To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement as to measures which his Department and agencies are taking to reduce social security fraud. [8789]

Last July, I announced my new security strategy to give new emphasis to prevention and deterrence of benefit fraud. That involves extra checks on benefit claims, matching of information on the Department's computers and the introduction of benefit payment cards to replace order books and girocheques.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Does he agree that the biggest personal fraud of pension funds was perpetrated by the late Robert Maxwell? Does he further agree that the biggest collective fraud of pension funds would occur if the Labour party ever got its stake on pension fund holders?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I suppose that the late Robert Maxwell was almost the only socialist Member of Parliament ever to show a personal interest in private pensions, but my hon. Friend is right to sound the alarm bells at any Opposition suggestions that they want to get state hands on our pension schemes. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the Leader of the Labour party recently visited Singapore—the principal difference between whose system and ours is that the state controls pension schemes—because they want to get their hands on our successful private pensions, which are the envy of the rest of Europe.

We welcome any measures that the Government may introduce effectively to tackle fraud, wherever it may appear in the social security system, but we question why, after 17 years in power, the Government have taken so long to introduce such measures. However, will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what his financial targets are for fraud? There appears to be a contradiction between the Budget Red Book figures and those in his uprating statement. Will he tell us today, therefore, precisely what his annual fraud figures are for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99?

My objective, which I spelled out in detail when I published the new anti-fraud strategy in July, was to reduce the fraud level by—we believe that this is possible—about 70 per cent. over a five-year period. To spell out a specific year-by-year path is asking a little too much of a Minister at the Dispatch Box. I can remind hon. Members that we have had no positive ideas on how to reduce fraud from the Opposition, who, in the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), have for too long been associated with the freeloader.

In his initial answer, my right hon. Friend referred to the social security card. What progress is he making with it? What will it consist of? Will it use new technology? What savings does he expect to make against fraud as a consequence of its introduction?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the card. We are in the advanced stages of reaching agreement and of choosing a final winner in relation to the private finance initiative plans to introduce the card. With it, we shall be able virtually to eliminate fraud and abuse of the order book system, which amounts to about £150 million a year. In due course, we hope to make savings in the administration of handling benefit as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children under 16 years of age are in families receiving income support; and what proportion of all children this represents. [8790]

Around 2.98 million children are in families receiving income support, representing 25.5 per cent. of all children under 16 in Great Britain.

Are those not appalling figures? One in four children are living at that poverty level, never getting to go to a pantomime, never having any decent toys for Christmas, never getting a change of clothes unless they go to jumble sales or Oxfam, and never going on a school trip or holiday. What has happened to the Tory policy of one nation?

Those are disturbing figures. However, if I tell the hon. Gentleman that, of those 2.98 million children, 1.8 million are children of lone parents, he might realise the fundamental social problem. The important point is that, since 1992, we have enabled 200,000 lone parents to move off income support and on to family credit, gaining, on average, £30 a week. With our child care disregard provisions, which have been announced, that trend should be accelerated.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that payments to under-16s in that category are sufficient to ensure a proper and reasonable life style? Will he further confirm that they will not be victimised in the way that they would be if Labour policy on choice in schools has its way?

Parental choice in schools, which Conservative Members—if not all hon. Members—strongly support, can lead to additional expense. On the main point of my hon. Friend's question, a judgment must be made on the levels of income support that the Government believe to be appropriate in all the circumstances, including those that he adumbrated.

Does the Minister agree that, under Beveridge, income support was intended to provide a safety net in the social security system? If one in four children are now dependent on income support, does that not show the failure of Government policy? Have not the Government turned what was once a proud welfare state into an expensive and complex dependency state?

No. The fact that income support provided a safety net on a scale undreamed of by the late Sir William Beveridge is a mark of the development of welfare principles in changing social conditions. As I said, 1.8 million—two thirds—of the 2.98 million children referred to in my main answer are the children of lone parents. That is a very real social problem. The way to tackle it is to provide incentives to work, which is what we are doing through family credit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what priority has been given to tackling fraud in his social security reforms. [8791]

The fight against fraud is a top priority. Last year, the crackdown on benefit fraud saved a record £717.6 million from fraud detected and stopped. We are well on the way this year to achieving another record-breaking amount.

I thank my hon. Friend for his determined effort to crack down on cheating, because cheating is nothing other than stealing. Will he confirm that, among other measures, the Department plans to visit 1 million homes to check that applications are correct? Will he further confirm that, last year, under that system, there were 9,500 prosecutions, with a 95 per cent. conviction rate being achieved? Is that not a success?

I confirm the information provided by my hon. Friend. However, there will be not only the 1 million additional visits, but the bar code scanner, data matching, hotlines, data cleansing, the Post Office reward scheme and the new benefit payment card, all of which will provide a tough range of measures to deal with benefit fraud.

I congratulate the Government on slowly trying to get to grips with the major issue of social security fraud. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The operative word was "slowly", but I am grateful for the support of Conservative Members.

The housing benefit review published last week was the most detailed study ever of housing benefit fraud, dealing with more than 5,000 cases and involving 52 local authorities. We believe that the estimate of £1 billion for housing benefit fraud is accurate, although clearly the figure may be higher in some areas and lower in others.

Was there not also a serious social security fraud when the Labour party suggested that the Singaporean way of administering pensions was in some way preferable to ours? Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the difference between the two schemes?

Using false representations to obtain benefits is an offence, but that does not apply to Labour politicians making false representations to claim votes. One of my right hon. Friend's initiatives to crack down on fraud is data matching, or comparing one claim against another. That is why we believe that it is instructive to look at the claims made by the leader of the Labour party and compare them with what people such as John Monks and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) have said. Stakeholding means forcing people to take out a second state pension and putting the funds in the hands of the trade unions. We all know that the rate of return from the Singapore scheme—a stateholding scheme—is 2 per cent. over inflation, whereas the rate of return since 1980 of the British pension funds, which administer our private schemes and have £600 billion-worth of assets, is 10 per cent. over inflation.

More than two years ago, the Public Accounts Committee—chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—investigated fraud by employers. Is the Minister aware that the Committee estimated that about £300 million was lost each year because employers were refusing to hand over their employees' national insurance contributions and taxes? In my constituency, a young lad who lost his fingers while working a wood-cutting machine could not claim a single penny piece, because his employer had not handed over his national insurance. As it is more than two years since £300 million was found to be missing, can the Minister tell me how many of those involved have been prosecuted?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is vital that we have measures that deal not just with claimant fraud, but with fraud by employers, landlords and anyone else. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about the individual case to which he referred, I shall look into it. Nobody must think that collusive employers and landlords are having an easy ride—we are after them as well.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a favourite racket of those involved in fraud is to sub-let their flat and go and live with friends or relations while continuing to claim housing benefit? What is he going to do about that?

My hon. Friend is right, and the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last Friday will provide substantial help as we try to solve that problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently receive incapacity benefit; and what was the equivalent figure for invalidity benefit 12 months earlier. [8792]

At 30 November 1995, just under 1.7 million people were claiming incapacity benefit at either the short-term higher rate or the long-term rate. The equivalent figure for invalidity benefit a year earlier was 1.73 million.

The Minister will recall that his predecessor—the current Secretary of State for Wales—announced on 27 January last year that there would be a saving of £410 million in this financial year from the change from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit. Given that it is clear that such a reduction in expenditure will not be achieved, will the Minister give an assurance that his Department will not try to claw back that money by making the incapacity test even stiffer? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not try to get the money back by, for example, cutting the mobility allowance for hospitals to rake in £40 million? Will he instead find additional resources to maintain the level of support needed by those currently on invalidity or incapacity benefit?

A figure that I recognise better is £210 million in the first year. The point that I should convey to the House and to the hon. Gentleman is the outstanding increase in invalidity benefit in previous years—it doubled over a decade. It was important to put a curb on that growth. The figures that I have given to the House show that that has happened. It is too early in the year to say what the savings will be at the end of the year, because of the build-up of case load. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the incapacity work test will remain properly designed to ensure that those who can work do so, and that those who are incapable of work are not obliged to register for it. We have no intention of changing the test or of making any of the other changes to achieve the object that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I welcome the successful introduction of incapacity benefit. Will my hon. Friend confirm that those people who leave incapacity benefit may be helped through improvements to the disability working allowance?

Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. Some 7,400 people are now receiving disability working allowance, with an average payment of £54 a week. Some changes were made this year: the single person's threshold was increased; the couple's allowance was increased; and, an extra £10 a week is available for those working 30 hours or more. I hope that the disability working allowance becomes better known and is taken up more often, because it is an important part of our progress to ensure that people who are able to work get back in work.

After nine months of the new incapacity benefit, will the Minister accept that recipients of the old invalidity benefit were not, after all, a load of malingerers, scroungers and leadswingers? Why did the Department of Social Security set up its data-recording procedures so that we cannot be told which claimants of incapacity benefit were claimants of invalidity benefit? Is it because the Government do not want us to know how far the living standards of disabled people have fallen because of the reduction in benefit?

I do not think that any Conservative Member has suggested that every claimant of invalidity benefit was workshy, a leadswinger or anything else. The Government recognise, but Opposition Members fail to recognise and make clear, that some people who were claiming a benefit from the British people were not entitled to it and should have been on a different benefit. Accordingly, we were prepared to make the hard decisions to change the rules.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the initiative entitled Priority 2000, in which private employment agencies are making a commitment to get people with disabilities back to work and to do so at no cost to the taxpayer, with the great benefit of ensuring that people with disabilities who also have abilities can get back into useful work in the economy?

Yes. Some excellent projects are taking place all over the country to encourage disabled people back into work, which—in this year, with the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—will make the important point to employers that the disabled work force is an important part of the work force and that disabled people are no longer to be discriminated against and will give excellent service. I welcome projects such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned, which will help to progress a change of attitude to assist disabled people into work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average hourly wage earned by family heads who receive family credit. [8793]

The average hourly wage earned by employed family heads who receive family credit is £3.85.

Is it not of some importance that a large majority of those who receive family credit are paid a very low—in some cases, disgracefully low—wage? Is it not also of interest that, while many Tory Members of Parliament are campaigning to double the parliamentary salary to compensate, in some cases, for loss of consultancies, those same Tory Members are firmly opposed to a decent and fair wage? Does that not show their hypocrisy on this issue?

Let me deal with the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If we accept his premise that help should go to those who need it most, we must also accept that the difficulty with a minimum wage is that research has clearly shown that, purely in terms of social security targeting, the richest 30 per cent. of the population would gain more than the poorest 30 per cent. That is because many of the people who are on the lowest wages are members of households in which someone else is in a much higher bracket. At the same time—let us be absolutely clear—a minimum wage destroys jobs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those on family credit are single parents? Did he see last night's "Panorama", in which a 17-year-old pregnant girl was clearly about to join the ranks of those on family credit? That programme focused on Hastings, which outraged many of my good constituents. Could he say how our social security reforms are reducing dependency on the welfare state?

I did not see the programme to which my hon. Friend alludes. The important point is that family credit is helping people back into work—including 200,000 lone parents since 1992.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effects of the habitual residence rules on British citizens who have lived abroad. [8794]

We continue to monitor the position of British citizens who do not satisfy the habitual residence test.

Will the Minister consider the cases of three of my constituents who, for the major part of their lives, have lived in Britain, been British taxpayers and paid national insurance, and are now in real hardship? One of them is a wife, the victim of marital violence, while another is a young woman who is expecting a baby on St. David's day. Was it really the intention of the Government to cheat British citizens and recent British taxpayers of benefits to which they were recently entitled and for which they and their families have paid many times over?

If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the names of his constituents, I shall be happy to look into each of the cases that he has mentioned. I should stress that whether a case meets the test of habitual residence is a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities, and Ministers cannot interfere. The difficulty that he and his Front-Bench colleagues have not addressed is that the reforms, between August 1994 and November 1995, have saved £37 million. To draw up a test that satisfies European law and prevents that sort of abuse was the right way to proceed.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the need for the habitual residence test has been highlighted by magazines such as Time Out, which described London as

"a honeypot for young Europeans"?

My hon. Friend is right on every point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the review procedure of the Child Support Agency. [8795]

A child maintenance assessment may be reviewed on various grounds. A variety of changes have been made over the past year to streamline and improve the procedures.

Does the Minister share my concern that one of my constituents asked for a review of the basis on which his assessment had been made on 1 August 1995, is still waiting for the review to be completed and is in severe financial difficulties as a result? Will the Minister undertake an investigation of my constituent's case and ensure that appropriate action is taken to prevent any similar delay for my constituents or those of other hon. Members?

I am aware of that case, as the hon. Lady has raised it with me. I have looked at it personally and found that problems have arisen, some of which are certainly the Child Support Agency's fault. Her constituent's case is now undergoing simultaneously a change of circumstance review and an appeal, and I have given instructions that it should be taken forward as a priority.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Child Support Agency still has some way to go before it reaches a reasonable level of accuracy of assessments? Does he further agree that staff in certain offices must show more patience and understanding when talking to our constituents about the complicated, detailed matters which our constituents are obliged to pass on to them?

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of civil, courteous and effective treatment by agency staff at all times. Staff training has been increased significantly over the past year. It is important to recognise that, following last year's significant changes, the policy is now fair. The CSA will never be loved, as it enters people's lives at a difficult time. Its key challenge, however, is to continue to improve over the coming months, as it has over the past year.

Is it not disgraceful that the Child Support Agency takes on average 211 days to process a claim and, of those, only 29 per cent. are right? Is it not also disgraceful that the Child Support Act 1991 is emotionally damaging children brought up in lone-parent families? Is it not time that the Government scrapped the Act and brought in a unified family court system?

The hon. Lady's contribution is typical of the unconstructive suggestions that we hear from the Liberal Democrats. A Liberal Democrat policy document says:

"Some Liberal Democrat ideas are difficult to understand and over complicated."

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Child Support Agency has some way to go before it is as good as we all want it to be, hon. Members should congratulate its chief executive on the great improvement that she has made during her time in that job? Will he keep in sight the minority of fathers who can but will not pay, and who do not want to know what it costs to bring up their children, and let them know that the taxpayer will bail them out no longer?

My hon. Friend is right. I shall pass on his generous and accurate remarks to the chief executive of the CSA. Over the past year, Parliament has made significant changes to the agency's operation. We have introduced the 30 per cent. rule, which means that no absent parent will pay more than 30 per cent. of his or her net income for current maintenance. In addition, we shall shortly pilot the departures process, which will add to the system an important degree of fairness that may have been missing in the agency's early days.

Will the Minister consider a simple move that would change attitudes? Will he change the terminology that we use and get rid of the term "absent parent", which no other country with a child support agency uses, and use instead titles such as the "payee", or "non-custodial parent"? The fact that a parent is "absent" does not mean that he or she does not care about the child. Why cannot that change be made immediately?

The hon. Lady has raised that point before, most recently in the Select Committee, so I am aware of her concern. I agree that the terminology is not entirely satisfactory, but it is not easy to find an alternative form of words to meet our requirements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to introduce a guaranteed minimum pension; and what estimate he has made of the cost of a guaranteed minimum pension of £80 a week. [8796]

We have no plans to introduce a guaranteed minimum pension. It is estimated that a scheme of this type, based on £80 a week, would currently cost up to £5 billion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to deal with the challenges of an increasingly aging society is not through a guaranteed minimum pension, which may not be sustainable, but by better targeting of benefits towards those who most need them, and the provision of private pensions? Is it not interesting that it has been announced today that £600 billion is invested in investment funds and pension schemes in this country, which is a far greater sum than is invested in all the other European countries put together?

A guaranteed minimum pension would force every pensioner to submit to a means test. It would amount to a tax on thrift. Many people who had a private pension would receive nothing—there could be no greater disincentive to save. As my hon. Friend said, £600 billion is invested in private pension schemes in the UK. That money is invested efficiently, unlike money invested in the stakeholder scheme, in which the trade unions would be involved and which might produce poor returns such as they have in Singapore.

Is not the truth that, under the Tories, more than 3 million pensioners are today forced to depend on means-tested benefits, and perhaps 750,000 do not apply for their entitlement? Is it not also true that more than 1 million pensioners receive less than 20 per cent. of average male earnings—the amount provided by the basic state pension alone in 1979? Is not the truth behind the Minister's words that the Government have betrayed today's generation of pensioners and are in the process of betraying tomorrow's?

The hon. Gentleman is right: take-up is important. That is why the Government have set up about 80,000 information points to which we send information about pensions so that pensioners are aware of their rights. The hon. Gentleman got carried away with his rhetoric. The rise in pensioners' incomes since 1979 has been 51 per cent. in real terms. Some £1.2 billion of extra help has been given to those on income support. When the hon. Gentleman considers the proposals that he suggests for stakeholding or stateholding, does he think that a return rate of 2 per cent. is anywhere near equivalent to the performance of our private sector pensions, which currently give a return of 10 per cent?

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about the payment of social security benefits to asylum seekers. [8797]

I have received a number of items of correspondence about asylum seekers from a variety of sources.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 70 per cent. of asylum seekers who are on benefit misrepresented their assets and means when they came to this country, and that 90 per cent. of claims for asylum are shown to be bogus? Do not those facts and the rapid increase in the number of asylum seekers underline the need for action and the sheer irresponsibility of those who oppose any action?

My hon. Friend is right: 70 per cent. of those who claim to be asylum seekers did not, originally, when they entered the country and were asked by immigration officials their reasons for doing so, say that they were seeking asylum—they said that they were visitors, tourists or business men. They had to demonstrate and convince the immigration officers that what they said was true. They had to demonstrate that they had the means to support themselves when here and the means to return home subsequently. They usually showed that they had someone to stay with here. In those circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable that they should not receive benefit if they subsequently change their story and declare themselves to be asylum seekers. That is the rule that we are introducing under the new regulations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that both the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Hume have recently written jointly to the Prime Minister to express their concern about the Government's proposals? What has his response been—simply to plough ahead? Will he now answer the question that he has consistently refused to answer: when all benefit is withdrawn, how are people to live? How are they to feed their children? Will they starve? Has humanity completely disappeared?

The hon. Gentleman was not here when the statement was made—he was seeking asylum in Singapore, I believe—and consequently he perhaps did not hear the reasons for what we have done and the justification for the changes. As I have just explained, I believe that justification to be sound. The only people who will be required to live on their own resources after making a claim for asylum will be those who have demonstrated to the immigration authorities that they have the resources on which to live. My response, on receiving the letters from the noble prelates to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, was to offer to see them before I made my statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread resentment about the fact that foreign nationals from outside the European economic area can qualify for British social security almost as soon as they arrive in this country? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Canada has a five-year residence requirement before any foreigner can qualify for Canadian social security? Is it not time that we introduced similar rules in this country?

My hon. Friend is right. Until recently, our rules were considerably laxer than those of most other countries, both as regards people from within the European economic area and those outside it. We have tightened up—rightly—in both cases. We have introduced an habitual residence test, which will, I hope, stop—and has largely stopped—benefit tourism in Europe, and we are tightening up on claims by asylum seekers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the accuracy of assessments by the Child Support Agency. [8798]

The Child Support Agency has already introduced a range of measures to improve accuracy.

Earlier, the Minister spoke about accuracy of between 70 and 80 per cent. That is a tremendous contrast with the last report of the chief adjudication officer, in which he said that only 29 per cent. of assessments were entirely correct.

No. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the agency has significantly improved its accuracy. The report to which he refers says that the key ingredients to ensure further substantial improvements in accuracy are already in place. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's recognition that accuracy, which is at the top of the agency's agenda, is improving.

While I commend my hon. Friend on the improvements that have been achieved in respect of the CSA, and on the contribution to them that has been made by Miss Ann Chant, I remain worried about the number of inaccurate assessments. Is it not about time that an independent review or appeal body were established, to which aggrieved mothers or fathers might appeal?

I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We continually keep under review whether there are ways in which we might improve the performance and procedures of the Child Support Agency, and we are bearing in mind the argument that he has just made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disciplinary actions have been taken against employees of the CSA who have breached confidentiality of clients. [8799]

Twenty staff have been disciplined for breaches of confidentiality since the agency was set up in 1993.

Is the Minister aware of the case of Mr. Marc Carder of Plymouth, the personal and intimate details of whose case notes were leaked to the media by a member of the Child Support Agency, which led to headlines about his case in the Evening Herald? First, what will the Minister do to recompense Mr. Carder? Secondly, what will he do to ensure that such action cannot happen again? Thirdly, what he has done about the employee who leaked those details?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the employee who leaked those details has been sacked. The CSA takes breaches of confidentiality very seriously. Three members of staff have been sacked for that offence; all three came from the Plymouth CSA centre.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent his proposals for reducing the scope for asylum seekers to claim income support apply to the provision of free school meals to their children. [8800]

Only those entitled to income support are eligible for free school meals for their children.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that some asylum seekers will not be permitted to work, will not be able to claim any benefits, and will now not be able to claim free school meals for their children? How does he expect them to live?

That is not the situation. Asylum seekers are entitled to work—and they receive such an entitlement—after they have been in the country for six months. The responsibilities of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 will not change. Local authorities have a duty to ensure that children in their areas do not suffer hardship, and they must make financial provision to prevent that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 January. [8819]

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the latest Lloyds bank business in Britain survey which shows that business confidence has fallen and that three quarters of companies in the north west have failed to invest? Last week, the Minister for Trade said in the House that Britain is not

"in the first division of industrialised nations".—[Official Report, 17 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 730.]

Unlike most other countries—some of which the hon. Lady no doubt fondly believes are doing better than us, when they are not—the United Kingdom's output has risen in every quarter for almost four years. It is now 6 per cent. above its previous peak. Growth in 1995 was 2.6 per cent., which is about the level that was forecast by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. No economy in western Europe has performed as well as the British economy in the past 12 months, or is doing so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents who send their children to grant-maintained schools and grammar schools should be welcomed as stakeholders? Is it not morally indefensible for such parents to grab privileges for their own children while denying them to other children?

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I am glad to see that many right hon. and hon. Members are now using some of the opportunities that my right hon. Friend framed as Education Secretary. The events of the past few days prove that, as they say, the Labour party has changed. Yesterday's Labour party said that it would abolish GM schools the day after tomorrow; today's Labour Members say that they will abolish them once their children have finished their education.

What about the Oratory?

Order. Hon. Members are wasting time. I have not yet named the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), but I have time to do so before 3.30 pm.

We see the baying mob. If Conservative Members think, after the damage that they have done to this country, that they will ride to popularity on the back of a decision about 11-year-old boys, they credit the British people with too little sense.

Perhaps I may offer my sympathies to the right hon. Gentleman on his current predicament. I am glad that he is supporting the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in her decision. He must back her. He certainly cannot sack her, because all she is doing is playing follow my leader.

I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words of concern about pressure. The difference between us is that I will not buckle under it. [Interruption.]

Order. Other hon. Members have questions on the Order Paper and I want to hear them. Let us have order on both sides of the House.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, despite the 25 per cent. devaluation of our currency, we still have a trade deficit with the rest of Europe? The right hon. Gentleman asked for comparisons with Europe. Will he also confirm that, during the whole period of Conservative government, employment and growth levels in investment have been lower than in any other major European country, and that we have fallen from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league? Is there not now a direct contrast between the speeches of the Prime Minister and the experience and reality of the vast majority of the British people?

The right hon. Gentleman should not be so sensitive about his difficulties. I just want to be tough on hypocrisy and tough on the causes of hypocrisy.

Did my right hon. Friend see reports last week about the social services inspector who sought to bring pressure to bear on a children's playgroup because it was said that the toys in use were not of the correct colour and therefore not politically correct? Is he aware that that story emanated from the same local authority that was responsible for the safari boy—a Labour and Liberal-controlled authority that never loses an opportunity to say that it cannot fulfil its responsibilities because it is short of money? It is currently trying to close much-needed adult opportunity centres.

My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly without my adding to it. If the leader of the Liberal party wants to comment, he can no doubt turn to his own advisers. Perhaps this is one of the policies that they have told him were "barmy" and "duplicitous", and "would bankrupt the nation".

When it comes to crimes against humanity, surely there can never be any place for neutrality. Is it not true that no just and durable peace can ever be built unless justice is not only done but seen to be done against those who perpetrate war crimes? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government expect IFOR—and will support it—to take every step necessary to safeguard war crimes evidence, to protect the investigators and to ensure that these people are brought to book?

The right hon. Gentleman touches on a very important point. We strongly support the work of the war crimes tribunal and have done more than most to help it with financial support, equipment, and seconded staff; and we have provided evidence to the prosecutor's office.

Will my right hon. Friend take time during his busy day to write to the head teachers of St. Olave's school in Orpington and its sister school, Newstead Wood school for girls, which my daughter attended, to congratulate them on running such excellent schools that they attract pupils from 15 miles and two boroughs away?

I am delighted to congratulate those schools on the excellent opportunities they offer their pupils. It is certainly our policy to make sure that every school offers the same sort of opportunity. We believe it right for parents to take those opportunities.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 January. [8820]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

I want to ask a simple but serious question. The Prime Minister continually describes Britain as the enterprise centre of Europe. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but does not the right hon. Gentleman find it unbelievable that Britain cannot afford to supply lifesaving equipment such as a nebuliser and a humidifier to an 80-year-old constituent of mine who suffers from cancer and communicates via a throat microphone? The country apparently cannot even afford to pay £79 of service charges. What sort of enterprise centre is that?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman provide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health with the details of that case so that it can be examined. If he were genuinely concerned about the matter, that is what he would have done—instead of raising one case out of 8.5 million patients without providing the opportunity to examine its details.

To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Cirencester and Tewkesbury. [8821]

I have, at present, no plans to do so.

If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency, he would discover that parents have opted for six out of eight secondary schools to become grant-maintained. Will he commend the principled stand of certain Opposition Members, who made the correct choice of school for their children? Is it not the height of hypocrisy to seek to deny that choice to my constituents and others?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. I believe that the view of most people in the country is that the hon. Member for Peckham was right to exercise choice in favour of her own child. No one objects to that. What is wrong is that the Labour party would deny those same choices to other parents throughout the country.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 January. [8822]

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that Robert Burns might be birling in his grave in this, his bicentennial year, at the prospect of the Scottish Secretary laying a wreath at his memorial in London? Excise duties, in which the poet might have had a vested interest, have been increased, but can the Prime Minister point to a policy of his Administration that reflects the qualities of compassion, equality, Scottish patriotism and human understanding that flow through the works of Robert Burns? Is there a policy that reflects any of those virtues?

I strongly suspect that, if the great poet were here today, he certainly would not support the policies of the hon. Gentleman. He certainly would not support policies of extra taxation that will drive more Scottish opportunities out of Scotland and more Scots out of Scotland, and he certainly would not propose the isolationism that underpins the hon. Gentleman's policies.

rose—

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could not hear me in the hurly-burly, but I was seeking to raise a point of order. It relates to the method by which people whose names are not recorded in Hansard might indicate whether they were abstaining. I understand that, in a Division last night, the Leader of the Opposition did not vote. I should like to know whether that was an abstention or whether he just failed to appear.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would ask the Leader of the Opposition—that is not a matter for the Speaker.