To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the conditions governing the purchase of premium bonds by individuals.

I have received a number of representations concerning the purchase of premium bonds.

Do the Government accepted that the sale of premium bonds has plummeted since they changed the rules so that £100 became the minimum amount that one could purchase? Does that not penalise many people who would like to buy bonds in small amounts for themselves or as presents? Are the Government trying to kill off the premium bond scheme altogether?

I acknowledge the need to encourage the savings ethic, but it is also important to ensure that the taxpayer's interests are protected. The cost of administration is considerable and that change, associated with the other changes to National Savings bank accounts, will save the taxpayer about £5 million a year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we want to encourage the savings ethic among young children, it is important that they learn what is a realistic return on the investments made on their behalf? A return based on a computer deciding whether they have won a cash prize seems totally artificial and unrealistic. Would it not make more sense if young children invested in National Savings certificates?

I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend. Rather than rely on the luck of the draw, it is better for a young saver to build up savings that have an assured rate of return. After March, the odds of winning will be 15,000:1, but the rate of interest applying to savings certificates will be about 5 per cent.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce further tax relief incentives for United Kingdom-based manufacturing firms investing in the United Kingdom.

The existing tax relief for capital investment allows appropriate write-offs. The measures announced in the autumn statement will give additional encouragement to investment in the year to October 1993.

Is the Minister aware that between 1987 and 30 June this year, no fewer than 24,725 manufacturing concerns went into liquidation? What could the Government have done? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that they could have done anything to prevent those bankruptcies? Is he aware that, although reductions in interest rates are welcome, confidence is needed? Until unemployment is reduced, there will be no confidence, no demand and no inducement to invest.

Measures were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the autumn statement to deal with those problems. The measures were widely welcomed and, on investment and other matters, responded to the calls made by industry.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the finest industries in Scotland is the Scotch whisky industry, which contributes massively to the Exchequer through excise duties and value added tax and produces more than £1,700 million worth of exports a year. Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the proposal that, rather than the present system, excise duty should be levied on the alcoholic content of the product? That would help negotiations in Europe, increase revenue intake for the Treasury and give substantial help to the Scotch whisky industry.

I am, indeed, aware of the importance of the Scotch whisky industry, from what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have told me about it, from what I have been told by the Scotch Whisky Association and from my own appreciation of it. I note my hon. Friend's comments and assure him that we consider everything carefully in the approach to the Budget, but I could not possibly anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the disadvantages, from our point of view, of the system he suggests.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned by the fact that his Department's monthly monetary report, issued today, shows that manufacturing employment fell in September by 32,000 and that the rate of job loss in manufacturing is accelerating? Is it not time that the Government recognised that unemployment is not just, as they call it, a lagging indicator but is now in itself a cause of the continuing recession, which is why the Government must take action on unemployment?

The proportion of output from manufacturing has been declining for a long time not just in this country but far more widely. Investment in plant and machinery, which is part of what is needed, is already increasing and productivity is at a record level. That is what we need and what the autumn statement encouraged.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC countries have lower short-term interest rates than the United Kingdom.

None. The United Kingdom has the lowest short-term interest rates in the European Community.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in Scarborough and Whitby, England's two finest resorts, we have many successful companies, such as McCain Foods makers of oven chips, and Pindar Graphics, and that interest rates and exchange rates are so competitive that great British companies such as those are winning orders hand over fist at home and abroad?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituency is typical of many that are benefiting from the reduction in interest rates. That is being reflected in high streets throughout the country. Retail sales in the last three months are up 1 per cent. on the previous three months and are the highest since 1990. In the car industry—it is not so strongly represented in my hon. Friend's constituency, although car retailers are—we have also seen an increase in recent months. There is no doubt that the economy is benefiting from the reduction in interest rates, which I believe will work through increasingly into other parts of the economy.

Does the Chancellor accept that lower short-term interest rates, although welcome, are not likely to have as rapid an impact on the economy as, for example, contracts held by companies that benefit from increased spending on public works? Does he recognise that many small businesses do not have confidence that interest rates will remain low and that they are at a disadvantage compared with businesses in many other European countries, because they are much more dependent on short-term interest rates than those businesses?

I am very surprised by the right hon. Gentleman. We have had from him and his hon. Friends on the Liberal Bench and from Labour Members nothing but pressure to reduce interest rates. We now have the lowest interest rates in the European Community. That is good for our economy, and nobody can gainsay that.

Leaving aside the remarks of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), does my right hon. Friend take encouragement from the fact that the very low rates of interest in America are now resulting in significant economic growth in that country? Does he agree that that gives enormous opportunities to British exporters, in view of the more competitive pound, and that countries that remain in the exchange rate mechanism will see no significant recovery until the Bundesbank reduces its rates?

It is certainly true that recovery is strongly under way in the United States, based on the low interest rates that have obtained there for some time. Given that a higher proportion of our exports goes to the United States than do the exports of other European Community countries, we stand to benefit enormously. I have made clear for many months my belief that it would be for the benefit of the European economy if interest rates in Europe were generally lower.

On the question of a co-ordinated reduction in interest rates, does the Chancellor support the Christopherson European recovery plan? Why is the French Finance Minister and not the British Chancellor taking the lead with new proposals for a European recovery programme? Why has the issue of unemployment been relegated on the British agenda for Edinburgh from the formal session to a mere open-ended discussion over lunch? Will the right hon. Gentleman not realise, even at this late stage, that the test of the British presidency is whether the Government will show the political will to take a lead in reducing unemployment?

As question 5 is on that subject, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman could not hang on and ask a supplementary question that is relevant to the question tabled. He may insist on asking an irrelevant question but I shall give a relevant answer. First, the Christopherson plan has nothing to do with interest rates, so the hon. Gentleman should be clear about that. Secondly, we shall discuss at Edinburgh with other member states a package of measures designed to get the European economy moving again. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, this country has led the way with the package that I announced in my autumn statement: greater priority for capital programmes, with tight control over current spending; special help for the housing market and the construction industry; and additional incentives for private sector investment. Moreover, in the past couple of months, I have announced three percentage points off interest rates, which is providing significant extra help to British business and those with mortgages. At Edinburgh, we shall suggest that others in Europe follow Britain's lead.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further proposals he intends to bring forward to stimulate manufacturing industry.

Manufacturing industry enjoys the benefits of the lowest interest rates in the European Community, inflation below the European Community average in each of the last 14 months, as well as a competitive exchange rate. In addition, the measures in the autumn statement are targeted on sectors where assistance will be most effective. Against that background, I hope to see increasing optimism and confidence about the future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the manufacturing and construction industries are to be stimulated again and are to rise to fulfil their potential as vital parts of the United Kingdom economy, we need a new recognition and understanding by his Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the banking and investment sector of the vital long-term potential of those industries as the only source of non-inflationary economic growth? Does he agree that they must not be sacrificed on the altar of a quick buck or a big dividend?

My hon. Friend's support for manufacturing industry is one of the best-known facts about the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has strongly echoed part of what he said, in particular in his speech at the Mansion House when he said that the Government should examine every policy to ensure that it supports industry. My hon. Friend will have been pleased—indeed, I remember his remarks at the time—at the measures in the autumn statement: increased capital allowances; a new 20 per cent. allowance for industrial buildings; the abolition of car tax; the additional export credit cover; and a further reduction in interest rates.

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided on an individual policy of spending his way out of the recession, why cannot it apply to the rest of the country?

The autumn statement set out what we believe to be an appropriate level of public spending. It is extremely important to keep it under tight control. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman appears to be proposing that we should have higher spending and higher borrowing.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best thing that the House could do for this country is to prevent the Labour party from talking down the country, particularly the manufacturing industry, at every opportunity both at home and abroad?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The greatest challenge that we face now is the restoration of confidence. It is not only the Government who must play a part in restoring confidence; it is business, the Labour party and the media. There are many reasons why we should feel confident about the future, and I have already given some of them. Recovery in our car industry is another example. Recently, production increased by 20 per cent. on the same period last year, and forecasts show that there will be a 12 per cent. increase in car production next year. One would hope that Opposition Members would promulgate such facts as evidence of the recovery and evidence that confidence should be picking up.

When will the Chancellor take effective action to ensure that the banks pass on interest rate cuts to their hard-pressed customers?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has expressed his concern about the matter, as I have. He has already held a meeting with the banks, and will be meeting them again next week.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with low interest rates, record productivity and a competitive exchange rate, the base for the manufacturing industry to take advantage of the upturn is the best that it has ever been? Does he agree that the last thing that manufacturing industry wants is to be burdened with additional costs of the sort that the social chapter would impose on it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Productivity in the third quarter was up by 4.4 per cent. on the year before and stood at a record level. Manufacturing exports now stand at a record level. The United Kingdom is in a highly competitive position. We should like to see all of the European Community being more competitive in world markets.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new projects he is advocating to stimulate co-ordinated European economic growth.

Ministers at the last Economic and Finance Council agreed that there should be a full discussion of the Community's economy at the Edinburgh Council and that member states should consider what action can be taken, both individually and collectively, to hasten recovery.

Does the Chancellor accept that the half-yearly report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts that 34 million people in the western countries and Japan will become unemployed and that unemployment in the United Kingdom will reach 3 million shortly after Christmas, even by the Government's method of accounting, and 4 million by the method of accounting that applied in 1979? Does the Chancellor agree that it would be totally wrong to go to the meeting of Finance Ministers tomorrow and say, "Look what we have done in the autumn statement. Why don't you do that?"? We need a proper, well-funded European-wide growth strategy.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the measures that I announced in my autumn statement have been widely welcomed by industry and all the representative organisations of industry. They accorded very well with the proposals that they were asking for and thought were appropriate from the Government.

Is not one thing certain—that the surest way to prevent growth in Europe would be for the European Commission to increase burdens on the European economy by massively increasing its spending, as it proposes? That burden would come on top of the onerous load of regulations and the hefty burden of the social chapter, which the Opposition are always so keen to support.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opposition Members and the shadow Chancellor seem to think that the only place where jobs come from is Government spending. The shadow Chancellor's only answer to the unemployment problem is more spending. As my hon. Friend says, more spending can destroy jobs rather than create them. It is essential, when not only Britain but every country in Europe is seeking to control spending, that spending should be controlled at European Community level just as much as at national Government level. The important point that will come up at Edinburgh is our rebate from the European Community. We in Britain are determined to stand firm on that. I notice that the shadow Chancellor has said that there should be a negotiation about that.

Is not the truth of the matter that the British Government reluctantly agreed to discuss unemployment over a lunchtime chat—as opposed to making it the main priority at Edinburgh—as a result of pressure from other European states? Will the Chancellor accept that there will be no investment, and no recovery unless confidence improves, and that confidence will not improve unless unemployment comes down? What specific new projects does he intend to propose at the European summit in the next few days? How many jobs will be created in Britain and Europe, without which there will be no return to the confidence that we so desperately need?

The truth is very different from what the hon. Gentleman says. As I have already said, Britain has taken the lead in putting the economic issues on the agenda at Edinburgh. Labour Members ought to tell us why they make it appear to all those who follow these events from abroad that our rebate is up for negotiation. Why should the Opposition weaken our position at Edinburgh?

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the rate of value added tax.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he take this opportunity to reiterate that it is no part of the Government's policy to increase either indirect or direct taxes? We know that economic recovery means that we must leave spending power in the domestic economy and relieve the pressure for increased wages. Of course, higher taxes would reduce people's income and take money out of the pocket of the business man who wishes to invest his money in his firm. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the economic strides made by the Government in the last decade were built on the back of tax reductions, not of tax increases?

My hon. Friend has given us a shrewd analysis of some of the factors that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will need to take into account in the Budget.

The Minister has told us that the Government have no plans to increase the rate of taxation. Will he also assure us that they have no plans to increase the scope of taxation, and especially that they have no plans to include newspapers and other periodicals?

We have no plans of that sort.

If at some point my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has reason to suppose that the public sector borrowing requirement might become disproportionately large, and if the Cabinet concludes that that cannot be remedied by tightening control of public expenditure, will the Government be willing to increase taxation, and to do so sooner rather than later?

Those are decisions that my right hon. Friend will have to take as we get nearer the Budget. As always, we are grateful for my hon. Friend's advice.

Did the £4,000 contribution that was made by the Treasury to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable him to evict a stripper from his private home include a VAT component? Do the Government intend to increase VAT on legal matters?

We have no plans in that respect. The hon. Gentleman will always do his best to cheapen the debate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not so long ago we fought a general election and that one of our major platforms was taxation—both direct and indirect? The public knew our taxation policies and were also well aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public knew what our taxation policies were and what those of the Labour party were? That is one of the major reasons why we are sitting on this side of the House and Labour Members are sitting on that side.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

The Paymaster General is being unnecessarily coy. On 12 March, his predecessor told us of the "categorical pledges" that had been given by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister that there would be

"no increase in the standard rate of VAT either before or after the election."

"no plans to extend the standard rate, or to put up other taxes."—[Official Report, 12 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 959.]

Those categorical pledges stand as they did at that time.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of assets seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in each year since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 became operational; how much of the assets were put back into Customs and. Excise work; and if he will make a statement.

The total amount of confiscation orders made by the courts since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 as a result of Customs and Excise cases is £21.96 million. I will arrange for the figures for individual years to appear in the Official Report, The amount distributed to Customs and Excise through Home Office administered seized assets funds is £614,000 for 1992–93, the first year of the fund's operation.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to congratulate the Customs and Excise drug investigation division on the success of its recent operations, which have resulted in huge seizures. Will he also reassure the House that, after 1 January, when border controls are removed, a far greater proportion of any assets—or, rather, funds realised from the seizure of assets from drug trafficking—will be redirected towards the investigation division?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Customs and Excise, both on last year's seizures of dangerous drugs with a total street value of about £350 million and, in particular, on two recent seizures which have gained a good deal of publicity.

Does the Paymaster General recall a report produced during the previous Parliament by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which suggested that the Channel islands were being used to launder drug money? What action are he and his colleagues taking to ensure that such reprehensible action does not continue?

Since that time the law has been improved, and it is being stepped up further in the Criminal Justice Bill, which will help us to obtain more money from seized assets.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was (a) the growth in gross domestic product since 1979 for the United Kingdom and (b) the OECD average.

Average annual growth between 1979 and 1991 was 1.8 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 2.8 per cent. on average in OECD countries respectively; but between 1981 and 1991, of the G7 countries only Japan had a substantially higher average annual rate of growth than the United Kingdom.

Is the Economic Secretary aware that, if economic growth in this country had matched the performance of our leading industrial competitors, the United Kingdom's output since 1979 would have been some £245 billion higher than it was under his Government? Does he not recognise that his failure to ensure long-term investment in British industry means that, day by day, the gap between Britain and other industrialised nations is widening rather than narrowing? Is not that £245 billion growth shortfall a simple indication that the Government have failed this country?

Like so many Opposition Members, the hon. Gentleman seems to enjoy talking down the United Kingdom's economic performance. Let me tell him that, during the 1980s, this country grew faster than France, Italy or Germany, and took the lion's share of inward investment from the United States and Japan. They have confidence in this country's economic future, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the surest way to ensure that we did not have good economic growth would be to adopt Labour's policies, have the Government choose where we invested and pile tax increase on tax increase, as was so enthusiastically espoused by the Labour party in the last election?

That is self-evident, and the electors agreed.

Is not the truth that it is not us talking Britain down but the Government who have been doing Britain down? The failure of their policies for growth are evident in the wrecked businesses, wrecked industries and wrecked lives up and down the land. We need action for investment, action for training, action for research and development, and an emergency programme for jobs. If the Government will not give us that programme, are they not accepting that unemployment will carry on rising?

I assert again that we never hear any good news from the Opposition. The facts of the matter—[Interruption.] I shall give some facts. Industrial production is up; retail sales have not been higher for more than two years; interest rates have come down; and inflation is falling. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that Britain is well set for growth.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important facts of the past five years has been the level of inward investment in Britain, compared with the lack of it in other countries? That was recently recognised by Germany, which tried to increase tax incentives. Some 250,000 jobs have been created by that inward investment. Does he agree there are two potential threats to its continuation? One, earlier this year, was the possible election of a Labour Government; the second is the possibility that we might be sidelined by not ratifying the Maastricht treaty.

My hon. Friend is right: the level of inward investment, which is precious and important, has been a tremendous vote of confidence in Britain's future economy and industrial performance. The extent to which inward investment in the car industry has been translated into jobs in some of the most important regions of this country is remarkable. That must be succoured and encouraged.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest proposals to help the United Kingdom meet the convergence criteria on Government deficits as laid out in article 104c of the treaty of Rome proposed under the Maastricht treaty.

The Government are determined to return their budget towards balance as the economy recovers. On the expenditure side, the autumn statement set out firm plans for public expenditure to grow over the medium term at a rate within the average rate of growth of the economy. This will help to ensure that fiscal policy remains consistent with the requirements of article 104c.

The Minister will be aware that in my constituency of Warrington, South there are 4,139 people out of work and claiming benefit. Does he agree that the convergence criteria of the Maastricht treaty represent the economic agenda of the 1980s, which was a deflationary agenda, and do not meet the needs for growth of the 1990s? Will he therefore give a commitment that he will place at the top of the Government's agenda the eradication of the fear of unemployment?

I believe that the Government's policy on spending and borrowing is appropriate to the 1990s. The Government have allowed for the extra spending required during the recession to meet additional Government obligations in respect, for example, of the unemployed. None the less, the Government cannot borrow on the never never and it is extremely important that our borrowing should he reduced as the economy recovers. That is why it is our determination that the budget will return to balance as the economy recovers.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to meet the convergence criteria on the fiscal side by moving our budget into balance, but we should reconsider the full-funding rule. We have substantially lowered the price of money, but we need to increase its availability by easing the liquidity in our over-tight banking system.

I know that that is my hon. Friend's view. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is following a full-funding policy. That is the clear policy of the Government.

Is it not a fact that the convergence criteria in the Maastricht treaty are a recipe for deflation, depression and higher unemployment in Europe? Is there not a contradiction between support for the Maastricht treaty on the one hand and calls for a co-ordinated European policy of economic growth on the other? After all, one cannot worship God and mammon at the same time.

I am extremely surprised that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the ambitions to bring down rates of inflation and interest rates and to keep tight control of national debts and borrowing are to be regarded as in some way harmful policies. If we were to allow our borrowing to get out of control, it would mean that year by year more and more public spending would be pre-empted by debt interest payments. and less and less would be available for priority public spending programmes. I cannot believe that that is what the right hon. Gentleman seriously wants.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of new car registrations in the latest period for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for the same period last year.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that there were 106,902 new car registrations in November—6.25 per cent. more than in November 1991.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply. Is he aware that the SMMT expects car production to be up 12 per cent. next year, which is clear evidence of the recovery in the car industry? Does he agree with me that one major component of that recovery will be Toyota in Derbyshire, whose model the Toyota Carina—it might perhaps have been better named the Toyota Edwina, in view of the support received from that quarter—comes off the production line next Wednesday?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that foreign investment in the motor industry in this country is making an enormous contribution both to manufacturing output and to our exports. As my hon. Friend said, the SMMT is expecting a substantial rise in production, not just next year, when Nissan, Toyota and Honda come on stream—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen are quite wrong. Those companies are British companies just as much as any others. They have invested here and deserve to be regarded as British companies, just as those who came from the United States are regarded as British companies. Furthermore, I notice that DRI Europe, which does the forecasting for the SMMT, is forecasting that in the United Kingdom car output will rise from 1.4 million to 2.7 million in 1997. That is a tremendous contribution from foreign investment and ought to be widely welcomed by everyone in the House.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has received from business organisations to his autumn statement.

The Chancellor's autumn statement has been widely welcomed by business organisations throughout the country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the warm welcome from the Confederation of British Industry to the autumn statement is welcomed by many businesses, particularly small businesses? In particular, will he encourage his right hon Friend the Chancellor, in considering measures for the Budget, to look at the tax treatment of capital allowances so that small businesses can, under a favourable taxation policy, carry forward profits for capital purchases from one tax year to the next?

My hon. Friend was certainly right to draw attention to the breadth of support that there was for the autumn statement: it came from the CBI, the Institute of Directors and a very large number of different business leaders. I believe that one of the reasons why it was so welcomed was that the Government were responsive to ideas that had been put to them by British business. My hon. Friend seeks to take the debate on further by putting forward new proposals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might wish to consider in his Budget. I cannot at this stage pre-empt what may be in that Budget, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Why did the Chief Secretary not report the statement of the Engineering Employers Federation, which said that the Government's policies were not only economically incompetent but industrially illiterate as well?

Why, in turn, did the hon. Gentleman not refer to the CBI, the chairman of Grand Met, the British Retail Consortium, the Institute of Directors, Williams Holdings, GKN, Wimpey, the National Association of Estate Agents, the Halifax, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the chief executive of the SMMT, the Rover group, Vauxhall, the chief executive of the Retail Motor Industry Federation, or any of the others?

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from businesses in the north-west about his autumn statement.

The Chancellor's autumn statement has been widely welcomed by business organisations in the north-west and throughout the country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Chester the chamber of commerce has warmly welcomed the broad range of measures introduced in the autumn statement, warmly welcomes the fact that we now have the lowest interest rates in the European Community and believes that the only missing ingredient is confidence, which in Chester is now beginning to return?

I have been very pleased by some of the news from the north-west. General Motors and Vauxhall have invested £190 million in a new V6 engine plant at Ellesmere Port, and AMCOR in my hon. Friend's constituency of Chester has invested £25 million to build a new corrugated box manufacturing plant. I am sure that that is good news for my hon. Friend and for all his constituents.

Would not growth in the north-west and the rest of the country be greatly assisted by greater financing of capital projects? Has not the president of the European Investment Bank said that if the bank were asked, it would increase and speed up the financing of capital projects throughout this country and Europe? Why have the British during their presidency not asked the bank to do so?

First, I believe that one of the reasons why such a broad welcome was given to the measures contained in the autumn statement was that it offered so much protection for capital projects. Individual projects that we have announced, such as proceeding with the Jubilee line, are of tremendous symbolic significance and very helpful. As for the European Investment Bank, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have some proposals regarding the bank which he will wish to put to the European Community at the Council meeting in Edinburgh.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the Leader of the House agree that the extent of marriage breakdown in Britain, and especially its implications for the children involved, is a matter of great concern to the nation as a whole? Will he press on the Prime Minister the need properly to fund the conciliation and counselling services undertaken by organisations such as Relate and the National Children's Home? Does he recognise the direct connection between the Government's policies and the current incidence of marriage breakdown?

As it happens, I know well from my own previous and, indeed, present association with Relate that a great deal is going on between the Government and that organisation and others to help in this very important matter. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's question as an expression of his support for our encouragement of those organisations.

Will my right hon. Friend invite the Prime Minister to come to my constituency of Bromsgrove, where he will find a well managed and well run local authority which is Conservative-controlled? Will he also suggest to the Prime Minister that he might choose to visit Monklands, the constituency of a member of the Opposition, where he will find a local authority riddled with nepotism?

I think perhaps the proper response to that question is that it is to be hoped that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who is also holding a meeting in Edinburgh, might pay a visit to Monklands and look into it himself.

Has the Lord President seen the growing number of references to the likelihood that we shall soon see the emergence of an explicitly two-tier Europe? Which tier will Britain be in?

I have seen the references and I know that Britain will be in the fast lane. I also know that if the Labour party had its way, we should have been forced into the slow lane.

The position that the Lord President describes is certainly that which should exist, but I do not think that anyone else will think that it is the position which does exist. Does he recognise that a two-tier Europe with Britain in the second tier is just what British business has long feared, and that if that happens, it is not only likely to be extremely damaging but will be in no small part due to the incompetence of the Government's economic policy and their chaotic mismanagement of the British presidency?

I do not quite know on what basis the hon. Lady puts her point that nobody agrees with us. The whole of British industry knows that Labour policies in relation to the social chapter, tax policies and payroll tax would mean that Britain would be in the slow lane throughout the world.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday 9,000 Rangers fans travelled to Germany at a cost of £300 per head to witness Rangers' magnificent win over Moscow? Does he agree that on that basis there is light at the end of the recessionary tunnel?

I did not know about the 9,000 figure, but I am delighted at the result and my hon. Friend makes a good point.

Will the Leader of the House respond to the question of which I gave him notice yesterday so that he might have a chance to discuss the answer with the Prime Minister? In view of the deteriorating situation in the area, will he give us a categorical assurance that the Government, working with others, are not prepared to allow the city of Sarajevo to fall to the aggression of the Bosnian Serbs?

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Yeovil for his courtesy. I can tell him that the British Government see no justification whatever for continued Serb aggression in Sarajevo or anywhere else in Bosnia. Clearly, the western powers to which he referred could give the sort of undertaking that he seeks only by introducing a massive injection of foreign military power. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that they do not believe that such an intervention would contribute to a solution of the crisis. The right hon. Gentleman will know, however, that after the steering committee meeting of the conference on Yugoslavia here in London there will be a meeting in Geneva next week when the main item on the agenda will he the war in Bosnia.

Will the Lord President lead the House in condemning the religious violence which has now spread worldwide? Will he also agree that the International Moslem Foundation, a moderate organisation, and the Al Khoei and Ul-Bayt based in the United Kingdom, are just as horrified as we are by the violence and are solid and sincere members of the United Kingdom?

I very much endorse the concern and support that my hon. Friend has expressed and also the calm support by numbers of people, including the Indian Prime Minister, throughout the world.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

I have been asked to reply.

I say this with no disrespect to the Leader of the House, but this is like getting 24 points on the football pools and finding that the first dividend is only 50 pence. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any regrets about the fact that the Conservative party sent two experts from its dirty tricks department to help President Bush, that the Foreign Secretary sent a telegram to James Baker saying "happy shooting" just before the election, and that some idiot authorised a search of Bill Clinton's files? Is it any wonder that in Arkansas the Prime Minister is regarded not so much as an FOB as an SOB?

If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West were to win as much as 50 pence on the pools, he would be doing better than I did in the days when I did them. On his question, he may like to know that there have been some very friendly exchanges between President-elect Clinton and the British ambassador only yesterday evening, and that President-elect Clinton has made it clear that he looks forward very much to meeting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister after the inauguration.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, among the many issues facing the Edinburgh summit, the Government attach the highest possible priority to the future financing of the Community, and especially to securing Britain's abatement?

I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the case. Future financing, enlargement and finding a solution to the Danish problem are important key items on that difficult agenda. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will certainly make it clear that Britain has no intention of compromising on the abatement.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

I have been asked to reply.

As we approach Christmas, may I draw the Lord President's attention to the publication today of "Sick to Death of Homelessness" by the housing charity, Crisis, and to the "This Week" television programme this evening entitled "Dying for a Home"? One of the conclusions drawn is that of the 617 deaths of homeless people up to 31 August this year, 65 per cent. were preventable, given proper housing and good medical care. Is that not a terrible indictment of the callous disregard with which the Government treat those least able to help themselves?

The hon. Gentleman might have been more persuasive if he had mentioned that, as a result of measures introduced by the Government during the past year, the number of households accepted as homeless has fallen, the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fallen by nearly a quarter, and the number of people known to be sleeping rough on the streets of London has dropped by about 60 per cent. according to an assessment made by the voluntary organisations themselves.

Notwithstanding the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about our intervention in Sarajevo, will he consult the Prime Minister to ensure that an undertaking is given to come to the House and provide a debate before any British troops are used for anything other than strictly humanitarian aid purposes?

I note my hon. Friend's point, and I shall of course draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Lord President aware that more than 7,000 homeless families will spend Christmas in bed-and-breakfast accommodation without the means or resources to prepare the simplest of meals? In the light of the growing body of evidence of the ill health and malnutrition suffered especially by the children of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it time for a boarder premium to be paid to such families so that while they wait for the right to a home at least their children have the right to a decent diet? Or is he prepared to allow the increasing poverty and homelessness on our streets to be accompanied by scurvy and rickets?

I have already commented on the general question of homelessness. The hon. Lady will know that, in addition to what I have already said, it has recently been announced that the Government are to put a further sum of nearly £90 million over three years into the rough sleepers initiative to tackle some of the problems which worry her. She will also be aware that, as a result of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security a few weeks ago, there will be a real increase in the value of income-related social security benefits next April.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the great interest that parents have recently expressed in information about their children's examination performance—information which they have every right to have and which the Government have allowed them to have, but which the Opposition would deny them—parents would feel huge disappointment if some teacher unions boycotted their children's tests?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A boycott of the tests would betray the pupils who have been working hard at the national curriculum and who deserve to have their achievements recognised. Her Majesty's inspectors' reports on the trial tests have said that they were a great success. It is absolutely right to say that it is time that the Opposition stopped opposing everything that helps to improve the quality of education and choice for parents.

Given the state of the economy, the homelessness and the poverty in this country today, does the Leader of the House agree that the worst possible scenario is that the Government know what they are doing?

When the hon. Gentleman makes such a point, he might remember that in the past two years the rate of inflation has been more than halved and interest rates have been more than halved. We see exports at record levels and we see increases in retail sales. In the past three months, we have seen a 20 per cent. increase in car production.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who try to criticise the basis on which houses have been valued for the purposes of the council tax risk severely misleading the public? Does he agree that it is relative house prices and not absolute house prices that matter? Does he agree that we have devised a fair basis for the fair implementation of a very fair tax?

I of course agree with my hon. Friend that the purpose of the valuations is a comparison between relative property values. I agree even more with him that a system that takes relative values into account—alongside other factors, including rebates—will be far fairer than the discredited rating system to which the Labour party wishes to return.