To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has made any assessment of the cost effectiveness of screening at birth for sickle cell anaemia.

Studies in the USA and in this country suggest that while screening all babies for sickle cell anaemia would not be cost effective, it is valuable to screen babies from certain groups with high risk. That is now being done in a large number of health authorities, including Manchester.

Will the Minister confirm that in the cases of hyperthyroidism and phenylketonuria, whose incidence is only one in 10,000 of the population, screening is automatic at birth, but that for sickle cell anaemia, which occurs as often as one in 400 among affected groups, no such provision exists? The Minister tells the House that screening exists in some places, but the service is patchy and inadequate and many black people take the view that if this disease were suffered by white people screening would be automatic. I share their view that this is an example of colour blindness within the National Health Service.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report in the British Medical Journal of 15 March 1986, which, having examined the pattern of screening in, for example, the Camberwell health authority, clearly stated that it would not be worth while doing it for all babies, but that it would be for babies that might be at risk.

Is the Minister not concerned that, while more babies are being born, maternity beds are being cut; that a low birth-weight baby has less chance of getting into a special-care baby cot today than five years ago; and that women's choice on where to have their babies is being restricted by the closure of smaller maternity units? Will she reconvene the maternity services advisory committee—

Order. The. Front Bench must stick to the question.

Will the Minister reconvene the maternity services advisory committee—

Order. We must start this part of the Session in good order. The hon. Lady must bring her question to an end now.

As you rightly point out, Mr. Speaker. that question has little to do with screening for sickle cell anaemia. However, I refer the hon. Lady to the discussion that we had on the same issue in response to one of her hon. Friends, back in October, when I pointed out that, on average in this country, one baby is born per maternity bed per week, which does not suggest overcrowding or lack of resources.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what criteria applications for assistance from the special fund to help the severely disabled are to he judged; and if he will make a statement.

I announced the eligibility criteria for the independent living fund in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on 31 March. The fund will be primarily to make payments to very severely disabled people on low income who receive attendance allowance and need to employ domestic help to enable them to live independently in the community.

How does the Minister reconcile his treatment of severely disabled people with the treatment of slightly less severely disabled people under the new provisions?

We have set out to ensure that this group, whose needs were drawn to our attention by a number of organisations and who need this extra help to sustain their independent lives in the community, should have the advantages of this flexible system administered by an independent trust.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that existing disabled recipients of supplementary benefit will enjoy a transitional scheme that will ensure that their benefits are in no way cut to a value less than they now enjoy?

Of course, they will enjoy cash transitional protection, but those who have domestic care assistance in excess of £10 a week will have protection in real terms; so they have been more generously treated than anyone else at the transitional point.

Will the Minister confirm that applications from severely disabled people will go through the normal DHSS channels, and that the budgets for DHSS offices, which are now quite meagre, will be able to cope with this extra burden; or is the new special fund over and above that? If DHSS offices run out of money, severely disabled people will probably suffer.

I am glad to be able to confirm that this is entirely new money and that it will be administered by the new trust which has been established, details of which I announced on 31 March.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the money received from this fund will be additional and will not simply be taken away from the other benefit entitlements of recipients?

Indeed, any payments under this fund will be disregarded for the purpose of income-related benefits.

Is it not a disgrace that a fund that is supposed to protect some of those who are among the worst hit by yesterday's social security changes has not yet been formally constituted? Who are the trustees? Why did the Minister refuse this House information on costs that his Department gave to the press that same afternoon? Will the extra heating costs and special diet needs of disabled people be met by the fund? Why should Conservative Members attack the Bishop of Durham for describing as wicked changes—

Order. That is well outside the scope of this question.

in benefits, which will hit up to 500,000 disabled people?

Far from being a disgrace, the facilities of this fund for severely disabled people are a very important step in recognising their particular needs. It will be for the trustees to make the decisions in independent cases. [Interruption] I do not think that there is a delay. We want to get the trust deed right and the trustees in place in order to get the answer right rather than to meet some artificial deadline. Applications can already be made to the DHSS if people wish to apply, and speedy decisions will be possible as soon as the trust is established.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money was realised from the sale of properties surplus to National Health Service requirements in each year since 1979.

In 1978–79 the National Health Service received £7·5 million from the sale of surplus property. By 1986–87 receipts had increased almost twentyfold to £146 million, and in the financial year just ended we expect them to be about £200 million. I will, with permission, circulate figures for each of the last 10 years in the Official Report.

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that excellent result. Is he aware that the present rules governing the disposal of such property militate sharply against any attempt by district health authorities to improve the asset before disposing of it? In his new review of the Health Service, will he undertake to look into that matter?

My hon. Friend fairly acknowledged that the record is such as to suggest that we are succeeding in this area. I shall look at the point that he makes, because we all want the resources of the Health Service to be used for the best patient care.

I hope that when disposing of property my right hon. Friend will take into account the importance of green space. In areas such as Portsmouth one hopes that the development that takes place will not be so dense that we lose all the traditional amount of green space that people have grown used to seeing in National Health Service properties.

I remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued guidelines last autumn which should enable appropriate development of disused hospital sites in the green belt without—I stress the point that my right hon. Friend made—prejudicing the Government's green belt policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special fund set up to help the severely disabled to be in operation; and if he will make a statement.

Applications to the fund can be made now by writing to the Department. As an interim measure, my officials, guided by professional advice, will carry out assessments so that when the trust is formally established decisions can be taken swiftly. Moreover, we shall look sympathetically at individual cases and, where appropriate, make interim payments in advance of the fund itself coming into operation.

The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and the answer that he has just given me are not very satisfactory. Can he give a definite date on which people will receive payment from the fund? What publicity is being undertaken so that people will know when to make applications to the fund, and what arrangements are being made for the fund to be built up, taking into consideration that money in the fund will be running short? Will it help the Godden family, and has today's report in the Daily Mirror been brought to the Minister's attention? Will the fund help that family, and when?

Mrs. Godden has been contacted and advised to make an application to the fund. Obviously I cannot prejudge the outcome of any application that she might make, but it has been suggested to her that she can make an application. The hon. Gentleman asked about publicity. In due course we shall be running a campaign involving suitably placed posters and leaflets and so on. I am confident that the organisations concerned with the disabled, which publish regular magazines and news sheets, will carry details of the fund so that it may be widely known among those who might benefit from it. The hon. Gentleman should understand that existing beneficiaries will have transitional protection at the point of change. We are talking here about new people coming into the system. In those circumstances, I do not believe that a short delay should be unsettling or upsetting to those involved.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity this afternoon to condemn those who have been scaremongering among the disabled about the arrangements that are being made under the new social security provisions? Will he remind the House that this Administration, in contrast to previous Administrations, has been first-class in helping the disabled to take their place in the community?

I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. It comes hard from Opposition Members to criticise us for the provision that we have made for the disabled, when we have increased provision for them by 80 per cent. in real terms during our period in government. Under these reforms, we are putting in another £60 million, and we have also established this fund. If anyone should criticise us, it should not be Opposition Members.

Is the Minister aware that six charities, which do not go in for scaremongering, have described this fund as an abdication of the Government's responsibility? That is not scaremongering. Will he tell the House what advice he will give to severely disabled people when the money runs out?

We have allocated £5 million for the coming financial year and allocations for future years will be settled on the basis of our experience. As existing claimants will have transitional protection, I expect that the numbers will build up comparatively slowly in the coming year. I believe that the £5 million will be adequate to meet the needs, so there will be no question of the money running out.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to bring forward proposals for arrangements for the 1991 census.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to bring forward proposals for arrangements for the 1991 census.

No decisions have yet been taken on the content of the 1991 census. Proposals will be published as a White Paper later this year.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be the widest possible consultation about the questionnaire that will be sent out with the census? Will he assure the House that, as in previous censuses. all the information given will be kept confidential?

I can certainly confirm that there will be consultation, and I remind the House that it is an offence under the Census Act 1920 for information on individuals to be released for use other than for census purposes. That includes the community charge.

Will my right hon. Friend pay attention to the need for information on the elderly, particularly the very elderly, so that the opportunities presented by increasing longevity can be met by the old people themselves and by the local health authorities that will be seeking to plan for them?

Yes. At the moment we are considering all requests relating to information to be put in the census. I do not want to make any particular comment at this time, but we shall be publishing the White Paper later this year.

Will the Minister consider the suggestion that we made at the time of the 1981 census: that the legal requirement to answer questions should be restricted to a very small number of questions, rather than to pose people with the threat of criminal sanctions merely because they do not want to say where their father was born or provide an answer that is not essential for the Government's purposes?

I shall certainly consider that point, as I have personal experience of that matter. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

In connection with the census, bearing in mind that more and more women are being forced into unpaid work, such as caring for elderly and dependent relatives, and as the voluntary sector is becoming increasingly important because of the failure to provide essential public and consumer services, will the Minister respond to the pressure from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, following the forward-looking strategies after the United Nations Decade of Women, and ensure that the 1991 census form includes provision for voluntary as well as paid work to be counted?

I do not accept the first part of the hon. Lady's statement, but I will certainly look with great care at her latter points.

Will my right hon. Friend give some sign in the White Paper of the likely time when the evaluation of the census results will be made known to the public? Will he try to ensure in this computer age that the results will be available in weeks rather than the apparent years that it normally takes, during which time most of the information becomes out of date?

I shall want to consider that when we discuss the White Paper later this year. The details are not yet settled, but I would expect preliminary reports on the size of the population, about which I know my hon. Friend is interested, to be published as soon as possible after census day. Key results will be available to local authorities by May 1992, and I hope that the first national reports will be published before the end of 1992.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the take up rate for family income supplement in Orkney and Shetland.

Information about take-up rates is available only on a national basis.

I know the Minister is aware that farmers and crofters in my constituency, who have been claiming family income supplement and now wish to claim family credit, have been asked to fill in a form giving consent for the district valuer to value their crofts and smallholdings. What advice can the Minister offer to them if the value of those holdings is so great as to disqualify them from family credit when they need that land to earn their small and modest incomes?

I can offer the hon. Gentleman a pretty good reassurance on this. The value of a person's home is completely disregarded in the assessment of capital for family credit. The regulations are quite specific in saying that any croft land on which the dwelling is situated is also to be disregarded. Therefore, the value of any croft land should not be in question. If the hon. Gentleman finds in due course that there is a problem, perhaps he will get in touch with me about it.

As a result of the Government's excellent reforms, will not more children in low-income families in Orkney and elsewhere receive cash for their school meals rather than free meals under the present family income supplement system?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Taking account of family income supplement and local authority discretionary schemes, we estimate that 100,000 more children will receive the cash aid than presently qualify for free school meals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the efforts made by his Department to publicise the changes in the social security system in April.

My Department has organised television and press advertising campaigns. Our leaflets have been redesigned and rewritten to make them more attractive and easier to understand. Our regional and local staff are taking the initiative on local publicity and information. Special fact sheets have been produced for organisations representing and advising claimants to help them understand and explain the reforms, and claimants themselves will receive information about the changes, with notifications about the new benefit.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, in spite of all that publicity, he has not managed to persuade the majority of people that his changes are acceptable? Does he accept that a system which allows a mother aged under 18 with a child to receive £14 a week less than a mother aged over 18, which allows an old person with a disability to receive over £20 a week less, or which means that people who have been encouraged to save and have saved £6,000 cannot receive any benefit is not the kind of system that the Government can convince the country is worth continuing? When will the results of the publicity, which has not persuaded 62 per cent. of the Minister's Back Benchers that it is acceptable, prove that the system needs to be changed before substantial disadvantage is caused to millions of people in Britain?

The publicity was addressed to the claimants, and it will continue to be so, in an attempt to communicate and help them to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The purpose of the publicity is not to publicise the benefits of the nature of the structural reforms. The structural reforms will be welcomed and accepted by the vast majority of people.

Is it not also important to counter the pernicious propaganda of some Opposition Members, particularly on school meals? Would one ever learn from their pronouncements that a different system operates and that significantly more pupils will benefit?

Absolutely. I remind the House that 800,000 children—[Interruption.] Facts are always much more difficult to accept, especially for some of those hon. Members who interrupt from a sedentary position. I repeat that 800,000 children will continue to receive school meals through local authorities and 100,000 more children will benefit from family credit than was the case under FIS and local authority discretionary schemes.

Guesswork.

Not guesswork, Mr. Speaker. That is based on national data normally accepted by those who are serious about the matter as opposed to those, such as the shadow Leader of the House, who are concerned only with making sedentary interruptions.

If the Minister is interested in helping families by the introduction of family credit, as he tells us he is, why was child benefit frozen? What he is giving with one hand, he is taking away with the other.

As my right hon. and hon. Friends have explained at considerable length in a considerable number of debates, we have sought to give additional help to 3 million children, out of the 12 million children who are in receipt of child benefit, through an increase in income support and family credit which they would otherwise not receive. They will benefit particularly from the reforms.

As child benefit is more valuable to better-off parents than to others, why have we not made child benefit means-tested in order to save £3 billion?

With his extensive knowledge of this subject, my hon. Friend draws attention to the tax position of the more wealthy families in receipt of child benefit as opposed to those in receipt of income support and family credit.

In the light of what the Secretary of State has said about unpalatable facts, does he accept that many elderly and low-paid people are shocked at the reduction in their incomes as a result of the social security and housing benefit changes? Will he give a commitment that his Department will review the existing system when he has been inundated with facts from Back Benchers on the effect of the changes on their constituents?

I am conscious of the fact that 87 per cent. of pensioners benefit from or are no worse off as a result of the changes. I am also conscious of the Government's outstanding record in improving the lot of the pensioner, especially in destroying that which most threatens the pensioner—the appalling rates of inflation that the Government inherited from the previous Labour Government.

Would it be helpful to the public during the debate to make plain the vast amount of resources involved—I think that the social security budget is about £800 for every man, woman and child in Britain, which is about £64 a week for every family of four—and that, however little or much anybody might be receiving through supplementary benefit, that money is coming from their neighbours?

My hon. Friend is right. An extraordinary feature of the debate is that it is hard for those outside to realise that during the past eight and a half years expenditure on social security has increased—[Interruption.]

Order. It is unseemly to shout from a sedentary position.

in real terms by 38 per cent. Most of that has little to do with the increased number of those unemployed and everything to do with the enormous increase in benefits for pensioners, the disabled and families with children.

Can the Secretary of State name a single organisation representing claimants which has been convinced by the Government's claim that 87 per cent. will be no worse off as a result of the changes? Is he aware that not one of my colleagues who met desperate claimants at their surgeries at the weekend can accept his complacent figures, that his own Social Security Advisory Committee put the losers as a majority, and that even Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council estimates that there will be twice as many losers as gainers in its borough? Has he forgotten—we have not—that last month his Government found £2,000 million for the top taxpayers? With all that cash to spare, is it not abundantly clear that they had the money to prevent there being any losers among the poor?

The hon. Gentleman is aware—as is anyone who looks at the facts—of the invalidity of most of the data in studies such as that of Wandsworth, which assumed, for example, that all income supports claimants in this country were in receipt of single payments as of the middle of 1986. Two thirds of them were not. The hon. Gentleman also asks whether any group in the country actually supports the Government's proposals. The proposals were published and printed. They were passed by this House in 1986 and confirmed by the election in 1987.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, his efforts in publishing these changes have not been drawn to the attention of the Bishop of Durham? Does he agree that it is indeed wicked for the Bishop of Durham to comment when he has not read and does not understand what the Government are doing to support the poorest people in this land?

I have the distinct feeling that you. Mr. Speaker, would not wish me to pursue that particular line of argument, other than to say that the reforms add to and do not diminish the overall expenditure by the taxpayer on social security help for the poorest people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants he expects to be better off and how many to be worse off (a) in cash terms, and (b) in terms of their real disposable income, following the changes in social security in April.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants he expects to be better off (a) in cash terms, and (b) in terms of their real disposable income, following on the changes in social security in April.

Most social security benefits, including retirement pension paid to over 9 million pensioners, are uprated this week giving cash increases to recipients and protecting the real value of their benefit. So far as the income-related benefits are concerned, around 5·1 million recipients will gain and 2·2 million experience no change, compared with fewer than one million who lose in cash terms.

Listening to the ministerial recitations of those figures, I am reminded of a well-known book about statistics that was published in 1973—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

First, the data are from the family expenditure survey. As Opposition Members know, but seem to have discovered only recently, the data were printed in 1985 and again in October 1987 in absolute detail. All the data have been printed and published ,and were laid before the House when the uprating statement was issued in October 1987.

The House will be shocked by the complacent attitude of the Secretary of State. He will know that his own Social Security Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advice Bureaux—hardly a militant Socialist organisation—and the Church have all said that there will be far more losers than winners. What is he really going to do to help those losers when the information is available?

I thought that in his main question the hon. Gentleman was asking for facts and statistics as opposed to the opinions of other organisations. I am not suggesting for one moment that there are not people who criticise some aspects of the changes, though many of them tend to concentrate only on the negative aspects of the changes as opposed to the overall strategic thrust, which is beneficial.

Every hon. Member wants to ensure that the worst-off sections of society receive benefit, but there are some who have been thrifty all their lives, who have retired with some savings and who are now in difficulty because, with the rise in the cost of living, their savings have been depleted. Housing benefit brought them between £300 and £400 a year. Therefore, they believe that some of these measures are a disincentive to thrift. These people need further consideration.

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the problems that are faced by any society which tries to encourage thrift and which also has to make a judgment about the level at which one cuts off benefit. Quite clearly, nobody would wish to discourage thrift. My hon. Friend knows that for the first time those with very small savings—up to £3,000—will not suffer any disadvantage. The line is drawn only for those with savings above £6,000. My hon. Friend also knows that people save because they seek independence. They do not save to achieve dependency. My hon. Friend will also be conscious of the fact that there are many millions of people on very low incomes with no savings at all who find no good reason to pay part of the rent or rates of those with substantial savings.

To put some of the Opposition's claims into perspective, will my right hon. Friend provide a little more detail about the extent of the increases? For example, how many of the so-called gainers are to enjoy £3 or more extra a week?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of one of the points that is not often raised here. Of those who are to receive an increase, 40 per cent., or over 2 million, will be gaining an extra £3 or more a week.

The Secretary of State has argued that these changes are vital to the economy. What is so vital to the economy that requires a cut in rate rebate for a miner's widow of £1·69? Is she supposed to join the enterprise culture?

The overall changes increase public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary drew attention to the fact that, because of the successful management of the economy, we are able to increase to £48·5 billion our social security expenditure in 1988–89.

Can we, in 1988, really call £6,000 substantial savings?

My hon. Friend asks a question that obviously many people will ask. I know he will understand that those who have to make such a decision have difficulty in drawing a line. He will also be very conscious of the millions of people who have no savings and who therefore see no reason why they, on very low incomes, should help to support those who save, I assume, to achieve independence, not dependency.

I refer the Secretary of State to the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), that of Mrs. Felicity Godden who, whatever the outcome of an application to the independent living fund, from Monday lost £48 in social security, free school meals for three daughters and most of her housing benefit. Is the Secretary of State aware that there are 15,000 other disabled claimants who are losing similar amounts under the same rule? Are they all supposed to apply to the independent living fund? Can it cope with them? Is there any word that can more adequately describe their treatment by this Government than wicked?

It might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, to try to answer the question that has been raised, because I have been appalled by the attempt to make political capital out of what is clearly an exceptional and difficult case. It is for the independent adjudication authorities to determine how the regulations should apply, but I understand that Mrs. Godden continues to receive the wife's severe disablement benefit, attendance allowance, mobility allowance and child benefit—over £113 a week. Her husband's earnings, in addition, amount to £128 and she has free accommodation. In addition, I understand that she is being invited to put in a claim to the independent living fund, and that the local authority's social services department is investigating to see whether other assistance may be appropriate. Both the local authority and our social security officials have been trying to visit her. Unfortunately, they have not so far been able to see her because she has been away on holiday.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there will be any mechanism for the review of or appeal against a refusal of assistance from the special fund set up to help the severely disabled.

It will be for the trustees of the independent living fund to determine how to deal with cases which have been turned down. I am sure that they will wish to give very careful consideration to any cases which give rise to dissatisfaction.

Should not an appeals procedure be established in connection with the fund? Hon. Members on both sides of the House realise the importance of appeal procedures relating to the DHSS, in appeals to bodies such as the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau. Many people, including my constituents, are in need of assistance, and we need the establishment of proper procedures. Assistance should be given to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and bodies such as the Derbyshire Coalition for the Disabled in my constituency, and the Centre for Integrated Living at Ripley, to help those appealing for deeply needed payments.

I do not believe that a formal appeals procedure would be appropriate for a flexible system such as ours, administered by an independent fund. I am sure that the trustees will want to establish procedures so that they can take a second look at cases that cause dissatisfaction. I hope very much that the press release that accompanied my announcement on 31 March will lead to wide publicity being given to those who will be advising the severely disabled about their entitlement.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider whether there should be an appeals commission? If there is to be such a body, will it meet more regularly and come to its conclusions much faster than the present appeals mechanisms in Blackpool, where it is admitted it takes an average on nine months for a decision to be reached, and often more than two years? When severely disabled people are involved, that is far too long.

In the context of the independent living fund, I do not believe that the establishment of a formal appeals procedure would be appropriate. Obviously, we as a Department are anxious to reduce to the minimum the time taken to settle ordinary appeals.

Surely the Minister must recall the dismay expressed at the decision to force the most severely disabled to approach a charity for help that used to come as of right from the state. Does he not recognise that that dismay will be exacerbated if, as seems to be the case from his answer today, there is no right of independent appeal against the decisions that that charity makes?

As I said in response to an earlier question, the vast majority of the support provided for the severely disabled will continue to come through income support and the premiums associated with it. This is a small fund, set up probably for a relatively short period, to meet the needs of a very small group. In those circumstances, I am sure that the flexibility associated with an independent trust, and trustees who are able to review matters with sympathy and compassion, is appropriate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the use being made of the nucleus system of hospital design.

So far, 43 nucleus schemes have been completed and a further 76 are at various stages of planning design and construction. The total value of the programme is nearly £1·6 billion and we estimate that at least £30 million has been saved in fees and construction costs as a result of this standardised approach to hospital building.

Would my right hon. Friend care to enlarge upon the cost benefits to the Health Service of the nucleus system and also to the contractors who service the Health Service?

For the Health Service, in terms of restraining costs, and for the contractors in terms of the efficiency with which they can do their work, the nucleus system has proved remarkably successful. Of course, it is not appropriate to use it on all sites because one has to take account of particular circumstances. However, we are hoping that its use will grow.

Do the Minister's professional architectural advisers have unambigious confidence in the system?

As far as I am aware, the answer is yes. No system, especially one of this sort, will be without problems and we seek to learn from experience as the programme goes on. Basically, it has been an outstandingly successful system.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many capital schemes in the health service are under construction; and how many have been completed since 1979.

Information held centrally on health building schemes, each costing over £1 million, shows that 140 schemes are presently under construction; an additional 300 schemes have been completed since April 1979.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in my district health authority, South East Kent, and also in the South East Thames region, there have been a number of good and useful capital projects during the past eight years under this Government and that, as a result, the general well-being and health of the people in the area have benefited considerably?

Indeed I would. The South East Thames region has some good community care projects.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also present at Windsor for the arrival of His Majesty The King of Norway. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I will be attending a state banquet in honour of His Majesty The King of Norway.

What advice does the Prime Minister have today for over 4 million of Britain's poorest people who stand to lose because of the social security changes? What does she have to say to Britain's oldest pensioners who stand to be robbed of £91 a year, or to Britain's youngest unemployed who lose £405 a year? Will she tell them that it is all an incentive to work harder, or will she finally admit that it is the biggest betrayal of Britain's poor since the welfare state was set up?

The extra money, in particular the money provided in the coining financial year, against a background of fewer unemployed, is being targeted particularly to help the poorest among our people. Indeed, now that the new system is in operation, in cash terms, there will be 5 million gainers compared with fewer than 1 million losers.

In welcoming Secretary-General Gorbachev's announced withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, may I ask my right hon. Friend to send a message of warm congratulations to the Afghan freedom fighters on their courageous and victorious struggle over eight long years against the most powerful army in the world? Will she never forget that to this day 120 million people of eastern Europe and the Baltic republics remain under the Soviet tank track and that they, too, are entitled to freedom and national self-determination?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is because of the splendid resistance of the people of Afghanistan against the occupying power that the Soviet troops have decided to pull out. That decision is a welcome one and we should recognise the tremendous role of the freedom fighters.

The effects of housing benefit changes on pensioners across the country are now obvious to the country and to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, will the Prime Minister amend the regulations to ensure that no one with accessible capital of less than £10,000 will lose housing benefit or help with rates?

No, Sir. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, it was a matter of policy that we should target the benefits on those in greatest need. Even after the reforms, more will be spent in real terms and more people will be receiving housing benefit than was the case in 1979. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is nothing unusual or unknown about rent help being subjected to a capital limit. When rent help came under supplementary benefit, it came under the maximum capital disregard limit, which under the right hon. Gentleman's Government was £1,200.

If the right hon. Lady will do nothing to help people with £6,000 in lifetime savings, may I give her the case of someone with just £1,600 in total savings? She is a single woman, 73 years of age, who is disabled, diabetic and virtually housebound, who does not smoke or drink. She has a weekly pension and occupational pension totalling just over £50 a week. That lady is now losing £6·80 a week because of reductions in housing benefit and help with her rates. Her already low income is being cut by 12 per cent. When she, and thousands like her, ask, "How can I economise?", can the Prime Minister tell her?

I saw this morning in the Daily Mirror an account of a particular case—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister has a right to answer the question.

The account that was given was substantially inaccurate—[Interruption.]

Order. I call upon the Prime Minister to answer.

My right hon. Friend, having had time to look up all the facts, gave the House the facts and they were totally different from those reported. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a particular case looked up, perhaps he will contact my right hon. Friend and give him the facts. In the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman will know that £46 billion is being spent on social security. He talks about thrift and savings. Let me remind him that inflation under the Labour Government robbed people of their savings, so we take no lectures from him. They robbed people of 5 to 6 per cent. of their savings every quarter.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will now answer the question that I asked her. Will she tell a disabled diabetic, of 73 years of age, with £1,600 in capital and an income of just over £50 a week—[HON. MEMBERS: "What's her name?"]—Miss Lilian Williams of Manchester. There is no need for the Prime Minister to take the reference from me, as she has already had a letter from Miss Williams. Perhaps she will answer the question of how Mrs. Williams economises on that kind of sum, instead of relating her remarks to the Daily Mirror.

No. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take up the full details, he will do it in the proper way, through the Department for Social Security.

rose—

"Oh".

Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

How does Mrs. Williams, and thousands like her, economise when she has lost 12 per cent. of her income? Will the Prime Minister please answer the question?

I have done. I have said that for people who are disabled—[Interruption.]

Order. I say again to the whole House that behaviour of this kind, and I am saying this to both sides of the House, gives this place a very bad reputation.

If people are disabled, there is an extra £60 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—yes, I will answer the question if I am allowed to do so. An extra £60 million will go to the sick and disabled through the disability premium. There is also a severe disability premium which will channel an extra £8 million to an estimated extra 7,000 of the most severely disabled. It can mean that a person living alone will now get £24 a week in place of £6. In case neither of these apply. we have set up an independent living fund which is already—[Interruption.]

Order. May I say to the whole House that it is no good shouting at the Prime Minister to answer the question when she is actually doing that.

We have set up an independent living fund, to be run by independent trustees, to allow the most severely disabled to live independently in the community. There is an interim address for the fund, and people who think that they may be eligible for help should apply now. I repeat, £46 billion: had the right hon. Gentleman's Government paid anything like that, he would have shouted it from the housetops with acclaim.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as the scourge of terrorism is indiscriminate and knows no boundaries, so the fight against it should be international and co-operative?

Yes. Of course we fight terrorism in every way we can. As regards the Kuwait hijacking, we are very glad that the United Kingdom passengers were released; but hostage-taking of this kind affects all countries, and we have strong sympathies for the Kuwaitis and the Cypriots in dealing with the problem and fully support the line that they are taking.

Did the Prime Minister see the report published yesterday by the Church of Scotland, which showed that in 1985 31 per cent. of the population of Scotland were living either in poverty or on its margins? Is she appalled by that figure, or is it, too, "substantially inaccurate"?

I did not see that report, but I commend most warmly to the right hon. Gentleman an excellent speech just made in Scotland by the Chief Secretary, pointing out that earned income per head in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom save the south-east. If people did not run Scotland down, but allowed it to live up to its enterprise, it might have a lot better chance than under the right hon. Gentleman's strictures.

In view of the recent serious happenings in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Lady tell the House when her Government will bring in proposals to deal with the Sinn Fein/IRA godfathers in the councils of Northern Ireland? Is she aware that as her Secretary of State at present holds conversations with the Social Democratic and Labour party, that party is holding conversations with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and the Sinn Fein/IRA leadership? Is she aware that the purpose of these talks, as the SDLP has declared it, is to get Sinn Fein to the conference table? Will she take it from me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Unionst party, that we will never sit down with Sinn Fein or with the IRA?

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, we condemn not only the use of violence but those political parties which support the use of violence. Ministers of this Government have no contact whatsoever with Sinn Fein and will not deal with inquiries from them. On this we are absolutely at one with the hon. Member, and I would have thought that most hon. Members hold the same view.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

In between mouthfuls at tonight's banquet, and with her well-known sympathy for widows, could the Prime Minister advise my constituent in Binley, in Coventry, who yesterday received the 1·65 increase in her widowed mother's pension but lost the right to free school meals for her four children and therefore will have to pay £13·20 a week extra, just how she is expected to manage? When will this millionaire Prime Minister start attacking poverty and stop attacking the poor?

The highest ever social security budget—[Interruption.] Yes, the highest ever social security budget in real terms has been targeted on the poorest, as a result of which, in cash terms, this week there are 5 million people who have more than they had before. There are 2 million who have no change and there are just under 1 million who have a decrease. Fortunately, opposite the right hon. Gentleman there are 5 million people who have benefited in cash terms this week from increased social security, the level of which could never have occurred but for the increased prosperity of this country.