To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefit to be in full operation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefit to be in full operation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefit to be in full operation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the special unit dealing with transitional protection in respect of housing benefit to be in full operation.

Urgent cases are already in payment. The unit is already building up to strength, and I expect it to be fully operational in two to three weeks' time.

Can the Minister explain what people entitled to this relief, but unable to get it yet, are supposed to do in the meantime? Will he give the House a date by which this office will be fully manned, with all the staff properly trained? Will he confirm that after this modest relief many people will still be substantially worse off, faced with higher rents as a result of the cuts that the Government have made in housing benefit?

I wrote to the hon. Gentleman and to all colleagues in the House explaining what people should do to obtain help if they needed it. The unit should be fully operational in two to three weeks' time, but applications are already being received. We had no fewer than 5,000 applications in the post today, so the message is getting across. In my letter to all hon. Members I mentioned the Freephone and post facilities. Anybody who needs urgent help can make special arrangements with Glasgow to obtain it quickly.

It is possible for people to receive emergency payments through the DHSS if they qualify later for them. What will happen to those people in future, because it is possible that some will receive emergency payments, but, when the unit is established, will then lose them?

The object of the emergency payments is to help people who might be in danger of losing their home if they are not helped immediately. For example, it should be perfectly possible for a local authority tenant to make it clear that he or she has applied for transitional protection, and for the local authority to check his or her entitlement and no doubt postpone the arrangements for the collection of rent until the help becomes available.

The Minister will know from correspondence that many of my constituents have lost up to £26 a week because of the Government's changes in April. For many of them that means acute hardship and rising debt. Will the heating charge rebate, which was payable before April, be covered by the transitional arrangements? That is not in the DHSS guidance form, and my local citizens' advice bureau says that that costs some 80-year-old pensioners up to £7 a week. Is that covered for them and people on income support?

This question applies to housing benefit. I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking about income support.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable difficulty in getting through to this office on the telephone? Several of my constituents have been unable to get through, and I have yet to meet a constituent who has got through to anyone or anything but an answering machine. Is he sure that sufficient communications equipment has been installed in the office to meet the demand?

If it is felt necessary to install additional lines we shall do that, but we have sent out 22,000 copies of form RR4, which is the application form in the form of a leaflet, in response to calls on the Freephone system.

Will the special unit urgently get in touch with Norwich city council, which appears to be slow in arranging these transitional payments for many of my constituents? After all, it received the information from the DHSS as early as 1 June, yet many people are suffering because of the slow response of the council.

We have sent out information to all local authorities so that they can advise people about their rights. When working the system of transitional protection, I hope that local authorities will show the same level of co-operation and efficiency and commitment as they showed over the transition to the new system of housing benefit, on which they were complimented.

In my constituency a 56-year-old widow's payable rent has gone up from £7 to £21 a week because of reductions in housing benefit and she has only minumum income over and above her widow's pension. Will she be helped by the transitional arrangements, or will she have to trust to luck?

I find it difficult to imagine that transitional protection would not extend to the hon. Gentleman's constituent. I have heard too many cases, which have been traded backwards and forwards across the Floor of the House, in which the facts sometimes are not exactly as stated. I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House in any way—I know him too well for that—but if he cares to write to me about the specific case I shall make sure that he gets an answer.

I wish to refer the Minister to last week's judgment from the appeals tribunal, which said that the Minister had acted outwith his powers by scrapping housing benefit supplement. Will he take this opportunity to correct the bold view of his Under-Secretary that the judgment applied to the four pensioners only and not to the 440,000 others in identical circumstances? Is he aware that there is no better formula for clogging up every tribunal in the land until the end of the year? Now that the Government have been caught out, will he have the grace to accept this verdict and pay to all those affected the money that he had no right to take from them in the first place?

Many of the people who were reported in the press as having lost—if the judgment were to apply across the board; I do not accept for one moment that it does —would, in any case, through other parts of the benefit system, be assured of losing absolutely nothing.

The chairman of the tribunal said that in reaching that conclusion he was not declaring a result, but starting a process in train and that it would be for the chief adjudication officer to decide in due course whether to appeal against the decision. I am certain that that officer will want to study the considered judgment and the written findings of the tribunal. We took careful advice and the regulations were, of course, considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments before they were laid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many computers have been installed in benefit offices in the period for which complete records are available.

We have installed more than 3,000 micro-computers in the Department's local offices so far, and at least one computer in each of the Department of Employment's unemployment benefit offices. Within the next 12 months we will start linking all local offices to mainframe computers, providing a fully-computerised service for pensions and income support.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Opposition continually claim a monopoly for caring and sharing, but that they totally failed to modernise the system? Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the largest computerisation programme in Europe?

In common with my hon. Friend I certainly wish that we had made an earlier start, but progress is now extremely good. I believe that the result will be a great success in the quality of service to claimants. I confirm that it is the largest civil programme outside the United States.

Will the programme also gain the reputation as an even bigger administrative shambles than that over which the Home Office presides at Lunar house? Is it not a fact that £8 million has been spent on this computer system, but that, even today, the DHSS is unable to place in the Library information for the first month or, indeed, the second month of the operation of the social fund? When will the DHSS get its act together, answer questions on these matters, and get the information to the Library, which it has been promising for the past three months?

The hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded about this matter. Within the next day or so I hope to place in the Library the social fund data for May. Today is 14 June. I do not believe that a two-week delay in producing the data for May is untoward.

Will the computerisation programme benefit my constituents who receive benefit?

I am convinced that it will provide a quicker and more accurate service. It will mean that in due course claimants will be able to go to a local office and discuss all their benefits. They will be able to call at any office in the country and obtain information about their claiming position. Those are all great advances.

When installing the new system, has the Department taken account of the warning expressed several years ago in evidence to a Special Committee of the House that if the configuration involved in the computer system was not of a certain type any subsequent Administration would be unable to adapt the system—for example, for the purpose of merging or integrating tax and benefits? Can the Minister assure us that this computer system will leave open that practical possibility, in case a subsequent Administration wish to pursue such a policy?

We have certainly pursued the issue of equipment with a view to making it highly compatible. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured about those points.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps have been taken to ensure that the resource allocation working party formula takes fully into account the proportion of funds which have to be devoted to wages, salaries, and so on in his Department's allocation of funds to regional health authorities.

The formula, which is about distribution of resources within an agreed national allocation, needs to reflect pay separately only to the extent that significant pay variations between regions occur. Thus, there are adjustments for London weighting and a specific market forces element for London. Thereafter, each authority is free to decide how to spend its allocation.

I appreciate that answer, but is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government decide to increase the resources and funding of the NHS nationally by 2 per cent. in real terms, the net effect, because of RAWP, in health authorities such as Barnet will be to be left with minus 2 per cent.? Given that three quarters of Barnet's budget goes on wages and salaries, which are increased by much more than the going rate of inflation, that leads to significant cuts in services, facilities and equipment in the NHS in Barnet or to a reduction in staff. Both things have been happening systematically over the years. Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is grossly unfair and unreasonable, and that radical changes should be made to the RAWP formula?

I shall carefully study the somewhat complicated proposition that my hon. Friend has put to me. I make two points in immediate response. First, the distribution of funds to Barnet depends not on the RAWP formula in the straightforward sense but on the judgments that North West Thames region makes within its allocation.

Secondly, the RAWP formula contains an allowance for what is called the market forces factor, which seeks to reflect the extent to which pay rates are higher in London than elsewhere.

Will the Minister take on board the comments made to me by the chairman and members of the North Staffordshire district health authority when I met them on Wednesday last? They are most concerned about proposed changes in the RAWP formula which may well lead to North Staffordshire ending up with an even worse allocation than it now has. If inner-city areas such as this are to be protected and safeguarded, the Minister should consult them before coming up with new proposals for the RAWP formula.

The working party that has been examining the RAWP formula has been extensively representative of regions throughout the country. That is not to say that everyone will be pleased by its proposals, in advance of whose publication I cannot speculate further.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the RAWP formula takes into account the excellent work done by war memorial and cottage hospitals in serving their local communities? Will he reverse the decision of the Macclesfield health authority and ensure that the diminution of GP beds is reversed, and that the twilight hours services for the minor injuries unit in Congleton war memorial hospital are retained, so that that hospital can extend its useful work?

I do not think that the RAWP formula can be expected to take account of particular patterns of service as distinct from the needs of an area. It sounds to me as if the specific proposals to which my hon. Friend refers would be likely to be opposed by the Community Health Council and then come to Ministers, in which case I should not comment.

In the context of the RAWP formula proposals, will the Minister also take into account the fact that my health authority in Scunthorpe is embarking on a major council programme, with new wards and a new AED? The district health authority is worried that there may not be sufficient fund allocations to staff those new wards, because of the resource implications compared with the capital implications.

That is a matter for the regional health authority rather than the RAWP formula. Most authorities, in determining their allocation to the districts, take account of what are called the revenue consequences of capital schemes. That explains some variations in distance from target.

My right hon. Friend will know of the wide welcome given to the generous pay settlement for nurses. Will he bear in mind the effect of that settlement on the hospice movement, which is not centrally funded and for which, because of the workings of RAWP, the local district health authority is not able to provide extra money for nurses' pay?

The RAWP formula is being blamed for an enormous amount. I must repeat the answer that I have given on previous occasions. Health authorities have been given substantial additional funding in connection with the nurses' pay award and they need to take that into account when considering their arrangements for hospices. Those arrangements vary from place to place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much health authorities have saved to date as a result of competitive tendering.

Our latest estimate, for the quarter ending 31 March, shows that annual savings of about£106 million have been generated from contracts awarded for domestic cleaning, catering and laundry services during the initial round of competitive tendering, now virtually complete.

Does not the size of those savings show how wise those people have been in insisting that the tendering process be introduced? Has my right hon. Friend any idea of how much more could be saved if all services capable of being tendered were put out to tender?

I am conscious of the amount that has been saved. It is an important addition to health care spending in the National Health Service. Only 75 per cent. of catering, 95 per cent. of domestic services and 97 per cent. of laundry services are out to competitive tender. Therefore, there is still some space for further savings in the areas that are already out to competitive tender.

Has the Secretary of State investigated to find out how many jobs have been lost because of the introduction of competitive tendering? Has he investigated the consequences of that for the payment of benefits by the other side of his Department—the social security offices? Is it not often the case that the introduction of competitive tendering results not in a net saving for his Department, but merely in a transfer of profits to the firms, many of which are represented by Tory Members of Parliament?

I never cease to be bewildered by the way in which Opposition Members, and especially the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), seem to forget that the purpose of the National Health Service is to look after patients. Patients are the prime interest of the National Health Service. So utterly trapped are some Opposition Members by their relationship with their trade union bosses that they fail to understand that savings of about £100 million have gone to additional patient care. We should all welcome that.

With savings such as those and more expected, will my right hon. Friend consider making more resources available to meet the urgent recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs contained in its report "Aids and Drug Misuse"? Some of my hon. Friends feel that unfortunately the Government are doing too little too late.

I am filled with admiration for the legitimate way in which my hon. Friend makes his point. We are looking at the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs recommendations and will come to the House with the advice that we receive. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's implied criticism that the Government have not been vigorous in trying to ensure that we attack the awful problem of drug abuse.

Will the Minister confirm that in the Leeds Western health authority area the laundry services that were privatised under the direction of his Department are running at a loss? If so, is that not an indictment of the privatisation policy, because it undermines economic efficiency?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask himself who is losing money in that instance. I imagine that it is a private sector company. He should be glad to see the efficient work that is being done through tenders that have gone out. I know that he will be interested to know that 85 per cent. of competitive tenders that have saved money have gone to in-house contractors who have improved the way in which they deliver their services and have therefore provided more money for the Health Service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on National Health Service waiting lists in the northern region.

The latest figures show that waiting lists in the northern region have been dropping sharply, from about 50,000 in September 1982 to about 36,000 now. Nine of the 16 districts report continued steady falls. This reflects commendably on all concerned.

I thank my hon. Friend for an answer that is even more encouraging than I expected. Does that not show the success of the Government's initiatives in this area? Will she reassure Conservative Members that the current NHS review will have as its priority the interests, not of NHS staff or professionals, but of the customers, who in some areas are still waiting far too long for the treatment that they deserve?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am sure he realises that we have been exceptionally helpful to the Darlington health authority, which covers his constituency, by allocating £200,000 this year to help it to clear nearly 1,000 people from its waiting list. That was on top of the £160,000 extra that it received last year.

I note my hon. Friend's remarks at the end of his question, but point out that of those admitted to hospital half are admitted at once and the remainder within seven weeks.

How many hospitals in the northern region are working under capacity? Are people on waiting lists from other areas being passed to those hospitals?

I confess that I did not hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. We remain convinced that a number of hospitals in different parts of the country could use their capacity more productively.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the waiting list figures are hugely encouraging? Will she ensure that the excellent new hospital being built in Kendal, south Cumbria, is completed on time so that those figures can come down even more rapidly?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently laid the foundation stone for that hospital, and we look forward to it continuing its good work. As I am sure my right hon. Friend will know, in south Cumbria the cost per case is well below the national average.

What is the cost to the Northern regional health authority of farming out work to the private sector? —[HON. MEMBERS: Waiting lists."] I understand that the way that the Government have brought down waiting lists is by farming out work to the private sector, and the cost is incredible.

The vast majority of the patients that I have just mentioned have been dealt with in the National Health Service, and we expect that broadly to continue. However, if a health authority finds that it can contract out some of its patients to the private sector, I think that those patients generally are pleased with the result.

Every right hon. and hon. Member in the House is aware of the importance of the northern region. However, will my hon. Friend give the rest of the country a word of encouragement on the vital matter of waiting lists?

I am delighted to do so. In-patient waiting lists for England fell by about 1 per cent. between March and 30 September, and by about 12 per cent. since March 1979. That is a reduction of 90,000.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to meet representatives of the ancillary staffs in the National Health Service to discuss pay and conditions.

The pay and conditions of service of NHS ancillary staff are matters for negotiation in the ancillary staffs Whitley council. I have no plans at this stage to meet staff representatives.

The Minister's answer is less than revealing. Is it not a fact that as late as yesterday he refused a formal request to meet the ancillary staff representatives? Was that not because he would have found his miserable 4·8 per cent. pay offer indefensible?

Is the Minister aware that 400,000 ancillary staff are excluded from the nurses' pay review and that they earn less than £80 for a 40-hour week? Is he further aware that 40 per cent. of male ancillary staff and 70 per cent. of female ancillary staff earn less than £6,000 a year? Has he no compassion for both patients and staff? What will he do to rectify that pathetic level of wages?

I have three points to make. First, I have not refused to meet the staff side. I said that I did not think it appropriate at the moment. However, I would not rule it out later.

Secondly, the offer is not 4·8 per cent., it is 5·4 per cent., which is significantly more than ancillary workers received last year.

Thirdly, we have offered to talk about a reduction of one hour in the working week, together with other changes. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he starts attacking me.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might solve a great many problems if the ancillary workers' pay review was carried out on a local rather than a national basis? Would that not mean that local health authorities could take the local conditions into account, especially for clerical and secretarial work?

We have said, in general terms, that we want to move towards greater local flexibility within a centrally determined structure. However, that is under discussion more in respect of administrative and clerical staff than ancillary workers. Of course, a great deal of flexibility is already reflected in local bonus schemes and other arrangements.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to put it on record that the nurses and doctors cannot run the hospitals without domestics, laboratory staff and medical secretaries, who are all part of the health team? How can he claim that it is purely a matter for the Whitley council when, after the talks broke down last month, the health authorities made it plain that they could not fund an improved offer without more money'

As the right hon. Gentleman has responsibility for the money available to the health authorities, why does he not face up to that by meeting the staff side and explaining why he thinks that some of the worst-paid people in Britain should settle for a wage increase that is well below the national average?

I have already said that the pay offer to ancillary staff is larger than they received last year. I must make it clear that the staff side has attached particular importance to a reduction in the working week, and the Government have made a suggestion about that that needs to be talked through.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to extend beyond one year the period of transitional protection for claimants of housing benefit announced on 27 April.

Like all transitional payments, these will be phased out as circumstances change and other benefits increase. However, the payments will not be limited to one year, and they may last for several years in cases where the reduction in benefit is substantial.

I am most grateful for that encouraging answer. Will my hon. Friend always bear in mind that he is dealing with a war-time generation of pensioners, especially war widows, some of whom have had their incomes cut this year? Is he aware that some of those war widows are not treated as well as they would be in other nations? I hope that he will bear that in mind.

I shall bear that in mind. It is worth mentioning that those on income support will be fully protected during the transitional period. We have introduced a new housing benefit scheme and will monitor that carefully. I am, of course, conscious of the fact to which my hon. Friend alluded.

Is the Minister aware that a number of old-age pensioners in my constituency receive a coal allowance because they worked in the pits all their lives? Previously, that allowance has not been assessed for housing benefit purposes. Is he further aware that some pensioners have moved to gas-heated houses and receive a monetary allowance from British Coal, which is being assessed for housing benefit purposes? Some of them are worse off by more than £6 a week. As I am sure that the Minister does not want such a vindictive anomaly to continue, will he put it right as quickly as possible?

Any concessional coal would be covered by the transitional protection. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that war pensioners will benefit under the transitional arrangements?

Of course.

Will the Minister confirm that, despite transitional protection, millions of people still face a drastic cut in their standard of living, which will merely be phased rather than immediate? Even if the Government maintain the concessions forced on them this year, will not the substantial rent rises that follow the enactment of the Housing Bill next year mean losses as enormous as those from which the Government abruptly retreated?

It must be clearly understood that there will be full protection of housing benfit for rent rises that occur next year. In any case, there is full and absolute protection for income support beneficiaries.

I am absolutely convinced—as, I think, the House is —that the new system of housing benefit is vastly preferable to the one that went before. We have ensured that those affected unduly harshly by the transition will be protected in cash terms. That is surely worthy of praise rather than of criticism.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many mothers in the last 10 years have been disqualified from receiving maternity benefits; and how many of these had 49 stamps or credits in the appropriate qualifying year.

Between April 1983 and December 1986, the earliest and latest dates for which figures are available, 395,500 were disallowed. Only during the short period between October 1986 and April 1987 would a woman with a record of 49 contributions paid or credited have been disqualified from receiving maternity allowance. The number so affected must be very small indeed.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As the exact numbers are not known and very small indeed, it is possible that my constituent, Mrs. Watson, is the only woman in the country who has been so affected and will be the only woman so affected because the Government have since changed the law, so that people who would have lost benefit simply because they were paid monthly rather than weekly will not be denied benefit. Will my hon. Friend reconsider giving that lady the benefit to which she would have been entitled if her employer had paid her weekly rather than monthly?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that the system has changed so that what now matters is whether the lady was recently in employment. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome that change, but I should point out that, in the case of his constituent, it was not just a matter of the way in which we applied the rules. We had also to bear in mind the fact that, while the lady was unemployed, she went abroad for two weeks and was therefore unable to have the credit. If she had not gone abroad, she would have had 51 credits.

Does the Minister agree that the problem would not have arisen if the situation in which someone could make reduced contributions and pay slightly less than the full contribution in terms of the stamp had not been changed in the Social Security Act 1986? Will the Minister further explain how much money the Government have saved by scrapping that reduced rate?

Maternity benefit should be paid to people who leave work because they are pregnant and are used to receiving their money from work. The new statutory maternity payment system and the maternity allowance address that need. The old system, under which we went back to some distant year to see what national insurance contributions had been paid, was much less effective in meeting that need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the main known factors in prematurity and low birth-weight in babies.

The cause of prematurity or low birth-weight in babies is in most cases not known. Apart from clinical factors of various kinds relating to the pregnancy, it is becoming increasingly clear that smoking by pregnant women and significant consumption of alcohol may be important in some cases.

Despite those disadvantages in mothers' health, is it not true that under this Government infant mortality has reduced considerably and that we have a much improved situation, which must be partially due to the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the first rate technological equipment now available in hospitals as a result of the Government's initiatives? My local hospital in Dover has some first-rate examples of such equipment, which I saw recently.

My hon. Friend is right. The figures show that the infant mortality rate has fallen from 12·9 per thousand births in 1978 to 9.1 in 1987, which is a reduction of 29 per cent. while the Government have been in office.

Does the Minister acknowledge that cot deaths are increasing? Will he give due consideration to the submission from the National Childbirth Trust, which asks him to consider some possible causes of that, including excessive obstetric interference and bad housing and poverty?

I shall certainly consider the points to which the hon. Lady referred. More work is clearly needed in this area, but she may not be aware that recent work confirms part of the point that she is making about the increase in the sudden infant death syndrome. She may not be aware that, contrary to what she implied, the studies in relation to 1986 show that the increase in cot deaths is, if concentrated in any social class, concentrated in social class V among boys. The hon. Lady's point is certainly important and we must look further into this matter, but, on the evidence so far, the increase does not relate to social class variations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the progress of the cervical cancer screening programme.

By the end of April all 190 district health authorities in England had implemented a computerised call and recall system for cervical cancer screening. The programme will make a major contribution to the health of our women and will save many lives in the years to come.

As most deaths from cervical cancer occur in women who have never had a smear test and as, if they had had a test, the chances are that the condition would have been 100 per cent. curable, does my hon. Friend agree that the areas on which the Government should be concentrating are, first, to encourage women to register with general practitioners and, secondly, to publicise the effective success of smear tests?

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. In those parts of the country where the response rate is not as high as we had hoped, one reason is that the registers are not accurate. We urge all women who move house to tell their GPs and to ensure that the address on the register is correct.

Is the Minister aware that Sheffield health authority has encountered some centrally determined constraints in the direction of its cervical cancer screening programme, notably computer software which does not enable the health authority to call clients and search for them on a postcode basis? Is he further aware that although that needs only a small modification, and although the authority has made many representations, nothing has been done?

Yes, and we are working on some aspects of the software. We are content that we have a system that works throughout the country and we are now seeing what improvements and modifications we can make.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of pensioners receive income from savings.

The proportion of pensioners with income from savings has risen from 62 per cent. in 1979 to over 70 per cent. in 1985. Over that period incomes from that source went up by over 52 per cent. in real terms, compared with a decrease of 16 per cent. under the previous Administration. By 1985 the proportion of recently retired pensioners with some form of income other than state benefits had risen to over 85 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is all part of a picture of growing prosperity and choice for pensioners and that, as a whole, pensioners' incomes have risen twice as fast as those of the population generally since this Government came to power?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. In fact, pensioners' incomes have increased in percentage terms faster than those of people in work and are now worth 60 per cent. of the incomes of the working population, which is higher than in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much spending on benefits for disabled people has changed since 1979.

Spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has increased by £3 billion in real terms since 1978–79. This is a real increase of over 80 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend for that significant contribution. Will he confirm that the Independent Living Fund will not be confined to those on income support?

Yes, I can confirm that. Independent Living Fund assistance will go to those above income support level who need help, because they are severely disabled, to maintain their place in the community or to avoid institutionalisation.

Will the Minister please explain how a single parent with a 20-year-old mentally handicapped son has lost £3 per week because of the flat-rate surcharge that the Government have introduced? How can he square that with saying that the Government are targeting assistance on those who are most vulnerable and most in need in our society when that single parent family is £3 per week worse off because of the Government's target? I suggest that that is not good aim.

If I recognise the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, it involves the impact of non-dependent deductions. The House will recognise that as a principle is right that such deductions should take place, but because of the special circumstances affecting the lady in that case the non-dependent deductions are set at a lower level.

The Government are to be congratulated on the considerable improvement in the standards of living of disabled people, but does my hon. Friend agree that a further improvement in their standard of living could be achieved if builders were more ready to build houses which, from the beginning, could be lived in easily by disabled people, rather than expecting disabled people, at the height of their disability, to incur enormous expenditure in adapting a house?

Yes, except that I believe that disabled people should have as much freedom of choice in the location in which they live as other citizens, as far as that is possible. Therefore, it is right that either they or the local social services department, where appropriate, should move swiftly to provide the adaptions that are necessary for them.

Can the Minister tell the House when the Government expect to achieve the objective of the Disability Income Group, which aims to persuade the Government that people should receive benefit regardless of how their disability arose, whether from birth or through an accident at work or at home? In short, when will the Government end discrimination against people with disability?

The hon. Gentleman, if he listened to my original answer, will realise that, far from being discriminated against, disabled people have been treated particularly favourably throughout the lifetime of this Government. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the OPCS findings will be coming out in the course of the next few months, and we shall then be looking at the whole range of disability benefits in the light of its findings.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including a meeting with the President of Malawi. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Following the recent agreement with the Irish Government on new extradition rules, does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's extraordinary decision by an Irish court to refuse to extradite Patrick McVeigh, the suspected terrorist, is bound to raise considerable suspicions in this country about the Irish commitment to stamp out terrorism? Will she agree to see the Irish Prime Minister to ensure that this kind of extraordinary and capricious legal decision is not repeated, and ensure that in future suspected terrorists are not protected from being brought to justice?

As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be making a full statement later. I agree with my hon. Friend that the judgment of the district court is deeply dismaying, because we had thought that effective extradition arrangements now existed. The Crown Prosecution Service expressly asked whether further evidence from the United Kingdom on identification was needed, and was told that it was not. We are holding urgent consultations with the Irish authorities to deal with the implications of the decision. I understand that the Irish Minister of Justice will be making a statement in the Dail this afternoon. I believe that we shall defeat terrorism only when the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the border are actively committed to doing so.

May I first share the Prime Minister's sense of dismay at the confusion that arose and her hope for an outcome that will ensure that there is an even more effective set of measures against terrorism or suspected terrorism?

Following the judgment of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal last Friday that the Government have acted illegally in depriving over 400,000 low-income pensioners of housing benefit supplement, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that she will not appeal against the judgment and that she will not introduce legislation to reverse the effects of that judgment? The Government have fouled up. Will they pay up?

No. We have not seen the tribunal's written decision, which may not be available for some weeks, but it will be for the chief adjudication officer to decide whether to appeal once the decision is available. It is worth remembering that an appeals tribunal decision is only the first step, and I am advised that, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, it applies only to the individual cases decided—[Interruption]—yes, indeed—and does not constitute a precedent. It is a matter for the chief adjudication officer to decide whether to appeal to a court of law.

When we are talking about low-income pensioners, that attitude in that answer manifests the mentality of a persecutor. It also manifests, if the right hon. Lady insists on confining the judgment to just four people, a very extraordinary sense of justice and of precedent. These people are by definition already on very low incomes. Why does the Prime Minister not simply obey the law of the land as it stands and the law of common humanity and ensure that these people lose absolutely nothing, even in the wake of the loss of housing benefit supplement?

Having for years handled some of these things as a junior Minister in that Department, may I point out that these are the statutory independent adjudicating authorities, not the High Court? The independent adjudicating authorities give verdicts on individual cases. That is why at present the verdict applies only to those cases. It is for the top of those independent adjudicating authorities, the chief adjudicating officer, to decide whether to take it to a court of law. That is the law.

We know that the word "independence" has different meanings for the Government in different sets of circumstances. Sometimes the Government treat the law in the same way as children treat Ludo: if they win that is the end of the matter; if others win it is the best of three. Will the Prime Minister realise the circumstances, the anxieties and the low incomes of these people and ensure that none of them will be losers?

It remains as I said earlier. It is the law that—[Interruption.] Yes, it is for the law, and we on this side obey the law. That is what the rule of law is all about. It will be for the chief adjudicating officer to decide whether to appeal once the decision is available. The right hon. Gentleman jumps to his conclusion before we have even seen the tribunal's recommendation.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that relations between herself and her Secretary of State for Defence are wholly harmonious, that he will not be humiliated and that, therefore, the Press Association can retire to bed at a reasonable hour?

My hon. Friend makes the point more effectively than I could. Relations between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and No. 10 are excellent, as is the defence of the country under a Conservative Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

In view of the weekend reports concerning likely Government legislation on official secrets, can the Prime Minister give both sides of the House an assurance that in cases such as the Clive Ponting trial, for example, trial by jury will remain the norm, and that the Government will not seek to legislate in such a way as to make it impossible for a defence based on the concept of the public good to be mounted, as there are many on both sides of the House who believe that the political interest of a Government and the overriding public interest of the state must never be regarded as synonomous?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government are considering a revised Bill. Before that is published, a White Paper will of course, be published for debate in the House.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scenes of football hooliganism that we have seen recently at home and in Europe will lead to the destruction of football as a sport as we know it? If there is no improvement, will she consider advising the Football Association not to allow English clubs to compete in European competitions?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the scenes we have seen on our television screens again are a disgrace to civilised society and made us all feel thoroughly ashamed if any of our people were involved in them. I looked back this morning over the Popplewell report to see whether all the steps which were then recommended had been taken at home and in connection with international competitions, and to see whether we were getting—[Interruption.]This is a matter that greatly concerns the Government and we want to see whether all the proposed steps towards international co-operation are taken. I shall be having a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport on Thursday morning. Of course, it is easier to pose the question than it is to find a sure way of stopping what is happening, catching and convicting the criminals, and having them strictly sentenced. I agree with my hon. Friend that the survival of football as a spectator sport is in question.

In view of yesterday's extradition failure, will the Prime Minister consider convening a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council established in 1981 to consider all those non-Northern Ireland matters and disputes which the present Anglo-Irish Agreement is far too narrow to resolve?

No, I see little point in convening that intergovernmental council. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, one is much more likely to be convened under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Before deciding on any further steps we should hear what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has to say today and what is said in the Dail later.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the outcome in the Dublin court yesterday was not the result of confusion on this side of the water, that the papers were in order, and that everything was done under the recent agreement, but that the judge still refused to give the proper sentence that should have been passed? Will she assure the House also that it will be the policy of her Government to have the same extradition treaty with the Republic of Ireland as has been operated between the United Kingdom and every other part of the European Community?

We had thought that effective extradition arrangements existed, which is why we were deeply dismayed at the decision of that particular court. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Crown Prosecution Service did everything that it could. It expressly asked whether further evidence on identification was needed from the United Kingdom and was specifically told that it was not. There was no fault on this side of the water or on this side of that border. That the extradition did not go through was not our fault.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

Has the Prime Minister noticed that, after eight years of her government of Britain, where private greed is now the official religion, and where we are told that society no longer exists but only the individual, the result has been a rising flood of crime, violence, City fraud, family breakdown, homelessness, drug addiction and football hooliganism? When the Prime Minister surveys that social sickness arid disorder, of which is she most proud?

If the hon. Gentleman will read the Popplewell report on football hooliganism he will see that the problem originated very much earlier this century, and it has been the subject of a number of previous reports. The hon. Gentleman will see also in the sections relating to violence that there has always been, and always will he, violence. The question is how to contain that violence, catch those who are guilty, convict them, and give them stiff sentences. We are very much better off with more, better-paid and properly equipped police in Britain than we would have been had the Opposition been in power and we had fewer police.

When my right hon. Friend next sees her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, will she ask him to ring the Press Association and make a statement explaining that missile-for-missile reduction is not a very good idea if the other side has more missiles?

My hon. Friend makes his own point. There is no use whatsoever in following what was proposed at one stage and having a kind of multilateral disarmament agreement with the other side. That would involve giving up 100 per cent. of our Trident missiles in return for the Soviet Union giving up 3 per cent. of her strategic weapons.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

May I tell the right hon. Lady that I have a constituent, John Callaghan, who, as a young man, served this country with distinction? In 1939 he served in the desert, in Italy, and from Normandy right through to Germany. After retiring recently, until two months ago he enjoyed a rent rebate, but because of Government measures he now has to find another £30 per month. Is that not a shameful way to treat a man who has served this country so well?

I do not know the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. I do know that there is a case, which may or may not be the same, which has received a great deal of publicity recently, which was not to do with the reforms, merely with the change from invalidity benefit to retirement pension, which always takes place at 65. I am not certain whether that is the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, if he has a case to raise he should take it up with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security.