To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has made any estimate of the financial position of pensioners who receive social security pensions in the light of their expenditure patterns in relation to items such as telephones.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the increased prosperity of pensioners is reflected in the extent to which they now have access to important household items. For instance, 86 per cent. of pensioners had use of a telephone in 1989, compared with less than 50 per cent. in 1979. Those figures will be of considerable encouragement and comfort to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who has often raised the matter in parliamentary questions and who celebrates his 77th birthday today.

As it is so important for pensioners—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—to be able to telephone, and as this large and welcome increase has taken place because of the successful management of the economy by the Conservative Government, does my hon. Friend agree that such improvements could be placed at risk by the extravagant and foolish proposals of the Opposition?

Indeed. The extravagant expenditure proposed by Opposition Members will not benefit pensioners who need it most, and neither will they target resources on the poorest pensioners—their plans will result merely in large rises in national insurance for everyone, including the lower paid.

In regard specifically to disabled pensioners, will the Minister confirm that the local authority has a duty, under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to assess their need for a telephone; and that, as I was legally advised as Minister, for provision of a telephone to be withdrawn is unlawful without diminution in the need in any particular disabled pensioner's case?

The right hon. Gentleman has correctly interpreted the law on the responsibilities of local authorities. The Government are particularly concerned to channel extra help with telephones to elderly or infirm people who depend on the telephone as a lifeline, as so many do. We have therefore ensured a better deal than ever before for elderly and infirm people, whereby in many cases rental prices will be halved and low users will receive 30 free call units every quarter.

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind reference to me. The trend towards more people acquiring personal pensions is welcome, but would it be possible at some stage to publish proposals to encourage people to make their pension arrangements at an earlier stage? Would that not be a marvellous step towards encouraging people to take responsibility for their own pension arrangements as I know that the Government wish to do?

Indeed. My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that more than half the pensioners taking retirement, and a considerably larger proportion of all retired persons, have provision other than the state pension, of which personal pensions are one aspect. As the original question was about telephones, it may interest the House to know that the increase in pensioners' prosperity has been such that 70 per cent. now have central heating, compared with 43·2 per cent. under the last Labour Government, 96 per cent. have a fridge, 71 per cent. have a washing machine and 98 per cent. have a television.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he proposes to make any changes in the way income from savings is assessed for benefit purposes.

The present capital rules give the greatest help to those with the lowest savings. The rules continue to be kept under review, but no further change is proposed at present. Substantial changes were made only last year to the amount of capital that a person can have and still receive income-related benefits.

Does the Minister recognise that most of the people claiming housing and poll tax benefit under the existing regulations believe that, in 1991, £3,000 is a fairly modest amount of savings? Should not the tariffed income basis, which takes 20·8 per cent. interest, be amended? When people begin to lose in that way, should not something be done to give them a better deal?

The hon. Gentleman should do his sums again. He will find that there is a clawback of only 1·6 per cent. interest from those at the lower end of the income scale. The present system means that it is better to have a tariff than to take into account the actual income of those with low savings, because that is precisely the point at which the tariff benefits them. I know of nowhere else where interest would be assumed to be just 1·6 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government have no plans to introduce a tax on savings, as mooted by the Labour party?

I assure my hon. Friend that we have no such plans. Our plans will encourage savings and, more important from the pensioner's point of view, protect savings—unlike what happened to pensioners' savings under the last Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to adjust the earnings disregard for single parents on income support.

We increased the earnings disregard for working lone parents on housing benefit and community charge benefit to £25 per week from last October, but we have no plans at present to change the corresponding £15 income support disregard, which is already £10 higher than that for most other claimants.

As there has been an enormous growth in the proportion of lone parents dependent on income support under the present Government, because various changes have increased the poverty trap, would it not be much better to increase the disregard for income support and maintenance payments so that lone parents can move off benefits into semi-independence and then into work, rather than do as the Government have done and push more and more of them on to benefits, which the Conservatives then bellyache about because of the much bigger poverty trap?

The hon. Lady, despite her long-standing interest in these matters, has perhaps failed to focus on the fact that simply operating on income support earnings disregards works against the process that she wishes to advance of lone parents moving into what counts as full-time work. Much the more productive approach is to do what we have done, as I said in my first answer, and improve the earnings disregards for the in-work benefits. We shall build on that, in addition to the Child Support Bill proposals, by reducing the number of hours required to qualify a person for family credit and by introducing a maintenance disregard.

I accept that my right hon. Friend said that and I pay tribute to what the Government have done, but two lone parents who came to see me on Friday at my surgery in Penzance made the point that if the earnings disregard were raised from £15 they would be able to earn more through part-time work and therefore be able to devote more of their income to their children—for example, through school uniforms and school trips. Will my right hon. Friend consider that matter sympathetically?

To some extent, I am virtually driven to repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Perhaps some of those people who went to see my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) did not focus sufficiently on the proposed change that would reduce family credit hours—to use a form of shorthand—from 24 to 16, together with other changes that the Government have already made.

rose—

Hear, hear!

Does the Secretary of State accept that his argument in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was inadequate? My hon. Friend merely asked the Government to continue a policy that they have already begun and to raise the disregard. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as the disregard is increased, more single parents may find an opportunity to find part-time work—and, in the long run, a full-time job—and more single parents may be able to raise the cash to cover child care costs? If it was right in the past to raise the disregard, why is it wrong to raise it in the future?

First, to advert to the warm murmurs of approval from the House, I should say how delighted we all are, regardless of party, at the hon. Gentleman's success in Birkenhead at the end of last week.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total value of spending on family credit since its introduction.

In the three years since the introduction of family credit, we have spent approximately £1·3 billion in cash terms, or 1·4 billion at 1990–91 prices, and by the end of the present financial year we expect to have spent £1·8 billion.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average expenditure on family credit per family is about £30 per week, whereas average expenditure in today's terms on Labour's family income supplement would have been £11 per week? Does my hon. Friend therefore believe, as I do, that the modern Labour party is utterly hypocritical in its supposed concern for the poor when its Front-Bench spokesmen said that Labour would allow family credit to wither on the vine?

My hon. Friend's last point reminds me of the fact that whereas we have awarded family credit to 2 million people, the Labour party's policy for those on lower wages would mean the loss of 2 million jobs through the minimum wage proposals. My hon. Friend's figures for family credit are correct. In 1979 family income supplement was about £5·26, which is £13·50 in today's terms; 65 per cent. of people on family credit now get £20 per week or more, 30 per cent. get £40 per week, and 17 per cent. get £50 per week.

Will the Minister say a word about the difficulties of the self-employed? As some of my case work substantiates, the bureaucratic application procedures are especially difficult for self-employed people such as farmers and fishermen. I know that the Government are turning their attention to academic studies, but will the Minister say something positive today?

The hon. Gentleman does his self-employed constituents much service in the way he has represented them—especially the share fishermen—on the question of family credit. He will know, however, that nearly 45 per cent. of self-employed people receive £50 or more per week. The Government intend to take careful note of the research commissioned through the social policy research unit at York university, which is examining carefully the way in which family credit works for self-employed people, with a view to improving the delivery of the service to that group.

Does my hon. Friend accept that family credit and other benefits repay detailed consideration, and that even though there are serious differences between, for instance, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Government, it is one of the issues to which Militant and the far left have nothing to contribute and where they have never shown much interest in the poor?

As always, detail is an important element in social security. I made a detailed search of the Opposition's spending proposals for any changes that would benefit the people on family credit, but I could find none.

As family credit is essentially a state subsidy for low pay, will the Minister say by how much family credit spending would have decreased if a national minimum wage had been in place for the past three years?

I do not believe in answering hypothetical questions. The Conservative party has no intention of introducing such a ludicrous system. Family credit enables people to accept lower-paid work in order to get back to work, with the advantage of having their finances supplemented by family credit. That is something to be applauded.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the value of the average pensioner's income from savings and occupational pensions; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.

From 1979 to 1987, the average pensioner's net weekly income from savings increased from £9·10 to £20·90 and occupational pensions income increased from £13·20 to £23·30 at 1987 prices.

I welcome those figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that inflation remains the greatest threat to the prosperity of pensioners? In those terms, is she satisfied that the retail prices index accurately reflects the costs borne by those pensioners who depend mainly on the old age pension, or does she think that some other index of costs for pensioners should be sought?

At the moment, we have no plans to change the index by which we assess pensioners' incomes, but it is, of course, something which we always keep under review, and we shall continue to do so. From the figures that I gave my hon. Friend, however, it appears that our policies are working and are raising pensioners' overall incomes, which grew by a net 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987—an average of 3·5 per cent. per year—whereas between 1974 and 1979, when inflation was rampant, the average increase was a mere 0·6 per cent. per year.

Will the Minister confirm that all the figures that she has quoted are gross, and therefore conceal the enormous increase in the taxation of pensioners in the past 12 years? According to the figures that she herself produced in Hansard a fortnight ago, the poorest one fifth of pensioners paid 28 per cent. of their incomes in taxes in 1979 but now have to pay more than 40 per cent. How can she justify the fact that after 12 years of Toryism those pensioners are paying proportionately more in tax than was paid by the richest one fifth of households in 1979, when we were told that high taxes were driving the rich out of the country?

The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic does not improve with each new statement that he makes. Those were, indeed, my statements, but the hon. Gentleman is persistent in either accidentally misunderstanding or deliberately misinterpreting such statements. I said clearly at the start that the figures that I gave were net.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) has said, the best Government for pensioners is the Government who keep inflation firmly under control, as the Conservative Government have done for the past 12 years? In that respect, will she assure pensioners and the House that her Department will ensure that spending is prudent and does not get out of control, in contrast with the plans of the Labour party, which would unleash massive inflation and thus ruin the standard of living of all pensioners? Will my hon. Friend give the House that assurance?

Indeed, public opinion appears to be waking up to the dreadful implications of Labour's spending plans, as shown by the movements in opinion measured at the weekend. We shall, of course, pursue a prudent policy. We shall not promise what we cannot deliver, and we shall not promise to spend vast sums that will then have to be raised from the taxes and national insurance contributions of the less well off as well as from others.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider making some special provision for students during the summer vacation who are unable to obtain temporary employment; and if he will make a statement.

Financial support for full-time students is properly the responsibility of the education maintenance system, which has been considerably enhanced in the current financial year.

The Minister has ignored my question, which was about the assistance available to students who cannot obtain casual employment during the vacation and who, with their families, will therefore face hardship. I am asking whether the Minister is prepared to give those students some assistance, either through income support or in some other way, when they find that the requests that they make to employers for casual employment are met with the answer, "No, we cannot help you." Will those students be given some assistance for the summer vacation? Can we have a direct answer?

The hon. Gentleman referred to students and their families. Those in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, student couples with children, and disabled students, will be entitled to access to the benefit system. The role for supporting other students lies with the access funds set up by the Department of Education and Science. To make provision also through the benefit system would be to make double provision. The institutions are aware that access funds should be available not only during term time but during vacations.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many of his colleagues were students in the past? Is it not better to target the available money to the genuinely less well off in society rather than to students who, when they have completed their training, will have the opportunity to earn considerable sums of money as a result of their privileged opportunity to become highly qualified?

I do not dissent from that for one moment. It must be recognised that provision for supporting students has been substantially improved during the current academic year and students in difficulty can fall back on access funds.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government's ending of all entitlement to benefit for 16 to 17-year-olds, and the imposition of a lower rate of benefit for 18 to 25-year-olds have pushed more young people, including students, into poverty than ever before? Is he aware that the link between poverty and inadequate diet, ill health and low educational achievement has been conclusively demonstrated in a series of research studies published in the past month? When will the Minister and his colleagues apologise to the House, not just for the fact that poverty has more than doubled in the past 12 years but for the fact that it is now conclusively shown that the main cause of the growth in poverty is the Government's policies?

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in bringing 16 and 17-year-olds into an argument about full-time students, which manifestly they are not. Secondly, I deny absolutely that there has been a growth in poverty under this Government. Labour Members' tendentious use of statistics seeking to prove that case has been absolutely refuted by statistics which have been widely available for some time. We are monitoring carefully the impact of the changes on 16 and 17-year-olds, but I still believe that it was bad for society for youngsters to be leaving school and going directly on to benefit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward regulations to restrict self-investment by pension funds.

As my hon. Friend may be aware, draft regulations for restricting self-investment by pension funds have been referred to the Occupational Pensions Board for consideration. The board has consulted widely on the proposals and will consider the responses at its next meeting, in July. We intend to bring forward draft regulations as soon as practicable after that.

The draft regulations are undoubtedly a step in the right direction and will be widely welcomed. Does my hon. Friend accept that some financial institutions believe that any level of self-investment, other than for very small funds, is undesirable not only because of double jeopardy but because of conflicts of interest in take-over situations and problems with insider dealing legislation?

My hon. Friend is right. A body of opinion holds that no self-investment could be ideal. I hope that my hon. Friend will also appreciate that it would be impractical to try to move towards that when there has been a certain amount of self-investment in property. To insist on immediate disinvestment of that nature would mean that firms would be disposing of the very assets that they use on a day-to-day basis. Although I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that it will feature in the consultations, the position of certain companies is such that total disinvestment would be neither practical nor desirable.

Is it not time that employees received far greater protection for their pension funds through legislation? The Government continually talk about involving parents in school decisions and about enabling doctors to opt out of the national health service, so how about allowing employees to make decisions about how their pension fund money is used? Those funds should be protected from predators such as Hanson, who was stopped in the courts last time but who considers taking over such companies with a view to using the money from pension funds for other purposes. The workers deserve protection. When will they get it?

They already have protection to a large measure and the regulations that we are introducing are designed to improve it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pension funds are already protected by requirements for the reserves kept, so they are far less easy to plunder than he suggests. Nevertheless, what he says is important and will not be overlooked. It has formed the basis of much that we are now trying to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when a Minister from his Department last visited the national family credit unit at North Fylde.

I visited the family credit unit at Blackpool on 30 May 1991 and was delighted to be able to mark the 2 millionth award of family credit since the scheme started in 1988 and to put on record, as I do this afternoon, my appreciation to the staff for all their efforts in delivering this high-quality benefit.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average family in need now receives about £30 a week in family credit compared with about £11 a week under the old income supplement scheme? Is not that evidence of our ability to deliver to families in social need and does not it compare favourably with the wild and uncosted promises from the Labour party?

My hon. Friend adverts to the fact that Opposition Members have a policy of allowing family credit to wither on the vine. In putting the fertiliser on the roots, we have been able to ensure that the take-up of the benefit has grown to a record caseload of 328,000 people. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted about the awards made are entirely correct.

Is the Minister satisfied with the speed with which applications are dealt, especially those concerning the self-employed? The procedures there seem to be so bureaucratic that many families are left on the breadline. There may be a back payment once a decision is reached, but that is no consolation to such families.

The performance of the family credit unit is the subject of continual concern and of continual monitoring by the Benefits Agency. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that in March the performance target of dealing with all claims in about 18 days was exceeded, although subsequently some operational difficulties have caused a one-day delay. In general, the cases of the self-employed present particular complexities. That is what the research to which I referred a moment ago is designed to cure. I give the hon. Lady the assurance that we will do all that we can to deal with the problem to which she has rightly drawn my attention.

Why has not the Minister linked the questions on family credit?

I chose not to link the questions because we give, I hope, service from the Dispatch Box and we like to respond to every question put to us by hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman shows the assiduity of his attendance in the House by the fact that he was unable to be in front of his television set during February and March. If he had, he would have seen our latest advertising campaign, which drew people's attention to a message printed in 6·8 million child benefit order books, or on the automatic credit transfer letter, giving to every family with children a detailed message about the family credit to which they might be entitled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the cost of that advertising campaign—£1·5 million to reach 6·87 million families—was damn good value for money.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are expected to gain from the proposed reduction in the number of hours that must be worked in order to qualify for family credit.

Our latest estimate is that there is potential for about 65,000 families where a parent is currently working between 16 and 24 hours to gain from the change in the hours rule. In addition, this should also encourage more people to take up employment and so improve their income with the help of family credit.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What is the maximum that a lone parent with, say, two children under the age of 11 can earn? Does he agree that the Government have eradicated the benefit precipice for lone parents and replaced it with the excellent bridge of family credit, thus encouraging more lone parents back to work?

In my speech on the Second Reading of the Child Support Bill I referred to example 10 in the White Paper "Children Come First", which is a clear exposition of the benefits of our proposal. It shows that a lone parent with a child could be much better off in work with family credit and at the same time meet about £45 of in-work costs. Our proposals reduce a person's step-up from income support back into work and are a worthwhile development.

Does the Minister agree that it is misleading to say that there are 2 million recipients of family credit because each applicant has to apply every six months and many people are being counted three or four times? Is not it also highly misleading to quote the number of applications for family credit when there is a 42 per cent. turndown of applicants? Is not it equally misleading to draw a comparison with the previous family income supplement figures when many of the benefits under the previous regime were cut in the 1988 review? When will the Government give straight answers to straight questions?

In about one second. I do not choose to mislead the House by one iota. I have made it abundantly clear that my answers are about the number of successful awards. Anybody who looks at those will see how the figures are constructed. This benefit has enabled us to put £1·4 billion to the benefit of people in low-income employment to help them to maintain their position in the workplace. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's figure of 42 per cent. However, I recognise that 70 per cent. of present applicants for family credit are successful.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider establishing intermediate supplementary assistance on a short-term basis to assist older employees suffering unexpected redundancies; and what information he has on the practice in other countries in respect of short-run social security help to complement conventional unemployment payments made from public funds for older members of the work force.

A range of social security payments may be claimed by older workers who are made redundant in addition to redundancy payments from their employer, which are based on age and length of service.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. We all hope that the recession is beginning to abate and that there will soon be an upturn in the economy. However, there will be a time lag, which is particularly hard on the growing number of redundancies of people who are 50-plus, because such people experience difficulty getting other jobs. We all know of such cases in our constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend consider some additional mechanism, bearing in mind the fact that it is Government policy to try to tailor some benefits to individual needs?

The latest figures, which I think reflect the latest analysis in detail, show that the number of unemployed over the age of 50 fell by about 45,000 between April 1989 and April 1991. I do not intend to build too much on that, but it is an interesting point. Those who become unemployed and entitled to income support after the age of 60 are entitled to what in other circumstances would be called the pensioner premium. That may assuage some of my hon. Friend's concern.

Does the Secretary of State accept that they are the very people who are facing an ever-diminishing state pension? They read about the massive profits announced by the electricity companies over the last week or so and hear of fat salaries being paid to the chairman and directors of British Gas. Will the Secretary of State give those people some hope for the future by restoring pensions to the levels at which they would have been if they had been index-linked in the way that they were under the last Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead anybody. The retirement pension has been index-linked to the retail prices index and its value has been fully and faithfully protected. The social reality reflected in the earlier answers from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is that this age group includes a growing number of people benefiting from the development of occupational and personal pensions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of current family credit applications are being approved.

I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the success rate for family credit claims in May 1991 was 74·1 per cent., the highest ever.

May I say to my hon. Friend how welcome are the Government's effective efforts in increasing the take-up of this important benefit? Are not the two great advantages of the benefit that it provides an added incentive for people to work their way out of their difficulties, unlike the FIS system, and that this system pays 272 per cent. more for the average family?

Earlier I alluded to the percentage of people on different levels of family credit. For many it is a stairway back into the world of work. The improvements that we shall make, with the reduction of hours, will introduce more people to the opportunities available and we shall be looking at further campaigns to ensure that the message continues to get through to those who need help.

Should not there be some concern about the many people whom employers are exploiting by paying them the lowest possible wage? I am glad about the take-up of benefit, because anything that increases the income of such people is to be welcomed, but we must remember that the main responsibility should be with the employer. Some poorly paid workers are bound to compare their plight with the position of the chairman of British Gas, with his obscene increase of 66 per cent. Perhaps we can have some reflections from the Government about what happened last week.

Sometimes Labour Members do not seem to be living in the real world. I should like to take the hon. Gentleman to a biscuit factory in my constituency, where many of the work force are able to obtain family credit. The employer puts on display in the entrance hall a copy of the family credit pack. Those people are on seasonal employment, making biscuits for the Christmas trade. Their hourly rate is quite reasonable, but the number of hours that they work each week is not sufficient to give them an adequate income for their families. However, their income is made adequate because they are able to claim family credit.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what was the number of commissioners at the last meeting of the Church Commissioners, (a) voting for and (b) voting against (i) the proposal to use £1 million of the Church Commissioners funds towards the church urban fund and (ii) the proposal to use £0·5 million of the Church Commissioners' funds towards the church urban fund; whether the Church Commissioners follow a policy of majority voting at their meetings; and when the Church Commissioners will implement the wishes of the commissioners on this subject as decided at their last meeting.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the last meeting of the commissioners' board of governors, on 23 May. It is not the commissioners' practice to disclose voting figures relating to the internal and confidential discussions, but all the board's decisions, including those to which I am about to refer, are made on a majority vote, after the expression of opinion by individual governors. The board was meeting to decide recommendations for the allocation of surplus income to the commissioners' annual general meeting, to be held on 26 June. In the light of financial problems caused by the recession, but with considerable reluctance, it decided that it was unable to recommend a further immediate grant to the church urban fund, but would review the position towards the end of this year.

I am grateful for that answer, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread anger and disbelief because it is widely known that the majority view of the board of governors was that the church urban fund should receive £1 million, or at least £500,000, in grant from the Church Commissioners? It expressed that view in a vote at its last meeting. Is the reality that the annual general meeting this Wednesday of the Church Commissioners has the power to continue to enact the policy of the Church and the new archbishop to give money to the church urban fund, or will the AGM be told that it is not in its power to deal with a recommendation by saying, "We do not accept the recommendation. We believe that we should give money to the church urban fund"? A cut because of the recession may be acceptable, but a removal of all grant is not.

The hon. Gentleman is being a little alarmist about the church urban fund. The majority voting that he quoted—it has not been published—refers to the second review meeting later in the year. The majority voting reflected the preference of the majority of governors in relation to the subsequent meeting.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that much of the funding of the church urban fund comes from parishes through the payment of quota? Does he agree that over the years heroic sums have been raised by way of quota for the fund, often from small parishes that have been asked to carry a huge burden? The decision that my right hon. Friend announced today will not prejudice the moneys that are going into the fund and it will be greatly welcomed by the many thousands of fund-raisers in small parishes throughout the country.

I endorse my hon. Friend's reference to the particular generosity of small parishes. I am sure, however, that he will bear in mind the fact that there is some potential buoyancy, to put it no higher, in the amounts contributed through parish collections. The average donation of church members is only £2 a week, which is about 2 per cent. of their average net personal disposable income. The average donation is not a gigantic sum.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many redundant churches have been sold or leased to churches which are not mainstream Christian denominations.

Since 1969, 90 redundant churches have been acquired for worship by other Christian bodies. It is not for the commissioners to judge which of these are "mainstream", in the terms of the question, but I am letting the hon. Gentleman have a list of those which have been made available.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I welcome redundant churches being taken over by Sikhs and Muslims for their temples. I am concerned about some of the right-wing, fundamentalist, out-to-lunch religious groups, such as the Ronald Reagan holy jellybean church. I have a letter from a friendly cleric in the east end of London, in which he tells me that some loony churches are telling members of their congregations that to vote Labour will damn their eternal souls or that it would cause their bottoms to drop off. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would deprecate such wild statements being made. I hope that he will encourage the Church Commissioners to ensure that the loony fundamentalist churches do not get hold of redundant buildings.

If the loony left in the London Labour party were to take to the Christian religion, I suspect that it would swing markedly to the right. The loony religious aspect to which the hon. Gentleman referred rarely finds expression in overt political dispositions, of either the right or the left. Where there is any doubt whether the church is mainstream in the Christian sense of the word, consultations are widely held locally. The hon. Gentleman will be invited to sit in judgment on whether a mainstream church is well represented by a loony fundamentalist church. I hope that when he meets some of the fundamentalist churches, especially from the Afro-Caribbean sector, he will discern how extremely desirable, honourable and religious—in the best sense of the word—they are.

To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 10 May, Official Report, column 603, what evaluation he has made of the value for money of paying the sum referred to to Saxon Bampfylde as headhunters in order to select a new director of works for the Palace of Westminster.

The Commission itself decided that management consultants should be used to assist in making an appointment to the important new post of director of works. The firm concerned was chosen from a list of six originally approached. The price charged was at the lower end of the tenders and I understand that the firm performed its duties very well. I expect an announcement of the name of the director of works to be made shortly.

What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have for using the words, "very well"? The firm having netted a cool £20,500 from the taxpayer, should not the House expect that in that which is done in its name a certain courtesy of confidence should be extended to candidates asked to apply by civil servants and permanent secretaries who have known them for a long time?

There were more than 200 applicants for that post and the consultants did a great deal of work in looking at the applications. If the hon. Gentleman has come across an unsatisfactory communication of some kind, I should be happy to look into the matter.

On recruitment, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave me on 14 May, when he would not tell me what the educational qualifications were for the Clerk's Department?

That is a bit wide of the question.

I was going to point out, Mr. Speaker, that that supplementary did not arise from the original question.

To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is (a) the average wage per hour of those working in the House of Commons Refreshment Department, (b) the average percentage of hours worked that is paid for at other than ordinary rates and (c) the average number of hours worked; and if he will make a statement.

The average hourly wage of full-time industrial staff in the Refreshment Department is £4·67. The hourly rates from which that figure derives range from £7·32 to £4·18; it also compares with average hourly rates in the catering trade of £3·65 for men and £3·14 for women.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his factual answer. Many of the people who work in the House live in my constituency and, as their representative, I must tell my hon. Friend that one of their great concerns is that their wages are not sufficient to enable them to stay here. The level of staff retention in the service Departments of the House is lower than it might be. Can we please consider the matter, as we want to hold on to good staff, whom the House values and would like to continue to employ?

The Commission is constrained by the statutory duty to keep pay rates in line with those of the civil service. However, it seeks to retain staff and there are some remarkably loyal and long-serving staff in the Departments of the House. The Commission will do its best to ensure that they have a satisfactory career.

To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what are the estimated savings in running costs if the House of Commons retained its average length of sitting days but imposed a limit of midnight on all proceedings.

The total savings possible as a result of the House deciding to alter its hours of sitting would depend upon a number of factors, such as the predictability of the duration of sittings, the terms of any renegotiated conditions of service that might be necessary and whether there was an overall reduction in sitting hours. Those factors would be difficult and costly to quantify. I do not think that the exercise could be justified unless the House was considering specific proposals.

Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman agree that such savings are likely to be considerable, because much money is spent in sustaining our acts of collective masochism? That money is not a good investment in our democracy.

Yes, Sir, so long as there was an overall reduction in the hours during which the House sat and a great deal of work did not bunch up, to such an extent that additional staff had to be recruited to deal with it.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent meetings he has held with opposition parties to discuss the establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

None, recently.

Surprise, surprise. Is not it appalling that given that there is much speculation that the House may review its procedures and mechanisms for working, it is still in breach of one of its Standing Orders through its failure to appoint a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs at a time when many issues in the Scottish economy and Scottish society need investigation? Is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman's Back Benchers from Scotland more important to him than the rights of the Scottish nation? Or has he just given up altogether?

No, and I have been in Scotland all this weekend. The hon. Lady should not be surprised at my answer, because on 22 May in response to a question from her I said that I did not expect to add anything about a Scottish Select Committee after the recess and there has been no change in circumstances to warrant further meetings. The hon. Lady also asked me on that occasion about progress on the Scottish Grand Committee; I am pleased to be able to tell the House that progress has been made on that matter. The Committee met twice last week and will meet tomorrow and at least two more dates have been fixed.

How many representations has my right hon. Friend received from the Scottish people on this issue?

Personally, I have received none.

Nevertheless, should not an answer be given to the question why we continue to be in breach of our Standing Orders? Is not this the mother of Parliaments? Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue not to do his duty and why is he sustaining a policy of neglect as regards Scotland?

There is no policy of neglect—I have just said that the Scottish Grand Committee has been meeting regularly—and nor is the House in breach of its Standing Orders. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the debate on 20 December 1988, the House recognised the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate hon. Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his estimate of the average number of oral questions submitted each day; how many of these are committed to written status after failing to secure a place in the ballot for oral questions; and if he will make a statement.

The average number of oral questions submitted each day is approximately 170. It is estimated that only about 1 per cent. are retabled by hon. Members as written questions after being unsuccessful in the shuffle for oral questions. The evidence suggests that the procedural change relating to the printing of questions has been a successful innovation and is widely accepted by the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when hon. Members have taken the trouble to table questions, they have done so for a particular purpose and that it would be valuable if those questions were answered? Does he therefore agree that questions that are not among the first 30 drawn in the ballot should automatically be tabled as written questions?

That was neither recommended nor agreed and there is a good reason for that. It is open to any hon. Member who wishes to have his question answered to retable it as a written question and the fact that only 1 per cent. have done so suggests that many are satisfied. Moreover, the House has a duty to use taxpayers' money wisely and the change has saved several hundred thousand pounds in printing costs alone.

Does the right hon. Gentleman include in that 1 per cent. my question to the Prime Minister, which I have tabled seven times, but which has remained unanswered seven times because I was not lucky in the shuffle, asking about information requested from the sequestrators of the National Union of Mineworkers? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, on a matter such as the appalling situation that has arisen in relation to the NUM and the lawyers, when a man has tabled a question five times, that question should at least be answered orally?

The hon. Gentleman is no different from any other hon. Member; if his question is unsuccessful in the shuffle, it is not reached during oral questions.

At risk of sounding like a long-playing gramophone record, may I again draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, if an oral question is not reached, an answer to it still appears on the board? Surely it would be sufficient just to print it in the record and it is not necessary to have a great paper chase when an oral question is not reached. Would not that save considerable resources and money?

It is a different matter when an oral question is not reached because it is one that was likely to be answered. We are talking about circumstances in which a question is unsuccessful in the shuffle and is not retabled by the hon. Member in question. When that happens, the question is not answered; nor is an answer put on the board. I believe that that is right, because the practice involves considerable savings in civil servants' time and because the original practice has been proved not to be necessary.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what further discussions he has had in relation to hours of work and procedures in the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.

I have been having a number of discussions and hope to make an announcement shortly.

Why cannot the Leader of the House make an announcement? Is it because he does not know how to deal with the request that has probably been made about the ending of the pairing system, another name for which is organised truancy, or has he got caught up in requests coming from the Common Market that all these MEPs and bureaucrats—federalists—should be allowed in here to crawl all over the place? Who is running the right hon. Gentleman's Department? Is it Jacques Delors?

It has nothing to do with either point. The pairing system has nothing to do with our hours of work and procedures. The question of access to various parts of Parliament—of the building—by MEPs is being considered by the Services Committee, but that is an entirely different matter from the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend make a serious effort to produce the review of working hours? It has become a fetish or shibboleth for Ministers, and other right hon. and hon. Members with important responsibilities, to walk around like ashen-faced zombies through overwork late at night. There is no merit in that; it makes no sense and brings the House no credit outside. Will my right hon. Friend do something, fast?

I do not think that there are any zombies here.

The Leader of the House will find a large measure of agreement and support for any proposal that he may present for a wide-ranging review of our practices and procedures, our sitting hours and related matters. May I urge him to present such a proposal, following his normal meticulous consultations? Will he also make an oral statement in the Chamber, so that the wide range of views can be expressed and we can have a genuine exchange here, rather than dealing with it by way of a written reply?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I share a number of views about the ways in which we can improve the workings of the House and I have always been extremely grateful for the co-operative manner in which he has approached such issues. This is very much a House of Commons matter. What has emerged from the many discussions in which I have participated is that wide variety of views. There is often a conflict of opinions, not between the two sides of the House but between hon. Members of all parties.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress in refurbishing the exterior of the Palace of Westminster.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the stonework repair and cleaning programme has now reached the Victoria Tower. Good progress is being made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general public are extremely pleased with the progress that has been made in improving the exterior of the Palace? Are there any plans to continue the work in the interior courtyard to improve the view for the staff?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The work has greatly enhanced this part of London and an historic building and it is widely appreciated. It is intensive work and must be undertaken at times that cause the least inconvenience to Members of both Houses.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the incompetence, intimidation, waste and subservience to trade union dictation which have characterised left wing administration in Liverpool, and have caused untold damage to the city and its people; calls for broadly based government in the city to restore basic services and to pursue policies of fiscal rectitude, decentralised administration, partnership with private enterprise and consultation with the people of Liverpool; and believes that such an administration should be given strong backing by Her Majesty's Government.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those very good figures are due to the slackening of the chains that had been imposed by the unions on the ports in Liverpool and to the removal of the dock labour scheme and, as a result, that Liverpool is now going great guns?

If the hon. Lady follows my speech, she will realise that there are two tales to tell—one is of a city that is prosperous and vibrant with a great, outward-looking and confident face, while the other is of the politics that have dragged the city down. There are two tales to tell.

Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that, at the start of the debate on Liverpool, only half Liverpool's Members of Parliament are present and that two Labour Members who represent Liverpool are not even in the Chamber?

I am not entirely surprised, because none of them was present for last week's Adjournment debate on empty housing, but I am glad that at least some of them are present today.

I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was absent from our debate on Friday and that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made no comment on that subject at the time. I make no apology for drawing attention to the difficulties caused by the abject failure of Liverpool local authority, as Liverpudlians in Bournemouth said over the weekend. Obviously, I do not castigate the entire Liverpudlian community, as the hon. Gentleman will hear if he finds time to stay in the Chamber for the rest of the debate.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. However, as he well knows, only one Liberal Democrat Member is ever called in a debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who also represents a Merseyside constituency, contributed to that debate. It is extraordinary that the Minister should have said:

"I do not know whether that is true, but I have no reason to doubt that allegation."—[Official Report, 21 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 641]

They kicked the Liberals out.

Despite the inverventions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the majority of people in Liverpool have never voted for those confrontational politics. In the local elections this year, 56,000 people voted for the Liberal Democrats, compared with only 52,000 people who voted Labour. Even at the height of its power, Militant-led Labour never won a majority of the city's votes. Yet despite the popular vote, at no time since 1971 have the Liberals had an overall majority on the city council. For 10 of the past 20 years, including the last eight, Labour has had an overall majority on the council. For 16 of the past 20 years, Labour has been the largest party on the council, although between 1979 and 1983 it refused to govern and plunged the city into chaos.

Is not the more important and significant point the fact that the vast majority of the citizens of Liverpool voted for no politician at all during that period, because they think so little of us?

The number of people voting in local elections increased throughout many of the years to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so his point is not entirely accurate. The turnouts in parliamentary elections in Liverpool are identical to those in the Wirral and elsewhere.

The point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make is that the entrepreneurial spirit of Liverpool is alive and well but that we are concerned about the problems connected with the council. Will he confirm that the debate is not unassociated with the Liverpool, Walton by-election? If we extrapolate from the results of the 2 May council elections, we find that Labour polled 12,491 votes in the Walton constituency and the hon. Gentleman's party 10,687, giving Labour a narrow lead. Militant stood in only one ward and polled 1,626 votes to take Anfield. A divided party is in control of Liverpool council. That is the major problem that Liverpool faces.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention, which makes my case—

It is a good job they did not have PR.

The hon. Member for Bolsover says that it was a good job that we did not have proportional representation. If we had had PR, Militant would never have been in control in the first place. If there had been a fair result, reflecting the will of the people of Liverpool in May, the city would not be in its present chaos.

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's second speech. I guess that there was a different speech before the Church leaders made their pronouncement at the weekend. That is why we hear this Worlock speech. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of PR, why did he complain five minutes ago that the Liberal Democrats did not get overall control? As they had control along with somebody else several years ago, why did they make such a mess of things, and why did they get kicked out?

My point is not that we demand overall control on a minority of votes. The point of the motion—the hon. Gentleman should read it—is that it seeks a broadly based partnership. That would probably not be with the hon. Member for Bolsover, I must admit, or with his part of the Labour party. I hope that there are members of the Labour party and members of the Conservative party who put the city's interests first who would be prepared to work with us. It would be fascinating to know which of the two candidates in the Walton by-election the hon. Member for Bolsover will support and campaign for.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman for an answer that his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir. C. Smith) promised viewers on "North Westminster" yesterday? He promised an explanation why, on six or seven occasions the Liberal Democrat group on the council has voted against the majority Labour position on the budget, after having entered into an agreement. I hope that, as a Liverpool Member, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—and not his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale—will tell us why the Liberal Democrats have ducked out of the agreement.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point as it is a canard that has been thrown around over the past few days. If the hon. Gentleman studies what happened in Liverpool last week, he will see that the points that had been agreed in advance between the Liberal Democrat group and moderate Labour members were held to in the council meeting. The Labour group tried to push through a further 94 redundancies involving housing maintenance workers, which had not been agreed in advance and which were slipped in after a closed meeting which did not involve members of my own party. As a result, the second part of the motion was opposed by my colleagues. It was opposed in a Liberal Democrat amendment, for which four members of the so-called moderate group, members of the far left group and one of the two Conservatives voted. As a result the democratic will of the majority of council members was carried.

The hon. Gentleman says that what he describes as the second budget decision arose directly from a decision that was encouraged by the Liberal group on Liverpool city council on 10 March to embark on a budget with £10 million of unspecified cuts. How does the hon. Gentleman square such cuts with not voting for them when the real position is known and decisions have to be taken?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it had never been discussed at any stage. Given that 5,900 council-owned properties are empty in the city, the last group of workers that we thought should be reduced further were repair and maintenance staff. Last year, £4·5 million was lost in uncollected rents on those properties and that money would have come to the city coffers if the decision had not been implemented. Grievous bodily harm has been inflicted upon Liverpool as a direct result of decisions taken and the politics practised in the city over the past 20 years. I shall give some examples.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way towards the end of my speech.

"Scab councillor faces death threat ordeal."

What about Mr. Heferon?

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I raised that case in the first instance and, as a result, attempts were made to expel me—which is becoming quite common. As a result of my actions, that case was investigated and police action was taken.

"It was thuggery masquerading as trade unionism."

"What about the role of the Broadgreen MP? Whose side is he on after the open split between Labour and the Broad Left? Expelling Militant councillors from the Labour party is one thing, but Mr. Kinnock must realise that the credibility of his party is damaged by some of his MPs."

I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's mention of the Labour leader calling for non-payment of poll tax. The hon. Gentleman should know that not only did the leader of the Labour party express opposition to breaking the law, but his policy was confirmed by an overwhelming majority at the Labour party conference.

I am grateful for the explanation from the hon. Member for West Derby. I am sure that the House would like to hear from the hon. Member for Broadgreen or, if they were here, the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry).

I am sure that every reasonable Member will be appalled by the story that the hon. Gentleman is telling us. He has made it clear, that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen Mr. Fields) is still a supporter of Militant. No doubt the hon. Member for Broadgreen will be supporting the Militant candidate in the Liverpool, Walton by-election. It will be up to the hon. Gentleman to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to confirm that.

I find it extraordinary that the hon. Members for Garston and for Riverside are not here to speak in the debate. I have not been told that they are unable to attend, for whatever reason. No doubt other Labour Members will be able to explain who they will be supporting and why their two colleagues are not present.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

'reaffirms its belief in Liverpool as one of this country's great cities with a proud history and prospects for a secure future; condemns the incompetence, intimidation, waste and subservience to trade union dictation which have characterised successive administrations in Liverpool over the past decade and have caused untold damage to the City and its people; calls for better Government in the City to restore basic services and to pursue policies of fiscal rectitude, decentralised administration, partnership with central Government and private enterprise and consultation with the people of Liverpool; notes the steps taken by the present administration in response to the Government's compulsory competitive tendering legislation to put the interests of its residents first by contracting with a private sector firm for refuse collection; and commends the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for supporting the Conservative policy of fair and open competition in Liverpool, in the knowledge that it is right, but observes with dismay the Labour Party's opposition to it elsewhere in the country.'

I meant phase 2.

I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman is right. The concept was born in 1981; the triumphs were of the 1980s. The hon Gentleman may have attended upon the phase 2 extension of what the Government set up, but the idea that he played any part in achieving it is a flight of fancy of the most extreme Liberal sort. When the Liberals ran Liverpool the site consisted of 60 acres of rotting land owned, I believe, by British Rail, on the verge of land owned by a company—Plessey. We bought them together with Government money and created the concept of the Wavertree industrial park. It is one of the finest examples of how our inner cities can be regenerated, and it has nothing to do with the Liberal party.