To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a social security card for the payment of benefits. [20116]

Last year, I announced plans to automate the payment of benefits at post offices. Order books and girocheques will be phased out and replaced by a benefit payment card for all claimants who wish to be paid via a post office. That will help to eliminate fraud, reduce costs for taxpayers, be more secure for customers and support the future of the post office network.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, over the next three years, he will be spending £300 million to help to combat fraud? Can he also confirm that combating fraud effectively will help to ensure that benefits can continue to be paid through post offices?

My hon. Friend is correct. I have obtained agreement from the Treasury to spend extra money on preventing fraud. We believe that that will save substantial amounts of money for the taxpayer and ensure that the money goes where it should—to those in genuine need. That is in addition to the investment that we hope for in the new payments system, which is of the order of £130 million. We hope to involve private finance in developing that operation.

What is the point of issuing the new cards when large numbers of people, often working in gangs, are wrongly claiming benefit? How many spare national insurance numbers are there? What action is the right hon. Gentleman going to take to prevent the use of any of the millions of spare national insurance numbers for fraudulent claims?

The cards will, I hope, directly eliminate the sort of fraud that the hon. Gentleman mentions. He is correct to say that gangs of people steal order books and then impersonate their owners. Order books are one of the least secure means of payment.

Would my right hon. Friend care to commend my local office, which spotted a slight inconsistency about a gentleman who claimed to be incapacitated but who managed to drive up in a jazzy sports car to collect benefit? He was today convicted in Preston Crown court of defrauding the system of £60,000.

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the detection of that abuse of the system. We are introducing a more objective system of evaluating whether people are fit to work. If they are fit to work, they will be helped back into work through back-to-work benefits; if they are unfit, they will receive the new incapacity benefit, which we want to go to those who are genuinely medically unable to work.

Given the large number of people whose credit cards are stolen, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to enable people who lose their cards to get their payments quickly without having to go through a bureaucratic process that will cause them further distress?

That is an important aspect. The consortia competing to bring in the system have been narrowed down to five. They are making their detailed proposals. One aspect for which they have to ensure that they have the best possible arrangements on offer is coping with people who lose their cards or who are unable to go to the post office and want to nominate a relative or friend to go in their place. All these things have to be done, and done securely.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the introduction of the new incapacity benefit; and if he will make a statement. [20117]

I have received a number of letters about incapacity benefit since the changes were announced in December 1993. Those changes will target help through a fairer, more objective medical test and provide an affordable and sustainable system of incapacity provision for the future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are right to restructure the invalidity benefit system so that those who are genuine claimants will continue to receive benefit and others can be encouraged to return to work? Should that not help to control the ever-rising cost of benefit expenditure?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The old system was well intentioned but inconsistent and haphazard in its application. The new test will focus help on those who are entitled to it. That is what the welfare state is about and that is what the taxpayer is entitled to expect.

In the representations that the Minister has received, has anyone remarked on the amazing foresight—indeed, the prophetic nature—of the Department? Even before questionnaires have been completed and medical examinations undertaken, the Department suggests that there will be savings of £3.3 billion over three years. How is it that it can make that prediction before medicals have taken place? Is that not illustrative of the fact that the exercise has been led by the Treasury as a cost-cutting measure and is not a system of fair payments for disabilities?

No. The test is about focusing help on those who need it most and are entitled to it. Of course there are estimates of savings. We believe that there will be savings because we know that the old system was inconsistent and haphazard in its application. Everyone knows that except those in the Labour party.

I note the Government's intention next year to refer to placing, assessment and counseling teams the 29,000 people who, it is anticipated, will fail to qualify for incapacity benefit and will therefore sign on and claim the jobseeker's allowance. What plans do the Government have to provide advice and help to another 120,000, on the Government's estimate, who have degrees of disability, will not be eligible for incapacity benefit and will be required to seek work actively if they are to be able to claim benefit?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Employment Service will be ready to provide the full range of its usual help to anyone who has been receiving invalidity benefit but is not eligible for incapacity benefit. I draw his attention to the improvements that we are making in the disability working allowance system for the many disabled people who want to work and are able to do so. The improvement will bring considerable benefits to many people.

I have no doubt that the Minister has received representations from citizens advice bureaux throughout the country, along with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Where will the Government find extra funding for citizens advice bureaux so that they can cope with the increased work load due to the devastating effect that the introduction of incapacity benefit has had on many people?

Incapacity benefit will not have a devastating effect. It is about focusing entitlement on those who are medically incapable of work. The Government have a most constructive relationship with citizens advice bureaux, and I am confident that that will continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he is currently making in combating fraudulent claims. [20119]

The fight against fraud remains a top priority. Some £645 million was saved in 1993–94 due to direct action by fraud staff. This was an increase of 17 per cent. on both the previous year's figures, and the target set for the year.

My hon. Friend will know that there are few things that anger the British people more than the activities of rip-off merchants who fraudulently take the money of the British taxpayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It seems that that does not worry Opposition Members, but my constituents consider such rip-off activities a disgrace. That is why my constituents, along with people throughout the country, congratulate the Government on the work that has already been done to reduce fraud. What work is being done to harness computer technology and modern payment systems to ensure that fraud is further driven back?

My hon. Friend is right. It is of great concern throughout the country that some people defraud the social security system. That is why we are determined to squeeze fraud out of the system altogether so that it is not there for us to catch. We shall be concentrating on the electronic stop-notice system, which is already doing valuable work in London. We shall be increasing the use of data matching. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we shall be introducing benefit payment cards as well as increasing the number of highly targeted visits. These measures will be effective in reducing and eliminating fraud.

Given the Secretary of State's miserable failure to answer the question asked by the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, will the Minister now confirm that there are about 15 million spare national insurance numbers, and give an undertaking that the availability of those numbers for fraud will be dealt with by the Government, because his right hon. Friend does not seem to be able to give an answer?

I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the question that he has just asked. A large number of national insurance numbers are in existence, partly because when somebody dies it may well be necessary to keep a number in existence to allow a pension that is payable as a result of it to continue to be payable. Perhaps he does not understand his question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of families receiving family credit. [20120]

In July 1994, 572,000 families were receiving family credit. Figures for October 1994 will be published later this week.

Will my hon. Friend draw a contrast between the policy of the Government, who are helping 572,000 families with low incomes, and the policy of another party, which is determined to create mass unemployment among the low-paid by introducing a national minimum wage? Does he expect it to recant on that policy on the road to Sedgefield?

I do not see why my hon. Friend should be shy about it. I think that he should name the Labour party as the party determined to bring in a minimum wage, which would destroy jobs. The great difference between us is that, while the Labour party remains obsessed with the level of benefits, we are equally concerned about the level of benefit dependency. Whereas our policies take people off benefits, the Labour party's policies would return people to them.

Would the Minister care to tell us what studies have been done by his Department on how much family credit could be saved by the introduction of a national minimum wage of £4.10 per hour and what the effect would be on the poverty levels of a large number of people who have to rely not just on family credit but on other benefits, because the wages paid—often by multinational corporations—are so disgracefully low? Indeed, in some cases they are actually falling.

The average payment for family credit at the moment is some £48 a week, which, as I said earlier, goes to some half a million families. As to studies, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would not rather rely on the judgment of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said straightforwardly that a minimum wage policy would cost jobs. That seems to me a good enough study.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the time in people's lives when they are most likely to be poor is when they have their first child and move, normally from two incomes, two mouths to feed, to one income, three mouths to feed? Will he commit the Government to continue to pay child benefit as a way of ensuring that only one household in 12 needs family income support?

Child benefit remains a cornerstone of our support for families. The commitment was in the manifesto. The policy of the Government since that time has shown that we care very much about ensuring that the poorest families have the greatest support, which is why the 1988 reforms have produced £1 billion-worth of benefits, which are going to the poorest families in the country. That is £1 billion more than there would have been but for those reforms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his estimates of the impact of changes in invalidity benefit payment arrangements on individual areas of the United Kingdom. [20121]

Estimates about the effects of the introduction of incapacity benefit are derived from national data and therefore cannot be broken down regionally with reliable accuracy.

The operative word being "reliable", of course. The data can be broken down if the Government want to. Notwithstanding the considerable distress that is felt by individuals who are being switched from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit, why did the Government not measure—in areas such as my own in west Cumbria—the economic impact in terms of job losses and business closures as a result of the introduction of incapacity benefit? Has it not yet dawned on Ministers that a very large amount of money is being paid in invalidity benefit in areas of declining industry, where health is poor, and that the removal of much of that money from the local economy will have a major economic impact on areas such as mine?

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind two points. First, the forecast national savings are savings in relation to what would have been spent, rather than in relation to the current spending level. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman, and all Labour Members, should remember that increases in spending mean increases in taxation, which also takes money out of the local economy and the economy across the nation. Labour Members never seem to think about the number of businesses that that closes, and the number of job losses that it causes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the projected savings from the passing of the Jobseekers Bill; and if he will make a statement. [20122]

The direct benefit savings are projected to be around £270 million in a full year. However, that figure takes no account of success in getting people back to work earlier.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the financial considerations, there is also a moral aspect? Does not the taxpayer need to be protected from those who are not genuinely seeking work, and is that not precisely what the Bill will achieve?

Yes. The provisions for a jobseeker's agreement and direction are focused on that specific problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals there have been against refusal of benefit under the habitual residence test; and how many appeals have resulted in an award of benefit. [20123]

The independent tribunal service records appeals according to the relevant benefit, not according to the reason for refusal. How many income support appeals refer to habitual residence is therefore not known.

The Secretary of State will be aware that, in an Adjournment debate on 21 March, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), told the House that the information was available. I do not blame him for that error, which exemplifies the enormous amount of confusion that there has been in both his Department and the Benefits Agency over the test since its introduction.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a sincere and continuing interest in the subject, and I respect him for that, but I do not necessarily accept all his analyses. Adjudication officers' decisions are not themselves law-making; only when they reach the commissioners do they determine the position, and become precedents elsewhere. We shall have to wait a while before any of them do that.

I welcome the habitual residence test. May I urge my right hon. Friend to clamp down on bogus asylum seekers? Is he aware of the recent case of the Algerian asylum seeker, Mr. Abeey Dikes, who, on the tube, kicked and head-butted a young doctor? Does he agree that people like Mr. Dikes should not be able to stay in this country at the taxpayer's expense?

It is not for me to comment on individual cases, but I am aware of the outrage that is caused when people abuse this country's hospitality, either by committing crimes when they are being supported here or by obtaining support to which they are not entitled. We shall do all in our power to prevent both abuses.

I thank the Under-Secretary for correcting his statement in the Adjournment debate that he had supplied me with figures showing the number of people who had won appeals. In a written answer, he confirmed that he had not made that information available. That is not good enough, however: we need to know how many British citizens have been denied their entitlement to income support through the habitual residence test.

I shall certainly see whether such information is available, but I fear that it may not be. Obviously, information that comes directly from the independent tribunal service is normally provided by the service, and I do not think that it would be cost-effective to try to produce the records that the hon. Gentleman proposes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had (a) a fridge, (b) a car, (c) a freezer, (d) a telephone and (e) a television in 1979; and how many do today. [20125]

In 1979, some 88 per cent. of pensioners had access to a fridge; by 1991–92, the latest year for which information is available, that figure had climbed to 99 per cent. In 1979, 34 per cent. had access to a car; 49 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 32 per cent. had access to a freezer or fridge-freezer; 75 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 57 per cent. had access to a telephone; 92 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 96 per cent. had access to a television; 99 per cent now have access to one.

Do not those practical examples illustrate how wealth has trickled up from the general economy to retired people? Is it not easy to forget the plight of so many retired people in earlier generations, including those who lived under the previous Government, who saw the retirement living standards, which they had worked so hard to save for and hoped for, destroyed by the scourge of inflation, which this Government have overcome?

The most significant finding from studies on low income shows how the income of pensioners as a group has come out of the bottom decile of income in a manner unprecedented before the Government came into office. Pensioners are increasing their income through occupational pensions and the like, but, as my hon. Friend said, they remain vulnerable to policies that would produce inflation—policies advocated by Opposition Members. I see no answer in new Labour to old inflation.

Lest this question is designed to produce complacency, will the Minister tell the House how many pensioners paid VAT on fuel in 1979 and how many do so today? Will he explain why more old people die in the winter in this country than in any European country for which figures are available?

Labour Members persist in presenting the image of the pensioner as a dependent person. When will they appreciate that pensioners are fitter than they were before, live longer than they did before, have more varied interests in their leisure time, and are making a substantial contribution to the voluntary sector and society? The Government cater for the poorer pensioner by reforms introduced in 1988. We have been able to put in £1 billion in extra support to the poorest. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the VAT compensation package was higher than that suggested even by his Front-Bench team.

Does my hon. Friend agree that his figures demonstrate the success of occupational pensions in enhancing living standards for the elderly, and that we need to do even more to encourage more people to put money into occupational pensions for their retirement?

My hon. Friend is right. The picture continues in the United Kingdom of pensioners being much more reflective of society as a whole, with a variety of different incomes and statuses. The Government seek to encourage those aspirations. We recognise that, when people retire, they still retain aspirations in life. We want to fuel those aspirations; we do not want pensioners to be bracketed as a group that is continually dependent on the rest of society. Pensioners are not, and they do not deserve to be because they have worked for us.

Is the Minister aware that some 25 per cent. of all single pensioners have an income of less than £70 a week, and that is before housing cost? Does not that information, which was given to me in a parliamentary reply, illustrate the scale of pensioner poverty? Despite all that the Minister has said, the fact that so many pensioners are living on such low incomes should embarrass the Government. It is undoubtedly a factor in why so many people conclude that the only group that the Government are really concerned about is the rich and the prosperous. They could not give a damn about the millions of pensioners who live in poverty.

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman ignores the information that, since 1979, the total average income of pensioners has increased by 50 per cent., which is faster than the rate of growth in the population as a whole. He must have his own motives.

Does my hon. Friend agree that central to our belief that the quality of life of our pensioners must improve is our intention that their real spending power should also improve? Does he agree that, between 1974 and 1979, one of the tragedies to befall our pensioners was that those who had put income to one side for their future saw the real value of that money halved by inflation? Will my hon. Friend give a commitment today that the Government will ensure that inflation is kept to a minimum to preserve the real value of pensioners' money?

Yes. The House and the country know that the Government have pledged to keep inflation low. We have pledged to follow policies that will keep down inflation. If the country thinks that a return to the inflation policies of the Labour party will benefit anyone, it is sadly mistaken. I do not believe that the country will make such an error of judgment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the proposed limit to social fund funeral payments and the Government's response to that report. [20126]

I am considering the Social Security Advisory Committee's report and I will lay the report, and my response to it, before the House shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the huge regional variations in the cost of a funeral? Today, I telephoned round my constituency and the cheapest funeral I could find cost in excess of £1,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider scrapping the national limit of £875? Has he no sympathy for the bereaved families on low incomes, or is it just another cynical attempt to raise funds so that the Government can cut taxes before the next election?

I am aware of the differences across the country in the fees for cremation and, in particular, burial and I want to take that into account in the examination that I am currently conducting. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the number of claims for social fund funeral payments has doubled over the past six years and the amount spent has trebled. Therefore, it is only right that we should take action to prevent abuse. Indeed, we have already taken action to stop people seeking a distant relative on income support to make the application. I thought that we had the support of the Opposition in that measure. Are they now withdrawing it?

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintaining that the growth in the number of funeral grants is the result of abuse, lead swinging and fraud? Is it not rather a direct reflection of the growth in poverty over the past few years?

Since we took steps to ensure that the nearest relatives or friends with a genuine connection with the deceased undertook the funeral—rather than distant people brought in purely for the purpose of ensuring eligibility for grants—the growth in claims has stopped almost overnight. The hon. Gentleman may wish to withdraw his support for that measure, in common with the Opposition's usual practice of not taking any steps to ensure that money goes to those who are genuinely in need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of retired people had occupational pensions in 1979 and 1994; and if he will make a statement. [20128]

In 1979, 43 per cent. of people over state pension age had an income from an occupational pension. By 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, that proportion had increased to 60 per cent.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government's encouragement of occupational pensions has helped to achieve a 50 per cent. increase in pensioners' average net incomes since 1979? Will he further confirm that measures in the Pensions Bill, against which the Labour party voted, will help to make occupational pensions more secure in future?

Yes. Our policy is to encourage private pension provision, the money from which goes into industry and into creating assets to build up pensions for the future. Last Monday, however, in its reasoned amendment, the Labour party voted not to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading. It voted to deny pensioners the security that the Bill will provide, it voted to deny women the equality that the Bill will provide and it voted to deny the entire country of the choice that the Bill will provide, yet Labour Members pose as the friends of pensioners.

Everyone would welcome the growth in the number of people in receipt of occupational pensions, but will not many millions of our fellow citizens, who will become pensioners in the years ahead, be dependent on the state earnings-related pension scheme to supplement their pension income? Does the Minister accept the assessment of the Government Actuary that the proposed changes to SERPs in the Pensions Bill—the very Bill that he is defending—will substantially reduce people's supplementary pension income, with a total reduction of more than £9 billion by 2050? Will he give detailed figures assessing the effects of those changes on individual entitlement at the time of retirement?

Today is Labour Day and this is new Labour speaking. It surprises me that Labour has decided to attack a reduction in state spending in the light of its new Labour image on Saturday. It also surprises me that Labour dares to say anything about pensions, as it will not even tell the country whether, if it were in office, it would uprate pensions by prices or by earnings. It is necessary, as I have said before, to improve and increase private pension provision. One of the reasons why there will be a reduction in SERPs is that so many people will be going into private pension provision over the next 20, 30 or 40 years.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that occupational pensioners have seen an increase of about two thirds in the amount, on average, that they receive from their occupational pensions since 1979? Will he also confirm that the very poorest pensioners, who probably do not receive occupational pensions, will from April this year, as a couple, receive a minimum of £100 a week, with all their housing costs being paid? Does not that show how the Government care for the welfare of poor pensioners?

My hon. Friend is right. On average, newly retiring pensioners have an occupational pension of about £100 a week over and above the state retirement pension.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent meetings he has had with disabled people to discuss civil rights questions. [20130]

I have met, and shall continue to meet, disabled people and members of their organisations to discuss a wide variety of issues.

Is the Minister aware that on Friday hundreds of disabled people—some in wheelchairs, some on sticks—came to Parliament hoping to see the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill pass its Committee stage and be passed into law? They were met by a stony-faced Government who swamped the Bill in Committee with more than 100 amendments, many of which the Minister was responsible for. The net result was that those people were turned away at the gates and the Government kicked their crutches away. No wonder the people out there treat this Government with contempt.

Later this year, disabled people will have a great deal to celebrate because the Disability Discrimination Bill, which has been passed by the House and is now in another place, will spell the end of discrimination against disabled people in this country. It is a Conservative Government who will have placed on the statute book a working piece of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in residential or nursing home care are being supported financially by his Department; and if he will forecast the number he expects to be in these categories in three, five and 10 years' time. [20132]

The latest figures show that 280,000 people in residential care or nursing homes are being supported financially by my Department through income support, either through preserved rights to higher limits or through income support, including residential allowance. In three, five and 10 years' time, the figures are estimated to be 294,000, 303,000 and 327,000.

Is the Minister aware that, in Stockport, residential grant from the Department of Social Security is £30 lower than the grant available from the local authority to people who were admitted to residential and nursing care after 1993? Is he further aware that that is causing enormous problems in respect of the personal allowances being used by elderly people to top up that grant, and that relatives, who can ill afford it, are having to contribute? Will the Minister review the DSS grant to bring it into line with the actual charges of care and so prevent some of the humiliation and distress to my constituents? After all, it is not their fault that the Government have privatised health care for the elderly.

Of course the income support limits under preserved rights are reviewed annually. The limits have risen substantially in real terms since 1985. In nursing homes, the rise is 38 per cent. and for the elderly in residential care homes the rise is 16 per cent. in real terms. However, no Government could meet all fees, however high. In many parts of the country, fees are as high as £1,000 a week.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations he has recently had on the terms of appointment, and pay of, special advisers to Departments. [20146]

None.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that special advisers have highly unusual terms and conditions of service? Not only are their salaries arbitrarily linked to the remuneration that they received before they took their posts, thus causing the ridiculous differential between a merchant banker and an academic, but there is no scope for performance-related pay thereafter. Of more concern, perhaps, is the fact that about 50 per cent. of special advisers earn more than the Ministers they advise. Is it not about time that this ludicrous situation was sorted out?

My hon. Friend makes a number of important points on an area of responsibility that passed from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me and my Department last month. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could give me time to ponder the significance of some of them. I will then certainly consider reviewing the policy in the way that he has suggested.

Will the Chancellor find out whether there is a special adviser at the Department of Employment? If there is, will he send him or her to my constituency to find out why and how the Allerton outreach team has had such remarkable success in placing unemployed people in jobs and full-time training? Will the adviser then go back to London and persuade the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that the team's funding, which has come from the Department over the past few months, is continued so that its remarkable success may continue and the unemployment toll in my constituency be significantly reduced?

I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I hope that he will recognise that there has been a significant fall in the number of unemployed people in this country, with 1,000 people coming off the dole every day for the past two years. It is about time that Opposition Members realised the facts, which are appreciated widely throughout the country: that the Government are responsible for the economic policies that are reducing the rate of unemployment.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he is sending to the representations he has received concerning the dismissal of the director of the Institute of Virology in Oxford by the Natural Environment Research Council; and if he will make a statement. [20147]

This is a matter for the Natural Environment Research Council, under its royal supplemental charter. However, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, and I will write to him shortly.

Is a perfunctory three days to clear one's desk and leave really an acceptable response to an internationally distinguished scientist on whose personal behaviour there is no blemish? Is that really the way in which the NERC should behave?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the bottom of the dispute is a difference of view about future research between the Institute of Virology and the NERC. The matter was discussed over a year, and an independent review came down on the side of the NERC. It was impossible to resolve the dispute, and Professor Bishop, the director, was given six months' notice and quite a generous package. It was clearly impossible to continue on the wrong direction for research, so he received three days' notice. None the less, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no aspersion is cast on the ability of Professor Bishop, who remains a distinguished and eminent virologist.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what additional measures are required to improve the co-ordination and effective presentation of Government policy. [20148]

We are always looking at ways of doing even better.

Will the Chancellor comment on reports in this morning's The Guardian that he is a leading doubter of the wisdom of rail privatisation and that he wants to see it shelved this side of the election because the policy is too difficult to sell to the general public? Is there any truth in that? What are the presentational advantages, supposed or otherwise, of the privatisation of Nuclear Electric?

I am very happy immediately to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no foundation to those reports; they are groundless and incorrect. As for the hon. Gentleman's general point, the concept of privatisation has swept the world, with the sole exception of the Labour party. There is an international queue at the Government's door asking how to go about the privatisation process and how to go about improving public services. Privatisation and the citizens charter are the tip of a formidable iceberg. All that I will say about Labour councils and the Labour party is that the Labour party is heading for that iceberg.

As the Labour party finds it hard to distinguish fact from fiction, does my right hon. Friend agree that the red rose party is the red nose party—a party of comic relief?

I am very grateful that my hon. Friend gives me an opportunity to reiterate that what we respect in the House of Commons—in this Chamber—is the fact that politics should be about policies, not about soundbites. It is about time that the Labour party learnt that lesson.

As the people of this country will once again show their view of the Government's policies on Thursday, and as the Chancellor is responsible for the presentation of Government policy, is he or the Prime Minister to be blamed for the Government's failures?

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten once again that at the last general election the Conservative party secured a larger number of votes than any political party had ever secured before. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman remembered that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce further charters; and if he will make a statement. [20150]

New charters for further and higher education in Northern Ireland will be published later this year, as well as revised charters for council tenants and court users. A revised contributors charter for national insurance payers was published last week.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that British Gas has been put on probation for a year in relation to its charter mark—it could be taken away if it does not improve—and that that is an excellent use of charter marks? Will he further confirm that, despite its endless hollow boasting, the Labour party will never qualify for a charter mark?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and he is particularly right in the light of the press releases that Labour has released today on consumers. The point about charter marks is that they are designed to be the Oscars of public service, and a mark of quality for someone who is doing well. It does not matter whether we are talking about British Gas or a local library—if it does not live up to its promises, it should have its charter mark removed. British Gas has another nine months to come up to the mark. If it does not do so, we will take its mark away.

Does the Minister accept that if bosses of utilities such as British Gas cannot self-regulate their snouts out of the trough, someone else must protect the public interest? Does he further agree that there is a need to revise the legislation that governs the powers of the regulator in gas and in other utilities so that the regulator can intervene where bosses fail to meet acceptable public standards in pay and conditions, which may be true of British Gas?

The Labour party would wrap everything up in more regulation and red tape. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that this matter is being considered by the Greenbury committee. Members on both sides of the House would wish to support the purpose of charter marks, which is to improve the quality of public services. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said with regard to privatisation, the Government are ahead of every other Government in the world in improving public service.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received from industry scientists and other interested parties during the foresight process. [20151]

A great many. The technology foresight programme has been based on very extensive consultation, reaching out to more than 10,000 people through the work of panels, conferences, seminars, surveys and workshops.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what must be the most thorough and comprehensive consultation process that has ever taken place on science research and development in this country, which will result in the identification of opportunities in markets for our businesses in the next 10 or 20 years. When will the process be completed, and when will the entire foresight programme be drawn together by the steering group? When we can expect some action plans?

We expect to publish the final report in the second half of this month, and we are responding to many of the reports with new research programmes. For example, the programme on applied biocatalysis, which I announced at the relaunch of the LINK programme on 14 March, focuses on a generic theme spotlighted by three of the foresight panels. The Government will contribute £4 million to the programme, with matching funds coming from industry. I agree with my hon. Friend that the 15 reports on technology foresight in "Progress Through Partnership" are examples of a programme that is beating the rest of the world. We intend to follow up that programme with clear initiatives that respond to the imaginative ideas that have been put forward.

Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that many of the recommendations of the foresight panels go far beyond the laissez faire policies of the Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman have the support of his colleagues in pursuing the recommendations?

It would have assisted me had the hon. Gentleman told me to which of the 15 reports he was referring. The President of the Board of Trade and I have announced an extension to the LINK programme, which is determined to follow up many of the initiatives proposed in the panel reports. The whole technology foresight programme has been a remarkable success, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join with many others throughout the country in welcoming the reports. We must ensure that the Government and all the relevant parties—in particular, industry—respond in the best way possible.

I welcome technology foresight in principle, but what is the point of the exercise when the recommendations in the various reports are undermined by the current actions of other Departments? The Department of Transport is privatising the Transport Research Laboratory, which undermines proposals in the transport report. The Department of Trade and Industry is pushing on with the privatisation of AEA Technology, despite the recommendations of the energy foresight report to extend and use our nuclear clean-up expertise. How can the Chancellor and his Department credibly claim to be co-ordinating the Government's science policy when other Ministers are undermining their work day by day? Where is the joined-up thinking?

The hon. Gentleman has got the facts wrong again. I have read through the 15 reports. The transport report to which he refers contains some imaginative thinking, to which the Government will respond after very careful thought. As for all Government Departments, we will consider with colleagues how best to respond to the reports. The hon. Gentleman failed to refer to the fact that the science budget, which underpins all this work, reached a record level in the last financial year. In this financial year, the record cash figure of £1,281,675,000 will be spent. That is more than enough to ensure that we follow up many of the recommendations, in partnership with other Departments.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what examples he has of improvements influenced by the citizens charters. [20152]

Many. They include hospital waiting times, passport applications, first-class letter delivery, driving licence applications, publication of school, police and local authority performance tables and guaranteed minimum standards for gas, water and electricity.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the spin-offs of the citizens charter is a bringing together of jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices, which ensures that people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed can receive the full employment services that they need to get back into a job?

Yes, I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. Not only that, but the agencies in question now see 98 per cent. of people within 10 minutes of their going to the office.

Under which charter can the people of Wales and England complain on this glorious spring day because they have been denied their traditional May day bank holiday, which is being enjoyed by the lucky people in Scotland? When will the Government stop mucking about with May day?

I really do not think that we need to keep the red flag flying on this day.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to meet the Institute of Civil Engineering to discuss the role of engineering. [20153]

In the last year my senior officials met engineering bodies on six occasions. I look forward to continuing this close relationship.

In view of the importance of engineering to the economy, can my hon. Friend state that a Minister as well as officials will meet officials of the industry in future?

Absolutely. My right hon. Friend met engineering institutions three times in January, four times in February and three times in March. I have also met many engineers at all levels of—

Order. I would be much obliged if the Minister would use the microphone not only so that we can hear him but so that I can see him.

I was turning away, perhaps out of excessive politeness, to deal with my hon. Friend's question.

Would the Minister like to astonish himself on one of the occasions when he or his newly found colleagues address the engineering institutions by recommending some way in which new jobs can be created in engineering so that we might begin to get back to the state in which we compete as engineers and do not have to import other people's goods?

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is behind the times. Manufacturing in this country has strengthened considerably in the past few years, particularly in vehicle manufacture, which she knows all about in her constituency. Engineering in Britain is on a high now. That is partly as a result of the interest of the Government and partly as a result of the inward investment that the Government have successfully encouraged in the past five or 10 years. The hon. Lady should come up to date.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as from next year, technology will be part of the national curriculum for all young people from five to 16 and that over the next three years the Government are committed to putting in an additional £10 million to top up bursaries for top-flight undergraduates studying technology?

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those facts. The Royal Academy of Engineering is getting another £400,000 this year, which will bring up to £2.6 million the contribution that we are making to that body. As a result of science being in the school curriculum for the first time on a comprehensive basis, about 1.6 million pupils are now taking science subjects at GCSE level. That is more than double the figure of five years ago and is the result of the first group of children coming through the new science curriculum.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the work of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on women's issues in the past year. [20154]

The ministerial Committee on women's issues plays a key role in developing and monitoring policy on issues of special concern to women. As I explained to the House on 7 March, the Government have introduced a range of measures that have improved the position of women in our society.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Government Actuary's report on the Pensions Bill, which says that in the first year in which the Bill comes fully into force—if it does come into force—pensions paid to women will fall in value at today's prices by £4,600 million in that year alone? Has the Cabinet women's Committee considered the Pensions Bill and the disastrous effect that it will have on women? If so, what advice has it given the Cabinet?

The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are very much matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Of course the ministerial Committee considers a range of issues affecting the position of women. As we said in the debate on 7 March, we have a very impressive record on ensuring that the position of women in society continues to improve.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts: