To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of claims for war widows' pensions are successful (a) on initial application and (b) on appeal.

About 46 per cent. of claims for war widows pensions are successful on initial application. Some 19 per cent. of cases which go to appeal are successful.

Does the Minister recognise that incomplete records and the passage of time make it increasingly difficult to prove or disprove that war service has contributed to the death of a pensioner? Many widows as well as their husbands suffer for many years and find it extremely difficult. Is not it time that we took a more generous approach to widows whose husbands suffered as a result of giving service to the country during the war?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind and I have every sympathy with the lady—he will know that her case is to go to appeal. He seems to be asking about automatic entitlement to a war widow's pension. The basic condition for the award of a war widow's pension must be that the husband's death was due to or substantially hastened by service in the armed forces. There must be that causal connection or the rates of the war widow's pension could not be justified.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the implementation of proposals in "The Way Ahead" to benefit disabled people who want to achieve independence through working.

Detailed work is progressing on our proposal in "The Way Ahead" to introduce a new benefit, disability employment credit, which will make it easier for disabled people to work. We intend to introduce legislation in time to bring the new benefit into effect from April 1992.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new benefit will give enormous new opportunities to disabled people to join the community in the fullest sense? Does he also agree that three elements are necessary to make that possible? The first is training—will he talk to his hon. Friends about that? Secondly, employers should display a degree of patience to enable people to settle in to the work. Thirdly, a safety net should always be provided so that those who try to go out to work but find that it is not possible will always be able to return to receiving the full benefits to which they were previously entitled.

I agree very much with the points that my hon. Friend has made. We shall be aiding the provision of a safety net by enabling those on invalidity benefit before they go into work, which attracts the disability employment credit, to retain their underlying entitlement to that benefit. Therefore, they will not have to requalify for it if by chance they are unable to sustain the job. I believe that the disability employment credit will be an important encouragement to people to go into work. It will reinforce the emerging demographic pattern, which I believe will compel employers to look beyond the disabilities that they see to the abilities that frequently lie behind them.

Is the Minister aware that there is great concern among people with disabilities and their carers about the Government's attitude to the independent living fund? Will he therefore seek to persuade the Treasury that it is extremely important that people with disabilities should not experience poverty and that poverty and disability should not be synonymous?

As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I was able to announce an extra £8 million for the independent living fund and I am in discussion with the trustees of the fund about its future.

Does the Minister still expect to save £10 million by introducing the new credit as I was told in a parliamentary reply? Is he aware of the concern of Nicole Davoud and her working group on the credit that it should not exclude people who can work only for less than 24 hours per week, that it should not be means tested like family credit, and that the maximum allowable income should not restrict disabled people to lower-paid work? What assurances can the Minister give to the working group on those important issues?

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's right—indeed, duty—to press me on those matters, but we have exchanged views on it before and he knows as well as I do that we are still working on the details of the benefit. We estimate that it will cost about £80 million to help 50,000 disabled people to obtain employment. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is an important step in the right direction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a lone parent with two children would have to earn to be better off in work than on benefits, making an appropriate assumption about the costs of child care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a lone parent with two children would have to earn to be better off in work than on benefits, making an appropriate assumption about the costs of child care.

It is not possible to generalise in the way that the questions seek as individual circumstances vary so widely and lone parents' income in work will also depend on whether maintenance is paid. The benefit system does, however, recognise that lone parents who work may face additional costs of various kinds, and the earnings disregard for such lone parents on housing benefit is to be increased from £15 to £25 a week in October.

First, will the Secretary of State apologise, on behalf of the chair of the Conservative party, to lone parents throughout the country who are deeply hurt by the suggestion that their children are likely to become criminals and are taking part in a wrecking of society? Secondly, do the Government understand that many lone parents would love to work but cannot do so because of the costs of child care? Will he reconsider the Government's decision to prevent lone parents offsetting the costs of child care against benefit because the Government are thus trapping large numbers of them into poverty and into living on benefits when they would like to be independent and give a better life to their children?

With regard to the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I do not accept—nor do I think that my right hon. Friend would accept—the interpretation that the hon. Lady has placed on his remarks. We all share a common concern to improve the position of lone parents. My right hon. Friend was doing no more than talk about some of the difficulties that they and their families may face, which we are all concerned to tackle.

The Minister will be aware that many lone parents will be disappointed with that answer. Will he reconsider taking the cost of child care into account? I add my support to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) about the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Will the Minister also send a message to the Prime Minister, and point out to her that the majority of lone parents have not had the access to wealth that she had when bringing up children?

Undoubtedly, many lone parents are in difficult circumstances. That is why we have made a number of improvements in the benefit system which are designed to help them. Some have already come into effect. Another, to which I have referred, will come into effect in October. Perhaps the biggest single weakness in our system at present is the lack of effective collection of maintenance to which we are directing close attention.

Labour Members talk as though the money to provide child care for lone parents will drop out of the sky. It has to be paid for by other taxpayers—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about directors' pay rises?"] Is it reasonable that a tax-paying couple should provide Rolls-Royce child care treatment for lone parents when it is perfectly open to those parents to do what other working women have to do—look to their mothers, aunts or neighbours to help out, rather than expect the help to come from taxes?

It is certainly the case that any improvement, as some would see it, or change in the benefit system in this sector, as in others, would cost money, and a decision would have to be taken about where that should come from and whether it might be better spent elsewhere. The last survey done on this subject—admittedly, it is rather old as it was done nearly 10 years ago by the social policy research unit—showed that about four out of five lone parents did not have any child care costs, even when they were in part-time work.

Is the Secretary of State aware that last week the accounting officer of his Department, when asked why there had been a massive disincentive for lone parents to work during the past eight years, as identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, twice told the Public Accounts Committee that it was due to ministerial policy decisions?

I am aware, having talked with my Permanent Secretary about the matter this morning, that he had some interesting exchanges with the hon. Gentleman last week. But I have not yet been able to read the transcript——

Slacking!

Because it is not available.

Yes, it is.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will forgive me if I do not get drawn further down that path, especially as I believe that he has been promised a further note on some of the matters involved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low-paid workers are entitled to claim means-tested benefits and also liable to pay income tax; and what was the number in 1985.

Although the information is not available on the basis requested, there are at present about 470,000 benefit units where the head is in full-time employment, pays income tax and receives an income-related benefit. Comparable information is not available for 1985.

I find that answer extremely surprising, because on 16 March 1990 such an answer was indeed given to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), and an analysis done by the Low Pay Unit showed that in the past four years the number of people who fall into the means test trap has risen from 290,000 to more than 400,000. That is because—I hope that the Minister will tell us what plans he has to change this rule—indexing is linked to prices, not earnings, so many more families than before are worse off as a result of the policies adopted by the Department. If the Minister is serious about conquering poverty in this country—I have my doubts whether he is—will he kindly change the indexing formula so that more families will not get caught in the poverty trap as they do now?

I think that the hon. Gentleman may agree that the position is rather more complicated than he has acknowledged. He has referred to figures relating to the number of people with marginal deduction rates of 70 per cent. or more. An important part of the reforms that we undertook was dramatically to reduce the numbers subject to marginal deduction rates far higher than that. For example, whereas before the reforms more than 200,000 people were suffering deduction rates of more than 90 per cent., that number has fallen sharply but there has been some corresponding increase lower down.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Conservatives took office we have taken people out of the income tax net because real income tax allowances have increased by 25 per cent. more than inflation, and that the reason why the overlap has increased is that we have also increased benefits available to the low paid? Indeed, the family income supplement, the forerunner of the present family credit, which was designed to assist the low paid was introduced by a Conservative Government.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the number of people paying income tax would be far higher but for the changes that the Government have made. He is also right to refer to the changes that we have made which mean that income-related benefits are now calculated on income net of tax and national insurance contributions, which has helped to reduce those high marginal deduction rates and been a significant improvement in the system.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review the operation of the housing benefit system.

Although we monitor closely the working of the housing benefit scheme, we have no plans for a major review.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that if we subsidise something we often get more of it, and that people in local government who administer housing benefit and, incidentally, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 believe that such subsidies are often a temptation to people to throw themselves on the authority for accommodation? If she agrees with that, would she further agree that the way to do something about the housing problem is to recreate a market in rented homes, and that if we could abolish controls on newly rented property we would reinstate the friendly landlady, who would be willing to take in many of the young people and others who sleep rough on our streets?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. She has raised it before in the House and she will know that regulation of rents is a matter for the Department of the Environment. She will also know that housing benefit is not intended to help pay excessively high rents. Our arrangements for reimbursing local authorities for housing benefit expenditure give them an incentive not to pay benefit above reasonable market levels. Local authorities have powers to restrict benefit in cases where accommodation is over-large for a claimant's needs or unreasonably expensive. In the longer term, we propose to restrict the amount of housing benefit payable for properties at the top end of the market, but information to achieve that is not ready and will not be ready for some time.

If the Government will not undertake a major review of the housing benefit system, will they take an urgent look at the way in which the housing benefit system prejudices the young, especially the homeless young? Will the Minister study the speech by Mr. Donald Maclean, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, who said in Peebles on Friday that stray dogs get a better deal than the young homeless in Scotland and that a civilised society such as ours should be able to do better than that? This is the first time in my experience that a senior and respected police officer has become involved in the benefit debate, and the Government should not ignore that. In the monitoring or review process, will the Minister bring forward urgent help for people under 25?

I am not aware of the speech made by Mr. Donald Maclean but I will certainly look at it. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the young homeless. I am sure that he is aware of the administrative and other changes introduced by the Department to help 16 and 17-year-olds become entitled to benefit. An announcement about that was made in November and changes were made in the interaction between benefit and youth training schemes. Those were announced by the Department of Employment in March. In July we made a substantial change in benefit arrangements for young people who have to live away from home. Of course, we continue to monitor the situation.

My hon. Friend constantly reviews the housing benefit system. Will she look at the position of pensioners in receipt of small occupational pensions for which they have paid during their working life? When money becomes available will my hon. Friend try to improve their standard of living through the rates of benefit paid to them as that group of people has been hard hit by current inflation and the introduction of the community charge.

As my hon. Friend says, the Department continues to review the position of all groups. One result of such review was the changes made in October to help particularly needy pensioners of the kind described by my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware of the appalling hardship and deprivation caused to many people and certainly to my constituents because, as the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has said, the occupational pension is fully taken into account and the amount of housing benefit is therefore either derisory or none at all? Why do the Government penalise time and again so many of our senior citizens who, because they receive such a pension—in many cases a small amount—have to pay large amounts in rent and rates so that their standard of living is constantly being undermined? The Government bear a heavy burden of responsibility for the shocking poverty which has resulted from the changes in housing benefit.

I repeat that it was precisely such groups that the Government sought to target with our October package of help for older and poorer pensioners and, of course, are keeping the position under review.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a genuine problem about the payment of housing benefit? It usually takes two weeks and sometimes more to process an application, but many people who become homeless have to pay their rent weekly and landlords will not wait until the housing benefit application has been processed. It seems to be a vicious circle. I am sure that all hon. Members would be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend's Department could come up with any reasonable way to look at the rules and allow flexibility to minimise the number of people caught in that unfortunate trap.

The administration of housing benefit is a matter for local authorities. I believe that my hon. Friend has raised previously his concern about the way in which this is done in his constituency. Housing benefit claims are meant to be processed in 14 days. Many authorities achieve this target, and there is no reason why all of them should not do so. However, if claimants have to wait because of the inefficient operation of housing authorities there is the possibility of a crisis loan.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which years during the 1980s the uprating of supplementary benefit or income support rates provided for an increase in their real value; and by what percentage.

These benefit levels have been uprated every year to take account of forecast or actual movements in the appropriate index. In a number of years there has also been specific extra help for special groups such as pensioners, disabled people and families with children.

We are beginning to view with deep suspicion the statistics that the Government give us. Will the Minister recommend that all Conservative Members read the Select Committee on Social Services' report on low-income statistics before repeating the false claim that the poor are better off under this Government? Is not it a fact that the real value of income support fell by 3·7 per cent. between 1981 and 1989? How would the Minister respond to my constituents who spell out the fact that their income is £84·99 a week on benefit and their outgoings on basic essentials are £91·84, so there is a shortfall of £6·85 every week? How would Conservative Members manage on such an income for at least a year?

We are studying the Select Committee report. We note that the Select Committee has said that it wants further work to be done on the pattern of statistics and the way in which they are provided and to increase both in scope and depth the figures provided by the Government on these matters. We shall take account of those recommendations as we consider the report.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met a group of pensioners' representatives to discuss the pensioners' charter; and if he will make a statement.

We regularly meet representatives from pensioner organisations to discuss a range of issues of concern to them. Most recently, I accompanied the Prime Minister at a meeting with a delegation from the National Pensioners Convention.

The Minister will know that one of the demands made by pensioners is for the Government to restore the link between pensions and the prices and earnings index. The breaking of that link resulted in the Government stealing £12 per week from every pensioner. He will also be aware that pensioners want to abolish standing charges and prescription charges and to have free travel like Ministers who are carted all over the country. They also want to get rid of the poll tax. Why does not the Minister go down to her bunker in Downing street and tell her to get rid of it and get off the pensioners' backs?

The hon. Gentleman, who, as ever, is strong on rhetoric but short on facts, may remember that the last Labour Government failed to honour its obligation to uprate pensions annually in line with the RPI. Their record in allowing inflation to run rampant through the incomes of pensioners also let the pensioners down considerably. It comes ill from the mouths of Labour Members to criticise us on this.

When my hon. Friend meets the pensioners' representatives will he point out the real things that the Government have done to ensure that future generations of pensioners have a decent pension——

Such as?

such as personal pension plans and so on, so that by the year 2000, most pensioners will have an occupational pension as well as a state pension and will have a decent standard of living?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The encouragement of the growth of occupational pensions, the introduction of personal pensions, and the encouragement for people to save during their working lives is bound to transform the lives and prospects of people in retirement.

Does the Minister accept that a major point of concern to all pensioners is the right to fuel and heating? Will he give serious consideration to the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity supplies to pensioners and to the introduction of a cold climate allowance that is automatic and continuous?

I appreciate the hon. Lady's point, but I am not sure that the abolition of standing charges would necessarily help those most in need of assistance with heating. We incorporated the old heating allowances when we moved to the new system of income support. The case for the abolition of standing charges is not, in my view, convincing.

Has my right hon. Friend read the comment by the person to whom we may not refer in this House that the challenge facing the country is to find a more active role for pensioners? Does my right hon. Friend agree that many a nimble tune is played on an old fiddle? Will he consider my ten-minute Bill, which attempts to abolish age discrimination? Many pensioners are fed up with the emphasis placed on the quantity of life rather than the quality, as they have a real contribution to make to society.

I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, if not with the precise terms of his ten-minute Bill. Demography will encourage employers to take more notice of the abilities that senior citizens can bring to our economy. By abolishing the earnings rule, we have taken a substantial step in encouraging pensioners to contribute.

In the light of the Minister's first reply, does he accept that the basic pension rose by 20 per cent. in real terms after six years of Labour Government, but by only 2 per cent. after 11 years of Tory Government? Does he acknowledge that the decision by the European Court of Justice last Thursday concerning pension ages has implications for not only occupational pension schemes but the state retirement pension? Does he agree that aligning the pensionable ages of men and women need not be unduly costly if it is undertaken gradually and if the individual is given the choice between a lower retirement age or a higher pension? As the European Court judgment was made in respect of article 119 of the treaty, which is directly applicable in courts in the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State act before he is forced to do so? If so, when and how?

As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is not the level of the basic pension but pensioners' total income that matters. Under the present Government, that has risen twice as fast as that of the population as a whole, by 31 per cent. or 3·5 per cent. per annum, compared with 0·6 per cent. per annum under the previous Labour Administration. We are studying the implications of the European Court's judgment and will announce our conclusions to the House in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that more maintenance is recovered from absent parents.

We are currently reviewing the maintenance system and aim to bring forward proposals later this year. In the meantime, we have taken action to increase maintenance recovered under the current system.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those initiatives, though somewhat delayed, are very welcome? Non-payment of maintenance is an abuse which comes to the attention of many right hon. and hon. Members—certainly it comes to my attention. Referring to earlier exchanges, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is unwillingness on the part of the average taxpayer constantly to plough money into public spending? If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and some of his unreconstructed followers do not recognise that, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) certainly appears to do so. What sums of money does my right hon. Friend expect to recover from absent parents this year?

I shall regard the latter part of my hon. Friend's remarks as a question properly and accurately directed at members of the Opposition Front Bench. The amount of maintenance that we expect to recover should increase from rather less than £200 million last year to £260 million in the current year, which is a significant increase. For that reason, I am a little resistant to his suggestion that we have been slow on these initiatives. Much has been done within the present system, and we are considering whether it can be made much better.

Will the Secretary of State accept the congratulations of Labour Members on, after 11 years of inaction, doing at least something on this front? But will he accept our criticism of a scheme that allows mothers on welfare to make over their maintenance payments to the state being extended to when they return to work? If it is, will not he create yet another disincentive to work?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which we can consider in the wider review. I hope that he will agree—he was not inclined to do so the last time we discussed this—that for the state to involve itself in wholly private transactions would be a major step that should not be embarked on without consideration.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that walking out on one's family is not an option which fathers should be able to consider? Will he undertake to consider the effect of the system that was introduced in Australia in 1988 for national collection and enforcement and its introduction in this country?

Yes, we have looked to see what we can learn from the Australian system. I was in the United States at Easter examining a system that operates in two states which has something in common with that in Australia. We can learn from both, even though we might not be able to copy either exactly.

Is not this whole exercise purely aimed at cutting public expenditure rather than assisting lone parents, precisely because any maintenance recovered is used to dock benefit by a corresponding amount? If the Government wanted to assist mothers and their families, would not they use the £80 million that the Secretary of State expects to gain from the recovery of maintenance to return to mothers and their families at least some of the £1,100 million that they have stolen from them by freezing child benefit over the past three years?

Far more than £80 million has been allocated in the past two years to help low-income families with children, not least lone-parent families. As to the first, rhetorical, half of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is no. The plain fact is that lone parents who are receiving maintenance and their children are in a better position than those who are not receiving it, which is why we want to introduce a system for maintenance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the working of the Glasgow social security centre; and what plans he has to extend benefit processing work away from south-east England.

The Glasgow centre is processing claims for income support faster and more accurately than the London offices from which the work was relocated. As ever, we are continuing to look for even greater improvements.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that greater speed and accuracy—I should be grateful if she would quantify it—has been achieved by the greater ease of retention and recruitment away from London and the south-east? Is not there a lesson in that not only for her Department but for others?

The policy of other Departments is a matter for them, but the Department of Health, in conjunction with the Department of Social Security, is transferring many staff to Leeds. On my hon. Friend's point about accuracy and speed, in the London offices there was a 29 per cent. error rate in the payment of income support. That has fallen steadily and now stands at 9 per cent., which is a vast improvement. Income support can now be assessed within five days, compared with up to 14 days previously. The problems in the London offices were, as she says, caused by the retention and recruitment of staff—a problem shared by the DSS with many large private concerns.

How do the error and processing rates in England compare with those in Scotland? Are not there still offices in Scotland that are undermanned in terms of the workload presented by too high unemployment and other social and economic circumstances? When will the Greenock office be given more staff to deal with these problems?

Performance in offices varies throughout the country. The figures that I cited for the group of London offices were the worst. I believe that I am right in saying that no office in Scotland has the problems of that group. The introduction of an operational strategy and directing staff to priority work mean that there will be a continuing improvement in the achievement of targets throughout the country, including Scotland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that improvement has been achieved in Scotland through the relocated work in Glasgow.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the three offices to have work relocated to Glasgow first were those at Ealing and that there has been a dramatic and welcome reduction in the time taken to process applications. Is she aware that the interface with the Department of Employment is the one causing delays because the office cannot keep up with the greater pace? Will my hon. Friend liaise with the Department to ensure that the momentum is maintained?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that is necessary to alleviate that problem.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby representing the Church Commissioners, how much money was spent in the last year on the maintenance of archaeologically and architecturally significant churches.

(Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Responsibility for the maintenance of the Church of England's 16,400 churches and cathedrals, most of which are listed, rests with the parochial church councils and chapters. It is estimated that in 1989 the Church found in excess of £70 million for maintenance of those buildings, mainly through the giving of its congregations, but including about £7 million state aid towards structural repairs of outstanding churches in use.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the importance of these churches of great architectual significance extends beyond the congregations that use them. What support is given from central Government funds to assist in their maintenance? A number of significant Christian churches in, for example, the middle east are falling into a state of sad disrepair. Can anything be done, either by the Church Commissioners or through discussions with central Government, to provide much-needed funds for those wonderful buildings abroad?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to take notice of the latter part of his question about churches overseas, but I agree that there are some fine churches with Anglican roots in European countries. I repeat that about £7 million of state aid flows, largely through English Heritage, into the main pool of resources for maintaining these splendid old churches.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that considerable disquiet is expressed from time to time about the effects on the interior fixtures and fittings in churches of changing the use of churches from worship to alternative practices. Will he convey to the ecclesiastical authorities our concern to ensure that not only the fabric outside churches but the artistic heritage inside is preserved?

Yes, we pay careful attention to that problem. Not many months ago, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked about the future of important organs in old churches. We have a procedure for ensuring that the artistic heritage is treated with the same respect as the old buildings.

Each year applications are made for consent to demolish listed church buildings. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any idea of the numbers involved, as that would show the shortfall between the money raised locally and through English Heritage grants and that necessary to stop the demolition of churches, which has continued almost unabated for the past 20 to 30 years? We need to take action to stop further demolition.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, of 1,261 churches declared redundant between 1969 and 1989, only 297 have been demolished. So three quarters of them have been preserved and remain standing. In respect of the 297, a rigorous procedure had to be undergone before demolition could be authorised. Moreover, I am happy to say that more churches have been built than have been demolished. Three hundred and ninety-one new churches have been built, so we have made a net gain in the demolition stakes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of my own parish church in Gretton in Northamptonshire are pleased to have received a grant of £34,000—I had the sterling support of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell)—but that that is only a drop in the ocean compared with the needs of many parish churches throughout Britain? We face a tremendous problem in maintaining our great heritage, and we must all bend our minds to deciding how best to achieve that.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will appreciate the significant performance of parishes up and down the country in raising as much as £70 million towards the maintenance of our elderly and historic churches. That shows that there is a vast source of good will and commitment to enable the Church as a voluntary association to do its own main burden-bearing.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy of the Church Commissioners about investment in the Republic of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

The Commissioners' policy is long established and has been well publicised. They do not invest in any South African company or in any other company where more than a small part of its business is in South Africa. When they invest in a company with a small stake in South Africa, they try to ensure that that company follows enlightened social and employment policies, as far as that is possible within the system of apartheid, of which they have repeatedly expressed their abhorrence. In common with the rest of the Church, the Commissioners welcome the important political developments since the end of 1989 and hope that the momentum will be sustained.

Is it really the case that the Bishop of Oxford has it in mind to bring legal proceedings involving the Church Commissioners concerning the investment policy of the Church of England? Instead of indulging in absurd litigation of this kind, should not the bishop and the Church be engaged in the business of saving the souls of the people, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry and healing the sick? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that this mischievous bishop will not be considered for appointment to Canterbury?

It is not, alas, in my gift—even on this important occasion—to give a definitive answer to my hon. Friend's final question. But I can confirm that the Bishop of Oxford appears to be intent on taking legal action against the Church of England. It could only bring the Church into disrepute if the bishop proceeded with his legal action against the Church Commissioners. The action is bound to be adversarial and will be perceived publicly as hostile. I hope that the Bishop of Oxford and his associates will decide to withdraw it.

Although one can understand the motives of the Bishop of Oxford, may I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), answering on behalf of the Church Commissioners? The Bishop of Oxford's action seems to be a distraction from more important priorities. Will the right hon. Member for Selby urge the Church Commissioners to sustain their present policy of not investing in South Africa unless they are advised by the Christian churches in South Africa to change that policy? Will they above all not be over-hasty in a decision to change their policy under pressure from the Government or anyone else, but rather lead and advise the Government on what their policy should be in the interests of the souls as well as the bodies of people in South Africa?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I repeat that the Church Commissioners do not invest directly in South Africa. The complexity of disentangling even that tiny residual investment, which is associated with some of the largest household names in British industry, would be considerably detrimental for the clergy and pensioners whom we have to support. We could not await an imprimatur of approval from the churches in South Africa to consider changes in that large overall investment.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the future of Christ church, Waterloo, Bootle.

A proposal to use Christ church, Waterloo as a nursing home is at present under consideration.

Does the Commissioner accept that we believe that he must be apprehensive about giving a reply like that when the Church spends so much of its time saying that it looks after the inner city? One of the finest buildings in Bootle has been left empty for nearly 10 years. The diocese and the Commissioners are sitting on any application for the matter to be referred to the redundant churches fund. Will he allow that to happen this year?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 10 years of vacant standing in Bootle is an unacceptably long period. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been several attempts to try to persuade alternative users to come forward and in many cases promising schemes foundered at the last moment. However, there is at least now a positive scheme for a useful future for the church and under the impetus of the hon. Gentleman's question I will do everything to accelerate a definitive decision and a constructive future use for the church.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received from hon. Members about the organisation of the House; and if he will make a statement.

I receive representations on many aspects of this matter from hon. Members in all parts of the House. Hon. Members will know that I share a number of their concerns. Together with others, I am giving close consideration to ways of securing improvements and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

Is the Leader of the House aware that a real improvement that could be made in this place would be to start at a different time? Does he agree that the 2·30 pm kick-off is deliberately designed to allow hon. Members—mainly Tory Members—to make money by moonlighting outside this place? Is not it scandalous and bordering on the obscene when ex-Cabinet Ministers can pick up £250,000 for two days a week at Barclays bank and elsewhere and that others have four, five or six jobs while the workers are being told to go steady on wage rises and pensioners are being pushed through the hoop day in and day out? Why does not the Leader of the House introduce full-time Members of Parliament and get rid of the moonlighting?

I am comforted by the fact that most of the country judges the fatuity of the points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) by the intemperance of his arguments. Even if they had any validity, they would be destroyed by the way in which he presents them. The hon. Gentleman may recall that there was an experiment such as he suggested, with the House sitting during the morning——

I was not here then.

It was started even before the hon. Gentleman was here. He would have revelled in it. It was introduced under a substantial Labour majority in the House, but the experiment foundered after quite a short time.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the present system has served us well for a very long time and, furthermore, that those who were opposed to television—as I was—now find that many people look in to see what we are doing in the afternoon? In the morning they would be too busy to do that. Above all, we want hon. Members in this place who have time for other interests. This would be a dreadful place if we were all full-time employees. We must have outside experience which is most valuable.

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the calm way in which he presented the arguments that prevailed in the House when the matter was last considered about 20 years ago.

It is unsatisfactory for the Leader of the House to suggest that, because there was an experiment 20 years ago, we could not benefit from a review of the way in which we conduct our business now. This House seems to sit for more hours and more days than almost any other western legislature, and we are not conspicuously better at producing effective legislation. There is surely a case for us to examine again why we must sit for such long hours. Will the Leader of the House at least consider this matter under the auspicies of the Commission or in some other way and report back to the House?

The hon. Gentleman's point is entirely different from that of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is founded upon exactly the opposite premise. The hon. Member for Bolsover argues that the House is hardly manned at all, that we all do other things all the time and that, because of moonlighting, we are scarcely here. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) suggests, with much more reason, that the House sits longer hours than are reasonable compared with other legislatures. A suggestion of that kind, related also to the efficiency of our work, and put in the hon. Gentleman's moderate fashion, may deserve consideration. It is quite different from the point advanced by the hon. Member for Bolsover.

In view of the distinguished work that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done in opposing the Labour party's new policy review and the national executive, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider giving the hon. Gentleman special facilities and more accommodation in his new role of leader of the opposition to the Leader of the Opposition?

I shall consider the suggestion, but I fancy that it may be of more use to the nation, if not to the Labour party, for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to be exposed in public as much as possible.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will provide secure accommodation for the storage of records in the keeping of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the Select Committee on Defence.

I have received no representations from either my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) or my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) that they are experiencing any particular difficulty in this matter, but I note the hon. Gentleman's solicitous concern.

Would more secure accommodation speed up the process whereby Parliament can ask questions about this relationship between the Ministry of Defence and SGL? Can we chase the inquiries that Mr. Nicholas Comfort and others tell us the Conservative Chief Whip is making into the business links of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and clarify the Ministry of Defence's extremely carefully and ambiguously worded letter to me on possible American complaints about the hon. Member for Hampshire, East? Does the Leader of the House approve of the Chairman of a Select. Committee having such public relations links in matters that his Select Committee is supposed to scrutinise?

Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman's points arise in no respect out of his original question. Equally characteristically, he knows that they are the subject of an investigation by the Select Committee on Members' Interests and cannot sensibly be dealt with by this sort of question and answer. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise any points of substance, he can and should refer them to that Select Committee.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the original question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was on the security of Select Committee records and reports and so on? Is not it a fact that many hon. Members are extremely careless with their papers? When they leave Select Committes they often throw away their papers very carelessly. Reporters in this place are past masters at going through wastepaper bins and paper sacks, and rightly so if hon. Members are careless. Should not we be more careful with our paperwork? Sometimes hon. Members get hysterical at the paperwork that is put before them. But when Committees sit in public, at the end of the day, a report is written and all the stuff that they are keeping secure is in the published report. Does my right hon. and learned Friend wonder why there is all this fuss?

On the original question, all classified documents are registered and kept in secure facilities in secure areas. Members of Select Committees have access to them only under supervision in those circumstances. As I understand it, the Select Committee on Members' Interests would not have access to documents of that kind. My hon. Friend makes a fair point that was recently underlined by the Privileges Committee. Hon. Members should take greater care of important documents than some of them sometimes appear to do.

Is not it true that the fact that the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence has outside interests related to defence——

Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the question on the Order Paper, which is about the storage of records.

Is not it true that those links have caused consternation and that the Select Committee investigation, which will take up a great deal of time, may come across confidential documents that should be kept in secure places? Would not the whole matter be simplified if hon. Members who are Chairs of Select Committees did not have outside interests? Whatever the personal position, that would assure the public outside that there is no possible conflict of interest between the two.

The two questions are quite separate. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is investigating the broader question. Documents in the custody of the Select Committee on Defence are treated as top secret, registered and kept in secure facilities in secure areas.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to arrange for additional suitable statues (a) of parliamentarians and (b) of animals near the precints of Westminster; and if will make a statement.

My remit as Leader of the House does not extend beyond the parliamentary precincts. I therefore have no plans for statues of either parliamentarians or animals as my hon. Friend suggests. There will, however, be some interesting opportunities to place works of art in various forms in the new parliamentary building when it is occupied next year.

Why are not statues of parliamentarians, excluding animals, erected until after they are dead? Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage any suitable Committee to reconsider that decision? Although we do not want any mad cows in Parliament, will my right hon. and learned Friend promise to join me in leading a campaign to establish in or near Parliament a statue, with a fine steed, of the leader of any Government who succeed in preserving minimum standards for the export of horses and ponies after 1992?

As always, I am compelled to admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. However, as the rule that would prevent a statue of him from being erected until 10 years after his death has been in force since 1925, it has a respectable ancestry.