To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many outstanding appeals there are under the habitual residence test; and if he will make a statement. [24669]

Statistics on appeals are collected by the Independent Tribunal Service which does not record the reason for the appeal.

Does the Minister agree with the view of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that, because there is no straightforward definition of the habitual residence test, many cases have to go to the adjudication officer and are ultimately revised? Is that not an absolute waste of money and time, and does the Minister agree that it prevents people who are entitled to benefit from getting it as speedily as they should? Should not there be an urgent review to remedy that?

It is not a waste of time: it is an important measure to save public money and to prevent the kind of abuse that happened when Spanish holidaymakers were claiming income support in England. The habitual residence test is well founded in European law and we are entitled to introduce it to protect the British taxpayer. Nobody has come up with a better alternative suggestion, and I can only conclude from the hon. Gentleman's words that his party proposes to abolish this necessary protection for the British taxpayer.

Does my hon. Friend accept that most people believe that ending benefit tourism is a great bonus for the taxpayer? Is it because of a desire to help benefit tourists that the Labour party proposes to get rid of child benefit for those who are over the age of 16?

My hon. Friend speaks on St. George's day for England, as ever. The second part of his question contains a most interesting challenge, and we wait to see what Labour Front-Bench spokesmen can possibly give by way of an explanation.

May I press the Minister a little further on the figures that are contained in the excellent report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? Is he aware that well over 5,000 British nationals have been left without financial support because of the habitual residence test—a test that the Government said was meant to root out only benefit tourism? Is it not clear that the test is not rooting out those who do not genuinely deserve such benefits, but that only British nationals who are returning home are being hit by the policy? Will he again review the test to ensure that such British nationals receive income support and other benefits to which they are genuinely entitled?

All aspects of policy are always under review, but this policy appears to be working. Between August 1994 and February 1996, 91,424 British nationals passed the test and 9,191 failed it; 13,392 European economic area nationals passed it while 13,487 in that category failed it. The system protects British interests, and nobody has yet produced an alternative that is acceptable in European law.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of the state pension (a) at present and (b) in 1979 in real terms. [24670]

Since 1978–79, expenditure on state pensions has increased in real terms by about a third—from £22.6 billion to £30.1 billion in 1995–96.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the earnings link was restored that figure would be increased by about £8 billion a year, which is equivalent to some 5p on the basic rate of income tax or to an increase in VAT to 22.5 per cent? Is it not a cruel hoax on pensioners to suggest that that earnings link could be restored, as was promised by the Labour candidate in Hastings and Rye?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It will be interesting to see whether Labour Front-Bench spokesmen repudiate the promises that have been made by Labour candidates in Hastings and Rye and elsewhere which would cost the British taxpayer the equivalent of several pence on the basic rate of tax. Until they repudiate that policy it will hang round their necks like an albatross.

What does it say about poverty in our country when, in 1979, the state pension was 23 per cent. of average earnings and is now 17 per cent? That represents something chilling for elderly people in our country.

The hon. Member seems to think that pensioners should and do rely solely on the basic pension. I am happy to say that an increasing proportion have additional resources on top of that. As a result, pensioners' incomes as a whole have risen more rapidly than those of the population as a whole. We have made extra provision for those at the bottom: we have provided £1.2 billion a year extra through income-related benefits for people who, by misfortune, do not have any resources of their own on top of basic pension. Our record stands in good comparison with anything that the last Labour Government achieved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the bottom tenth of incomes was accounted for by pensioners in 1979; and what is the equivalent figure for the latest year for which figures are available. [24671]

In 1979, pensioners represented 31 per cent. of the bottom 10th of the income distribution, after housing costs. By 1992–93, that figure had fallen to 8 per cent.

That shows that not just in absolute, but in relative terms, under this Government, the treatment of pensioners has been far better than under the preceding Government and far better than pensioners could hope for under any succeeding Labour Government, were such a disaster to hit the elderly population again. When my hon. Friend and I come to draw our pensions, will they be funded substantially by private pension funds, which exist in Britain, but not elsewhere in Europe? Can he put a figure on that?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. The Government's policy is to maintain the basic state pension's value, to encourage the private sector and to target help on people most in need. The amount targeted has already increased by £1.2 billion since 1988. The number of pensioners with occupational pensions is up from 43 per cent. in 1979 to 66 per cent. among the recently retired, with an average £75 per week for that occupational pensioner. My hon. Friend can do the mathematics himself, but, on such a rate of increase, the Conservative Government have given pensioners a better future than they would have had under Labour

Which poor people have stepped into the shoes of pensioners who have left the lowest decile?

There are those who say that a pot is half full and those who say that it is half empty. These days, the hon. Gentleman is obviously putting himself in the latter category. That is rather a change of heart—he used to be a bit more optimistic. During the 1980s, pensioners have improved their position. Their average incomes are up by 50 per cent. That is an answer in itself. The pensioners have done better under the Conservatives.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the greatest contributions that a Government can make to pensioners' real incomes is to keep prices low? Will he remind me at what point in recent years inflation reached a level of over 27 per cent?

I am happy to remind my hon. Friend that the last Labour Government put this country in that parlous position, robbing pensioners of their savings through high inflation. The Government have had the longest period of sustained inflation—[Interruption.] Sorry, low inflation—for 50 years. Opposition Members may laugh, but it would be the longest period of sustained inflation if they ever had a chance to run the country.

Is the Minister aware that approximately one third of eligible pensioners are not claiming income-related benefit to which they are entitled and that, of those, 114,000 are in the north-west? Will he join Age Concern and other pension organisations in an awareness campaign so that pensioners take up their rights?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. This morning, I met Age Concern and was able to discuss that issue, among others. The Government are spending about £25 million on giving information about benefits. They are providing information to 80, 000 outlets about the benefits that are available to people. Obviously, it is important that the information on the new benefit payment cards is clear and helpful to pensioners. We discussed that. Taken together, the measures represent a substantial commitment to telling pensioners what benefits are available to them. The Government are committed to that.

Is not the Minister deliberately ignoring the facts about the poorest people in Britain? Is it not true that in Tory Britain poverty now wears a young face, often a child's face? There are 3 million families with children—[Interruption.] I shall repeat; there are 3 million families with children in the bottom tenth of income distribution. Would the Minister care to bring up a child on income support levels? Why have the Government deliberately created mass child poverty?

The hon. Gentleman puts his argument at the most exaggerated level possible, but that is typical of the Labour party. Only the other day the shadow Chancellor explained his ideas about child benefit for 16-year-olds and said that 80 per cent. of the children of unskilled parents leave school at 16. That information is 20 years old. Under the Conservatives, 50 per cent. or more of those children go on to further education. That just shows that the Labour party does not get its facts right. On poverty, under Labour—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be responsible for Government policy.

I was asked about poverty and the hon. Gentleman said that there was poverty in Britain. It is worth making the point that there is a difference between income support levels and absolute poverty. One of the points that is made constantly by Opposition spokesmen, as it was a moment ago, is that poverty can be measured against income support levels. That is ludicrous because it would mean that every time we increased income support, we increased poverty.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what annual savings will result from his reforms by the end of the century; and what estimate he has made of savings by 2020. [24672]

The major reforms I have announced to date are expected to reduce public spending by £5 billion a year in today's prices by the turn of the century. The level of savings will increase to £11 billion a year by 2020, and to £15 billion in the longer term.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those extremely impressive figures, but will he confirm that when he seeks to find further savings in his budget, he will only consider reforms in child benefit that would result in leaving more money in the hands of families by reducing their taxes? Will he confirm that he will not adopt any policies that would simply result in the money saved being spent on other public expenditure programmes, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our policies, unlike those of the Opposition which are based on attacking and trying to curb areas of growth, leave money in the pockets of the taxpayers where it can fructify, reward them for work and enable them to look after themselves. The Labour party puts forward proposals only to finance higher spending by Labour Governments. It bases those policies on false facts.

The Secretary of State complained about figures being 20 years out of date. What sort of figures can they possibly be for the year 2020? He is using figures that could be said to be more than 20 years out of date. When he produced those estimates, what figures did he include for women having to work beyond 60 before receiving the old age pension? That is where many of the savings come from.

The hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to distinguish between the future and the past, but most of us do not. He is quite right that if we equalised the state pension age at 60, which is effectively what the Labour Front-Bench team proposes, instead of 65, which is what we propose, the difference in cost would be £13 billion a year. If he wants up-to-date figures, I should tell him that the other extraordinary mistake made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was to say that 25 per cent. of 17-year-olds staying on at school were in private education. He said:

"child support is a subsidy for the school fees of the wealthy rather than an incentive to assist the education of the very poor."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when I was Secretary of State for Social Services, I was told by a long succession of Labour spokesmen how wrong and evil it would be to change, alter or abolish any part of child benefit? In view of the Labour party's change of policy, is it not therefore right for those spokesmen to consider their positions?

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. For once I entirely agree with the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Brent, North (Mr. Livingstone), who point out in The Guardian today the fallacy of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East's figures, and agree with us that we should be encouraging people to stay on at school to get the qualifications that will enable them to support themselves and get good jobs, rather than discouraging them from doing so and costing the taxpayer more in the long run by being on the dole.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his reform of the invalidity benefit system and the introduction of incapacity benefit has so far cost £55 million in bureaucracy? In order to recoup that, 85,000 disabled people who would otherwise have been eligible for invalidity benefit have already lost out. Disabled people are paying the price for the changes. Will he also acknowledge that the introduction of the form for the all-work test and the requirement to return it within six weeks has led to 6,000 people losing the benefit to which they are entitled because they are unable to deal with it? Is that not totally disgraceful?

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has had a long-standing concern for issues that affect disabled people, but he must recognise that it is right that we try to focus the immense amount of help that we give in incapacity benefit, the cost of which exceeds the entire amount spent on further and higher education, on those who are genuinely unable to work due to their medical condition. That is the test's objective. We want to help back to work those who are fit enough through the back-to-work benefits. I cannot see how the Gentleman can disagree with that principle.

While my right hon. Friend searches for benefits to target in order to ensure that we pay social security to people who really need it, does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Labour party wants to target the less well-off and to rob 16-year-olds who want to stay on in education of more than £500 a year? Is it not notable that the Labour Front-Bench team will not stand up to defend that today?

My hon. Friend is right. It is very significant that Labour Back-Benchers will not stand up to defend the proposal either. They look extremely embarrassed. Some of them have already voiced publicly their opposition to it. It is a major blunder by the Labour Front-Bench team because it is saying that if parents encourage their children to stay on at school, just one child will cost them £560 a year, and two children in that age bracket will take £1,000 out of their net income. That is a huge penalty for bettering oneself, but it is what the Labour party stands for.

Will the Secretary of State accept that his figures are bogus? In citing figures for young people who stay on in full-time education, he is conflating unskilled families and semi-skilled families. He should get his figures right before he starts swinging insults across the Dispatch Box. Does he also accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is interested in ensuring that more people, rather than fewer, from families with low-income backgrounds can stay on in full-time education?

Oh dear. The hon. Gentleman does need help with the facts. Afterwards I shall be happy to give him a copy of the table from which I obtained my information, and one of the table from which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East obtained his information. He will see that the Opposition figure relates to children who left school between 1974 and 1978, whereas mine comes from the youth cohort study of children dated 1994, which shows that a significant majority of children over 16 whose parents were unskilled manual workers were staying on at school. Things have improved dramatically since the Labour Government were in power.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what priority he attaches to tackling fraud in his social security reforms. [24673]

Tackling fraud remains my top priority. We are stepping up the fight against fraud with the spotlight on benefit cheats campaign. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already announced month-long anti-fraud campaigns in Croydon, Haringey, Enfield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Westminster and Camden. More areas will be announced soon.

My right hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that he has the full support of my hard-working constituents, who resent their hard-earned tax going to support spongers and other people who break the law. Can he assure us that increasingly staff will get out of their offices and visit claimants' homes so that they can check out and root out the fraudsters?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are increasing the number of home visits and other checks. There were about 1.5 million last year, including fraud visits, and there will be substantially more next year. My hon. Friend is right that the greatest resentment caused by fraud and abuse is felt by hard-working people and honest claimants, who constitute the majority both of workers and claimants. We represent them, because we are the party of the hard-working class.

With the campaign against fraud in mind, will the Government resist the temptation to close yet more benefit offices? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that such closures lead to the prospect of more fraud? In particular, will he consider the Government's plans to close the benefit office in Rhyl in north Wales? Bearing in mind the distress of the staff and the many thousands of people who do not want that office to be taken out of operation, does he agree that if he wants less fraud he needs more offices to tackle the problem locally?

I shall certainly look closely when and if a decision has to be made about the office in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He has always treated me fairly; I shall happily treat him and his constituents fairly on that issue. We try to make proper judgments about deciding locations. We are trying to get more officers out visiting people in their homes and making more checks to ensure that we are giving the right money to the right people at the right time. We do not automatically assume that a given number of offices has to be maintained in perpetuity.

When will my right hon. Friend introduce a benefit payment card to end the abuse of multiple social security benefit applications?

We hope to start the introduction of a benefit payment card this autumn. I hope to be able to make an announcement about the consortium selected for its introduction under the private finance initiative in a month or two's time. I know that there will be great interest in that and that there is much support for ensuring that we eliminate fraudulent abuse of our present payments system.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further plans he has to reform the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [24674]

I have recently announced a new independent complaints adjudicator, improvements in the agency's compensation scheme, and interest on maintenance payments not passed promptly to parents with care. All those measures build on major legislative changes introduced over the past year.

Is not the Child Support Agency still a discredited agency that has lost public confidence? We want people to be treated sensibly. What proposals has the Minister for ensuring that CSA personnel treat people sensibly? I have several constituents who, when they ring up to try to find out what is going on, are treated appallingly. Will he ensure that the CSA improves?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a considerable increase in the training that all child support officers undergo. I hope that he will also have seen today's announcement of the Child Support Agency's results for the past year, which show that it has made a massive, clear and significant improvement in virtually all aspects of its work. I hope that he would wish to join the whole House in paying tribute to its chief executive and all its staff. In the light of the figures, they deserve a pat on the back, not least in view of the vile abuse—and worse—that they have had to put up with from organised resisters.

Can my hon. Friend spell out how much extra maintenance would be required if Labour's plans to deprive parents of pupils aged 16 or over of £500 a year in child benefit were implemented? Would that not mean that children from broken homes would be the least likely to stay on at school to gain essential qualifications?

My hon. Friend makes her point most eloquently. Last year, the Child Support Agency was set a target to arrange or collect £300 million and get it through to the children. It has exceeded that target. In the past month alone, it collected more money than in the whole of its first year of operation. That is a sign of the huge improvement in the performance of the CSA.

Despite the attentive replies that the Minister gives me on many of the cases that I put to him, does he agree that the CSA still acts very oppressively to many ordinary couples who have been become the victims of a monster that was designed to chase errant fathers? It is still not chasing them, let alone catching them. Instead, it leaves many honest couples at their wit's end as they grapple with the enormous maintenance payments that are forced on them by the agency.

I have examined several of the cases that the hon. Gentleman has brought to me. Much of what he says is no longer accurate. In some 77 per cent. of the cases that are taken on by the Child Support Agency, the parent with care is receiving nothing—not a penny. The tremendous strides that have been made by the agency in the past year are getting the funds through to the children. Since the agency began, it has traced 133,000 absent parents, principally fathers. In the past year alone, it managed to trace 55,000 of them. In the key areas where the agency has been required to improve, last year's figures show that it certainly has.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners had incomes in the top half of the national income distribution in (a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [24675]

In 1979, 25 per cent. of pensioners were in the top half of the income distribution, after housing costs. By 1992–93, that had increased to 35 per cent.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that now more than 20 million people receive income from an occupational pension scheme and 66 per cent. of recently retired pensioners receive money from such a scheme, compared with 55 per cent. in 1979? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Pensions Act 1995 provides a still more secure framework for the regulation of occupational pension schemes?

I can confirm those things. It is worth noting that others have searched the world for a system that would be better, but still have not found one.

While it is true that the wealthiest pensioners today are significantly wealthier than their predecessors—I do not begrudge them their good fortune—the poorest pensioners are not wealthier than their predecessors. Does the Minister have no positive response to Age Concern's "Your Rights Week"? More than 600,000 pensioners do not receive even the income support to which they are entitled. They are going without an average of £14 per week. Why, under this Conservative Government, is it left to charities such as Age Concern to tell Britain's poorest pensioners how they can get the help to which they are entitled?

The bottom 20 per cent. of pensioners have seen their incomes rise in real terms by 20 per cent. under the Conservatives and their savings have not been robbed by inflation as they were under Labour.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings to public funds arising from the decision to update pensions in line with prices rather than earnings. [24676]

If pensions had continued to be increased in line with the higher of earnings or prices since 1980, the additional cost to public funds would be £7.4 billion in 1996–97.

With the Transport and General Workers Union urging my hon. Friend to restore the earnings link—something which is still Labour party policy and would cost £7.4 billion—does my hon. Friend agree that the advice that he is receiving from the Opposition is not so much to think the unthinkable as to spend the unaffordable?

I certainly agree with that. It is true that Bill Morris has recently written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on behalf of the TGWU calling for the restoration of the earnings link. On a historical note, Jack Jones recently visited me and advocated the same thing. So the TGWU, past and present, is united. We ought to bear in mind that the Labour party and the unions are linked, and that that is an unaffordable link for Britain.

How much has been saved by uprating the allowance for the over-85s not with prices, not with earnings, but with thin air—nothing at all—during the entire period of the Conservative Government?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government's policy is to target help on those most in need and, through the income support system, the Government have done that. Indeed, £1.2 billion extra has been provided and the pensioner premium for the over-80s is £37 per week for a couple. That provides real help to those who need it.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House that taxpayer spending on basic pensions is at a record level even in real terms and that, as a result of the Government's reforms, not only do 66 per cent. of pensioners retire with an occupational pension but 75 per cent. of them retire with savings which are protected against inflation? Will he remind the House that the average income of pensioners has risen faster than the average rate of inflation—and, indeed, earnings—over the past 15 years?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the position of pensioners has been improved because incomes have increased by more than 50 per cent. on average since 1979 and as a result of a change in the living standards of pensioners. Let us take consumer durables as an example. In 1979, only 57 per cent. of pensioners had a telephone; the figure is now up to 93 per cent. In 1979, 46 per cent. had central heating; now almost 80 per cent. do. The proportion who have a fridge freezer has increased to 99 per cent. and those who have a washing machine has increased from 64 per cent. to 82 per cent. So it goes on. The living standards of our pensioners have been protected under the Conservatives.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent changes have been introduced to the social security funeral payments fund scheme; and what effects these will have for those bereaved who have need to claim support for funeral expenses. [24677]

The scheme introduced in June 1995 covers the reasonable costs of a dignified funeral where someone has good cause for taking responsibility but has insufficient funds to meet such a large expense. The allowable costs provide up to £500 for the funeral director's charges, plus all the necessary disbursements for either a burial or a cremation.

Does the Minister recognise that £500 is not enough to fund a decent funeral? The funeral directors association, in a wide-ranging survey of 658 of its members, found that the lowest cost at which a funeral could be provided was £568 and that the average cost was £700. Is that not the final indignity inflicted on the destitute by the Government? Is the Minister not ashamed of that? Will he give a commitment to the House urgently to review funeral costs and the arrangements for funding them through the social fund?

The social fund is paying for one out of every 10 funerals, which is an enormous market share. The cost of funerals financed by the social fund has increased substantially, from £18 million in 1988–89, to £63 million for the year before the one in which we reformed the scheme. Funeral directors were charging fees that were rising considerably faster than inflation. The reformed scheme gives the funeral director a reasonable rate of remuneration, and ensures that the deceased's family can elect for a burial—which generally costs much more than a cremation—if they so wish and that the cost of it will be met in full.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide for the effects of the increasing number of old people and declining number of people of working age. [24678]

The number of people over current pension ages is set to rise from 10.4 million now to 15.8 million by 2030. That would have placed an excessive burden on the working population, with a ratio of one pensioner for every 2.1 people of working age. By equalising the state pension age at 65, we shall have ensured a more sustainable ratio of 2.6 workers for each pensioner by 2030.

Is not the United Kingdom in vastly better shape to meet this challenge than other parts of Europe because of the £600 billion that we have invested in private sector pension schemes? I urge my hon. Friend to look hard at the Goode recommendations and other possible measures to protect those precious funds from the Robert Maxwells of the world.

My hon. Friend is right: we are better placed than most other countries in Europe to meet the pensions burden of the next century because we have invested some £600 billion in occupational and personal pension schemes. That is not just more than any other country in Europe, it is more than all the other countries in Europe put together. It means that we can face the future without the crippling burden of taxation that they will have to put up with. We have tried to strengthen confidence in occupational schemes, which was damaged by Robert Maxwell—a Labour Member of Parliament and the only socialist who has ever taken a serious interest in private pension schemes. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order, as it is much too noisy. That is unfair to hon. Members who are putting questions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to process assessments in each year since 1994. [24679]

Assessments will inevitably take longer if one or other parent raises queries, but almost 50 per cent. of maintenance assessments are currently completed within 26 weeks. If both parents co-operate, the agency expects to complete the process in six to 12 weeks.

I believe that the agency deserves a kick up the backside for the way in which it has treated my constituent, Mr. Philip Jones. He has waited for over six months to have his case reassessed. At the moment, he is expected to live on £8.27 a week after he has paid his bills. His house was threatened with repossession because he could not pay his mortgage; he lives in one room because he cannot afford to pay the fuel bills; his parents, who are elderly and on a pension, feed him; and he suffers considerable stress. If anything happens to Mr. Jones, I shall blame the Government.

I have looked specifically at the case of Mr. Jones, the hon. Lady's constituent, in view of her concerns about it. I understand that it is currently the subject of an appeal, and I believe that it will not be many days now before she receives the result of the appeal. I shall take a close interest in the facts of the case for her.

Bearing in mind the fact that the average maintenance assessment under the CSA has increased from £23 a week to £40 a week, what would be the effect, especially on 16-year-olds who might have their child benefit removed by the Labour party, if the Government were to follow the possible policy of the Labour party and abolish the CSA?

My hon. Friend is right to expose the wholly spurious figures on which the proposal by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was based—a proposal that would attack the very people whom the Labour party claimed that it was attempting to help. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise that an increased amount of money is getting through to children as a result of the work of the Child Support Agency, but he will remember, with me, the reforms made by the House last year, which ensured that no one will be assessed to pay more than 30 per cent. of their net income. That delivers a fair level of maintenance, and I am grateful to him for his support for the agency's work.

To ask the Prime Minister when he intends next to meet the Prime Minister of India to discuss Kashmir. [24659]

I have no plans at present to meet the Indian Prime Minister. I look forward to an early opportunity to do so following the Indian elections, which begin later this month.

Does the Prime Minister share the growing international view that the conflict over Kashmir presents the gravest threat to international peace today, given that India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir previously, and that both countries now have a nuclear capability? Against that background, will the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to persuade the next Government of India to enter into serious and urgent negotiations with the Government of Pakistan on the basis of UN resolutions, to find an acceptable settlement on the basis of the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own future?

That is an important matter, as the hon. Gentleman says. We are in touch with our friends and colleagues in India and in Pakistan. We have said consistently to those friends and colleagues that we are prepared to help in the search for a solution, either at the UN or in any other forum, provided that the parties concerned wish us to do so. That remains our position, but there must be simultaneous progress on several fronts—first, self-evidently, bilateral dialogue; secondly, the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir, with an improvement in the human rights position there; and, thirdly, a clear cessation of external support for militants, which has poisoned the atmosphere in Kashmir for far too long.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent developments in Kashmir have caused many UK citizens of Kashmiri origin much anxiety? His statement that the British Government will continue to press for a stable democratic solution of the Kashmir problem will therefore be most welcome.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know from my experience that what he says about citizens here in the United Kingdom is true. Our policy is to advocate the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24660]

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.

As we once again see Tory Members of Parliament queuing up to express their differences—one with another—over European policy, is not the Government's real problem the widely held view of the Prime Minister, which was vocalised this morning by Sir James Goldsmith when he asked how people could be expected to follow a man who zig-zags so much?

I can think of some prominent politicians who, in the past two years, have made it their life's work to deny everything that they stood for previously. So far as I recall, those politicians enjoy the strong support of the hon. Lady.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24661]

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

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that British beef is best and that that remains the case despite the scaremongering by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) which has done so much damage? Will he tell our European colleagues that, until the ban is lifted, there will be no more co-operation from this country, nor any more British money?

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that British beef is best. I am also happy to confirm to him and to others that it is entirely safe, and that has been verified by British scientists, by the World Health Organisation and by Commissioner Fischler. There is no justification whatever for the European ban, but I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made some progress this morning and I am delighted with that. We are seeking to get the ban lifted as soon as possible, and I hope and expect that that will happen.

I suspect that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) speaks for many tens on the Conservative side. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether it is the Government's policy to threaten retaliation against Europe over beef, so that the confusion and incompetence at the heart of Government policy may be removed once and for all?

The right hon. Gentleman once threatened to leave Europe, as I recall—it was part of his election manifesto. As the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) might put it, he has clearly zig-zagged from that policy since then.

What does that mean? I suggest to the Prime Minister that a strategy based on the Grand Old Duke of York is not a very good one. The Foreign Secretary is hinting at retaliation, the Deputy Prime Minister contradicts him and he calls his European partners a bunch of something-or-others while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is negotiating with them. Will the Prime Minister kindly take a grip on the situation? If he does not, he will find that his Government are taken seriously neither at home nor abroad.

The right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends played a part in creating this problem. There is not a beef farmer in this country who does not know that the problem has been worsened by the way in which the Labour party has behaved. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to continue to behave in that way. I set the matter out perfectly clearly for the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago and I am sorry that he was unable to understand it. We are discussing the lifting of the ban, and we are making progress on that. That is the right way to proceed but, at the end of the discussions, if the lifting of the ban is unreasonably withheld, we shall consider other options for action. I hope that is clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman this time.

If the Prime Minister is to threaten retaliation, he should be clear about what he is saying. At some point, the Prime Minister will have to admit the brutal truth to himself—that the business of his Government is less designed to run an Administration than to appease the factions in the Conservative party. Until that changes, he and his Government will be divided, weak and incompetent.

If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on being clear, perhaps he will be clear about his tax plans. Perhaps he will be clear about why, if children stay on to do A-levels, their parents should lose £500 a year in benefit. Perhaps he will recognise that we operate in Europe in the national interest while he seeks party interest. It is in the national interest to seek, as we are doing, the lifting of the ban on beef, and it is equally in everyone's interest to remind the beef industry which party played a role in worsening the crisis.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24662]

I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of young people staying on in full-time education since 1979? Does he agree that that considerable achievement, on which our future depends, is put at risk by the plans that we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers for chopping the funding for 16 to 18-year-olds?

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Even among the children of unskilled parents, more than half now stay on in education beyond their 16th birthdays. The claim by the shadow Chancellor, who is probably absent because he is checking his figures, that only 20 per cent. of children stay on at school is years and years out of date. It is based on figures from between 1974 and 1978, under the Labour Government. The fact that the figures are so wrong shows the vast increase in educational opportunities since then. The reality for working-class and other parents is that, if their children stay on at school beyond GCSE to A-level, the Labour party will charge them £500 for each child by taking away their child benefit—so much for Labour's concern for opportunities for the poor.

We can always tell when the Government are in a real mess—they start to blame everybody else. Given the urgent necessity to get the ban on British beef lifted, have not the past 24 hours been all too typical of the five weeks of fiasco over BSE? The Foreign Secretary launches gunboats over breakfast, Tarzan sounds the retreat over lunch and, by dinner, the poor old Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on his way to Brussels, is shot in the foot again. How on earth can we persuade Europe to believe the Government when the Government cannot even agree among themselves?

I suppose that, one day, it is just possible we might hear something from the right hon. Gentleman about what he would do in any given circumstances. We never hear that: we just get the usual carping criticism. The matter was carried forward in Moscow, when I met Heads of Government on Saturday; my right hon. and learned Friend took it further in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday; and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pursuing it today. Each and every day, there are further meetings and more progress is made towards getting the ban lifted. It would be helpful if, just once, the right hon. Gentleman were to think of the interests of the beef industry and of the country, rather than produce the carping criticism that we usually get from him.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24663]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Church-aided schools have a long and proud tradition of providing good quality education? Therefore, is he, like me, shocked to see the specific attacks on Church schools by the Liberal Democrats? Is that not another example of the Liberal Democrats attacking parental choice and the right of parents to make their own choice? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that parents must take that into account when they vote at the next election?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of moral and spiritual education, and I share the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). What the Liberal spokesman said was a silly and ill-considered attack on religious education and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will never form part of our policy.

What further measures of appeasement do the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party have in mind to placate the patriot across the water, Sir James Goldsmith?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is quite clear—none.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April. [24664]

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

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will press ahead with the objective of achieving a 20 per cent. rate of basic income tax? Given the reports in the press at the weekend, is it not absolutely clear that, while the Government are rightly moving towards a 20p rate, the Labour party is moving towards a 30p rate?

As my hon. Friend will know, one quarter of taxpayers already pay tax at only 20 per cent. and I confirm that, as soon as it is affordable, we shall move further towards a 20 per cent. tax rate for everyone. There is no doubt that taxes go up under Labour Governments. The Labour party does not like to admit that. Today, the shadow Chancellor is trying to gag the City, but the fact is that, because Labour wishes to spend more, it will always tax more at national level, as it is doing today at local level.