To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the projected rate of growth of the social security budget over the next three years; and what will be the proportion of gross domestic product spent on social security. [14350]

Social security spending is expected to increase by a little more than 1 per cent. a year in real terms. That is less than half the rate at which gross domestic product is expected to grow, so there is every prospect of social security taking a declining share of GDP in future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have managed to achieve that in the face of considerable pressures because we have taken sensible and practical steps to contain both expenditure and overheads, unlike Labour Ministers who talk about thinking the unthinkable and would open up again the benefit system to asylum appellants who have been refused asylum?

My hon. Friend is right that the success in containing the prospective growth in social security is the result of the reforms that we have introduced over the past three years, almost every one of which has been opposed by the Opposition, including the latest sensible changes to stop abuse of the welfare system by bogus asylum claimants. The Opposition have opposed every change that we have made. When they talk about thinking the unthinkable, they are thinking about spending yet more public money. Every proposal that they put forward is an increased expenditure plan.

Does the Secretary of State agree that an important part of the social security budget is the cold weather payments system? Will he explain how it can possibly be fair to my constituents in Barking that the eligibility for cold weather payments of those who live on one side of Lodge avenue is measured against the temperature at Heathrow, but the eligibility of those who live on the other side is measured against the temperature at Stansted? Is it fair that one group of tenants should have received cold weather payments four times this year while tenants on the other side of the road have had them only once?

There are always difficulties wherever borderlines are drawn. That is true of cold weather payments and of the education system. Many Labour spokesmen find it difficult when the good schools are on one side of the borderline and they live on the other.

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 have these items currently. [14351]

Based on the data for 1992–93: 99 per cent. have a fridge compared with 88 per cent. in 1979; 50 per cent. have a car or van compared with 34 per cent. in 1979; 78 per cent. have a freezer compared with 32 per cent. in 1979; 93 per cent. have a telephone compared with 57 per cent. in 1979.

I thank my hon. Friend for telling us the excellent news about pensioners' increased standards of living, which is largely the result of the success of occupational pensions. Does he agree that that success would be seriously eroded should pensions ever be invested by trade unions as proposed by the Labour party? Pensioners' nest eggs would be whittled away to nothing.

My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a valid point. The fact is that when Labour talk about thinking the unthinkable, it means spending more money. Its stakeholder proposals mean higher premiums and lower returns on its second tier stakeholder pension scheme. The Labour party has always wanted to get its hands on private pensions. Harold Wilson and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) wanted to and now Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen want to.

Is it not a fact that those pensioners have fridges, cars and telephones because they bought them in 1979 when they were in full-time employment? Their fridges are now 16 years old and they cannot afford to replace them under this Government.

The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening, because I said that pensioners did not have those goods in 1979 and now they do. He may recall that under the last Labour Government pensioners' incomes increased by 5 per cent. and that under this Government they have increased by almost that amount every year.

Returning to the realms of reality rather than the fantasy world in which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) lives, will my hon. Friend confirm that nowadays no fewer than eight out of 10 pensioners have incomes outside the state pension? One of the great achievements of the past 15 years is that £600 billion has been put aside in occupational pensions funds, which is the greatest expenditure in Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that high rates of inflation are a great danger to savings and that if there were another Labour Government—God forfend—we would see high inflation such as we had in the 1970s which would destroy the value of pensions?

My hon. Friend is correct. The Government's policy is to maintain the value of the basic state pension, encourage private provision and target extra help at those most in need. It is no coincidence that we in this country have invested £600 billion in private pension schemes—which is more than the rest of the European Community combined.

Does the Minister accept that there is another nation in old age which is not revealed by the camouflage of his complacency: a nation of pensioners who are often poor? Does the Minister accept that many frail elderly people are sitting at home on this freezing cold day afraid to put on their fires because of the high heating costs? Why does the Department make so few forecasts that can trigger cold weather payments when in 1991 Ministers assured us that forecasts were being introduced so that we could reassure the old that they could keep their fires on? Is it not time that pensioners in Britain were no longer old and cold?

The hon. Gentleman should check his facts because, since November, expenditure on cold weather payments has tripled to £60 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that potential asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry are made aware of the rules affecting their entitlement to social security benefits. [14352]

The availability of social security benefits should not be a factor in the decision to apply for asylum.

Is it not incumbent on the Government to ensure that advice is provided to potential asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry that if they do not apply for asylum there and then they will not be eligible for benefits and, under the Government's new policy, will be at risk of absolute destitution? What advice are the Government providing to new arrivals before they reach immigration control? Will the Secretary of State comment on the immigration service's reported insistence that posters, which were provided voluntarily and which would have alerted people to that situation, must not be sited in either the arrival halls or in the buffer lounges at Heathrow?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, when people present before the immigration authorities in this country, they are asked their reasons for coming here. If they say that they have come to take refuge and to claim asylum, they will be able to pursue that claim and they will be entitled to benefit while doing so. However, if they manage to convince the immigration authorities that they are coming to this country as students, business men or visitors and they go on to persuade them that they have the means to support themselves, that they have somewhere to stay and that they have a ticket to return home, and they subsequently enter the country and change their story, they will have no right to benefit. I do not think that there is anything wrong with that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should not encourage bogus asylum seekers who are not escaping persecution but are merely interested in benefits? Taking his point further, does he also agree that that sums up the position of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)?

My hon. Friend is right on all points. We cannot have a system whereby people who are asked a straightforward question but who give a series of misleading answers are subsequently able to get benefits because they change their story. That must be wrong, and cannot be acceptable to anyone.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in real terms in the income of the average pensioner since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [14354]

Between 1979 and 1993, the average incomes of pensioners increased by 51 per cent. in real terms.

Does the Minister agree that the rise in pensioners' incomes is a tribute to those who manage the private pension funds, and that the funds are managed in the best interests of pensioners? Does he share my concern that if these funds were to be diverted, perhaps to Government-controlled funds, they would be shifted to lower return projects—maybe projects of a political nature—that would cut pensioners' incomes? Is this not the policy of the Labour party?

Since 1980 the private pension funds in this country have had a real rate of return of more than 10 per cent. over inflation. The same is not true of state-run schemes, such as that in Singapore where the return is only 2 per cent. A pensioner in this country, who contributes the same amount as a pensioner in Singapore, will have four times the pension when he retires. That is why the Government are committed to the private sector schemes and why our achievement is so immense in this area.

Why does the Minister simply talk about average pensioner incomes—as he always does? Does he not realise what has happened to those pensioners below the average, especially those who receive nothing but the state pension or income support? Has he seen the Institute for Fiscal Studies report that shows that income inequality for pensioners rose dramatically after 1979, and that the richest 10 per cent. of pensioners have five and a half times as much income as the poorest 10 per cent.? Is it not time to stop being complacent and to do something to help the millions of pensioners who are below the average, and who are falling further behind under this Government?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman has carping complaints to make about the Government's performance. All pensioners have benefited under this Government. That is why the real rate of pensioners' income has increased substantially, even in the bottom quintile. The hon. Gentleman should look at the proposals that he is making—what is described as thinking the unthinkable. Hon. Members should look at the cost that the Labour party would impose on British industry and on pensioners, particularly with the stakeholder proposals. The hon. Gentleman should not get away with this, and he should not write letters to The Times withdrawing his ideas two months after he has had them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants are currently receiving invalidity benefits; at what cost to the Exchequer; what was (a) the number and (b) the costs in real terms (i) 10 years ago and (ii) 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement. [14355]

As at November 1995, just under 1.7 million claimants were receiving incapacity benefits at the short-term—higher—and the long-term rates, compared with invalidity benefit recipients of 450,000 in 1975–76 and just under 850,000 in 1985–86. The estimated annual cost to the Exchequer, as at last November, is £7.7 billion. At current prices, this cost was £1.9 billion 20 years ago, and was £3.7 billion 10 years ago.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 which ensures that benefits go to those who are too unfit to work. Will he confirm that this measure, along with all the other measures introduced by the Secretary of State, has been opposed by the Labour party? Does not thinking the unthinkable mean spending the unaffordable?

Yes, it is very easy to express a wish, in general terms, to control public expenditure, but to actually take the steps to do so is rather hard—a clear difference between the quality of the Government and the noise of the empty Opposition.

I shall suggest something to the Minister that may receive all-party support—the suggestion by Pensioners' Voice and other such organisations that the Government might organise a campaign to encourage the take-up of benefits to which people are entitled. Will the Minister give serious consideration to introducing such a national campaign, as suggested by Pensioners' Voice, Age Concern and a large number of other voluntary organisations?

Nine pounds out of every £10 of benefit is already taken up. Extensive take-up campaigns are run by welfare organisations and others and at the end of the day only the smallest benefits are not taken up. We cannot force people to take up benefit. The hon. Gentleman's concern for pensioners and the elderly would be rather more genuine had he protested more seriously about the inadequacies of the cold weather payment scheme when his party was last in Government and the damage that inflation caused them in the past.

Is the Minister aware that many people are denied incapacity benefit because the medical test is not strictly adhered to? In some cases, instead of being asked to pick up a kettle or saucepan of 1.7 litres, people are being asked to pick up an overcoat, and instead of picking up a tray, they are being asked to pick up a box of tissues. They have lost benefit and only won it back on appeal. Will the Minister look at the matter urgently?

The medical test is kept under strict scrutiny. There is a monitoring system to make sure that it is applied consistently. To date, Ministers have received no complaints such as the one that the hon. Lady has offered the House today. I am happy to receive a letter from her, but it is a matter of great concern to us that the medical test is applied consistently and well. I am pleased that the hon. Lady now appreciates the need for change in the medical test and perhaps she will be more supportive of the scheme in future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases the Child Support Agency has refused to consider because they were already the subject of a court order. [14356]

Parents with a court order for child maintenance cannot come to the Child Support Agency for an assessment unless the parent with care is in receipt of a relevant benefit. They can, however, ask the court for a variation in the court order if they believe that maintenance under the existing order is inadequate. There is no business need for the agency to record how many child maintenance applications it receives and which it cannot consider for that reason.

Will my hon. Friend consider the plight of many women, such as my constituent Mrs. Dennett, who may enjoy the so-called benefit of a court order in favour of their children and cannot be helped by the CSA, but whose former husbands have paid no money for 10 years or more under that court order? They are thereby effectively denied justice by the system. Is it not ironic that a system that was invented to help such women in reality denies them justice?

My hon. Friend has raised with great diligence the case of his constituent, Mrs. Dennett, and I have looked carefully at it. Her court order precedes the establishment of the Child Support Agency, so she is unable to take advantage of it. Her difficulties demonstrate clearly why the House was right to introduce the Child Support Agency. I am afraid that she will have to return to the court to seek a variation as she is able to do under the system.

Can the Minister assist me? My constituent put in an appeal to the CSA appeal tribunal three months ago. After going through the details, he was advised to withdraw the appeal. The chairman replied that he would not allow the appeal to be withdrawn despite a month's notice having being given. What is the authority under law for that proposition and where is it based in common sense?

If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the case, I shall certainly seek to assist him. There has been a significant improvement in the performance of the appeal system. Some 60 per cent. of appeals are now cleared within 13 weeks, but if he will write to me about the specific details that he raises, I shall ensure that he receives a proper answer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retired persons were in receipt of occupational private pensions in (a) 1979 and (b) 1995. [14357]

In 1979, 43 per cent. of pensioners were in receipt of an occupational pension. By 1993, the figure had increased to 62 per cent.

While I welcome the significant increase in the number of those who enjoy occupational pensions, does my hon. Friend agree that those who receive occupational pensions and those who hope to enjoy them in future will be frightened out of their wits by the prospect of their pension funds—some £600 billion—being run for and by Government with the aid of the trade unions, which is Labour party policy?

If a Government forced individuals into a state second-tier scheme which had a stakeholder corporation involving the trade unions, they would kill the private sector that produces a rate of return far higher than that of state schemes. The contributions would have to be higher, as they are in Singapore and Australia. In Singapore, the contributions are double those in Britain and in Australia they are 12 per cent. In fact, it would be more take than stake.

To return to the real world, does the Minister recall the £1 million Government advertising campaign in 1988 that encouraged people to leave occupational pensions and the state earnings-related pension scheme? Will he admit that more than 1 million people who left their employers' schemes are now having to have their pensions reviewed at enormous cost? Does he admit that more than 3 million low earners left the state earnings-related pension scheme for personal pensions and that many of them will be worse off as a result? Will he admit that the difference between his side and ours is not about the benefit of funded pensions, but that the Conservatives waste people's hard earned savings and Labour will not?

One needs only to listen to the hon. Gentleman to realise that he prefers the state to the private sector. I certainly have no regrets that large numbers of people now have personal pensions that will help them in retirement. That will mean more security for them than they had before.

Can my hon. Friend tell me how much money is tied up and invested in the United Kingdom funded private pensions? Can he confirm that the significant total is greater than for all the other European Union countries put together?

Yes. The European Community countries other than the United Kingdom have £480 billion invested between them. This country has £600 billion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the disregards involving housing benefit and council tax for people who are in receipt of occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement. [14358]

We have no plans to change the treatment of occupational pensions in claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit.

The Minister will be aware of my constituent, Mr. Rogers, who receives 81p a week mine workers pension. Government regulations have meant that he has had a 57p cut in housing benefit and a cut in council tax benefit of 16p, which has left him with 8p a week. He has now been notified by Yorkshire Water that the service charges for water and sewerage will increase at twice the rate of inflation. That leaves my constituent owing money to the Government because of their activities. When will the Government stop driving pensioners, especially people on occupational pensions, deeper and deeper into the poverty trap?

I am not aware, at this moment, of the facts—[Interruption.] Well, I have not got a letter. I shall be happy to look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman specifically raises, and will write to him.

When my hon. Friend the Minister considers disregards for housing benefit and council tax rebates, will he bear in mind the representations that I have received from war pensioners and war widows in Norwich? Is my hon. Friend aware that Labour-controlled, mean-minded Norwich city council is refusing to apply disregards to those war pensioners, in spite of the example set by neighbouring councils and the majority of other councils?

I am so aware and, no doubt, my hon. Friend's constituents will take due note.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the second report of the Social Security Committee on the performance and operation of the Child Support Agency (HC 50 of Session 1995–96). [14359]

We are giving very careful consideration to the recommendations in that thoughtful and thorough report and plan to respond to the Committee by the end of March.

I thank the Minister. However, does he share the concern of the Public Accounts Select Committee that the CSA has set its target at 75 per cent. and that, in other words, it expects to get only three out of four cases right? Does he believe that that is an acceptable level of assessment and does he agree that the public will not have trust and confidence in the CSA until it sets its targets at a higher rate?

Many measures have been taken to try to improve the agency's accuracy, which was woefully low. There has been a steep increase this year. The Secretary of State set a demanding target of 75 per cent. and that target has been exceeded for the past two months. We shall set exacting targets for next year as well.

When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the report, will he consider the cases of those who have been wrongly assessed by the Child Support Agency? Does he agree with me that the absent parent should be repaid in full immediately when such cases come to light?

We shall respond carefully to the Select Committee's report, and certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. The House will note, however, that the Committee welcomes the progress made by the agency. It considers that the agency has shown that it can implement significant changes quickly and efficiently. It confirms the view that the agency is here to stay. Indeed, it refers to the growing acceptance that the agency will be a permanent feature of British life. There has been a steady improvement in the agency's performance over the past year. There needs to be, and we intend to ensure that that improvement continues over the next year.

Is it not true that the Child Support Agency has lost public confidence and that it is not meeting requirements? Does the Minister agree that the best thing would be to scrap the agency and start all over again?

That is not the policy of either of the two main parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman may have noted that on page 92 of the Select Committee's report it published the evidence of one of the leaders of the campaign against the agency. That gentleman earns £517 a week and believes that it is right for him to pay only £15 a week in respect of his child. Nothing could more clearly illustrate why the House was right to set up the agency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total spending on long-term sick and disabled people and their carers; and what were the equivalent figures for 1978–79 and 1985–86. [14360]

Estimated expenditure on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled and their carers for 1995–96 is over £20 billion. The equivalent real terms figure for 1985–86 is £8 billion; and for 1978–79, £5 billion.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents and those of other hon. Friends throughout the country will be concerned about the way in which spending in this area has burgeoned at a time when so many people in society are supposed to be getting better in terms of their health? Does he agree with me, and will he take up the point, that we shall drive hard to ensure that money in this area is spent solely on those who genuinely need it?

My hon. Friend makes a sound point about the changes that had to be made to incapacity benefit. We were trying to ensure that a rapid rise in the growth of expenditure was brought under some control to ensure also that benefit went to those who really needed it.

Will the Minister please avoid the pressure coming from the right wing of the Conservative party further to cut expenditure on disabled and long-term sick people? Will he consider especially the position of those people who are receiving care in the community help through local authorities, in circumstances where the local authorities are having severely to cut expenditure because of the grant settlements of the coming year? Will the Minister ensure that no one who needs that help will be either unable to pay for it where excessive charges are being made, or will lose out because local authorities cannot provide the necessary services?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern. To suggest to the Government, however, that they have been in any way mean towards the long-term sick and disabled is just untrue. We are keen to ensure that benefits go to those who need them, and that they are used appropriately. As I said in my main answer, total spending on the long-term sick and disabled shows a 280 per cent. increase in real terms. That is equivalent to £350 per person in the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend accept that carers are the unsung heroes of community care, and that not only do they save the public—the taxpayer—a great deal of money but in many cases they sacrifice their own career and private life to look after somebody who is ill, whether that person is disabled, mentally ill or mentally handicapped, and that carers deserve more consideration from society, whether by way of assistance or fiscal incentive? Will my hon. Friend see what he can do to encourage and help this very deserving section of our community?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The entire country owes a debt of gratitude to all those who care for and look after others. It is a debt that the Government have recognised uniquely. In the middle of 1986, about 30,000 people were in receipt of invalid care allowance. Owing to changes made by the Government, 318,000 people are now in receipt of that allowance. In 1979, the Labour Government spent £4 million on invalid care allowance, whereas, this year, this Conservative Government will spend £609 million. That shows how much Conservatives value carers, and that is what we have done for a most deserving and important group of people.

Despite what the Minister has said, there have been real cuts in benefits for disabled people—estimated to be at least £90 million this year and £250 million in 1998–99. One cut that is causing particular concern is the withdrawal in July of the mobility component from disability living allowance for adults and children in hospital. Many organisations, such as Mencap, have made representations to hon. Members, because they know what an enormous difference the benefit makes to people in that situation. Without it, disabled people are deprived of their mobility. Does the Minister not recognise that that cut is particularly pernicious? Will he think again and protect the 16,000 people who live in NHS hospitals or in residential homes, so that their quality of life does not suffer?

The situation is not quite as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman makes out. The benefit is designed to assist independent mobility. Those for whom the restriction is intended are in long-term care, where independent mobility is difficult and where in many cases the NHS is designed to pick up other care needs. We also have evidence that the benefit was used for a variety of other purposes beyond that of independent mobility. Some six times as many people today receive support for their care and mobility needs than in 1979. It is a difficult area. It is out to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation, and we shall look at its responses carefully. The complaint that the hon. Gentleman made is not quite as easy to substantiate as he might think.

My hon. Friend amply made the case that the Government are providing far more than was provided in 1979. Does he agree, however, that there is still too much duplication between the community health trusts and social services in local authorities? Will the Government do something to begin to bridge the gap and, indeed, to save resources in that sphere?

As I said in an earlier answer, the Government intend to ensure that there are as few overlaps as possible. My hon. Friend has put his finger on an aspect that could be examined, and I shall draw it to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Health. We are determined to ensure that the system is fair and simple, and that benefit goes to those who need it most. Our record in that regard is exceptionally good.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases the CSA has stopped maintenance orders for children made by the courts in the course of administering the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991. [14361]

The agency will normally become involved in cases with court orders only when a relevant benefit is involved. The agency has no business need to record the number of such cases.

May I draw the Minister's attention—as I already have—to the case of a constituent of mine? The Child Support Agency went to court last May, and asked for her £30-a-week payment under a court order to cease. She is still not receiving any money under the child support arrangements. Thankfully, her former husband has started to make the payments voluntarily, but how many other mothers may have had their court orders stopped by the CSA, and may still be receiving no child support nine months later?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about that case, but, like him, I understand that the position has now improved.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Child Support Agency has tracked down no fewer than 117,000 feckless fathers who have shoved off without paying for their children? Does he agree that men who father children should expect to pay the costs of bringing them up, rather than leaving it to other families, who have their own responsibilities?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The CSA has traced 120,000 absent parents; moreover, there has been a steep increase in its ability to establish paternity. That is very important to parents with care who are not receiving the maintenance to which they are entitled. My hon. Friend will also have noted that, in some 77 per cent. of cases taken on by the agency, the mother is receiving no maintenance at all. We are determined to ensure that the agency's work continues in the way described by my hon. Friend.

No one will object to the idea that fathers have a duty to pay for their children, but does the Minister agree that it is just not good enough to set a target of only 75 per cent. accuracy? That means that one in four of the agency's assessments are plain wrong.

The hon. Lady obviously did not listen to the earlier answer in which we spoke of the challenging increase in targets. The agency is not only increasing the accuracy of its maintenance assessments to within 1p—that is vital—but simplifying the maintenance formula to speed up the process of arriving at an agreed assessment, and to make it more accurate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount spent on social security in the United Kingdom; and what was the equivalent figure in 1989. [14362]

Spending on social security in Great Britain is expected to be around £87 billion this year, as against £59 billion in today's prices in 1989.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an increase in social security spending is not sustainable? Will he consider two possibilities: first, redoubling his efforts to control social security fraud; and secondly—and perhaps more importantly—taking a leaf out of the book of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and establishing a national advisory committee to report to the House on social security matters?

My hon. Friend is right. We cannot let spending on social security increase at the rate that it has done since the system was established under Attlee in the late 1940s—5 per cent. a year on average in real terms. My reforms, however, have already reduced the rate of expenditure growth to little more than 1 per cent.—which is only half the growth of national income—so having been the principal engine of rising costs and tax, it is now set to leave scope for lower taxes as long as we avoid the pitfalls of the Labour party's proposals.

Will the Secretary of State accept that it is still a scandal that, in 1995, 46.1 per cent. of the social fund, which is to help people most in need in this country, goes on administration? Should we not have a scheme that gets more money to those people, who are so desperately in need?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to cut running costs. When it was announced about a week ago that we were hoping to cut such costs by a quarter, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said that it could not be done, that it would be damaging and that it would cause waste and delay. The Evening Standard today, however, has got hold of a letter to him from the shadow Chief Secretary, which says:

"Following Peter Lilley's announcement last week that he is seeking to axe his department's running costs by a quarter, I have been making some informal enquiries about the feasibility of his plans.

The advice I am getting … suggests that savings in running costs of this magnitude are perfectly feasible, given the opportunities for efficiency gains and the scale of investment already undertaken."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14380]

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.

Does Prime Minister accept Sir Richard Scott's judgment that the Attorney-General was personally at fault? Given the collapse in public confidence in him, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman started referring to him as unassailable?

I have to say that I believe that the Attorney-General acted perfectly properly throughout this whole affair.

"How the narrative of fairness can be fabricated into an indictment of the Attorney-General, I fail to follow."

It is because he is an awful lawyer.

I am sorry to hear what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) below the Gangway says because I was quoting the defence counsel at the Matrix Churchill trial.

On a different point, does my right hon. Friend recall the dark days of nationalised industries when they cost the taxpayer £50 million a week? Is he able to contrast that with the position now where, in the private sector, they contribute £50 million to the national coffers? Is that not about five new schools a week? Is that not something that the Labour party simply has not grasped?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the advantages of private ownership over public ownership. We have seen this in a wide range of areas over many years. I have no doubt that, wherever appropriate, things are better handled in the private sector and should be in the private sector rather than in the public sector. That is so in terms both of the experience that we have of the way in which the private sector operates and of the general demand to make this country competitive, with the lowest possible tax regime consistent with that.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the specific finding of Scott that Ministers agreed to the sale of non-lethal weapons to Iraq, and agreed not to inform Parliament and the public, and that that failure was deliberate and in breach of their duty of ministerial accountability? Does he agree with those specific findings of Scott or not?

If the right hon. Gentleman takes time to read the whole of Sir Richard Scott's report, he will see that Sir Richard accepts that Ministers regarded not that there was not a change of the guidelines but that there was an interpretation of the guidelines against changing circumstances. Sir Richard accepts explicitly that Ministers regarded the relaxed interpretation

"as being a justifiable use of the flexibility believed to be inherent in the Guidelines."

The point that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman about comes before that about whether the guidelines were changed; it is whether he is prepared to accept the specific findings in D4.42 of the Scott report that Ministers agreed to the sale of non-lethal weapons to Iraq, that they agreed specifically not to tell Parliament, and that that agreement in Sir Richard's words was "deliberate" and in breach of their duty of ministerial accountability. Rather than the general, will he answer that specific? Will he tell us whether he agrees with that paragraph of the report—yes or no?

What Sir Richard says is that the reason for the decision not to inform Parliament was because of a concern that to do so

"might be detrimental to British trading interests"—

That is simply not the case. Sir Richard gives specifically the reason why Ministers did not tell Parliament and the public. He said:

"the overriding and determinative reason was a fear of strong public opposition".

On the question of defence exports, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman—he may not like it—of what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said when he was a Minister. That spokesman for a Labour Government said:

"It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal information on the supply of arms to individual countries."—[Official Report, 10 June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 396–97.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in an increasingly competitive and turbulent world, this or indeed any Government must take great care in the way in which they balance national interest and the promotion of British exports? Is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General are honourable Members and that they should be given some degree of trust and flexibility, as the Labour party would give its Ministers if it were in government? The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should have a care.

I think that there are some substantive points, which tend to get lost amidst these exchanges, and I shall tell the House what the important ones are. We did not export lethal weapons to Iraq, unlike many other countries. No British troops in Kuwait faced British weapons, and our guidelines for the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq were at least as strict as, and probably stricter than, those of any other country. That is the reality that the British nation needs to understand, and that the Opposition seek to hide.

Can the Prime Minister think of any other organisation in Britain, except perhaps British Gas, in which senior executives who had been criticised by an independent inquiry in the terms in which his Ministers have been criticised by Scott would be allowed by the boss to hang on to their jobs?

Again, the right hon. Gentleman resorts to partial understanding. Whether that is a tactic or whether the right hon. Gentleman really understands only partially, is something that neither I nor the House has ever been able fully to understand. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the whole report, he will realise that the central charges levied, the charges that required me to set up the report so that they could be impartially examined and laid to rest, have been impartially examined, and have been laid to rest.

Did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Sunday Telegraph this week about the relative competitiveness of British industry? It was entitled, "Britain advances, Germany retreats". Does my right hon. Friend agree that our vital interests lie in free trade, free markets, free enterprise policies and freedom from the social chapter and from the other Euro-meddling so beloved by the Labour party?

I am entirely happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the economic circumstances that we now face, as a result of the difficult and often unpopular decisions that we have taken to put the British economy on an even keel. We now have the best platform for sustained prosperity, and for sustained growth with low inflation, that we have seen for many years. Nobody doubts that, except those who are professionally inclined to wish to doubt it, because it conflicts with their interests—and they sit on the Opposition Benches.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14381]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Richard Scott that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury again and again, in letter after letter to hon. Members, misled Parliament about the arms sale policy to Iraq, and consistently failed to discharge his duty of ministerial accountability to Parliament?

No; I have made the point before, and I shall reiterate, that I do not believe that my right hon. Friend deliberately misled Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not believe that. The requirement to inform Parliament is clearly set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"—and the reason why the House knows that is that I arranged for its open publication for the first time. Unlike previous Governments, who were asked to publish it by their own Back Benchers, I published it without being asked. Previous Governments were asked, and declined to publish.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as having the fullest support of the British people, both in Ulster and on the mainland, in pursuing the peace initiative, he also has the widespread support of the British people both in Ulster and on the mainland in vigorously pursuing those who wish to damage the civil liberties of the people of London and elsewhere, through a bombing campaign? Does he further agree that those who wish to damage the civil liberties of our people should not be too surprised if their own civil liberties are damaged in the pursuit of justice?

We are determined to maintain law and order and democratic principles and we shall continue to seek and hunt down those responsible for the recent attacks. We give the highest priority to the security of citizens on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. Each of the three bombs in the past 10 days or so has been the act of men callously unconcerned about the death or injury of innocent people—perhaps people who have had no connection whatsoever with the ancient feuds and disputes of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that they either deserve or will receive sympathy and understanding from any decent citizen, either here or in Ulster.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14383]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, since the Chief Secretary has repeatedly given inaccurate and misleading information to Parliament and to the public, he is the ideal man to present the Tory party's tax plans at the next election?

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that my right hon. Friend will be presenting tax plans from this Dispatch Box after the election also.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU. [14384]

I shall take every opportunity to protect the United Kingdom's flexible labour market and falling unemployment against the damaging effects of the social chapter. No other significant European country has an unemployment rate lower than ours.

As high unemployment is becoming a tragic nightmare on the continent of Europe—by comparison with the UK, where unemployment has been falling consistently—will the Prime Minister do all in his power to persuade his colleagues in Europe to abandon illogical policies such as fixed exchange rates, which are simply a recipe for job destruction?

My hon. Friend is quite right about the relative levels of unemployment. While unemployment fell here last week to a five-year low, in most similar large European countries it is either growing or remaining static at a much higher level than here in the United Kingdom. As the president of the European Monetary Institute said just the other day, other member states should use the United Kingdom as their economic model. I am delighted to have his support—that is what I have been saying to my colleagues on the European Council for several years now.