asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much self-employment has grown in the United Kingdom since 1979.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much self-employment has grown in the United Kingdom since 1979.

The latest published figures show that self-employment in the United Kingdom has increased by over three-quarters of a million since 1979.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and on the very encouraging answer that he has just given. Does he agree that self-employment and small businesses can provide a powerful force for reviving commercial and business efforts within the depressed inner cities as well as elsewhere? Will he please assure me that he and his Department will do what they can to remove the petty bureaucracy which still stands in the way of many who would like to start up on their own?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is absolutely correct in saying that there could be no greater benefit to the inner cities than a continuing growth in self-employment. He is also correct in saying that the Government will do all in their power to remove obstacles to that growth.

Such a dramatic increase in self-emloyment figures must be a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies in promoting enterprise. What information does my hon. Friend have on how those figures are spread throughout the country? Is it not important to encourage self-emloyment in those areas hardest hit by the loss of traditional industries?

My hon. Friend is right. The growth has been quite dramatic. It is up 40 per cent. since 1979. The growth in the region is much the same as in the south-east and the south-west. The growth in the regions is particularly encouraging, because, for every self-employed person, in due course more jobs will be created as they in turn take on employees. That is why we are encouraging, wherever we can, the growth of self-employment in the areas that have been hardest hit by the decline in the traditional industries.

Is the Minister aware that it is true that there has been a remarkable growth in self-employment, but that if we look at the historical record since 1945, we see that in every period when unemployment grew. self-employment grew? I invite him to check that. If he looks at the figures for tax and VAT, he will see that the self-employed are overwhelmingly very low-paid. It is not a real measure of a successful enterprise economy. A lot of it is the desperation of people struggling along because it is their only alternative to unemployment.

The hon. Lady is right in one respect. Under the Labour Government unemployment doubled and self-employment fell. However, she is incorrect in suggesting that a similar pattern has occurred under this Government. Self-employment has increased by 40 per cent., which is five times the increase in self-employment that has occurred over the past 30 years.

I join my colleagues in wishing my hon. Friend every success in his new position. May I draw his attention to the fact that, although self-employment has grown fast in this country, it is still only one third of that in countries such as Italy? My hon. Friend will be aware that Italy's new economy has had many compliments paid to it in recent years. Is there a link between Italy's healthy economy and the mileage that still exists for self-employment in this country?

I have no doubt that the self-employed in Italy contribute to that country's economic growth. However, this country's economy grew more rapidly over the period of the last Parliament than that of Italy, and we shall continue to encourage the growth of self-employment wherever it is appropriate in the United Kingdom.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the level of industrial production.

In the three months to April industrial production was 2½ per cent. higher than a year earlier, and within that manufacturing output was up 4½ per cent.

I welcome those figures, which must be very good news for many regions of the country. Does my hon. Friend consider that the growth of output can continue so that, by the end of next year, we will have the highest rate of sustained economic growth in this country since the war?

My hon. Friend is correct. On official forecasts, we will have had seven years of sustained growth at one of the highest rates that we have seen since the war. Of course, on unofficial forecasts, the projected rate of growth is constantly being forecast to increase. We see no reason domestically for growth not to continue in this country.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have succeeded in reaching the same figure for industrial production as existed in 1979?

Yes. We are well above it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1980 the growth of gross domestic product of United Kingdom Limited has been more rapid than that of any other European country? Is that not a welcome and refreshing change compared with the 1060s and 1970s? In those circumstances, was it not predictable that the shareholders would vote in the same board of directors?

My hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting that since the election the board of directors has received praise from some surprising quarters. The growth of the economy is not only good for the continuing prosperity of the country, but it has restored the pride of the British people.

I welcome the Economic Secretary to his position and congratulate him on having achieved it. Is it not the case that any increase in industrial production has come about largely as a result of the exchange rate depreciation and the fact that those competitive gains are now being eroded? The hon. Gentleman boasts about the Government's economic record, but will he tell us when they will get back, under this Chancellor, to the position on the balance of payments in manufactured trade that they inherited in 1979?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and, in turn, congratulate him on the success that he achieved in the elections. Clearly, the Labour party has considerable sense in some matters.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of his gross wage a single person receiving half average industrial earnings pays out in income tax and national insurance contributions.

A single person on half average male manual earnings will this year pay just under 21 per cent. of his earnings in income tax and national insurance contributions. The corresponding figure for someone on half average earnings for all occupations is just under 25 per cent.

I appreciate that that proportion has been reduced significantly, in particular as a result of the past three Budgets, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that people earning quite modest wages and salaries are still paying far too great a proportion of those wages and salaries in direct taxation of one sort or another? Will he confirm that it remains the Government's top priority to reduce those direct tax levels still further during the course of this Parliament?

We are certainly keen to reduce taxation whenever and wherever it is prudent to do so. As my hon. Friend intimated, since 1979 there have been substantial improvements, not only in the basic rate, but in the thresholds, and, perhaps most important of all, the fact is that nearly 1½ million taxpayers have been entirely taken out of tax.

Will the Minister confirm that the figure in the latter part of his first answer — that for all workers on half average earnings the share of their wages taken in tax and national insurance is just under 25 per cent.—is higher than the figure of 23·5 per cent. in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government? Every worker, married or single, on less than average earnings loses a bigger slice of his wages in tax and national insurance under this Government than he did in the last year of the previous Labour Government.

The hon. Gentleman is half right, in that he correctly interpreted what I said a moment ago. As regards a comparison with 1978–79, the more accurate comparison would be the updated index figure under the system that applied before. On that basis the reduction still applies.

The figures given suggest the reason why the population voted to return a Government who are dedicated to reducing rather than increasing taxation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our starting basic rate for income tax, plus insurance, is still relatively high compared with our industrial competitors?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor quite clearly indicated his opinion on that in the last Budget, when he reduced the standard rate.

asked the Chancellor of Exchequer whether he has any plans to increase value added tax base in the United Kingdom.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to impose value added tax on children's clothes; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have any plans to extend the range of value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Will the Minister explain what the Government intend to do in the light of the probable result of the Cockfield report to the European Commission next week, which will certainly insist on the harmonisation of VAT rates within the European Economic Community? That, of course, will mean VAT on food, clothing, fuel and other goods in this country.

Last night the Commission decided not to take a decision on the proposals put forward by Lord Cockfield's commission. Therefore, as yet, the hon. Gentleman's question remains hypothetical.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will veto any attempt to introduce VAT on children's shoes and clothes?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the situation on food and children's clothes entirely clear.

Does my hon. Friend agree, and will he confirm, that, whatever the merits or objections to extending the VAT base, it should remain a decision of this Parliament and not be subcontracted to the European Parliament? Moreover, we should not be pressured into it by the European Court.

I have made it clear that my right hon. Friend has no such plans, but it is the need to preserve his freedom to have plans in this area that might cause us to exercise our veto in Brussels.

Lord Cockfield's proposals also include the harmonisation of excise duties? Can the Minister assure us that the Chancellor will oppose any efforts to harmonise excise duties?

My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is the same as the one that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). Lord Cockfield has not brought forward his proposals. Therefore, that question remains hypothetical.

Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure at the fact that the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on the Opposition Front Bench demonstrate that debility is not necessarily a bar to advancement in the Labour party? In view of the disgraceful scare-mongering that was carried out during the election campaign on the issue of VAT, has my hon. Friend yet received an apology from those hon. Gentleman for the lies that were told—[Interruption.]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) knows what I am about to say.

I refer to the lies that were told by members of the Labour party who were not standing as candidates for membership of this House.

I join my hon. Friend in admiring the two hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. As to secret agendas during the election, we were conscious of two pieces of small print that were missing from the Labour party manifesto. To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, "To omit one piece of small print might be regarded as a cock-up; to omit two looks like a conspiracy."

The Minister must know that the Prime Minister has merely said that she does not believe that plans to levy VAT on children's clothing and other items of the family budget would get through the House. I agree with her on that point, but what, however, is the Government's attitude? Will the Minister tell us whether he, his colleagues and the Prime Minister will ensure that a veto is applied to any such proposals?

I have the distinction of having been the pairing Whip during the 1979 Parliament who uniquely lost a vote in the House, but it is not the Government's practice to put in front of the House proposals that they would not expect to carry.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom.

In the three months to April 1987 manufacturing output per head is estimated to have been over 6½ per cent. higher than a year earlier.

I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome reply. Is it true that the growth in manufacturing output per head in this country is now greater than in any other major industrial country, including Japan? Is it not also true that, under the last Labour Government, we were nearly bottom of that league? Therefore, is it any wonder that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) should now have taken to praising the Government on their economic record?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. The rate of growth of manufacturing productivity in this country has exceeded that in every major industrial country, not excluding Japan, since 1979.

Does the Minister agree that investment by overseas multinationals in manufacturing in the United Kingdom is now declining and that the 30 top overseas companies show a massive reduction in employment?

Investment overall in this country is at an all-time record. If a Labour Government had been returned, there would have been negative investment from abroad in this country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 4 per cent. growth in manufacturing output per head since 1979 not only contrasts favourably with the preceding six years from 1973 to 1979 but bodes extremely well for the creation of new jobs in this country, because it shows that Britain is becoming competitive again, compared with countries overseas?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. That growth bodes well for the future. Manufacturing industry is now increasing productivity. It is doing so because we have restored to management the power to manage and to trade union members the power to control their unions. As a result we have better industrial relations and greater incentives to increase production.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of Britain's contribution to the European Economic Community.

The latest projection of our net payments to Community institutions in 1987–88 is £870 million.

We are still a large net contributor. Is it not the case that in Fontainebleau in 1984 there was an agreement that, if there were an increased resources payment, there would be proper budgetary control? Has the Prime Minister herself not agreed that there has been a budgetary control failure? If so, why are we agreeing to a further 3·5 billion deficit in this respect? Will we have proper guarantees that there will be proper budgetary control in future?

I am not entirely sure about the 3½ billion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but the great achievement of the Fontainebleau agreement was to secure a permanent abatement for the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, that was beyond the power of the Labour party to achieve during its time in government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the British taxpayer has any more largesse to dispense charity begins at home, and that that money would be far better spent on our own inner cities than on Ireland, Greece and the Mediterranean coast?

I share with my hon. Friend a desire to restrain expenditure in the European Community.

Whatever our net or gross contributions, is it not a fact that a good slice of those contributions is taken up by VAT? Whatever the Chancellor said, and whatever plans Lord Cockfield may or may not have, is it not a fact that the European Commission is now taking the British Government to court so that VAT rates on all building, fuels, some new services and water should be put up? Should not that fact be in the Government's calculations?

It is certainly a fact that the Commission has taken the British Government to the European Court under infraction proceedings on zero rates on a number of different items. That is a legal case, which will be heard on 15 September. We will not know the judgment until the end of this year or the beginning of next, and the Government will then react to whatever the judgment is.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a mistake to pay twice for the same thing? As the House was persuaded to go along with an increase in own resources for the Community on the ground that there was to be budgetry discipline, we should not give a further increase just to get that guaranteed.

I repeat and endorse what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that it is very much the concern of the Government to restrain expenditure in the Community.

As we are net contributors, what is our trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EEC? Can the Minister confirm that our deficit with West Germany is the largest trade deficit that we have? What will be done about this albatross around our neck?

These are supplementary questions to question 6 to the Treasury, not "Mastermind". The hon. Gentleman's supplementary does not fall within the terms of the original question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies and how many employees have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector since 1979.

Fifteen major businesses have been privatised, employing 650,000 people.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the proportion of public industry that has been returned to the private sector since 1979 and what other elements of the public sector remain to be returned in the immediate and medium term future, and will he take this opportunity of telling the House about some of the many advantages that privatisation bestows?

Were I to respond in detail to all those points, I fancy that we would run on for rather a long time. Over one third of state industry has been privatised since 1979. As the House knows, we have a continuing rolling programme for the future. Many benefits are increasingly apparent, not least the access to capital markets and greater incentives for management and employees to produce a profitable return, as they are doing.

Will the Minister confirm that the workers in most of the companies that have been transferred now have lower wages, job insecurity, lower pensions, lower sickness benefit and fewer holidays? What excuse has he to offer for this shabby transformation?

I cannot confirm any of those propositions. The companies that have been transferred to the private sector were often unprofitable before, but they are now substantially profitable.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of 11 June shows that the public like the idea of transferring properties from the public sector to genuine public ownership? When will he start this process on the Bank of England?

I have no comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. On the former, I entirely agree. The concern for privatisation that we have shown has been followed in a number of other countries. It is noticeable that on 11 June privatisation was preferred to social ownership.

If the British Airports Authority is to be sold partly by fixed tender to get value for money for the taxpayer, why was the same procedure not followed on the sale of British Gas, British Telecom and British Airways, when thousands, if not millions, of pounds were lost to the taxpayers through selling those companies off at a knock-down price?

I do not accept that any of those companies was sold at knock-down prices. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on BAA at the moment.

Does my hon. Friend recollect the dire predictions of doom and gloom when companies such as Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace and Jaguar were privatised? How do those predictions square with the current performance of those companies in the private sector?

As my hon. Friend intimates, those predictions do not square. For example, Jaguar's pre-tax profits are up 33 per cent. on 1984, and Cable and Wireless pre-tax profits are up fourfold since that date. Therefore, the predictions that were made at the time were wildly inaccurate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to seek to reduce the present rate of standard income tax; and if he will make a statement.

I aim to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 25p in the pound as soon as I prudently can.

While I note that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's commitment, about which we now hear repeatedly, to regenerate and rebuild confidence in our inner cities is real? He must be aware that it will take substantial sums of money to do that, and it is certainly the wish of the general public that that money should go into our inner cities and the social fabric of our country rather than on tax concessions to the wealthy. Will he tell the House exactly what is his commitment to the inner cities and social fabric of the country?

The hon. Gentleman's question betrayed two failings on the part of the Labour party to understand the facts of life which, I believe, cost it dear at the last general election. The first is that he referred to the basic rate of income tax as a tax on the rich. He totally fails to understand that that is a marginal rate of tax on millions and millions of ordinary working people, many of whom are earning incomes well below the average. Getting the basic rate of income tax down for them is something of the first importance—it is not simply a tax cut for the rich.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuation of the reduction in the standard rate from 33p to 27p to 25p is welcome to all taxpayers, whether rich or poor? Indeed, it affects people who are retired. Does he further agree that when we get down to 25p as a standard rate of tax, the next jump to 42p in the pound will be far too high, and that it should come down at the same time as the 25p is achieved?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his consistent support for the policy that we have been pursuing of bringing down the rates of income tax and raising thresholds. We shall continue to do that as and when circumstances permit. I shall certainly consider the question of the jump from the basic rate to the first higher rate, but it is interesting to note that, in the United States, the new tax reform package, which has gained a number of plaudits in this country, has a basic rate of 15 per cent. and then rises to 28 per cent. That is a gap similar to the one about which my hon. Friend has spoken.

Does the Chancellor accept that the tax cut in the basic rate has really been a con job on the majority of ordinary people? Is it not a fact that the tax cuts have not benefited the very low-paid and people living on state benefits, and that the majority of people on average earnings are paying more in VAT and national insurance and are worse off in taxation terms than they were before the cut in basic tax?

On the contrary, the very low-paid have done particularly well under this Government as a result of the introduction—for the first time in this country—of reduced rates of national insurance contributions for employees and for those who employ them. That has helped those at the lower end of the wage spectrum, especially.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the healthy worldwide trend towards lower and less penal tax rates? Does he agree that that has considerable relevance to the level at which we set our own basic and additional rates?

My hon. Friend is right. That international context is both very striking and something that we do have to take into account. It is something that I have to take into accont in deciding what is appropriate and necessary for this country. Indeed, the consensus about the need to bring down income tax is one that is now shared by all those in charge of the major economies of the world. It is only the Labour party in this country that is determined to put up income tax—at least it was at the last election. I do not know whether it still is. This revisionism that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is going in for is bewildering us. But it was only the Labour party—atleast until very recently—that was determined to put up income tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

Bank base rates are 9 per cent.

If the economy is as successful as the Chancellor frequently claims, why do we have one of the highest bank interest rates in the Western world? Does the Minister have any idea of the damage that that is doing to small businesses in my constituency, and when can my constituents expect some relief?

It is not correct to say that British interest rates are the highest. Interest rates are kept at a level sufficient to keep downward pressure on inflation. I wonder whether, during the election campaign, the hon. Gentleman paused to think of the consequence for British interest rates if his party had been elected and had spent an extra £35 billion, largely financed by borrowing?

Will my hon. Friend explain exactly what is preventing a reduction in interest rates, given that the economy is doing well, sterling is not under pressure and the credit expansion is being controlled?

As I mentioned, it is our policy to keep interest rates at a level sufficient to keep money GDP on a steady downward path and, therefore, to maintain downward pressure on inflation. We shall continue to do that.

Why are the interest rates of Belgium, Canada,—[Hon. Members "Reading"]—France, West Germany, Holland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America all lower than the level of interest rates in this country? [Hon. Members: "Reading".] Why should British business men be penalised when overseas business men are not penalised?

Real interest rates in Britain are about ½ per cent. above the average for other major industrial countries. I have not noticed British industry being penalised, since it is growing faster than industry in any other major Western economy.

In adding my best wishes to the others expressed to my hon. Friend about his new position, may I ask him whether he agrees that interest rates cannot be arbitrarily varied on their own as they are necessarily interlinked with and interdependent on the other great factors in any economy, such as inflation and exchange rates? Does he further agree that any responsible Government must bear that in mind when looking at interest rates, which cannot be considerd in isolation?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is quite correct. We have to take into account all those factors when determining the level of interest rates, but we give priority to keeping inflation on a downward course.

Does the Minister share the Bank of England's continuing concern, indicated again today, about the explosion of credit in the personal sector? Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) that manufacturing industry is now severely constrained by the high interest rates that the personal and property sectors are prepared to pay? Why is it that he and his colleagues are obsessed with public spending, when they should be doing something about this new and damaging version of crowding out?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who asks almost as many questions as he received votes. Interest rates are not inhibiting output. Output is growing more rapidly and the CBI survey shows that investment intentions are very strong. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the remarks of the Bank of England. They were directed towards the prudential aspects of borrowing. Of course it is correct that financial institutions should look closely at the ability of borrowers to repay their debts and the effect that that has on their balance sheets. We support that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the trend towards lower interest rates has been assisted by the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement occasioned by the Government's programme of privatisation?

It is certainly true that as my hon. Friend said, if we were to eschew privatisation—even though that programme is primarily carried out for reasons of competition and efficiency—and the revenues that flow from it there would have to be higher borrowing and, therefore, higher interest rates.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans for the United Kingdom to join the European monetary system.

We continue to keep the matter under review.

Does the Chancellor agree that for far too long we have ducked membership of the European monetary system because of short-term arguments that have disappeared on the next prevailing wind of the world currency market—[Interruption.] Does the Chancellor agree that sterling is not a super currency and should not be subjected to the vagaries of the world money markets?

I am not sure that I was able to hear every word that the hon. Member uttered, so I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give the fullest answer to his question. What he has failed to observe is that since the Louvre agreement towards the end of February of this year—which was conducted through G7, even though only six members were present on that occasion—we have enjoyed the benefits of exchange rate stability throughout all the major currencies, not just the European ones.

Is it really a wise or constructive move to make binding commitments in regard to the exchange rate of the pound before we have completed the integration of the European market for capital? Would it not be much better to integrate our policies with those of the continental countries, particularly West Germany, after which the currencies will look after themselves?

I agree with the first half of what my hon. Friend said. I strongly support the move that there is now throughout Europe for freedom of capital movements. A number of countries in the Community have complete freedom of capital movements and others are moving in that direction. The Commission is making further proposals this autumn for freedom of capital movements for those countries which, unlike the United Kingdom, do not already have it. This is an important development and I welcome it.

I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be lured by the call of the Liberals and Social Democrats into a further bout of merger mania and into agreeing that the pound should join the EMS. We have had enough twaddle about the Common Market in the past 14 years from Euro-fanatics at the back of me and the one below me who has just turned up for work. It has cost the British taxpayer £8,000 million net to be a member of this club, despite all the talk about barrow-loads of money being brought back by the Prime Minister. That has been the cost to the British taxpayer and it is time that it ended.

I can assure the House that I am no more likely to be lured by the Liberals and Social Democrats than I am by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new companies registered for value added tax in 1986.

I regret that records are maintained in a form which enables only the net change in the number of VAT registered persons of different status to be given. In 1986 the net increase in the number of companies registered for VAT was over 7,000 and total VAT registrations increased by some 23,000.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that some 6,000 new companies were registered during 1986 in the north-east alone? Is this not the best possible testimony to the success of Government policies in the region and the surest possible way of creating new jobs in the north-east?

Because Customs VAT areas—what in Customs terms we call collections—do not match the boundaries of the economic regions, it is difficult to give regional figures, but the Middlesbrough, Newcastle and Washington collections showed positive VAT registrations last year.

Baker asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received representations about the rules concerning the use of rebated fuel in farm vehicles.

I have received about 10 letters over the last six months on these long-standing rules.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that long-thought-out and carefully delivered reply. Is he aware that the effect of these rules, certainly as administered by the Inland Revenue, is to say that tractors may not be used, for example, in fetes and on community occasions in villages to help carry floats at carnivals and other such community projects? Is that not a ridiculous restriction on the use of tractors?

Customs and Excise, which in fact administers these rules rather than the Inland Revenue, is a very old-established organisation. It is true that anxiety in the Farming News during the past year suggested that Customs officers had been instructed to intensify checks on the use of farm tractors. In fact, that was not true. In terms of community and charity work in rural areas, the law is complex because of associated use of public roads. In practice, few difficulties have arisen, and grass-cutting, not on a public road, is allowed. As to charity work, this would require a change in the licensing law and that would come under the Department of Transport, but in practice few difficulties arise.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the Arab League.

As the Tory party made the introduction of a poll tax a major plank in its campaign in Scotland, and as it suffered such a crushing defeat in Scotland, what moral or democratic justification can the right hon. Lady have for continuing to impose this unfair, unjust and unworkable tax upon the people of Scotland? Will she now instruct her Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce legislation to repeal it?

No. The Act was passed during the last Parliament, and I take it that the hon. Gentleman is proud to be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

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

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to meet the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to obtain agreement between the two Front Benches that attacks made the under cloak of parliamentary privilege upon individuals who cannot answer for themselves are particularly despicable? An outstanding example of that nasty practice that is deserving of condemnation came in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

I hope that most hon. Members will agree that it is utterly contemptible to use the privileges and platform of the House to smear the reputation of those who lost their lives in the service of their country. I know that many of us in the House have the deepest sympathy for the families who are now suffering such grief and distress—the family of Captain Nairac a courageous officer of whom Britain can be proud—[Interruption.]

Order.

and the widow and family of Airey Neave, whose death we honour in this House, who was a deeply honourable, brave and gallant Member and who was murdered by Irish terrorists within the precincts of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will repudiate the despicable comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—

Before we have any more questions of that kind, may I say to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who well knows the rules—and to the whole House—that—[Interruption.] I did not get the drift of the hon. Member's question while he was asking it. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Notwithstanding the blatant effort to usurp your position in the House by the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this place cannot be used as an excuse or an opportunity to smear anyone about anything and must not be put to that purpose. However, it is fair to reflect to the right hon. Lady, that, as grave allegations—probably unfair allegations — have been made by people outside the House against a former Member of the House who died in tragic circumstances, and an officer of Her Majesty's forces, who was murdered, it may be reasonable to reflect upon the Government's decision not to respond to them. [Interruption.]

Klaus Barbie's defence lawyer.

Order.

Name him.

Will the hon. Member withdraw that nasty remark. [Interruption.] Order. I repeat: will the hon. Member withdraw that nasty remark made from a sedentary position.

If you consider that my remark was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, the whole nature of Prime Minister's Questions is being changed by the efforts to use them in a particular way—by the view expressed in the question of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo)—[Interruption.]—by the answer that came from the Prime Minister, the use to which it was put, and the interjection of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker that, in view of that, it is necessary for us to treat this last passage as points of order and then revert to questions, as I want to ask the right hon. Lady an important question. That possibility has now been discouraged by the blatant use of Prime Minister's Question Time and the reference to tragedies in Northern Ireland by Conservative Members for strictly partisan purposes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British mining industry now has the opportunity to become one of our most successful and prosperous industries? Does she share my hope that the British miners will demonstrate their innate common sense by voting in favour of flexible working and disregarding the Luddite, negative advice of Mr. Arthur Scargill?

I agree with my hon. Friend that our Acts provide an opportunity for a secret ballot for the members of that trade union. I believe that miners should have the very latest technology and the best conditions. That will lead to a more efficient and prosperous industry, and I hope that they will not reject such a course of action.

In view of the appalling shooting in Woolwich today, and the further evidence of the widespread availability of pump-action shot guns, and so on, will the Prime Minister re-examine the whole question of the control of firearms? I have two suggestions in particular. First, will she look at the question of having to present a shotgun licence when buying ammunition—[Interruption.] This is a serious question. Many people are shocked and appalled by what happened in Woolwich and must be very grateful that no loss of police life took place.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing the maximum penalties for those who carry firearms with intent to commit a crime to life imprisonment. That is in our Criminal Justice Bill, which I hope will be fully supported. We are also examining matters such as the carrying of knives, which is causing considerable concern to the police. I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in view of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity during her busy day to note the concern expressed by some leading churchmen about the continued experimentation on foetuses without any rules or regulations to stop it? Bearing in mind the great concern of a large number of people within and outside the House, will she consider whether the time has come for legislation on the Warnock committee proposals?

The legislation on the Warnock committee proposals will not be introduced this year. As my hon. Friend knows, it will take a good deal of time to prepare and gives rise to very contentious issues. I hope that we shall be in a position to introduce it next year, but I understand that it may be a possibility that the proposals which previously came before the House from a private Member will come before us again in a private Member's Bill this Session.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

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

In the Government's plans for schools to charge for books, teaching material, visits, field trips and many other items, does the Prime Minister intend that those parents who have to survive on social security should be expected to meet those charges, or does she intend to change the social security regulations so that such people will have something with which to pay these new charges being imposed on them? The right hon. Lady will recall that about two and a quarter million children in this country live in households entirely dependent on benefits? Does she agree that it would be a great shame if their education was blighted because their parents cannot pay for those facilities in schools?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these charges have been extant for some time in education authorities on both sides of the political divide. He knows that there has been a case about it, and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is putting out a consultation document on the subject. The hon. Gentleman must also be aware that when parents cannot pay, for the reasons that he gave, the parent-teacher association is usually able to find the necessary funds.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the courage, service and dedication of the Member commemorated above the door through which we all come in each day are likely to be remembered for far longer than most Members of this House?

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I remember the day when that crest was put up.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the allegations that I reported to the House in my maiden speech I repeated yesterday outside of parliamentary privilege and am prepared to do so again? As those allegations have been corroborated by sources available to RTE, and in some instances by forensic evidence, does the Prime Minister accept that the only way to clear the names of Captain Nairac and Airey Neave is for her to stop obstructing an inquiry into the traitorous activities of the MI5 officers responsible?

No, I do not accept that it is a proper way to go about things by making smears and then calling for an inquiry. No inquiry is called for.

Will my right hon. Friend mark the contrast between the honour and courage of Mr. Airey Neave and Captain Robert Nairac, each of whom was decorated for gallantry, and both of whom were murdered by the IRA, and the turpitude of some of their critics?

Yes, we have a great deal for which to thank Captain Nairac and our former colleague Airey Neave in the defence of freedom.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, during her most recent talks with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, she raised the subject of the Irish Republic's failure to implement the European convention on the suppression of terrorism? Did she convey to him the concern of the House about that matter, and did she receive any reassurance or any specific date on when the convention would be implemented?

No. That matter was not raised in the brief talk that I had with the Taoiseach.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proper workings of the usual channels are essential to parliamentary democracy, particularly to deal with, among other things, cowardly attacks upon the dead? If that is the case, will she reflect on how this can operate if the Opposition Whips Office is apparently completely denuded by the resignation of many Whips?

Order. That hardly falls within the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister now convinced of the crucial importance to our manufacturing base of the Scottish steel industry? Will she therefore ensure that there is adequate investment in Ravenscraig to assure its future throughout this Parliament and beyond?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Ravenscraig's future was assured to August 1988 and we have not yet received proposals for after that time. There is nothing further to report than that which we said during the recent election campaign. The hon. Gentleman knows that every effort has been made to get as much work as possible into Ravenscraig.

On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take points of order in the proper place, after the business statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it to you that the point I raised when you made the original ruling that there would be——

Order. I say to the right hon. Member that I must apply the same rules to the Front Benches as to the Back Benches. We must have business questions next, please.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that I have to insist—[Interruption.]

Order. I hope that the right hon. Member will not do that. This practice is of some standing and it has been discussed with him. We must stick to the rules. The same rules must apply to the Front Benches and the Back Benches. Business questions, please.

I am anxious to do that, Mr. Speaker. I shall just ask the Leader of the House to announce the business for next week.