To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further action he plans to take to reduce benefit fraud. [19699]

As I announced to the House on 5 March, I am creating a new benefit fraud investigation service, which will bring together almost 5,000 specialised staff from the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. I announced yesterday the first three areas to be selected for a programme of local month-long anti-fraud drives.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that benefit fraud takes money not only from the Exchequer but from vulnerable people? Will he therefore address the important subject of political benefit fraud, and avoid following the Opposition's policy of thinking the unthinkable and spending the unaffordable, which would perpetrate a massive fraud on the people of this country? Does he think that that is a fair description of the Opposition's social security review?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition have been trying to perpetrate a fraud on the British people over social security. They have systematically voted against and opposed every social security reform that we have introduced, yet at the same time they try to pretend that they are fiscally responsible.

Clearly, we welcome those belated measures to try to combat fraud—after the Government have been in office for 17 years. At Question Time on 23 January, I asked the Secretary of State exactly what his fraud targets were for each of the next three years. He said that he could not respond immediately from the Dispatch Box, so I wrote to him. He acknowledged my letter on 8 February, but I have had no reply to my question. Will he tell us today exactly what his yearly fraud targets are for each of the next three years?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the reply that I gave him in debate, but I can tell him now that the overall fraud target for 1996–97 is £1.8 billion, and that for 1998–99 it is £2.5 billion. For the current year the target is £1.38 billion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Eastbourne, since the push on fraudulent claims began, it has been found that fraudulent housing benefit claims are running at more than £1 million a year? Is he aware that my constituents who pay their taxes and do not claim benefits fraudulently are sick and tired of underwriting such activity?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The people who most support the attack on fraud and abuse are those on modest earnings who honestly pay their way in society without claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, and who greatly resent seeing others who achieve a standard of living not far below their own by abusing the benefit system. I am delighted that, in my hon. Friend's constituency, as elsewhere, we are being successful in cracking down on that abuse.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the error rate for income support assessments in (a) 1988 and (b) 1995. [19700]

It was 13.5 per cent. in 1988 and 16.1 per cent. in 1995.

Will the Minister confirm that the value of the errors has increased, as they involved 2 per cent. of overall expenditure in 1988, but now involve no less than 5 per cent. of all expenditure on income support? Will he also confirm that, since income support was introduced, the Comptroller and Auditor General has qualified the accounts every year since 1988 because the Department cannot deliver income support properly? How, then, does the Secretary of State justify the recent plans to cut the cost of administering Department of Social Security benefits by 25 per cent.?

Income support is a complex and well-targeted benefit, involving repeated change-of-circumstances considerations. Since 1988, the number of claimants, of cases and of changes in circumstances, as well as the total sums involved, have increased substantially. The change programme is designed to be a medium to longer-term remedy. In the shorter term, on most analyses the greater part of the errors appear to arise from income support mortgage interest payments, and the move towards a standard rate introduced last autumn should have a material effect on that aspect. The intention of the change programme is to provide a better service, with modern information technology and an altogether different approach to the organisation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the objectives of his change programme include not only improved efficiency, but making fewer errors? Will he also confirm that the changes were opposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on the ground that they would not work, although he had received a letter from the shadow Chief Secretary describing them as perfectly feasible?

My hon. Friend is certainly right about both points. We are mystified by that contradiction.

Will the Minister tell the House the date by which he expects income support to get unqualified support from the Comptroller and Auditor General? Surely that is what taxpayers require from the Government.

We have introduced measures on a scale previously unknown. I am not in a position to give a date as requested.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist people to retain more of their occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement. [19701]

By their very nature, income-related benefit schemes normally take account of most forms of income, including that from an occupational pension; hence, it is only right that entitlement to those benefits should reduce as income increases. However, from April 1996, in line with Department of Health changes to the charging rules for people in residential care, people whose care costs continue to be met by income support may have 50 per cent. of their occupational pension disregarded where they remit at least this amount to their spouses who remain in the community.

Is the Minister aware of the situation in my constituency of retired mineworkers who are entitled to an 80p a week increase in occupational pension? The Department of Social Security claws back 57p of that in housing benefit. A further 15p is taken out of council tax refund. The increase in the cost of fuel oil last year meant a further increase of l0p a week in transport costs. All the occupational pension increase for retired miners is being clawed back by the DSS and the Government's taxation policy. Furthermore, Yorkshire Water has increased water rates by more than twice the rate of inflation, which takes a large slice out of the increase in national pensions. When will the Government do something to allow pensioners to retain something of their occupational pensions?

The constituent about whom the hon. Gentleman wrote to me was receiving a retirement pension and a modest occupational pension from the mining industry. He was, however, eligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit. Under the general rules, because those benefits are payable in circumstances other than those relating to income support, above the applicable amount 65 per cent. is taken off, and 15 per cent. is taken off in respect of council tax. If a full disregard for occupational pensions across the income-related benefits were introduced, the cost to the taxpayer in 1996–97 would be more than £2 billion. That is a public expenditure programme that Labour's spokesman had better contemplate with greater caution than the hon. Gentleman does.

Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that the Government will continue to press for increases in the holding of private pensions? Does he agree that the proposed nationalisation of private pension funds by the Labour party is a nightmare for those who are about to retire and those who are retired?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The great success of British pension provision has been UK-funded pension schemes in the private sector by way of occupational pensions, personal pensions and retirement annuity contracts. The total of those funds, in aggregate, is £600 billion. As the funds are properly privately invested, the return on capital in real terms since 1980 has been 10 per cent. per annum. It is a threat to ordinary pensioners in occupational pension schemes if other people such as trade unions, the Government or the state try to interfere with that private enterprise approach.

Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) right? Is it not true that many of today's pensioners retired believing that their state and occupational pension would keep them out of poverty, but that the Tories have taken their pension away and pushed them into poverty? Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Social Security, who wrote in The Times on Saturday that means testing punishes people who save? Is not that a clear example of the Tories saying one thing and doing another?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every score—he is not even halfway right, as the Evening Standard reported today. The issue at stake is whether retirement pensions should be uprated in line with prices, which is the undertaking that the Government have fulfilled. Everyone knows that the success of our pensions policy is due to private funds run by private organisations in occupational schemes and the like, which have provided, and continue to provide, a rising standard of living for pensioners. That is why recently retired pensioners enjoy higher occupational pension levels than those who retired a couple of decades ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on how his benefit reforms will help people off benefit and into work. [19702]

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reforms of the benefit system he is planning to help unemployed people back to work. [19704]

The Government's benefit-to-work programme has made a substantial contribution to the reduction in unemployment in the United Kingdom. In addition to family credit, which has helped 300,000 families leave income support in the past three years, about 750,000 people will be helped this year by a range of new measures. From April, the four-week extension of housing benefit will remove worries about rent for new job starters. The national insurance contribution holiday will help employers who take on the long-term unemployed. Help with child care costs in family credit and disability working allowance will increase from £40 to £60 a week. Family credit claims will be speeded up to get the extra help to people more quickly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which is good news for everyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called welfare-to-work schemes, which often involve minimum wage levels, result in people being put out of work rather than in more jobs? Does my hon. Friend agree that such proposals are best described as work-to-welfare schemes and are the sort of schemes that the Labour party pushes?

My hon. Friend rightly points out the main flaw in the welfare-to-work package, which includes the minimum wage. The minimum wage does not help the poorest—studies show that the majority of low-paid workers are the second, or even third, income earners in high-earning households. In addition, the minimum wage tends to squeeze out jobs, particularly for the lowest-paid and those with the fewest skills. Our programme of finding ways to improve job opportunities for people and to help them to gain work through benefit offers the unemployed a far better option than a minimum wage.

Will my hon. Friend do what he can to encourage flexibility in the setting of benefits so that those who may have the opportunity of part-time employment, which may be seasonal, are better off taking a part-time job than sitting at home doing nothing? Will my hon. Friend ensure that staff in benefit offices are properly acquainted with all the rules?

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the flexibility of the benefit system. I hope that my answer encouraged him, because that is precisely what we have been trying to do. Increasing earning disregards for those who remain unemployed is not necessarily the best approach as it may be a disincentive to their taking up full-time work, which we want to encourage. Those who are working part time on benefit will, from October, be able to build up a back-to-work bonus—a substantial lump sum that will help them into work.

There are 2,500 jobless people in my constituency. How many of them will be helped into work by these measures?

We expect that some 750,000 people will benefit from the £600 million-worth of changes that the Budget made to work incentive measures last year. The hon. Gentleman should be able to do the division and work out how many people in his constituency are likely to benefit from these measures.

When the Minister is next in his constituency, will he come a few miles north into Burnley and note the wage levels that are being offered to many people? Does he understand that they cannot afford to go to work—even with the type of help that he has spoken about this afternoon—because they are out of pocket if they do? What the Tories have done to wage levels and working conditions since they were elected is an absolute disgrace.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates the links between the benefits system and the wage system. I do not know whether his idea of a minimum wage—which would put even more of his constituents out of work—would help in any respect. If the hon. Gentleman studies the types of measure that the Government have introduced and the earnings top—up pilot that we are introducing this year—which will provide an opportunity for people on low incomes to see whether they can have their wages increased to help them into work—he will see that what we are providing will assist many of his constituents. I would guess, without looking at the figures too closely, that fewer people are now unemployed in his constituency than was the case at the last election—that shows the benefit of the measures that we have been passing.

I welcome the Government's decision to give an extra £10 a week to people who are working 30 hours a week or more and are in receipt of family credit. Does my hon. Friend know how many families it will help?

The extra £10 a week premium for those currently working 30 hours or more and in receipt of family credit will help a substantial number of people. It helps a substantial number of families at the moment. The exact number of people who will benefit from this extra measure has slipped my mind, and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he has taken to ascertain the extent of family poverty and low pay; and if he will make a statement. [19703]

The key to helping people out of low income is to create opportunities and incentives to work. We have looked closely at the difficulties that families face in moving into work and we have introduced a wide range of practical measures to help overcome those barriers.

Why has no Minister from the Department of Social Security attended the hearings that are being held at Church house, Westminster? The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, many politicians and prelates are attending the hearings of the Church action on poverty to listen to people who are low-paid and homeless. Is it not time that Ministers went with some humility and listened to people who are in utmost deprivation, and explained to them how poverty has increased since 1979 from 4 million to 15 million people? Why are 4 million children in this country in poverty? How is it that the United Kingdom has one quarter of the people who are poor in the European Union?

Ministers will take a close interest in the results of today's seminar at Church house. The Prime Minister sent a personal message to the seminar, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard. Why does he not tell the House that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 23 per cent. in the past 24 months? Why does he not tell the House that it has fallen by 750,000 since 1992? Why does he not tell the House that unemployment in the United Kingdom is well below the European average and below the level in Germany? Why does he not take account of the fact that the way to improve living standards, as the Prime Minister said in his message this morning, is to get people back into work? The Government have been improving and expanding into-work support, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said, and we are now helping 630,000 families on family credit.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the more public money that is used to give support to families in need, the more families will register as being in need of help and therefore be named as being in poverty? "In poverty" is hardly a description of people who have received substantial sums. It is the way that money is spent that is important.

My hon. Friend is right. The vast majority of our fellow citizens are a great deal better off than they were in 1979. Average incomes are up for all family types. Average incomes are up on average by a third since 1979 and pensioners' income has increased by about 50 per cent. We can therefore be proud of the Government's record in those areas.

Is it not the case, however, that, after listening to the Minister and the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), one would suppose that poverty did not exist? It does, and it is growing. If the hon. Gentlemen had been to Church house today, they would have heard the evidence at first hand. Does the Minister realise that one in three children are growing up in poverty, compared with one in 10 when the Government took office? Is that not a standing indictment of the damage that the Government have done to our country?

We are all looking forward to 8 May, when the hon. Gentleman will have finished his six-month review and when he can explain to the House whether, if he believes what he just said, he intends to increase payments for welfare as he suggested.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to use the Isle of Wight for one of the pilot studies of new methods being considered by his Department. [19705]

I believe that it is desirable, where possible, to try out changes to the benefit system on a pilot basis before introducing them nationally and I have obtained increased powers to do so in the social security system. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this approach. The Isle of Wight is currently being used as a control area in the earnings top-up pilot. I shall certainly consider whether it would be suitable for piloting other schemes.

Because of its clear boundaries, surely the Isle of Wight is an ideal community for all pilot studies. I feel certain that all my constituents would welcome the Isle of Wight being at the forefront of modernisation of the welfare state, for which the Government have done so much.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Isle of Wight, because of its island status, might well be a suitable area for future studies. If I were to select places for pilot schemes on the basis of the diligence of the Member of Parliament in pursuing his constituents' interests in social security matters, I would place the Isle of Wight top of the list.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on his changes to the payment of mortgage interest for benefit claimants. [19706]

We have received a number of representations.

Is the Minister aware that the application of the standard interest rate to those with a fixed-rate repayment mortgage means that they suffer a significant reduction in benefit because they have to top up their payments, which his Department should be doing, to cover their mortgage? I have corresponded with the Minister about a constituent, Mr. Tickle of Maenclochog. Does the Minister accept that the way the standard rate is applied to people with fixed-rate mortgages means that the promise that his Department gave that no claimant would lose out is not being honoured, and that it is time for a change?

The answer, I am happy to say, is no. I have caused further inquiries to be made about Mr. Tickle's case. I am told that he has a variable-rate mortgage, not a fixed-rate mortgage, and it appears that the system of add back is operating perfectly fairly, as we expected it to, to protect Mr. Tickle 100 per cent. I shall write again to the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to see me to discuss Mr. Tickle's case, I shall be happy to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount of benefit paid by his Department to (a) full and (b) part-time employees. [19707]

In 1994–95, the amount of benefit paid to employees through in-work benefits—such as family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit—was nearly £2 billion. In addition, of course, employees may benefit, where they satisfy the conditions, from a range of other benefits, such as child benefit or disability living allowance.

If the Minister adds income support—about which he recently gave a parliamentary answer—to the figure, £3 billion is now paid out to people in work through the benefits system, which is double the 1990 figure. While all hon. Members want to protect people in poverty, is not the plain fact that employees in my constituency who are offered jobs at £1.44 or £2 an hour must turn to the benefit system, which acts as a huge subsidy for low-pay employers and distorts the local labour market? I put it to the Minister that, as a Conservative, a taxpayers' subsidy of that order cannot make economic sense.

Evidence from research by the Institute of Employment Studies shows that employers do not know whether the family in question is in receipt of family credit because, of course, family credit is ordinarily paid to the woman. The evidence also seems to suggest that that is not having a distorting effect on the labour market. That is the first point.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more practical and more moral to help low-paid people through family credit than it is to legislate for their unemployment through the national minimum wage and the social chapter?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's two points. The basic problem with the minimum wage is that, in effect, it prohibits employment below a prescribed level—the effect of which would be to create unemployment, depending on the level of that minimum wage.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers in 1995–96; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79. [19708]

Estimated expenditure on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers has quadrupled in real terms, from £5 billion in 1978–79 to more than £20 billion in 1995–96. With some 6.5 million disabled people, this represents a substantial commitment, and it is almost as great as our commitment to the 345,000 people—I can now provide that figure, as my memory has recovered—who will benefit from family credit extensions.

Does my hon. Friend agree mat our system of disability benefits is comprehensive and coherent? Does he agree that it promotes independence and integration, and that it focuses extra help on people who are disabled early in life and therefore have the least chance to work and save?

Yes. My hon. Friend is correct. The system has for some 25 years tried to recognise the importance that disabled people attach to being independent, and benefits have increased accordingly. Our record on disability has been very good. The scheme recently announced by the NHS to allow access to powered wheelchairs and the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, which is currently going through the House, demonstrate that our commitment is undiminished and increasing.

If the Minister wants to achieve value for the money spent on long-term sick and disabled people, will he accept that efficiency will have to be understood in terms of quality of service rather than merely in terms of savings to the Exchequer? Will he concede, particularly in the light of the shambles mat has been exposed in the privatisation of other parts of the Benefits Agency, that there is no reason to suppose that privatisation of the Benefits Agency medical service will secure better service or value even in the Treasury's terms, and that, if the Conservative party retains any sense of civic responsibility, it will abandon that project?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. In virtually every case where some form of contractorisation has been introduced, it has provided benefits to the service and the taxpayer, with no diminution in quality whatsoever. I do not consider that the Benefits Agency medical service will be harmed by the process of contractorisation now being considered and we expect an enhanced service to result.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's work for and funding of disabled people is remarkable? The same is true of people in poverty. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was not the only Member at Church house this morning; hon. Members in all parts of the House are taking part in that conference on poverty and recognise the importance of the theme. Is it not true that people are properly covered by the benefits system and that nobody needs to be in poverty?

A remarkable tone of consensus was adopted on radio and television by some speakers at the conference this morning. My hon. Friend has adopted the same tone, but it has not been adopted by me Opposition. A considerable amount of effort and time is put in by the Government to try to ease the burdens of poverty. We maintain that the most important way to ease people out of poverty is to provide work and the opportunities for work. The success of our efforts in doing so has considerably reduced unemployment in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care have been waiting more than a year to receive money for their children under the Child Support Act 1991. [19709]

Currently there are 194,000 parents, out of 1.5 million so far taken on by the agency, who made a maintenance application more than a year ago and have yet to have a maintenance assessment.

I welcome the Minister's announcement. Does that not show that the Government have at last recognised that the CSA has been a shambles from the beginning? Would it not have been better if the Minister had announced today either that more staff would be employed to run the system or that the system would be simplified so that parents with care could receive their money more quickly?

As the ombudsman found, there is no problem with staffing—the CSA has taken on additional staff—and the system is constantly being simplified.

"The CSA is now on a surer footing and a whole range of indicators suggest that improvements are being made."

Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the ombudsman's report did not seem to take account of what is happening now in the CSA rather than historically? Can my hon. Friend tell the House the current figure for speed of payment to the parent with care? Will my hon. Friend also note that although the ombudsman criticised the average of 30 weeks taken by the CSA to clear up cases, perhaps we should judge that in the context of the average of 70 weeks that the ombudsman takes to clear up his own cases?

On the first point, I noted that of the 20 cases the ombudsman looked at, some 14 involved problems which began in 1993. In that sense, his report is historic. As for the length of time it takes to get money from the agency to the parent with care, I was surprised at the ombudsman's criticism. The agency has been set a target to get payments out within 10 days to 90 per cent. of parents with care; this year, it has exceeded that target and managed to reach 97 per cent. of parents. The remaining 3 per cent. includes cheques that bounced. In that respect, I do not consider that the ombudsman's criticisms of the CSA were valid.

In the light of the second critical report by the parliamentary ombudsman into the working of the Child Support Agency, in which he catalogues a series of errors such as the general mishandling of cases, mistaken identity and giving out confidential information, is it not about time that the Minister admitted defeat, scrapped the agency and brought in a fair and workable system?

The hon. Lady is wrong. First, on the cases which the ombudsman examined, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), some 14 of those 20 cases referred to events which took place in 1993 when the agency was in a very different condition. The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest scrapping the agency. It is here to stay. There is a wide consensus across Britain—if not among the Liberal Democrats—that the principles behind the CSA are right and proper in the interests of getting maintenance to the children who rightfully deserve it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, proportionately, a year is a long time in the life of a child and that interest paid at the end of a year cannot do much to compensate for any deprivation that the child may have suffered? Will he continue with his efforts in nagging, cajoling and persuading the staff of the CSA to improve their performance and thus avoid further criticism?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The CSA has been set demanding targets for next year to improve its accuracy to 85 per cent. and to increase the maintenance that it arranges and collects. There will be no resting by the CSA in its determination to ensure that there is a proper improvement in its service.

Is the Minister not being complacent and dismissive of the ombudsman's important work and report? Is he not concerned that one third of complaints to the ombudsman involve the Child Support Agency? Why has he not appointed an independent complaints adjudicator, as recommended by the ombudsman a year ago? Why has that appointment not been made? Will he announce that appointment today to bring some much needed fairness into the system?

In respect of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are looking at the ombudsman's report with great care. I was responding to a specific question on the time taken to get money through to the parent with care. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the ombudsman looked at 195 cases. The CSA deals with 1.25 million cases. We are determined—there is certainly no complacency in the agency or among Ministers—to make certain that the CSA's performance improves. The hon. Gentleman's second point about an independent examiner is interesting and helpful. We are nearing the conclusion of our discussions on it and I hope to be able to say something to the House shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy in respect of single mothers. [19711]

Our policy has three strands. First, we have improved the incentives for lone parents to work, which increases their income and relieves the burdens on the taxpayer. Secondly, we aim to ensure that more of them receive regular maintenance from the absent parent. Thirdly, we propose to ensure that the benefits system does not discriminate against married couples.

Since legal aid impinges on the social security budget, will the Secretary of State look at the case of an Australian schoolmaster earning £25,000 per year who gets legal aid to fight his wife in Britain? He has not paid a penny piece to either his wife or his children for four years, yet he still receives public money in Britain under the Legal Aid Board. That is not a good use of public funds or of our Government's care for the family.

I will take the matter up with the Lord Chancellor, whose responsibility it is to meet the budget for legal aid. I agree that great resentment arises from that sort of case.

Why are the Government hell bent on reducing lone parent benefits and ignoring all the evidence about the additional costs faced by lone parents, as presented in the Department's 1985 Green Paper and in a recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Trust? Why not let the facts get in the way of prejudice for a change?

Far from being hell bent on this, we are taking a gradualist approach. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his colleague, the Chairman of the Social Security Committee, who said:

"If one-parent benefit is phased out … it is a move we"—

"should support"?

To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to pay a visit to the Easington constituency. [19729]

I have at present no plans to do so.

What a pity—the right hon. Gentleman will never know what he is missing. Since I gave the Prime Minister notice of my question, has he had the opportunity to ascertain why the Department of Transport has rejected a submission by Durham county council for funds to provide access roads to the Dawdon and Fox Cover enterprise zones in my constituency? Would it not be common sense—[Interruption.]—for the Department of Transport to support those sites, which have been designated by the Department of the Environment, and for funds to be allocated to allow the building of access roads to the A19? Is this not a case—[Interruption.]—of one Government Department not knowing what the other is doing? Will the Prime Minister use his influence to get the problem resolved?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question—all of it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has confirmed the orders which will allow the Dawdon and Fox Cover road link to be constructed. As the hon. Gentleman will know, designated enterprise zones may be areas attractive to private sector inward investment and I am confident that the regeneration agencies in local partnerships will go some way to funding the link road, which I agree is the key to the regeneration of the area. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the designation of enterprise zone status will provide the impetus for the creation of up to 1,000 new jobs in the two zones.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19730]

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

The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that a few years ago the present Home Secretary was the Minister in charge of water privatisation. Does the Prime Minister recall what his right hon. and learned Friend said on 17 March 1989? He said that after privatisation

"it will entirely disappear as a political issue. No one will be talking about it at all. It will be in the private sector, delivering the goods."

Water companies have a statutory duty to maintain supplies and we expect all companies to take the necessary measures to do that. Yorkshire Water has invested more than £1 billion in the past five years and will invest as much again over the next five years. Around two thirds of every pound in profit is reinvested for the benefit of consumers.

Questions are getting too long. Let us have a short one.

I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. In a week in which an Algerian suspect has been arrested on charges involving terrorism in France, many people have been distressed to realise that Hamas supporters in this country have been raising money for terrorism. It is especially distressing that they have all been receiving social security benefits in this country. Will my right hon. Friend put a stop to that?

We are certainly determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is not a base for external support for terrorism anywhere in the world. I take to heart what my hon. Friend has said about Hamas. We must also look at the activities of other people who come here and actively conspire to commit terrorist acts, those who abuse the hospitality and protection available here and those who use this country as a base from which to cause trouble for other countries.

In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does the Prime Minister agree that we should not prejudice the outcome of the Cullen inquiry? Will he confirm that all the issues concerning gun laws will come within the scope of the inquiry? Does he further agree that it would be sensible at least to begin to examine those issues now on an all-party basis? In particular, we should address, first, the question of handguns being kept in private homes. Secondly, we must address the concern expressed at the weekend by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—and many others that currently the police have to prove why a firearms certificate should not be issued rather than the gun owner having to prove why it should.

I can certainly confirm that Lord Cullen's inquiry will be considering the subject of handguns. I can also confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has begun a review of existing gun controls and intends to offer every assistance to the inquiry under Lord Cullen. At my right hon. and learned Friend's invitation, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is already a member of the Firearms Consultative Committee, but I know that my right hon. and learned Friend would welcome the views of other parties in the House before he makes a decision on the entirety of the evidence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that cutting off the electricity supply to any home in our country should be undertaken only as a last resort? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last year when electricity was a nationalised industry no fewer than 80,000 households had their electricity cut off, but that since then the figure has dramatically reduced and last year only 1,000 households out of the 24 million in England and Wales were disconnected? Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the privatised electricity companies for adopting what can perhaps most aptly be described as a more enlightened policy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the changed circumstances following privatisation. There is no doubt that privatisation has proved to be the right structure for the industry, and the independent regulator's promotion of competition is very much in the interests of the consumer. We have seen evidence of that in falling prices and, as my hon. Friend has vividly illustrated, in a better service for the many people who face difficulties.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19731]

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

As the Prime Minister has summoned his Cabinet colleagues to a crisis meeting tomorrow to discuss the mystery—to him—of the missing feel-good factor, will he consider having a meeting with the victims of negative equity, who number 1.7 million, or with representatives of the 8 million people who have become unemployed since the last general election? Does the Prime Minister accept that those people do not feel good, but that they feel bad and they feel let down by him and his Government?

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the nature of tomorrow morning's meeting. He really ought not to believe all—or, indeed, much—of what he reads in The Independent.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19732]

I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his disapproval—expressed in the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference—of the power of the European Court of Justice to make new laws that are binding on nation states will be warmly welcomed? Is he further aware that he is not alone in Europe, but shares with others—such as the French Prime Minister—concern that the European Court is overstepping the mark? Will he assure the House and the country that at the IGC he will insist that the court's powers are cut back, so that it does not become the supreme court of a federated superstate of Europe?

I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. I heard what the French Prime Minister had to say, and I thoroughly approved of the way in which he said it.

In view of the fears expressed in the nuclear industry that the heavy running of the advanced gas-cooled reactors may have resulted in distortions which could cause a nuclear accident, and bearing it in mind that if the nuclear industry were privatised, commercial decisions could outweigh safety decisions, will the Prime Minister now shelve the idea of privatising the nuclear industry?

We have sought advice, and we have been advised that privatisation of the nuclear industry would not in any way damage safety standards. That is clearly very important. Thus far, Nuclear Electric has an excellent safety record. I think that that is understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19733]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has attracted more inward investment than any other country in the European Union, and more than France and Germany combined? Is that not the hardest possible evidence that the United Kingdom is well on its way to being the enterprise centre of Europe?

rose—

Don't forget the social chapter and the minimum wage.

I am in the happy position of being prompted by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to remind the House of the perils of the social chapter and the minimum wage. I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are indeed very damaging to the employment prospects of people in this country, and I look forward to his support in denouncing them at every opportunity so that his constituents may stay in work rather than out of work.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March. [19735]

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

If the Prime Minister is really concerned about the missing feel-good factor in areas such as Glasgow, will he agree to spend a day in the city with the new Lord Provost, Pat Lally, and talk to people and see for himself the severity of the problems caused by unemployment and poverty? If he were to do that, he might realise precisely why now is the time for a change.

If the hon. Gentleman would stand back and look at the prosperity and opportunity that now exists in Scotland, he would see a total sea change from the situation that we inherited from the last Labour Government. If he would seek two or three cities throughout the United Kingdom that have shown the greatest improvement in that period, his own city of Glasgow would be among them.

Will the Government overturn any European Court of Justice judgment which damages our social chapter opt-out?

As I have indicated, we intend at the intergovernmental conference to try to prevent the misuse of health and safety legislation to bypass the social chapter opt-out. That is a matter that we shall address directly at the IGC, with the intention of achieving the aims set out by my right hon. Friend.