To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of seizures made by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of endangered species and products during the last 12 months. [4856]

In the financial year from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise seized 4,374 live animals, 12,178 parts of derivatives of endangered animals species and 2,748 plants. In the first half of the current financial year, Customs and Excise has seized 20,936 live animals, 4,446 parts of derivatives and 89 plants. The dramatic increase in the live animal figure is explained by two individual seizures of 10,000 medicinal leeches.

Those are terrible figures, although the whole House will congratulate Customs and Excise on its vigilance in seizing the items. I realise, of course, that the Minister is something of an endangered species himself, but does he agree that those who trade and traffic in endangered species are among the worst criminals on earth? They are even worse than drug traffickers, because their vile trade threatens whole species. What additional resources will the Minister make available to Customs and Excise? What particular support has he given to Europewide initiatives? Is there something we can do about the appallingly low level of fine that is imposed on traffickers who say that they did not realise that what they brought in was an endangered species? Surely we must do far more.

I agree with many of the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I personally consider the illegal trade in endangered species to be particularly horrible. Its detection and stamping out are among the most crucial and important of the roles of Customs and Excise.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the factors, with special reference to fiscal and monetary factors, which have contributed to the United Kingdom's fall in unemployment since its peak. [4857]

Sound public finances, low inflation and low interest rates have helped unemployment to fall to its lowest rate for more than five and a half years. My Budget will ensure that it continues to fall.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our success in reducing unemployment is in sharp contrast to the record of France and Germany? Does that not show conclusively that we would be foolish to sign up voluntarily to the social chapter, which would impose additional costs on companies, and that we should continue to resist any attempt by our European partners to impose their sorts of social costs on Britain, whether by the front door or the back door?

I agree entirely. Even when the other continental countries achieve better rates of economic growth, their experience tends to be that that growth does not create jobs as it does in this country. That is because they are over-regulated, they have inflexible labour markets and the costs of employment are far too high. It is therefore extremely important that we should repudiate the social chapter. That sentiment is shared by large numbers of German, French, Dutch and other industrialists. It is quite extraordinary that the British Labour party continues to advocate a turn towards that approach to employment, when the business community in the rest of the continent is hoping to get away from it.

In view of the need to keep down unemployment and sustain that reduction, is the Chancellor prepared to contemplate an increase in interest rates, if that is recommended by the Governor of the Bank of England at their next meeting? How does he think the unemployed and those on low incomes are helped by the continuing increase in indirect taxes, given that they do not benefit from the reduction in direct taxation?

First, interest rates sometimes go down and sometimes go up. I shall set interest rates at whatever level is necessary to achieve the inflation target, which is important to keep our present healthy recovery on a sustained course for many years to come.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that low inflation is absolutely essential for future economic prosperity and that it is only Conservative Members who believe in low inflation, because high inflation destroys jobs and destroys people's incomes?

We believe in it, we are delivering it and the present experience of living in a low-inflation economy is the best that the British people have had for 50 years. To put that at risk now by going back to Labour Governments—who habitually and frequently had inflation rates going into double figures during their terms of office—would be a disaster for this country.

Is not the reason why the Chancellor has put up taxes 22 times since the last general election that he has failed to tackle the real level of unemployment, where one in five households of working age have no breadwinner? Will he confirm that his tax-raising Budget means that the typical family will pay an extra £2,120 in tax by the time of the next election?

That is a ridiculous choice of figures to give as the background to a Budget that stimulates further the expected rise in living standards of the ordinary people of this country because the economy is doing so well and because we have returned to our tax-cutting agenda and lowered income tax. That £2,000 figure is apparently some cumulative, rolled-up calculation of the difference between tax paid and what tax would have been if it had not been indexed, and it also takes account of the fact that earnings are going up.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is quite ridiculous that Spain. whose natural non-wage costs should be low because of its historical position, now finds that its non-wage costs and the overall cost of employing a worker are almost as high as those of Germany, even though Spanish productivity is nowhere near as high? Does that not demonstrate that the policies that Spain followed under previous socialist governments are exactly what that lot over there would have done?

I do not think I would upset many of my Spanish friends—I am very fond of Spain—by saying that the Spanish have one of the most inflexible and over-regulated labour markets in western Europe and they suffer for it. I believe that the rate of youth unemployment in Spain is more than 30 per cent., which is appalling. More than 30 per cent. of the Spanish work force are on short-term contracts, trying to avoid certain labour regulations that go beyond even the social chapter, which itself causes great damage to employment prospects in Spain, as it does across the rest of the continent.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his fiscal proposals to assist United Kingdom manufacturing industry. [4858]

The Government's economic policies provide the environment for a healthy and successful manufacturing sector.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the strengthening pound is posing very real problems for Britain's export industry? Does he agree that, for example, British Steel, which is one of the leanest and fittest of companies, is encountering problems in exporting? What will his Government do to tackle this growing problem?

As the House knows, the Government do not maintain an exchange rate target. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the privatised British Steel's export performance is marvellous—up by about 400 per cent. since it was denationalised—and it is a fine company. We do not maintain a target for the exchange rate and do not intend to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extremely positive measures that Her Majesty's Government have taken in the Budget—for example, reducing corporation tax for small companies to 23p in the pound, in line with the standard rate of income tax, and reforming the uniform business rate—are immensely helpful, as small companies have to expand, by virtue of their retained profits, and those retained profits should be healthier by virtue of Her Majesty's Government's measures?

My hon. Friend is right that the measures in the Budget, and the climate for business maintained and supported by the Budget, are extremely good for small business. That is why the welcome given to it, in resounding terms, by the Forum for Private Business was accurate. It said that this was

"The best budget in a decade for owner-managed firms."

Can the Chief Secretary confirm that the number of jobs in manufacturing industry has fallen terrifyingly since the Conservative party came to power in 1979? Can he explain to the House whom he blames for that?

What matters, surely, is manufacturing output, which fell under Labour. This country has had a remarkable turnaround in manufacturing productivity since 1979, and we have now outpaced Germany and France. That is the key figure for the future of British manufacturing industry, and it is why, for example, Britain is Europe's biggest exporter of televisions and microchips, and of other products of other industries out of which we had been driven when Labour governed this country.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the 20p income tax band. [4859]

We listened to many representations on this and many other subjects in the run-up to the Budget.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for widening the 20p income tax band so that one in four taxpayers now pay a standard rate of tax of 20p in the pound compared with the 33p in the pound that they paid in 1979. That is real progress. Would it have taken place if we had followed the spending policies of the Labour party, which is never undersold when it comes to making promises?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important point, because the last Labour Government disguised their position on tax by overborrowing to the tune of another lop on the basic rate of tax. Our basic rate has come down by 10p—from 33p down to 23p—and now, for a quarter of all taxpayers, as my hon. Friend says, the 20p band is their basic rate of tax.

In spite of all the rhetoric that we have heard over the past two days, the fact is that the Tory Government have put up taxes in this Budget and they are higher than ever before. When will the Government come clean and tell the British people that the Conservatives are the tax-raising party in this country?

The hon. Gentleman is always a pleasant man in the House, so I say this to him quietly: does he not remember the 83p rate of tax or, indeed, the 33p basic rate when the Labour party was last in power? His question is another cover-up for the embarrassment that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends feel for the fact that this Budget has delivered, in rising living standards, some £370 a year extra to the average family on average earnings. That is £7 a week. That is £20 a week since the previous election and £100 a week since 1979.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with building societies about the future of mutual status. [4860]

Since I published the last draft of the Building Societies Bill in March, I have held frequent discussions with a great many building societies on a number of issues. I have also spoken to the Building Societies Association on several occasions.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, notwithstanding the strong representations made over the past month, some building societies that are currently converting seem determined to ride roughshod over the perfectly legitimate bonus expectations of particular categories of customer, especially second named account holders who are disabled? Does she agree that it is highly desirable for pressure to be put on such societies to change their attitude to the problem?

The Building Societies Act 1986 requires societies to provide members with all material information, and the Building Societies Commission checks that the information sent out complies with that requirement.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on capital allowances. [4861]

Our view is that the capital allowance system should be neutral so that it does not distort business decisions.

I congratulate the Government on achieving sustainable growth with low inflation and low interest rates, but does my hon. Friend share my concern about the level of investment in industry? Although investment has increased, it has perhaps increased from an all-time low base. Does my hon. Friend agree that capital allowances are the most effective way of targeting fiscal incentives at successful companies? Will the Treasury review its current position?

I know my hon. Friend to be a passionate supporter of manufacturing industry in particular: he takes a keen interest in these matters. I believe that the best way in which to assist his cause and, indeed, that of the country is to have a successfully growing economy, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has projected growth of 3½ per cent. in his Budget. We expect investment in industry, which has already risen by 6 per cent. this year, to rise by 10 per cent. next year. We do, of course, give capital allowances to industry, but the pay-off that they have for the current system is certainly Europe's most competitive main corporation tax regime.

In his Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in principle that capital allowances should bear a relation to the life of the asset. That is something with which we should all agree, but it does not happen in the case of a number of high-tech projects. Will the Financial Secretary look into the position again, to ensure that every incentive is given to manufacturing industry when it invests in high-tech projects and that that relationship between the life of the asset and capital allowances is converted into some sort of reality?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Budget made no changes to the very generous tax reliefs in the context of scientific research allowances. That is particularly valuable to high-tech investment. As for long life assets, I am delighted to have the right hon. Gentleman's support.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the changes to depreciation for tax purposes in respect of long life assets are such that the utility companies will be paying about another £3 billion in tax over five years? As a consequence, they will have no money to pay for a windfall profits tax; but, more important, they will not be able to recover the adjustment in tax allowances that my hon. Friend is making from the price cap. People know that, under a Conservative Government, any extra taxes that the utility companies pay will not result in price increases, as they would under a Labour Government.

My hon. Friend is extremely astute. He is a darned sight more astute than many of the Opposition Members who have been pontificating on economic matters in the past 24 hours. His calculation rightly reflects the heavy investment to which the utilities are committed. We have made changes to bring the tax treatment of allowances on long life assets into line with accountancy practice. That affects all sections of industry.

Will the Minister confirm that, although the Chancellor delivered the Budget with all the flair and panache of a second-hand car salesman selling a dodgy motor, what we saw when we looked under the bonnet was a tax-raising Budget? The Government have raised taxes for individuals 22 times in recent years. That has contributed to the pressure on all businesses, which has been added to by the Government's policies on capital allowances, and by the failure of their economic strategy. This is not a Government for business; they are a Government who undermine business.

Order. As far as I know, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman did not ask a question, but I am sure that the Minister is capable of dealing with that.

I was shocked to find that the hon. Gentleman had finished. He sounds like a worn-out record. The Chancellor's Budget was good for business. The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep, or he would have heard the announcement in the Budget of measures that will address the concerns of small businesses about the uniform business rate. He would also have learnt that the economy will grow at 3½ per cent. next year, which is good for business. He would also have heard that investment in industry will rise by 10 per cent., and that our prospects for sales overseas have improved. All that and many more good things were what business wanted. The chairman of ICI welcomed the Budget, as did GKN and many business leaders.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects on the public finances of the Government's privatisation programme. [4862]

Total receipts from the privatisation programme from May 1979 to March 1996 were £81 billion at 1995–96 prices. That has helped the Government to ensure that public debt as a share of gross domestic product is among the lowest in the European Union. In 1979, it was among the highest.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent survey, which shows that, between 1980 and 1982, the nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £300 million every year, and that between 1987 and 1995 those same industries contributed £4.8 billion to the Exchequer every year, excluding privatisation receipts? Did not the Labour party oppose every single privatisation? Even now, it would destroy that success by political interference through the regulator, and by the imposition of a windfall tax.

My hon. Friend is right. I have seen the tax figures to which he referred, and they certainly show that those industries make a large net contribution to the Exchequer. I should like to draw another dimension to my hon. Friend's attention. Without privatisation proceeds, and other things being equal, our debt stock would now be higher by about £100 billion. That includes extra debt interest totalling £37 billion since 1979, which is 5 per cent. of GDP. They would have been the figures if we had not privatised those industries, although the principal reasons for privatisation were the huge supply-side gains and the gains to the consumers.

As it is impossible to identify in the Red Book the level of asset sales built into the Budget, will the Minister confirm what assets will be sold in the next financial year? Will he publish a table to make it clear, so that we can all see how the Government are selling off the country's assets?

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is still in old Labour mode on privatisation—I suspect that that applies to the whole of his party. The level of asset sales in any particular year that is corning depends on achieving the proper price for those assets. It is unwise to give too much detail in advance of sales. That has always been the custom in the House.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on his statement in the Budget that the student loan book is to he privatised. In line with my right hon. and learned Friend's assurances to the House in his statement on Monday, will my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary confirm that the Maastricht convergence criteria will not be fudged and that the estimated £3 billion proceeds from that sale—which is equivalent to almost 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic product—will not count towards achieving our 3 per cent. Maastricht deficit criteria?

In privatising the student loan book—a sensible thing to do—it was not in our mind to achieve any particular level of anything. We are following the sensible policy of transferring risk to the private sector and getting the Government out of a business that they should not be in—ownership of a large loan business. It is sensible to do so.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax a typical family will pay in the next financial year; and what was the figure in 1992. [4863]

A family on male average earnings should be about £370 better off next year after earnings growth, tax and inflation. This total takes the rise since 1991–92 to £1,130.

Does the Minister realise that the rhetoric does not meet what was stated in the Budget? Is not the reality that a penny off tax has been more than cancelled out by the increase in indirect taxation? Because of the local government settlement yesterday, families in my constituency will be paying 6 per cent. more in council tax and will suffer a 6 per cent. cut in services. They will be paying more for less.

I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The penny cut in the basic rate of tax was not the only tax reduction in the Budget. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor increased the starting point for tax by enlarging allowances by £280 and he also widened the 20p band. Those are important further tax changes that the hon. Gentleman did not mention.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members are very glad that so much of the Budget tax cuts are focused on the low-paid, principally through the increased allowances? Does he agree that one of the keys to reducing unemployment—and, indeed, tackling a number of other social ills—lies, rightly, in assisting those working hard on modest wages to put some clear blue water between them and their families and those who, for whatever reason, find themselves fully dependent on the state?

My hon. Friend, who shows his usual perceptiveness, has put his finger on an extremely important part of the Budget, which is to improve the work incentive. By raising the starting point for tax, we are helping people who want to get back into the labour market, but who may initially have to accept lower-paid jobs. The widening of the 20p band will also help them. That help is realistic and is targeted towards those people—unlike the barmy idea of a lop starting rate suggested by the Opposition. Where will the money for that come from? All it would do would be to help all the people who are not at the heart of my hon. Friend's question.

Does the Financial Secretary agree with the conclusion reached by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in last night's debate, when he confirmed that taxes will go up this year? Is not one reason why the Conservatives are behind in the polls that they keep breaking their promises on tax? The hon. Gentleman is increasingly aware, as is the Chancellor, that one reason why the Conservative party simply is not capable of being led is that it breaks its promises on tax and spending again and again.

I do not recall my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary making any such admission. I remember an exchange about the tax burden, when he put the record straight and said that, as a result of this Budget, the tax burden would be the same as it was when we went into the last general election. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), in putting his question, does not take into account the 25 Tory tax decreases since 1992—[Interruption.]

Does my hon. Friend accept, without being a Cassandra in any way, that the reason why that lot opposite are incapable of doing anything to help families in relation to tax is that they were up to their eyes in endorsing the exchange rate mechanism, which led to the public sector borrowing requirement going up so high, which in turn led to our having to impose taxes, including value added tax on gas and fuel? They are caught by the fact that they are up to their eyes in it the whole time.

My hon. Friend underscores the fact that, whenever they have made any attempt to run Britain, Labour Members have been up to their armpits and beyond in debt. Labour is a high debt, high spending and high tax party.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of the rise of sterling since January on British exports. [4864]

The trade figures in goods released yesterday for the third quarter show that the volume of UK exports of goods, excluding oil and erratics, were up by 3 per cent. on the previous quarter, and 7½ per cent. on a year earlier. Exports have been performing well this year, despite the rise in the pound and weakness of activity in Europe.

Does the Minister share the concern of many of our leading exporters about the continuing rise in sterling? Yes or no?

The best thing for our exporters is to continue to be competitive and to show the sort of performance that they have shown in the past. They have been doing an excellent job, and will continue to do so. We expect exports to increase next year, not least because activity in Europe looks likely to start to improve.

Exporters in my constituency say that what they need more than anything is a period of stability. They want low inflation, low interest rates and to be able to invest. They have had 49 months in which inflation has been below 4 per cent. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the most important thing for exporters?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct because, in the past, a low exchange rate has been accompanied by high inflation, which has rapidly eaten away any trading advantage that the United Kingdom might have had. That is why concentrating on a low inflation target means that UK exporters have the stability that they need. It enables them to ride out any short-term currency fluctuations. The continuing stability in the UK has been recognised by many companies—large and small, exporters and non-exporters. We are determined to keep that stability. During the last Labour Government. this country's biggest exports were probably companies leaving Britain.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for (a) mid-term population estimates and (b) electoral registration figures to be produced by parliamentary constituencies as well as district council area. [4865]

Mid-year population estimates are prepared for local and health authority areas. The latest estimates were published by the Office of National Statistics in August 1996. Electoral registration figures are produced both for local government areas and for parliamentary constituencies and are placed in the House of Commons Library.

I knew that—that is not the answer to the question I asked. I asked whether the electoral registration figures for the eligible population in parliamentary constituencies would be produced alongside the figures on parliamentary registers. If they were, we and our constituents would see that, in each constituency, on average, 5 per cent. of people are missing from electoral registers. In a year when we are moving towards a general election, it is important that we should try to put the electoral register right.

I think that everyone is concerned that people should register to vote and that our electoral registers should be correct. The hon. Gentleman—who has a long-standing concern on this issue—is incorrect about the number of people whom he thinks are not registered to vote. I remind him that the resident population probably includes about 1 million non-Commonwealth and non-Irish citizens who are not eligible to vote. I understand that he is concerned about the fact that there are about 57 fewer people on the electoral roll in his constituency this year compared with last year; I suggest that that may have something to do with him.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the number of people currently in work. [4866]

Total employment has risen by more than 200,000 people during the past year, more than ¾million since the end of 1992, and more than 1.3 million since the end of 1979. We now have a higher proportion of our working age population in work, and a lower unemployment rate, than any other major EU country.

Is it not a matter for congratulation that unemployment is continuing to fall so dramatically? Is that not due, at least in part, to falling taxation levels? When we speak of falling taxation levels, should not we reflect on the reduction of the top tax rate, in 1979, of 83 or even 98 per cent. and the standard rate of 33 per cent.? Those were the taxation levels under the Labour party, and they would be again if Labour ever had the chance. It is a high taxation party—and always will be.

My hon. Friend is right. It is worth reminding Labour Members that, when they were in power, borrowing was twice the level it has been under this Government, and that, since we came to power, we have moved from the bottom to the top of the league in manufacturing productivity growth. That is why we have moved from almost the bottom of the European employment league to almost the top. That is good for Britain, good for exports and good for the prosperity of British people.

Is the Minister aware that—like the rest of us—the local Labour party in New Cumnock did not believe the unemployment figures? Therefore, some of its members knocked on every door in the town of New Cumnock, and got the real figures. More than twice as many people are unemployed as appear on the register. On the register are only those who receive benefits, and they are far fewer than the real number. The figures are bogus, and the Minister knows it.

I suspected that an Opposition Member would fall into that trap, so I was very careful not to quote the claimant count but labour force survey figures. The Trades Union Congress has called those figures "wholly reliable", and the Labour party stated that it would like to base unemployment on them. They are International Labour Organisation figures, and they are totally comparable with figures quoted overseas. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the claimant count.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the most important factors that decide the employment level at any one time are completely outside the control of any Government? Will he also confirm that the recent rise in sterling, which had an effect on manufacturing industry, was outside the control of the Government, and unexpected by them? Is not that a very good indication of how the pound can never be constrained, either within an exchange rate mechanism or a single currency?

I do not agree completely with my hon. Friend. Jobs arid the levels of manufacturing, productivity and exports can be affected by Government supply-side policies, by fiscal policies and by other policies. That is why Conservative Members should take some credit for the success of the British economy in the past 17 years. We have closed no less than three quarters of the competitiveness gap with Germany which had opened up in previous decades.

May I congratulate the Minister or his statement and on the policies that the Government have been pursuing, which have achieved such a drop in unemployment? May I also pay tribute to the Industrial Development Board and to Baroness Denton for their efforts and success in attracting new investment to Northern Ireland? Does the Minister agree that small companies across the United Kingdom can contribute to a further fall in unemployment by concentrating more on marketing and exporting the products that they manufacture? Will he invite the Secretary of State for Social Security to consider further the plight of those on jobseeker's allowance who may have difficulty finding employment, and who are at personal loss because they do not receive travel allowance?

I agree with virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman said. One advantage of the jobseeker's allowance is that it helps to identify people who have difficulty getting employment because of illiteracy and other factors. I endorse what he said about the IDB, but however much help the IDB gave to attract inward investment—it has been very successful—it would be wasted were it not for the fact that the productivity of the British work force has increased dramatically, and faster than that of our major competitors in recent years. That is a major reason why so many companies that could go anywhere in the world are attracted to Northern Ireland and Britain.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November. [4886]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerted campaign by Labour-controlled authorities against compulsory competitive tendering? Is he further aware that my local authority, South Ayrshire, favours direct labour organisations against the interests of small local contracting companies that have provided excellent services at low cost for a number of years? Does he agree that the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland highlighted that wasteful practice led to his being awarded the title of Parliamentarian of the Year?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the wasteful behaviour of a large number of Labour-controlled local authorities. Before the Opposition complain about council tax levels, they should put their own house in order. If they did, they would be able to hold down council tax.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the Red Book, the overall tax burden next year will be higher than it is this year?

No, I do not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. For some time, the right hon. Gentleman has been desperate to cover up the fact that living standards are rising. The Opposition have produced the most spurious attacks on tax in the past few weeks. They claim that there have been 22 new taxes over the past five years, but I can identify 25 tax reductions in the past couple of years. The right hon. Gentleman takes no account of rising incomes and people moving into higher tax brackets, so he is painting a misleading picture. We have the lowest rate of basic tax for 60 years. It was 33p and it is now 23p.

The Prime Minister wants to take credit for the fact that people's earnings have increased, but they have earned that money, not the Government. Is it not curious that the Conservative party no longer wants to talk about tax? Will the Prime Minister return to the central question that I asked him? Is it or is it not right, according to his own Red Book, that the overall burden of taxation next year will be higher than it is this year? As one of his hon. Friends said, the answer can only be yes or no. Which is it?

If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I just said, he would have had his answer. The right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the fact that more people are working and incomes are rising. Had the Labour party presented a Budget earlier this week, taxes would have increased quite dramatically. On the one hand he accuses us of cutting expenditure and on the other hand he accuses us of putting up taxes. We have kept direct tax down and we have increased expenditure on health, the police and other important services.

Perhaps, on the third occasion, the Prime Minister will now answer the question. Because of all the taxes in the Budget—the insurance tax, the airport tax, the council tax, the fuel tax, the abolition of profit-related pay—according to his figures, the tax burden is to rise next year. It will rise not just next year but, according to the Government's plans, the year after, the year after that and the year after that, to a level higher than under the last Labour Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister will now answer the question: is it true that the tax burden is to rise next year? If it is, is not the reputation of the Tories as a low tax party now dead and buried?

The more people work, the more they earn. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. If he thinks that taxes are too high, which ones would he cut? What support has he given us in cutting taxes? If he thinks that tax is too high, will he indicate that he will not proceed with the windfall tax, or a tartan tax, or a health tax or a teenage tax? How will he pay for the £30 billion-worth of promises that he has made? The plain fact of the matter is, however he huffs and puffs, people know that dogs bark, cats miaow and the Labour party puts up taxes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French lorry drivers dispute is now causing serious traffic chaos and economic hardship in Kent, particularly around the channel ports of Ramsgate and Dover? Now that the strike is going on, it may have a much wider impact on the country. Will my right hon. Friend make strong diplomatic representations to the French Government to extract a firm commitment that full and fair compensation will be paid to British lorry drivers whose livelihoods have been affected by the mindless militancy of their French counterparts?

I am horrified by the consequences of the dispute for British drivers and companies. Claims for compensation must be met by the French authorities. We have made that point to them. I hope that, very soon this afternoon, the leader of the Labour party will make clear his condemnation of one of his own Members of the European Parliament, who has today described the striking French lorry drivers as "a shining beacon".

What sort of Government is there in France?

The deputy leader of the Labour party asks what the Government in France are. What are the strikers and why are they being supported by Labour Members of the European Parliament? Will the deputy leader of the Labour party go down and talk to British lorry drivers and tell then that he thinks that the strikers are a shining example?

It is a Tory Government in France.

The right hon. Gentleman is the strikers' friend now, as he always has been.

I wonder why the Prime Minister and the Government do not realise why people are so fed up with all this lying about tax. Is not the central question this: does the Prime Minister really believe that the British people are so stupid that they could be tempted to vote Conservative again because he has cut their income tax by 1p, when his own figures show that he has forced their council tax up by between £40 and £60 a year?

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about council tax, he might look at the council tax levied by local authorities under Liberal Democrat control. He might realise by how much their council taxes have gone up. He might remind the British public again that he is committed to increasing the standard rate of income tax. I hope that he will make that entirely clear. He is calling for more money to be given to Liberal Democrat councillors, who are

"politically inexperienced and potentially a liability".

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not his policy to barter or bargain for the restoration of an IRA ceasefire, which should never have been broken, and that Sinn Fein's self-exclusion from the talks remains absolute, unless or until there is an unequivocal restatement of the ceasefire and the Provisionals establish over a period of time a commitment to exclusively peaceful means?

There has been a great deal of rumour and disinformation on this issue in recent weeks. The Government have had a number of exchanges with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others about the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire. We have made it absolutely clear throughout those exchanges that IRA-Sinn Fein should give up violence once and for all and commit itself to exclusively peaceful means. We have also made it clear that we cannot and we will not change our policy to bargain for a ceasefire. In order that that should be absolutely clear, we are publishing today a statement of our policy, which we sent to the hon. Member for Foyle last weekend. A copy is being placed in the Library together with a short explanatory statement.

Order. Listen to the answer to the question. These are crucial issues that concern our country.

I must tell hon. Members that this a matter of great interest to people not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November. [4887]

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

Does the Prime Minister sanction the Tory party campaign on "Honest John"? If so, does he agree that it is designed to deceive the public over tax? When are posters going to go up saying that the Prime Minister promised not to increase VAT, a promise that he broke; and that he promised not to increase taxation year in, year out—another promise that he broke? Is not the reality that nobody believes "Honest John"?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to our posters that indicate that we now have lower income tax, higher living standards and lower unemployment, and that that has come about directly as a result of policies that we have followed over the past few years as the Government. I am glad that he draws attention to those advertisements. I hope that everybody will see them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November. [4888]

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that Sheffield city councillors have increased their council allowance by 200 per cent., that Sheffield city council spends £350 per pupil on education administration, whereas other metropolitan authorities spend only £250, and that Labour Members of Parliament get free accommodation from Sheffield city council? Is he also aware that Silverdale school in my constituency, which is in need of urgent repair, has been informed that there is no money for such repairs? Does not that show how Labour runs Sheffield city council and how it would run the country?

The more Opposition Members barracked my hon. Friend, the more it was clear that he had hit a bull's-eye by pointing out the way the Labour party behaves in local government. He mentioned Sheffield. Certainly it is one of the councils that have failed to collect millions of pounds of council tax.

What about Westminster?

The right hon. Gentleman mentions Westminster—but he neglects to mention Southwark, Leeds, Newham, Camden, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Lambeth, all of them Labour councils over many years or dominant Labour under no overall control. What is it they say about Labour?

"New Labour in local government offers excellence and efficiency."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November. [4889]

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

As a matter of statistical integrity, will the Prime Minister confirm what he sought to avoid in answering my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that page 88 of the Red Book, which deals with total taxation and national insurance contributions, shows that there is an increase year by year over the next five years in the amount that will be paid out as a percentage of gross domestic product? Will he be honest?

As I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members earlier, that is the impact of more people working and being paid more, and of fiscal drag. Those are the facts that the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The reality is that people have more net income in their hands than they have had at any time in the past, and living standards are rising. However he tries to muffle reality, he cannot hide from that fact.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. Points of order come after statements and I have two statements now.