To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he attaches to tackling the smuggling of alcoholic drinks. [7076]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to counter the smuggling of tobacco and alcoholic drinks. [7078]

The Government take a serious view of smugglers, who seek to evade payment of revenue duties and undermine legitimate trade. Customs and Excise has about 250 single market excise staff specifically engaged in countering smuggling of alcohol and tobacco. Additionally, other Customs staff involved in audit and investigation work make an important contribution.

Is my right hon. Friend working with the honest traders in cracking down on smugglers? Is he aware of the effect of smuggling on the businesses of honest traders, who play by the rules and are penalised for their honesty?

Yes, I take seriously the fact that smuggling is not only anti-social and illegal but undermines legitimate traders. That is why, last November, Customs and Excise formed an excise alliance with trade groups representing those who make, transport, distribute and sell alcoholic drinks and tobacco, to exchange information about smuggling and to co-ordinate action to stop that traffic.

What my right hon. Friend has said will be welcome to tobacconists and those in the licensed trade in my constituency, who have been concerned about the problem for a long time. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the active steps that he has always taken to meet groups of people involved in the trade from my constituency and from many other constituencies. Has there been any opportunity to employ additional staff to deal with the important and serious problem of smuggling. Was it possible to introduce any particular measure in the latter part of last year, or will it be possible for the future?

Yes, I can give that assurance. In the present financial year, Customs and Excise has deployed additional staff where there is a particular risk. I am pleased to say that 20 additional excise verification officers have been allocated to work against smuggling during the coming financial year. We take the threat seriously, and deploy resources accordingly.

I think the Government have a cheek to talk about controlling smuggling of any kind, because when I met the customs officers in Southend last year, their biggest complaint was not about 20 new workers but about the fact that thousands of them had been given the sack and sent to the dole queue. What they are concerned about—

Order. I should like to hear a question from the hon. Gentleman. He has not yet put a question to the Minister.

If the Minister is really concerned about dealing with smuggling, what he ought to do—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House, and he knows that it is Question Time. He may have a perfectly genuine question to put to the Minister, but he must put it in the form of a question, not make a statement.

Why does the Minister not get off the backs of the customs officers and allow them to do the job that they are intended for—dealing with all those problems? Instead of talking about 20 staff being added, why does he not ensure that the thousands who have been sacked get their jobs back?

It is good to know that old Labour has survived into the new year, and still believes that public services require ever-more staff at ever-higher public cost. We believe in deploying staff effectively—where the risk and threat arise. I explained in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) that we are deploying extra excise verification officers to deal with the smuggling risk in the areas affected.

Is the Minister aware of the significant discrepancy between the amount of beer supposedly exported to France from the United Kingdom and the amount of beer that the French imported from us? According to official statistics, some 107,000 barrels of beer disappeared into thin air in 1994, whereas previously the two sets of figures were approximately balanced. We must assume that not all of that beer was drunk on a booze cruise somewhere. Will the Minister confirm that he is aware of, and concerned about, the damage being done to revenue into the Treasury, the growth of illegal duty scams and criminal activity and the threat to jobs in this country? Could he explain to the House the Government's strategy for tackling this growing criminal activity?

I do not know whether the hon. Lady wrote her question before she heard my earlier reply, but I have outlined the additional staff and resources that we are deploying. The hon. Lady has reminded the House of something that is at least partly true—that cross-border shopping is only a part of the trade and smuggling is only a part of the problem. There is also a threat caused by the diversion of exports back on to the home market having received the repayment of excise duty. It is to counter all of those threats and illegalities that we have formed the excise alliance with the trade and deployed additional staff. In his Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend—recognising that specific problems affected certain excise items—either froze or reduced duty in some cases.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the successes of Customs, but may I remind him that hundreds of millions of pounds of smuggled goods are coming over? If we could only take the simple precaution of having a customs officer open the doors of the dozens of transit vans which come over on the cross-channel ferries, we could stop this. However, I am told that that is against European Union regulations. If French industry was being damaged, can one imagine that the French would take any notice of the regulations? If we cannot open the doors of vans at the port, why can we not have a road block 50 yd down the road?

As I think that my hon. Friend recognises, the single market in Europe means that a port is no longer a routine fiscal frontier. However, that does not mean that we cannot open doors and examine cargoes where excise duty fraud is suspected. When I visited Dover last year, I saw the excise verification officers carrying out effective checks to counter the menace.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria, other than those specified in the treaty of European Union, Her Majesty's Government apply as relevant to successful monetary convergence within the European Economic Community. [7077]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his conditions for deciding whether Britain should use its opt-out in respect of proceeding towards economic and monetary union. [7082]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the permanence of the convergence criteria in the Maastricht treaty for countries wishing to join the single currency. [7087]

The convergence criteria are set out in the Maastricht treaty. We regard differences in productivity growth and flexibility of labour markets as also being relevant. The opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister means that we are not committed to join a single currency. We would seek to join only if it were in our national interest at the time.

Does the Minister agree that the criteria would have knock-on effects for the criteria used for determining Treasury policy? Is the Minister aware that article 109.j.1. and protocol 6 article 3 state that a country must operate successfully inside the exchange rate mechanism—in whatever band—for two years before 1 July 1998? Would not that criterion produce problems for the Government's policy and for the country? Will the Minister list those problems? Would they include some of the difficulties being faced by Mr. Juppé and President Chirac?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, all those matters will have to be judged at the time a country decides to go in or not. On his second point, which related to ERM membership before a country can join any single currency, the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that we would not be rejoining the ERM in this Parliament, and that we would not be going back into an ERM comparable to the old one in any Parliament in the future. Therefore, it will be for the Heads of Government at the time to judge whether the exchange rate economic criteria have been met.

Would it not be a much easier decision for the Government to take if only they attended to the weakness and the lack of competitiveness of our leading companies—factors that have been exemplified by the appalling trade figures that have been announced? Would it not be better for the Government to spend their time attending to that so that we became a more prosperous nation, on the back of wealth-creating industries, than to trouble themselves over the niceties of convergence policy, which will eventually strangle us in any event?

The hon. Member is a little confused. If one looks at the list of the most profitable companies in Europe, one finds that the lion's share of them are British companies. The hon. Gentleman is also unwise to go on one month's trade figures. The Labour party suffered from that mistake back in 1970. He might like to wait for the next month's trade figures, because the overall position on trade is not at all bad.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are two different views about the convergence criteria in the Maastricht treaty? One view is that they could be regarded as shackles which will lead to higher unemployment in some of the weaker European economies; the other is that they are a totally necessary discipline to ensure that any country joining the European single currency has been exercising proper budgetary control, and control over its budgetary deficit. To which of those views does my right hon. Friend subscribe?

My view is that the disciplines that we have accepted are disciplines that we would have been happy to accept, whether or not Maastricht or convergence criteria existed. It is sensible to manage the economy in order to reduce debt and to have low inflation. It is sensible for the whole continent of Europe to manage its economy so that there is the minimum disruption and movement.

While I am much heartened to hear my right hon. Friend re-affirm the Prime Minister's statement that a Conservative Government will never allow this country to rejoin an exchange rate mechanism, how is that to be reconciled with the fact, if I am correct, that the machinery for joining a single European currency at any time requires re-entry into the ERM 12 months beforehand?

That question is related to the one asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It will be for the Heads of Government at any future summit to judge whether any exchange rate criteria have been met. As the Prime Minister has said to the House, the exchange rate mechanism, with its narrow bands, that existed at the time of the Maastricht treaty cannot be said truly to exist at all now. The problems for the Heads of Government will be interesting.

Following the Minister's interesting replies and his confirmation of what the Prime Minister previously told the House about not joining the ERM in this Parliament or any other Parliament—if the Government are re-elected—can he say clearly whether membership of the ERM is still a condition for joining a single currency? It is not just a matter of interpretation, because the condition that we are a member for at least two years before the operation date is written into the treaty itself. Is the Minister saying that provisions written into the treaty are just a matter for interpretation and consideration, or is he saying that the treaty has no real validity?

The right hon. Member makes a fair and interesting point. I think that the Heads of Government will find themselves in some difficulty, because the ERM which existed at the time of the Maastricht treaty does not now, according to most interpretations, exist.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key criteria for judging whether we should join a single currency is whether it will be in the national interest to do so? Does he further agree that, in order to preserve that freedom, the vital consideration at that time—indeed during the whole of the intervening period—is neither to rule out the possibility of joining within any specified time frame nor to enter into any commitment to join until we can judge whether it is in our interest?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have put this country, uniquely in Europe, in that position. It is odd that the Labour party, and especially the Leader of the Opposition—who now describes himself as a born-again Thatcherite, which is a surprising description—apparently see no constitutional issues at all, according to the quotations that I have read, in joining the European monetary union. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was right to put that point to the Leader of the Opposition the last time the House discussed these matters. As the Leader of the Opposition sees no constitutional or other implications, we must take it that, if we have met the convergence criteria, he regards whether we join as merely a technical matter. That is not the position on the Conservative side of the House.

Given that the Prime Minister has failed to persuade the Italian Government to co-operate in delaying the start of the potential EMU, in spite of the Italian Government's difficulties in meeting the criteria—a meeting perhaps of the unwilling and the unready—will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it remains Government policy to validate their opt-out by ensuring that they are capable of meeting the time scale, because otherwise he must accept that the opt-out will have no validity, in or out?

The United Kingdom will meet the criteria. A large number of other countries—most surprisingly, even Germany itself at the moment—do not meet the criteria. The situation that was foreseen at Maastricht is, in any case, not going to come about. It was then foreseen that all the countries of Europe, with the exception of the United Kingdom, which had negotiated an opt-out, were going to move smoothly into a single currency. It is clear that, whatever happens, a large part of the European Union is not going to join a single currency—at least, not at the first available date.

Given that my right hon. Friend has a powerful and inventive mind, what conceivable circumstances could come about which would make it in this country's best interest to surrender for ever its fiscal independence, which would be the inevitable consequence of going into a European single currency?

It was a saying of the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, that it is unwise to take decisions until one has to take them. It is the strength of this country's position, negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that, if we want to, we can consider those issues at the right time. At the moment, they are entirely hypothetical.

What is the Government's policy on the use of the opt-out? Will the right hon. Gentleman set out the criteria for determining the national interest? Are they summed up by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said:

"I don't want to see a single currency—period",

"no truly unified market without a single currency…A close association of monetary policies will be needed if the Single Market is not to be put at risk"?

There is no confusion on the Conservative side of the House. It is a little unwise of the Labour Front Bench, half of whom were elected on a platform of leaving the European Community altogether and now regard whether we go into a single currency as merely a technical matter, to accuse us of confusion on this matter. I could read out quotations, to the embarrassment of members of the Labour Front-Bench team, about their position of conscience on how important it was to leave the European Community. Some of their right hon. and hon. Friends have stuck to that; they have thrown it all overboard.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people argue that the opt-out from the single currency has damaged the country's interest? Is he aware that that argument is advanced by Opposition Front-Bench Members? Does that not seem extraordinary when they may well support us using the opt-out if it is not in our economic interest to join a single currency?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Leader of the Opposition on this, as on many other matters, has tucked himself in behind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and takes—as far as I can tell, because the position changes from day to day—more or less the same position. He would be very unwise not to, because for any party to say that it would not look at the issue at the time in the interests of this country seems to me unwise.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to promote and encourage economic confidence. [7079]

The Government's policies are increasing confidence by creating the right conditions for sustainable growth through low inflation, sound public finances and a continuing programme of structural reform.

That is all very interesting, but does the Minister not realise that his complacent attitude will be received with dismay and anger by the millions of people who are languishing in the frustration of negative equity, who cannot sell their homes to take jobs elsewhere in the country because no one is prepared to purchase their homes? Many of them are people who have not got jobs and people who are not sure about their employment prospects. People are not prepared to invest in homes because they have no confidence. What is the Minister going to do about the great burden of negative equity that faces many of the constituents of my hon. Friends, and many of the constituents of Conservative Members—people who voted for them at the last general election, especially in the south-east of England?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will calm down for a moment so that I can give him some useful information on this subject. He may recall that, over Christmas, the Halifax building society issued an excellent report, which pointed out—

What did it say last year?

Wait for it. The best news comes a little later in my presentation. The Halifax building society's report said that it saw a recovery in the housing market and increasing prices. On our part, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced a reduction in interest rates, creating the lowest mortgage level for 30 years. In case the hon. Gentleman was half asleep at Christmas, that was good news for those who want movement in the housing market.

Although I accept much of what my hon. Friend has just said, does he accept that, to regenerate economic confidence, it is important to regenerate the housing market? Although he was right to say that the Halifax building society sees a modest rise in house prices and anticipates an increase in house prices next year, last year's figures show that house prices decreased by 1 per cent. on the previous year. Will he therefore press the Chancellor yet again to ignore Mr. Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England, and further reduce interest rates, which would bring about confidence not only in the housing market but industrially?

My hon. Friend advocates some important points. He will have noted that, at the last meeting between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, when they jointly appeared at a press conference, they were in accord on a reduction in interest rates. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be entirely seduced by the Opposition, thinking that confidence is a single-club issue—that of the housing market. Important though it is, our economic policies are creating low inflation and the prospect of 3 per cent. growth next year, and unemployment is already down by more than 700,000. Those clear indicators of growing confidence in the British economy will cause business investment to grow by a further 9 per cent. this year.

Does the Minister agree that confidence could be further restored by simplifying the methods of supplying grant assistance to relatively small companies, particularly those that employ fewer than 20 people? Might one of the instruments to do that be the enterprise investment scheme?

I am glad that the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member."] I apologise to the right hon. Member. He mentioned the enterprise investment scheme, which is important as it enables those who wish to advance venture capital and seek an involvement in small, growing companies to realise the dream of growth in the small company sector. If the right hon. Gentleman has points that he would like to discuss, I should be happy to hear from him, because that important scheme is working well.

Is it not clear that economic confidence will be revived further and sustained provided that the Government follow their current prudent fiscal policy and a cautious monetary policy? Is not the clearest evidence of the success so far the vote of confidence given by all the inward investors in this country, both direct and portfolio?

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition have chastised us in recent months on league tables but they do not like to talk about the fact that the United Kingdom is top of the league table for inward investment. We are confident of our economic policies because we can answer questions about interest rates, growth and employment. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) should consider the fact that his party is incapable of answering any economic question on any aspect.

The Financial Secretary and his right hon. and hon. Friends should turn their minds to the reason why there are 1 million fewer people in jobs than there were when his right hon. Friend became Prime Minister. At a time when one in five households of working age have no one bringing in a wage, what effect will it have on confidence now to abolish the community action programme, denying help to long-term unemployed youngsters, who need it most? Is that not typical of the Conservative party, creating a divided Britain and denying the long-term unemployed a stake in society?

The hon. Gentleman has failed to notice the many efforts that the Government have made to help people, such as jobseekers' programmes and education, to equip them for the world of work, and the fact that, under our economic policies, 700,000 people have left the unemployment register. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman considered his constituency and the success of the Rover car company in Cowley. That company has been recruiting about 4,000 new employees and is making about £200 million of new investment. That is the key to lasting prosperity. Let the hon. Gentleman look in his own back yard for an answer to his question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that businesses, pensioners and families all appreciate low inflation, which the Government have achieved? Further, does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to economic confidence in this country would be the election of a Labour Government?

What are you doing about it?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), and I will tell the hon. Member for Thurrock what the people are saying in that constituency. They are saying that they understand that the Government have sound economic policies and that the Government can ask the searching economic questions, unlike the Opposition, who fail ever to answer any question about what they would do about interest rates, and about what their economic and tax policies are. The Labour party is the party of "don't know"; we are the party that does know, and we know that we have the confidence of the British people on economic policy.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his Budget statement. [7080]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received widespread commendation for a responsible Budget which will sustain economic recovery, help control inflation, and put money back into people's pockets.

Is the Minister aware that the recent severe weather meant that many thousands of people throughout the country suffered from freezing or flooding in their homes, yet the Budget will make things even worse by imposing a cut of 31 per cent. on the home energy efficiency scheme, which will mean that at least 200,000 homes will not be properly insulated and more than 1,000 jobs will be destroyed? Will the Government therefore reverse that deplorable decision and also reduce the rate of VAT on domestic fuel, which is causing widespread hardship?

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman should address himself to hon. Members on his own Front Bench, who failed to table a motion that would have enabled a vote on VAT on fuel.

Has my right hon. Friend received representations from the bingo industry? In the recent Budget, general gaming duty was cut by 1 per cent. and pools duty by 6 per cent., but the bingo industry was excluded. That appears extraordinarily unfair to an industry that provides gambling with entertainment to millions of people, is well run and even in this day, when the national lottery is advertising throughout the country, is prevented from advertising its prize money to attract the public.

I am aware of the worries that have been expressed by that industry. Especially, I believe that the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, which related to the possibility of deregulating the industry somewhat, perhaps on the advertising side, would touch a sympathetic chord in the Government. We shall examine those proposals closely.

Further to the Chancellor's remarks in his Budget statement about private finance, will the Chief Secretary tell the House how the Government are responding to the representations that Eurotunnel is making for Government guarantees to underwrite a bond to refinance its massive debt? Has a request been received by Ministers? How are the Government responding? Will they stick to their policy of no subsidy, and will the Chief Secretary give an undertaking to make a statement to the House before there is any change?

There is no change in policy. There is a growing consensus between the two sides of the House on private finance in general. As the Labour party begins to understand the policy, I think that it is beginning to support it, although there are some exceptions among Labour Front Benchers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reduction of 1 per cent. in general betting duty has been warmly welcomed throughout the racing industry? Will he take this opportunity to encourage all elements of the racing industry—including bookmakers and the British Horseracing Board—to advance their already well-progressed discussions and reach an early conclusion on how the money should be distributed for the benefit of racing and bookmakers?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. We hope to help to broker such an agreement and to reach an agreement fairly soon. It would be sensible to achieve such an agreement.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Greenbury report. [7081]

Since the publication of the report my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations, both written and oral.

Surely there is a strong case for legislation to implement the proposals of the Greenbury report, not least because more than half the electricity companies are being taken over and will therefore not be listed on the stock exchange in the near future. Are the Government selling out to private greed yet again?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. It shows that there is a fundamental distrust among Opposition Members and doubt as to whether private industry can put its own House in order in relation to the matters discussed by Greenbury. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in his report, Sir Richard stated that he felt that legislation was an inappropriate way of dealing with the problem. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the stock exchange responded with commendable speed to change the listing arrangements on disclosure, particularly of salary. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said that a review will take place—when the pensions aspects of the Greenbury report have been studied—with a view to amending the Companies Act, where necessary, where it relates to disclosure.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the extension of share ownership and responsible share option agreements? Does he agree that the Government should be proud of their record of extending share ownership from 3 million to 10 million people since 1979? Does he agree that that is the best way of ensuring that people have a stakeholding in this country?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on what real stakeholding is about: having a share of something of which one is a part. That achievement has been made possible in the face of fearsome opposition from the Opposition. The Greenbury report occasioned a thorough debate involving my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who was able to announce in the Budget the new company share option scheme and enhancement of the profit-sharing and save-as-you-earn schemes which currently benefit 2 million people. I have no doubt that there will be a wide uptake in British industry of further opportunities so that employees can have a stake in the companies for which they work.

The Financial Secretary seems to place a good deal of faith in the privatised utilities putting their own house in order. That faith is not shared by the majority of people. Is he aware that the abuses in the boardrooms of privatised utilities are continuing? Is he also aware that the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds investment committee—who is himself a member of the Greenbury committee—has warned that powerful voices are trying to block and wreck the Greenbury proposals? Will he give a guarantee that the Government will introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that the subject of contributions to the pension arrangements of people in boardrooms is brought forward without further delay? Will he also give a guarantee that he will not allow the thrust of the Greenbury report to be wrecked by vested interests in the privatised utilities?

Again, Opposition Front Benchers display a fundamental distrust of the idea of private companies being able to put matters right. The hon. Gentleman's attack on the privatised utilities is a typical smokescreen behind which the Opposition hide the many benefits that privatisation has brought to consumers. Many of the privatised companies have given clear public undertakings that they will accept the Greenbury recommendations and are moving towards them. If the hon. Gentleman considers the facts—clearly his boardroom lunches have not enabled him to do so—he will see that the Institute of Actuaries has been engaged by the stock exchange to work out, in consultation, how the issue of pensions and their benefit to directors should be properly valued. Once that exercise has been completed in June this year, the information will go to the revised listing arrangements and, as I said a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will look at ways of changing the Companies Act, if appropriate, to enable matters of disclosure to be dealt with properly.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the prospects for living standards in 1996. [7083]

Real personal disposable income is expected to rise by 2.75 per cent. in 1996. A family on average earnings should be about £450 better off next year after tax and inflation.

I thank my hon. Friend. Does he agree that living standards have risen at least 10 times faster under the present Government than under their miserable predecessors, the Labour Government? Does he further agree that, in the stakeholder society proposed by the Labour party, people's income, or at least part of it, would be confiscated, as would part of the employers' outgoings and we would have a "Whitehall knows best" job at the worst time?

My hon. Friend is an astute observer of the scene. He will certainly know that since the Conservative party took office the average family on average earnings has been £4,500 a year better off as a result of our policies. The stakeholder society strikes me as the equivalent of stir-fried politics—a bit of this and a bit of that, all mixed up with no recipe. It resembles today's special—here today, gone tomorrow.

What effect will the disgraceful 7 per cent. Budget cut in university funding have on living standards? Is it not a disgrace to cut funding to universities by 7 per cent., with all the knock-on effects not only on teaching and research but on the innovation and enterprise in which universities are becoming increasingly involved?

I am not certain whether that question has the approval of the shadow Chief Secretary and his agreement that Labour would immediately restore the position. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened in terms of ensuring that universities can continue to offer the excellence of their facilities to more and more students occasioned by our education policies. They have taken a tremendous interest in the private finance initiative and I have no doubt whatever that they will use that as a good source of funding to continue the expansion of that vital work.

Are not prospects for living standards much more positive in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe? For example, this morning's Daily Telegraph forecasts that unemployment in Germany will reach more than 4 million this month and quotes German employers as being angry with the German Government for not introducing more flexibility into the work force. Does not the Labour party want to take Britain down the German road of over-regulation, minimum wages and the social chapter which will produce unemployment of more than 4 million in Germany? Does not Germany also want to take Britain down that road?

My hon. Friend highlights some of the important issues that make Britain an ever-improving place to do business. We are competitive, our costs are low, we are not wedded to the social chapter and, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we will outstrip Germany and France in growth next year. Those factors will lead to further reductions in unemployment and the improvement in living standards predicated by my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him by industry on his Budget. [7084]

Industry has welcomed the Budget because it recognises that it gives Britain the best chance of steady growth with low inflation.

That is a typically bullish reply by the Chief Secretary. How does he square that bullish response with a real economic indicator such as manufacturing output, which has shown an increase of less than 1 per cent. over the past 12 months?

Manufacturing output is up, as is manufacturing investment. The hon. Gentleman asked me what the response from industry was to the Budget, so I gave it. The director general of the CBI said:

"We welcome the fact that Government has broadly stuck to the prudent economic line we recommended".

"The Chancellor is on the right track".

Has my hon. Friend considered what an income tax increase of 3p in the pound for people in Scotland would do to industry? What effect would such an increase have on wage bills and on industrial development?

I think that the answer is obvious: jobs would be lost in Scotland and the high road from Scotland to England would have many more Scots on it, to the great benefit of England. It would prove very destructive to the Scottish economy and it would benefit all Scotland's neighbours.

Can the Minister answer the complaint by the Federation of Small Businesses about the absence of any measures to tackle the problems of late payment which affects British industry? If he has received any representations from that organisation, will he ensure that his Department—which has a disgraceful record of late payments—increases its efficiency in paying its bills?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. My Department's performance was not good enough about a year ago. I am happy to say that since August last year it has improved and it is now making just under 90 per cent. of payments within the time allowed. My Department's performance was not satisfactory a year ago and we shall see that it improves.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7106]

I have been asked to reply.

Tonight's speech by Baroness Thatcher is set against the background of her well-known opposition to a single currency. As the one who wielded the knife that did her in, will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to reassert the Prime Minister's view that Britain should be at the heart of Europe, and his own stated view that there can be no truly unified single market without a single currency?

The whole House understands that there is a massive national self-interest in our policies in Europe. The purpose of our presence in Europe is to fight for British self-interest. That was very much the view of my right hon. Friend Lady Thatcher and it is the view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Each of us does it in his own way and in his own context.

Has my right hon. Friend received his £50 electricity rebate? Does he agree that the family silver is still there and that it is working for us better than ever, that millions of people have been turned into stakeholders and that the money that they have paid the Government for their shares has been invested in hospitals, schools, transport and in many other essential services?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his anticipation and that of the electricity consumers of this country that their average bill will be £90 less next year than it would have been otherwise.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister comment on today's damning report from the British Medical Association which says that patients' lives are being put at risk because of the crisis in the provision of acute hospital beds in our country?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that very important issue. The fact is that there has been an increase in the number of emergency and accident admissions to hospitals in some parts of the country. The increase is not universal, as there has actually been a decrease in some areas.

Even so, is it not true that yesterday an elderly man who had suffered a heart attack died because none of the 12 Yorkshire hospitals could admit him owing to a shortage of beds? Is it any wonder when one looks at how the money is spent by the Government? They have spent an extra £1 billion on bureaucracy and an extra £25 million on company cars, the number of accountants has doubled, and the number of managers has increased from 500 to 20,000—while they have cut the numbers of beds and nurses. Is that not the real reason why there is a crisis in the national health service?

The whole House is deeply preoccupied with the standards of the health service and with ensuring that they are maintained. It does no service at all to people who are sick or elderly to raise concerns and fears in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has done. Since 1948, the number of beds in the national health service has been falling under all Governments. One of the reasons why that has been happening is that today patients spend less time in hospital, because the means of treating them enable a speedier recuperative process.

Why is it that the Deputy Prime Minister will not admit what everyone knows—the Government are destroying one of our greatest assets? They are destroying the national health service, which was given to the nation by a Labour Government and opposed tooth and nail by the Tories.

The reason why I will not say it is that it is not true. The fact is that we are treating more patients and building more hospitals, the queues are coming down and the health service is safe with the Conservative party.

On the subject of hospital accident and emergency admissions, is my right hon. Friend aware that at West Middlesex hospital, which I visited at 11 o'clock last night, staff told me that on 30 December, the day of black ice, they had admitted 60 fracture cases compared with the normal daily total of 10? That is bound to have a knock-on effect for the next week or two when taken with the increase in asthma cases this winter. However, the staff are working hard, their morale is good and they should be warmly commended.

My hon. Friend raises a most important point. There is no question whatever about the dedication of the staff in the health service and their ability to cope with those problems. Nor is there any universal agreement as to the causes of the increase in the number of admissions. The BMA and the chief medical officer are looking closely at the problem. It is a matter for concern, and it will remain so until it has been dealt with.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7107]

I have been asked to reply.

The Deputy Prime Minister will recall that Tuesday of this week marked the 10th anniversary of the day on which he marched out of Baroness Thatcher's Cabinet. In view of her much trailed speech tonight, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House and the nation why, in 1990, he considered that it was essential that she be removed from office?

The whole House will know that after leaving Baroness Thatcher's Government I did all in my power to secure her re-election. [Interruption.]

Order.

As I look back on a long life of public service, I regard the fact that I played such a conspicuous role in the 1987 general election campaign, in which Baroness Thatcher was re-elected, as no mean achievement.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7109]

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend yet had the chance to give careful consideration to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore? If so, has he yet been able to figure out just what a stakeholder economy is?

Mine's a sirloin.

How typical of the hon. Member for Bolsover to choose one of the most expensive and luxurious parts of the animal. At least he has the advantage of having found an answer to the question—which is more than his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) succeeded in doing. According to The Guardian this morning, when asked much the same question he had this to say:

"It's warm words time again. I haven't a clue what it means. If anyone does could they let me know?"

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7110]

I have been asked to reply.

Further to the Deputy Prime Minister's replies on the question of the elderly man from Bradford who died while waiting for a hospital bed, is he aware that the admitting consultant at the intensive care unit in Leeds general infirmary described the case as just the tip of an iceberg, and said that there were hundreds of such cases? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Yorkshire Evening Post that that is a disgrace? What is he going to do about it?

I have tried, when answering questions similar to the one put to me by the hon. Gentleman, to express the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who shares the anxieties of all hon. Members and the wider community. These are regrettable individual cases; they evoke nothing but sympathy from everyone involved. But it is quite wrong to believe that they are typical of the treatment that people can expect from the health service. It does this House no good in the public's esteem to try to undermine the high reputation enjoyed by the health service.

Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to come to Leicestershire—and my constituency in particular—where he will see a growing economy, falling unemployment and increasing confidence? All those things are a direct consequence of the Government's economic policies. Will he come to Market Harborough and the constituency generally to make sure that that message gets home even more loudly than hitherto?

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that we have one of the fastest growing economies in western Europe. Unemployment has been falling for 27 months. Our inward investment is growing, and all we must ensure to keep it going is that the Government remain in charge of managing the economy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7111]

I have been asked to reply.

I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would like to comment on today's opinion poll in The Guardian showing a six-point drop in Conservative support and a corresponding six-point increase in Liberal Democrat support. That could of course be explained by the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson). May I just point out that if that effect is repeated every time a Tory crosses the Floor to our Benches, after four more defections we will lead both Labour and the Tories?

I do not find it greatly surprising that the hon. Gentleman should seek to draw our attention to the views of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. I find the views that she expressed in June this year slightly more reassuring:

"In troubled times such as we are experiencing at present when we have been wrongly assaulted for our Government's many fine achievements by an irresponsible press, our task is to stick together. Those old Conservative virtues of loyalty, thrift, hard work and vision must be our priorities whenever we are under fire."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7112]

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline the success and importance of inward investment into the United Kingdom, especially into Scotland—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us have a little less noise on the Government Benches below the gangway. Mr. Stewart, repeat your question. I could not hear because of the noisy ones there.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline both the success and importance of inward investment in this country? What would be the impact of inward investment in Scotland if people who work in Scotland were subject, uniquely in Europe, to the imposition of the iniquitous tartan tax?

My hon. Friend is right to draw this matter to the attention of the House and of Scottish people in particular. Under the excellent conditions that the Government have created, 100 inward investment projects, worth more than £1 billion and creating or protecting some 12,000 jobs in 1994–95, were delivered to Scotland in that one year alone. There is no question but that the only thing that would flow from the introduction of a Labour Government and the consequent establishment of a tartan tax would be that inward investment, flowing not to Scotland but to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would be good news for everyone except the Scots.