To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make additional resources available to Customs and Excise to combat trafficking in endangered species and products. [14169]

The control of endangered species is a priority, and one to which I give my strongest support. Customs has just increased the staffing of the specialist Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species enforcement team at Heathrow airport.

First, I pay tribute to the work of Customs and Excise in trying to stamp out the trade in endangered species and wildlife products. I also thank the Minister for his commitment to the cause.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, all of them important. Each of the 14 customs regions now has an expert CITES liaison and intelligence officer. The team at Heathrow—which has just been expanded to eight people—is the only dedicated team, but all other customs areas are being given training and computer-aided recognition systems so that they can recognise snake skins and other products. We wish to increase resources in that area.

Reverting to a serious aspect of this important question, what is my hon. Friend doing—apart from providing manpower—to educate the public about the dangers of bringing in endangered species, as this seems to be the crux of the situation?

The Government are developing a package of leaflets, posters and videos, with the help and support of wildlife and animal welfare groups. Almost all the travel agents and tour groups that we have approached have agreed to send these out with tickets, and to send posters to their reps abroad. Most of the airlines that we have asked have agreed to show the videos on their flights, including British Airways. The only major UK airline not to have agreed yet is Virgin Airways which, when reminded, said that Mr. Branson was currently too busy to respond.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to promote wider share ownership; and if he will make a statement. [14170]

In addition to the recent changes made to the three tax-approved employee share schemes, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has issued a challenging target to our largest businesses that he would like to see half their employees holding shares in their own companies by 2000.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents own shares in the companies for which they work and that many also own shares in privatised utilities that operate locally, such as Railtrack, British Telecom, British Gas and Anglian Water? Does he agree that those shareholders need confidence and that the one thing that would destroy that confidence would be a windfall tax which, apart from possibly being illegal, would amount to a straightforward confiscation of wealth from small shareholders?

My hon. Friend is right. If we follow what the shadow Chancellor said on the "Today" programme, it would be the equivalent of levying another 2p in tax. The shadow Chancellor's explanation on the radio this morning of the windfall tax was a cynical attempt to dodge the issue. He must have briefed the legal advice that he claims to justify it with all the details about the tax, so why does he not come out and tell the truth about which of the companies to which my hon. Friend referred would be affected, how much would be raised and who would pay? My hon. Friend is right to postulate uncertainty about the tax.

As the Minister made a plea for truth, will he tell us how the Government propose to pay for their share match scheme, which we are told is intended to spread wider share ownership? Will he give the House an assurance that it will not be done by extending value added tax on food, children's clothing, public transport, and so on? If he will give that undertaking, will he say where the money will come from to pay for it?

I would be happy to give a straight answer to that question, in contrast to the efforts of the shadow Chancellor to dodge any question about the windfall tax. The share match scheme requires a change in the regulation of an already existing mechanism in the approved profit-sharing scheme, and we are considering how precisely to achieve that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a windfall tax could be considered an increase in price for the vital necessities of life, such as gas, electricity and water? Will not the increase therefore bear down most heavily on pensioners and those on low incomes?

For the shadow Chancellor to smile at the conclusion of my hon. Friend's question shows his cynical disregard for pensioners, who would have to pay for the tax—which could cost households about £100 a year—but he will not come clean on it. My hon. Friend has exposed the Opposition's cynical attempt to raise money through a utilities tax.

Is it not clear that the Conservatives are not particularly bothered about pensioners, but are keener to climb into bed with the boardroom fat cats? Does the Financial Secretary recall that it was the Tory party that pioneered the windfall tax in 1981, and that the idea was supported by the chairman of the 1922 Committee? If the Financial Secretary is in the business of giving straight answers, can he confirm—given that stability, more than anything else, affects share ownership—that the Chancellor will meet his inflation target of 2½ per cent. by the end of this Parliament?

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who has just put up another smokescreen to dodge answering questions about the windfall tax, that it is not only fat cats who would have to pay: many pensioners and people on low incomes would be the victims of the windfall tax. The hon. Gentleman knows what my right hon. and learned Friend's target is; he is confident of meeting it.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only shareholders but pensioners would suffer from the introduction of a windfall tax, because the fundholders of pension schemes invest heavily in the privatised utilities? Will he further confirm that the costs of the utilities for consumers are bound to go up in the event of a windfall tax, simply because, if the prices were too high now, the regulators would have intervened to force them down? [Interruption.]

My hon. Friend is right. Opposition Members scoff, but Professor Littlechild, the electricity regulator, told a Commons Select Committee that he would have to take into account the windfall tax and its effect on utility prices when prices came to be set in the future. There can be no stronger endorsement of the line that my hon. Friend took. All the speculation and concern of Conservative Members are the direct result of the cynical attempt by the shadow Chancellor to dodge putting on the record the information that he gave to Mr. Beloff, who is said to have provided a legal opinion justifying his tax. He should make it public and be answerable for it.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him about recent levels of VAT receipts. [14171]

I receive a large number of representations on this and other subjects.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain how many times his Government have extended the scope of VAT and increased its rate since 1979?

That would involve the history of many Budgets. The Labour party has committed itself to our spending plans. It has obviously belatedly come around to approving the Government's fiscal policy. As far as I know, it is making no commitments to reduce any tax. Instead, it proposes to introduce a windfall tax, about which it is singularly unable to answer any questions but which would add to the tax burdens of many households.

On the collection of VAT and other Customs and Excise taxes, has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the article in the Financial Times the day before yesterday and the leader in the early editions of the Evening Standard yesterday that suggest that clauses 51 to 54 of the Finance Bill would make it possible for customs to take money direct and forthwith from bank accounts and, if people have no money in their bank accounts, from other people who owe them money? Is that story true? If it is, does he appreciate that that would not be acceptable?

I, too, read the article in the Financial Times and the editorial of the Evening Standard, as did my colleagues. I discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, among others. We are aware of the concerns and are considering them. I am not sure that I totally recognise the proposals in the newspaper reports, but I do not dismiss them.

On the July capping of VAT refunds, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give sympathetic consideration to the settlement of claims that had been accepted and promised before the announcement was made in July?

We are carefully examining that. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will take a close interest in the matter. Where people were promised refunds in writing before July, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will honour those promises.

My right hon. and learned Friend will have seen the posters put up by the Labour party advertising that the Government are to put up VAT on fuel. [Interruption.] I am glad that Opposition Members are listening. The mistake was mine. I meant VAT on food. Has my right hon. and learned Friend also heard that Labour proposes to abide by all our tax and spending plans? Does it follow that Labour advocates VAT on food?

I very much doubt whether my hon. and learned Friend will get an answer to a question of that sort from the Labour party. I have no plans to impose VAT on food. I have never had any such plans. The Labour party knows perfectly well that I have not had any plans to impose VAT on food. The people who put up the poster did not believe it. The Labour party should advertise the answer to a straightforward question: will a windfall tax be imposed on British Telecom and on our telephone bills? We already know that it will be a tax on fuel, to go back to my hon. and learned Friend's slip of the tongue.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledge that his inability to forecast VAT receipts correctly is a significant factor in his inability to get borrowing down? Unless the situation has improved, does he accept that one way that would immediately help to bring down the cost of borrowing would be to make the Bank of England independent and, as a result, reduce the base of interest rates by between 0.5 and 0.75 per cent. and Government debt by £1.4 billion this year, according to the Library?

First, estimates of VAT are always difficult. Treasury estimates have been going wide of the mark for some years, since about 1990. The hon. Gentleman will know that we set out the reasons for that in the Red Book. We have introduced measures to deal with many of them in the current Finance Bill, including a three-year cap on retrospective claims. We have also taken steps to improve collection. We have in hand the task of getting right the estimates of receipts, although it will always be difficult.

I revert to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). Will my right hon. and learned Friend go just a little further and give an unequivocal undertaking that the forecast in the Financial Times will never come to pass while he is Chancellor?

We will have to consider what the Financial Times said. I have very high respect for that newspaper, but I will not sign up immediately to its assertions of what will follow. However, we are looking closely at those clauses of the Finance Bill and reflecting on the concerns raised in the Financial Times. Were those concerns fully borne out, we would wish to address them, but I do not want to concede the whole way until we have given more thought to them.

Will the Chancellor confirm that the commitments that he has just made on VAT on food were exactly the same commitments that the Prime Minister made on VAT on fuel in 1992 and then cynically broke? Given that VAT receipts depend on levels of spending and inflation, will the Chancellor repeat the commitment that he made before—that inflation would be at or below 2½ per cent. by the end of the Parliament? Will he repeat that promise, or is it yet another Tory broken promise?

My recollection is that, at the last general election, a poster went up showing my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) dressed as "VAT man", in a Batman costume. The public were told by the then Labour spokesman, who did not believe a word that he was saying, that we had plans in the pipeline to increase VAT to 22½ per cent. A great deal of debate took place on that. Most of the quotations on which the Labour party relied were in response to a subordinate plot to that. It was a deceitful and incorrect campaign, which was never borne out by the facts.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average public expenditure per head in (a) Scotland and (b) England in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [14172]

In 1994–95—the last year for which figures are available—identifiable public expenditure per head was £4,505 in Scotland and £3,614 in England. This provision for Scotland is some 20 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom average.

In the event of the creation of a Scottish Parliament, it would have full control of public expenditure in Scotland and could levy a tartan tax, while Scottish Members continued to be over-represented in this Parliament of the United Kingdom and could vote on English public expenditure and tax levels. How does my right hon. Friend think that I could justify that enormous differential to my constituents?

With difficulty. The inevitable consequence of Labour's ill-thought-out plans, leaving aside the fact that they would be divisive between England and Scotland in many other ways, would be that the House would want to look at the basis of the financial deal between Scotland and England. There would be no way of stopping that, and it would not be to the benefit of Scotland.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that the Barnett formula, which was formulated by Lord Barnett, then Chief Secretary, when he and I were at the Treasury, was based on the population of Scotland? It was decided that it represented a fair allocation for the people of Scotland as a percentage of the total of Government expenditure throughout the United Kingdom. This is a serious matter. Is the Chief Secretary aware that, if we were to change that formula for any political considerations, it would cause serious danger to the unity of our country?

I am very familiar with the formula, which is, of course, based not only on population but on an assessment and an attempted assessment of need. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), and it is a little odd for the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to say it, it is the right hon. Gentleman's party, the Labour party, that is putting forward proposals that are liable to threaten the arrangements between England and Scotland. It is his party that is putting the Union in danger. One of the least of the consequences of those proposals—although an extremely important one to the people of Scotland—would be that people in England would want to look at the figures with increased attention.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that Scottish Members, too, are equally concerned about what they can say to their constituents? As I understand it, the Barnett formula is designed to remove progressively and slowly the differences in expenditure levels between parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland and England. The Labour party proposes to change that virtually overnight; we would be faced with what could only be described as the most unfair proposals ever brought before Parliament, because they would mean that Scots would be running the Westminster Parliament and making decisions on English spending matters, and Scots would be running the Edinburgh Parliament and making decisions on Scottish spending matters, but English Members of Parliament would not be able to influence either.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember that, when I was Secretary of State for Health, my then opposite number, the current shadow Foreign Secretary, put that almost as eloquently as my hon. Friend has done; it has received no answer in the very badly thought out plans that the Labour party has since introduced. Those proposals would be disastrous for the Union, and also disastrous for Scottish taxpayers and for the standard of living in Scotland.

Given that public expenditure on agriculture affects every taxpayer in England and Scotland, will the Chief Secretary confirm that £3.3 billion, or the equivalent of 2p on income tax, is the sum needed to deal with bovine spongiform encephalopathy? Is that a minimum or a maximum figure?

As far as I remember, the figures over two or three years are about £1.5 billion this year and then there will be a considerable refund from the European Union. The figures are set out and separately identified in the Red Book.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that public expenditure per head in Scotland, particularly on health and education, is unfair to England and unjustified? Does he accept that, if there were a Scottish Parliament, many Conservative Members like me who feel strongly about public expenditure would campaign vigorously to bring the level of expenditure per head in Scotland down to the level in England? That would benefit English taxpayers.

I will not go as far as my hon. Friend, because those matters are negotiated each year in relation to Wales and Northern Ireland as well as to Scotland. What I am saying, and what my hon. Friend has represented in his question, is that, if the Labour party's ill-thought-out, half-baked plans were to come about, there would be a huge reaction from England. That would be bound to damage the situation as my hon. Friend has described—it is only one of the matters in which the Union would be damaged, but it is one of the most important.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the total revenue raised from value added tax in (a) 1978–79 and (b) 1995–96. [14176]

In constant 1995–96 prices, the receipts were £14.1 billion and £43.1 billion respectively.

Can the Minister say what the Chancellor meant when he said in the Budget statement on 30 November 1993 that one of his options

"must be to extend the VAT base. The main candidates are food, children's clothes, transport, sewerage and newspapers"?

I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to ask me that question, when he could have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor a little earlier. I also notice that he was reading in order to get accuracy. If he had read my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech in 1993, he would have seen that it is perfectly true that, in that context, my right hon. and learned Friend rather teased the House of Commons when he talked about his views on how we should have a broader tax base. He reviewed a number of possibilities and then went on to describe his own solution to broaden the tax base at that time. He introduced the House to the concept of the insurance premium tax and the air passenger duty. At the end of his speech, he said to the House of Commons:

"I can now confirm that I have no need this year to propose any changes to the VAT base."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 940.]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when we increased VAT to 17.5 per cent., the amount of that extra tax was refunded by way of subsidy to council tax payers? Does he also recall that, when we put tax on domestic gas and electricity, we fully compensated pensioners and people on low earnings by increasing their pensions and social security? Is he aware of any plans to compensate pensioners and people on low earnings for the consequences of a windfall tax?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to remind the House of the steps that we took to protect the interests of pensioners when we had to take difficult economic decisions as we were recovering from a very deep recession. We have now got the economy on track—we have the fastest-growing major western economy—and it is doing extremely well. That would be damaged by the arrival of the tax to which my hon. Friend refers and, as far as I am aware, we have heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to tell us anything about the windfall tax, never mind about compensating pensioners.

Does the Financial Secretary remember the Prime Minister's promise at the last election not to extend the scope of VAT? Does he also remember that, in his Government's pre-election Budget, the then Chancellor promised not to put VAT on fuel? Can he explain to the House why his Government broke those promises and why the electorate should trust them at all on any tax issue, particularly VAT?

My right hon. and learned Friend dealt very adequately with the question of VAT and the last election in his own very clear answer. However, I shall tell the hon. Lady because, when it comes to the economy, people should judge a Government not only on an individual item, but on whether they actually deliver. We have never hidden from the fact that putting VAT on fuel and power was a very difficult decision but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) reminded the House moments ago, we did help those who were most harshly hit, either through social security benefits or through direct help to pensioners. We have now delivered an economy that is the fastest-growing in western Europe, rapidly falling unemployment, the best inflation record for 50 years and the lowest mortgage rates for nearly 30 years. That is why people will believe us and not the Opposition.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average percentage of household income directed to tax payments in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU member states, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [14178]

A family on average earnings in the United Kingdom are expected to pay just over 35 per cent. of their earnings in tax next year. Although comparative figures are not available for other European Union countries, the overall burden of taxation on the economy in the United Kingdom, at 353/4 per cent. of gross domestic product last year, is one of the lowest levels in Europe and is below that of France, Germany and Italy.

Does my hon. Friend accept, first, that those excellent figures would have been even better, had we not spent so much on the disaster of the exchange rate mechanism; and, secondly, that we will never accept a Europe-wide tax system—unlike Labour Members, who are up to their eyes in the ERM the whole time, would take us back into it and would completely undermine the British economy?

My hon. Friend is right to make those points about the strength of the British economy. I can assure him that the tax point to which he refers would be a matter of unanimity and that this country—this Government—will vote against that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the German and French Finance Ministers to discuss the timetable for entry into European monetary union. [14179]

Preparations for economic and monetary union are regularly discussed at meetings of the Economic and Finance Council. The last such meeting, which I attended on the Chancellor's behalf, was on 27 January.

Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor's weakness and vacillation are causing a great deal of concern in Europe about our commitment to Europe? Is he also aware that the leaders of major British businesses are concerned about their future, trading in a Europe with a common currency to which they do not belong? Is it not time that the Government and the Chancellor started running themselves, rather than allowing themselves to be run by right-wing Back Benchers who hate Europe and the ideal of Europe, despite the prosperity that it has brought us over 50 years?

When it comes to vacillation, I seem to remember that new Labour has changed its policy on tax, on spending and on grammar schools. As soon as we changed our policy on Europe, it poodled along behind us. In fact, new Labour's unique selling proposition seems to be, "Those guys have made such a mess of things that we are going to copy all their policies."

When my hon. Friend next speaks to his counterparts in Europe, will he explain to them that the shadow Foreign Secretary's recent comments mean that if they do something, the Labour party will automatically follow them into the single currency on economic grounds? Will he explain to his counterparts that Conservatives approach the subject not only as an economic issue but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, as an issue with constitutional implications?

Yes, my hon. Friend is broadly right. Any commitment to economic and monetary union would be the largest change in our economic affairs for many decades, but would not necessarily lead to political union. My hon. Friend can draw whatever conclusions he wants from that answer.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce VAT on domestic fuel. [14180]

No. VAT was applied to domestic fuel for sound environmental and necessary revenue reasons, which continue to apply.

Why not? Does not the Chief Secretary know that VAT on domestic fuel causes particular hardship to many pensioners and others on low income and should be reduced? But then a Chancellor who does not even know the price of a tin of baked beans would not worry about such matters, would he?

It takes a certain nerve for a party—the Labour party—s that is making its centrepiece today a new tax on gas and electricity to complain about VAT on fuel. It is perfectly clear that the new tax on gas and electricity proposed by the Labour party will not only hit pension funds and shares, but is bound to affect prices. The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck to complain about VAT.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that old people were given full protection against the extra costs arising from the introduction of VAT on fuel? If the VAT rate were reduced, the benefits would go to the largest consumers of fuel, who tend to be the richest people. The proposal so enthusiastically espoused by the Labour party is a way to rob poor people and help rich people, while wrecking the environment in the process.

My hon. Friend is quite right: pensioners, those on income support and others were fully compensated. My hon. Friend is also right that the bigger one's house, the more fuel tax one pays.

Does the Chief Secretary agree with the statement made by the Chancellor in September 1993 that VAT on fuel is a perfectly fair tax?

As the hon. Gentleman is a member of a Front-Bench team that proposes a new tax on gas and electricity, he should ask whether his so-called windfall tax is fair.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the literature put out by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats at the last general election, proposing carbon taxes to put up the price of fuel because it was too cheap? Has he seen what consumers are paying today for gas and electricity? Even with VAT, the cost of fuel has been reduced, owing to the Government's policies.

The privatisations of the great fuel utilities, against which the Labour party voted on every occasion, have brought about a 2 per cent. real-terms decrease, after VAT, in the price of electricity and a 20 per cent. real-terms decrease, after VAT and everything else, in the price of gas. The Labour party opposed that, root and branch.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for Britain being one of the initial participants in European monetary union. [14181]

I am confident that the United Kingdom will be able to achieve and sustain the convergence criteria of low inflation, low fiscal deficit and low public debt, and they will contribute to our policy of creating jobs and raising living standards in this country. At the moment, I believe that it is unlikely, although not impossible, that enough countries will be sufficiently convergent by 1 January 1999 for EMU to go ahead on that date. If EMU were to go ahead at any date without sufficient convergence, we would not be part of it.

Does the Chancellor agree with the Foreign Secretary's view that joining EMU would mean a loss of sovereignty, or does he agree with the head of Toyota and the chairman of Unilever that failure to join EMU would mean a loss of jobs? Which is it? Which is his position, and who speaks for the Government on EMU?

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the answer that I just gave is an impeccable statement of the policy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I last gave together outside Downing street, and the policy is perfectly clear. All international engagements involve some pooling of sovereignty, and the political implications of any international engagement are a matter that the House and the public always want to discuss whenever such an event occurs.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Allensbach Opinion Research Institute's most recent survey in Germany revealed that only 5 per cent. of Germans are wholly in favour of the euro, about 15 per cent. are mildly in favour and 80 per cent. are against? Does he agree that the most important convergence criterion that needs to be satisfied is the deficit in public support?

I am not familiar with the Allensbach survey and I shall take the opportunity of catching up with the figures. I doubt that people responding in Germany were concentrating on the key issues of British jobs, British prosperity and the well-being of UK Ltd. I hope that in this country we shall pay attention to British jobs and British prosperity to the same extent as German citizens pay attention, no doubt, to German jobs and German prosperity, when and if ever we have to take decisions on such matters.

The prospect of Britain joining the single currency on 1 January 1999 appears to be receding, and I think that we are all grateful for that. I know that the Chancellor is fastidious about the integrity of the convergence criteria. Will he make it plain that he will not accept the type of fudge that the French have gone in for by transferring telecom pensions against their 3 per cent. deficit, and will he also say that, if the Germans do hit the 3½ per cent. of GDP in their borrowing requirement this year, as it now appears that they will, he will exert himself to put a stop to other European countries joining a fudge currency on 1 January 1999?

There is no point in commenting on whether the chances are advancing or receding on any of those things. We are pursuing a cautious and pragmatic approach based on our best judgment of British interests, ensuring that British influence is brought to bear on the evolution of policy, which is of great importance whatever happens to the future of the European market on which we so depend.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of national income taken in business taxation in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) in Germany, (c) in France, (d) in Italy and (e) as an average among European Union member states. [14182]

Organisation for Economic Corporation and Development estimates for 1994 show that the average EU tax burden on business is 10.6 per cent. of GDP. The tax burden for business in Germany is 9.4 per cent.; in Italy, 12.8 per cent.; in France, 16.8 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom, 8 per cent., one of the very lowest rates in Europe.

I thank my hon. Friend for that illuminating reply. Does not it show that Conservative low-tax policies have helped to produce the most successful economy in Europe? Would not all that be ruined if the Labour party ever came to power, with a windfall tax, a minimum wage and the social chapter?

My hon. Friend is correct. Our tax system has created jobs, whereas many of our European partners have been unable to do so. It was interesting to learn this week of two companies that propose to leave France and come to Britain, simply because our tax burden is lower and the cost of employment in France, in particular, is so much higher.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14159]

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.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the reported comments of European Union Competition Commissioner Karel van Miert on the respective levels of state subsidy within the European Union? Did my right hon. Friend note that the United Kingdom has the lowest level of state subsidy per worker within the European Union and that the Federal Republic of Germany has the highest annual disbursement per year of any EU country? Is it not noteworthy that the UK now has the lowest unemployment for six years and that it is falling, whereas the federal republic has the highest unemployment for 64 years and it is rising? What deductions does my right hon. Friend make from those figures?

I have not yet seen the detail of what Commissioner van Miert said, but the conclusion, from what my hon. Friend says, is surely obvious. The fact is that state subsidies cannot hide the effect of high social costs. They add to the levels of taxation and, in so doing, they damage competitiveness and employment prospects. That is precisely what we have seen across continental Europe. It is a problem that we have avoided in the UK, which is why our unemployment is so much lower.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the following: first, that since last June when he promised that the beef ban would be lifted by last November, no part of the beef ban has been lifted; secondly, that under the selective slaughter scheme, not a single animal has yet been slaughtered; thirdly, that no formal proposal has yet even been put to the European Commission about lifting the ban from the BSE-free certified herds in Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere; and, fourthly, that the cost of the BSE fiasco is now estimated at £3.3 billion and is currently running at £4 million a day?

If I may take the last point first, which deals with cost, I think that the right hon. Gentleman should be more careful about what he says about that. If he recalls, it was the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) who first tried to stoke up the health scare about British beef right across Europe, despite the fact that British beef is safer than continental beef, and it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) who supported the unjustified beef ban. I find the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour throughout the entire crisis absolutely astonishing. His behaviour would discredit a student debating society. Not once has he put the interests of the British beef industry in front of making petty party political points for his own party interests.

Four specific questions, not one specific answer—that is about par for the course. I remind the Prime Minister that he was not obliged to stand at the Dispatch Box last June and promise that he would lift the beef ban by last November, but he made the promise. He broke the promise—like so many of his promises. He made the promise, not because he thought he could deliver on it, but because, as usual, he was in a tight spot and wanted to get out of it. Let me just put one of those specific questions and allow him to answer it: is the Minister of Agriculture right when he says that the cost is now £3.3 billion, or, as he put it, the equivalent of 2p on the standard rate of income tax? Is he right, or is he wrong?

The cost is of that order. That is correct, and a substantial part of the reason for that is the health scares created by Opposition Members. Throughout the whole affair, the Government have been entirely open with the British nation, and the Labour party has repeatedly tried to stoke up health fears at home and abroad. If the Labour leader was really interested in restoring the British beef industry, he would be working with us to promote it, not undermining our position in the European Union just as we present plans on certified herds to the European Commission. But he is not interested in getting the ban lifted at all; he is interested in his own petty points.

Rightly has it been said that BSE also stands for "blame somebody else". The Prime Minister would do a lot more credit to his office if, just for once, when his Government make a mistake, he would accept responsibility for it. That he will not do so is one part of the reason why that fiasco will stand as a symbol of the incompetence of the most incompetent Government in living memory.

Even at this stage, the right hon. Gentleman takes the position of those who would do down the British beef industry. Before he does more damage to the British beef industry, he should reflect upon the damage that he has already done to it. It is British farmers and taxpayers who have helped pay the price for his posturing over the past few months. The bitter harvest has been reaped, partly because of the Labour party's domestic self-interest.

Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports in the West Lancashire Evening Gazette and The Express about a little girl of 11 in my constituency who has been addicted to heroin since the age of nine? Will he order an urgent inquiry into how Lancashire social services failed to notice that that little girl was in danger, despite the fact that eight members of her immediate family, including her granny, have been convicted of offences relating to the supply of heroin? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case is an horrific example of the growing threat to children from drugs, and will he reassure my constituents and the country that the Government continue to make the war against drugs a top priority?

I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend and the House. My hon. Friend highlights a truly tragic case, as he set it out. Although I am not familiar with all the details of the case, I was aware of it, and I understand that the director of social services in Lancashire is now reviewing the department's action, and that a report will be sent to the Department of Health's social services inspectorate, where we will examine it with great speed and great care. It is essential that, when a child needs protection, it receives protection from all the agencies concerned. On the evidence at present available—I emphasise that—it seems as though that may not have happened in that case.

Surely the real issue is no longer the price that farmers have paid for one incompetent Minister, but the price that the country is paying for the whole squabbling herd of them. We are seeing rising inflation, the usual pre-arranged pre-election boost followed by the familiar post-election bust, sacked teachers, the health service plunged into crisis daily, and increasing class sizes. When will the Prime Minister realise that he has only one function left to perform that is of any interest to anyone: naming the day? When will he get on with it?

The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to examine more carefully the litany that he recites. We have set an inflation target, which we shall meet, and which the right hon. Gentleman could only dream about. The average level of inflation under the last Lib-Lab Government was more than 15 per cent.—no wonder the shadow Chancellor dare not set an inflation target and tell the country what it is. He promises taxes, but he does not say who will pay them. He cannot tell us whether he would set an inflation target or what it would be. The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not seen today's annual economic report from the European Commission, which argues that we will meet our inflation target.

Has my right hon. Friend carried out studies to establish how much a reduction in value added tax on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. would be outweighed by the impact on prices of a windfall tax on energy suppliers, which would possibly leave consumers worse off?

I would be very happy to carry out such an inquiry, if we were told who would bear the windfall tax and at what rate it would be levied. We are now told that the windfall tax is legal, but, despite the fact that Labour Front Benchers claim to be in favour of freedom of information, they will not release the information on which that assertion is based. I invite them to do so. I also invite the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to tell us who would pay the windfall tax and at what rate it would be levied. He could then tell the consumers of electricity, gas and oil precisely what that would do to their bills.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14160]

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

Will the Prime Minister comment on the statement by the Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who admitted that only about half of the figures showing a fall in unemployment are genuine? Which half of those figures should we believe? As, at long last, a Minister has told us half the truth, will the Prime Minister inform us when just one Minister will tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

My right hon. Friend said no such thing, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Opposition Members cannot bear the fact that unemployment is falling rapidly in this country, and has been falling for three years. There are now more people in work in each and every region.

Four million unemployed.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not a single shred of evidence to support his claim. That is fiddling the figures on a scale that not even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would contemplate. Unemployment is falling and people are in work. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) should recognise that fact. There has been a dramatic fall in unemployment in his constituency. He should talk to his constituents who are now in work and who would lose their jobs under the policies that Opposition Front Benchers advocate.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14162]

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

Bearing it in mind that the new consensus in British politics seems to be based on the successful policies of 18 years of Conservative government, and given the fact that the Opposition have spent the past two years denying the previous 16 years and are now espousing all the policies that they voted against in the past, will my right hon. Friend inform the House and the country why the electorate should consider voting for the pale pink imitation opposite, when it has the real thing in the person of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. After 18 years of Conservative government, we have low taxes, low inflation, more jobs and tumbling unemployment. The Labour party may adopt our rhetoric, but Labour Members do not believe what they say, and neither should anybody else.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14163]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, once he has had the guts to go to the country, for the first time in his political life he will be sitting on the Opposition Benches? I have been keeping this seat warm for him. After the election, at least half a dozen Tory ex-Ministers will put the knife into him, because they want his job. Then he will have the galling experience of having to vote for one of those Tory bastards. Which one will it be?

The hon. Gentleman comprehensively removes the thought that one mellows as one grows older. A report earlier this week said that people do not get cantankerous as they grow older; they are born that way. Remarks like the one that the hon. Gentleman has just made were repeatedly put to me before the last general election. He is still sitting there; I am still sitting here. I look forward to congratulating him on his 70th birthday, and he will still be there if he holds his seat.

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for not being present for the beginning of the debate.

Disgraceful.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am reminded of the debates that I read while preparing my speech. When a similar motion was moved in 1985, my colleague with the relevant responsibility was not present. As I had spoken on the previous legislation, I became the first speaker for the Opposition; so I have had my comeuppance.

Quite right too.

Absolutely, quite right.

"offices of profit in the gift of the Crown or Ministers",

"certain positions of control in companies in receipt of Government grants and funds, to which Ministers usually, though not necessarily, make nominations".

"offices imposing duties which, with regard to time and place, would prevent their holders from fulfilling Parliamentary duties satisfactorily"—

I had to re-read that.

So did I—as, indeed, I have in the past.

"offices whose holders are required to be, or to be seen to be, politically impartial."

"Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal or a member of a panel appointed under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947."

"Any director of Horticulture Research International in receipt of remuneration."

It may be worth emphasising, for the benefit of those who read the report of the debate, that it is possible to give up such a position before taking a seat in the House.

Earlier—the hon. Gentleman probably was not in the Chamber yet—I drew attention to one of the paradoxes that are involved in the legislation. Most of those who are barred from membership—more than 1 million people—can become eligible for parliamentary seats by giving up their posts, but that does not apply to someone who has been an ordained priest in the Catholic Church. That cannot be wiped out: those people are banned for life, whatever happens in the future.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, but let me ask a rhetorical question: would not members of industrial tribunals face a real dilemma if they intended to stand for Parliament in a few weeks' time? They would have to resign before the election, because they cannot resign after they have been elected. That strikes me as demonstrably unfair. Having resigned from the tribunal, an unsuccessful candidate for election would have to be beholden to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment: it would be for the Secretary of State to reinstate that person.

It is some five years since I signed the nomination papers to be a parliamentary candidate, but I have a feeling that a candidate has to sign a statement that he is not excluded by the terms of the House of Commons Disqualification Act. Being on the list means that a person cannot be a legal candidate, which is why I question how Bruce Kent could possibly have been a legal candidate in the last election. Clearly, under the 1801 Act, he could not have taken his seat in the House if he had been successful.

Was it not absurd that, in 1979, Dame Sheila Roberts was elected to the European Parliament in the Conservative cause, was a successful candidate for London South West and then found that she was disqualified? In what was a technical anomaly, there was no such mechanism for her position to be rectified, as in the case of Dr. Michael Winstanley, the former Member for Cheadle and then for Colne Valley. There had to be a by-election, at enormous public cost, which Dame Sheila again subsequently won—with a diminished majority, but she won. It was an absurd circus for that Conservative Member of the European Parliament to be elected, to be disqualified and then to have to stand again, all because there had not been true and reasonable understanding of the ground rules and no mechanism was in place to remedy what was demonstrably an error.

It all comes down to the fact that there is not really a consolidated list and a formal structure whereby that list can be scrutinised and we have all the people who are disqualified from membership of the House. We are dealing here, it is true, with the schedule to the main Act, but the Act, as I have said more than once, is not the only Act that disqualifies people from membership of the House. In an open, accessible and pluralistic Parliament, there should be good grounds, as we approach the 21st century, to review wholesale disqualification, some of the rules of which, as I say, go back to the early part of the 19th century. Such a review is long overdue.

I acknowledge that I was not here at the beginning of the debate, but I did hear the relevant points that were made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the anomalous position involving people who have been ordained in the Roman Catholic Church needs to be sorted out. Roman Catholics are discriminated against in a number of ways. For instance, Roman Catholic bishops cannot pick the title of their diocese, but that is slightly away from this debate. The anomalous position of two people, one of whom has been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and one of whom has been ordained as an Anglican priest, should be on all fours. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ask someone to find a way in which the House can consider dealing with that anomaly. It is not the most important issue, but it is one of fairness.

I beg to move amendment (b), in paragraph 1, after "following entry" insert—

We have only an hour and a half today.

In that case, I must watch the length of my speech. The matter is being addressed by a motion of the House and we have been able to table amendments—an opportunity that I have taken.