Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Balance of Payments on 9th May 1988.
Mr. Thurnham To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current balance of payments position.
Mr. Major At Budget time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a current account deficit of £4 billion for 1988.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Company Profitability on 9th May 1988.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rise in company profitability in 1987.
Mr. Major The profitability of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies is provisionally estimated to have risen by 1.5 percentage points between 1986 and 1987, to 10.5 per cent. – the highest level for about 20 years.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Public Expenditure on 9th May 1988.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of real personal disposable income in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of real personal disposable income in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Major Real personal disposable income in 1987 is estimated to have been 15 per cent. higher than in 1979. Further growth is expected this year.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Public Expenditure on 9th May 1988.
Mr. Allen To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to enable Parliament to vote spending authority for all or parts of the half of public expenditure not currently so voted; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Major Parliament has authorised a number of types of public expenditure to be defrayed in ways other than annual voting of Supply. For example, payments from the national insurance fund are met from contributions and voted money on the authority of the Social Security Act 1975 and subsequent Acts. The United Kingdom’s gross contribution to the European Community is paid as a standing service on the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. For nationalised industries Parliament periodically sets borrowing limits. Local authorities raise that part of their expenditure which is not funded by voted grants either through rates or through their own borrowing.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Consumer Expenditure on 28th April 1988.
Mr. Fisher To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of consumer expenditure in each of the last five years on (a) books, (b) records and audio tapes, (c) video tapes, (d) cinema, (e) theatre, (f) live arts, (g) newspapers and periodicals, (h) restaurants, (i) alcoholic drinks, (j) sport and (k) leisure.
Mr. Major [holding answer 26 April 1988]: Not all the categories of expenditure mentioned in the question are separately distinguished in the consumers’ expenditure estimates compiled and published by the Central Statistical Office. The table gives figures of consumers’ expenditure as closely as possible with the categories requested. A detailed breakdown of consumers’ expenditure is published annually in the United Kingdom National Accounts (the CSC) Blue Book). An even finer level of breakdown is shown in an analysis available on subscription from the Central Statistical Office. This is the source of the figures given in this answer and I am arranging to have the latest version of the analysis placed in the House of Commons Library.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Finance Bill on 27th April 1988.
Mr. Quentin Davies To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the notes on those clauses of the Finance Bill to be taken in Committee of the whole House will be made available to hon. Members.
Mr. Major Yes. The appropriate notes on clauses were placed in the Vote Office earlier today.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Government Expenditure on 22nd April 1988.
Mr. Allen To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Government spending is cash limited, and what are the main categories which are not.
Mr. Major Some £63 billion – just over 40 per cent. of the 1988–89 public expenditure planning total of £156.8 billion – is covered by cash limits. In addition, a further £12 billion of expenditure, which mostly finances expenditure included in the planning total, is covered by cash limits. The main categories which are not subject to cash limits are demand-led services (such as supplementary benefits, where once policy and rates of payments have been determined expenditure depends on factors such as the number of claimants coming forward), local authority current expenditure (although most central Government grants to local authorities are covered by cash limits) and the financing of most public corporations (nationalised industries are subject to external financing limits). The coverage of cash limits is discussed more fully in chapter 3 of the “Supply Estimates 1988–89: Summary and Guide” (Cm 328).
Mr. Allen To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Government spending is voted by Parliament; and what are the main categories of expenditure outside this.
Mr. Major The 1988–89 main Supply Estimates seek parliamentary authority for some £83 billion – just over 50 per cent. of the 1988–89 public expenditure planning total of £156.8 billion. In addition a further £25 billion of expenditure in 1988–89 main Estimates will finance payments to bodies whose own expenditure is counted in the planning total. The main categories of expenditure not voted by Parliament are local authority expenditure (although central Government grants to local authorities are included in Supply Estimates), social security expenditure financed directly from the national insurance fund, some payments made direct from the Consolidated Fund, such as contributions to the European Community, and net borrowing by most public corporations. These relationships are set out more fully in the “Supply Estimates 1988–89: Summary and Guide” (Cm 328).
Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Derelict and Unused Land on 20th April 1988.
Mr. Dykes To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to what steps are being taken to sell off vacant, dormant and derelict land in the ownership of Government Departments.
Mr. Major Government Departments are encouraged to list all their surplus land on the land registers. Since the land registers were set up in 1981, over 42 per cent. of Crown land listed has been sold or brought back into use. Departments assess their land holding operational requirements regularly, and discuss plans for disposals with the Treasury.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Government Expenditure on 15th April 1988.
Mr. Boyes To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission an audit of Government expenditure by region.
Mr. Major All central Government expenditure throughout the United Kingdom is subject to audit by the National Audit Office. The Government also publish extensive information on the geographical distribution of public expenditure as was explained in evidence provided by the Treasury to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee (published as appendix 5 to the Committee’s Second Report of the current Session).
Below are extracts from Mr Major’s speech made to the Peterborough Industry Forum on Friday 15 April 1988. The extracts were published by Conservative Central Office as document 158/88 and the press release was entitled “The Banded Community Charge”.
JOHN MAJOR:
The proposal to ‘band’ the Community Charge has attracted support from some Conservatives because they believe it will make the charge ‘fairer’. I believe that they are mistaken in their view. The proposal has superficial attractions that disappear on closer examination. And beneath the surface it has deep and damaging flaws that would introduce a whole range of unfairness and anomalies that could not be defended. That is not the intention of the sponsors but it is the effect.
The purpose of the Community Charge is to reinforce the relationship between how much a local authority spends and how much it has to raise. But we are not doing that by imposing a flat rate charge and ignoring the interests of those who cannot afford to pay. That is why we always proposed a Rebate Scheme that enabled up to 80% of the Charge to be abated. Even under that scheme about four million people would receive the maximum rebate and about the same number would receive smaller rebates. People on low income, therefore, have always been offered significant protection from the impact of the charge. And those on the lowest incomes will also have help through the social security system to enable them to meet the 20% minimum charge.
The Government has now decided to go even further to protect the position of those with modest incomes. Nicholas Ridley announced yesterday improvements to the rebate scheme to ensure that the Community Charge acknowledges still further the principle of ability to pay.
These changes mean that around an extra one million people will now receive a rebate and that a total of about nine million people will not be required to pay the full Community Charge. In short, one in four will get a rebate; so what they pay depends on their income. This is a clear illustration of the degree of protection offered to those on low incomes.
Yesterday’s changes also mean that about four million of those people will pay less in Community Charge than they would otherwise have done. That includes about three million non-taxpayers. It includes over one million single pensioners and a further million pensioner couples. Other gainers include 350,000 couples with children and 900,000 single people of working age.
Many of these are precisely the people that the supporters of the ‘banded’ Community Charge wish to help.
But the banded charge would not do that. It would enmesh people on low incomes in an incomparably deeper poverty trap than ever before.
An extra £1 in income could cost a single person £100 and a married man double that.
This comes after a week in which we have been debating social security reforms designed precisely to eliminate the nonsense that an extra pound of income could lead to a loss of more than 100% in tax and benefits. It is ironic that the Opposition are now supporting a proposition which would reintroduce this nonsense more harshly. It would cause real hardship as low income individuals – many of them pensioners – reached the lower income tax threshold.
Moreover, though barely noticed, the banding proposal also seriously undermines one of the most widely welcomed features of the Budget – the introduction of independent taxation for married women. For the amendment would ensure that at the same time as the Inland Revenue gives married women privacy in their tax affairs, their liability to the Community Charge would be assessed on their husband’s income. That would be an absurd inconsistency and widely resented by millions of women.
I do not doubt the genuine motivation of those supporting the proposition for a banded Community Charge. But they are wrong. This amendment harms and does not help. And it is inconsistent with a whole range of other policies. The right way to help those on low incomes is to improve the rebate scheme. And that is what we have done.