<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<opml version='2.0'>
  <head>
    <title>Sitting of 13 March 1997</title>
    <dateCreated>Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000</dateCreated>
    <ownerName>UK Parliament</ownerName>
    <ownerEmail>mail@robertbrook.com</ownerEmail>
    <ownerId>http://www.parliament.uk</ownerId>
    <docs>http://www.opml.org/spec2</docs>
  </head>
  <body>
    <outline id='3196252' text="&lt;i&gt;The House met at half-past Two o'clock&lt;/i&gt;" title='Preamble' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/preamble'></outline>
    <outline id='3196253' text='[MADAM SPEAKER &lt;i&gt;in the Chair&lt;/i&gt;]' title='PRAYERS' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/prayers'></outline>
    <outline id='3196331' text='Oral Answers to Questions'>
      <outline id='3196342' text='TREASURY'>
        <outline id='3196345' text="Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many EU countries levy (a) higher and (b) lower airport taxes than the United Kingdom. [18519]&lt;br/&gt;The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): The total tax a passenger pays can include embarkation taxes, passenger service charges and security charges, as well as VAT-type taxes.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On the basis of a &amp;#x00A3;120 ticket for a domestic flight, the charge in Germany will be &amp;#x00A3;27.61 in comparison with the &amp;#x00A3;10 payable in the UK after November this year. Greece, Austria, France, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal and the Netherlands also have higher charges; France, Luxembourg, Denmark and Ireland have lower charges.&lt;br/&gt;Rev. Martin Smyth: Is not the Minister forgetting that airports in Germany and elsewhere are Government owned, so their taxes are hidden? A fair comparison shows that United Kingdom airports are charging two to three times more. In addition, does not the fuel form show the number of children? Could not that be reconciled with the number of children taxed rather than taking &amp;#x00A3;5 million to &amp;#x00A3;6 million in a tax on children?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Oppenheim: I did point out that the tax in Germany is higher. Landing charges in the UK tend to be much lower than those on the continent, partly because we have privatised our airports which are therefore now more efficient. The hon. Gentleman's point concerning children is valid, and it is often made. Children under two who are carried by their parents are not charged, but anyone occupying a seat is charged. A cut-off point for children aged 10 or 12 would be almost impossible to administer because airline staff and ticket sellers would have to check children's age. However, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's general point." title='Airport Taxes' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/airport-taxes'></outline>
        <outline id='3196349' text='Mr. Jessel: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the contribution of forecast privatisation proceeds in 1998&amp;#x2013;99 to the expenditure plans set out in his "Financial Statement and Budget Report". [18520]&lt;br/&gt;The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Red Book assumed privatisation&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;480&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;proceeds of &amp;#x00A3;1&amp;#x00BD; billion in 1998&amp;#x2013;99, reflecting the Government&apos;s continuing commitment to privatisation. Privatisation reduces borrowing and secures long-term benefits for UK taxpayers and consumers.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jessel: I believe that &amp;#x00A3;l&amp;#x00BD; billion works out at about &amp;#x00A3;80 a head for every man, woman and child in the UK. If the Labour party were to attempt to stop privatisation, would not it have to increase the rate of VAT by about 1 per cent. or income tax by about 1p in the pound, or a bit of each, to raise the same amount of money?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right; the absence of the predicted income from privatisation proceeds seems to have been missed by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who says that he will stick to our plans. Unless the right hon. Gentleman has done yet another U-turn on the matter, the Opposition are &amp;#x00A3;1&amp;#x00BD; billion short on this, which contributes to the &amp;#x00A3;12 billion gap that they have during the first two years, which is part of their &amp;#x00A3;30 billion spending gap in general.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Stevenson: Is the Minister aware that, according to figures produced by the House of Commons Library, since the Government embarked on their privatisation policy, privatisation receipts show a shortfall of &amp;#x00A3;5.7 billion compared with the share market price the day after privatisation? Does not that show remarkable Government incompetence, and that the Government are prepared to pay any price in their dogmatic pursuit of privatisation?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: No, it does not show any such thing. If we cast our minds back, on each of those occasions the Labour party either said that such businesses could not be privatised or would not be sold&amp;#x2014;or it tried to talk the market down. The hon. Gentleman helpfully makes another point, which is that the Labour party&apos;s proposed so-called windfall tax is based on the idea that there was a windfall&amp;#x2014;some 15 years ago in many cases. How one taxes the present shareholders to catch up with an alleged windfall 10 years ago is rather odd.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Congdon: Given the success of the privatised industries in reducing prices while paying more than &amp;#x00A3;2.5 billion a year into the Treasury, does my right hon. Friend think that it is somewhat perverse to reward that success by imposing a windfall tax? What incentive is there for such companies to be profitable when their success would be rewarded by the Labour party plundering their profits?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: The Labour party justified that policy on the basis that it thought that some of the executives in those firms were too highly paid, but the proposal makes no difference to executive pay. It is a random tax on a selection of successful businesses, such as British Telecom, which has delivered a 40 per cent. cut in real terms in its prices to the consumer. It shows Labour&apos;s real underlying approach to industry: if it is successful, Labour does not like it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Milburn: Do the Government intend to privatise the Post Office?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: The figures in the Red Book do not include any potential receipts from the Post Office.&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0248"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;481&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;They include the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services, which has been announced, and there are plenty of other candidates in line that will continue to make the privatisation receipts flow. This is a major gap in Labour&apos;s plans to which it has not yet found any answer.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House whether the figures include receipts from the proposed privatisation of London Underground? Will he confirm also that, unique among privatisations, the receipts from that privatisation will be used to increase investment in London Underground?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is quite right: the Red Book does not include any assumptions about London Underground.' title='Privatisation Proceeds' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/privatisation-proceeds'></outline>
        <outline id='3196353' text='Mr. Olner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the amount of tax paid by a typical family has changed since 1992. [18521]&lt;br/&gt;The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): A family on average earnings should be around &amp;#x00A3;370 better off next financial year, 1997&amp;#x2013;98, after tax, inflation and earnings growth, relative to the current financial year, 1996&amp;#x2013;97. This takes the total rise in real take-home pay for the typical family to more than &amp;#x00A3;1,100 since 1991&amp;#x2013;92.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Olner: Will the Chancellor take this last opportunity before the general election to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to my constituents in Nuneaton for the 22 Tory tax rises that they have suffered, which have put them &amp;#x00A3;2,000 out of pocket since this Government came to office? Will he join Labour in not pursuing increases in VAT on food, children&apos;s clothing, books and newspapers?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: Untypically, the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have paid any great attention to my answer. The average family in Nuneaton is &amp;#x00A3;1,100 a year better off compared with the year before the last election, after taking account of changes in incomes, tax and inflation. If the Labour party had been elected&amp;#x2014;it had pledged to increase taxes and has since opposed everything that we have done to get the recovery going&amp;#x2014;families would have been poorer.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;People face the prospect of being asked to elect a Labour Government, but the Labour party cannot explain how it would raise &amp;#x00A3;12 billion in the first two years. Labour would make people poorer if they turned to it. The hon. Gentleman&apos;s constituents are better off under the Conservative Government and, to quote another occasion, he should rejoice in that fact rather than try to find ways of getting around it.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as the typical family is earning much more today than in 1979&amp;#x2014;it has an extra &amp;#x00A3;1,000 a year in its pockets&amp;#x2014;people are quite happy to pay a few more pounds to protect our vital public services? Will he also accept their thanks for the 25 tax cuts that he has made in his last two Budgets?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: When people are able to earn more in cash terms in a successful economy, they tend to pay more&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;482&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;in tax. We have made tax rises, tax reductions and made the economy thrive. As a result, the typical family is much better off. I am sure that that is what matters to any sensible, intelligent constituent of my hon. Friend or mine.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor acknowledge that living standards have risen in spite of the Government&apos;s tax increases, not because of them? Will he acknowledge that the cut in the basic rate of income tax and overall cuts in income tax have been financed by the receipts of privatisation and North sea oil and the extension of the tax base in other areas? Is that why he told &lt;i&gt;The Grocer&lt;/i&gt; magazine that the next challenge was to ensure that VAT on fuel was put back up to 17.5 per cent.?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: That is absolute nonsense; the economy would not have recovered if we had not tackled borrowing. That is why I had some tax increases in my first two Budgets, and thereby controlled public spending. By controlling public spending thereafter, we reduced borrowing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said, we have had 25 tax cuts as well. The lady from &lt;i&gt;The Grocer&lt;/i&gt; who spoke to me was surrounded by other journalists, who failed to hear any reference that she says I made to tax on fuel, and what she says I said does not represent my views.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We have had tax-cutting Budgets for the past two years because we have done what was necessary to get borrowing on course and, therefore, the economy on course. The average family is therefore becoming better off and will continue to do so for so long as we stick to my Budget plans.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we shall soon be having the lowest basic rate of tax for 60 years? Will he confirm also that it is his intention to move towards a 20p basic rate of tax, thus further boosting the living standards of the average British family?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. In April, the income tax rate will come down to the lowest since Stanley Baldwin was Prime Minister before the war. That gives credibility to our pledge to reduce the standard rate of income tax to 20p in the pound when, and only when, it is safe to do so, and consistent with keeping the economy on the strong growth pattern that it is maintaining at the moment.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Primarolo: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take this opportunity to explain to the House exactly what he meant when he said to the reporter from &lt;i&gt;The Grocer&lt;/i&gt; that&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"the challenge now is to get"&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;VAT on fuel&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"up to 17.5 per cent."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that it is the Government&apos;s intention, if re-elected, to do that?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: I was surrounded by other journalists and others, none of whom recalls my making that remark, which does not in any event represent my views. If we stick to my published Budget plans, in due course we shall maintain our tax-cutting agenda. If a Labour Government&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0249"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;483&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;are elected, they will have to raise &amp;#x00A3;12 billion in the first two years, because a Labour Government would not follow the policies to which we are committed to deliver our Red Book projections. They would have to raise taxes and increase borrowing. It is the Labour party that has to explain its tax intentions when its figures do not add up, as it has presented them so far.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Garnier: Is it not the case&amp;#x2014;indeed, is it not certain&amp;#x2014;that whereas dogs bark and lambs bleat, Labour Governments increase taxes? Is that not the only way in which the Labour party will be able to fill the enormous black hole that it has in its public spending plans?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: Just so. The Labour party is already committed to raising the windfall tax, which will increase the total burden of taxation on the people of this country and raise their fuel bills. It is on top of that that the Labour party is &amp;#x00A3;12 billion short in the first two years and &amp;#x00A3;30 billion short over five years. My hon. and learned Friend is right: on all past and present form the Labour party will turn to taxation to raise that money and thereby make the public worse off.' title='Taxation' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/taxation'></outline>
        <outline id='3196357' text='Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received in respect of (a) the basic and (b) the higher income tax rates; and if he will make a statement. [18522]&lt;br/&gt;The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): I receive a steady flow of representations regarding all aspects of the tax system.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hughes: I want the Minister to be really honest to the House. I want him to tell us whether he receives mailbags full of letters stating, "Please put income tax down and please do not put higher rates of tax up for high earners," or whether the strong balance of view is that people want better services&amp;#x2014;better education, better health, better housing and better transport&amp;#x2014;and are willing to pay a bit more income tax, and with higher earnings a bit more higher-rate tax, to fund better public services. Is not the second approach the truth?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: That question comes from the member of a party whose 1996 alternative Budget pledged it to raise public spending, by its calculations, by &amp;#x00A3;4 billion. I receive representations that tell me, "Isn&apos;t it good that we can see that the basic rate of tax falls to the lowest level for 60 years while at the same time, year on year, there is a real increase in spending on the health service along with more money spent on education and public services in general, but within a Budget where controls are tight, and we have the fastest growing economy in western Europe?" That is the package that people like to write to me about.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any Government could increase the overall burden of direct taxation without putting up tax rates, merely by abolishing mortgage tax relief, reducing tax relief on pensions, reducing allowances or lifting the ceiling on national insurance contributions? Does he further agree&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;484&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;that any Government who propose to spend &amp;#x00A3;12 billion extra would have to put up taxes, otherwise borrowing would go through the roof?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has clearly been looking at various posters around the country. He is entirely right to give that health warning, because the official Opposition seem to be committing themselves to two of our rates of tax. Therefore, as my hon. Friend inferred, it is clear that everything else is up for grabs. His warning should be heeded by every elector.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Darling: The House will recall that the Conservatives put up national insurance after the last election, even though they promised not to do so.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Will the Financial Secretary clarify what the Chancellor said and, in particular, give an undertaking that the Conservatives would not seek to increase the rate of VAT on fuel during the next Parliament?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my right hon. and learned Friend, who made his views entirely clear on every aspect of tax policy, and, indeed, on his policy on VAT. I have nothing to add.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Duncan Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour-controlled Waltham Forest council raised its council tax two days ago and that, over a three-year period, that tax has been increased by 41 per cent.? I have a mailbag full of letters from people telling me that they are sick and tired of paying increased charges. The Liberal Democrats on the council voted with the Labour party to increase that tax and now have an outraged public chasing them.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has illustrated the underlying desire of anybody in the Labour party who is in power to spend more of other people&apos;s money and to tax more. He is entirely right.' title='Income Tax Rates' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/income-tax-rates'></outline>
        <outline id='3196360' text='Mr. Hall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him on the rate of economic growth. [18524]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I receive many representations on economic growth. Since 1992, the United Kingdom has had the strongest and longest recovery of any major European Union nation, and can expect continued, healthy growth. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expects the United Kingdom to grow faster this year than the United States, Japan and all the major European economies.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hall: Under the Tories, Britain has suffered two of the worst economic recessions since the war, and slower growth than any other major industrialised country in the world. Can the Chancellor tell us why we have fallen from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league and why we have been relegated to the European second division?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman was not paying close attention to the reply that I gave to his main question. I could go back to the rather&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0250"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;485&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;serious recessions that took place in industrially bankrupt Britain when the Labour party was last in power. At the moment, we are enjoying the strongest growth of any major country in western Europe. We are expected to outperform other members of the G7. It is not only me who says so. It is not only the OECD that says so. The International Monetary Fund expects us to outgrow the other major European economies next year, and we are on course to be one of the most successful industrial economies in western Europe. That is the prospect. It is the result of very tough and effective decisions that we have taken over the past few years.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons for our outstanding economic performance in the past few years is the enormous competitive advantage that we have enjoyed because we have escaped the onerous obligations of the social chapter? Does he further agree that if a Government ever came to power who accepted those obligations, the consequences would be the destruction of a huge number of jobs in this country and the erosion of our competitive advantage?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the vast majority of Finance Ministers of the other European countries realise that they have now to go through the difficult structural changes in their economies and the changes in their labour markets that this country has undergone during the period of Conservative rule. We will continue to outperform them until they do&amp;#x2014;unless, of course, we have a Labour Government who plunge us back into the old-fashioned type of social democratic economy from which the rest of Europe has desperately to try to escape over the next few years.' title='Economic Growth' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/economic-growth'></outline>
        <outline id='3196361' text="Mr. Salmond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with industry representatives about clause 37 of the Finance Bill; and if he will make a statement. [18525]&lt;br/&gt;The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary met industry representatives on 22 January. The amendments to clause 37 passed on Report now address the concerns expressed by the property industry.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Salmond: Why did the Government back down on clause 37? Were they concerned about the legal position if they pursued the matter as they originally intended? If so, is the Minister worried about payment and prepayment traders in other related aspects of the Finance Bill? Is there not a ticking time bomb of legal action in the Finance Bill because of discriminatory treatment as between similar traders in different industries? Is the Minister worried about that, or does she think she and her colleagues will not be at the Dispatch Box, so it will be someone else's problem?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The amendments to the clause targeted avoidance more tightly, and we are convinced that that will work. We shall keep a close eye on the matter. The important point is&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;486&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;to ensure that correct transactions can go ahead, but that avoidance is stopped. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support those measures.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Brooke: Will my hon. Friend pass on to the Exchequer Secretary and to Customs and Excise the thanks of my constituents for the hard and constructive work that went into resolving the original problems posed by clause 37? Will she, at the same time, congratulate our hon. Friend on having become this very day the owner of Westminster's top dog?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Knight: I assure my right hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary has heard his thanks. It is clear that, when my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend get together, they can resolve matters in an honourable and friendly way. I understand that my right hon. Friend came second in the top dog awards. In fact, the first three top dogs were Tory top dogs. That is a good omen." title='Finance Bill' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/finance-bill'></outline>
        <outline id='3196362' text='Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss interest rates. [18526]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Thursday 10 April, and frequently thereafter.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hoyle: Will the Chancellor explain why he is keeping interest rates at an artificial level, if not for political and electoral reasons?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: That is the first opinion that I have heard expressed on interest rates from any Opposition Member, so it is a start. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will not take his advice on monetary policy. We have achieved an inflation rate of below 4 per cent. for more than four years, which is the best performance this country has seen for almost 50 years. The OECD survey said&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"Inflation performance over the past 4 years has been remarkably good."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;I am determined that it will remain as good for the next four years, once we get this Government back in office.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Legg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain what the impact on the public sector borrowing requirement would be if local authorities were allowed to spend all their capital receipts? What implications would that policy have for the overall level of interest rates?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: The best estimate that I can give is about &amp;#x00A3;2&amp;#x00BD; billion per year. It is clear that the Opposition are committed to such a policy, but they will not say how they would finance it. If they return to borrowing, which must be one of the methods that they are contemplating to fill the obvious gaps in their public spending plans, that will put upward pressure on interest rates, as my hon. Friend said. That is an irresponsible approach to an area of policy in which the Government are achieving remarkable success.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sheerman: The Chancellor cannot get away with this snapshot of the past two years. People want to know&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0251"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;487&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;why the Government have not, in the past 18 years, kept long-term interest rates low. We have had the highest long-term interest rates in Europe, which has meant low investment and poor prospects for working people throughout this land.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, the latest authoritative figures for European Union inflation show that we are below the average. Our record has been sustained throughout the recovery. I was the first Chancellor to publish this year the International Monetary Fund&apos;s article 4 annual report, which says:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"The inflation targeting framework for monetary policy has delivered impressive results."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;High inflation used to be an endemic weakness of the British economy, and tended to destroy our recoveries. The Government have tackled that problem successfully, which is why this recovery is so healthy.' title='Interest Rates' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/interest-rates'></outline>
        <outline id='3196363' text='Mr. Elletson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the impact on the public finances of financing capital projects under the private finance initiative rather than entirely from public funds. [18527]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: The PFI is delivering better value to the taxpayer, better services to the public sector and new business opportunities for the private sector. The PFI entails real transfer of risk and responsibility to the private sector, and on that basis has been shown to improve value for money. That is why it was endorsed by the IMF as a&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"welcome innovation that has the potential to increase the efficiency with which services are provided to the public".&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Elletson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the private finance initiative is making a huge contribution to projects in the national health service? Does he agree that ending its use in the NHS would add substantially to public expenditure, and would that not be precisely the effect of the Labour party&apos;s policies?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. There is fundamental confusion about that in the Labour party. Its document "Renewing the NHS" states:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"We strongly disapprove of the Government&apos;s efforts to dragoon hospitals and health authorities into tying themselves up in long-term private finance contracts."&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robert Hughes: Hear, hear.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: "Hear, hear," says the hon. Gentleman, most helpfully. That is the truth. Labour Members are, and always have been, against real PFI in the health service. They always say that they are against any transfer of management responsibility, and that it is necessary for real PFI.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Timms: Why has none of the major hospital PFI schemes yet been completed? The Government said in the Red Book that there would be &amp;#x00A3;2.5 billion-worth of investment under the PFI next year, but only &amp;#x00A3;1.3 billion had been committed by last December. What is the present shortfall in the amount committed to the PFI,&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;488&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;and what will the Government do to bridge the gap and provide desperately needed investment in hospitals and other public services?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: The deals are big, complex and very important, but they will be sorted out. The hon. Gentleman may like to watch this space.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend really believe in Labour&apos;s apparent conversion to the merits of private finance, given that, only six months ago, its deputy leader thought that PFI was a furniture store?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: To be fair to the deputy leader of the Labour party, he claims to have invented the PFI. Unfortunately, however, he did not: he invented something very different. He just thinks that letting public authorities borrow is private finance. It is not; it contributes to the public sector borrowing requirement. That is the fundamental misunderstanding in the Labour party.' title='Private Finance Initiative' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/private-finance-initiative'></outline>
        <outline id='3196364' text='Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how adherence to the criteria for joining the European single currency would affect the United Kingdom economy. [18529]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Oppenheim: The Maastricht convergence criteria of low inflation and sound public finances make sound economic sense in their own right, with or without economic and monetary union. They will continue to form the basis of the Government&apos;s policies.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Williams: Has not the Chancellor lost the argument in the Conservative party over monetary union? Are not the Tories being increasingly driven by Euro-sceptics into supporting a complete withdrawal from the European Community, which would cost 3.5 million jobs?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Oppenheim: As I understand it, new Labour&apos;s policy is exactly the same as ours. As soon as we changed our policy and said that we would have a referendum on economic and monetary union, Labour poodled along behind us on that policy, as on so many others. Is the hon. Gentleman also arguing, for the sake of symmetry, that the many Euro-sceptics in his party&amp;#x2014;including the 50 who signed a letter condemning Labour&apos;s policy&amp;#x2014;have driven the Labour party into exactly the same position as us?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Forman: Under a responsible Conservative Government, would not one answer to the question be that adherence to the Maastricht criteria would have little effect on the British economy, because we are very likely to meet those criteria whether we are in or out of EMU? Is there not a strong pro-European case for saying that EMU should not go ahead on the timetable that is now being talked about unless it does so on the basis of a very small homogeneous core of countries?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It looks as if we will meet the Maastricht criteria. We have lower debt than any other major European Union&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0252"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;489&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;country, and our debt has been lower every year under the present Government than in any year under the last Labour Government. Our borrowing is running at half its level under the last Labour Government, our inflation is below the EU average and our unemployment is lower than that in any other EU country. We have done all that while looking very likely to meet the Maastricht criteria.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Contrast that with the position of other countries such as France and Germany which are suffering terribly by having to meet those criteria. The reason for that is that they have not made the structural reforms that we have made in the teeth of bitter Labour opposition. Those reforms have meant that three quarters of the competitiveness gap with Germany has been closed over the past 18 years. It is no wonder that new Labour&apos;s unique selling proposition to the electorate is, "Those guys have made such a mess of things that we shall copy all their policies."&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Mike O&apos;Brien: When the Exchequer Secretary speaks about "our" policy, which "our" does he mean? Does he mean the Foreign Secretary, who says that he is hostile to a single currency, or does he mean the Chancellor, who has always said that he is a supporter of economic and monetary union? Who now speaks for the Government?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Oppenheim: I could ask the hon. Gentleman exactly the same question. Who speaks for new Labour on Europe? Is it the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Chancellor or the leader of the Labour party? For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there are no divisions whatever in the Labour party, when 50 of his colleagues signed a letter condemning Labour&apos;s policy on Europe, is ridiculous. He has dodged&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I am relieved that the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) has decided to stay on Government Benches. No doubt he recognises the success of Government policies.' title='European Single Currency' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/european-single-currency'></outline>
        <outline id='3196366' text="Sir Colin Shepherd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the amount of income tax raised from individual investors' dividends on shares in the privatised utilities. [18530]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: We estimate that more than 5 million individuals may have a taxable dividend entitlement arising from their shareholding in privatised companies, but we do not keep records of the amount of income tax derived from dividend payments made in respect of anyone company.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tax derived would be much less if there were a windfall tax? Would not the 5 million shareholders who would pay for that tax through reduced dividends also have the value of their shares reduced accordingly?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and his assertion was supported by Professor Littlechild when he gave evidence to a Select Committee. He said that shareholders would be the first in line if there were a windfall tax of whatever amount. Whether it was &amp;#x00A3;3 billion, &amp;#x00A3;5 billion or &amp;#x00A3;10 billion, it would be a dawn raid on the shareholder-owners of this country's privatised companies." title='Share Dividends (Income Tax)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/share-dividends-income-tax'></outline>
        <outline id='3196367' text="Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Chartered Institute of Housing regarding his policy on the level of public borrowing. [18531]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: The chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend on 3 March asking for a large increase in Government spending on housing, and my right hon. and learned Friend will reply shortly.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Irvine Patnick: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, some organisations, including the Labour party, advocate the spending of capital receipts. What effect would such spending have not only on the public finances but on cities such as Birmingham and Sheffield?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: That same chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing recently secured what I take to be an unbreakable pledge from Labour that it would release the accumulated receipts of local authorities. On a phased basis, that would probably amount to about &amp;#x00A3;2.5 billion a year of additional net borrowing in the economy. That ends up as nonsense because, as my hon. Friend hints&amp;#x2014;I suspect that as a former local authority leader he knows&amp;#x2014;in Birmingham, for example, there are no accumulated receipts. Therefore, there would be no gain at all to Birmingham. In Surrey, there would be huge additional spending. That would be an extremely odd and foolish way to deal with housing policy.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fraser: Has the Minister made any calculation of the extent to which public expenditure would be reduced by not having to place so many families in private accommodation at exorbitant rents, with 100 per cent. housing benefit?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waldegrave: Any such calculation, which would be difficult to make, would be dwarfed by the increasing borrowing and spending to which the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Labour Front Bench are committed. They have found no answer. They have pledged themselves to an additional minimum &amp;#x00A3;2.5 billion&amp;#x2014;it might be more&amp;#x2014;net borrowing." title='Public Borrowing' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/public-borrowing'></outline>
        <outline id='3196368' text='Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet his EU counterparts to discuss the introduction of the single currency. [18532]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The forum in which EU Finance Ministers meet to discuss economic and monetary union is the Economic and Finance Council, which is known as ECOFIN. The next ECOFIN meeting is scheduled to be held on 17 March 1997.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Atkinson: What assessment have my right hon. and learned Friend and his European Union colleagues made of the overriding need to ensure that the computer systems involved in the introduction of the single currency are millennium-compliant? Is he aware of the&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0253"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;491&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;growing concern among information technology experts that, because those are the two largest information projects ever to be undertaken, it will prove impossible to meet the deadline of introducing a single currency on 1 January 1999? Even Brussels would be unable to keep the clock back at five minutes to 12 at the turn of the millennium. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the matter is on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference in Amsterdam?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: It would be more suitable to raise the matter at ECOFIN in due course and in the Monetary Committee, where all such practical matters are addressed, but at this stage the European Commission obviously should be consulting as widely as possible about all these practical problems. I think that the date of 1 January 1999 is looking surrounded by doubt in many other ways, but certainly the problem of computer compliance is complicated by the important millennium problem, which my hon. Friend points out.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Winnick: When the Chancellor meets his EU counterparts, will he consider the possibility of taking the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) with him? If he does so, should the Chancellor not explain that, on the issue of the single currency, the hon. Gentleman, who is now in the Referendum party, represents far more of his former Tory colleagues than the Chancellor does?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: I have known the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) for many years and I remember him as a passionate supporter of the European Movement. He and I held similar views on the whole question until five or six years ago. He seems to have wandered away from my views a little, but I always hold hopes that one day he will return.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I am not a member of such an organisation and never have been. Will he also recognise that the important thing about structures of any type is that they must be sound, they must be based on what can be delivered and they must last? In the present circumstances, it looks unlikely that any dates will ever be met.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend&apos;s approach. One of the British contributions that we can make to the discussions is to be sensible, to concentrate on the practicalities and to insist that all decisions are taken on the clearest possible basis of a judgment of what is in the interest of the European economy and then of what is in the interest of the British economy. It is absolutely essential that no economic and monetary union should take place unless there are genuinely convergent economies. Convergence matters more than any artificial timetable.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. MacShane: In any consideration of the single currency, the level at which the pound enters to promote British interests is important. This soon-to-go Chancellor is presiding over a yo-yo currency. Why is he refusing to meet British Steel and other businesses, which want to discuss with him the fact that the rise in sterling that we are experiencing will cost dividends, reduce profits and have an impact on jobs? His final gesture of goodbye will be to hurt British manufacturing industry because of his incompetence in handling our currency.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clarke: We have a floating exchange rate at the moment and, for that reason, I do not control its level.&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;492&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Finance Ministers do not control the level of exchange rates in today&apos;s deregulated foreign exchange markets. We are pursuing strong, stable economic policies aimed at keeping inflation down, keeping the public finances healthy and maintaining the fundamentals of the economy, but thereafter the markets make their own judgment. The consequences of that cause people to keep addressing the question whether to have a single currency in the European Union, but it remains at the moment quite uncertain where we are going to go on that great issue.' title='European Single Currency' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/european-single-currency-1'></outline>
        <outline id='3196369' text="Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people (a) are paying income tax in the current financial year and (b) would have been paying income tax if the tax regime had been indexed and maintained since 1978&amp;#x2013;79. [18534]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: There are 25.6 million income tax payers in 1996&amp;#x2013;97. If we had maintained and indexed the 1978&amp;#x2013;79 tax regime, 1.8 million more people would pay income tax.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Greenway: Do not those figures say it all?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Mackinlay: Last time, Harry.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Greenway: We are the party of low taxation, and it is time that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) learnt that. He supports a party of high taxation&amp;#x2014;individual, collective and every other kind. That is the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and it always will be.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right. He knows that people are better off under the Conservatives because of our tax policies. He knows that we have one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe. The burden is 39 per cent. of gross domestic product in Germany and 45 per cent. in France, but only 35 per cent. in the United Kingdom. He also knows that, with &amp;#x00A3;30 billion-worth of spending pledges attached to their name, the Opposition would raise taxes to fill their black hole.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Pike: How many people in Tory Britain work full time, but still do not earn enough to pay tax?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jack: I refer the hon. Gentleman to today's &lt;i&gt;Financial Times&lt;/i&gt;, where he will see a demolition job of Labour's attempt to deal with that problem. The minimum wage is described, effectively, as a tax milch cow for Labour" title='Income Tax' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/income-tax'></outline>
      </outline>
      <outline id='3196371' text='PRIME MINISTER'>
        <outline id='3196372' text='Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March. [18548]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0254"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;493&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Chidgey: No doubt the Prime Minister will join me in condemning the leaking of the Select Committee report on nursery vouchers. Does he share the Committee&apos;s concern that nursery vouchers appear to be failing to provide parental choice, failing to improve standards and failing to provide more places? Does he accept that there is great folly in pressing ahead with a national scheme before the pilot schemes have been properly tested?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman&apos;s dismay that someone has chosen to leak a report. I have not yet read it, so I am unable to comment in detail on what may or may not be in it. As a matter of principle, rather than on the specific issue raised by the Select Committee report, parents have choice because of the voucher scheme. Without the voucher scheme, the only way to obtain a free nursery place would be to send one&apos;s child to a state school. There was no choice or opportunity and the half a million parents who have taken up the option will be indicating that they believe that choice is right. The voucher scheme has also led to an increase in the number of places.' title='Engagements' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/engagements'></outline>
        <outline id='3196377' text='Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north-west Kent. [18549]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I have, at present, no plans to do so.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dunn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of north-west Kent are glad to be part of an independent nation state and to play their part in our dynamic enterprise economy? They want nothing to do with those who spend their time selling Britain out or who would like to spend their time selling Britain short.&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the people of north-west Kent are glad to be part of an independent nation state. I agree that they and the rest of the United Kingdom have benefited enormously from the economic improvements of the past few years. They, like everyone else, enjoy the benefits of much lower inflation than we have had for many years, the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years and the lowest unemployment rate of any major European country. We intend to continue to pursue the policies that will ensure that they can continue to enjoy those things for many years to come.' title='Ministerial Visit (Kent)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/ministerial-visit-kent'></outline>
        <outline id='3196388' text='Mr. Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March. [18550]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of central Government control of non-domestic&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;494&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;rates has yielded immense benefits to industry and commerce, especially to small companies? Does he also agree that placing decisions on business rates under local control would add billions to industrial costs in the United Kingdom, undermine our inward investment efforts and threaten the very existence of huge numbers of small firms throughout Britain?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about that. The non-domestic rate set by central Government for England and Wales has never risen faster than the rate of inflation, and in Scotland the rate has been reduced in real terms. That is in sharp distinction to what occurred when local authorities set the business rate, often by attempting to hold down the domestic rate and pile costs upon business. That is one of the significant reasons why so many companies were forced out of inner-city areas, leaving the problems that we have been attempting to deal with.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Blair: I have given you, Madam Speaker, and the Prime Minister notice of my question. Will the Prime Minister join me in recalling that it is a year to the day since the terrible events in Dunblane? We remember the little ones who died, and we grieve with their parents and their friends. They will not be lost to the nation&apos;s memory. We all say to the people of Dunblane that our thoughts and prayers are with them today and in the years to come.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;One year ago, the House stood united in shock at the senseless and appalling tragedy in Dunblane. Today, whatever our differences are on any other matter, we are united again, this time in sorrow and in commemoration of those who died.&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken for everyone in the House, and for millions beyond it. We all remember with great clarity the horror we felt when we heard of those appalling events. I remember visiting the school and the gymnasium with the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not believe that either of us will ever forget the scenes that we saw there; neither will anyone else who visited the school. Clearly, this will be a very difficult and emotional time for the bereaved and for the entire community of Dunblane. I am sure that the thoughts not only of the House but of the nation are with them today.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Harris: May I raise with my right hon. Friend another tragic matter&amp;#x2014;the loss of two fishing boats, the Westhaven, from Arbroath, and the Gorah Lass, from St. Ives in my constituency? Will he express the sympathy of all hon. Members to the relatives of the seven men who are feared dead? Will he also honour the debt that we all owe to the fishing industry, and ensure that the investigating authorities have the resources to conduct speedily and thoroughly the urgent task of investigating the cause of that double tragedy?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: Seven fishermen have lost their lives this week, in two separate incidents. I am sure that the House will join my hon. Friend in extending every sympathy to the family and friends of those involved in those tragic accidents. I understand that both incidents are being investigated by the marine accidents investigation&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0255"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;495&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;branch. I will attempt to ensure that that occurs as speedily and as comprehensively as possible, and of course the findings will in due course be made public.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March. [18551]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jamieson: Has the Prime Minister seen the written answer to me from the Secretary of State for Defence on 20 February 1997, which confirmed that most of the "British beef consumed by Her Majesty&apos;s armed forces is purchased from Spanish-speaking South American countries? Does he not think it more likely that the ban on British beef would be lifted by the European Union if it saw that the British Government were backing British beef?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I have not seen the particular answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I assure him that the British Government back British beef. That has been apparent in the resources that have been put into supporting the beef industry during the difficult past year or so.&lt;br/&gt;Sir George Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will have read of the campaign being waged by the British section of the European Movement to persuade the voters to scrap the pound and to move towards a federal European state. In view of the vast sums being given by the European Commission to that movement, will he say how much British taxpayers&apos; money is being laundered through the Commission for that rather dubious exercise?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that without notice I can give a figure to my&amp;#x2014;to the hon. Gentleman on that particular matter. I would add that, from all that I read and understand, there is quite a lot of money available to both sides of the argument.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March. [18552]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fraser: As this is probably the last opportunity I shall have to ask the Prime Minister a question, may I, as one ex-Lambeth councillor to another, wish him a long and happy retirement? It might have been otherwise&amp;#x2014;because does he realise that when he was running a housing department in Lambeth, under a Labour Government, he started more municipal homes to rent in one year than every single housing authority in England and Wales is now starting in the current year, and that the shortfall is by no means made up by housing associations?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: The reason for that, of course, was the dereliction and despair that I inherited from the Labour council, which had spent 30 years damaging the quality of life in Lambeth and has continued to do so whenever it has managed to persuade the people of Lambeth to re-elect it.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has the chance during his busy day, will he reconsider the strange question&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;496&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;of the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner)&amp;#x2014;a man of unshakeable principles for many years, as we know&amp;#x2014;whose description of European Movement funding is a travesty of the truth? The sums involved are extremely modest compared with the millions spent by Sir James Goldsmith on his own campaign, which is triumphantly scoring 0.3 per cent. in the opinion polls?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and forcefully.' title='Engagements' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/engagements-1'></outline>
        <outline id='3196395' text="Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the impact on sanctions against Libya of the legal actions by the United States authorities against (a) Juval Aviv and (b) Les Coleman. [18553]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. Mr. Aviv's acquittal has no bearing on the case against the two Libyans accused in respect of Lockerbie. Legal proceedings against Mr. Coleman are pending in the United States, and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment on them.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dalyell: Have not the American courts driven the proverbial coach and horses through the case of the American Government on Libya? Does the Prime Minister realise that many serious people in legal Edinburgh doubt whether the Crown Office now has a substantial case to provide the basis for sanctions against Libya? Given the view of the families, could there be another fatal accident inquiry into these tragic events to get the truth?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: It is not for me to say whether the Crown Office has a case or not; it clearly believes that it does. I have made inquiries in the light of the question that the hon. Gentleman tabled, and I am advised that all the theories about responsibility for Lockerbie, including those of Mr. Aviv and Mr. Coleman, were thoroughly investigated. The evidence supports charges against the accused Libyans, and not against anybody else. The hon. Gentleman asks for a further inquiry of some sort. As he knows, there have been a number of inquiries already&amp;#x2014;a fatal accident inquiry that was held in public, a police inquiry, a Transport Select Committee inquiry, an air accident investigation branch inquiry, and the US presidential commission. In the light of those, I do not believe that a further inquiry would be productive." title='Sanctions (Libya)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/sanctions-libya'></outline>
        <outline id='3196403' text='Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March. [18555]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend deplore, as I do, the increasing tendency for Government policy to be discussed as a result of leaks in the media and elsewhere? Does he share my increasing concern about that trend?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I certainly do. It means that policies that are legitimately a matter for discussion in the&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0256"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;497&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;House are often discussed and misunderstood before the details of the policies or the Select Committee report have been made public. That is damaging. I believe that the leaking of Select Committee reports, as happened last night, is an abuse of the procedures of the House. On that matter, I entirely share the views of my hon. Friend.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March. [18557]&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Barnes: It is probably seven weeks to the general election. Will not many people get a shock to find that their names are not on electoral registers? Why cannot we be told how many people are on the electoral registers in England and Wales, which should have been available for a month, before the House dissolves for a general election?&lt;br/&gt;The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, electoral registers are published at the appropriate time. I believe that when he raised the matter about three weeks ago I told him that the full count is likely to be available towards the end of March.' title='Engagements' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/engagements-2'></outline>
      </outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3196416' text='3.31 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?&lt;br/&gt;The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;MONDAY 17 MARCH&amp;#x2014;Committee and remaining stages of the Building Societies Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill &lt;i&gt;[Lords]&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: the Architects Bill &lt;i&gt;[Lords]&lt;/i&gt;, the Lieutenancies Bill &lt;i&gt;[Lords]&lt;/i&gt;, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill &lt;i&gt;[Lords]&lt;/i&gt;, and the Justices of the Peace Bill &lt;i&gt;[Lords]&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Motion on the Church of England Pensions Measure.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;TUESDAY 18 MARCH&amp;#x2014;Remaining stages of the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill &lt;i&gt;[Lords]&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Remaining stages of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill &lt;i&gt;[Lords]&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Remaining stages of the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH&amp;#x2014;Until 2 pm, there will debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Motion relating to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Motion on the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;THURSDAY 20 MARCH&amp;#x2014;Debate on jobs and inward investment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;FRIDAY 21 MARCH&amp;#x2014;The House will not be sitting.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;MONDAY 24 MARCH&amp;#x2014;Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day].&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 March there will be a debate on structural funds and cohesion policy in European Standing Committee B.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Details of the relevant documents will be given in the &lt;i&gt;Official Report&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In view of the interest in the House, I should say straightforwardly, albeit with regret, that I am not yet in a position to make a definitive statement about recess dates.&lt;br/&gt;[&lt;i&gt;Wednesday 19 March:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;European Standing Committee B&amp;#x2014;Relevant European Community documents: 11382/96, Structural Funds; 12614/96, Cohesion Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 36-xi (1996&amp;#x2013;97)&lt;/i&gt;.]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for the limited information that he has been able to give us. Before I come to the business that has been announced for next week, will the Leader of the House tell us what is happening about the privatisation of the Building&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;500&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Research Establishment? He has been asked for a statement or a debate on that for several weeks. Today, there is further evidence that all bidders were not operating on a level playing field.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This appears to be yet another case of Ministers misleading Parliament. As time is running out for this Session of Parliament, what guarantees can we have that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment will explain the apparent contradiction between his parliamentary answers and reality, or will that Minister behave like his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence on Gulf war syndrome and at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on bovine spongiform excephalopathy and abattoir safety? Do Ministers really believe that waiting for the election will provide them with an escape route to avoid answering to the House on those important matters?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On future business, the House will have noted that the Leader of the House was, in his words, not able to give "a definitive statement" about dates for the Easter recess. We can only speculate as to why that might be. The Leader of the House has announced that Monday 24 March will be an Opposition day. Will he guarantee that that day&apos;s debate on an Opposition motion will take place, or does he anticipate it being overtaken by other events? Will he confirm that, in 1992, the then Leader of the House announced on Thursday 5 March the business for the following 10 days, only to return shortly afterwards to cancel most of it because the Prime Minister had been to the palace?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I know that the Leader of the House would not wish to mislead hon. Members with regard either to the business statement or to the recess date. He is an honourable man. Is there any other information that he would wish to share with us?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the final remarks of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), which I imagine were intended to be complimentary and which I shall certainly accept as such. I am not, however, in a position to join her in the speculation in which she invited me to engage.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I should make it clear that I do not accept the allegations of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) about the Building Research Establishment. In my view, my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency has dealt in a factual manner with his questions on matters of fact. Moreover, I do not accept what the hon. Lady said about the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who came to the House and dealt very effectively with the points on which the House could expect information.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Patrick Cormack: May I echo the compliments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has acted as Leader of the House? In view of the high excitement of the fare that he has placed before us for next week, will he find time for a crucial debate on an affirmative motion on how the House has dealt with, and should in future deal with, constitutional matters?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: It is certainly an attractive thought&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I mean that a debate, not constitutional&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0258"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;501&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;change, is an attractive prospect&amp;#x2014;but I cannot promise a further opportunity for debate beyond the opportunity that we had a couple of weeks ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that there was much consternation north of the border about the Government&apos;s decision to allocate the contract for the Ministry of Defence auxiliary fleet vessel to VSEL and not to Kvaerner? Will he find time at an early stage for a discussion about the working assumptions that the Ministry of Defence has in mind when it procures surface vessels for the Royal Navy?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge in passing that the Easter recess has always traditionally been the 10 days immediately after the Easter weekend? What could possibly happen in the next 10 days to interfere with that perfectly reasonable assumption?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: It looks to me as though I am being invited to engage once again in the speculation on which I resisted the blandishments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury. I find myself even more ready to resist the hon. Gentleman&apos;s blandishments. On his first point, I hope that he will accept that the Ministry of Defence carefully evaluated bids against its normal technical and value-for-money criteria, in accordance with well-established procedures. As I understand it, he was questioning whether those procedures should not be looked at. I shall of course bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friends.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a statement next week on the possible contamination of water by Cryptosporidium, especially in the Three Valleys water company area, and the failure of that company to notify people in Northolt, Greenford and other parts of my constituency that they should be boiling water? My constituents have undergone the whole crisis without receiving proper notification from the water company. That should be discussed in the House, with a view to bringing the water company to task and addressing my constituents&apos; legitimate concerns, worries and fears.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, but I can certainly promise to draw my hon. Friend&apos;s concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Ann Clwyd: May we have an urgent debate on the crisis in higher education in Wales? Is the Leader of the House aware that, this morning, all the heads of higher education institutions in Wales met Members from both Houses to complain about the lack of parity in funding between England, Scotland and Wales? Is he aware that spending on students in England is &amp;#x00A3;200 a head higher than in Wales, and that in Scotland it is even higher? Is he aware that there is a real crisis? Is it not yet another example of the Secretary of State for Wales failing to fight the corner for Wales in the Cabinet?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: As a member of the EDX public expenditure committee, which is public knowledge, I certainly refute the suggestion that my right hon. Friend&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;502&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;the Secretary of State for Wales does not vigorously present his case. I should perhaps make the point that my right hon. Friend is due to answer questions on Monday.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an early opportunity to debate early-day motion 639?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;[&lt;i&gt;That this House notes that the honourable Member for Cunninghame North during a speech on Monday 11th March, failed to declare an interest as a director and shareholder of a political socialist newspaper company; further notes that the company had a bespoke factory built by Highlands and Islands Development Board at a cost of &amp;#x00A3;127,000 and that the company received loans and grants to the value of over &amp;#x00A3;95,000 from the HIDB and a local enterprise company within the Highlands Enterprise network; and believes that the honourable Member who has made a political career out of attacking other honourable Members with links with companies which have received loans and grants as well as ordinary Scots who have received grants from public bodies, should note the Speaker&apos;s comments about his conduct and resign his position as a shadow front-bench spokesman&lt;/i&gt;.]&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;My right hon. Friend will be aware that the motion draws attention to the fact that hon. Members who make a career out of attacking other hon. Members do nothing for the standing of the House when they fall well below the standards that they asking others to follow. Does he agree that people who live in glass houses should not throw bricks?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I am aware of the point to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that you, Madam Speaker, have already given an indication that the particular interest that my hon. Friend has in mind should have been declared by the hon. Member whom he has in mind from Monday&apos;s debate.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Leader of the House will recall that I raised in a previous Question Time the need for a full statement on the disposal aspect of the BSE crisis, which relates to both the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment. It transpires that there has never been a report on the best overall environmental disposal option&amp;#x2014;either by landfill or by incineration methods. There is continuing confusion about how the crisis will be satisfactorily resolved. In the short time left in this Parliament, will he ensure that a full statement is made on that matter so that such scientific and public health problems can be sorted out?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and any others involved in the matter, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will carefully consider the point that the hon. Lady has raised.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: During the last few weeks of this Parliament, could my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to arranging a debate on the prescribing of a contraceptive pill for children? Yesterday, Mrs. Jenny Bacon and her husband, together with some colleagues, presented a petition of 10,000 signatures to my right hon. Friend the Prime&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0259"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;503&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Minister in Downing street. Their daughter was prescribed the pill when she was 13 years old. She suffered a brain stem stroke, was paralysed for an entire year and died aged 16. I believe that many more parents have similar concerns.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: The first thing to say, without commenting further on an individual tragic case, is that I am sure that everyone in the House would wish to express their sympathy for the circumstances about which we have all read. It follows that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health will wish carefully to consider the petition and what my hon. Friend has said.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been a long-time admirer of his admirable Quaker character. He will appreciate that I have always been among the mildest of his inquisitors. Because of the real dangers to peace in Israel, in Albania and over Cyprus, it is essential that the House has a chance to debate those matters, even in a one-day debate, before the recess. Will he give serious consideration to giving us a one-day debate before the Easter recess or, hopefully, after the Easter recess?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: Of course, I always consider what the hon. Gentleman suggests in the conciliatory and moderate way in which he puts questions to me. I cannot lay claim to a Quaker character, whatever that is, merely to a Quaker education.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My right hon. Friend, like the rest of us, will have been subjected on every conceivable occasion to the Liberal Democrats&apos; assertion that education is at the top of their priorities. However, in Kent, the Liberal Democrat-controlled council has chosen to take &amp;#x00A3;10 million of the Government&apos;s grant and spend it elsewhere. May we have a debate to demonstrate that that fact may reflect the difference between being in power in Kent and having no chance of power at Westminster?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I would make a slightly different point without differing from my hon. Friend. On a range of matters, there is a marked discordance between what is said by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members and what happens when their friends are in power in town and county halls.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Ian Pearson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government propose to allow taxpayers&apos; money to be spent on training chartered accountants from some of the biggest and wealthiest chartered accountancy practices, when they have provided the training for donkey&apos;s years at no cost to the public purse? Is that not a clear waste of public money? May we have an urgent debate on the misuse of training funds?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the recently published Select Committee report. If so, it will be considered in the normal and appropriate way. In any case, I cannot promise an early debate.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend consider making time for a statement by my right&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;504&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the primary school league tables, in view of the request from Opposition Members for an added value component? My right hon. Friend may be interested to learn that the Labour-controlled Association of London Government has done such a calculation, adding in the socio-economic added value, and the top-performing local education authorities are, first, Richmond upon Thames; secondly, Kensington and Chelsea; and, thirdly, the City of Westminster. The ALG has asked for extra funds to be given to those deprived areas, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment would wish to consider that.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend&apos;s question was whether I would be interested in that information, and the answer is yes. I am grateful to him for making such a telling point.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a debate before the general election is called so that we may ascertain precisely where parties get their money from to fight the general election? &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; In America, they are having a wide debate about where the money comes from for elections, especially the foreign sources. May we have a statement so that we can challenge the Tories to tell us how their party funds managed to move from a debt of &amp;#x00A3;19 million last year to a &amp;#x00A3;40 million surplus this year, when the public sector borrowing requirement is &amp;#x00A3;20 billion or more and the national debt has doubled? How come the same people can run the country into a hole, but at the same time manage to find large sums for their own ends? The public have the right to know.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard a number of points&amp;#x2014;made from what I hope were sedentary positions behind me&amp;#x2014;which he might care to weigh. I will not follow that line for reasons relating to recent answers that I have given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)&amp;#x2014;that is to say that I am the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While fully supporting the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) for a debate&amp;#x2014;which has been attended to by my right hon. Friend&amp;#x2014;can I bring matters closer to home? Is it not time that this House debated its own integrity and the leaking of documents, such as Select Committee reports, long before they are published? The recent problem is not the first. Could my right hon. Friend find time to allow the House to debate the issue, indicate its view to the institutions of this House&amp;#x2014;which, sadly, too often are not prepared to act, even when the individual responsible for leaking the report is identified&amp;#x2014;and give instructions which would help the next Parliament?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I am aware of the reasons why my hon. Friend has raised this matter over the past five or six years. I must make the point that an established set of arrangements for examining the source of a leak and, in certain circumstances, reporting to the House is set out in the second report by the Committee on Privileges from Session 1984&amp;#x2013;85.I refer my hon. Friend in that direction.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the Leader of the House go and tell himself as Chairman of the Select&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0260"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;505&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Committee on Standards and Privileges that some of us are indelicate enough to ask when the statements of Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed, while producing rolls of money, to the effect that we can be hired like London taxis will be addressed? Does he understand that it would be totally unsatisfactory to let this matter go unaddressed before there is a general election? Whatever cloak the right hon. Gentleman is wearing, what does he have to say about this matter?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I am not using any kind of cloak to put myself in a position where I have to be cautious with the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I am Chairman of the Committee and that the Parliamentary Commissioner is investigating matters closely entwined with those to which he refers. Many people would be appalled were I to start making comments against that background.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nigel Forman: In view of the breathtaking and awesome significance of some of the recent scientific capabilities in the sphere of cloning as it relates to animals, does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be a strong case, if time were available, for the House to have an early debate on the full ethical and practical implications of that emerging technology, since aspects of genetic engineering which are now applied to animals could, alas, at some future stage in certain circumstances be applied to human beings? Will he consider this matter carefully, because if it is good enough for the United States and President Clinton to consider a moratorium, surely this House can debate it in an appropriate spirit?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology is taking a close interest in the matter and is conducting a brief inquiry into the recent cloning of sheep at the Roslin institute. I will not rule out the possibility of a debate on this important and sensitive subject, but I am not in a position to promise one from the Dispatch Box today.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on early-day motion 646?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;[&lt;i&gt;That this House demands international action against the dumping of medicinal drugs in Third World and Eastern European countries which resulted in the deaths of 100 children in Nigeria in 1991 and 60 in Haiti in 1996, who used contaminated paracetamol syrup, and the blinding of 11 pregnant women in Lithuania who were prescribed a medicine intended for animal use; and notes that some pharmaceutical companies enjoy tax and other financial benefits by avoiding disposal costs in their countries and thus profit from the irresponsible and often lethal dumping of medicines on unsophisticated communities&lt;/i&gt;.]&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The motion draws attention to a growing world scandal resulting from the donation&amp;#x2014;sometimes for good reasons&amp;#x2014;of medicinal drugs to third-world and east European countries. As a result of those donations, 11 pregnant women in Lithuania were blinded when they took a drug that was intended for animals because they could not understand the labelling and 100 children in Nigeria and 60 in Haiti died after taking a form of paracetamol that had been mixed with the wrong form of&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;506&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;glycol. Many of those donations are made for humanitarian reasons, but others are made because American companies refuse to bear the costs of dumping the drugs&amp;#x2014;legally, but expensively&amp;#x2014;in their own country and are gaining a tax advantage by sending them to third-world and eastern European countries. As a result, children are given adult doses, and dangerous and lethal drugs, which should be taken under strict control, are taken as though they were sweets. Huge numbers of people have been damaged by the irresponsible dumping of drugs. When will Britain take a stand and introduce regulations in an area where there is none now?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary may have commented on those matters to the hon. Gentleman only yesterday and I am not in a position to add to that. However, I understand that the UK has supported the work of relevant organisations, such as the World Health Organisation, in promoting guidelines on drug donations, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to work with other countries to try to improve standards of safety in health which are obviously a matter of concern.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Edward Garnier: May I have some information on behalf of my rural constituents? First, when will the provisions for rate relief on village shops and rural sub-post offices under the Local Government and Rating Bill come into force? When will the hedgerow regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 3 March, be debated? Furthermore, will my right hon. Friend ask a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House in the near future to make a statement explaining the Ministry&apos;s policy on the enforcement of the regulations controlling rabbits under the Pests Act 1954? A number of my constituency farmers are suffering the depredations of rabbits on farms adjacent to railway embankments and I should be most grateful for some guidance on that.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: There were three questions. First, the Local Government and Rating Bill has not yet received Royal Assent, although I hope that that will not be too long delayed. Various parts of the Bill when enacted are due to commence at different times, but if I understand my hon. and learned Friend aright, although no specific date has been set for the commencement of the part of the Bill which relates to rating&amp;#x2014;part I&amp;#x2014;we hope that the rating provisions will commence no later than 1 April 1998.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;With regard to the draft hedgerows regulations, which, as my hon. and learned Friend rightly said, were laid recently, I clearly have not been able to announce a debate in the course of this statement and I cannot give him a specific undertaking on that, but I shall bear his representations in mind.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Lastly, I am well aware of the problems of rabbits since they caused serious difficulties between Braintree and Witham in my constituency, foraging out from the railway line into the neighbouring fields. I shall draw my hon. and learned Friend&apos;s concern to my right hon. Friend&apos;s attention. I wrote to Bob Horton, the chairman of Railtrack, and received what I regard as a positive response.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Harry Barnes: Twice at Prime Minister&apos;s Question Time the Prime Minister has&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0261"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;507&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;promised me and the House that electoral registration figures for England and Wales will be made available to the House by the end of March. The problem is that the end of March falls during Easter and there is a distinct possibility that the House will not return after Easter. Will the Leader of the House make a commitment that those figures will be available to the House before Dissolution and in sufficient time for hon. Members to raise through the procedures of the House any matters that arise from those figures?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: A number of answers have been given to the hon. Gentleman in recent weeks by both the Prime Minister and me. It is not for me to make commitments on behalf of the Office for National Statistics, but my information is that the last of the forms that it needs have just been received and when the data are checked, the office plans to publish the figures on 26 March as agreed.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on grant-maintained schools, such as St. John&apos;s Roman Catholic comprehensive school in my constituency, during which we could highlight the considerable dangers to such schools of up to 15 per cent. of their education funds being clawed back by the local education authority and the possibility of the appointment of political governors on the governing bodies of such schools were Labour&apos;s policies to be implemented?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: That sounds like an extension of, or an addition to, the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I am tempted to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) might seek another Wednesday morning debate on these matters, as the last one was very effective&amp;#x2014;even if it has not produced the necessary changes that he would like to see. However, that is not a matter for me to determine.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Gunnell: When the Select Committee report on ministerial accountability was debated in the House, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that he would attempt to bring to the House a resolution on ministerial accountability that was agreed by all parties before Parliament dissolved. Can the&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;508&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Leader of the House report what progress has been made in that regard, and what prospect there is of the resolution being put to the House?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I understand that that remains my right hon. Friend&apos;s hope, and that he has made further progress in consultation with the authorities in this place and with those concerned with such matters in another place. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman&apos;s question to his attention.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on crime and sentencing, during which I could welcome the fact that crime on the London Underground has decreased by 20 per cent. in the past year? If those trends are mirrored nationally, 1996 will see the fourth year of recorded reductions in crime in Britain&amp;#x2014;the first four-year reduction since records began. I would also condemn the weasel way in which those who were afraid to oppose the Crime (Sentences) Bill in the House have sought to sabotage it in another place.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend&apos;s views on the latter point. As to London Underground, I was not aware of those encouraging statistics, but I am sure that the whole House will find them heartening.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Stuart Bell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, the Leader of the House is an honourable man and he has not misled the House by not announcing the dates of the Easter recess. However, would he agree that the way is now open for the announcement of a general election on the 20th of the month? The business of the House could be tidied up on 24 and 25 March, there could be a Royal Proclamation on 1 April, and a general election on 24 April. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to speculate: I simply ask him to agree that this is a valid scenario.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Newton: From where I sit, it sounded perilously close to asking me to speculate. I have no more intention of doing so with the hon. Gentleman&amp;#x2014;despite the fact that he is a quite reasonable man&amp;#x2014;than with anyone else. As he well knows, there is a little green book in the Library that sets out all the dates of every possible occurrence from last October until the end of May.' title='Business of the House' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/business-of-the-house'></outline>
    <outline id='3196427' text='4.2 pm&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Bearing in mind the serious discourtesy to the House displayed by a Member of Parliament in leaking the report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment about nursery education&amp;#x2014;even before it was completed last evening, judging by the inaccurate representations that have appeared in the press&amp;#x2014;I ask you to protect the standards of the House by having each member of the Select Committee interviewed with a view to establishing who leaked that very important document so that that hon. Member may make her apologies to the House.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware&amp;#x2014;he may recall the wise words of the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box a few moments ago&amp;#x2014;the issue is a matter for the Committee to investigate. The Committee has full authority to investigate the matter itself, and it can proceed to do so at any time. The Committee may then wish to report the matter for action to the House.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I fully support the comments made by the Prime Minister today at the Dispatch Box. Speaking for myself, I have nothing but disdain for individuals who give our working documents and unpublished reports to the press before they are available to the House.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: I have just given a ruling.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Brown: It is a different point.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: No. The matter is concluded. I have said absolutely everything that I needed to say. I gave the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) an opportunity, and I have now made my ruling.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clive Soley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My point arises from the procedure of Select Committees. I understand that it is always open to an hon. Member who is serving on a Select Committee, even if he or she is out of the Room when a decision is reached in that Committee, to express dissent in the ensuing report, as long as he or she does so&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Brown: I did.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Soley: That is as long as he or she does so before the report is finally published and before it is recorded in the report.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Brown: I did, and I want that recorded now.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Soley: I do not raise the matter in relation to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is calling out from a sedentary position. I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman. The House will know that some comments have been made on the radio to the effect that Members who have been outside the Room and&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;510&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;have not voted on a particular issue have not been able to dissent from the ensuing report. As a Chairman of a Select Committee&amp;#x2014;I think that what I am about to say applies to any other Select Committee&amp;#x2014;I take the view that every member of the Committee has the right to record dissent before the Committee finally approves the report.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who is very experienced, is absolutely correct. Reports that we read in the newspapers and hear on the radio are not always as accurate as we are in the House.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The point of order that I wish to raise follows directly from the point of order made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I wish to place it on record that I voted against the report. That is why I wonder whether it is possible for the Select Committee to print the report now so that I can assure the nation that I voted against the report.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has done very well in informing the nation of his views on the subject.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This point of order is not about informing the nation but concerns your unfulfilled expectations. When responding to points of order on 11 March you said:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"The Minister said that he would respond as soon as possible".&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;You added,&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"and I expect him to do so."&amp;#x2014;[&lt;i&gt;Official Report&lt;/i&gt;, 11 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 145.]&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;I was a parliamentary colleague of Bernadette McAliskey. I was not one of her greatest admirers by any means, but I think that in addressing our first woman Speaker of the House I should say something about Bernadette McAliskey&apos;s daughter, who is pregnant, who is being held in prison in unacceptable conditions. The House should be told about the matter. To treat pregnant women in prison like this&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to have a debate on an important issue that is not before the House. I made my position clear the other day when I said&amp;#x2014;I repeated what the Minister had said&amp;#x2014;that the Minister would reply to the question as soon as possible. I expect him to do precisely that.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Harry Greenway&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Mr. Greenway is getting ready for yet another point of order.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Greenway: In terms of procedure, Madam Speaker&amp;#x2014;I am grateful to the hon. Member for&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0263"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;511&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) for his point of order&amp;#x2014;is it a fact that a Member who is out of the Room when the final decision to approve a Select Committee report is taken&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: I have nothing further to report on that matter. It has all been done.&lt;br/&gt;Mr.Greenway&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has been in the House for a long time and he knows our procedures. We have all been through the matter only recently.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Graham Riddick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, want to make it clear to the nation that I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), voted against this dog&apos;s dinner of a report.&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.' title='Points of Order' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/points-of-order'></outline>
    <outline id='3196452' text='BILL PRESENTED'>
      <outline id='3196454' text='Mr. Brian David Jenkins presented a Bill to give pensioner members of occupational pension schemes the statutory right to be member-nominated trustees of such schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 May, and to be printed [Bill 137].' title='PENSIONER TRUSTEES' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/13/pensioner-trustees'></outline>
      <outline id='3196475' text='[&lt;i&gt;Relevant documents: Minutes of evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on Wednesday 5 March (HC355) and on Monday 10 March (HC381.&lt;/i&gt;]&lt;br/&gt;&lt;i&gt;Motion made, and Question proposed&lt;/i&gt;, That this House do now adjourn.&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Mr. Ottaway.]&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;4.8 pm&lt;br/&gt;The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Every serious commentator now recognises that only the Government are committed to improving the lot of present and future pensioners. The comparatively empty Opposition Benches show that Labour has literally abandoned the pensioners. Most Opposition Members are not in their places because they are too ashamed of their record on pensions to defend it. They are ashamed of the Labour Government&apos;s inflation, which wiped out a quarter of people&apos;s savings in a single year. They are ashamed that Labour failed to uprate the state pension properly, stealing &amp;#x00A3;1 billion from pensioners. They are ashamed that Labour failed to pay the Christmas bonus. They are ashamed that, over the entire lifetime of the last Labour Government, pensioners&apos; incomes rose little more than they have on average every single year under the Conservative Government.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Today Labour members are ashamed of their Front Benchers&apos; reaction to our basic pension plus. Even commentators who are not unsympathetic to Labour, such as Peter Riddell of &lt;i&gt;The Times&lt;/i&gt;, have said:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"Labour&apos;s reaction was a depressing example of knee-jerk opposition politics at its worst".&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;Today Labour members are giving the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) a chance to redeem herself and to come up with some positive response. Some hope, it would appear.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Frank Field&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I give way to a more promising prospect.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Field: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his non-partisan stance, and hope that that will be the temper of the whole debate.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been under some pressure to be less non-partisan. I congratulate him on his objectivity.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Conservatives, of course, have long been the party of the property-owning democracy. It was Conservatives who encouraged the spread of owner-occupation&amp;#x2014;two thirds of all families now own their own homes. It was Conservatives who gave council tenants the right to buy their own homes. It was Conservatives who encouraged the spread of share ownership, so that more people now own shares than belong to trade unions. It was Conservatives who encouraged two thirds of those in work to build up second pensions. The plans that I announced last week to give everyone, over a generation, their own funded investments in their own guaranteed personal fund will be the biggest extension of personal ownership ever.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Jane Kennedy: It was the Conservatives who encouraged people to opt out&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0264"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;513&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;of occupational pension schemes and the state earnings-related pension scheme and take out personal pension plans. How many of those who were sold inappropriate pensions have been compensated?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady knows that everybody who was missold such a pension will receive restitution. They have the assurance of the regulators. That process is being accelerated by the vigorous action of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, and nobody will lose as a result&amp;#x2014;unlike the 1 million council tenants who would have been unable to buy their own homes if the Opposition had had their way.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our proposal will extend to everyone rights previously enjoyed only by the better-off. It will give everyone the right to share in the success of our economy; the right to own their own personal investments; and the right to a better and more secure pension.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Labour party, of course, has opposed every extension of personal ownership. In 1982, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is now leader of the Labour party, said:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"Labour would ban the sale of council houses. That is for perfectly sound reasons of political principle."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;In 1983, the hon. Member for Peckham and her party voted against extending the right to buy. Throughout the 1980s, Labour opposed workers, customers and savers being given the right to own shares in the former nationalised industries, so it was no surprise that, last Wednesday, the hon. Lady instantly attacked the next big expansion of personal ownership in this country. She made such a mess of it in the morning that the shadow Chancellor had to take it out of her hands in the afternoon, but he still sounded too old Labour, so the leader of the Labour party had to take it out of his hands the next day. However, even he got it wrong, so the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had to come along and heap praise on our scheme.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee for pointing the way to basic pension plus. In their report last October, entitled "Unfunded Pension Liabilities in the European Union", they wrote:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"our concern is to ensure that there should be no misunderstanding about the hard choices which will have to be faced when future generations of elderly people come to claim the rights to income in old age which they believe they have earned and for which the younger working generations are no long willing or able to pay."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;The Committee urged us to consider&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"ways in which unsustainable and unfunded pension promises can be replaced by sustainable pre-funded pensions in the individual ownership of the employee."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;That is precisely what basic pension plus will do.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Peter L. Pike&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. David Shaw&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Pike: The Secretary of State keeps referring to basic pension plus. Will he confirm that a third of the people will almost certainly receive only the basic pension guarantee, and that there will be no plus for them?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: Everyone in work will have rebates paid into their scheme, so there will be potential if the investments do well. People will be guaranteed at least as good a pension as under the present system.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;514&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Our proposal has three key elements. The first is a personal fund for every young person starting work. They will choose an approved firm to manage it, and they will own it, so they will be able to pass on to their spouses or heirs any assets that are not used to pay their pension.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The second element is the rebate. Everyone will get a rebate from their national insurance. The Government Actuary calculates that &amp;#x00A3;9 a week will generate a fund sufficient to pay the basic pension. A &amp;#x00A3;9 a week rebate, rising with inflation, will be paid into people&apos;s funds over their working lives.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The third element is the basic pension guarantee. The state will guarantee that everyone will receive a pension at least equal to their basic state pension, increased in line with inflation.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. David Shaw&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) first indicated an intention to intervene.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend has referred to the report of the Select Committee on Social Security on unfunded pension liabilities. It recently hosted a seminar for parliamentarians from Parliaments across Europe. We invited them to the House of Commons to talk about their unfunded pension liabilities and our pension funds. They were full of admiration for what my right hon. Friend&apos;s policies have achieved, and they will no doubt be following very closely the basic pension plus proposal, which I am sure all European countries will want to copy.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right: there has been much comment to that effect. We have led the way on most issues, from privatisation to labour market reform. Our reforms have been copied worldwide.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Angela Eagle: The Secretary of State referred to labour market reform. Does he agree with me that, as a result of such reform, many men are now leading similar working lives to those that women used to lead? They are on low pay, in temporary jobs, and they change from one job to another, so they cannot build up an adequately funded pension. With basic pension plus, the right hon. Gentleman is offering the pension that the Conservative party has always said it wanted to let wither on the vine. Do not the calculations show that, by 2040, that pension, if it is increased merely in line with inflation, will be worth only 23 per cent. of average earnings?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady seems to be attacking the policy of her own Front-Bench team, so she should address her remarks to them.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then perhaps I can make some progress.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend&apos;s scheme is visionary, because it gives people ownership of savings&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0265"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;515&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;for pensions in their old age. More important, it is a basic pension plus, because, even on fairly conservative figures, it provides the possibility for the ordinary youngster starting out today to double the present rate of state pension. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with that. My hon. Friend is one of the people who first had the vision of moving in this direction, and I am happy to pay tribute to his contribution to the thinking that has led to this proposal.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Under the proposal, each fund should grow to provide the basic pension. If, for any reason, a person&apos;s fund is insufficient, the state will top up the pension that it provides, so he will still get his basic pension. Everyone will be protected by the basic pension guarantee. No one will do less well than under the present state scheme. Everyone stands to do better if, as we hope, the economy and people&apos;s investments do well. If returns are 1 per cent. higher than assumed by the Government Actuary, people will receive a pension 30 per cent. above the level of the basic pension. If yield is 2 per cent. higher, the pension will be some 70 per cent. better than the present state pension.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;During the past week, I have been challenged to say what pension people will receive not on the basis of an actuary&apos;s assumptions, but if investments do as well or as badly over the next 50 years as they have over the past 50 years or so. Of course, they may do better or worse in the future. If they under-perform, people know that their basic pension is guaranteed.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Since 1950, equity investments have grown at a rate of 7.7 per cent. a year on top of inflation. The Government Actuary calculates that if, over the next half-century, pension fund investments grow a little less&amp;#x2014;let us round it down to 7 per cent. a year&amp;#x2014;the basic pension that will be received under our scheme will be double its present value.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We are determined that the new generation should have the opportunity to share in the potential growth. Basic pension plus extends that right even to the less well-paid. We call the scheme "basic pension plus" because it is the basic pension, plus a fund, plus a rebate, plus a guarantee, plus the prospect of growth.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In the 1980s, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as he now is, paved the way for more funded provision by allowing people to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme into their own funded personal pensions. Two thirds of those eligible now opt for private schemes, but a third do not, mainly because their SERPS would be too small to make it worth their while to set up a personal fund.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;That problem will not exist when everyone has a basic pension plus fund. Everyone in the new generation will also be contracted out of SERPS, and, in addition to the &amp;#x00A3;9 a week rebate to fund their basic pensions, employees will receive a rebate worth 5 per cent. of their earnings on which they pay national insurance. That will fund an earnings-related second pension.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;A person on average wages will build up a fund that should&amp;#x2014;on the Government actuary&apos;s cautious assumptions&amp;#x2014;be worth &amp;#x00A3;130,000 when he or she retires. That is sufficient to provide a pension of &amp;#x00A3;175 a week at today&apos;s prices. If investments do as well over the next half-century as they have, on average, over the last, the&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;516&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;person on average wages stands to receive a pension of around &amp;#x00A3;350 a week. That is based on the assumption that that person has made the minimum contributions over most of his or her working life. Once all those in work have their own funds, however, they and their employers will be able, and encouraged, to save more in those funds.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Eagle: Will the Secretary of State give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady has already had one bash, which turned out to be directed towards the wrong side.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Clifton-Brown: It was helpful.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I suppose that it was helpful to me, but I do not think that the hon. Lady is helping herself.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Corbyn: According to the Secretary of State&apos;s assessment of the contributions that will be made under the proposed new scheme, what would be the cost to the individual of paying into, in effect, a compulsory private scheme, as opposed to paying through taxation and national insurance contributions during his or her working life?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: Clearly, a scheme that relies on taxation and charges rather than on savings and investment costs more, because people do not receive the benefits of the return on the investments that have accumulated over a lifetime. That is the advantage of what we are proposing, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The response to our initiative across the board has been overwhelmingly positive. &lt;i&gt;The Times&lt;/i&gt; said:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"These reforms are a radical solution to a huge problem; they show a willingness to think far beyond this Parliament or the next; and they prove Britain to be an innovator ahead of its European partners. In sum, they are an example of good government."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;But support did not just come from friendly newspapers.&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"And even the ranks of Tuscany Could scarce forbear to cheer."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;&lt;i&gt;The Guardian&lt;/i&gt; acknowledged:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"Like the concept of a shareholding democracy, it could also be empowering a new generation, which will have much more control over its own retirement arrangements."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;&lt;i&gt;The Independent&lt;/i&gt; put it succinctly when it stated:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"the Conservatives are trying to address the problem of how to provide a decent pension for all; Labour is not."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;Of course, the only root-and-branch opposition to the proposals came from Labour, and that tells us all we need to know about the party. It still has a knee-jerk hostility to personal ownership. When the Labour leader wanted to launch his big idea, or his medium-sized idea, of stakeholder pensions, he flew off to Singapore. His model was a massive, centralised, state-controlled investment fund. The only trouble is that Governments, even the authoritarian kind that new Labour seems to admire, are not good at investing money.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0266"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;517&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;The return on the Singapore state scheme for its population since 1980 has been just 2 per cent. a year more than inflation. Over the same period, the average British pension fund has earned nearly 10 per cent a year more than inflation. That was the last we heard about stakeholder pensions, at least until last week.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The second thing that Labour&apos;s reaction to our initiative demonstrates is that its pretensions to be able to reform the welfare state are a sham. The pretence lies in ruins. Labour cannot reform the welfare state, not because it has no ideas, although it does not, but because it is wedded to keeping people dependent on the state.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Labour hates the idea of people building up their own pension provision, owning their pension funds and even passing on capital to their children. The Opposition do not mind opting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, any more than they mind opting out of the local authority education system for their children. Which Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has not opted out of SERPS? But what is good enough for them is too good for the rest of us. They cannot stand the thought of millions more ordinary people escaping the grip of the state, ceasing to depend on it, and no longer beholden to Governments for generously handing out taxpayers&apos; money.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I shall examine in turn the three criticisms that the hon. Member for Peckham has levelled against basic pension plus. First, she says that the value of the rebates going into investment will be too great. But we are phasing this in over a generation, and more than halving the impact by switching the timing of tax revenues for that generation. Therefore, the net revenues forgone will rise by just &amp;#x00A3;160 million a year on average. Moreover, even at its peak around 2040, the impact on public finances will be less than the peak cost of rebates from SERPS, which we have already taken in our stride. It is a fraction of the &amp;#x00A3;13 billion annual savings which will result from our Pensions Act 1995 reforms.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive us if we are a little cynical about this Government move. He says that he will phase this in over a generation. Will it take him any less than a generation to compensate those people who have yet to be compensated because of the misselling of personal pensions which occurred the last time he dabbled in this area?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I have explained that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is accelerating that process. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we have already rescued pensioners from the depredations of Robert Maxwell. Our Pensions Act, to which I have referred, was introduced to restore confidence in pension funds which had been damaged by Robert Maxwell.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Diane Abbott&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: Perhaps I may be allowed to make some progress.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is a bit rich for the Labour party, which opposed the &amp;#x00A3;13 billion of savings that we made in the Pensions Act, to complain that part of that would be absorbed by the&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;518&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;scheme, especially as all the rebates will be invested. That will not only pay for future pensions, but strengthen our economy.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;When the Labour leader was extolling the virtue of Singapore&apos;s scheme, he said:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"It is a way of encouraging savings and investment &amp;#x2026; The idea of raising investment and savings is very important. We"&amp;#x2014;&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;in Britain&amp;#x2014;&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"need to increase our investment significantly".&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;Precisely so. Basic pension plus will produce a massive flow of extra funds for long-term investment in this country.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Labour party has argued that more investment is the key to faster growth. If the extra investment boosts our growth by just a 20th of 1 per cent., the whole scheme will be self-financing. The extra revenues generated by that growth will exceed the net value of rebates. We are not counting on that, but Labour is surely not suddenly denying that investment is good for growth.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Paul Flynn&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: If I decline interventions from both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, I will make a little progress; I have given way quite a lot.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The second criticism made by the hon. Member for Peckham is that basic pension plus will, allegedly, be insecure. That is the reverse of the truth. We will underpin the basic pension with investments. We will guarantee the basic pension, should those investments be insufficient. I simply ask the hon. Lady which is more secure: her promise to pay the basic pension in future with no investments to fund it, or our guarantee to pay the basic pension with investments to fund it? She is welcome to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us which she thinks is more secure. I note that she does not.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Last year, the hon. Lady and her party voted to make companies invest even more to underwrite the pensions they promise their members, yet now she thinks that the state can be relied on to keep its pension promise without investing a penny to pay for it. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said on "Question Time", Labour is defending the pyramid selling principle as the key to the future provision of Labour&apos;s state pensions.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The hon. Lady has made a lot of misselling. As I have said, the misselling in the late 1980s was wrong. It is essential that everyone who was missold a pension be reimbursed or reinstated into their old scheme. None of them must lose. The regulator&apos;s assurance to that effect is welcome, and so is companies&apos; resolve, following a meeting with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to accelerate the process of compensating those affected.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Abbott: Will the Secretary of State give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I want to make some progress.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Needless to say, any company that failed to compensate for past misselling would not be eligible to manage a basic pension plus fund. However, that sort of misselling is not directly relevant to basic pension plus, and could not recur under this scheme. It occurred when people were&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0267"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;519&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;persuaded to opt out of their occupational schemes into personal pensions that they did not need. It did not involve people opting out of SERPs into personal pensions.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;A recent study by the actuaries Alexander Clay showed that as many as 99 per cent. of those who have opted for a personal pension and out of the state system were well advised to do so. Indeed, on average, their pensions will be nearly three times as large as if they had stayed in SERPS, and they could be nearly &amp;#x00A3;1,000 a year better off on today&apos;s prices, if they continue to pay into their funds.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Abbott&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: Nevertheless, it will be essential to have effective but simple regulations for basic pension plus to keep costs and charges low, to prevent churning, and to prevent over-risky investment exploiting the pension guarantee.&lt;br/&gt;Ms Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that, of the 500,000 people who were missold pensions, in two and a half years only 1 per cent. of them have received compensation? Is not the likelihood that, at that rate of progress, most of them will have died before they are compensated for the misselling? What confidence can the general public have in the private pension industry, given that poor regulatory record?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady was obviously so anxious to get out her scripted question that she did not realise that I was replying to it as she was jumping up and down.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Stephen Timms: Will the Secretary of State give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I will make some progress.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) has the other scripted question.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: It is probably the same one; he just was not listening.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The third criticism made by the hon. Member for Peckham was that our reforms do nothing for current pensioners. Of course basic pension plus itself does not, but our Pensions Act reforms protect today&apos;s and tomorrow&apos;s occupational pensioners against the likes of Robert Maxwell, about whom Labour Members are singularly unconcerned. The House will remember that he was the only Labour Member of Parliament ever to take a serious interest in private pensions. It seems that his principle of providing pensions with a fund with no investment in it to meet them has now become official Labour Front-Bench policy.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: I should like to make some progress.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our success in curbing inflation is one of the key advantages that the current generation of pensioners has gained from the Government. They remember the damage that Labour&apos;s hyper-inflation inflicted on pensioners&apos; savings when it was last in government. The extra &amp;#x00A3;1.2 billion we have pumped into higher income support&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;520&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;premiums is helping the less well-off pensioners, and, above all, we are not threatening them with the double whammy of a utilities tax, which would be paid for in the gas, electricity, telephone and water bills of pensioners and others, and which would hit the value of utility shares, the bulk of which are held by pension funds.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Timms: I should like to bring the Secretary of State back to the subject of pensions. If I understood him correctly, a few moments ago he said that the companies that have been involved in misselling personal pensions will not be able to be involved in basic pension plus. That includes many of the biggest insurance companies in the country, such as Prudential, Legal and General and others. Is he telling the House that those companies will not be able to be involved in basic pension plus?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is proposing that the Personal Investment Authority should regulate this matter. Is he aware that, on the day of his announcement, it produced its future strategy, in which it says that it does not want&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"to get involved in any form of direct approval of products or product design"?&lt;/quote&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should have listened carefully to me and to Colette Bowe. We both said that the companies that failed to provide restitution for those to whom they missold pensions would not be eligible to run basic pension plus. Colette Bowe also said that the report did not apply to basic pension plus.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We should not let the inadequacy of the Opposition&apos;s response to our proposals for basic pension plus obscure the threat posed to pensioners by Labour&apos;s pension policies. First, Labour is casting doubt on its ability to protect the state pension against inflation. In an attempt to demonstrate his fiscal rectitude, in a speech in January, "Responsibility in Public Finance", the shadow Chancellor said that, in order to control the cash totals of departmental spending,&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"there cannot be an assumption that totals will be automatically adjusted upwards in the event of changes in inflation."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;Does that mean that he is not promising to uprate pensions and other benefits, or, in view of the press release rushed out at midday by the hon. Member for Peckham, is the so-called iron shadow Chancellor proving rather ductile as soon as the heat is on, and running away from the pledge he made in January?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Secondly, Labour&apos;s policy of letting people draw their pension at age 60 will either cost the taxpayers &amp;#x00A3;15 billion a year or involve cutting the basic pension by &amp;#x00A3;20 a week. Labour&apos;s so-called flexible decade of retirement is identical to reducing the state pension age to 60. People are already free to defer taking their state pension, and for each year they delay, they get a 7.4 per cent. increase in their basic pension for the rest of their life.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In practice, 98 per cent. of people choose to take their pension as soon as they are permitted to do so. The Labour party does not propose to give them any extra flexibility, or incentives to exercise such flexibility. It proposes only that they can take their pension from 60 instead of 65. There is no reason to doubt that roughly the same proportion as now would draw their pension at 60 if allowed to do so, but that would cost &amp;#x00A3;15 billion more than retirement at 65, unless the basic pension were cut.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0292P0I0268"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;521&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Imagine my surprise when the hon. Member for Peckham wrote to me last year criticising me for saying that the Labour party&apos;s policy of retirement from the age of 60 would cost &amp;#x00A3;15 billion a year.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Kevin Hughes: Boring drivel.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Lilley: It may be drivel, but I am quoting the words of the hon. Member for Peckham. She wrote&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"the taxpayer should not be expected to fund this personal flexibility. In government we will protect the public purse from any increase in expenditure arising from"&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;allowing people to retire at 60. She continued:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"we anticipate &amp;#x2026; a lower level of basic state pension."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;She also wrote that she would ask the Government Actuary how much that would cost.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Government Actuary calculates that, to avoid extra taxation, Labour&apos;s plan would require cutting the basic state pension by &amp;#x00A3;20 a week for the rest of people&apos;s lives, or by &amp;#x00A3;37 a week for a couple, and that it would plunge up to 2 million more pensioners below the income support level. The Opposition have said that they would not spend any more money under the plan. They would therefore not be able to top up incomes even to the income support level.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;There is a third new danger from new Labour: its plans for a pension entitlement, which would mean a new means test for all pensioners. Labour plans to test all pensioners to determine whether they are eligible for pension entitlement. Moreover, I am not the only one who calls it a means test. Baroness Castle attacked Labour&apos;s&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"vague concept of a pensions &apos;Entitlement&apos; which is clearly a means-tested guarantee by another name, with all the drawbacks".&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;Apparently Labour intends that every new pensioner, and presumably all existing pensioners, would undergo a once-for-all means test. If their total income fell below some unspecified level&amp;#x2014;presumably set at least at the income support level&amp;#x2014;they would be topped up to that level by a pensions entitlement. It is not clear, to say the least, whether all pensioners would like to be means-tested, however generous the Labour party&apos;s intentions might be.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;However, once Labour had established the system to means-test all pensioners, it would certainly not stop there. It would be the start of a slippery slope; and how long would it be before Labour used the means test to claw back the basic pension fr