Home Page

Column 299

Civil List

3.30 pm

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher) : With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement on future arrangements for expenditure on the civil list for the support of Her Majesty the Queen in carrying out her duties as Head of State. I shall also announce some changes on the management of the occupied royal palaces.

The Government propose, with the Queen's agreement and following consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that Civil List provision should return to the form recommended by the 1971 Select Committee on the Civil List and contained in the Civil List Act 1972. Under those arrangements, the Consolidated Fund made a fixed annual payment related to the anticipated expenditure over a period of years. The Queen's official expenses will thus revert to a standing service on the Consolidated Fund. The need for annual voted supplements under the Civil List Act 1975, introduced as a temporary expedient, will cease.

As the House will know, the financing mechanism in the Civil List Act 1972 supplies, in the early years, provision in excess of need. That surplus will be accumulated as a reserve for use in due course to deal with any future shortfall in income towards the end of the period. If provision is to be adequate to support the Civil List over a decade, the annual payment needs to be set at a realistic level. Subject to the agreement of the House to the necessary statutory instrument, the Government propose that, from 1 January 1991, the yearly sum for Her Majesty's civil list should be about £7.9 million per year for 10 years, which the Select Committee recommended as the appropriate review period.

The yearly sum is the average of estimated need over the period. It is built up by taking the civil list sum for the present year of £5.09 million--increased by agreed additions for current and capital expenditure- -and increasing that sum at 7.5 per cent. per year. That is the average annual rate of inflation over the past decade. The yearly sum also allows for efficiency savings which the Royal Household is expecting to make from continuing improvements in management, in line with the best financial practice.

Should the provision be more than necessary, the surplus at the end of the 10-year period would be carried forward and taken into account by the Government in setting the figure for the new period. Should the proposed provision prove insufficient, there would be a report from the Royal Trustees, and the Government of the day would bring forward proposals for a new settlement. The Civil List Act 1975 and the powers that it contains for additional payments from the Treasury vote will be left in place as a means of financing of last resort. The same principles have been constructed in adopting a yearly sum for each of the other households that receive annuities under the Civil List Acts. I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report a note about the Queen's civil list, which will also show the amounts for the other annuitants. The total net cost to the consolidated fund of the other members of the royal family will be about£1.9 million a year after taking account of the amounts that the Queen will continue to refund to cover the payments made to three of the annuitants.

Column 300

The Government will present a Royal Trustees report on civil list expenditure later in the year together with a new civil list order-making provision for the new arrangements to come into effect from 1 January 1991. The order is subject to negative resolution. The Government also propose that the Royal Household should be given greater responsibility for the management of, and expenditure on, the occupied royal palaces. This change is also in keeping with modern financial management. The new arrangements will not disturb the source of finance, so that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will continue to ask Parliament to vote annually moneys to provide for the necessary maintenance of the occupied royal palaces. Operational responsibility for the upkeep of the palaces within the moneys provided will in future rest with the Royal Household.

The arrangements will be settled under an agreement between the Royal Household and the Department of the Environment. The Comptroller and Auditor General will continue to audit moneys in the hands of the Secretary of State. Expenditure provision will be included as is it now in the civil estimates provided to Parliament. The Government propose that the changes will come into effect on 1 April 1991.

The arrangements that I have announced for the civil list and the occupied royal palaces are, in the view of the Government, in tune with modern financial management. Moreover, they are in keeping with dignity of the Crown and with the esteem and affection in which the royal family are held.

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn) : I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. May I tell her that there will be widespread support for the decision that the basis of civil list expenditure should be that set out by the 1972 Act, as it obviously serves the purposes of good management? The practical commitments to modernised administration, to the improved efficiency of the Household and to a planned basis for Household expenditure are all welcome.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House what steps have already been taken by the Royal Household to improve efficiency in the use of publicly provided resources? Will she confirm that, because of the assumed efficiency savings to which she referred, the cost to public funds will actually increase by less than 7.5 per cent. in all but one of the years in the 10-year programme?

Finally, will the right hon. Lady accept that the new arrangements under the statute will provide for greater continuity and more effective planning in the financing of the Royal Household and therefore commend themselves to the House?

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. He asked what steps had already been taken to improve efficiency. The Household has engaged management consultants to advise it upon these matters. It has had a study made of the use of information technology and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, some of the extra requirements in the first year will go to providing information technology.

The role of the Lord Chamberlain has been crucial in getting extra good financial management. The appointment of a Director of Property Services will shortly be

Column 301

announced so that the Royal Household can the better manage the moneys that are available for the upkeep of the occupied palaces. As for the right hon. Gentleman's question as to whether the cost will go up by less than 7.5 per cent.--which, he said, happened in every year except the first--the efficiency savings over the period will amount to some £5 million. In the last three years, the increased Civil List expenditure by the Queen has been of the order of 18 per cent. That compares very well with local authorities, whose expenditure in the last three years has been up by 34 per cent.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents cherish Hampton Court palace as a royal palace and that they want it to remain a palace, not to become merely a museum? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will retain its status as a royal palace?

The Prime Minister : Yes, Hampton Court is one of the unoccupied royal palaces. The arrangements will continue precisely as now for the upkeep of that palace.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne) : Since the Royal Household is to be responsible for the expenditure of the greater amount of the moneys concerned, can the Prime Minister say something about the accounting arrangements? She mentioned the responsibilities that would be attached to the National Audit Office, but since the financial arrangements have changed, will a memorandum be published? If there is to be a memorandum, will it be made available to the Public Accounts Committee, if it should wish to see it?

The Prime Minister : The amount spent on the upkeep of the occupied royal palaces will be detailed, as it has been in the past, in the usual Department of the Environment estimates. That sum will be negotiated each year and will be reported in the supplementary estimates. The sum will therefore be subject to audit by the National Audit Office. The civil list will be subject to Treasury audit.

Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead) : May I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the new proposals, which give financial continuity to the royal family, who render singular service to the nation? They will also allow the royal family to plan their arrangements in advance. I welcome also the new arrangements for the royal palaces and the very clever and clear study that was undertaken before the proposals were made.

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. The new arrangements for the civil list, which revert to the Select Committee proposals in 1971, will give much more dignity and continuity to the Crown and enable its administration to be much more efficient than was previously the case.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : May I be permitted to add to the tributes that have been paid to Her Majesty and to the members of the royal family, not least for their frequent visits to Northern Ireland which do so much to stabilise the community in Northern Ireland? My party is, in principle, in favour of reversion to the 10-year period, as laid down in the 1972 Act, but we wonder about the timing. Does not the Prime Minister feel that it will prove somewhat difficult to fix the allowance for inflation some 10 years ahead?

Column 302

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We have made no prediction ; we have taken the average annual increase in the retail price index, which was 7.5 per cent. in the decade 1979-89. That sounds a lot, but in the previous decade, 1969-79, the average annual rate of inflation was 12.5 per cent. Therefore, we have taken what it was and said that the annual amount will be increased by that figure. If that is too much, there will be a surplus in the fund, which will be taken into account when the Government of the day look at the next 10 years. They will then be able to see what the surplus was.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing) : Does my right hon. Friend recall, as I do, that in 1971 the Select Committee spent many months devising a sensible system for this arrangement, and that the reversion to it now is greatly to be welcomed? May I also welcome the improvements in efficiency, which in future will give us even better value for money?

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In 1971- 72, the Select Committee went into the matter more thoroughly than ever before and came up with the good proposal that we are restoring today. The 1975 arrangement was the exception, and now we have reverted to the rule.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Is the Prime Minister aware that many people believe that the sums paid to the royal family far exceed the services rendered? Can she give us an assurance that, when the order comes before the House, the House will have an opportunity to consider the functions and role of the Crown in modern society, so that people can strike a proper balance on those matters?

The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree that an overwhelming number of people in the nation regard the royal family as the greatest asset that the United Kingdom has and greatly admire everything that it does. A report of the Royal Trustees will be laid before the House and a new order brought and that order will be subject to negative resolution so that, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to debate it, he will have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in answering that question she spoke, as always, for more people than the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? But does she agree that, in the commendable and proper search for economy and efficiency, it is important that the royal family do not forget that the British people like pomp and circumstance?

The Prime Minister : The royal family are a great asset and everything must be done in keeping with the role that they play so superbly.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Will the Prime Minister confirm that we are talking about a woman who is the wealthiest person in Britain and who does not pay the poll tax? If almost 10 million old-age pensioners can be robbed of the £13.20 that they would have received if the 1979 formula still existed, why should the taxpayer hand out large sums of money to the Queen and all the hangers-on at the palace?

The Prime Minister : I think that most people in Britain will thoroughly disagree with the hon. Gentleman and wish to be totally and utterly dissociated from his words.

Column 303

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Does the right hon. Lady agree that Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family do a service to this country that could not be done as well or as efficiently under any other system of government, and that the nation prefers a monarch and prefers to pay the monarch the proper rate for the job?

The Prime Minister : The deal under the original civil list was a good one for the Treasury, and we must now make proper provision for Her Majesty and the royal family, which I believe has widespread support.

Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North) : Is the Prime Minister aware that I fully support the principle of the royal family being protected from the ravages of inflation, but can she explain why, in its standard spending assessment last year, St. Helens council was given an allowance of only 4 per cent. for inflation? Surely the people of St. Helens are entitled to the same treatment as the royal family?

The Prime Minister : As I told the Leader of the Opposition, Her Majesty the Queen's civil list expenditure during the past three years has increased by 18 per cent., but during the same period local authorities' expenditure has increased by 34 per cent.

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne) : Since my right hon. Friend formed her first Administration 11 years and more ago, has she not stressed the importance of getting value for public expenditure? Is there any area of the nation's life where value is better secured than the value from the expenditure to which my right hon. Friend has referred in her statement?

The Prime Minister : The value from the expenditure of this money is supreme. It will be much easier for the Royal Household to look after the occupied palaces under the new arrangement than under the old. It will be much better for them to plan for the future with the 10-year arrangement to which we have now reverted.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : Does not the Prime Minister agree that it has been the policy of this Government and of previous Governments that, when the state is handing out benefits, they are subject to a means test? Does she not think that, if that is the case, it should be applicable to the civil list?

The Prime Minister : I have set out the new arrangements for the civil list. They will be overwhelmingly welcomed and accepted in the House.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time when there are many instabilities and insecurities in different parts of Europe and of the rest of the world, the royal family provide a rock with which the British nation can identify and that those hon. Members who seek to pour scorn on them show how little they care about the tranquillity of this realm?

The Prime Minister : I believe that the royal family are a focus of patriotism, of loyalty, of affection and of esteem. That is a rare combination, and we should value it highly.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : May I press the Prime Minister on the question of any memoranda that Sir Terence Heiser may produce? May we have an assurance that such documentation would go before the Public Accounts Committee?

Column 304

The Prime Minister : It will come, as now, in the Department of the Environment estimate in the published supply estimates, and in the same form as it does now, because the property sum for the occupied palaces has to be negotiated each year between the palace and the Department of the Environment. Instead of it going through the Property Services Agency and the Department of the Environment, that sum will go to the palace after agreement, and details will be published, as now, in the supplementary estimate.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of us think that this is a proper and dignified way in which to deal with the problems of sovereignty and with the way in which the royal palaces are run? There is something terribly undignified about having almost a row each year about how much money is spent on maintaining a superb system of royal government. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be even better if the private wealth and private income of however high a person, even the sovereign, were taxed, as is the case for everyone else? That would seem proper, just and laudable government.

The Prime Minister : No, Her Majesty the Queen has not been subject to tax for a long time. It would require a major change, and that is not a change that I would support.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : In light of what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, has not the time arrived for the House to modify the Crown Estate Act 1961 and, in particular, should we not be arguing the case for a curtailment of the power exercised by the Crown Estate Commissioners, especially in maritime communities and in the management and ownership of the sea bed? Many people in Scotland living in maritime communities, who are loyal subjects of the Queen, actively desire such a change in the power of those shadowy figures in Edinburgh's New Town.

The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate that, I am sure that he will request to do so. It has nothing to do with my announcement this afternoon.

Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : We live in a democracy. Is not that the case? Who elected the royal family? I will answer that question for the Prime Minister : no one. Why should they get a penny, bearing in mind that they live in splendour while millions of people live in poverty, thanks to the policies of the Prime Minister and of the ruling class?

The Prime Minister : I will refrain from answering the last point of the hon. Gentleman's question. As he knows, all people of all incomes have increased their standard of living under this Government. I am amazed by what he says in the main part of his question. Most of our actions, whether under the law or as Government, are taken in the name of the Crown.

Following is the note :

The Civil List Proposals : Reversion to the

1972 Act 1. Subject to the preparation and passage of the necessary order, the yearly sums proposed for Her Majesty's Civil List will be about £7.9 million. This is the simple average

Column 305

of the estimated annual provision over the period 1991-2000. Provision, in round terms, for Her Majesty is as follows :

Her Majesty's Civil List                                    

                    |£ million (rounded)                    


1991                |5.9                                    

1992                |6.2                                    

1993                |6.6                                    

1994                |7.0                                    

1995                |7.5                                    

1996                |8.0                                    

1997                |8.5                                    

1998                |9.1                                    

1999                |9.8                                    

2000                |10.4                                   



£7.9 million a year                                         

2. The annual estimates are arrived at by adopting the 1990 Civil List of £5.09 million, allowing for necessary current and capital expenditure on information technology, and increasing the total by 7.5 per cent. a year. The result for each year is then adjusted downwards by a percentage factor each year to reflect efficiency. 3. The proposed yearly sums for the other members of the royal family have been calculated consistently with the approach adopted for the Queen's Civil List.

The sums are :

                                                         |£ million          


The Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother                    |0.64               

HRH The Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh             |0.36               

HRH The Duke of York                                     |0.25               

HRH The Prince Edward                                    |0.1                

HRH The Princess Royal                                   |0.23               

HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon           |0.22               

HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester                |0.09               

HRH The Duke of Kent                           |}                            

HRH Princess Alexandra                         |}        |0.63               

HRH The Duke of Gloucester                     |}                            

As the Queen has agreed to continue to refund the annuities made under section 3 of the Civil List Act 1972, the annual net cost to the Consolidated Fund for the other members of the royal family is thereby reduced to £1.88 million.


Tampons (Safety)

Mrs. Maria Fyfe, supported by Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Joan Walley and Ms. Joyce Quin, presented a Bill to make provision for tampon packaging and advertisements for tampons to carry certain warnings and information, and to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for these purposes ; to lay upon the Secretary of State duties with respect to research into, and publicity for, tampons and health ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 191.]



That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Chapman.]

Column 307

Poverty Statistics

3.54 pm

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday at about 6.30 in the evening the Government placed in the Press Gallery a copy of the latest poverty figures for which the House has waited more than five years. The figures were sneaked out without reference to the House, without a press conference and without even a single ministerial comment on the press statement. They are sensational figures. They rebut what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago about all sections of the population having gained. They show for the first time that the 10 million people in this country on the lowest incomes-- [Interruption.] --were worse off in real terms in 1987 than they were in 1979--

Mr. Speaker : Order. What is the point for me? Does the hon. Gentleman think that I can do anything about it?

Mr. Meacher : The Minister has so far refused to come to the House, and I am raising this point of order in an endeavour to ask you to use your good offices, Mr. Speaker, with the Government to ensure that they come forward with a statement urgently tomorrow so that the Minister who has evaded the House may now answer for his deplorable record.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member knows, as I think the whole House knows, that that is not a matter for me. But it will certainly have been heard by the Patronage Secretary on the Government Front Bench, and I am sure that it is a matter that he will calculate tomorrow. Local Authorities (Elections) Bill

3.56 pm

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for annual elections to all local authorities ; for one third of the members of each local authority to stand down each year, by rotation ; and for connected purposes.

The electoral pattern of local authorities in England and Wales is, to put it bluntly, a mess. It is not governed by logic or reason, and it is overdue for reform. That fact was recognised by the Widdicombe inquiry into the conduct of local authority business, the report of which was published in 1986. It pointed out that, for county councils, elections take place every four years, with all members retiring simultaneously. Of the shire districts, about 60 per cent. have whole council district elections, while the remainder have elections by thirds. Whether district councils fall into one category or the other essentially seems to depend on whether or not they were boroughs before the 1974 reorganisation.

The metropolitan districts already have elections by thirds, but since the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, there is curiously now an off year, every fourth year, when no elections take place. Finally, in the London boroughs, all members retire simultaneously every fourth year, although, as in other councils, there is considerable variation in the number of members per ward. This lack of uniformity owes nothing to recent ideas, being attributable to provisions laid down in the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 and the Local

Column 308

Government Acts 1888 and 1894 and being dependent on the changing fashions of the time. It has been criticised by successive committees of inquiry and royal commissions.

The Widdicombe committee considered the choice between elections by thirds and all-out contests, and got it wrong, almost certainly because of its possibly misplaced attraction towards single-member wards, which are at odds with annual elections for a proportion of each authority. The Government wisely rejected all-out elections every four years but failed to substitute any other system in its place.

The House now has an opportunity to consider an alternative, the time for which has truly come. Conversations that I have had with colleagues suggest that electing a third of all authorities each year would enjoy great support.

Perhaps the strongest argument relates to accountability, a case made stronger by the introduction of the community charge, although not exclusively linked to it. In all too many cases, councils can arrange their programmes, and distort their spending, in such a way as to match the electoral cycle. They can ensure that any overspending hits the community charge payers' pockets at a time when the electors have no opportunity to cast a verdict on what is done with their money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) recently proposed the introduction of a referendum on overspending. In my view, annual elections are a more realistic and more viable alternative.

Perhaps Widdicombe unconsciously put the strongest case against his report's own conclusions when he pointed out that, in Liverpool, a preoccupation with annual elections was a factor in the period 1974-83 when rate levels were kept under tight control, but when important expenditure decisions were deferred. I suggest that a greater preoccupation with the attitudes of charge payers could only be beneficial.

Another factor is continuity, which would surely be greater if all-out elections ceased. There have been numerous examples of the exaggerated effects of swings in political opinion. Is it really beneficial to the democratic process that in Greater Manchester, for instance, the Conservatives swung from 82 to 19 seats between the 1977 and 1981 elections, while Labour jumped from 23 to 78 seats? In similar circumstances, new controlling parties have sometimes had to appoint to their senior committee chairmanships people with no local government experience.

It is argued that annual elections discourage forward planning. However, local authorities do not have powers to legislate. Annual elections would be nonsense for the House of Commons, because there would never be an opportunity to assess the effect of a new law before it had to be judged. Nobody is talking about elections each year for the whole council, but the fact that a proportion of members was answerable to the electorate would concentrate minds wonderfully. A similar benefit would flow from a change from four-year to three-year terms for councillors.

Others claim that annual elections would put too much of a burden on party machines. In essence, however, political party organisations have no other purpose than to nominate candidates for election and to campaign for their success in those elections. Everything else is subsidiary to that aim. If they cannot contest elections

Column 309

once a year, they are not worthy of their role. I am sure that annual elections would encourage all parties to keep their machines in good trim.

In short, the reform that I propose would create a system that is simple and uniform, encourages continuity and, above all, accentuates accountability. I hope that it will commend itself to the House. Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gary Waller, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Donald Thompson, Mr. Chris Butler, Mr. Cecil Franks, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. William Powell and Mr. Simon Coombs.

Local Authorities (Elections)

Mr. Gary Waller accordingly presented a Bill to provide for annual elections to all local authorities ; for one third of the members of each local authority to stand down each year, by rotation ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

Column 310

Opposition Day

[18th Allotted Day, Second part]

The Economy

Mr. Speaker : I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

4.2 pm

Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) : I beg to move,

That this House deplores the mismanagement of the economy which has resulted in crippling interest rates, damagingly high inflation, and the largest balance of payments deficit in history ; condemns the neglect of investment in the public sector and in public services, which has damaged the economy and diminished the quality of life of the nation ; urges the Government to adopt a strategy for economic recovery which promotes innovation in industry through the application of science and technology and the promotion of new products and processes, which realises the potential of the whole of the United Kingdom through an imaginative and sustained regional economic policy, and which, by means of a thoroughgoing commitment to the improvement and expansion of education and training, aims to develop to the full the skills of the people ; and concludes that if the decline in the economy and in public services is not halted and a programme of recovery embarked upon, Britain will continue to fail to reach the levels of economic success and social progress enjoyed by other nations in the European Community.

On the verge of the summer recess, we look back on a parliamentary Session that has been bad news for the Government. Perhaps the announcement last week, that the plans for improving community care had to be shelved for years because of the poll tax, was symptomatic of a Session in which the Government have become increasingly entangled in snares of their own making. As the Chief Secretary has already warned his colleagues, there will be fierce struggles over the summer between the Treasury and other Departments because inflation has disrupted the Government's spending plans.

As I look at some of the disappointed faces on the Government Back Benches, I am reminded that yesterday [ Hon. Members :-- "Not many."] Indeed, there are not many of them, because some hon. Members are concealing their disappointment elsewhere. Yesterday we had the diversion of yet another ministerial shuffle, a rather purposeless rearrangement of the chairs on the middle and lower decks. With no disrespect to the feelings of those included--or of those excluded--that was small beer compared with the other changes that we have seen over the Session.

It all started in a different tone when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster addressed his first Conservative party conference as chairman. Last October, under the banner

"The Right Team for Britain's Future",

the right hon. Gentleman had stirring words for the delegates : "this is not the time for fretting, this is not a time for poring over opinion polls. This is not a time for being faint-hearted. The fight is on. And, in the words of Henry, before Agincourt, he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart.'"

That is just what they have done. The first to depart was the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), trailing Sir Alan Walters, that other family concern of the Prime Minister, in his wake. The process ended just a few days

Column 311

ago with that spectacular display of teamwork which marked the exit of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr Ridley) from the Cabinet. In between, it is worth noting that so right was that team for Britain that only nine months later we have a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, a new Foreign Secretary, a new Home Secretary, a new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, a new Secretary of State for Employment, a new Secretary of State for Wales and even a new Chief Whip. So imbued was the team with the spirit of Agincourt that four of them have left the Government completely, demonstrating a novel facet of the new concern for family life. Bad though the personnel position is, demonstrating the confusion and disarray in the Government, the Government's main problem and the nation's main concern is their woeful mismanagement of our economy. We hold the Government to account for bringing Britain to a position in which we are the worst of all performers among the leading industrial nations. The facts are clear and they cannot be seriously in dispute. I take the OECD as a objective source. I understand that the statistics for the individual countries which that organisation deploys are approved by individual member Governments.

Let us look at the growth league. The growth in real gross national product for 1990 predicted for Japan is 4.7 per cent. That for West Germany was 3.9 per cent., now revised upwards to 4.4 per cent. The figure for France is 3.1 per cent. ; for Italy 3.1 per cent. ; for the United States 2.3 per cent. ; and for Canada 2 per cent. For the United Kingdom, it is 0.9 per cent., against an average of 3 per cent.

Let us consider the league table for the projected increase in investment in 1990. The figure for Japan is 10.2 per cent. ; for Germany 6.6 per cent. ; for France 6.5 per cent. ; for Italy 5.7 per cent. ; for Canada 4.1 per cent. ; and for the United States 3.2 per cent. For the United Kingdom, it is minus 1 per cent.--a negative projection for investment in the United Kingdom, against an average for the G7 countries of 5 per cent.

What about inflation? We are top of the league with 9.8 per cent. The figure for Italy is 5.7 per cent. ; for Canada 4.5 per cent. ; for the United States 4.4 per cent. ; for France 3 per cent. ; for Japan 2.7 per cent. and for West Germany 2.3 per cent. Britain has an inflation figure of 9.8 per cent. against an average of 4.3 per cent. Those facts show our position among the G7 countries.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Next Section

  Home Page