division_name: The Economy
motion: <p>
   I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
  <p> 
   
    "But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to reverse the policies that have given Britain a spiralling burden of taxation and a huge rise in burdens on business, that it contains no proposals to reverse the decline in Britain's productivity growth or the recent fall in Britain's international competitiveness, and that it does nothing to ensure that the public accounts are honest and open, nor to prevent the Government from saying one thing and doing another; and call on the Government instead to adopt policies which will engineer a return to the golden economic legacy of enterprise, dynamism and flexibility left by the previous Government."
  <p>
  Sadly, since I wrote that article, we heard only last week that that is precisely what has happened. I know that the House, and particularly the Chancellor--I am glad to praise him in his presence, as I did in his absence--will agree that the Government should continue to work with the United States and President Clinton to resolve this unfortunate impasse. Progress is being made, and the Chancellor will know that he has the support of the House in his efforts to obtain relief for the debt crisis which he has so courageously addressed since taking office.
  <p>
  On the same say, the hon. Members for Keighley(Mrs. Cryer) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) expressed similar doubts. The Chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), also attacked the NATS proposals and said:
  <p> 
   
  "It is not sensible to hand over air traffic control to a private company whatever its nationality".--[ Official Report , 18 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 151, 165.]
  <p>The Times  of 18 November states:
  <p>Question put , That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 149, Noes 381.
  