount which remains due to us for 1986 will be in the main budget for 1988. Under treaty law it could be as late as the supplementary budget in 1988, but we have secured it earlier than that.

As all member states of the Community have deficits which total about £100 million, is it not a little irrational and hysterical for certain hon. Members to go on about a minuscule de facto deficit to the European Community, bearing in mind the fact that the United States farm support system is much more wasteful and expensive? I believe that if the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) were here, he would agree with that.

We shall not know until the summer the deficit which may have been carried over from 1986. As to the larger figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) quoted, money beyond that which has been authorised cannot be expended, and the Commission is obliged to bring forward recommendations about how it should be reined back.

Is the Minister aware that the proMarketeers, such as himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), sound as though they are parodying the old phraseology of Churchill—that we will fight them on the beef mountains and swim in the wine lakes until we drown. It is stretching things a bit when it has cost Britain more than £6 billion to be a member of this club. I can join the miners' welfare at Derbyshire for 4s 4d.

The language of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is less memorable than that of Sir Winston Churchill. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his achievements in reining back expenditure, which he secured in December.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from political parties for increases in public expenditure.

No representations as such, but I have had correspondence with the Labour party about its proposals for increases in public expenditure.

Is it not highly dishonest for any political party to make a large number of expensive promises without stating precisely how they will be paid for? Given that the Labour party has made pledges amounting to £28 billion, would my right hon. Friend speculate which would be most damaging to the economy—an income tax rate of 53 per cent., a VAT rate of over 40 per cent. or a PSBR of £28 billion, with a consequent rise in interest rates?

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has a good excuse for being away this afternoon. He clearly did not want to be here to he probed on the Labour party's £28 billion spending programme. My hon. Friend is quite right. Making pledges on that scale is misleading to the electorate. Those pledges have still not been denied or withdrawn, and they would undoubtedly have savage consequences if they were ever implemented.

Is the Chief Secretary aware of the all-party representations that have been made by hon. Members representing Brad.7ord, including Conservative Members, about the Government's refusal to allow the city of Bradford to borrow more to deal with the housing and education crisis that is gripping it?

Those representations have, quite rightly, not been made to me. I would advise the hon. Gentleman that in the public expenditure White Paper this year we have considerably increased the rate support grant for local authorities and the provision for housing maintenance. However, to engage in overall public expenditure planning on the scale that some Labour-controlled local authorities would wish, or are doing through deferred purchase and other creative accounting measures, would be very damaging for the economy and, in the long run, extremely disadvantageous to the ratepayers and the electorate in the local authorities.

In view of the Labour party's recent further commitments to public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend revise his figure of £28 billion as being the total cost of the extra spending by the Labour party and make sure that his revised and higher figure is well know to all the people of this country?

I am certainly willing to revise the figure each time it becomes clear to me that the spending pledged by some of the spending shadow spokesmen is withdrawn. However, I shall equally add to it any additional spending pledges that they make.

In order to bri:ng an end to this increasingly ridiculous exercise and fanciful invention, will the right hon. Gentleman take one or two of his hon. Friends aside, in a gentle manner, and invite them to read any one of the independent surveys of Labour party's economic programme—for example, that produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies or Philips and Drew, the stockbrokers—which all show the fanciful nature of those inventions? While he is about it, will the Chief Secretary read those surveys himself so that we hear no more of that nonsense from the Dispatch Box?

I do read them and they do not bear that out. I advise the Labour party that it could put the matter right by making clear which of the pledges that I have put forward—and they have all been put forward in the pages of Hansard—it would withdraw. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook the other day which pledges he would withdraw on health, education and aid. It was significant that the right hon. Gentleman simply did not answer. It is up to the Labour party to make that matter clear.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has received about the response to the personal equity plan scheme since its introduction.

The personal equity plan scheme has had an excellent start. Although it only began on 1 January, more than 150 plan managers have already been registered, and the response from investors has been most encouraging.

In view of the recent criticisms of fund managers, that they engage in short termism, is it not particularly welcome that individual shareholders, who, after all, have shown consistent loyalty to British industries, are welcoming so enthusiastically this splendid Government initiative?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Of course, there is a great deal in what he says. This Government have been consistently seeking to enlarge share ownership in this country. We did it first by new concessions for employee share schemes, then through the privatisation programme. As a result of those two things combined we have trebled the number of shareholders in this country, and now there is the personal equity plan scheme under which according to the press, some £200 million was invested in the first week of January alone.

Does not the survey carried out by the Financial Times show the claims that the Chancellor is making for this scheme to be nonsenes? Is it not the case that higher tax-paying people and existing investors are buying personal equity plans, as we warned they would during the passage of the Finance Bill? Will the Chancellor look at the scheme again to seek to ensure that it attracts not existing but new investors?

The hon. Member is mistaken. Barclays, for example—one of the biggest of the plan managers—recently announced that roughly a quarter of its personal equity plan investors were first-time share buyers. The hon. Member owes the House an explanation of where the so-called alliance stands on financial and City issues, given the fact that, in the important debate last night, the leader of the Liberal party voted in one Lobby and the leader of the SDP voted in the opposite Lobby.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, following up the point that he has just made, that this Government have helped the small shareholder and helped to distribute wealth throughout the country? Has not the alliance demonstrated, by what it did yesterday, that it does not have the slightest interest in those principles for which it purports to stand?

My hon. Friend is right. As I have indicated, the only Government and the only party who are dedicated and are effectively bringing about wider share ownership in this country are this present Conservative Government. We have already, as I indicated earlier, trebled the number of shareholders in this country, and with the further progress on the privatisation programme and with the further progress on personal equity plans, which, despite the many critics, are proving an outstanding success, we shall increase this further.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what factors he attributes the current real level of United Kingdom interest rates in relation to those prevailing in the other six main Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

One factor is the need to keep interest rates at levels which maintain downward pressure on inflation.

Bearing in mind that the goods in the monetarist pantheon were ritually slaughtered in the autumn statement, and the Chancellor was found cowering in the crypt with the blood of an impending election on his hands, is it not time that the idolatry stopped and we started reducing interest rates for industry, borrowers and home owners as part of a wider plan to get Britain working again?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is untrue. As the public sector borrowing requirement is being fulfilled for this year, and will be for next. my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has not done what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the dismantling, and even the smallest possibility of a resurgence, of Socialism has an upward push on the real level of interest rates?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The policies that the Opposition intend to pursue, particularly their spending policies—they have admitted this—with a big increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, would indoubtedly push up interest rates and drive us back to the negative rural interest rates of the previous Labour Government, and that in itself can be very damaging to the confidence of investors. They achieved a high level of inflation then and will achieve the same again if those policies are pursued.

Will M0 follow M1 and M3 in being discarded, and, if so, what will be the point of discipline to which interest rate policy will be related? Will it be an exchange rate target, and, if so, what is the point of pursuing that outside the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on many occasions that he looks at a number of factors and guidelines when determining monetary policy. He has spelt that out clearly in many speeches; so much so that one noted City economic commentator on monetary matters says that no Chancellor has ever done so much to explain publicly his monetary policy.

Is not one of the reasons why real interest rates are so much higher here than in other countries the fact that our bank lending is growing so fast, and thus interest rates have to rise to attract the deposits to fund that increased lending?

One of the factors has been the heavy corporate demand for investment finance in recent years. The freeing of the financial system from various inefficient and unfair controls has been another factor. However, it is worth stressing again that the current level of interest rates is not inhibiting a high level of investment in Britain.

The Chancellor does a lot of explaining because he has a lot to explain. Is it not perfectly obvious that if the Chief Secretary was brave enough to be honest with us he would admit that the only reason why we have real interest rates twice as high as Germany is that that is now the Chancellor's only means of warding off a sterling crisis? Is that not further evidence of the fragility of our economic situation and the dangerous high wire that the Chancellor has to tread?

That is certainly not the case, as is borne out by many economic factors at the present time. It is quite difficult to establish the precise parallels in international real interest rates, as I think the hon. Gentleman would agree. Taking the consumer price index as well, to suggest that our real interest rates are twice the level of West Germany is wrong. It is rich of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that interest rates are too high, when his own PSBR policies would undoubtedly increase our interest rates even more.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the Government's White Paper on public expenditure.

None.

Did not the Chancellor and other Ministers deliberately riddle their proposals with measures that would be generally beneficial this year, and include other measures that would have a gravely adverse effect next year? Were there not measures such as doing nothing much for the level of regional assistance this year with the intention of halving it next year, and increasing prescriptions by 2 per cent. this year, with the intention of increasing them by 8 per cent. next year, with a forecast inflation target of only 3½ per cent.? If the Chancellor did this deliberately—however much he tries to squirm and deny it—will he tell the House the truth and admit that he was trying a blatant, cynical manoeuvre to bribe the voters in a few months' time?

I do not follow the logic of suggesting that we have cut expenditure in areas that the hon. Gentleman thinks are attractive to the electors, and then suggesting that that is an election bribe. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the changes in regional policy—regional development grants and regional selective assistance—followed a substantial review which was undertaken a few years ago, which is now being implemented. The effect of that is that regional development policy is now targeted more on the areas of high unemployment and on the need for investment which helps with additional labour. He will also know that we do not just measure the amount of money that is entering the regions by regional development grants. A range of other things, including, for example, the new urban development corporations, form a very cost-effective way of helping the regions, as we have demonstrated, and should be added to regional development grants.

Following the White Paper. has my right hon. Friend received any representations to increase public spending by £360 million to educate within the state system those currently educated in private schools, which is a vital part of Labour's charter for pupils and parents?

I have not received any representations, but representations should certainly be made to the Labour party. My hon. Friend is right. That additional spending commitment by the Labour party has many other disadvantages and I am sure that it would prove to be a big electoral liability.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anger throughout the northern region in all industry over the two-month moratorium on the payment of regional development grant, which was announced in the small print of the public expenditure White Paper? Does he realise that, in imposing those cuts on the Department of Trade and Industry his Department is literally kicking people out of work and destroying the ability of many firms to expand? Will he consider that, because industrialists throughout the north are demanding that the policy be reversed?

The hon. Gentleman has this wholly out of perspective. In the first place, compared with last year's public expenditure White Paper, there will be an increase of £46 million in total regional development grant and regional selective assistance expenditure in the coming year. It is important to understand what the two-month moratorium is. It will not stop the payment of regional development grants for two months. It is easing out over the year, for good public expenditure control reasons, and in accordance with our plans, the payments to get the cash flow equal. I do not believe that that will have the kind of effect that the hon. Gentleman talks about.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread public support for the kind of selective increases in spending which were revealed in the public expenditure White Paper, particularly as those are being achieved within the context of reducing public expenditure as a whole as a percentage of the gross domestic product at the same time as tax is being cut? Will he assure the House that that policy will be continued?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and I can assure him that the policies will continue. As the public expenditure White Paper says, we are determined to continue to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of GDP, as we originally pledged in 1979. But my hon. Friend is also right in that, because of the success of our economic policies—we are now moving into the sixth year of steady growth—we have been able to increase in real terms many key and critical areas of public expenditure at the same time as we are achieving our overall public expenditure bill.

With the worst-ever trade deficit in manufactured goods, at over £8 billion at the end of the last year, have the Government not got their policies wrong in their determination to cut capital spending in order to increase consumer spending during this year and the years to come, which will only continue to suck in imports and make the balance of payments deficit far worse?

The hon. Lady has got it wrong. In the past few years consumption has been rising by about 3 per cent. a year and investment by about 4 per cent. That is in sharp contrast to what happened under the previous Labour Government, when consumption rose twice as fast as investment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of revenue raised through North sea oil since 1978–79.

£56 billion.

Since all the analysts, even at the Scottish Office, are now suggesting that there will be increased redundancies this year in the North sea oil industry, how does the Minister respond to the charge that in the past six years the Government have wasted £56 billion? What level of tax does he think Britain would be enjoying if he had not wasted that £56 billion? Can he tell us one single thing that we have as a result of that £56 billion from North sea oil?

In no way has the £56 billion been wasted. First, it has been used to reduce overseas debt. Secondly, it has been used to acquire overseas assets that will benefit this country for many years to come. Thirdly, it has been used to support a prudent level of expenditure in the country under this Government, including an increase in National Health Service resources way above what the previous Government were able to afford. The hon. Gentleman is also aware that we have introduced the Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Act 1986, whichwill help to modify some of the consequences to which he referred.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of North sea oil revenue has been used to pay back the International Monetary Fund loan that was borrowed by the previous Labour Government? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that since 1979 our overseas assets have increased by far more than £56 billion? It is with the returns from those overseas investments that we shall be able to replace North sea oil revenue when North sea oil disappears.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The overseas debt has been reduced by 14 per cent. The figure that he gave concerning our overseas assets is also right. The country will be able to enjoy the benefits of that stream of dividends for many years to come, and way beyond the life of North sea oil.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount the Government hope to raise by way of revenue from the sale of nationalised industries.

Proceeds from privatisation so far are nearly £11 billion. A further £5 billion is expected in each of the next three years.

At the end of the first day's trading on both British Telecom and British Gas the shares were found to be undervalued by £2 billion. Can the Minister tell us what protection there will be for the public purse with regard to the selling off of British Airways?

The pricing of privatisation issues is based upon the best banking and stockbroking advice available to the Government. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is totally wrong if he says that the British Gas issue was underpriced. The general verdict of all commentators was that it was rightly priced and gave good value to the taxpayer. Furthermore, the exceedingly good thing was that it attracted a large number of small, first-time investors, and that is something that is welcomed by everybody in this country other than the Labour party.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from raising useful amounts of revenue, those sales were important to the Government's objectives because they provided an opportunity for widening share ownership, especially to the employees of the undertakings concerned? I refer, in particular, to the excellent record of the National Freight Corporation in recent times.

My hon. Friend is right. No doubt he will have noticed that there have been a number of surveys that have drawn attention to the considerable increase in share ownership in Britain. Last week, one such survey, by Dewe Rogerson, suggested that perhaps 20 per cent. of the population now own shares. There are different estimates, but it seems clear that share ownership has probably increased some threefold. That again is something to be welcomed by everybody other than those who have a vested interest in a "them and us" attitude.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings he has had with the other Finance Ministers regarding financing of Third world debt; and if he will make a statement.

The financing of Third world debt was among the matters discussed at the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington last September, in which I took part.

Is it not true that the Tory Government have double standards with regard to assisting the debtor countries in the world? Will the Chancellor admit that they were very quick to respond to the need for a massive loan to Fascist Chile and that, in 1986, they encouraged their friends in the City, to make a deal—by backdoor methods—to bail out the South African Government when they faced a £20 billion debt? They provided tax credit to the banks to bail out Argentina, but the poorest countries in the world have been left to fend for themselves.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Moreover, if he is concerned about the problem of indebtedness he should look much closer to home, at those Labour authorities reported on today by the auditors of local government for financial mismanagement and creative accounting on a massive scale.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the existence of a discounted secondary market in debt offers substantial opportunities for the Government to use, this financial mechanism to fund developing countries programmes?

My hon. Friend is right. The debt problem is still a very serious one, which all the major countries are addressing. A number of methods such as those that he has suggested need to be brought into play.

asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 12 January, Official Report, column 3, what assumptions, as opposed to evidence, have been conveyed to Her Majesty's Government by the other Governments consulted regarding possible Syrian involvement in the La Belle discotheque nightclub terrorist bombing in Berlin; and if she will make a statement.

None, Sir.

With regard to what happened in Berlin, why does the Prime Minister suppose that her sources for certainty are better than those of the West German Department of Justice, the West Berlin police and Der Spiegel?

As we understand it, the position has not changed since I replied to a question last January, and the hon. Gentleman knows what that is. We have evidence of Libyan involvement in the bombing of La Belle discotheque in Berlin on 5 April, but the Germans have evidence of Syrian involvement in relation to the German-Arab Friendship Society. The position has not changed since I answered a question many months ago.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is at least one correct assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question—that when it comes to violent terrorism Libya and Syria are as bad as each other?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have taken strong action against both.

Does the Prime Minister consider that the information from the German police sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right or wrong?

I am answering about what I understand to be the Government's position—

Do they not tell the right hon. Lady?

I have given the answer many, many times. We have evidence of Libyan involvement in La Belle discotheque. The Germans have evidence of Syrian involvement in the matter of the German-Arab Friendship Society. That is the position.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the damage done to national security by the contacts between the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party in the Peter Wright case and—

Order. Does this relate to the specific question?

As the West German Government evidence is clearly of Syrian involvement, was it not a tragic mistake by the Government to allow American fighters to attack Libya from this country on the basis of faulty information and evidence—a tragic mistake as a result of which innocent people lost their lives?

I have given the answer with regard to our evidence about Libyan involvement and about our understanding of German knowledge of evidence of Syrian involvement which came out in the trial. I have answered debates about the raid on Libya for which facilities were given from this country. I believe that to have been the right action against terrorism.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply and her economality with the truth, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the djournment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 January.

This morning I attended a presentation about the Government programme for action for jobs. I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

As the First Lord of the Treasury was not on the Treasury Bench when this was raised in Treasury Question Time, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether she has studied the Official Report of yesterday's debate on the City? If so, is she surprised that in the very week of the umpteenth relaunch of the alliance the SDP leader and the Liberal leader voted against each other? One hears about guarding one's flanks, but this is ridiculous. Is not their claim to be a true alliance as spurious as a 50p note?

I studied both the debate on I.he City and the Division List which followed the debate. I understand that at the very time that the two right hon. Members were appearing together on television last night they were voting differently in the House, one with I he Government and one with the Opposition—walking proof that the so-called alliance is not an alliance.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, following his speech and interviews yesterday, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is giving serious consideration to enacting extra-statutory powers to replace voluntary compliance with the takeover panel's fair dealing code? Does this proposal by the Secretary of State have her full support?

The Secretary of State made an excellent statement yesterday. He announced a review of the takeover panel—if that is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to—and we shall wait to see what that produces.

Is the right hon. Lady correcting the quotations in the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times this morning of the Secretary of State saying that failure to secure compliance would ensure extra-statutory powers? If that is the case—and I quote from c. 372 of yesterday's Official Report—can the Prime Minister tell us why that is the case now and why in June last year the Government voted against exactly that proposal when it came from Opposition Members?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday announced a review of the operation of the takeover code. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman wants us to prejudge that review. We do not prejudge the outcome of the review, but if practitioners do not respect the system we shall replace it with one making greater use of statutory powers and sanctions.

In that case, how long is the period of proof, given that the review that the Secretary of State set up last June is not, according to his hon. and learned Friend, expected to report before the end of this year, so that we will not be able to consider it this side of the election?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this Government have done more that any other to bring in legislation to prevent abuse in the City. Perhaps he might look at what The Guardian said on Tuesday 20 January:

"Opposition taunts of too little, too late dissolve when it is remembered that the last Labour administration jettisoned legislation drawn up by the outgoing Heath Government which would have made insider trading a criminal offence in the early seventies."

What action would my right hon. Friend take if one of her hon. Friends were to suggest that political power in this country should be won by violence on the streets? Has she any advice to offer to the Leader of the Opposition on this matter?

Any suggestion that political power should be exercised by violence on the streets is the very denigration and opposite of democracy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 January.

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

Bearing in mind the fiascos of Westland, the Wright case and Zircon, should the country now regard the Attorney-General as having been made to look more like a fool than a fall guy?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of my constituents who work in local defence industries are obliged, and honour the obligation, to keep details of their work secret? Do they not have a right to be angry and frustrated at the activities of Left-wing activists and journals in publishing information which could damage our national security? As the Government have done all in their power to limit this subversion, will the Prime Minister prevail upon the Leader of the Opposition, on Privy Council terms if necessary, to stop the activities of his so-called supporters, which is so disgraceful?

My hon. Friend is right. The New Statesman deliberately chose to publish information which could be of benefit to our potential enemies. We are still waiting for a clear condemnation from the Labour Benches. With regard to any further showing of that film outside this House, the Leader of the Opposition said, when he spoke last Thursday, that he would uphold the Government's view that the showing of a particular film would prejudice national security. The Leader of the Opposition also agreed that one breach, or threatened breach, does not justify a further breach.

Will the Prime Minister take time to consider the fact that 10 days ago in Warwickshire there was an armed raid on a post office? Following that raid the police requested four emergency lines to the incident room. While members of the National Communications Union were willing to install those lines, on an unpaid basis, they were prevented from doing so by local management, who removed their vans, clearly under the instruction of Mr. Michael Bett, to bring this dispute to a head sooner rather than later. In that regard, is not the lack of emergency cover in the BT dispute clearly down to management?

The trouble is the strike itself, which can only put people out of work and make older people suffer if their telephone communications are not kept working. The trouble is the strike itself.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the package of training and employment measures announced yesterday offers real hope to the unemployed with the prospect—[Interruption]—of jobs today and tomorrow? Does she further agree that attempts by the Labour party to denigrate these measures should be disregarded by us all, but most of all by the unemployed, who stand to benefit most directly from them?

Yes. My hon. Friend is right. No other country in Europe, even though some of them have a bigger proportion of unemployment among youth and a longer or greater proportion of long-term unemployed than we have, has such an excellent package of individual help to each and every unemployed person. That is evidence of the Government's commitment to provide the fullest possible help to all those looking for work.

Can I ask the Prime Minister whether she will reconsider the support that she gave to a highly emotional and not very helpful speech by the chief constable of Greater Manchester, when he said that AIDS victims were whirling about in a cesspit of their own making? Does she not accept that this was an extremely unhelpful speech to make? Will she make sure that she now supports those, both in this House and outside, who are trying to deal with this very difficult problem?

I refer, not to the sentence which the hon. Member quoted, but to what I said. I do not have it with me, but she can find that from the transcript. I said that some people, whether from the Church or elsewhere, had spoken out to the effect that morals do matter in AIDS and that, while Governments cannot prevent people from getting AIDS, people themselves, by their own conduct, can do so. That is correct.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 January.

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

Adverting to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, may I invite my right hon. Friend to agree, with reference to the takeover panel, and code, that it would have been wholly improper to have imported statutory provision for that into the Financial Services Bill, that it was the Conservative Government who introduced that Bill, which tightened up in an unprecedented manner control and regulation of the supervisory structure of the City, that it was the Conservative party which amended that Bill to tighten up very significantly the powers of the Securities and Investment Board, and that the Conservative Government will not hesitate to take further measures if necessary?

Yes. Mr. Speaker. It was the Labour Government who ran away from introducing legislation to make insider trading a criminal offence. It was this Government who have done so much about it. With regard to the takeover panel, a review has been announced. If hon. Gentlemen wish me to prejudge that review, I will not do so. If practitioners do not respect the system, we shall replace it with one making greater use of statutory powers and sanctions.

Will the Prime Minister find time to take a personal interest in the question of issuing free disposable syringes to diabetics? Does she agree that it would be morally wrong to deny disposable syringes to those who have no choice but to inject themselves daily for the rest of their lives when she is able to find the resources to make disposable syringes available for drug addicts so as to prevent AIDS?

I already have a number of letters on that subject and I am giving considerable attention to it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard my right hon. Friend he Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that last night the leader of the Liberal party and the leader of the Social Democratic parties voted in opposite Lobbies—

Order. I cannot see that that has anything to do with me.

If you look at the Official Report, Mr. Speaker, you will see that. Surely there must be some mistake.