TO ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total value of occupational pension funds in the United Kingdom.

In 1992, the estimated total value of occupational pension funds in the United Kingdom was well in excess of £400,000 million.

Will the Minister confirm that the occupational pension scheme is the key pillar of pension schemes in Britain today? Is he aware, however, that half a million people will lose a total of £1 million as a direct result of Government advice to invest in the private sector? Will he give a guarantee that those who are affected will be notified so that they can claim the money due to them?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from. I had hoped that he would welcome my answer, which shows that the UK's funded personal pension provision is better than that of any other country in the European Union, but as he did not do so I shall say only that the basic pillar of our pension provision is the state retirement pension, which we shall continue to uprate in line with prices. This country's occupational pension provision is very good indeed.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's first answer, but I remind him that occupational and private pensions have a sting in their tail. Often, having paid in for a generation, people have found that those pensions do not come up to expectations. Will he, therefore, regularly and rigorously review occupational and private pension schemes?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the Pensions Bill, the Second Reading of which the House of Lords will debate tomorrow and which will make pension provision more secure and more flexible. It offers more choice and greater opportunity to provide for equality in pensions. All that will be good news for pension provision in this country.

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), does the Minister share the views expressed by the Independent Financial Advisers Association, as set out in today's edition of The Independent, which has taken court action to seek to avoid its duties and responsibilities to the 500,000 people who purchased personal pensions? Will the Minister give a guarantee, for which my hon. Friend asked, that all persons who have lost out due to the mis-selling of private pension schemes will be contacted and their schemes protected?

This is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board. The Government have made it plain throughout that their view is that those who have suffered loss through the mis-selling of personal pensions should have redress, and that remains our position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the Social Security Select Committee's fifth report of Session 1993–94 on the operation of the Child Support Act 1991.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for further reform of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have kept the operation of the Child Support Act 1991 under review for some considerable time. We have considered very carefully the recent report of the Social Security Select Committee and representations from many sources. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that the Government have now decided what changes are necessary, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement to the House within the hour.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I appreciate his difficulties in providing me with the information that I should like before our right hon. Friend's statement at 3.30 pm, but will he assure me that the Government have taken due notice of the fact that, too often under the present system, neither the parent with care nor the absent parent is satisfied? In particular, will he reassure me that the Government have carefully considered the need to reflect the importance of clean-break settlements and travel-to-work costs in any decision that the House may take?

It is not possible, for reasons that, I suspect, my hon. Friend knows well, to go as far as he would like. I imagine, however, that quite a lot of my right hon. Friend's statement will meet his concerns.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in instituting medical tests for incapacity benefit.

The detailed provisions of the new tests of incapacity for work are set out in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 24 November. The regulations are subject to affirmative resolution, and will be debated by both Houses of Parliament.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he confirm that the medical test for incapacity is the most sophisticated of its type in the world and that it is designed to identify reduced ability to perform activities and most certainly not reduced likelihood to obtain a job? Does he agree that that offers great reassurance to general practitioners, carers and, above all, disabled people themselves?

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one who is genuinely sick or disabled has anything to fear from the new test. Extensive development work and evaluations have shown that the test works as intended. Full preparations are now under way for its introduction later this year.

Is the Minister aware that a number of people have already been refused invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit? Will he reassure the House that, when incapacity benefit is introduced, those people will not fall through the net between the two benefits?

A decision that a person is capable of work applies to unemployment benefit or the jobseeker's allowance; one cannot have separate decisions for separate benefits. People who apply for unemployment benefit or the jobseeker's allowance must make themselves available for work and be actively seeking work, but within the limits of their physical or mental condition.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the welcome that has been given to the recognition in the arrangements for the transition to incapacity benefit that older people aged 58 and above deserve special consideration? May I therefore ask my hon. Friend to consider introducing a similarly sensitive recognition into the permanent arrangements for assessing eligibility? Will he consider whether it will really be necessary to put older claimants through the same hoops as younger claimants?

I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the transitional arrangements. He will understand that it will be very important to ensure that the new test is fairly applied, and is seen to be fairly applied, and that incapacity benefit is awarded fairly throughout the population. That must be uppermost in our minds.

Can the Minister account for the huge discrepancy in the different estimates of the number of people likely to lose benefit because of the new incapacity medical test? In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in December 1994, it was estimated that 220,000 people would lose over the first two years. By January, according to the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the figure had risen to 285,000 over two years. Estimates in The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mirror only last week showed that 200,000 would lose in the first year alone. Will the Minister come clean on how many people will fail the test and lose benefit? Is it not a hollow sham when the Minister claims that there will be no losers of benefit at the point of change between invalidity benefit and incapacity benefit?

No, the hon. Gentleman may have been confused by recent press comment, but that is because it is misinformed and certainly bears no relation to the figures published by the Government, which we stand by. In contrast to recent speculation, we expect that the majority of new applicants for the new benefit will be found to be incapable of work. However, we expect 55,000 additional cases a year out of 320,000 new claims to be found capable. In the next two years, we expect 220,000 existing recipients to be found to be capable of work. Those figures will remain estimates until we see what happens over the coming years, but they are the best estimates available to us, and we stand by them.

I thank my hon. Friend for his original answer and for his work on this matter. Does he agree that it is absolutely essential to have standardised tests that are seen to be fair and consistent?

Yes, my hon. Friend puts the point well. The new system will ensure the continuation of benefits for people who are sick and disabled, and it will do so in a way that is sustainable, affordable and fair and can be justified to the taxpayers who finance the social security system. That is the purpose of our reforms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British citizens have to date been refused benefits because of the habitual residence test.

One thousand six hundred and thirty-three British citizens have not satisfied the habitual residence test when claiming income support in the four months since 1 August.

Is it not extraordinary that, when the Secretary of State announced the scheme to the Conservative party conference, he did not admit that it would apply to British citizens, whereas Irish citizens are exempt from it? Is it not extraordinary—this has been admitted to me—that the Department made a mistake in applying the test to people seeking political asylum? An application for judicial review of the whole scheme has been made, so would it not be sensible to scrap the scheme before any more British citizens are denied benefits to which they are undoubtedly fully entitled?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that Irish citizens have a privileged position over and above citizens of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly reasonable that those who have made their lives elsewhere in the world who were originally British citizens or who can claim patrial citizenship should be subject to the test. Why should someone who has come over here on a backpacking holiday from Canada and who has two British grandparents have the right to top up their income on holiday with income support? No hon. Member would think that that is right.

As the habitual residence test enables this country to prevent backpackers from coming here on holiday and living off our benefits system, and thereby removing money from our benefits system on which vulnerable people rely and need, is it not extraordinary that Labour Members appear to care more for foreigners than for our own vulnerable constituents?

I am sure that my hon. Friend reflects the views of 99.9 per cent. of people in this country. I should make it clear that we welcome backpackers from all countries, but we do not think it necessary to entice them with the offer of income support.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will withdraw the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations 1974 and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) General Regulations 1974.

No.

In the light of the criticism that the Department has received from the ombudsman in respect of the disability living allowance and the Child Support Agency, and in the light of concerns that have been expressed by several organisations representing people with disabilities, does not the Minister think that he should withdraw the regulations and reflect on them, or is the House expected to sit back and wait for a hat trick of disasters from the Department?

Great care has been taken to ensure that incapacity benefit is fairly and properly implemented. The training of Benefits Agency medical doctors is under way, departmental administrative procedures are being prepared carefully and I have every confidence that the necessary preparations are being made. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that great work went into the development of the medical test with an expert panel last year. The test was exhaustively tested on real cases by real doctors, and we are confident that it works as it was intended.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the past 10 years, when the health of the nation generally has progressed steadily, the number of people in receipt of invalidity benefit has more than doubled to 1.5 million? Does not that show the absolute necessity of targeting payments on the people who really need them?

My hon. Friend is right. The number of invalidity benefit claimants has risen from 740,000 in 1983 to more than 1.6 million today. During that time, GPs have often been put in an invidious position. It is right to reform the benefit, and right to do so in the way that we have proposed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the regulations on claims for benefit under the bronchitis and emphysema benefit scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I am advised on the prescription of occupational diseases under the industrial injuries scheme by the independent Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The council announced last week that it is undertaking a review of the present terms of prescription.

Will the Minister join me in trying to influence the advisory body on two issues that involve the regulations on bronchitis and emphysema? The first is the X-ray, as a number of claimants who were rejected for benefit have, after death, been proved to have had pneumoconiosis. That system is unfair.

The council has a difficult job in ensuring that it proposes qualifying conditions to Ministers that ensure that benefit is paid to miners and ex-miners whose disability can most confidently be attributed to coal dust, rather than to other causes such as smoking. The council has now initiated a review of the qualifying conditions and evidence can be given to that review until 14 April. I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he passes his evidence—including evidence about his constituents, about whom he has written to me—to the council so that it can take it fully into account before giving advice to Ministers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve benefits to widows and the elderly.

Widows and pensioners will gain from the general uprating of benefits, in line with inflation, which will take effect in April.

Will the Minister explain why the widow's payment, which was announced in 1985, has never been uprated by a single penny, despite the fact that it replaced a benefit that was increased in line with inflation every year? According to an answer that I received from the Minister, the widow's payment should now be £1,881, yet it is still only £1,000. It is despicable not to increase payments at any time, but why do the Government cheat widows at a time of bereavement?

Payment of the widow's payment is subject to a regular review by the Department. It must be borne in mind that we have finite resources, for which there are competing priorities. It is simply a question of concentrating help where it is most needed.

My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency has the largest proportion of pensioners in the country. Will he confirm that, from April, the poorest pensioner couples will receive at least £100 a week and that, on top of that, their housing costs will be paid in full? Is not that a substantial measure of the Government's concern for the poorest of our elderly people?

My hon. Friend is right and he confirms what I said in my answer. Even the poorest pensioners—the bottom 20 per cent. of income groups—have seen significant real increases of more than 10 per cent. in their incomes since 1979.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I give notice that, because of that atrocious reply—even by the standards of this Government—I intend to raise the subject on the Adjournment?

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have failed the habitual residence test since its introduction; how many of those decisions have been appealed against; and how many such appeals have been won.

Provisional figures from the Benefits Agency show that 12,571 income support claimants have not satisfied the habitual residence test in the five months from 1 August 1994. Figures for housing benefit refusals are not available. Information on appeals is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Given the cheap answer that we heard earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), with the gallery playing and stereotyping of backpackers, and given the number of people affected by the regulations, is not it time that we were given an opportunity to debate the matter properly and thoroughly on the Floor of the House?

The hon. Gentleman should address that request to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Government are perfectly happy to defend the regulations at any opportunity.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the cost of housing benefit will be £10 billion this year and that, until he altered the regulations, rents of up to £350 a week had been claimed under housing benefit? May I therefore welcome the reforms that he has introduced?

Yes.

Before the Minister gets carried away with his verbosity, will his Department conduct an investigation into the plight of individuals and families, but particularly children, who have failed the habitual residence test? As a result of that failure, they lose housing benefit; as a result, some of them are evicted from housing; and, as a result, some of the children face being taken into care. Instead of considering the consequences of speeches made by the Secretary of State to the Tory party conference, as a way of playing to the gallery, will he consider the consequences of the test for the poor of this country?

The hon. Gentleman's indulgent rhetoric is a gross exaggeration. The Government obviously bear in mind and keep under review the operations of the test.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, without the habitual residence test, British benefits would be available to any foreign scroungers who came to this country to finance their holidays? Does he believe that that is now Labour party policy?

The last part of my hon. Friend's question is not for me to answer, but, on the first part, the point is very clear: are British taxpayers to be expected to pay benefits at current levels to anybody and everybody who comes within the confines of the United Kingdom? The Government have taken the view that there must be some sensible and reasonable limit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to place a cap on housing benefit for eligible tenants.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about spending on housing benefit.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced measures to take effect from October 1995 in his uprating statement, which will limit housing benefit paid on private sector rents where they are above the average for the area.

Is not Government policy on housing benefit a shambles, for which the Government look like making private tenants pay? The Government rely on the private sector for housing and have deregulated many private tenancies, but the Department of Social Security does not want to pick up the cost implications of that policy. If the Government are to change housing benefit, will they ensure that protection from eviction for tenants is included?

The hon. Gentleman's point is a gross exaggeration and, indeed, is simply untrue. To expect the British taxpayer to subsidise rents of several hundred pounds a week is simply unreasonable and would rightly cause public outrage. Even in the Greater London area, 95 per cent. of private sector rents are lower than £85 a week. The Government say that there must be some fair reciprocity between the burdens on taxpayers and the recipients. That is why there must be some cap based on the average rent for the area in which a person lives.

Does my hon. Friend agree that housing benefit distorts the marketplace? Is he aware that, in my constituency, people may receive as much as £250 a week or £13,000 a year in benefits? Does not that cost taxpayers a lot of money and force up all rents in the private sector?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt whatever that there is an incentive to distort the market. That is why housing benefit has doubled in cost since 1988 and will cost £10 billion in 1994–95. It is fair and reasonable that the rents that my hon. Friend mentioned should not be wholly subsidised by taxpayers when they are out of line with average rents for the area.

To what extent is the escalating housing benefit budget caused by landlords pushing up rents or making fraudulent claims?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that such an estimate is extremely difficult to make. On the first of his two causations, when taxpayers write an open blank cheque, which is the danger with the existing system, there is obviously an incentive for some people to take advantage of it. The policy has been successful in terms of stimulating the private rented sector, which had been in the doldrums since 1919, when the Labour party interfered with the free market in private rents, but there must be some control for the benefit of the taxpayer, which is why we are limiting benefit to the average rent for the area.

Despite my hon. Friend's figures for average rents in London, does he agree that housing benefit has been used to subsidise rents to the tune of up to £350 week? Does he agree that taxpayers will welcome the decision to cap housing benefit as it will represent better value for taxpayers and ensure that they do not subsidise luxury rents?

My hon. Friend is right. The figures that he mentioned are generally believed to be far too high.

Will the Minister admit that that position has been caused by deregulation of the private rented sector, which his Government inaugurated in the first place? Private tenants are already being ripped off for below-standard accommodation in many instances. Instead of making them pay by possible eviction, why will not the Government regulate the private rented sector to save money for taxpayers, or, better still, have a proper housing policy so that we can house our people in affordable, decent homes?

The hon. Lady gives the game away if she really suggests that it is Labour party policy to re-impose some form of rent control in the private sector. [Interruption.] There is all the difference in the world between limiting a public subsidy and interfering with the free workings of the market. What the Government propose—

It is called subsidising landlords.

The elementary economic ignorance of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen is palpable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons were in receipt of income support (a) on 1 December 1992 and (b) on 1 December 1994; and if he will make a statement.

The information requested is not available in the precise form requested. However, the total number of claimants as at November 1992 was 5.5 million and, as at February 1994, 5.8 million.

Family credit benefits more than half a million working families by making it worth their while to work. Will my hon. Friend compare it with the minimum wage, which destroys jobs?

My hon. Friend makes two forceful points, and I respectfully agree with him.

If the Government accept and believe that income support is the absolute minimum that people need to live on, why is it that when people on income support need assistance from the social fund, they are given loans which the Government tell them that they have to pay back out of income support?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me questions on that topic before. He has not appreciated the basic point that income may be regular week after week under income support, whereas people's actual needs may vary from week to week, depending on their circumstances or needs. The system of loans offered under the social fund has been strikingly successful; it has helped five times as many people with loans, which are almost entirely repaid. That is more than we could hope for if we made simple grants.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the flexibility of personal pensions in retirement.

We propose to introduce two measures: age-related rebates, which will make appropriate personal pensions attractive across a wider age range; and more flexible use of personal pensions savings, which will allow personal pension holders to draw an income from their fund each year and defer annuity purchase until a time of their choosing up to the age of 75.

I welcome those measures. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of introducing the so-called minimum pension guarantee, as advocated by the Commission on Social Justice and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he agree that a Government would never be able to deliver such a guarantee in 20 years' time? That proposal would stop people taking out flexible personal pensions, yet such pensions offer people the real guarantee of being able to provide for themselves in their old age.

My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party's proposals amount to further means testing.

Is it not the case that, as well as making personal pensions more attractive, the Government are making the state earnings-related pension scheme less attractive by adjusting the outcome in the adjusted formula proposed in the Pensions Bill? People will still have to contribute the same amount of money to SERPS, but, eventually, they will receive £2.50 less as the outcome.

The amount is not £2.50 for every pensioner. As this is the first time that he has raised the subject, the hon. Gentleman has apparently only just discovered the change to the annualisation of SERPS, which was announced in June. That change is necessary to restore the original intention behind the SERPS calculation, which provided that SERPS should be uprated in line with earnings. For various technical reasons, SERPS has gone up even faster than earnings since 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the Government are taking to help disabled people.

On 12 January, the Government introduced the Disability Discrimination Bill, which will outlaw discrimination against disabled people in employment and in access to goods and services. It will create a National Disability Council, which will be a powerful voice on matters relating to discrimination.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating those organisations that worked so hard in consultation with the Government on their proposals, including Action for Better Access for the Disabled, which does valuable work in my constituency and in the surrounding area? Will he also confirm that the proposals contained in the Bill go much further than those contained in the consultation document?

Yes. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those organisations—more than 1,000 of them—which responded to the Government's consultation document, which was published in July. Many of them asked us to do things which we have, in the light of those representations, decided to do—for example, to include financial services within the legal framework that we propose and to require alterations to be made to existing premises to end discrimination against disabled people.

Does the Minister understand that the Bill is not mainly about services and benefits, important as they are, but about the civil rights of people with disabilities? Does he therefore agree that, although it is proposed to exclude firms with fewer than 20 employees from the need to implement the new employment rights, that threshold should be lowered over a defined period so that all job discrimination can be ended?

The hon. Gentleman must understand that 83 per cent. of employees work for firms with 20 or more employees, so the proposed new arrangements on employment law will cover the vast majority of the work force. Of course we must have regard to the difficulties that would confront small businesses in implementing complex new legislation. We must not get into a position whereby we drive small businesses out of business to help one part of the community; that is absolutely not the intention of the legislation. However, we shall cover the vast majority of the work force and make a lasting change in the way in which disabled people are treated.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, by proposing sensible, practical and fair measures, the Government's Bill will gain much wider acceptance than would be gained by proposals that have not been properly considered or consulted upon?

Yes. It is vital that we carry the whole country with us in ending discrimination against disabled people. It is not simply a matter of changing legislation and changing rules; it is also a question of changing attitudes and changing the psychology of millions of people throughout the country. That is why it is so important to carry people with us, as my hon. Friend says.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the total amount spent on science and research in the United Kingdom; and if he will list the proportions paid for by Government and by other sources of funding.

Approximately £13,000 million, of which 35 per cent. is paid for by Government.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply about the amount spent on research and development. Can he confirm that the Government proportion is greater than the average of our competitor nations, and that, unfortunately, the business proportion is slightly less than the average of our competitor nations? What can he do to encourage businesses to realise that research and development is the cornerstone of their future prosperity?

I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the present position, but today's gross domestic product figures show that the UK is truly top of the premier league for growth in Europe, and we intend to stay there. The best way to ensure that we do so is to invest in the future, and to urge industry to do the same. Investing in the future means investing in research and development, and it is good news that industry's investment in R and D has increased, according to the latest figures, by 3 per cent. in real terms.

Bearing in mind the fact that Britain invests less, as a proportion of GDP, than do our major competitors—France, Germany, Japan and the United States of America—what plans does the Chancellor have to help Britain do better?

In comparison with other G7 countries, we do reasonably well, but of course we can do better. Our approach, through the technology foresight programme and through the forward look, following up the policies set out in the science White Paper, is to continue to urge the greatest possible investment in research and development, to set an example in Government, which we have done by ensuring that the science budget is now at record levels, and to maintain those record levels in the next financial year.

Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the way in which the Government give greater accent to developmental expenditure as opposed to pure research expenditure?

Yes. We have increased the science budget by 32 per cent. in real terms in the past 15 years. My hon. Friend is right that we want an increasing emphasis on a partnership between the public sector and the private sector, especially to enable that basic research, which has always been fundamental in the United Kingdom to the strength of our science base, to be translated by proper investment, in partnership with the private sector, into the developmental stage. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

The Minister spoke of us doing reasonably well in comparison 'with our competitors. 'Will the Minister then explain why, in spite of an overall budget cut in Japan recently, Japan's science and technology spending, through the Science and Technology Agency, was increased by 7 per cent., there was a 26 per cent. increase in funding of the human genome project and a 20.5 per cent. increase in the real world computing project, yet Britain continues to slip further behind, with overall real terms cuts in research and development this year? Does that not demonstrate that the Conservative Government only pay lip-service to science as an aid to wealth generation, and that, effectively, Ministers sit on the sidelines, while the science budget withers away?

I am not often driven to say, "What a load of rubbish!"; I shall riot be tempted to do so on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman, however, is not comparing like with like. We compare very favourably with investment in Japan. The hon. Gentleman talked about the science budget "wilting away". The science budget is at a record level in this financial year— [HON. MEMBERS: "Overall?"] I am quoting the hon. Gentleman; he said, "the science budget is wilting away." The science budget is at a record high level; it is up by 32 per cent. in real terms. I shall take the hon. Gentleman more seriously when he comes armed with the correct information.

Bearing in mind the amount spent on research and development in the United Kingdom and how it is spent, will my right hon. Friend think carefully, before he makes a visit to South Africa, about whether it would be appropriate for our Government to encourage, let alone assist, the South Africans to make a further major commitment to developing their arms industry? Surely that is not what we really wish for them or for the other countries that would suffer as a result.

As my hon. Friend knows, we have devoted an increasing proportion of our research and development budget to civil research. I welcome the opportunity to go to South Africa and to encourage it to develop the sort of policies, which we have seen in the United Kingdom, that foster an ever-closer partnership between the public and private sectors. Similarly, I have recently been to other countries, seeking to set up important relationships between our leading scientists and theirs. I hope that my hon. Friend shares my wish to see that relationship grow stronger.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of research council funds in 1993–94 was allocated to the 12 institutions which are the largest consumers of those funds.

The amount allocated was £319 million, which is 50 per cent. of total grant awards.

What justification can there be for allocating half the research council funds to a mere handful of institutions? Is that not a return to the, surely discredited, binary system which favoured research-based over teaching-based institutions? What plans do the Government have to ensure that future research council funds will be more widely and evenly distributed?

The hon. Lady is utterly wrong. The awards are made on the basis of merit, which is something that I do not expect the Labour party particularly to understand. Awards are made on the basis of a full and fair external peer review, not political diktat. That is the way in which to do it and that is the way in which we shall continue to do it.

With the exciting news today that Britain may soon have the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, with the possible merger of Glaxo and Wellcome, can my hon. Friend tell us the extent to which the research councils, especially since the publication of the science White Paper, are being encouraged to co-operate with industry in research and development?

We always encourage full co-operation. Indeed, through the technology foresight process, there has been unprecedented co-operation between business, academics and scientists. That is very much to be welcomed. As my hon. Friend says, the strength of Britain's pharmaceutical industry and, indeed, of all our chemical industry is impressive. It is important that we should spread that drive and enthusiasm to the rest of our science and engineering industries.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what ways efficiencies in public services are being achieved.

Numerous.

In the light of the success of the "Competing for Quality" programme and the recent report by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which stressed that the pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness in the civil service was never-ending, does my right hon. Friend agree that the programme should continue and that it is in the interests of the taxpayer that it should do so because it not only ensures that maximum benefit is returned from finite resources but ensures high-quality services at the same time?

Yes, we shall certainly do everything that we can to redouble our efforts under that very important programme, the strategic importance of which was recognised in the recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The programme is producing savings of more than £400 million per year against an outlay of £23 million per year, which is very good value for money.

Given that, when the civil service was allowed to make in-house tenders it was successful in work to the value of 73 per cent., will the Minister lift his blanket objection to in-house tenders for all available work so that the civil service can make in-house bids? Does his savings account include the EDS contract and the Aldermaston atomic weapons agency establishment? Finally, are the more than 10,000 posts which are yet to be lost additional to, or included in, the losses that were announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement?

My reply to the hon. Gentleman is that I am satisfied with the present policy. Obviously, in-house tenders should be encouraged where appropriate and they should compete on an equal basis. We shall endeavour to ensure that that occurs, but in certain cases that is not possible.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public service units have been awarded a charter mark to date.

Some 227.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that three of those public service units are located in the London borough of Croydon—the consumer advisory service, the environmental health department and the continuing education and training service? Does he agree that winning the mark is recognition of the high quality of those organisations and that members of the public should be encouraged to nominate those departments which provide services that deserve the charter mark?

I join my hon. Friend in his pride over what has been achieved in his local area. As he will know, we have decided that, as the initiative for the honours system met with a warm public response with nominations for recognising suitable people, we would now like to open up the charter mark procedure to public nominations. We will announce the detail of how we propose to proceed in due course. I welcome my hon. Friend's support for that policy.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the charter mark awarded to British Gas should be withdrawn immediately, given today's disgraceful news that it is considering charging £25 for home visits to elderly and disabled people?

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is engaging in scaremongering. With regard to the second part of her question, I am very happy to make it clear that British Gas has confirmed today that there will be no service cuts to elderly, blind or disabled customers. I am also happy to confirm that the Government are determined that all suppliers of gas will have to offer special services for elderly, disabled or blind persons.

"we have faith in British Gas as a company that puts safety first and deservedly earned the Charter Mark, for past performance, in 1993".

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the organisations which will be expected to apply for research council funds.

As soon as possible.

When will the Minister honour his promise, made in the White Paper, that organisations other than universities and research council institutes will be eligible to apply for those funds? When he honours that promise, will he ensure that additional funds are transferred into research council budgets to cover the cost of the applications, or will university research funding be depleted yet again?

As the whole House and the science community know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor achieved stunning success in increasing the science budget. We will announce soon how that money will be used. We consulted widely on recommendations arising from the efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments and we will announce the outcome as soon as possible. It has not been possible to do so yet because we agreed to include some representations that were made late—as I believe the House would have wanted us to do.

Will my hon. Friend consider the case of charitable organisations, particularly in the medical sector, that raise considerable amounts of money for research? I declare an interest in the National Asthma Campaign. Would my hon. Friend consider encouraging larger donations to research by adopting a formula whereby the Medical Research Council might back by a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1 the money raised by charities and spent specifically on research into the medical problems with which they are concerned?

The money that comes from charities for scientific research and development is absolutely vital. We welcome it, as does the scientific community. It is important that the interrelationship between Government money, other money going into higher education institutions and funding from charities, as well as money from the private sector, is integrated and that there is no duplication. All should work together to achieve better results. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to make the citizens charter justiciable.

The citizens charter has already raised the quality of public services right across the board. Where necessary, specific provisions set out in specific charters are backed by legislation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be greater confidence in the citizens charter if more remedies were available in the courts?

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. As he probably knows, the citizens charter complaints task force is, as part of its work, examining fairness and independence in the public service complaints system. It published a discussion paper on fairness last September, and it will report to me this summer on the findings of the two-year review of public service handling of complaints. Perhaps we may hold further discussions when I receive that report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that is precisely the point? I do not decry the citizens charter. As a teacher in the old days, I used to give gold stars to my pupils, and merits may act as incentives to the organisations that win them. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that, among the people whom I represent, the citizens charter has no credibility or currency? People are more concerned with the collapse of services that they see all around them, and the citizens charter is not an adequate substitute.

It was clever of the hon. Gentleman to cover both extremes of view. I agree with members of the Opposition Front Bench that the citizens charter is here to stay, but I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that it must have credibility. There is a series of complaints procedures. It is important that public services not only handle complaints fairly but are seen to do so.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the foresight programme is now developing.

It is developing very well. The Government are grateful for the active support of business, academics and the wider science and technology communities. Reports on the progress will be published in the spring, and the 1995 forward look will outline the Government's initial responses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has established a lead in high-speed fibre optic networks, which will provide great opportunities for British commerce? Can he tell the House what is being done by the foresight policy panels to take that forward?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many aspects of work done in Britain are the envy of the rest of the world. First, some people say that we have 30 per cent. of all the fibre optic laid in the world. We also have the fastest broad-band communications system--the so-called SuperJANET system—linking many of our universities. We shall be making more use of it. As for the foresight panels, the communications panel has been giving us invaluable advice on how quickly to put in place broad-band services for United Kingdom schools. We want them linked up to the system, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced earlier this month.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of scientific equipment used in Government laboratories is manufactured in the United Kingdom.

I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that the information that he has requested is not collected centrally in that form.

I thought that that might be the Minister's answer. He ought to keep his eyes open as he goes around Government laboratories. If he did, he would notice that a huge amount of sophisticated equipment which used to be manufactured in the United Kingdom is now imported. Does he agree that that reflects one of our problems—the fact that, although we have quite a powerful science base, our innovation is failing? What is he going to do about that?

I want our manufacturers of scientific equipment to compete successfully right across the world. About 80 per cent. of this country's production of scientific equipment is for export—that is a high-quality export market. Instrumentation and control is a major export industry earner for Britain which produces a positive balance of payment. In the last year for which figures were available, 1992, that industry accounted for £2.1 billion. That is a success story which the hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge.