To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department takes to monitor the impact of computer errors on claimants' benefits. [36957]

All new computer systems, and changes to existing systems, are thoroughly tested before they are put into operation, and they are monitored once they are in operation. All errors are investigated and corrected, and their impact on operations is analysed. Errors affecting benefit payments are corrected as soon as possible and steps are taken to identify all customers affected by them.

Is the Minister aware of the lengthy correspondence that I have had with his Department concerning my constituent, Mr. Peter Sutton, whose benefit was affected by computer errors, to his detriment? In particular, has the Minister had an opportunity to look at the letter of 16 May, sent from the private office of his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, saying that some 10,200 claimants' benefits had been affected as a direct consequence of computer error? As many of these people are old-age pensioners or on extremely low incomes, this is a serious situation. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that any hardship affecting them is addressed as a matter of urgency?

I am aware of the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman has had with my Department. It is important to put this matter into context: some 250 million transactions are produced by computer in the benefits system every year, and 94 per cent. of all benefits are paid right—and right first time. If errors are identified, we do a trawl to find out who else might have been affected. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the trawl of cases similar to that of his constituent was completed last week. The preliminary figures identify some 11,500 cases that have been affected by this type of error. Benefits will be corrected, and compensation is payable in certain circumstances if there have been delays. We try to ensure that all systems are brought up to date, and there are regular audits to try to ensure that errors do not occur. However, when they happen—no system is foolproof—we take all steps possible to put matters right.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Child Support Agency continues to make computer errors when it sends out demands? In particular, will he ask the agency to be careful not to mix up overtime and basic wages? It often makes errors in that area.

As we know, the calculation of child support is complex, and it must be done correctly. I shall draw the attention of the Minister concerned to the point raised by my hon. Friend.

What consideration has the Minister given to the consequences of computer errors if he carries through his intention to sell lists of benefit claimants to private sector organisations, as reported in The Daily Telegraph of 15 May? Would it not be a gross breach of confidence to do so? Is it not an error of judgment on the part of Ministers to expose people in poverty to the temptations and taunts of advertisers? Will the Minister give hon. Members his assurance that the Benefits Agency database of clients will not be made available to outside organisations or to individuals, except for purposes that are intrinsic to—and confined to—the administration of benefits?

We never had any intention of doing any such thing, and the hon. Gentleman might have been better advised to raise the question elsewhere so that I did not need to tell him that in such a public forum.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the annual cost of social security payments to asylum seekers. [36958]

If I had not introduced the changes to benefits for asylum seekers in February, it is estimated that the cost would soon have exceeded £400 million a year. Our changes will save more than £270 million, but we will continue to spend just over £140 million a year supporting asylum seekers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the types of abuse of the system that many of us have come to expect from asylum seekers? One came to see me on Saturday and thought that she was eligible for housing benefit of £240 a week, or £12,480 a year. Is that reasonable? Is it not right that the Government have stamped down on such unjustified claims? Is it not irresponsible of the Opposition to have opposed that? Is not that yet another new danger from new Labour?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was only sensible to take the measures that we have taken to prevent the waste of large sums of public money on supporting bogus asylum seekers. The Opposition are grossly irresponsible in pledging to restore that money: they will have to find that £300 million elsewhere in the social security budget—they will take money away from British citizens who are genuine claimants to give to bogus claimants from abroad.

Will the Secretary of State give careful consideration this coming winter to any representations he may receive from Churches, organisations running night shelters and organisations providing support to the destitute that might lead him to introduce new proposals to deal with the outrageous changes he has introduced which have brought hardship to so many men, women and children?

Of course I will consider carefully any representations I receive from any quarter, especially those the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I draw comfort from the fact that the frightening prognostications that were made when my policies were introduced have not materialised—I do not believe they will materialise. Claimants who are found to be genuine at the end of the process will have their benefits backdated, so that those who support asylum seekers they know to be genuine will have their costs reimbursed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if total social security spending is not to rise, any increase in spending on asylum seekers would have to be balanced by lower benefits for British citizens? Since the Labour party now claims that it would not increase the total social security budget, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Labour party has told him how it would pay for the extra spending on asylum seekers that it proposes and which British benefits it would cut to pay for it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The dilemma she points out is exactly that faced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who has pledged to restore those benefits. He has had the rug pulled from under him by his leader, who has let it be known in The Daily Telegraph that he agrees with me and not with his spokesman. An interesting article by Boris Johnson states:

"What was the Blair view of Peter Lilley's attempt to crack down on bogus asylum-seekers? Was he outraged like the Guardian editorialists … Did he condemn"

"Far from it."

'"I think Peter Lilley makes a lot of sense… it's a bit much all these people saying they won't be a charge on the state, and then claiming asylum when they get here.' The moment he sees daylight between himself and the Tories, Blair closes the gap."

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his power to determine the levels of fees and charges levied by providers of personal pensions. [36959]

We have always made it clear that competition and disclosure are the preferred means of ensuring that charges levied are not excessive. We have no plans to use the powers referred to.

Given that £16 billion is paid out every year in pension rebates—£4 billion of which goes on fees and charges—and that the people that are most affected are the poorer in society, when will the Minister do something about the 25 per cent. charge?

There are 5.6 million people with personal pensions in Britain, and 99 per cent. of them are as well off—or better off—as if they had remained in the state earnings-related pension scheme, typically by up to £1,000 a year on their pension at today's prices. That is not my view, but the view of the Securities and Investments Board. What is more, in its recent report, "Disclosure: One Year On", the Personal Investment Authority suggests that competition and disclosure are working, and that there is evidence of lower charges and better surrender values. The Government's policy is working, and there are no plans to introduce powers of the sort that have been referred to.

Will my hon. Friend take time during the summer recess, like the Select Committee on Social Security, to go to Chile to see how state-approved personalised pension schemes that are funded really work to provide both a very high level of benefit in retirement and an engine for growth, which has been sustained at over 6 per cent. per annum over the past few years?

Like the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend is considering visiting Chile to see the progress that has been made there. We should not forget that, in the United Kingdom, £600 billion is invested in private pension provision. That gives a much better future for people in this country than would otherwise be the case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of children are in households dependent on income support; and, as a percentage of total children, how this compares with 1979. [36960]

In Great Britain, 25.6 per cent. of children are members of families where income support is claimed. A direct comparison with 1979 is not possible.

I thought that the Minister would say that a comparison was not possible. Is it not clear that such a shameful figure reveals the extent of the failure of the Government's economic and social policies since 1979? Will the Minister take the opportunity now to apologise to the millions of families and children who have been so badly let down by the policies that the Government have pursued?

A direct comparison is not possible because of the different structure of the benefits involved. The hon. Gentleman's point about the number of children in receipt of income-related benefits reflects, first, a rise in unemployment, which was not experienced by the United Kingdom alone, and, secondly, a change in the structure of families.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something sick and sad about people who do not realise that the take-home money that has been available since 1979—to people from all grades and of all standards—has increased substantially, and that that includes the moneys available to those on benefit? The sadness is that the more we help people, the more we are chastised.

My hon. Friend makes a more than valid point. Average income has increased for all family types since 1979. When a substantial survey was last conducted of couples on income support with children, it was found that they were 19 per cent. better off under our benefits than under those of the Labour Government.

The Minister says that there is no comparison with 1979. The Library informs me, however, that, in 1979, 7 per cent. of children were dependent on means-tested benefits, whereas 26 per cent. are now. Does not the fact that one in four children are dependent on means-tested benefits show the Government's neglect of Britain's children? Given that, in 1979, Conservatives promised to reduce dependency on the state, will the Minister tell us what has gone wrong?

It seems that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the earlier exchanges. There is no valid comparison, because of differences in benefits. The Government have tried to reduce dependency by getting people back into work and altering the benefit structure to ensure that people go from welfare into work. That is something that the hon. Gentleman should support. It is in direct contrast to the Labour party's policy of work to welfare, first by cutting child benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds and, secondly, by introducing a minimum wage, which would reduce the job opportunities of many families and make their children much poorer.

Is the Minister aware that, in France, child benefit can be withdrawn in cases where children persistently truant from school? Will he bear that in mind when considering any new proposals for paying child benefit?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I understand that the provision in France is rarely used. The Department for Education and Employment and local authorities work extremely hard, through their welfare officers, to ensure that children appreciate the benefits of, and the need for going to, school. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it would be a shame if, as children approach further education at the age of 16, they faced a Labour Government who would take child benefit away from them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about changes in reduced earnings allowances. [36961]

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has had in relation to the implementation of the reduced earnings allowance rule. [36969]

A number of hon. Members have written to Ministers about these changes.

Does the Minister appreciate the distress and hardship that has been caused to many people who have come to rely on this allowance? In my constituency surgery, male pensioners have broken down in tears as a result of the changes. At the very least, could not some transitional help be made available to such people?

I fully appreciate and accept the argument that those who have had the benefit altered are affected adversely by that and are not happy with it, but the position is clear. Reduced earnings allowance is to compensate for reduced earnings, and retirement allowance is to compensate for a reduced retirement pension. The intention of Parliament in 1988 was that, when people passed pension age and ceased to be in regular employment, they passed from one allowance to the other, but the way in which the rules operated were arbitrary and unfair, and a number of people who, for excellent reasons, under the arrangements as they were, have lost reduced earnings allowance and passed to retirement allowance, might fairly complain that some have gained and that they have lost. We have made the scheme reasonable and consistent.

Does the Minister agree that British citizens such as my constituent, Reg Beck, had the right to expect that, when they were told that they would receive reduced earnings allowance for life, that meant for life—not that it would suddenly be cut off in March 1996 by this gimcrack and mean legislative change?

Reduced earnings allowance should never have been awarded for life. There are only two circumstances in which that can have happened.

What did the Minister say on "Welsh Lobby"?

I shall come to "Welsh Lobby" in a moment.

I welcome the scheme announced by my hon. Friend for rectifying official errors, but does he agree that on this question the Opposition are shedding crocodile tears? When will he take into account their intention, if they are ever elected, to get rid of child benefit for children between the ages of 16 and 18? As always, they say one thing and do another.

Order. Supplementary questions must relate directly to the main question. This is a serious issue.

Is the Minister aware that I have in my hand a letter from his Department to a constituent of mine giving a categorical assurance in black and white that he would receive reduced earnings allowance for life, and that he, like countless others, has undertaken his financial planning on that basis? Given what the Minister has said, and what has been said on the "Welsh Lobby" programme, will he now give an undertaking that everyone, but everyone, who has been losing money under the changes will now receive compensation for those losses?

Ministers have made it clear that each case that is put to us will be looked at most carefully. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] It means that we shall examine what was said and, if there is a proper basis for saying that the Benefits Agency has made an official error and that there has been reliance upon it, there is a scheme for compensation, but each case will be looked at on its merits.

May I press the Minister further on that point? Did he say on television that, where the reduced earnings allowance has caused hardship, he will review those cases? What criteria will he use to do that? What level of hardship must have applied? How much money will he put forward to ensure that hardship can be alleviated for the hundreds of people who budgeted to receive the reduced earnings allowance for the rest of their lives?

Some 4 million files are in the process of being looked through and carefully reconsidered, because the test as to whether someone received one allowance or the other after retirement was not working properly under the old regulations. We estimate that about 2,500 people, to whom compensation in the region of about £10 million will be paid, were wrongly transferred under the old arrangements from one allowance to retirement allowance. Every case will be looked at to see whether that happened.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of the private pensions sector to discuss improvements in private pension provision. [36962]

Earlier this month, I addressed two conferences about pensions, and I have frequent contacts with representatives of the pensions industry.

When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of the industry, will he tell them that the Government have no plans whatever to nationalise private pension funds or to seek to control them in any way as an aid to state spending? That is the policy of the Labour party, and it is another example of new Labour, new danger, new nightmare for pensioners.

I shall certainly pass on the points that my hon. Friend makes. He is quite right to say that the Opposition have flirted closely with the Singapore scheme, which involves the state running pension schemes, to the great disadvantage of pensioners in Singapore, whose return since 1980 was only 2 per cent. a year above inflation, whereas private pensions in this country have returned nearly 10 per cent. a year on top of inflation.

Private pensions are all right for people who can afford them. Is the Secretary of State aware that some of my colleagues and I met a group of miners today—some of them amputees—who were disabled early in their careers, that their wages dropped considerably and, as a result, they have spent a lifetime on a very low income? They could not make any provision for retirement and private pensions. They relied on a Government undertaking that they would receive a special hardship allowance as a result of the injuries that they suffered, and that translated into a reduced earnings allowance. The Government have betrayed those people, who have acted in good faith and given great service to this country.

I met some miners myself in Scotland when I was there, and they put their case with impressive eloquence and moderation. I endeavoured to explain, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did, that we are simply fulfilling the original intention of Parliament. When, during their working lives, people are incapacitated by injury, they receive a reduced earnings allowance, as the name suggests; when they retire, they receive a reduced retirement pension to match the fact that they were unable to contribute as much into funds as they would if they had been working all the time. That is a fair and sensible system, but it was misapplied. We have merely put it back to what Parliament always intended.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best improvements that we could make to the personal pension regime to encourage more people to opt for such pensions would be the introduction of a minimum contribution for tax relief, regardless of earnings? That would greatly benefit the self-employed, people on low incomes and, I dare say, those to whom the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) referred. My right hon. Friend may say that this is a matter for our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but his encouragement would be a great help.

My hon. Friend is right: this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor when he considers his Budget. I know that he has received representations on the subject. As it overlaps with my responsibilities, however, I will certainly discuss it with him.

Instead of scaremongering about plans that he knows the Labour party does not have, will the Secretary of State face up to the reality of personal pensions? Will he confirm that it is eight years since so-called appropriate personal pensions were first on sale? Is it not a scandal that, eight years later, according to the Government Actuary, at least 30 per cent. of the savings of a typical woman with a typical personal pension will be lost in fees and charges by the time she retires?

We have arranged a system that gives people the option of remaining in SERPS if their circumstances make that more attractive. If, as in the majority of cases, they can do as well or better outside SERPS, they are encouraged to opt out of it and to build up funded personal and occupational pensions totalling some £600 billion, to the great benefit of the country. That means that, in advance of people's retirement, we have saved more funds than all the other European countries put together. The hon. Gentleman may regret that deeply—I know that he does—but the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has said that the Labour party wants to remove SERPS. In May this year, he wrote, "SERPS must go."

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the regulation of occupational pensions. [36963]

The Pensions Act 1995 will improve security for occupational pension scheme members and increase confidence in private pension provision, but without imposing undue burdens on employers or schemes.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that, during the Bill's passage last year, Labour Members tabled more than 700 amendments, the bulk of which would have increased regulation of occupational pensions? Does he agree that that burdensome and over-regulatory approach constitutes yet another new danger from new Labour?

As usual, my hon. Friend is right. In fact, Labour Members tabled not 700 but 740 amendments, most of which would have added to regulation. In the debate the other night, they were doing it again—proposing further regulations. There is danger in this. Over-regulation can put employers off setting up schemes and continuing with them. New Labour, new danger.

The Minister will be aware that, although salary-based schemes provide a minimum pension, the new money purchase schemes that many people have been encouraged to join since 1988 do not. What steps is he taking to improve the benefits provided by contracted-out money purchase schemes?

All forms of private pension provision have something to recommend them in individual cases. Salary-related schemes provide excellent benefits and, for some people, so do money purchase schemes, which have the advantage of being more flexible. The Government's policy has been to encourage such flexibility while providing the security that pensioners need if they are to have confidence in the system. The rebates announced earlier this year build on that. Let us not forget that the Labour party is talking about introducing schemes run by trade unions, which would undermine what the Government have done, and involve a guaranteed! minimum pension that would cost up to £5 billion and a flexible decade of retirement costing £15 billion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy in respect of providing support for those who most need assistance. [36964]

Our policy is to focus benefits on those who need them most by improving incentives, bearing down on abuse and encouraging personal responsibility.

A number of my constituents have complained to me about the generosity of benefits paid to those whom they describe as professional claimants, compared with the meagre benefits available to those who have worked all their lives and have become unemployed for the first time. Does my hon. Friend recognise that contrast, does he think that it is fair, and what further action can the Government take to improve the situation?

Under present legislation, and under the jobseeker's allowance scheme, the Employment Service works hard to distinguish between those who should be entitled to unemployment and income-related benefits and those who for their own reasons have chosen not to work or to avoid interviews and the like. I assure my hon. Friend that we take this matter seriously. It is important that benefit is paid to those who need it and who have not done anything to put themselves out of the labour market. The new jobseeker's allowance will help in that cause.

The Government's targeting of benefits means that families who work are penalised, families who save are penalised, and families who tell the truth are penalised. Are the Government proud of the fact that they have doubled the number of families on means-tested assistance, up to one in three of the population?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premises for a moment. The work that we have done to increase earnings-related benefit, work-related benefit, means that a family in work on family credit are £23 a week better off than if they were on income-related benefit. We have tried to improve the benefits system to make sure that it is worth going into work. Many of the changes announced by the Chancellor a couple of years ago which come into effect this year—earnings top-up and the like—will benefit 750,000 people. That is the right way to set about the problem.

Given the massive scale of social security fraud, when will the Government introduce a national system of workfare for all able-bodied unemployed so as to guarantee them an income while at the same time smoking out those who make multiple fraudulent claims or who are already employed but also drawing benefit?

The issue of workfare is more a matter for the Department for Education and Employment. First, as I said earlier, the new system of jobseeker's allowance should distinguish rather better between those who want to work and those who choose for some reason not to work. Secondly, the measures that we have introduced this year, particularly earnings top-up, still try to find a way to boost the income of those who have just come off benefit so as to make work more attractive. We persist in believing that that is the best way forward.

Does the Minister accept that axing the benefits helpline will cause untold hardship to benefit claimants, especially pensioners, who often do not claim what they are due? Will he reconsider the decision, or does he expect organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux and Age Concern to fill the gap?

No, it is not a question of that. Local Benefits Agency offices now provide a great deal of support and information for people looking for information about their benefits. All too often, callers to the national helpline had to be redirected to the local Benefits Agency office line, and we prefer that to be the process. The benefits inquiry line, which is specifically designed for queries about disability benefits, remains in place. We have substantially boosted the amount of information that is made available through the Benefits Agency and this good policy will continue.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1988 we are spending an extra £1.2 billion on less well-off families and that to claim that more people on means-tested benefits equals increased poverty is a complete distortion of the truth, because in fact it demonstrates that we are helping more and more people in need?

My hon. Friend is correct. The changes in benefits in 1988 enabled us to redirect £ 1 billion a year to the poorest families. The Opposition should not criticise that. In contrast with all the difficult decisions that we have made and all the decisions to redirect benefits and target them more effectively, there has been nothing constructive from the Opposition—merely a series of reviews and attempts to think the unthinkable. The Opposition have produced nothing workable, only dissent. It is another example of a party not really ready to govern.

Can the Minister tell us how it can possibly have helped those in need for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have talks about the disposal of DSS offices, as he is reported to have done on 21 February, with Mr. John Beckwith, chairman of the Premier Club, who is usually employed drumming up money in return for the dubious privilege of meeting the Prime Minister? Will the Minister tell us whether such a meeting took place, and will he now rule out Mr. Beckwith's participation in any such disposal?

In the past four or five minutes the House has had a sensible discussion about the targeting of benefits. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot rise to the quality of that discussion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the impact of changes in the mobility components of disability living allowance on care of residents in residential and retirement homes. [36965]

The changes will affect only people who for benefit purposes are treated as hospital in-patients—that is, where the NHS is responsible for maintaining them free of charge, regardless of where they are receiving treatment.

Does the Minister accept that one of the privileges of old age is the ability to get out and about? People may be in residential homes because of their age and yet qualify for mobility allowance. Why should they not be allowed to get out and about rather than be prisoners in those homes?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I must emphasise that the measure that he has raised brings disability living allowance, mobility, into line with disability living allowance, care. Also, attendance allowance would stop after four weeks in hospital or after 12 weeks for children. It is usual for social security benefits to be withdrawn or downrated when a person goes into hospital.

Will my hon. Friend discuss with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health the way in which local authorities are manipulating those benefits and old people to the disadvantage of those old people by ensuring that they do not go into private residential homes, but block beds until they can go into the vastly more expensive local authority homes?

I will pass on my hon. Friend's comments. I must emphasise that the changes are about targeting disability living allowance, mobility, and not about cutting disability benefits. We now spend about £21 billion on sick and disabled people, and that is a record of which the Government can be very proud.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a back-to-work bonus. [36966]

We shall be introducing a back-to-work bonus in the jobseeker's allowance and income support from 7 October. This will allow an estimated 150,000 people per year to receive a tax-free lump sum of up to £1,000 when they leave benefit to take up work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just one of a number of excellent proposals to help people off welfare and into work? Does he agree that the national minimum wage would have the opposite effect by destroying jobs? Is that not just another example of new Labour, new danger?

My hon. Friend is quite right. This is one of an array of imaginative measures to get people off benefit and into work. Almost all the measures proposed by the Labour party—such as the minimum wage and the social chapter, which would destroy jobs—are means of getting people out of work and on to benefit.

I call Mr. Skinner.

The Minister is not ready. [Interruption.] That is better.

I am sorry that I nearly missed participating in the Lilley and Skinner show. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are more interested in the serious business of getting people back into real jobs than making petty party political points.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the Australian JET—jobs education and training—scheme in respect of helping lone parents out of dependency. [36967]

I have examined the Australian JET scheme. We shall be basing our scheme—to be piloted from next April—on more successful models.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the JET scheme is inefficient and costly, but it is close to the heart of the Opposition? Perhaps it is an example of yet another new danger. Has my hon. Friend looked at other schemes in other parts of the world?

Yes. The Opposition have backed the wrong horse. In their lust for glib soundbites, they overlooked the detail. The Australian JET scheme overstates savings and understates the costs involved. They should look to the GAIN—greater avenues for independence—scheme in California if they want the taxpayer to save money through a scheme that is effective in getting people back to work. From next April, the Government will be piloting a state of the art scheme that will have learnt from other schemes around the world and will be successful and effective in helping lone parents back to work.

To ask the Prime Minister what analysis he has made of the effect of the Government's social and economic policies on the people of Lichfield; and if he will make statement. [36986]

Lichfield has benefited fully from Government policies which have given the United Kingdom a stronger recovery than any comparable European country, the longest run of low inflation for 50 years and the lowest mortgage rates for a generation. Unemployment in Lichfield has fallen by 40 per cent. in the past three years.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that businesses in Lichfield are experiencing real problems due to the postal strike? Has he been deafened, as I have, by the absolute silence from Opposition Front-Bench Members, who have refused to condemn the postal strike? Might that be because the Communications Workers Union has contributed some £250,000 to Labour party coffers?

The strikes last week were completely unjustified, and I hope that future plans for industrial action will be called off before more damage is done. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sponsored silence by Opposition Members continues on this matter. [Interruption.] The deputy leader does not have a sponsored silence this afternoon, nor did he last week when he apparently told his leader to backtrack on what he had said in public—which is no doubt what the right hon. Gentleman was doing when he met the unions yesterday.

Can the Prime Minister confirm for the 20,000 residents of Lichfield district who live in my constituency that, under the Tory Government, crime has risen by 147 per cent., education funding from central Government is the lowest in any shire district in England and residential mental health care is being closed for lack of funds? Moreover, when those 20,000 people were given the opportunity to vote in the recent South-East Staffordshire by-election they overwhelmingly turned to new Labour: new life for Britain.

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make that devastating attack on the spending policies of the shadow Chancellor, who has made it perfectly clear that it is not his policy to spend any more money than the present Government. The hon. Gentleman had better discuss his own difficulties with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. As for crime, it is falling throughout the country and has been falling for some time—the first time that that has happened for a long period. No doubt it might have been easier to achieve that if we had occasionally had the support of Opposition parties for the measures that we adopted.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July. [36987]

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

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent call by the chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority for the teaching of modern British history to be reinstated for GCSE? Does he further agree that any open-minded student will come to the conclusion that over the years socialism has done this country a great disservice, and that history would be likely to repeat itself should new Labour ever get the chance to implement new dangers?

I certainly agree that young people should have the opportunity to study the history of this country, and I hope that the examination boards will be aware of the popular concern among many parents on that subject. Whether students study British history or world history, I think that they will see that policies of high regulation, high spending and high taxes have consistently failed, and that, when people are asked to make a choice between a party that believes in low taxes and one that believes in high taxes, they will choose low taxes yet again at the 1997 election.

With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I think that people will remember that they were supposed to have chosen low taxes at the last election, but then got the largest peacetime taxes in history. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the following question with an unequivocal yes? Does he agree with his Chancellor's recent statement that he can see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament?

We have made the position on a single currency entirely clear. I shall make a judgment on what is in this country's national interests, which means that we shall need to know the circumstances of the time, and precisely what a single currency would mean for this country. We need to be engaged in the debate right until its conclusion, whether or not we enter. If we did not enter, a single currency would still have an effect on this country, so it is still important that Britain's voice be heard in the negotiations until they are concluded.

Why could the Prime Minister not simply answer yes to my question? After all, I am only asking him to agree with his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does not his response show precisely the paralysis of policy? Let me offer him another chance. Can he, like his Chancellor, see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament—yes or no?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether he agrees with the argumentation in the pamphlet that I have here—a pamphlet produced by Labour Members of Parliament which led to Labour Members squabbling in public this morning and denouncing the shadow Chancellor. I have told the right hon. Gentleman what the Government's position is. We have set it out in a White Paper. That is the position, and it has not changed.

The Prime Minister asked me whether I agreed with the pamphlet. The answer is no, I do not agree with it. Now let us have a clear answer from him. What sort of situation are we in when a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot keep his own Ministers, and the Prime Minister's closest political friends are saying that his party cannot row together or work together? Why should the country put up with another nine months of drift and decay? After six years of that type of weak leadership, are not people entitled to say that enough is enough, and that the only reshuffle that matters will be one that reshuffles the Government out of office and gives the country a fresh start?

The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to commit himself to decisions without the facts that would affect this country. If he will not commit himself to a decision, he had better make up his mind whether he is in favour. He won't because he can't, because his party is split from top to bottom on the issue. The reality is that we shall consider the facts—not the prejudices, but the realities—and make a decision on what is right for this country.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this Michaelmas the Treasury will be receiving around £1.5 billion from the sale of the armed forces married quarters estate? What excuse is there for the Chancellor to delay the essential announcement on the procurement orders which we all expected before the House rose for the summer recess? He cannot have it both ways. First, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that we have the best armed forces in the world? Secondly, does he agree with our Secretary of State for Defence that they should also be the best equipped?

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of the armed forces. I also invite him to agree that we have provided the resources to ensure that our armed forces have the best equipment. He will recall the announcement a week or so ago and the £500 million committed. We are evaluating our assessment of the bids for the various pieces of equipment now due for replacement. When that evaluation is completed, but not before, suitable announcements will be made.

Let me put it to the Prime Minister another way. At the end of a Parliament which began with the farce of devaluation and ended with the fiasco of BSE, which has seen Tory Members leave their party and Tory Ministers desert their Government, and which has gone from cash for questions to cash for dinners in Downing street, is it not time for the Prime Minister to lead his exhausted and divided party out of power to fight their civil wars somewhere else?

I think that in his litany the right hon. Gentleman misses some facts of importance to the British people. He cannot recall an occasion in his political lifetime when the British economy has been in such good shape, when inflation has been so low, when unemployment has been falling so well, when growth has been at the top of the European league and investment is coming into this country as it is coming into no other country in Europe. That is happening because of the policies of this Government—policies that his tiny party has objected to throughout this Parliament.

As next Sunday, 28 July, happens to be the 25th anniversary of my resignation from the then Government over their decision to join the EEC, does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing contempt among the voters for people in all parties who pretend that there are any easy answers to the difficult and complex problems of the European Community? Will he think seriously over the summer recess about the possibility of seeking the advice of the voters of Britain as to which way they wish to proceed on Europe? Would not the best answer to the Opposition be to remind them that the country belongs to the people, not to the political parties?

There is no doubt from the Opposition's European policies precisely what they would surrender in the European debate. However they try to hide it, the veto would go and qualified majority voting would increase. They signed up to the socialist manifesto, and the Leader of the Opposition cannot wriggle away from it now. In answer to my hon. Friend's question, of course we shall consider what is in the interests of the United Kingdom. I do that and I shall continue to do that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July. [36988]

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

Will the Prime Minister rule out any bid from Mr. John Beckwith for the £1.5 billion sale of defence homes and the £750 million sale of benefit offices, in view of his role in organising Premier Club dinners where business men pay £100,000 to bend the Prime Minister's ear? Is there not a clear conflict of interest between being premier of Great Britain and the right hon. Gentleman's position as patron of the Premier Club?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all the facts. I saw the story that interested and misled him. No one can buy access to Ministers. [Interruption.] No one is promised favours. [Interruption.] There is one exception in public life: it is possible to buy access to Labour party policy through the trade unions; it is possible to buy votes; it was possible to summon the leader of the Labour party to explain his remarks about the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers last week; it is possible to change Labour party policy, but not ours. As regards Mr. Beckwith, any bid is independently assessed before being approved.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July. [36989]

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

Will my right hon. Friend condemn from the Dispatch Box the politically motivated strikes by London underground drivers and postal workers? Will he confirm that he has no plans to introduce legislation to give trade unions increased powers or to increase the powers of strikers, which is precisely what is on offer from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

My hon. Friend is right about that. The deputy leader of the Labour party talks about £100,000. Perhaps he will remind the country how much the union that sponsors him pays to the Labour party year after year. Perhaps he will explain that that is why he will not condemn a totally unjustified strike. Perhaps he will explain that not one of the candidates in the shadow Cabinet elections will condemn the strike. If they were standing for election to a Trappist monastery, they could not have been more silent than they have been on the subject of the strike. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) knows that the Labour party's relationship with the trade unions is a disgrace to British democracy: they rule, and the Labour party follows.

I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House asserts its renewed commitment to a strong welfare state to provide a platform of opportunity and security for all citizens during those times of their lives when they need it; expresses alarm at recent indications that Her Majesty's Government is considering the privatisation of parts of the welfare system; deplores the Government's stewardship of the welfare state, which has left it more expensive for the nation but more brutal for those who rely on it; believes that the way to reduce welfare expenditure is to help people to move from benefit to work, not to remove or reduce their benefits; and fears that the future of the nation's welfare state is not safe in this Government's hands.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

So soon?

The hon. Gentleman alleges blithely that we have doubled this and that. Has he not heard that the entire western world has just come through the worst economic recession since 1929, or was that also the fault of the British Government?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman and his party are quick to claim credit when the global economy is going well, but rather less quick to claim the blame when it is going badly.

How will the hon. Gentleman benefit the families that have 16 to 18-year-olds in further education when their child benefit is removed?

There is no such proposal at the moment, and if the hon. Gentleman listened to what the Labour party has said, rather than paying attention solely to his Conservative central office briefing, he might recognise the truth.

I hope that—in addition to telling us what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in Southwark cathedral—the hon. Gentleman will tell us how the Labour party proposes to reduce social security spending, about which he has complained; how he expects the reduction of means testing, to which he has also referred, to help that process; and how he will pay for the increase in basic pension and the restoration of the link with earnings, as called for by his predecessor as social security spokesman, Baroness Castle. That has been traditional Labour party policy, from which it has resiled.

Apart from making the obvious observation that Baroness Castle, dear friend as she is to me, does not make current Labour party policy, the hon. Gentleman might be better off in framing his questions if he reads what we have produced as a party in recent weeks—including, for example, the excellent document entitled "Getting Welfare to Work", which was published some weeks ago. By that means, he might learn something of benefit to him.

"The findings tell a statistically significant story of the work experiences of a particular group of people, and do not reveal trends in the labour force as a whole."

The hon. Gentleman has not quoted me. That applies to all his other allegations. He has not presented a single quote to justify them.

The right hon. Gentleman said clearly that those of us who have talked about growing poverty and inequality were practising the politics of envy. The tone of his speech was in support of the thesis that inequality does not matter, because it is superseded by mobility. That is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. If he wants to quibble with my paraphrase of the content of his speech, I am happy to give him the opportunity to do so.

I thought that it would help Hansard readers if I gave them a shorter version of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and were merely to say that I did not say any such thing.

The Secretary of State has shot a hole through the entirety of his speech. He was clearly arguing that the evidence of mobility that his departmental survey showed, as he claimed, made it clear that we did not need to worry about inequality. He is now telling us that that is not what he said. The right hon. Gentleman should go through his speech and withdraw it in its entirety.

The hon. Gentleman has no evidence that there is anything like the thought that he suggests is to be found in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—the shadow social security team—have sent out a document to Labour Back-Bench Members for the debate. On the second page, near the top, it states:

"The secret report reveals that Ministers intend to justify these cuts in services by arguing that 'some of the customers had brought these problems on their own heads, by failing to take any responsibility for dealing with their own problems'".

I have a copy of the speech made by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman said what I claimed he said. I refer to a section that is headed "Opposition Approach". It states:

"Indeed, an obsession with equality often displaces concern for poverty by the politics of envy."

"Our policies are working. The vast majority of people in this country are better off now than their counterparts were in 1979."

"It is significant that claims that the 'poor have got poorer' do not generally focus on benefit levels. Instead they largely relate to statistics for households with the lowest tenth of reported incomes."

"Earnings growth over the period varies directly with the decile position, with the highest growth occurring in the upper deciles … What growth there was in the lower deciles occurred mainly in the first two thirds of the period"—

"growth in the last third of the period is lower, with no apparent growth at all in the bottom decile".

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress.

The hon. Gentleman has spent about five minutes attempting to argue that somehow the rich have become richer and the poor poorer. Yet he finished up resting on a phrase tendentiously suggesting that the bottom 10 per cent. are "no better off". That does not mean that they have become dramatically poorer, as the Labour party's propaganda constantly seeks to suggest.

First, the phrase that I quoted came from the Secretary of State's own Department's study. Secondly, as I explained at the outset, that study ignored women and those who were unemployed at the beginning and at the end of the survey, so it was a distorted picture anyway. Thirdly, the Joseph Rowntree Trust's report of a year ago showed clearly that the income, after housing costs, of the bottom tenth of the population had fallen by 17 per cent. during the past 17 years. The hon. Gentleman should look more carefully at the figures before he makes such an intervention.

rose—

I shall give way for one last time.

On the subject of distortions. I have in front of me a draft Labour press release which was no doubt left on a photocopier by a prospective Conservative candidate in the hon. Gentleman's office. It says:

"Last Wednesday we saw the plans that have been under discussion in the Treasury … It is a nightmare vision of what would happen if the Tories are re-elected. The scrapping of the basic state pension; forcing people to take out private insurance for unemployment or sickness benefit".

I had expected better even of the hon. Gentleman.

I had not.

I bow to my hon. Friend's wiser judgment.

I should have thought it was self-evident, and that is why we introduced it. If people who are unemployed are able to get 100 per cent. of the housing benefit for properties that they would not be able to afford if they were in work, they will be trapped in unemployment. That is why we try to restrict them to housing benefit that is equal to the sort of shared accommodation that most people of that age can afford in work, so that they do not get trapped out of work on benefit, which is what the Labour party wants.

It appears that the Secretary of State's solution is to make the trap that he has identified twice as bad. The change that he is making means that someone who takes a temporary job will receive less housing benefit when he or she stops doing the job. Far from relieving people of that trap, the right hon. Gentleman is making the position much worse. The sooner Conservative Members realise that the better.

Devastating.

It is indeed devastating to the implementation of the Pensions Act. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he ought to go back to the Act and read carefully what it actually says and does.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I have given way a good deal, and I want to make some progress.

indicated assent.

The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) nods assent. Of course, he was one of the authors of the document.

How can we be sure that, in six months, those will not be the policies of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

Those are not the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, and will not be—in six months' time or thereafter.

"a state system that is already compulsory but provides poor value for money."

Hear, hear.

The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to agree with that proposal. In his speech at the London School of Economics, on 6 February he said:

"The social security system has been outstandingly successful in providing an income in those periods of life when people cannot earn because of sickness, disability, unemployment, caring for relatives or old age."

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman has already had ample opportunity to intervene.

"The third initiative is to launch the procurement process for an Information Systems/Information Technology strategy to enable greater sharing of data between benefit systems, working closely with the private sector to provide the most up to date technologies, expertise and funding."

"The hard work and commitment of staff in the Child Benefit Centre has been recognised not just within the Agency, with the award of the Benefits Agency Quality Award, but externally too in the achievement of the Charter Mark."

"BET's brief was to handle typing, open the mail, run the messenger service, ensure stationery supplies were up to demand and operate security for the Agency's branches across the region."

"Benefits Agency staff were left without stationery, and last September BET failed to meet 43 per cent. of the targets set for opening post from claimants."

As the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been relying on the leaks of confidential documents by public servants in the public sector, is it not absolutely contemptible for him to suggest that people in the private sector are less to be relied on?

I know of no instance in which an official of the Benefits Agency in the child benefit centre has ever revealed the personal details of any customer with whom the centre has had dealings. That is the answer to the Secretary of State's question.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) referred to a draft core press release issued by the Labour party for use by Labour Members of Parliament. It contains long quotations, seemingly purporting to come from a speech already delivered in this debate in the House of Commons, which it is suggested that Members circulate to their local newspapers.

I am afraid that that is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take it up in other ways.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

'welcomes the substantial progress made by Her Majesty's Government in ensuring that the welfare state continues to be affordable by focusing help on those with genuine need or entitlement; agrees that Her Majesty's Government should continue to seek positive and imaginative ways of ensuring that the welfare state continues to be both effective and affordable; supports Her Majesty's Government in striving to make the administration of the welfare state as effective and efficient as possible; notes that the Labour leadership is now criticised even by its own supporters for being vague and ineffectual on welfare issues; condemns the Labour Party's readiness to criticise people who do think radically about social security; deplores the Labour Party's knee-jerk opposition to the improvement of the benefit delivery system; and opposes the Labour Party's expensive and irresponsible plans for a new means-tested system Pension Entitlement and a flexible decade of retirement.'.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that any savings that he makes by privatising parts of the administration of his Department, rather than going back to the Exchequer, will be used to upgrade and improve benefit levels?

I should have thought that it was self-evident to anyone who takes a serious interest in the welfare state that the pressures for increased spending are such that we have to make the savings if we are to maintain a decent level of provision for people in need—and that is the Government's objective and why we do not flinch from taking difficult decisions. It is clear why the Labour party flinch from doing so.

"that is certainly one of the models we are looking at very seriously indeed … The beauty of that system is, of course, that it provides the individual citizen with not just an insurance policy but their own personal stake in that insurance policy, which they can use as a financial asset and in many cases they use it, for example, for house purchase in Singapore."

When did we say that?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is saying that he is not committed to restoring them. What a moral cripple the hon. Gentleman is. What humbug he has displayed at the Dispatch Box, saying that it was the end of civilisation to withdraw those benefits. He is now casting doubt on a future Labour Government's commitment to restore them.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has sat down, because we could do with less childish abuse across the Dispatch Box. We have said clearly that we will speed up the processing of asylum applications and use the money that we save by doing so to restore a proper benefit arrangement for people who are in need and genuinely seeking asylum.

If the availability of those benefits attracts so many people, as it will, that it is impossible to speed the process, as we have found, it will cost what suggested it would, or Labour will leave our present system as it is.

What the Secretary of State refers to as savings is taking money from the pockets of the poorest people in society, including, as we heard, the miners who came here today. He is taking money from the meagre income of disabled pensioners. Is he proud of that?

The hon. Gentleman has a long and proud record of advocating increased expenditure on almost everything, but he is not a Front-Bench spokesman. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen pretend that they would not spend any more on social security but would cut it more effectively than would we.

While the right hon. Gentleman is on this theme, does he accept that the people in most need, by the Government's criteria are, those who are on income support? Does he agree, that when such people have used the social fund, it is outrageous that more than 40 per cent. of its costs still go on administration? Should we not get more of that money to the people who desperately need help?

That is right. That is why I am seeking through the change programme to streamline all benefit administration and why I thought that it was extraordinary that it was rejected root and branch by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. He has continued to object to every concrete measure in the general programme, despite the fact that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted in a leaked letter that my proposed savings were perfectly feasible.

"that all pensioners, today and tomorrow, share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation".

"The Labour party's policy statement—Security in Retirement—does not provide a plan of action or detailed and costed proposals about how to achieve adequate pensions … In too many respects the document is ambiguous and inconsistent … Labour must commit itself to the earnings link … But there is no such commitment in the document."

"The aim of our policy is to guarantee a minimum income that provides dignity in old age. That is New Labour."

"It is difficult to see how in practice the Minimum Pension Guarantee would differ from Income Support … it is the same old hated and unworkable means test in disguise."

My right hon. Friend missed one element of the equation. If many more people were put on to means testing, by the measure that the Opposition tend to use, many more people would be in "poverty". The system they advocate undermines the statistical basis on which they attack the Government.

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition are being hoist by their own petard. As they refuse to make any savings on administration, they would probably have to cut benefits elsewhere and doubtless, on the same measure, claim that they were reducing poverty.

Use the same formula that was introduced by the Government most recently for Ministers and Members of Parliament.

Unfortunately, that was not costless to the Treasury, which is why the Government opposed it. I would still be happy to give way to the Opposition's pensions spokesmen so that they can tell us, in qualitative terms, how they can make the flexible decade of retirement no extra burden on the Treasury without cutting the basic rate of pension. It cannot be done, and the Opposition ought to realise it.

Is it correct that the unfunded liability of Germany will be equal to its gross national product by 2030? By contrast, have not we in Britain built up a vast fund—my right hon. Friend tells us that it is £600 billion—which not only will provide security for people in their old age but provides an enormous fund for investment in British productive industry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the case. It is something in which we take great pride and on which we have been determined to build by introducing measures to encourage further growth of occupational and personal pension schemes. If they did not exist, and if none of the private provision that I mentioned earlier did not exist, we would have to pay out some further £25 billion a year to take over on behalf of the state what is currently provided by the private sector. That would increase the state's budget by about a third.

When the Secretary of State talks about reform of the welfare state, he means substantial undermining of the welfare state. That is how he conceives reform. However, he was right in one thing. He said that the matter would be decided at the general election. Indeed it will—the sooner the better.

Why can the hon. Gentleman not persuade Opposition Front Benchers to promise to reverse the measure?

The question comes from two quarters. Tory Members want us to make commitments so that they can then ask where we shall get the money to pay for them—of course they will. Likewise, somewhat to my surprise, the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), made the same point. If the Liberals stood a chance of forming the Government, they would understand the position, which my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench already understand.

Why should we take lessons from a Member of Parliament whose party twice stopped the Christmas bonus for old-age pensioners?