To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the director general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the economic prospects for the United Kingdom.

Next week.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his award of parliamentarian of the year yesterday. Has he noticed that the CBI has published two reports over the past weeks since the fall in share prices, one of which showed that exports and orders are at their highest level since 1977, and, furthermore, that investment intentions are also at their highest level since 1977? Does that not show that, under my right hon. Friend's Chancellorship British industry is expanding and maintaining an economic growth which will take us well into the next decade?

Yes, indeed, I noticed those excellent survey results. No doubt if the CBI had had figures for before 1977 they would have been the best since well before that date. However, that series of questions only began in 1977.

Will the Chancellor be discussing with the CBI the forecast by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research that growth may fall to 1·5 per cent.? Does he expect the CBI to agree with the institute's proposal for a two-stage lowering of interest rates to respond to the events of recent weeks, or does he still cling to the hope that there will be no deflationary impact on the British economy?

What I do know is that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has always got it wrong. Indeed, there is a very interesting special article in this month's issue on the British economy since 1979 —I commend it to the hon. Gentleman—admitting that the institute got it all wrong, and that the economy has performed far better than it ever imagined it would.

If the increasing strength of sterling starts to affect the buoyant level of British manufacturing exports, will my right hon. Friend consider making further reductions in interest rates?

I am always ready to consider reductions in interest rates when I consider them appropriate. Since the stock market collapse interest rates have, as my hon. Friend will be aware, come down by a full point. At the present time I do not think that any further reduction is called for, but it is something that I shall bear in mind —keeping in mind, too, that although it is a particularly difficult juncture at the present time because we are all concerned with the possible recessionary influences that may come from the stock market collapse, particularly from the United States, there are still inflationary forces in the economy that have to be kept under control.

The right hon. Gentleman predicted in his interview in the Financial Times earlier this month that there would be a G7 meeting within a week of a deal being reached in Washington. Since that meeting clearly has not occurred, will he tell us what is holding things up and when that important G7 meeting that everyone is waiting for will take place? When it occurs, what will the British Government propose as a strategy to avoid recession? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he is resisting the calls to reduce interest rates, which would do so much to support British industry in what may be a difficult time ahead?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has pointed out, British industry is doing extremely well and is extremely confident about the future. That is since the stock market fall. I hope that there will be a G7 meeting before Christmas. There are further stages to go through. We want to make sure, if we can, that the United States Congress will support the package that has been negotiated between its leaders and the Administration. That has to take place after the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States. We also wish to make sure that there are proper preparations for the meeting, including ensuring that the conditions are right for all parties concerned to agree to a stabilisation of the dollar. In my opinion that is an essential element in avoiding the recessionary dangers to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of United Kingdom manufactured exports since 1981.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of United Kingdom manufactured exports since 1981.

:The volume of United Kingdom exports of manufactures has grown by 35 per cent, since 1981.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that welcome growth in exports is due largely to the fact that the growth in unit wage costs in the United Kingdom has performed well and is now expected to perform better than the majority of other industrial nations? In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the findings of the CBI report on exports?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His objective analysis is entirely right. The underlying point of most importance is that productivity growth generally over recent years, in fact since 1979, has been at around 4 per cent, a year—the fastest of all the major industrial countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our performance depends on our competitiveness? Will he inform us how our productivity compares with that of our overseas competitors.

As I have said, our productivity is exceedingly good at over 4 per cent, a year. It is faster than all our major competitors. As the CBI points out in its survey, not only is productivity good, but so is output, and profitability and exports are growing. It is an excellent outlook.

Will the Chancellor tell us what the rate of manufacturing investment has been since 1979, and will he confirm that it is among the lowest in the industrial world?

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor I can confirm that manufacturing investment is rising and the hon. Gentleman ought to be pleased at that.

Is the Minister aware that exports of manufactured goods have increased by 34 per cent, and imports of manufactured goods have increased by 81per cent?

It is true that manufacturing imports have grown faster than exports. However, that is hardly surprising, as the United Kingdom's economy is growing faster than those of its major competitors.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the House that in his view the United Kingdom's manufacturing sector plays a major role in our economy, and will he outline the steps that he will take to ensure that Her Majesty"s Government minimise any additional on-costs that could in any way inhibit or undermine the future potential of British manufacturing industry?

As my hon. Friend has said, manufacturing industry is of immense importance. That is why we are delighted that it is doing so well and that investment is rising. As for on-costs, the most important requirement for manufacturing industry is that we have a stable economy under good management, and we have that.

In his encomium on the beauty of productivity rates in this country, will the Chief Secretary comment on the report of the National Institute, which compared the kitchen manufacturing industry in this country with that in the Federal Republic of Germany and showed that German productivity was 63 per cent, higher than that of our industry, making the same equipment?

I have not seen that report. However, as I told the House a few moments ago, productivity generally is growing faster in this country than elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman would do more good for manufacturing industry, and all industry, in this country if, instead of repeatedly pointing out deficiencies, he pointed out our excellent growth.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Government's policies our share of world trade is improving steadily for the first time for many years, in stark contrast to the deterioration that occurred when the Labour party was in power?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition may not like it, but the fact is that manufacturing investment is rising, output is rising, productivity is rising, exports are rising and profits are rising—and do not Opposition Members dislike it?

Given that even the Confederation of British Industry is now predicting that unemployment will start to rise in the early months of 1988, can the Chief Secretary continue to ignore the real figures about the British economy—that on the monthly figures that are available to us manufacturing output and industrial production are starting to fall and that the manufacturing trade deficit is at its worst-ever level? Will the Chief Secretary start to face up to the real problems of the British economy, which are that manufacturing investment has fallen by 8 per cent, since 1979 and is starting to fall again—by 1per cent, during the previous quarter—and that it will continue to deteriorate unless counter-recessionary measures are taken? When will he realise that what he does not spend on higher investment today he will have to spend on higher unemployment tomorrow?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being the Spectator's "Man to watch" but, having listened to him, I must say that he certainly is not the man to listen to, because most of his facts are incorrect. When he produces the right information, I shall respond to him.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the net real rate of return in British manufacturing.

The net real rate of return in manufacturing has risen in each of the last five years to reach 7·2 per cent, in 1986—the highest level since 1973.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those remarkable figures are excellent in showing that in every year since 1981productivity in the manufacturing sector has increased and that it is now about three and a half times what it was? Will he confirm that the real rate of return in 1985–86 was higher than in any year under a Labour Government and that that clearly vindicates the Government's economic policies?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opposition Members talk continually about manufacturing investment and manufacturing output, but such things depend upon the rate of return and the profitability of manufacturing industry, and that is what the Government have made much stronger than for many years.

If everything in the economic garden is so lovely, why have the Government imposed new charges on eyes and teeth?

That point does not arise out of this question. The reasons have been explained in the House and have absolutely nothing to do with manufacturing. However, it is certain that unless the health of manufacturing industry and the British economy is sustained by our policies, there will not be any money for the Health Service.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the growth in profitability is due to the fact that we now have fewer strikes in British industry than for over a quarter of a century and that manufacturers are making again reliable, innovative products that the world wishes to buy?

My hon. Friend is right to describe those factors as being among the causes of profitability. It is also true that the dramatic fall in the rate of inflation has brought certainty and improved the profitability of industry.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of investment in manufacturing industry.

In the third quarter of 1987 manufacturing investment is provisionally estimated to be £2,783 million.

Is the Minister aware that, on Tuesday of this week, the all-party footwear and leather committee reconvened in the House? Is he also aware that, since 1979, investment in the footwear and leather industry — vital to Leicester and the east midlands—has declined by 20 per cent.? What is the Chancellor proposing to do about that, not just as the Chancellor, but as a Leicestershire Member of Parliament?

I am delighted to hear that the all-party committee has been reformed. If the figures are as the hon. Gentleman has described—I take his word that they are — I am delighted that a further searchlight will be placed upon them. Investment across the economy has been growing at the pace that it has over the past four years because of the extremely successful way in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is running the economy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most active sectors of manufacturing in the past year has been the Opposition Benches, which have manufactured all manner of scares and crises about the economy? Can he tell us what real rate of return has been shown on that investment?

In these difficult categorisations I suspect that that activity is a service industry. Certainly, so far as I can see, the rate of return has been negative.

If the Government's policies for manufacturing industry have been so successful, why was there a surplus in the balance of trade in manufactured goods of £5 billion when the Government took office, but now a deficit of £8 billion and heading for £9 billion?

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asked about the level of manufacturing investment. That has grown by 44 per cent, since 1983.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the quantity of investment in manufacturing that is important, but the quality of that investment? Does he also agree that those two factors are helping our manufacturing industry throughout the country, particularly in the north of England?

I agree with my hon. Friend that not just the quantity, but the quality, of investment is important. Since 1979 quality has improved, as is evidenced by the improvement in productivity and profitability. The quality of manufacturing output is also much higher, and that output is now above its 1979 peak. One might sometimes forget that manufacturing output fell under the previous Labour Government.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of net United Kingdom asset overseas; and how this compares with the position in other major countries.

The level of United Kingdom net overseas assets at the end of 1986 was £114 billion, second only to Japan.

Is it not significant that the level of our overseas investment, at 29 per cent, of gross domestic product, is the highest of any country in the world by that measure? That is a significant tribute to the lifting of exchange controls by the Government and the prudent investment of our North sea assets. As a consequence, our earnings from overseas investments in the past year were running at £5·2 billion. That is a great tribute and a great asset to our invisible earnings, which, themselves, are a great tribute to the country's overseas investment and the earnings of the financial sector.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures that he quoted for earnings to the economy show that the benefits of North sea oil have been converted into a permanent gain for the economy.

Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) is entirely wrong and that the scale of our foreign investment substitutes for export trade? Is that not one of the underlying reasons for our low export performance in manufacturing, and are we not investing in the industrial modernisation of our competitors to our detriment?

I do not think that that is correct, and I do not think that many people share the hon. Gentleman's opinion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said, we now have substantial earnings each year in excess of £5 billion, and that is of enormous importance and benefit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that we have such substanital earnings from invisibles means that any deficit on visible trade has nowhere near the importance that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) would have us believe?

My hon. Friend is correct. The surplus that we enjoy on our invisible earnings is the highest in the world.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the European Economic Commission's proposals to extend value added tax.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent developments on the proposals for the harmonisation of value added tax in European Economic Community member countries.

As I made clear at the ECOFIN Council last week, we shall not permit to come into force any proposals that in any way conflict with the pledges that Her Majesty's Government have given concerning the United Kingdom's zero rates of VAT.

The largest manufacturer in my constituency is the publishing firm Collins. Will the Chancellor give a categorical assurance that he will not impose VAT on books? If he is intent on taxing knowledge, will he tax the Bible?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's Budget representation. I have noted it, as I note all Budget representations.

Is the Chancellor aware of the great concern among manufacturing companies in my constituency about the threatened imposition of VAT on printed matter and children's shoes? Leaving aside the wider policy issue about the correctness of imposing VAT on books and children's clothing, is he aware that hundreds of jobs could be at stake if those two industries were penalised in that way?

I will answer in two ways. First, one of the pledges that was given during the general election campaign was that we would maintain the zero rate on children's clothing and shoes. All pledges that we made during the election campaign will be honoured. Secondly, under the stewardship of the Government, we have since 1983 created more jobs than the rest of the Common Market put together. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to fear for jobs so long as this Government's policies continue.

Will my right hon. Friend temper his admiration for his noble Friend, Lord Cockfield, by asserting to the House that it is the view of many Conservative Members that decisions about the scope and the rates of VAT should be taken by him and by Parliament, and not by people, however eminent, in the Commission at Brussels?

I fully understand the strength of support for the view just expressed by my hon. Friend, although he will know that there are a number of ways in which we are already committed by Community law in this matter, as were the previous Labour Government. As for my admiration or not for Lord Cockfield, I must say that if he had heard this exchange he would have been rather surprised.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the threshold level for VAT, starting at £21,300, is absurdly low? Will he use his best endeavours in Europe to get it raised and thereby save a tremendous amount of time of small firms and of civil servants?

My hon. Friend has made an important point that is particularly pertinent in the context of my previous answer, because that is one of the ways in which we are bound by Community law. We have our VAT threshold at the highest level permitted under Community law. We are pushing very hard for that to be increased, but of course that requires unanimous agreement by all countries. The fact that unanimity is required in tax matters benefits us in other ways. It enables us to prevent changes in Community law of which we disapprove.

In the admittedly hypothetical event that my right hon. Friend is required to impose VAT on new building, will he assure the House that he will consider sympathetically representations from voluntary organisatons that VAT should not be imposed on new construction projects for which funds have been raised voluntarily from the British public?

My hon. Friend is referring to the infraction case about which we expect to hear the verdict of the European court in the early part of next year. That case was fought extremely vigorously by the Government and of course we hope to win it. If by any mischance I am wrong and we do not win the case, of course we would consider very carefully and sympathetically the points made by my hon. Friend.

Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government intend to continue to zero-rate VAT on food? If that is so, when will he announce the removal of VAT on nuts, crisps and chocolate-coated biscuits, which are an important part of the diet of my constituents and no doubt others?

I am interested to learn about the diet of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as I was not previously aware of that. VAT on nuts, crisps and chocolate-coated biscuits was imposed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to have a few words with his right hon. Friend.

Will the Chancellor accept that these are not Budget representations, but matters of vital interest to the British nation? Will he tell the nation that he will not place a tax on the Bible or books? We have not had such taxes in this country for the past 100 years. In view of the crass and incompetent decision to charge for eyesight tests and dental examinations, will he now have mercy on the British public and the NHS and announce that there will not be VAT on drugs and medicines? I give the Chancellor one more chance to come clean with the country.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that chance. If I may say so—and this is not saying a great deal — the country has rather more confidence in me than in him. As I said earlier, we made a number of pledges during the general election campaign on VAT. All of those pledges will be honoured. As for any other matters, we shall stick to the convention, which I think is right, that statements are made at the time of the Budget and at no other time.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the director general of the CBI; and what was discussed.

My right hon. Friend last met the director general of the Confederation of British Industry on 17 November, when a wide range of issues were discussed.

Was there any discussion on the needs of British industry in the areas of education, investment, research and development and our poor record in that area when compared with other industrial countries? What initiatives will the Minister announce to help British industry catch up and compete with our European neighbours?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what was discussed at the meeting between the director general and my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that over recent months there has been a substantial fall in the level of unemployment, reflecting substantially the fact that British industry is doing so well.

Bearing in mind the views of the CBI, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be manifest poppycock to suggest that central bank intervention in support of a weak currency such as the dollar would not end in a manifestation of that instability being transferred on to another market such as the bond market, thus affecting interest rates? Would he like to comment on the cost of the support of the American dollar to the British economy? What effect has that cost had on interest rates in Britain?

I cannot immediately recall who coined the phrase "manifest poppycock" to describe those circumstances, but whoever it was he was clearly a wise man.

I understand the argument for leaving a reduction in interest rates until after the G7 meeting. However, is it not clear that the likelihood of that meeting is receding week by week? Indeed, the Chancellor said that it would not be much before Christmas. If the meeting is much later, will the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the argument put forward by the CBI that there should be an interest rate cut earlier than that to help industry and to help to keep the value of the pound at a more competitive level?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor still hopes that there will be a meeting of G7 before Christmas. However, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, there have been two cuts in interest rates in recent weeks.

Did the CBI make any representation to my right hon. Friend to the effect that it would be more logical and sensible to levy VAT on everything but at a much lower rate than 15 per cent.?

I am certainly not aware that such a representation was made.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the gross amount of lost tax revenue due to the level of unemployment for 1986.

No such estimate is possible.

Is it not true that the loss of some 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry since 1979 — including 130,000 jobs on Humberside—and the other job losses created by the Government are costing the nation £22 billion in lost tax revenue and unemployment benefit payments? Are the Government not prepared to accept that enormous cost to the nation because it is part of their continuing organised attack on the working class?

The hon. Gentleman really should not believe his own conspiracy theories. He may well not have noticed this, but unemployment has been falling substantially over the past year, not least in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency. I share his pleasure about that. He may also not have noticed — perhaps I may remind him — that the number of people in work has now risen for 17 successive quarters.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the recent buoyancy of income tax revenue, notwithstanding the fall in the standard rate, has been due in large part to the massive growth in employment in the United Kingdom since 1983, which has exceeded the growth in the rest of the European Community? What proportion of increased tax revenues is drawn from that increase in employment?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As I said a moment ago, the number of people in work has now risen consistently for 17 successive quarters, and that necessarily increases tax revenue.

Is there any chance that the Government will admit that while the total cost of unemployment is £22 billion, the misery, despair and personal hurt of unemployment is borne by unemployed people and their families alone? What will the Government do to prevent unemployment from rising in the next six months, as the CBI forecasts it will?

The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap as his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). He has completely overlooked the fact that unemployment is now falling at the rate of 44,000 a month and has been doing so for the past year. He should welcome that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of mortgage interest tax relief.

About £4·75 billion in 1987–88.

Is the Chancellor aware that his lecture in Glasgow last Monday caused great offence to many people in Scotland? Was he displaying a heavy sense of irony in accusing Scottish council tenants of being sheltered from market forces, given that the total public sector housing subsidy for Scotland is £50 million, compared with a subsidy of more than £4,000 million to English private housing? Does he think that it is fair that the south-east of England, with 30 per cent, of the population of the United Kingdom, receives 50 per cent, of mortgage tax relief? Will not Scottish council tenants get fed up with feather-bedding the affluent south-east of England?

One thing that the hon. Gentleman did not point out is that relief per mortgagor in Scotland is higher than in England. House owners in Scotland will be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman is really advocating the abolition of tax relief for home ownership.

At the earliest opportunity, will my right hon. Friend see what can be done to remove the absurdity whereby young couples receive double tax relief on a mortgage by remaining single and cohabiting, yet when they get married they receive single tax relief?

My hon. Friend will be aware that in the Green Paper on personal taxation we put forward a solution to that problem. Unfortunately, the approach that we advocated did not command sufficient support and we have said that we want to reconsider the problem.

What does the Minister think of companies, such as Bradford Investments, which give loans to people to purchase houses on rental purchase schemes and receive tax relief on those mortgages, when the purchasers have no protection or rights with regard to those homes? Should not mortgage tax relief in such cases be stopped?

I shall look into the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the rate of new company registrations; and at what rate these have grown since 1979.

Between the end of 1979 and the end of 1986 the net number of United Kingdom businesses registered for VAT is estimated to have increased on average by 500 per week. Early indications suggest that the rate of increase in 1987 has been greater than that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news, which means that jobs will continue to increase and unemployment will continue to fall?

I wholly concur with my hon. Friend. The creation of new companies registered for VAT has been mirrored by the fall in unemployment.

Does my hon. Friend also agree that the number of companies being removed from the register because of liquidations has fallen this year for the first time in many years and that the economy therefore must be in the healthiest shape for many years?

I am delighted to report to the House that bankruptcies, like unemployment, have been falling.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom and comparable rates in other major industrialised countries.

Over the year to the second quarter of 1987 the United Kingdom economy grew almost 4 per cent., which is faster than any other major industrialised economy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that investment in manufacturing in Britain, particularly in the north of England, is contributing to that success?

Yes, I join my hon. Friend in that observation. It is a significant fact that we are growing faster than any other major industrialised economy.

Does that mean that the figures showing that there is now a decline in investment in manufacturing, which were issued by the hon. Gentleman's Department last month, were wrong? What do the Government intend to do to ensure that areas such as the north will receive proper investment in manufacturing so that they can play their part in Britain's economic recovery?

I think that the hon. Lady is borrowing from question 5. Investment has risen by 6 per cent, in the past 12 months.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of United Kingdom manufactured exports since 1981.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis).

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but sadly I was unable to hear his earlier answer. Can I assume that in his answer he was able to tell my hon. Friend that great strides have been made towards increasing the level of exports of manufacturing industry in Britain?

My hon. Friend will be sorry that he missed the earlier answer. The increase was 35 per cent.

Can the Chief Secretary tell us when the level of unemployment will be the same as it was in May 1979?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied that unemployment is now falling at a very substantial rate. If the Government were to follow the policies of the Opposition, unemployment would be rocketing upwards.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also received the Soviet ambassador, who informed me of Mr. Gorbachev's acceptance of my invitation to make a short stop in the United Kingdom on his way to the United States/Soviet summit meeting in Washington. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for the improvements announced yesterday in primary health care, which will mean that there will be more immunisation and cervical screening as well as health checks for the young and old, and the ability for patients to change doctors?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Since 1979 there have been major improvements in health care provided by doctors and dentists. For example, the number of people on doctors' lists has gone down from 2,200 to an average of 2,000, and overall expenditure on primary health care has gone up by 40 per cent, in real terms, and is planned to rise by another 11 per cent, during the next three years. We have proposed a radical set of reforms to raise the standard of care further.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, if charges are imposed on a service that was previously free, more or fewer people be inclined to use it?

I do not believe that it will make very much difference. All the records show that after substantial increases in dental charges imposed by the Labour Government in 1976 and 1977, and some by us, the number of courses of treatment in England went up from 29 million in 1979 to 32 million last year.

All the figures, and indeed the practitioners, do not agree with what the Prime Minister claims about the effects of charges. When it is known that health charges inhibit people from seeking treatment and testing, and when testing is itself an essential part of preventive medicine, is not the imposition of charges on testing economically stupid as well as being completely morally disreputable?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening to the figures I gave. There were substantial increases in dental charges during the 1970s, imposed by the Labour Government. In 1977 they increased the maximum charge for routine treatment by more than 40 per cent. They increased the charge for a course of treatment by 150 per cent., for a set of dentures by more than 67 per cent, and for metal dentures by 150 per cent. The number of courses of treatment has gone up from 29 million in 1979 to 32 million last year. That was against a background in which many children had no dental decay largely because of the inclusion of fluoride in water and toothpaste.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the visit of Mr. Gorbachev, which she has just announced, is very welcome? Will she tell her visitor that we have read with interest his plans and indeed his book for a perestroika, or restructuring? Will she tell him that if he cares to make his stay a little longer she might be able to give him tips on how to make the enterprise culture work, which he would find useful in further Soviet reforms?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he is aware, we firmly support the bold and courageous changes that are being made internally within the Soviet Union and wish them well. We support the new intermediate nuclear weapons treaty that will so soon be signed. I hope that Mr. Gorbachev will accept my invitation for a longer stay, but I am pleased that he is coming to visit us and that we can have talks before he meets President Reagan.

In the course of her busy schedule, has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read pages 1 and 24 in The Times today, where there is a description of a high-speed IRA chase which took place in the Republic? Does she agree that the article outlines the close relationship between the IRA and Sin Fein and also highlights the failure to date to secure proper co-operation from the Republic on extradition in that an IRA man, who had escaped from the Maze prison and who was under surveillance in the Republic, was arrested and then released 10 minutes after an extradition warrant had been signed in a Belfast court?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the case of Mr. Kane. Our understanding is that Mr. Kane is in custody in the Republic of Ireland on charges of assault and of breach of the peace. A warrant for his extradition on a charge in connection with the Maze escape was handed over early this morning to the Garda.

During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend have a chance to consider the possibility of the Treasury funding the community charge safety net rather than ratepayers in low-rated councils, many of whom have striven to get thrifty councils elected?

I am happy to have the chance to point out to my hon. Friend that the Treasury has no money, save what it takes from the taxpayer.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will take steps to ensure that the Government's replies to all outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee are issued within a specific period to be agreed by the Government.

I am not aware of any need to change the existing arrangements for replying to Public Accounts Committee reports.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there have been 500 reports from Select Committees since 1979 and that only four have been taken on substantive motions on the Floor of the House? Is she aware that the PAC, which is meant to supervise on behalf of the House £160 billion of public expenditure, has only one day's debate? When will the Prime Minister side with parliamentary democracy and accountability rather than with Executive power?

I am not aware that the PAC is dissatisfied with the existing arrangement. At present the Government reply to PAC reports in groups. I believe that has also been for the convenience of the Public Accounts Committee. If we were to move away from the existing system, we should need to get the Committee's views. Since 1979, 60 reports from departmental Select Committees have been referred to on the Order Paper as relevant to debates in the House. With regard to further debates, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has to say in the business statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, my view is that we have had full debates on those reports? More important the Government have responded positively to the Treasury Minutes in response to our recommendations. Will my right hon. Friend note also that the work of the Public Accounts Committee would be enhanced if we could have the attendance of the three Labour Members who have been missing for many weeks?

My hon. Friend makes his own point very effectively. I do not think I can add to it.

Is it the Prime Minister's view that extradition orders—

Order. This question is about the Public Accounts Committee.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that, following the Barber baby controversy, it has now been revealed that the lives of 34 children are similarly at risk, and that one has died while waiting for a bed?

There are 64,000 more nurses and midwives now than there were during the lifetime of the Labour Government. There are 20 per cent, more paediatric nurses now than during the lifetime of the Labour Government. The number of paediatric nurses working on intensive care cots went up by 127 per cent, between 1981 and 1986. That shows an enourmous improvement in the services that are available.

Will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to receive a report from the chairmen of the urban development corporations; and, in particular, from the chairman of the Teesside development corporation, who has some extremely good news for her since her visit there in September?

I cannot promise that I will do so today, but we shall certainly look at it. That urban development corporation was set up quickly and set about getting contracts of great benefit to the area. I am sure that its early success will be continued.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

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

As 34 cases are still awaiting operations at the one hospital in which the David Barber case caused such problems, what advice would the Prime Minister give in the light of the fact that David Barber received his operation only as a result of a tremendous amount of publicity being raised by his parents? What advice would she give to the parents of the 34 other cases in that hospital alone? Is it not time that she shook herself out of her arrogance and complacency in dealing with the matter?

I believe that David Barber has received his operation, that it has gone well and that the hospital has coped well. I have already said that the number of paediatric nurses—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to answer.

I shall give the facts, because what one can do is governed by the professional staff that are available, whose numbers have increased over the past eight years. The numbers of doctors, nurses and paediatric nurses, and the amount of money, have all increased.

May I support the warm welcome that my right hon. Friend has given to the stopover in this country by Mr. Gorbachev? Will she say whether his stay will be long enough to allow her to resume the fruitful dialogue that she had with him in Moscow? Is she aware that there will be a warm welcome, too, for the INF agreement that Mr. Gorbachev is going to Washington to sign, which is a complete vindication of the policy that NATO has followed for the past six years?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that Mr. Gorbachev will be here for a few hours so that we can have a good discussion both on matters affecting the Soviet Union and on the future beyond the intermediate nuclear weapons treaty, which I agree with my right hon. Friend is a vindication of the firmness of NATO and, in particular, a vindication of the attitude taken by this country.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

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

May I ask the Prime Minister what she proposes to do about the desperate health situation in Birmingham? It is not just one baby. Many babies have had operations cancelled and are waiting for operations and this has been going on for months. There are cancer patients awaiting treatment. I have a constituent with a secondary cancer growing in his lungs and he has not been taken into hospital because beds are temporarily closed. We had kidney patients down from Birmingham yesterday who know that there is not enough money for their treatment after April and who fear that they will die. Everyone in Birmingham—everyone in Britain—knows that the Health Service needs more money. Will she stop giving us these party political points and give us a pledge that there will be more money? The situation is now desperate and people are dying as a consequence of a lack of money for the Health Service.

I shall go on giving the hon. Lady facts, because she and everyone else knows that greater provision for the Health Service can be made only out of greater growth in Britain's economy, and that is being provided by the Government. Out of that greater growth about 6,000 extra doctors, 64,000 extra nurses, more specialist paediatric nurses, far more provision and far more operations have been provided. This is paid for not by the Treasury or by some mythical person, but by the taxpayer. When we came to power the average family—[Interruption.]

Order.

People are dying. We do not want the Prime Minister's faked-up figures.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

The Health Service is not free, it is paid for by the taxpayer. In 1979 the average family contributed £11 per week to the Health Service. That is £570 a year—[Interruption.] Now—if I can make myself heard — the average family contributes £29 each week, which is £1,500 per year. Families are paying for the Health Service, and their money has gone to provide an increased number of hospitals and an increased number of doctors and nurses, who are doing a very good job increasing the number of patients that they are treating.