Mr Nigel Lawson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye for the first time, on All Fool's Day, too—a date whose appropriateness to the occasion of a maiden speech needs no underlining. This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I could not pretend to be able to follow all its twists and turns, but I am particularly glad to have had the opportunity of speaking after the hon. Member...
Mr Nigel Lawson: rose—
Mr Nigel Lawson: The hon. Lady is wrong—
Mr Nigel Lawson: rose—
Mr Nigel Lawson: rose—
Mr Nigel Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his speech in Leeds he said—and I will now read— The Budget would have borne…"—
Mr Nigel Lawson: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his speech at Leeds he said that the Budget would have borne a very different complexion had it not been for the three-day working week? Is he not aware that this is totally at variance with the explanation of the Budget judgment given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech? Will the right hon. Gentleman...
Mr Nigel Lawson: Will the Prime Minister ensure that this Royal Commission is able to look into the serious matter that he raised in his speech on 20th July last year—namely, the practice of inhibiting free Press comment by the issue of writs with which the plaintiff has no intention of proceeding?
Mr Nigel Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no possibility of any kind of accident in any other type of reactor or nuclear power station?
Mr Nigel Lawson: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Glasgow on 5th May on the Government's problems.
Mr Nigel Lawson: In addition to displaying his persecution complex, in that speech the Prime Minister touched on industrial relations. Can he, therefore, explain to the House why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland deplores political strikes whereas his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment exalts them?
Mr Nigel Lawson: The problems which the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward now arise only if there is a separate index for each commodity. If there is one single index—say, the GDP deflator—all these problems disappear.
Mr Nigel Lawson: Mr. Nigel Lawson (Blaby) We listened to the hon. Gentleman on the subject of indexation in the late-night debate to which he has referred. Once again we are hearing him putting the point in his customary good-natured obscurity. What he seems to be advancing as the greatest objection is the loss of revenue; but loss of yield also occurs as a result of bringing down the rate of inflation. Does...
Mr Nigel Lawson: A moment ago, after persistent questioning by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), the Chief Secretary produced these figures showing that in order to keep pace with inflation the married and single allowances should be increased to £983 and £753 from £865 and £625 respectively, as they now appear in the Bill. Can he tell the House how many people are being brought into...
Mr Nigel Lawson: As the Chief Secretary says that he does not understand the argument, may I put it more simply? The argument is that if allowances do not go up at the same rate as inflation, the number of people taken out of taxation at the beginning of the year is smaller than the number who go into taxation during the course of the year, so that one ends up with more people rather than fewer being taxed.
Mr Nigel Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to have a meeting with the TUC.
Mr Nigel Lawson: I am delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman keeps in touch. When he next meets the TUC will he explain why yesterday in Luxembourg his Department, on his instructions, vetoed a most important new EEC proposal to give workers special rights in the event of large-scale dismissal? Did he veto this matter because he did not have time to get Mr. Scanlon's authorisation first, or was he...
Mr Nigel Lawson: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economy at the CBI dinner on 14th May represents Government policy.
Mr Nigel Lawson: In his speech the Chancellor said that he believed in private industry that was vigorous, alert, imaginative and profitable. Is the Prime Minister saying that to nationalise the largest companies, which it is the policy of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to nationalise, is likely to make them more vigorous, more alert, more imaginative or more profitable,...
Mr Nigel Lawson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer had the temerity to say that we on this side of the Committee had not a leg to stand on. The plain fact is that he and the Government have not a leg to stand on, and there is a simple test. If the Government had a leg to stand on, this proposal would have appeared in the Labour Party manifesto. Nothing of the sort appeared. This is a brazen and unequivocal...
