To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make social security benefits available to (a) 16 and (b) 17-year-olds. [32972]

They are already available. Our policy is to encourage young people to stay on at school. Child benefit is an important element in this. Those young people who do not remain in education are guaranteed a suitable training place. If they are registered for employment and training, they have access to income support if they would suffer severe hardship while awaiting placement.

I realise that the Minister wishes to attack the official Opposition on their attitude to child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds, but may I draw his attention to the fact that the International Labour Organisation has said that a substantial number of young people in Britain are not currently eligible for unemployment benefit between the ages of 16 and 17? Is he aware that the House of Commons Library estimates that we are talking about a budget of about £187 million for the whole of the United Kingdom and £21 million for Scotland? Why do the Government have a Scrooge attitude to young people, who when they set out on adulthood should have the concept of independence available to them?

It is not a Scrooge attitude. The Government's policy is to encourage people to stay at school to take A-levels and to learn more, which the majority do these days, to obtain suitable training or to obtain a job. It is not the Government's policy and we reject the idea that one should encourage young people aged 16 and 17 into welfare dependency at an early stage unless there are compelling reasons of hardship. I should stress to the hon. Lady that 79 per cent. of hardship claims were met in 1995.

Would not the abolition of child benefit be not only a teenage tax but a retrogressive tax of the worst kind? Would it not attack the poor families who would like their children to go to secondary school and on to university—the very people whom we care for and for whom the Labour party does not care a damn?

My hon. Friend is right. One quarter of the households in which child benefit is paid to 16 and 17-year-olds are in receipt of income-related benefit. They are part of the £700 million alleged savings relied upon by the official Opposition. Presumably, the Opposition intend to take child benefit away from the poorest section of the community.

When the present Prime Minister was a social security Minister did he not take benefit away from 16 to 18-year-olds? If one looks at the record, that coincided with the greatest surge in juvenile crime that this country has ever known. Is it not a fact that the less advantaged young people in Britain have been penalised by the Government's mean-minded attitude?

No. The striking feature of the past 18 years has been the rising number of people aged 16 and 17 staying at school to study for A-levels and doing training. That is the correct policy. We shall continue to pursue it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the role of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds in encouraging children to stay in full-time education. [32973]

Child benefit clearly plays an important role in encouraging young people over the age of 16 to stay on in full-time education. Removing it for 16 to 18-year-olds, would only make it more difficult for parents to enable their children to stay on and acquire qualifications which will help them to get decent jobs.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of leaching child benefit off the backs of 16 and 17-year-olds who decide to stay on in full-time education? Does he believe that if we were to adopt the policy of the Labour party, it would give a dire choice to many young people: they would be taxed for staying on at school or they would be forced to leave school and to find work?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Child benefit reflects the costs of having dependent children. It does a double task for over 16-year-olds, as it enables them, and encourages them, to stay on at school. Once a party has adopted a policy of withdrawing or means testing child benefit for those over 16, it is hard to see on what basis it can justify keeping it for those under 16. The Labour party will need that money to finance all of its other extravagant spending plans.

Does the Secretary of State accept that child benefit for children over 16, together with related measures, is neither rational nor fair given that no support is going to many of the most disadvantaged children and their families? Given that the Government froze the level of child benefit for three years running, does the Secretary of State accept that their present attempt to pose as the guardians of family benefit has nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with hypocrisy? Does he accept that when the mothers of Britain see the Conservative Government posing as the friends of the family, they start to count their pound notes?

The hon. Gentleman has read out the text supplied to him by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). He has asked me to justify the policy of his hon. Friend—he should ask his Back Benchers, not one of whom has endorsed the policy of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. They know that it is nonsense and they know that he adopted it on the basis of misinformation about the number of children from unskilled households staying on at school and in the mistaken belief that it was, in his words, primarily a subsidy for the mothers of children at public schools. He knows that that is nonsense, and it does him no credit that he is trying to justify a policy in which he has never believed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's talk of pound notes—which went out of circulation many years ago—shows how out of touch it is? Has my right hon. Friend made an estimate of the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who would be forced out of education, and therefore a lifetime opportunity, by the Labour party's determination to take away child benefit, if it ever gets the chance? Would not that be wicked?

My hon. Friend picked up a Freudian slip that was made by the Labour party—which is extremely revealing. The parents of approximately 1.1 million children over the age of 16 are in receipt of child benefit. It is hard to judge how many children would be dissuaded from staying on at school if the Labour party's policies were adopted. Between 1974 and 1978, a mere 20 per cent. of children of unskilled parents stayed on at school; today, more than half of such children stay on at school.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will withdraw the habitual residence test regulations. [32974]

No.

If the test was introduced to stop so-called benefit tourists from the European Union from obtaining benefits fraudulently here, how does the Minister explain that 93 per cent. of those interviewed are British citizens and that of the 7 per cent. of British citizens who failed the test most have been working and paying taxes in Britain for years? In view of this, does the Minister accept the verdict of many who are striving to cope with this test that it is expensive, unworkable, unfair and should be scrapped?

If one followed the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would be a simple case of abolition. There is no satisfactory way of preventing benefit tourism under the European treaties—which allow no discrimination on nationality grounds—other than the habitual residence test. That is embedded in directive 1408/71, which is one of the earliest pieces of Community legislation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the test is that people should not be foot loose and free at the expense of the British taxpayer? Does that not apply also to new age travellers?

My hon. Friend makes two very powerful points with which I respectfully agree.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the last financial year's budget and staffing for the investigation of benefit fraud; and how much was detected or reclaimed directly from such investigations. [32975]

In 1995–96, a total of £180 million was invested in benefit fraud investigation and a range of security measures under the security and control programme, involving nearly 5,500 staff.

I am sure that no one in the House supports benefit fraud. Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be helpful if he presided over a Department that fiddles no more from the public than the public fiddles from the Department? As some £3 billion is withheld from the public in underpaid benefits, should not the Department's expenditure on promoting the uptake of legitimately claimed benefits amount to more than one quarter of the sum that it spends reclaiming the estimated £1.5 billion in benefit fraud?

It is certainly true that the Department spends about £26 million per year promoting its benefits and making details available through about 80,000 points of information. Ultimately, it is for individuals to decide whether they will accept benefits. The hon. Gentleman says—as Labour Members often do—that the Opposition are determined to fight fraud, but they almost invariably oppose regulations designed to tackle bogus asylum seekers and tough measures designed to tackle fraud.

When does my hon. Friend intend to introduce a new benefit payments card? Will he confirm that, when it is introduced fully, it will save at least £150 million in fraud every year?

Yes. My right hon. Friend announced the supplier for the benefit payments card last month, which will come into operation in October this year. It will save approximately £150 million per year and wipe out points of encashment fraud. It is only one of a range of measures that will reduce benefit fraud by 70 per cent. over three years.

Now that the Government are slowly lumbering up to tackle serious criminal fraud against the benefit system, will the Minister kindly answer the question put to him: when will the Government match their rightful zeal against fraud with a campaign to tell the poorest about their entitlements?

We already do that. Far from lumbering up, the Government are limbering up and solving the problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the assistance available to 16 to 18-year-olds. [32976]

We have no plans to take child benefit from young people staying on in full-time education to acquire qualifications.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer? The removal of child benefit from 16 to 18-year-olds would amount to nothing other than a tax on learning. Does my hon. Friend find it surprising that some people want to give 16 to 18-year-olds the double whammy of a tax on learning and the destruction of jobs through the national minimum wage?

My hon. Friend is right. Removing child benefit from families with 16 to 18-year-old children would be highly damaging. It was noticeable in previous exchanges that no Opposition Back Benchers rallied to the cause of their Front Benchers.

Have not the Government viciously cut the incomes of the most vulnerable group of 16 to 18-year-olds, those who emerge from care? Most of our children are expected to adapt to independent lives at the age of about 22, but young people come out of care and are denied income support. It is no wonder that many of them end up as the victims of crime—they are the Fred West generation and the majority of his victims came out of care—or go into crime and prostitution or end up in prison and mental institutions. Is not the greatest single crime of the Government to throw those young people from full-time care into full-time neglect?

The hon. Gentleman tries an elaborate smokescreen. It is noticeable that he did not defend the policy that has been adopted by his Front Benchers either. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary described earlier the success of hardship payments to vulnerable youngsters to protect them. I cannot see how the abolition of child benefit payments to 16 to 18-year-olds, which is the policy being discussed, can help in any way the group of youngsters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Our policies offer an opportunity for training and for education, which is why we have one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in Europe. By contrast, the Opposition's policies, which would involve the abolition of child benefit and youth training and the introduction of a minimum wage that would deny young people opportunities, are a mess and a blunder caused by rows between the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the shadow Chancellor.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the results of Operation Spotlight. [32977]

The Spotlight on Benefit Cheats campaign, which began in April this year, has been very successful. The spotlight has shone on 11 separate areas of the country, and seven of those have now completed their operational phase.

Does the Minister agree that that is the tip of a large iceberg? Millions, if not billions, of pounds are being claimed by illegal immigrants and those who work in the black economy, often referred to as the long-term unemployed. Will the Minister be very strong with the judges and tell them that we, as elected representatives, will choose to spend taxpayers' money as we think fit? If that lot over there ever get in power with their tax plans and their spending plans, it will not be long before we all need a Giro-green cheque every week, just to survive.

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way and I agree with much of what he said. The Spotlight on Benefit Cheats campaign is saving money and cracking down on the problem. Labour keep inventing totals for benefit fraud and silly ideas such as benefits investigators having to conduct their house-to-house interviews every eight minutes, instead of every 77 minutes under us. Labour talks: the Government act.

Can the Minister explain why the system is in such an appalling mess after 17 years of Tory rule?

The hon. Lady talks as though the Labour party has come forward with idea after idea about how to crack down on benefit fraud. That is far from the truth. We have heard no ideas and nothing but complaints while the Government get on and solve the problem.

I have had many complaints from constituents about fraud or alleged fraud. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) the other day to open a campaign on fraud that will cover my constituency? Can he confirm that that campaign will involve conscientious checks and will be effective? I hope that he can.

I was in Great Yarmouth last week to announce the Spotlight on Benefit Cheats campaign, which commences active operation on 1 July. That campaign has a proven track record. It involves visiting, careful checks, the use of the largest data-matching computer in Europe to check individuals' circumstances, and free hotlines for individuals to give us confidential information about fraud—and it works. In Haringey and Enfield, the first area that we tackled, the full year's savings to 1996 were £5.6 million, yet in four weeks we were able to save £4.1 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about problems in the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [32978]

Ministers of both this Department and the Department for Education and Employment have received a small number of representations from hon. Members, all on health and safety issues. In addition, at their request, the departmental trade union sides met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to discuss the issue.

Does the Minister accept that this infelicitously described scheme, the jobseeker's allowance, is a cynical deceit upon the unemployed, and undermines the principle of insurance in the way that it short changes those who have paid national insurance contributions in respect of certain guaranteed entitlements? Will he take careful note of the concerns of the front-line members of staff at the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency who have the onerous task of revealing to claimants their diminished entitlement under the scheme? Will he give a commitment to the House that he will keep the scheme under careful review and be big enough to revise it if the worst predictions about its operations are realised?

There are two issues. First, we take health and safety matters extremely seriously. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, we give maximum priority to the safety of employees. Risk audits have been done in all offices where jobseeker's allowance will be handled. Any recommendations resulting from such audits to improve the arrangements in the offices will be put into practice. Audits are planned for shortly before and shortly after the introduction of the benefit. A lot of consultation is going on. We believe that open plan is the best way in which to deal with the questions that will be raised about people's need to look for jobs, but that will be kept under constant review.

The Minister will recall that I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Jobseekers Bill. Does he also remember that we had to leave a suggestion box in the Committee Corridor because Opposition Members refused to tell us what they would do. If the jobseeker's allowance is so bad, why do the Opposition flatly refuse to repeal the legislation?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am bewildered because I cannot find a good answer. [Interruption.] Whenever I am asked to attempt to justify Labour's policy I am always bewildered because no justification is possible.

How, with the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance, does the Minister justify forcing people to take jobs at wage rates below the official poverty level of income support, so forcing them to rely on means-tested benefits at those wage levels?

The hon. Gentleman's volume conceals his embarrassment over his policy. He chose not to get involved in the argument about reveal or repeal, but the Government's policy of helping people back into work, which has brought unemployment down and has given us the lowest youth unemployment rate in Europe, is in stark contrast to the work-to-welfare policies revealed yesterday, which were described in The Independent today under the title

"Jobless risk destitution getting back to work … the radical welfare package unveiled by Labour".

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to monitor the effects on asylum seekers of the withdrawal of benefits. [32979]

Since the benefit changes were introduced, we have seen a significant reduction in the level of asylum applications. They were down by about 5 per cent. in March, 25 per cent. in April and 50 per cent. in May.

What has the Secretary of State done to measure the impact of those changes on the people who have lost benefits? Is he aware of the research carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality and the British Refugee Council, which concluded that a great deal of hardship had been caused, and that even if fewer people than anticipated had gone to the relief agencies, the impact had been no less devastating? If the Secretary of State cannot even be bothered to find out what has happened to some of the most vulnerable people who have been affected by the regulations, why is he rushing off to table emergency amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Bill rather than responding to what the Court of Appeal said about what he should be doing?

The most significant finding by all who have been monitoring the impact of the regulations is that the results have been much less worrying than they all forecast in their lurid claims. The simple fact is that we are removing benefits from only three groups of people. We are returning them from those who entered the country as refugees, but we are removing them only from illegal immigrants, and from people who enter the country not merely without claiming to be refugees but claiming to be something else—business men or tourists—and having the means to support themselves. Finally, we are putting foreigners on exactly the same footing as British people who, having had a claim for benefit refused, make an appeal and do not receive benefit during the period of the appeal.

Am I correct in thinking that my right hon. Friend has received no concrete evidence from organised lobby groups that his regulations have caused widespread hardship to asylum seekers? Does he agree that the real destitution for United Kingdom citizens could well result from the flexible benefits scheme proposed by the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. The sudden silence of members of the Opposition Front Bench may be due to the fact that, to the embarrassment of the bulk of their party, they have proposed a scheme that would enable people claiming unemployment benefit to obtain all their six months' benefit in advance, invest it—perhaps unsuccessfully—and then be left with no benefit, destitute on the streets, for the remaining six months. Yet those Opposition Members propose to restore benefits to asylum seekers precisely because they consider that sort of thing unacceptable.

The Secretary of State has said that, if asylum seekers' applications are successful, their benefit will be backdated. How on earth are those genuine asylum seekers supposed to manage between the refusal of benefit and their successful appeal? Most will be destitute.

They will be in precisely the same position as British citizens, and presumably will survive in precisely the same way.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to monitor the effects of his changes? Asylum seekers do not fit into a handy category of people who are necessarily knowledgeable about our social security benefits. I fear that there will still be people who seek asylum and are not supported as they should be.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will welcome the change that I have made which ensures that refugees who are found to be genuine at the end of the process will be entitled to backdated benefits in the same way as British citizens, and will therefore be able to reimburse friends, relatives and voluntary groups who have supported them during that process.

Following today's further and unanimous judgment of the Appeal Court on the provision of housing for penniless asylum seekers, are not two things crystal clear? First, local authorities up and down the land are having to pick up the bill for the Government's refusal of benefits, thus making nonsense of the Secretary of State's proclaimed savings. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's removal of benefits has left many genuine, legitimate claimants—many with children—fleeing from persecution without shelter, food, money or the means of life. Will he now think again?

When the hon. Gentleman studies the judgment, he will realise that it refers to the application of existing law by local authorities, not the Government, in the period preceding the changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment coming into effect. The House would really like to know why the hon. Gentleman proposes that British people should be allowed to risk the prospect of destitution for six months, yet is so upset about asylum seekers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the priority which he attaches to his review of the benefit system. [32980]

The reform of social security systems is a central problem facing all developed countries. To ensure that our system remains affordable, I have produced a comprehensive package of reforms that are expected to save £5 billion a year in the course of the next Parliament and £15 billion a year thereafter.

I welcome that information, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that his policy is to reform the benefit system and take action, not to hide policies and avoid action—which is the purpose of the Labour party's review?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our policy has been to analyse thoroughly, act decisively and achieve massive savings and improvements. The Opposition reviews—but, like many reviewers, they cannot act.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that part of his review is a proposal to close the Benefits Agency freeline service, which is used by more than 3 million people a year? Is it also the right hon. Gentleman's purpose to end the out-of-hours service for people whose girocheques go missing or whose books are stolen?

We have announced changes to localised access to information. Rather than refer people to a national freeline, which almost invariably resulted in referring callers to their local office—so causing duplication and a waste of time and effort—we believe that callers can obtain more information more quickly by making a local call.

When I was canvassing in my constituency on Saturday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are always putting over the message. One woman told me that she was fed up with the Tories. When I asked why, she said, "Because I work for the Department of Social Security." I thought that the rest of the conversation would be rather predictable, but the lady told me that she had just been recruited from the private sector and was horrified at the level of fraud and maladministration in the local DSS office. Will my right hon. Friend take that not as criticism but as encouragement for all that the Government are doing to direct benefits away from fraudsters and towards the people who need them?

I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's question in the sense that he advised. I am sure that his constituent is aware that Labour has always been the friend of the fraudster and soft on fraud. As Labour has demonstrated this week, that party is particularly keen to allow bogus asylum seekers to keep receiving benefits— just as Labour has long allowed British citizens to enjoy benefits fraudulently and would like that to continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce measures to allow women to qualify for widows' benefits when they have not been married to their late partners but could qualify as having been married by cohabitation. [32981]

No. There is no reason why those who choose not to marry should be entitled to married persons' benefits.

When unmarried couples live together, their joint earnings are taken into account in assessing their benefits, such as income support. Why cannot women qualify for the widows' benefit when their partners die? That arrangement operates in Scotland, so why cannot it work here? Are we to have Victorian values in that regard?

Social security legislation involving the right to contributory benefit derived from another person's contributions is based on the concept of a legal marriage, which is something that the Government believe upholds family values. The existing provisions, which make contributory benefits available to a surviving spouse but not to the survivor of an unmarried partner are long standing, and the Government do not believe that a case has been made for changing them.

Does my hon. Friend believe that we should support the institution of marriage, appreciate the seriousness of marriage and appreciate the commitment of both parties to a proper marriage? Therefore, it would be wrong for us to give in to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes); surely, if one is prepared to commit oneself to marriage and the responsibilities that go with it, one should be entitled to get something from it when one becomes a widow or widower.

Conservative Members believe that the institution of marriage is vital to our society. The legislation reflects that.

Does the Minister recognise that there is wide concern about equal treatment of cohabiting couples in pension schemes? Will the Minister confirm, for example, that serving firefighters and police officers who lose their lives in the course of their duties may leave dependent partners and children without any pension benefits? Will the Minister recognise that there is real concern about that? What plans does he have to study the problems involved and to introduce proposals to ensure that equal treatment is made available to more people within pension schemes?

There is a difference between a lifelong commitment and another sort of commitment. There is no legal obstacle in occupational pension schemes to the payment of survivors' pensions to unmarried partners who are financially dependent. The Government always keep these matters under review.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of children under 16 years old living in families seeking asylum who will not qualify for child benefit under the new regulations this year. [32982]

Our changes propose that those people whose entry to the United Kingdom is on condition that they will have no recourse to public funds should not be entitled to child benefit. Original estimates suggested that about 12,000 families containing 20,000 children could be disentitled. However, the number of asylum applications was down by 5 per cent in March, about 25 per cent. in April and nearly 50 per cent. in May, so the actual number affected is likely to be lower.

Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved with refugee families and seen the tremendous strain and financial problems that those families encounter in those circumstances? After his humiliation in the courts last Friday, is it now public policy for the Minister and his party to visit the misfortunes of mums and dads on their innocent children?

The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his Front Benchers. The Labour party wants to give child benefit to the families of bogus asylum seekers while taking it away from the families of hard-working 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in Britain. What sort of political party advocates ladling out taxpayers' money to those fraudulently seeking asylum while, at the same time, wanting to take it away from the families of British citizens with children at school working on their A-levels? The Government are opposed to giving away taxpayers' money to bogus asylum seekers.

Who will pay the housing benefit for those bogus asylum seekers who are so generously allocated council housing by the politically naive judiciary ahead of those who have been on the waiting list for many months?

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. Last year, 95 per cent. of asylum claims were bogus. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that, while certain categories of people are fully eligible for benefits, it is wrong that those who seek to enter this country bogusly should receive them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made since 1993 to the social security funeral payments scheme; and what is his assessment of the effect of these changes. [32983]

Changes have been made to stop abuse of the system. People with a genuine reason for taking responsibility for a funeral get help. A £500 limit was placed on specified funeral directors' charges. Those changes have successfully reduced previously escalating expenditure.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the funeral payments system frequently fails to cover even the cost of the most basic funeral service, causing additional stress to the families of the recently bereaved? In the light of the evidence, what plans do the Government have to review the operation of the funeral payments system?

The scheme is kept under review. I have caused inquiries to be made. There are four funeral directors in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, three of which will provide social fund funerals within the present scheme. The fourth is more expensive—but the fourth is the Co-op.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be rather illogical to accept the premise that social security expenditure is too high and then to complain about every change that the Government make to bring social security expenditure under control? Is that not exactly what the Labour party continually does?

My hon. Friend is right on both points. Each year, the social fund pays for 10 per cent. of all funerals in Great Britain.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June. [33002]

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.

Putting to one side the comments in some newspapers, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England football team on their magnificent successes so far in Euro 96—showing, in the words of the song, that "football's coming home"? Will he join me and the rest of the country in wishing them every success and the best of luck in the semi-finals tomorrow night?

Willingly. Euro 96 has been a stunning success so far, and I congratulate the teams on the spirit they have displayed in the games and everyone who has attended those games. I hope that that spirit remains right the way through the rest of this competition. It has been a friendly and carnival-like atmosphere so far, and I hope that nothing changes that between now and the final in a few days' time.

That is a consensus in which I am delighted to join, and I entirely concur with the Prime Minister's sentiments.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that we value the role of the armed forces as much as anyone in the land, and probably more than most. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what is proposed with the married quarters sale. We intend to ensure that the protection of married quarters is safeguarded while at the same time improving the quality and management of service housing. In practice, the sale will produce about £100 million for improvements and refurbishment in service families' homes. I think that, when the matter is fully understood and debated, many may see it in a different light.

I think that people do see it in a different light, because they wonder whether that is, in fact, what will happen. May I simply tell the Prime Minister that the concerns are that this is a poor deal for the taxpayer, because these properties have been sold on the cheap and there is a guaranteed income stream for the property developer after sale? It is a poor deal for the armed forces, because they will have to apply for those houses to come back to them after the 25 years is up. It is also a very poor deal for service men and women, because their estates may be broken up and changed without their consent, and they may be required to exchange housing sites altogether at the property developer's option. In those circumstances, is it wise to press ahead until those objections have been reviewed thoroughly?

When the right hon. Gentleman sets out the matter, I begin to see some of the misunderstandings that have caused so much concern. To reiterate on his first point, the sale will release substantial sums for improving and refurbishing service families' homes. Secondly, those improvements aside, there will be little change for the occupants. The sale will emphatically not mean that service people's rents will rise; I make that clear to the right hon. Gentleman. It will not mean, as he clearly assumes, problem families being dumped on Ministry of Defence estates. It will not mean service personnel being moved against their will. However, it will allow the Ministry of Defence to reduce the number of empty, unused and unneeded homes. Not to do that would not be a proper use of resources, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees.

Without going through each of the facts, I simply say to the Prime Minister that there is no dispute about the fact that surplus sites that are empty should be sold off. Questions arise where there are sitting service tenants. Yes, it is the case that a small amount of the sale money will find its way to the Ministry of Defence, but large amounts will be paid out by the taxpayer in guaranteed market rents to the new owners. It is not the case that this is a good deal for the taxpayer.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. The sale is not a matter that has suddenly arisen. It has been under consideration for a number of years in order to determine how it can be done to release resources, not least resources available to the Exchequer to enable equipment to be purchased for the armed services. The right hon. Gentleman knows of the substantial additional equipment purchases that have been sanctioned in the past year or so. I reiterate that we will ensure that the married quarters are safeguarded, but we also seek to improve the quality and the management of service housing. When people understand the full implications of what is proposed, they will not see the matter as the right hon. Gentleman has done this afternoon.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June. [33003]

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

Will my right hon. Friend remind me and all those people under 35 years of age whether it was a Conservative Government who let inflation rip to 26.9 per cent? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Was it a Conservative Government who allowed the higher rate of tax to go to 98p in the pound? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Was it a Conservative Government who did not pay the senior citizens' Christmas bonus? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Was it a Conservative Government who had 176 Members of Parliament totally sponsored by the unions? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Or—[Interruption.]

Order. No wonder I get so many complaints in my mail bag every day about Prime Minister's Question Time. Will the hon. Gentleman please bring his question to a conclusion?

Or was it that lot opposite? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]

The answer to my hon. Friend, as I heard it, was no, no, no, no and yes.

It is not my job to defend another party. However, the Prime Minister has rightly committed himself and the rest of us to defending standards in politics. Will he now tell us whether he personally approves of the unpleasant campaign being run by his party chairman to attack the Labour party through the Labour leader's wife?

indicated dissent.

I note that he disapproves. Does the right hon. Gentleman really want an election campaign run around personality attacks which extend even to our families? Does he approve of that?

There is no such campaign, nor will there be. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I speak from some experience. There will be no such campaign in my party, there is no such campaign and the right hon. Gentleman should know that.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the report prepared on behalf of the Federation of Veterinaries of Europe by Professor Marc Vandervelde of the university of Berne in which he demonstrates beyond any doubt that there are thousands of unreported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy throughout the European Community and that the worst examples are found in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Portugal? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the report is made available to hon. Members and to members of other Parliaments throughout the European Union?

I shall certainly study the report to which my hon. Friend refers and see that it has appropriate circulation. It is clear that, for some years, the enforcement measures in the United Kingdom have been a good deal more rigorous than those in many other countries, although there is certainly BSE elsewhere. As the European Union vets seem to be saying, it is clear that, without the level of control that we rightly have in the United Kingdom, doubts may remain about the safety of beef. I shall certainly study the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since the statement by the then Prime Minister on the bombing of Libya on 16 April 1986, Official Report, columns 875–81, Her Majesty's Government have tried to secure information from (a) the German and (b) the United States authorities about the alleged Libyan involvement in the Berlin bombings. [33004]

We naturally remain in close contact with both the United States and German authorities on terrorist related matters, but the evidence of Libyan responsibility for the bombing of the discotheque in Berlin was already clear at the time of my right hon. and noble Friend's statements on 15 and 16 April 1986, as she herself stated.

Have the Government had access to the files of the Stasi in relation to Yousef-Salam, who may have been a provocative agent?

We remain in regular contact. The Stasi files found after the fall of the Berlin wall reveal that a Stasi agent had penetrated the group responsible for the bombing and detailed reports on preparations. The Stasi believe that the man to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, who also has other aliases, led the terrorists. That man is a Palestinian, not a Libyan, but at the time of the bombing he worked for the Libyan People's Bureau in East Berlin, and he is and remains the principal suspect.

Although it is good news that the issues of the Berlin bombing will now at last be resolved in court, do we not also have a responsibility to the relatives of the Lockerbie victims to seek to resolve that problem in a similar way, particularly as the Libyans have now suggested a trial in The Hague with a Scottish judge? Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, while the Government are playing straight and open in all their dealings, a number of European states are openly flouting the sanctions to which we are adhering?

I understand my hon. Friend's point about a trial in The Hague with a Scottish judge, but on the basis of the evidence given to me, I believe that it is right for the Lord Advocate to continue to pursue the matter in Scottish jurisdiction. I would not wish to see it moved away from Scottish jurisdiction as a result of plea bargaining by the Libyans or for any other reason. The crime was committed in Scottish air, so it is right that the matter should be pursued in Scotland. There can be no reasonable doubt about the independence of the judiciary in Scotland or about the independence, honesty or honour of the Lord Advocate, who would lead the prosecution.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June. [33005]

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

Perhaps I do not speak for the entire nation, but will the Prime Minister accept from me as a Scotsman my best wishes for the success of the England football team tomorrow night at Wembley? Does he agree that the competition has been enhanced by the thousands of European visitors who have flocked into the United Kingdom? Will he condemn unreservedly some elements of the tabloid press that are promoting xenophobia and running a real risk of spoiling the enjoyment of millions of people as well as threatening the good order and the policing of a valuable tournament?

Everyone will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's best wishes to the England team. I hope that they play well and have a satisfactory result in their semi-final tomorrow. Visitors from Europe and some who come from beyond are very welcome indeed in this country for these finals. I share the views of the hon. Gentleman, who clearly had one particular newspaper in mind for the nature of the campaign that it has run over recent days. It deserves the criticism that has been heaped on it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd that the British taxpayer should have to pay hundreds of millions of pounds to illegal immigrants and the 97 per cent. of asylum seekers who turn out to be bogus? Does he also agree that it is a great pity that some members of the judiciary go out of their way to show how out of touch they are with the British people's feelings? They could quite easily remedy the situation by not making political statements and by doing something to contain the burgeoning power of judicial review.

In the benefits case to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, the courts ruled on a rather narrow point. It is widely accepted that our policy is right. It removes benefits from three groups of people: illegal immigrants, people who entered the country on the condition that they said they could support themselves and people who have already been found not to be genuine refugees. I believe that the vast majority of people agree that those three groups should not receive benefits at the expense of the British taxpayer.