To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration has been given to extending the mobility component of the disability living allowance to children aged under five years suffering from defined illnesses. [28803]

Entitlement to disability living allowance is not defined by a specific illness or disability, but is based on the effects of a disability on an individual's care and mobility needs. There is no age limit for the care component because we accept that the care needs of disabled children may be significantly greater than those of able-bodied children. However, there is generally not such a great difference in the help needed for mobility between children under five with disabilities and those without.

Is the Minister aware that the seemingly sensible starting point for the mobility component of five years of age is of great inconvenience to parents with children below that age who have certain restrictive illnesses? Will he give some thought to that starting point, and consider parents without private transport who experience the sheer trauma of taking ill children and, often, burdensome medical equipment, on public transport?

The hon. Gentleman raises a particularly difficult child policy matter. I am aware that he has written to me about the case of his young constituent, Jacob. I want to make two points in response. First, the mobility component is intended specifically to help people become independently mobile, and the starting point of five years of age—the age when a child starts school— strikes a reasonable balance. Secondly, in respect of the case that he has raised, the family are receiving disability living allowance care component at the higher level, and invalid care allowance. I hope that he accepts that benefit money is going to that family.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would cost tens of millions of pounds to pay the mobility component to children under the age of five? Will he further confirm that it is the policy of his Department to restrict expenditure wherever possible and to curb social security spending? Does he find it surprising that, again and again, Labour proposes extra expenditure in this field?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The cost of extending the mobility component to children under five years of age would be about £30 million. The Government have a proud record of spending on the long-term sick, which has increased by a factor of three since 1979, to £22 billion. We are now helping more than six times as many people as were helped by the previous Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet Church leaders to discuss the impact and extent of family poverty in the United Kingdom. [28804]

Ministers regularly meet representatives from a wide variety of organisations, including Church leaders.

Is the Minister aware that the Christian Churches are concerned about the growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots in society, increasing family poverty and growing deprivation? If he agrees with that analysis, what is he doing about it? If he disagrees, will he explain why to the people who complement their spiritual work with pastoral care in the community, and who daily witness the consequences of the selfish society that has been created during the past 17 years?

Until his final throw-away remark, I thought the hon. Gentleman's question was important. The point about poverty and how we deal with it concerns us all. The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing about it. We have introduced a variety of measures to encourage people into work, as we know that work is the best answer to low income and poverty. I agree, however, that poverty is not just about material things—it includes spiritual matters as well. In my work with the single regeneration budget and city challenge, I see what the Government have done to bring about the right spirit in many poor communities. Indeed, Easterhouse, where Prince Charles and Jacques Chirac were last week, is an object lesson in what can be achieved. If the hon. Gentleman agrees that work is one of the answers, I am sure that he will welcome the drop in unemployment in his constituency in the past few years and, if he does, I cannot see how a minimum wage would help him to help people keep their jobs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people welcome the assistance that the Government gave 10 years ago to the "Faith in the City" report? Many were present when our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at Southwark cathedral on such issues, years before he took over the Department. I am glad that the Government have followed many of the recommendations of that report in so far as they are directed to the nation, because trying to change people's lives in inner-city areas and to give them freedom from poverty is one of the main responsibilities of people in politics.

I entirely agree. Several initiatives were created in response to "Faith in the City" and the Church urban fund has a number of projects. I was interested to learn that a new chief executive has been appointed to the fund, who also believes that it is important that the advance into material well-being is accompanied by a change in people's spiritual attitudes. That is what the work of the Church is about. We have followed that line in a number of projects throughout the country. By restoring power to people as tenants and through education, the Government's policies have helped to stimulate the very changes that people need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the reduction in reduced earnings allowance. [28805]

A number.

What would the Minister say to those disabled constituents of mine—many of them ex-miners—who were suddenly faced with a drop in income of £30 a week? How are they expected to cope with that sort of drop? It is yet another vindictive attack by the Government on the poor and the disabled.

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has misunderstood. The reduced earnings allowance is intended to compensate for reduced earnings. If a person is over pensionable age and not earning, it is unreasonable for them to go on receiving that allowance. Parliament decided as long ago as 1988 that, when people stopped earning after retirement age, the proper benefit was retirement allowance, which is tax free and non-contributory. Under the regulations and developing case law, some people managed to retain the reduced earnings allowance although they were over retirement age and had stopped earning, while many others did not. That was unfair and unreasonable and the Government have amended by regulation to correct that position.

I am sure that we all appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. We also appreciate that any change in anyone's income and life style is always a trauma. Can he confirm that the allowance was always meant to be for reduced earnings and was, therefore, available while people were of working age? When the rules were changed in 1988, some people managed to continue drawing that money after pension age and others did not, which in itself has set up differences between households.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister answer the central thrust of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)? We have been told by such organisations as the Disablement Income Group that 20,000 old disabled people are losing an average of £30 a week without any notice. Does he accept that that is completely unacceptable? How will he answer the ex-miners in my hon. Friend's constituency, mine and elsewhere, who are suffering from pneumoconiosis, and the ex-building workers who are suffering from asbestosis, who are claiming that their incomes have been drastically reduced? Are not the Government showing once again—as they did on the Community Care Direct Payments Bill—that they could not care less for the problems of older disabled people?

The change was announced last November. It has been Government policy since 1988. It was accidental and arbitrary that some people managed to take advantage of the rules. It was possible for people who retired the day before their retirement birthday to go on receiving reduced earnings allowance even if they never did another day's work in their lives. The interesting question for the hon. Gentleman is whether, at a cost of £25 million a year, he is pledging to restore the change.

Is it not clear from its attacks on the Government that the Labour party wants to give the impression that it would restore the social security spending changes while telling the country that it, too, would cut social security spending? Is that not yet another case of saying two opposing things at the same time?

My hon. Friend is right on all points.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants were refused a social fund loan on the grounds of inability to pay, in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [28807]

In 1991–92, out of 2.07 million applications, 37,213 were refused on that ground. In 1994–95, out of 2.5 million applications, 12,303 were refused on that ground. Refusals on grounds of inability to repay decreased again in 1995–96 to 10,411 out of 2.5 million applications.

Is not the social fund loan system proving to be a classic Catch-22? Unemployed people cannot afford to pay back the required interest. Moreover, grants are made only to people who have been discharged from long-term stays in hospital or who have been released from prison. There is nothing for families who want to set up home. Are not the Government dumping their social obligations on charity second-hand shops and driving people into the hands of unscrupulous loan sharks?

That is wrong on all points and a grotesque exaggeration. For an outlay of £344 million since the fund was set up, £1.6 billion-worth of loans have been made, which have helped five times as many people as a simple grant scheme would have helped for the same cost. In the past year, 41,000 budget loan applications were refused and grants given instead.

Does the Minister recognise that the social fund is failing to help the people in greatest need— 60 per cent. of the budget is swallowed by administrative costs? The excellent children's charities report, "Out of pocket the failure of the social fund", shows that many vulnerable groups, especially children in families, are not receiving adequate help. How does the Minister respond to the many examples in the report of families having to cut back on food and other essential items because they have to repay loans instead of getting grants? Will he consider the workings of the social fund and ensure that it alleviates poverty rather than reinforces it, as it does for many families?

I can only conclude, from the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, that he would scrap loans and replace them with grants at an annual extra cost of £263 million. Is that a spending pledge from the Labour party?

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to social security expenditure (a) in 1994–95 and (b) in 1995–96. [28808]

In 1994–95, social security expenditure accounted for nearly 13.1 per cent. of GDP. For 1995–96, it fell to just under 13 per cent. We expect reforms already introduced to bring it below 12 per cent. by the end of the century.

Will the Secretary of State say how much of the reduction in the share of GDP taken by social security spending is being borne by people who are already poor through benefit cuts, and how much is the result of more people getting jobs?

I have not made any allowance for our great and continuing success in reducing unemployment. If that continues, as I assume it will, the situation will be further improved. The reforms that I have introduced have been sensible, well thoughtout and designed to focus benefit on those in need. I do not propose to take away benefit from children who stay on at school to study and get qualifications because that would deter—as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) proposes to—children from doing that and getting good jobs. That would mean that they would be more likely to be on the dole and increase public expenditure.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that social security spending would increase if the jobseeker's allowance were scrapped, because work incentives would be damaged and dependence increased? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that work-to-welfare policy was revealed as being on the Labour party's hidden agenda in the article by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that appeared during the weekend?

My hon. Friend is right. We are committed to a policy of getting people off benefit and back into work. All Labour's proposals would get them out of work and on to benefit.

"We reject the JSA and all it stands for … we will get rid … of the ISA".—[Official Report, 17 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 765.]

Ah.

Were they words he did not say?

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of unclaimed benefit in the last year for which figures are available. [28809]

The rate of take-up varies from benefit to benefit. It is lowest among income-related benefits, but even for those only about £1 of every £10 available goes unclaimed. Child benefit has a particularly high take-up.

Does the Minister agree that, although it is very important to crack down on fraud, it is equally important to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled? Does he understand that there is much anxiety about the proposed threat to the benefit line service, the freeline service and the out-of-hours service which, if it is carried out, would make it much more difficult for people to know about and claim the benefits to which they are properly entitled?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important that the Benefits Agency gets its message about benefits over. No decisions have been taken about the matters that he raises, but the Department and the Benefits Agency spend £26 million a year getting over information. We have good local information services. Our information officers travel to meet people. There was a joint meeting in Coventry last week with Age Concern, to which more than 300 people came, so there is a wide variety of mechanisms for getting information about benefit out, plus as many welfare rights organisations as anyone would care to mention.

Will my hon. Friend take to heart what the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said about people receiving the benefits to which they are entitled? Are not 16 to 18-year-olds entitled to the £1,000 or so help that they receive from child benefit to get them through their A-levels? Would he, like me, be ashamed to be a member of a party that proposed to rob them of that money?

My hon. Friend has said it all.

The Minister must accept that the low take-up of benefit is a problem; that is why child benefit is so effective. Does he agree that scrapping child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds would deter many young people from entering further education? Will he also give a guarantee today that the Government will uprate child benefit at least in line with inflation?

The Government's child benefit policy was laid out in the manifesto, and we have stuck to it as the cornerstone of support for families. I appreciate the support that the hon. Lady has given to child benefit and her opposition to the cut proposed by the Labour party. If she supported the Child Support Agency instead of organisations such as NACSA—Network Against the Child Support Act—that would be equally welcome to Conservative Members.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the payment of child benefit to children between the ages of 16 and 18 often determines whether they can stay on in education, and that taking away their child benefit significantly decreases their life chances? Is not that a disgrace?

Yes, child benefit has been one of the most significant benefits for families—certainly for those who may find it difficult to put their children through education. This extra help for those between 16 and 18 has counted for a great deal. I find it difficult to understand why the Labour party has proposed the cut.

Why is the Minister so complacent about the 600,000 pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled? Will he confirm his Department's estimate that they go without an average £14 a week? Does he agree that such pensioners must be among the poorest people in Britain? Is that why they are so low on his list of priorities?

When the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power, the lowest 10 per cent. of the population by income included almost double the number of pensioners who occupy that decile now. I do not think that he cared much about the pensioners then; he does not seem to care about 16 to 18-year-olds now. Care and concern for young people and pensioners is best left in our hands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual average real growth in social security expenditure since 1966; and what was the figure in 1995–96. [28810]

Between 1965–66 and 1995–96, social security expenditure grew in real terms by an average of 4.4 per cent. a year. Growth to 1998–99 is projected to be 1.3 per cent. a year—well within the expected growth of the economy.

What does that reduction in average real growth represent in savings to the social security budget? What prospects are there of its continuing into the next century?

The reforms that we have introduced, amounting to the biggest programme of welfare reform since the Beveridge policy was introduced in 1948, will save in the next Parliament some £5 billion a year and in due course more than £15 billion a year. All our reforms have been opposed by the Labour party.

As the Minister reflects on the growth of social security spending, will he also consider how small a part of that growth is accounted for by support for carers, who save the Exchequer an estimated £34 billion a year but who often impoverish themselves in giving that service? Will he review the system of benefits for them, including the threshold of earnings at which the invalid care allowance is withdrawn; and the hours of caring that have to be put in to qualify for invalid care allowance? Will he particularly review the ridiculous and hurtful rule that allows people the allowance if they support one person for 35 hours a week but not if they support two people—perhaps two elderly parents—for the same amount of time?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he studies these matters, that carers' benefits are the fastest growing area of expenditure in the welfare system. He was outspoken on welfare issues during his time in my party. I wonder whether he is going to say in public what we know he believes in private about the proposals of his new party to take away child benefit from those who stay on at school. Or is he now less willing to parade his conscience in public?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his reforms are designed to target those in greatest need and to increase incentives to get people back into work?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A key to getting people back into work is the jobseeker's allowance, which we introduced in the teeth of Labour opposition and which we know Labour is determined to withdraw and abolish. We are amused to hear Labour Members say that this is part of another review—it is time they stopped reviewing and came up with concrete proposals and policies.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a major component of rising social security expenditure in recent years has been the growth in expenditure on housing benefit? Does he accept the conclusion of the Social Security Committee last week, that something like £2 billion a year is being defrauded from the housing benefit system, much of it by private sector landlords? Will the Secretary of State now take far more seriously the issue of landlord fraud on housing benefit? Will he accept the sensible recommendations of the Select Committee?

I have introduced a number of reforms to deal with exactly the problem of housing benefit fraud. The Labour party opposed them all. I introduced penalties and rewards for local authorities—particularly Labour-controlled authorities—that had done shamefully little to crack down on housing benefit fraud, which was their responsibility. We want to know when the hon. Gentleman will produce concrete proposals on anything. John Smith set up a social justice commission to review social security policy. When it reported, the Leader of the Opposition promised to review its proposals and ordered the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to review that review. As soon as his hon. Friends make any concrete proposals, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) promises a further review. The hon. Gentleman is a serial reviewer.

Does the Secretary of State detect a certain convergence of views between the two Front Benches on the need to contain escalating social security spending, which will otherwise race out of control in the next century?

I wish that there were a convergence between the two Front Benches on the issue of social security, but the Labour party has opposed every reform that I have introduced. Every Labour proposal involves increased spending. What Labour Members describe as "hard choices" are simply methods of financing further Government expenditure by taking away money from ordinary families. I am afraid that Labour remains the party of high spending.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the long-term effect on public spending of his social security reforms. [28811]

The major reforms that I have announced to date are expected to reduce public expenditure by £5 billion a year at today's prices by the turn of the century. That will rise to £15 billion a year in the longer term.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas Conservative policies are based on fairness and targeting help to those who are most in need, those of the Opposition are weighed down by the millstone of past commitments and the albatross of future divisions?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Opposition have been unable to produce any concrete proposals for reforming the social security system. We were promised six months of thinking the unthinkable and then some concrete, costed, detailed proposals. Instead, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made a speech that even his friends thought he would regret. I shall quote one of them, writing in The Spectator:

"he is a decent fellow"—

"and I cannot believe that he could re-read his own text without embarrassment."

How can the Secretary of State possibly know what future benefits there will be when the reply that I received from his Department in response to a series of questions asking how many claimants have been taken off the benefit register in only two benefit offices in response to his social security benefits changes was that no such information is held and the cost of obtaining it would be disproportionate? Is it not the case that he neither knows nor cares how many people are living in penury because of his brutal changes?

The hon. Lady knows that we have put forward and implemented detailed, concrete and costed proposals. The fact that the information is not necessarily broken down parish by parish does not discount that achievement. When the Labour party offers concrete, costed proposals, she will be in a position to argue and to ask those sorts of questions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce the decision on equipment for the computerisation of the benefits system. [28812]

On 15 May, I announced that Pathway Group Ltd. had won the contract to design, install and operate the equipment that will automate the payment of benefits at post offices.

I welcome the fact that a British company, ICL, has led the Pathway consortium to winning the biggest computer contract in Europe to cope with the problems of fraud. As it is also coupled with the innovative software of companies such as Escher and De la Rue, does my right hon. Friend agree that the benefit card will go a long way to solving the problems of fraud and thereby provide substantial sums of money for those in real need?

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's welcome for that further step toward the introduction of the benefit payment card. Over the lifetime of the eight-year contract, we expect to save more than £1 billion a year by virtually eliminating method of payment fraud on order books and giros. It will make life easier for claimants and they will be less vulnerable to theft and attack. It will save the taxpayer money and reinforce the viability of the national network of post offices.

Some months ago, the Secretary of State agreed with me about the importance of maintaining the privacy of personal data on his Department's computers. Will he publish any evidence that he has submitted to the Home Office's prior options review regarding the function of data protection in the registrar's office, or were they simply weasel words, as he has not submitted any such evidence?

We must stick by our duty to maintain the confidentiality of the data that we receive from benefit claimants and recipients. I will happily see whether I can publish any evidence and give it to the hon. Gentleman in order to assist him with his inquiries.

My right hon. Friend has said that computerisation and the benefit payment card will help to crack down on fraud. Will he give a commitment to publicise the telephone number that the public can use to provide information about those who are fraudulently claiming benefit?

Members of the public throughout the country help us by providing information about benefit fraud and abuse, and they do so by telephoning their local benefit agency. We are running spotlight campaigns throughout the country which focus on particular areas. We urge those who have drifted into fraud to make good their arrangements with us and invite people to help us. I am happy to say that thousands of people are providing information and we are making substantial savings as a result.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the eligibility criteria for those seeking the jobseeker's allowance. [28814]

A number.

Is it not a fact that there is room for a decent jobseeker's allowance in this country? However, will not the allowance that the Government are introducing penalise at least a quarter of a million people who will be worse off after its introduction? Why is it that, every time the Government tinker with and slash the welfare system, they make people's lives worse rather than better?

There are many winners from the jobseeker's allowance: those who benefit from the earnings top-up, the four week run-on for housing benefit and so on. The interesting query arising from the hon. Gentleman's question is whether the Labour party is committed to abolishing that allowance. If it is, that represents another spending pledge of £170 million a year. Added to what Labour Front-Bench Members have spent already this afternoon, their expenditure would amount to £475 million each year.

Is that not what we expect from a party that only thinks the unthinkable and, when it comes to implementing something, only says the undoable?

My hon. Friend is right: the Labour party is deeply divided and unfit for office.

When are the Government going to deal with that other jobseeker's allowance whereby 40 Tory Members of Parliament have jobs on the side, moonlighting? They get massive allowances, but they do not have the guts to reveal them in the parliamentary register. The Tory party takes money from Serbs and all the rest of them to finance the general election. Let us get rid of those allowances.

Union paymasters deeply divided and unfit for office—the hon. Gentleman makes my point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the annual effect of inflation on the number of pensioners eligible for social security payments in addition to the state pension. [28815]

Benefits for pensioners are uprated annually in line with inflation. The Government's low inflation policy has meant that benefits retain their value over the year—in contrast to 1974 to 1979, when inflation was running as high as 27 per cent. Pensioners' savings, too, are protected and able to grow. Investment income now contributes an average of £27.40 per week to their income—unlike the earlier period, when high inflation all but wiped out their savings' real value.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour levels of inflation hurt pensioners in two ways: first, by weekly devaluations of the spending power of their benefits between upratings; and, secondly and most importantly, by wiping out the value of their savings? Does he have any estimate of the number of pensioners who, today, are still adversely affected by Labour's achievement of 25 per cent. annual inflation?

As a result of inflation in the 1970s, people who had saved all their lives saw their life savings destroyed by inflation. Under this Government, increasingly more pensioners have savings of higher value, leading to a rise in income of 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

What is the Minister's response to my constituents who received the pension increase that he outlined, but who then suffered a decrease in housing benefit and in council tax refund and who received from Yorkshire Water a demand that is 2.5 per cent. above the inflation rate—leaving them worse off than before the pension increase?

The increase—which was 3.9 per cent., based on the retail prices index in September—takes into account all increases in costs. The average income has now increased by 51 per cent. since 1979. That would not have happened under Labour.

Does my hon. Friend agree that 66 per cent. of recently retired people now receive income from an occupational pension, compared to only 55 per cent. in 1979? What does he think an inflation rate of 27 per cent. would do to that occupational pension, were we to return to inflation rates that existed under the previous Labour Administration?

The same betrayal that happened in the 1970s would happen again. That is why it is vital that pensioners continue to support the Government, who have so much improved their position over the years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to announce the outcome of this year's review into the cold weather payments monitoring stations. [28816]

A comprehensive review is currently under way. Any proposals to change the existing weather stations or postcode links will be laid before the House in the autumn.

As a part of that review, will the Minister give me at least an interim update on what has happened since we last met vis-a-vis the Tiree weather station trigger point and those parts of my constituency that are currently adversely affected? Is he more optimistic or more pessimistic since we last spoke?

Tempted though I am to answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot do so. He came to see me and, like many other hon. Members, made representations, all of which will be most carefully considered.

When my hon. Friend is conducting his review, will he remember that there are parts of the United Kingdom that are colder than others, and that those parts are not always in the most northern extremes? Therefore, one must remember that people who suffer, suffer equally badly, regardless of where they are, if the temperature is low.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I should emphasise that weather stations are chosen in consultation with the Meterological Office, using its judgment and expert climatological experience.

The Minister will remember that, in his response to a parliamentary question, he said that it normally took 63 per cent. more fuel to heat a gas-fired house in Braemar than to heat such a house in Bristol. When considering the replacement of weather monitoring stations, will he take into account the prevailing weather conditions, which include wind-chill factors and damp and are not solely related to cold snaps during the winter? Will he also accept the recommendations of the all-party warm homes group?

I shall take into account all representations that are made, but the wind-chill factor is a rather difficult element to reflect in a national scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in favour of abolishing child benefit. [28817]

I have received no representations from any hon. Members in favour of the teenage tax proposals of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to abolish child benefit for over-16-year-olds staying on at school.

Does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that the Labour party has taken a Trappist vow? Is he—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, going to ask a question relating to a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.

Has my right hon. Friend received any representations advocating that child benefit be paid to foreigners and taken away from British children between the ages of 16 and 18? Does he find it surprising that there are those who want to pay more to teenagers who are not studying, and to take money away from those who are?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One reason for the extreme embarrassment among Labour Members at the proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is that, while he proposed to withdraw child benefit from those aged over 16 who stay on to acquire qualifications, the Labour party voted to extend it to foreigners who enter this country on the express understanding that they would not be entitled to British benefits. What a slap in the face for British children.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28832]

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.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House about the foreign policy implications, and the implications for our troops on the ground, of the governing party's decision to accept lots and lots of Bosnian Serb money? Does he accept that our troops cannot be seen as impartial when their commanders at home have accepted money from a—

Order. Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility whatever for any funding for his party. [Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about troops, that is an entirely different matter. Let me make it clear, in case any hon. Member wishes to ask the same question later, that the Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for money that goes to the Conservative party. Now, put the question properly and correctly.

Does the Prime Minister accept that there are foreign policy implications, and implications for our troops on the ground, in the position that the governing party has adopted with regard to Bosnian Serb money?

Nothing ever stands in the way of the interests of British troops as far as the Government are concerned.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to take note of the report of the Transport Select Committee on airport capacity? Will he undertake to give serious consideration to the formulation of a long-term framework for airport policy, possibly including the provision of an estuarial airport, so that there may be environmental relief for the existing London airports?

I shall certainly look carefully at the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

In the light of the concern expressed even in Government circles about the funding of political parties, is not the right, fair and honourable thing to do to widen the remit of the Nolan committee so that the funding of all political parties could be looked at in a proper and impartial manner?

No. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. Party funding has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which made a number of recommendations on the openness of party accounts. The Conservative party accepted all those recommendations: the Labour party has not accepted all those recommendations. If the Labour leader is concerned about the matter, perhaps he will now commit himself to do so.

If the Prime Minister has allegations to make about any party's political funding, is not the proper and reasonable thing to do to refer the matter to the Nolan committee so that it can consider it impartially? If the governing party does not accept that, the inevitable question that everyone will ask is what it has got to hide.

The leader of the Labour party may not have heard in the hubbub, but I answered his second question—since it was the same as his first question—a few moments ago. I will repeat it for him. The matter has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee. We follow the remit it set out: the Labour party does not.

rose—

Does Mr. Blair wish to come back?

I do. [Interruption.]

Order. [Interruption.] Be quiet.

I rise by popular request. When gifts are disguised as loans and money is accepted from foreigners, most people in this country would think—would they not?—that the best thing would be to have the Nolan committee consider party funding, so that justice could be done and be seen to be done and not covered up and hidden by the Conservative party.

It is really no use the leader of the Labour party flying into a tantrum. It is only in the Labour party that donations and money buy influence. In the Labour party, the trade unions provide the funds in return for votes at Labour's party conference and the party's trade union paymasters still have a say in Labour's election manifesto. That is the real scandal in party funding and the Labour leader cannot duck it.

Here is a popular matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, this morning, the National Heritage Select Committee reported on the national lottery? It said that the national lottery is a huge success. It is twice the success hoped for by the most optimistic optimists.

It is undoubtedly a great success and is raising huge sums of money for good causes. I am especially pleased to note that the fears expressed by so many people some months ago that charitable donations would fall are now shown to be wrong. In addition to the fact that donations have risen, a substantial amount from the lottery fund also goes to charities.

Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with Government officials donations from Serb sources to the Conservative party?

I do not discuss donations to the Conservative party with civil servants, nor have I. The right hon. Gentleman should know—it was pointed out to the House some time ago—that I devolved any responsibility whatever for party fund raising more than three years ago to avoid any possible conflict of interest. I did that not recently, but several years ago.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the efforts of Mr. Gerry Adams to try to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA? Will my right hon. Friend remember that, when Mr. Adams tells us that he has consulted the IRA, he has merely looked in his bathroom mirror?

There is no doubt that Sinn Fein and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. That point is well known to every right hon. and hon. Member. We believe that it is extremely important that the talks on Northern Ireland are successful. The only way in which Sinn Fein will find itself a part of those talks is if there is a clear-cut, unequivocal ceasefire by the IRA. In the absence of that, Sinn Fein will not be part of the talks. I hope that that is entirely clear to Sinn Fein, to the IRA and to every hon. Member.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28833]

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

Given the respective states of their finances this time last year, can the Prime Minister tell the House why his Government are still massively in debt but his party, all of a sudden, is not?

If the hon. Lady looks at the figures, she will see a substantial reduction in the fiscal deficit; the figure has been falling for some time and will go on falling. I am sure that she will be pleased about that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28834]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of families have cause to be grateful to him for his introduction, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the tax-exempt special savings account? Is that not the right way to create a real stakeholder society, rather than abolishing child benefit and imposing new taxes on cars, which one half of the Labour party wishes to do and the other half does not?

My hon. Friend is entirely right in both aspects of his question. TESSAs have proved a huge success. Literally billions of pounds have been saved by families in TESSAs; many of them are now coming to maturity, and a large proportion of that matured sum is now being reinvested. I believe that that is the right way to encourage wealth, for the determination of individual purchases and to pass on between generations. We believe in the acquisition of wealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am pleased to hear that the Opposition do not believe in that. It explains their proposal for a tartan tax, and the shadow transport spokesman's desire to tax people more often; it explains their proposal to tax families with youngsters going through A-levels and their proposal to tax everything that they can possibly lay their hands on to fund their expenditure plans. I am happy to set out the clear difference between our party and the Labour party on spending and taxes.

Has the Prime Minister seen the report on Yorkshire Water's failure last summer to deliver a regular and uninterrupted water supply to the people of west Yorkshire? Does he recognise that that privatised company failed in its obligations to the people of west Yorkshire and in its obligation not to put at risk the health and economic activity of those people? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that the people of west Yorkshire benefited from Yorkshire Water and had a reduction in their water bills? Can the Prime Minister explain why he is the only person in the country who now seems prepared to defend the privatised Yorkshire Water?

I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman still has such innate hostility to private ownership. I am delighted to say that large numbers of people yesterday showed no innate hostility to buying Railtrack when, once again, we had a privatisation that was massively over-subscribed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May. [28835]

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to endorse the timely and apposite speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the European Research Group last Friday? May I especially draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Home Secretary's suggestion that some states in a flexible Europe should be able to repatriate powers from Brussels? In that regard, could not Her Majesty's Government give notice at the intergovernmental conference that we intend to repatriate to our country control over our own agriculture and fisheries, and make British laws superior to European laws?

As my hon. Friend knows, I first raised the question of what subsequently became called variable geometry in Europe well over two years ago, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he was Foreign Secretary. We have no doubt that that is the direction in which the European Union must develop as it enlarges in future. In relation to fisheries, as I have said to the House before, we shall be seeking changes in the common fisheries policy in the intergovernmental conference.

Rev. Martin Smyth.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I will take the point of order after questions and statements.

While I welcome the Prime Minister's earlier response, does he accept that it is not enough for Sinn Fein to say, "We are no longer part of the IRA'" when, through its leadership, it has at no time condemned the atrocities and bombings of the IRA? It would be only in that context that anyone could have confidence in it as a qualified political party.

I hope that everyone would condemn terrorist outrages. There can be no justification for them. As we have made clear, we expect every party that is eligible to take part in the talks that will take place after 10 June to accept at the outset, without equivocation, each and every aspect of the Mitchell principles. That is an essential prerequisite to taking part in the talks.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that points of order are taken after statements, of which there are two today. The first is from the Prime Minister.