To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [1697]

The jobseeker's allowance is now in operation and will achieve its objectives by helping people back to work and securing better value for money for the taxpayer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the JSA is absolute proof that the Government are determined to devote the necessary resources to getting people back to work and preventing fraudulent claims? Is that not in total contrast to the Opposition, who are pledged to repeal the JSA?

My hon. Friend makes two powerful points. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is on the record as saying that it is Labour party policy to repeal the JSA. That would cost £240 million in 1997–98. Let us hear what the Opposition now say.

The Under-Secretary will be aware that the experiment took place in Hull. Will he be kind enough to tell the House how many people are now in full-time employment as a result of the experiment, and of those who had placements, how many had placements in private industry, as distinct from community employment?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the current project work pilots which have been tried out in several areas, including Kingston upon Hull, as he mentioned. With respect to the three pilots in Hull, Medway and Maidstone, it is striking that more than 4,000 people joined the pilots, more than 1,200 have been through the first 13 weeks of intensive help, 263 have been placed directly into a job during their first 13 weeks, and 68 during their period of work experience. It is, however, startling that about one third of those referred for work experience failed to turn up for their first day of work experience.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have spoken about the new scheme to people who work in jobcentres in my constituency. Will he give careful consideration to letters that come from all parts of the House as the new scheme is introduced, and accelerate his response to those letters, as there are likely to be administrative hitches that will need sorting out if this excellent scheme is to gain approbation?

The jobseeker's allowance is an enormous project, involving more than 30,000 officials and a new computer system. We are closely monitoring the project as it comes into operation, and will carefully attend to administrative problems, whether we are alerted to them by hon. Members or others.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to monitor the impact of the all-work test for incapacity benefit on the incomes of disabled people. [1698]

The all-work test is designed to focus benefit on those who cannot work because of sickness or disability. Its impact on the income of disabled people will depend on individual circumstances. As with all new benefits, we are monitoring the effect of the changes on all groups.

Will the Minister accept that there is widespread concern that the test is inappropriate and inconsistent? That is borne out by the number of successful appeals against it—there has been a 50 per cent. success rate on appeals. What does his Department intend to do about the 50,000 people who previously could accept invalidity benefit but now cannot get it? What will be done to track those people, to ensure that their circumstances do not worsen?

There are two points to be made. First, the success rate on appeals is about the same as it was for the old social security appeals tribunals. Secondly, we are monitoring the way in which the test is being applied. A major study has been done on its consistency and we expect to publish that soon. I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that spending on the disabled has more than trebled in real terms since 1979? Will he accept also that many people find it paradoxical that, although the health of the nation has improved, the number of those receiving disability benefit has gone through the roof?

My hon. Friend is right: spending on benefits for the disabled has almost quadrupled during our time in office. We introduced incapacity benefit to deal with the problem of a doubling in the number of people on invalidity benefit in the past 10 years when, as my hon. Friend said, the "Health of the Nation" shows that people are fitter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to tackle organised benefit fraud. [1700]

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent review he has made of measures to ensure the reduction of benefit fraud. [1701]

The Government have introduced a comprehensive strategy to prevent, deter and detect benefit fraud—especially organised fraud. Nearly 300 officers are employed in tackling organised fraud. I recently introduced the fraud hotline and the fraud Bill will be introduced shortly.

After 17 years of this Government's stewardship of the social security system, is it not a disgrace that £2 billion is lost yearly through housing benefit fraud? Why do the Government not give local authorities more power to check that landlords are bona fide and are entitled to the money that they claim?

It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady refers to the one type of fraud that local authorities are responsible for pursuing. It will not have escaped her notice that most local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. They took very little, if any, serious interest in the matter until I introduced incentives and penalties to force them to do so—and, even then, the response was not sufficient. That is why I am introducing in this Session the fraud Bill, which will establish an inspectorate of local authorities and give me the powers to galvanise local authorities into action.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done, and is planning to do, to solve the problems caused by increasing numbers of people working the system, either through sophisticated gangs or systematic individual fraud. Will he consider taking further steps to move from the present unsatisfactory method of using the national insurance number as the basis for social security payments to something more sophisticated?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for our actions. I believe that the national insurance number is a sound basis for the administration of social security. We shall introduce measures in the fraud Bill to make it an offence to seek to secure a national insurance number falsely, even if it has not yet been used to abuse the system.

How seriously should the House regard the Government's hotline approach to fraud? Is it not true that 90 per cent. of calls to the hotline cannot be followed up, largely because most of those who answer the telephones are untrained, temporary staff? When will the Government implement a serious programme to tackle fraud and be as serious as the Opposition in seeking to protect taxpayers' money?

Very unusually for the hon. Gentleman—who is normally well informed—his allegations are not correct. The benefit fraud hotline has so far received more than 100,000 calls, a significant number of which are proving successful.

How can the Secretary of State say that?

It takes time to follow them up. The quality of information is extremely good. In some cases, the calls refer to the same individual as he or she is well known in a locality for committing fraud and abusing the system. The staff use a systematic procedure to extract information from callers which is proving successful not just in extracting good information but in weeding out the small number of malicious calls that may concern some Opposition Members. The hotline has proved a great success and I am astonished that Labour Members should attack and criticise it.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, last year, his Department saved £1.4 billion as a result of anti-fraud measures? Is he aware that fraud against the taxpayer enrages my constituents, which is why they are delighted that he is taking steps to deal with it?

I can certainly confirm the point that my hon. Friend makes: that the savings last year through fraud detected and stopped amounted to nearly £1.5 billion. He is also right to say that the people who resent fraud most are the vast majority of honest claimants and decent working people, who resent seeing other people ripping off the system and ending up nearly as well off as they are but not doing a full day's work.

Will the Secretary of State explain why he is unwilling to crack down on the scandal of organised landlord fraud in housing benefit? Is it because private landlords have an opt-out from Tory fraud scrutiny? Is he aware that, in real terms, housing benefit has doubled in a decade from £5.2 billion to £11.1 billion, and that in the private rented sector it has trebled over the same period?

The hon. Gentleman's opening suggestion would be monstrous if it were not simply silly. Of course no fraudster has any exemption. We have cracked down harder on all forms of fraud, not least landlord fraud. Until we took action to galvanise local authorities into doing their duty in that respect, they were not taking the matter seriously.

People being pursued for maintenance by the Child Support Agency often report to the CSA that they believe that their ex-partner is fraudulently claiming benefit. Will my right hon. Friend see that, when such an allegation is made, the Benefits Agency tells that person that his or her allegation is being properly investigated?

I try to ensure that all allegations, particularly those received via the CSA, are passed on and followed up by the Benefits Agency. However, we cannot, for reasons of confidentiality, report back on the inquiries that are made to those who make the original allegations. It would be wrong to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that, although we can give the assurance that those inquiries are followed through, it would be wrong to report back to those who made the original allegation on the guilt or innocence in, or the findings of, every investigation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about changing the regulations relating to disability living allowance for long-stay hospital patients; and if he will make a statement. [1702]

The Department has received a number of representations. The responses have made it clear that the changes will affect only patients being maintained free of charge by the NHS.

Can we have a parliamentary debate and vote on the matter, so that the Minister can tell us how on earth he can possibly justify such a miserable policy that will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for many long-stay hospital patients to travel to visit their friends and relatives or to take part in various community activities? The next time the Minister is sitting in the comfort of his chauffeur-driven ministerial limousine, will he reflect on the fact that he is depriving thousands of disabled people of their mobility rights and virtually incarcerating them in the institutions where they live?

A debate in Parliament on those changes is a matter for the usual channels, and I have no doubt that they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The decision to make those changes was very carefully considered. Previously, disability living allowance mobility was not withdrawn or down-rated when someone went into hospital. The changes that we have made align DLA mobility with both DLA care and attendance allowances.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we would be more likely to take seriously what the Labour party says on this issue, were it not for the stark fact that more than six times as many people are helped with their care and mobility than were helped under the previous Labour Government? That is how much they cared. Do not the measures that we have discussed target help on people who need it most? Is that not what people who really care do, rather than weep crocodile tears?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we target disability living allowance on those who most need it. We provide special protection for people who have been in hospital accommodation for 12 months or more. My hon. Friend will be aware of the sheer scale of Government spending on disability living allowance. Last year, we spent £3,700 million; this year we are likely to spend £4,400 million, which is an increase of £700 million; and next year there is likely to be a further increase of £600 million, to a total of £5 billion. That is an eloquent testimony to the Government's absolute commitment to helping disabled people.

Is the Minister aware of the consequences of that withdrawal? People are signing themselves out of hospital prematurely—before they are signed out by their doctors—and their carers are suffering. Were the Government motivated by greed when they introduced that change, because it was not done to help the carers?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the effects of the regulations. I will consider any particular case that he wants to raise with me in writing. On his specific point, the change affects payability and not entitlement, so those who are not in hospital accommodation for full days during the week will receive disability living allowance and mobility allowance in respect of those full days.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of pensioners currently in receipt of occupational pensions. [1703]

The latest estimate is that there are some 6.5 million pensioners in receipt of at least one occupational pension. More than 20 million people have rights to a pension from an occupational scheme, including those whose pensions are in payment.

Given that the sum of £600 billion invested in British private pension funds is more than the figure for the rest of Europe put together, will the Minister assure the House that we will resist all attempts to have our pension funds expropriated by the European Union to pay pensions to foreigners?

My hon. Friend highlights the success of the Government's policy in making our pensions system affordable. That achievement was recently applauded by the Select Committee on Social Security, and was reflected in OECD studies. It is vital that we ensure that our carefully won assets are not combined with other countries' liabilities£we should not end up having to pay the debts of pay-as-you-go schemes in Europe. The Government are committed to ensuring that£is the Labour party?

Will the Minister resist the claptrap that we heard from the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), which creates unnecessary fears among pensioners that their pensions will be expropriated by people in other countries? There is no foundation whatsoever for that allegation, as the Minister well knows. Will he apply himself to the more serious question of the 45 per cent. of pensioner households in these islands that have no pension other than the state pension? What does he intend to do to restore the link that the Government destroyed in 1980?

The hon. Gentleman should know that, under the Government, pensioners' incomes have increased on average by 51 per cent. in real terms. With his new-found Euro-enthusiasm—which no doubt has something to do with his party's views and interests—he should bear in mind the fact that debt is an important factor in the convergence criteria under the Maastricht treaty. It is extremely important that this country is committed to protecting its interests—and the Government are.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the National Disability Council on possible additional functions for the council. [1704]

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the National Disability Council's duties, particularly in the light of recent statements by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) which suggested that the council can give advice only when asked to do so by Ministers. Since its creation in January 1996, the council has had the power to give advice on its own initiative, and it has done so on a number of issues, including the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It has also consulted widely and proposed a code of practice on the rights of access to goods, facilities, services and premises, which was published in July this year. The council's annual report identifies its priorities for the coming year, and details its ambitious work plan. There has therefore been no need to discuss extending the council's functions.

Does the Minister agree that every organisation for the disabled in Britain realises that the council has weaknesses, that it needs to be strengthened and that employment matters affecting disabled people should not be treated separately from other issues affecting their lives? Non-discrimination and access to work are what disabled people want, and a stronger council is therefore essential.

The question whether the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities should retain its duty to advise the Secretary of State for Employment on matters relating to discrimination in employment was considered at the time of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are examining the matter; we expect to reach a conclusion some time next year, and changes may be made.

If the National Disability Council is as proactive as the Minister would have us believe, may I issue a specific challenge to him? Will he ask the council to investigate the outrageous discrimination that building societies are practising against disabled people. contrary to the spirit and letter of the Government's 1995 Act?

If there were prizes for huffing and puffing, the hon. Gentleman would be head and shoulders above the rest of us. I note that, in his opening remarks, he did not deny that my interpretation of the NDC's power was entirely contrary to what he has been saying in recent weeks. I hope that he will now withdraw his observations and apologise, because he got it wrong.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to uprate the state pension in line with earnings. [1706]

No. If the basic state pension had been increased in line with earnings rather than prices since 1980, the extra cost to the taxpayer would be £7.5 billion.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, had the pension been raised in line with earnings rather than prices since that date, millions of pensioners would not have been robbed of a large proportion of their pensions? Many pensioners would not be living in the poverty in which they live, and future generations of pensioners would be able to look forward to some degree of security and reliability in their retirement rather than being prey to heavy selling by private pension organisations that charge up to 25 per cent. of contributions in administration costs, as well as making enormous profits.

The hon. Gentleman is honest and open—as is Lady Castle—about his policies and is prepared to admit to their cost. I respect him for it. I respect rather less the leader of the Labour party and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the Labour spokeswoman, who rejected Lady Castle's policies at their party conference and simply bought off her supporters by making extremely expensive promises to include them in a review, concealing the likely cost of the exposed policies from the electorate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since it has been in government, the Conservative party has met every pledge that it made to the electorate about keeping pensions in line with inflation and about doing our best to help elderly and senior citizens? Does he also agree that that policy will continue for as long as there is a Conservative Government and that we have a proud record, which we can go to the country with and fight on when the time comes?

My right hon. Friend is right and makes an important point. I hope that his remarks will be read and noted by all Britain's pensioners. We have fulfilled our pledge to uprate the basic pension at least in line with inflation. We have focused extra help on the least well-off pensioners through more than £1 billion more in pensions premiums for those on income support. We have encouraged the remarkable growth of occupational pensions to the point where we are better placed£not just than any other country in Europe, but than all other countries in Europe put together£to fund future pensions.

Has the Secretary of State had time yet to consider the serious implications arising out of the Social Security Select Committee report on unfunded pension liabilities in Europe? Will it be him or the Chancellor of the Exchequer who responds to our report?

I am considering the Select Committee report, which is important and makes the important point, which I have just made, that we have some £600 billion more to meet the liabilities to present and future pensioners, which is more than all other countries in the European Community. I will respond to that report in the normal way, within the three-month deadline that is allowed for thorough and proper consideration of the important issues that it raises.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he has made in his policy towards the basic pension since the last election; and if he will make a statement. [1707]

We remain committed to maintaining the value of the basic pension, which will continue to be the foundation on which people can build retirement income.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if pensions had been uprated in line with earnings, as advocated by Baroness Castle, taxpayers would now be paying around £8 billion a year more? Does he agree that to buy off support for the proposal by promising an upward review of pensions in the next Parliament is bound to be cripplingly expensive, yet that is exactly what the Labour leader has done?

At its conference, the Labour party bowed to trade unions and to Baroness Castle. It is clearly not ruling out restoring the earnings link or reversing our changes to the state earnings-related pension scheme. That could change the picture£which is so well described in the Social Security Select Committee's report£of the British pensions system as affordable by the year 2030 while others are not. Such a change would be worrying and irresponsible.

Is the Minister aware that pensioners find it difficult to manage on a basic state pension and that £1 billion a year is not claimed in income-related benefit by the poorest pensioners who do not know what they are entitled to? Will the Minister consider introducing a take-up campaign to ensure that pensioners are aware of what they are entitled to because if they do not receive income support, they are not allowed to receive even cold weather payments?

The Government are doing three things. They are maintaining the value of the basic pension, encouraging private provision and targeting help on people most in need—£1.2 billion a year extra since 1988. The hon. Lady is right to say that it is important that pensioners know what their entitlements are. We spend £26 million a year informing the public of the benefits available. We send out information to 80,000 information points—everything from citizens advice bureaux to doctors surgeries. In addition, we send our advisers to explain to pensioners groups what the entitlements are. No other strategy would work better than what we are doing.

It is right to applaud the two thirds of pensioners who have occupational pensions, but there remains one third who do not have them. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Government policies will ensure that the incomes of those pensioners will be protected through the basic state pension? Will he further confirm that the last time those pensioners had a real devaluation in their spending power was between 1974 and 1979, when inflation let rip and those who had saved money from their wages during their working years found their savings greatly depleted due to the inflationary policies of the Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is right. Under Labour, when inflation was running at 27 per cent., pensioners were robbed of the savings they had accumulated throughout their lives. The rise in state pensions during the whole of the period of the Labour Government was equivalent to the rise in average incomes for pensioners that this Government have produced every year since 1979. The Government's policies protect the interests of pensioners and I am sure that pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency will appreciate that.

Does the Minister recognise that pensioners feel betrayed by the Government? They do not feel that the Government have protected their interests, because they have imposed VAT on gas and electricity, presided over the mis-selling of personal pensions, failed to get help to the 700,000 very poorest pensioners, forced pensioners to sell their homes to pay for nursing care, cut the value of SERPS and cut the value of the basic state pension. Is not that why pensioners will never again trust the Tories?

The Labour party has had 17 years to think of something better than what the Government are doing. It thought through the Social Justice Commission, and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) described it as the best bit of work since Beveridge£and then dropped it. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was told to think the unthinkable, but he thought only the unaffordable and was moved on. Now, the policy of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) is to think about it some more and have a review.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that Britain has the best balanced pension system in Europe, with a good balance between private and public pensions? Will he further assure me that the assets in our pension funds will not be used to meet the liabilities of pension funds in Europe?

My hon. Friend is right to say that this country has a partnership between the private sector, the public sector and the individual. Over time, it is delivering huge increases in pensioners' incomes£not just for those with average pensions, but for the bottom 20 per cent. whose incomes have risen in real terms by 20 per cent. since 1979. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will ensure that we do not end up paying for other countries' pension liabilities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incapacity benefit claimants have been found to be fit for work by the all-work test since its introduction; how many of these have since claimed benefits as unemployed and seeking work; and how many have obtained employment. [1708]

Up to the end of September 1996, about 178,000 incapacity benefit claimants had been found capable of work following the all-work test. Some 73,000 claimed unemployment benefits. A total of 47,000 have since left the register. About 10,000 were placed in employment or on training schemes by the Employment Service.

Are not thousands of disabled people a great deal worse off now than they were 18 months ago due to the all-work test? Does not the fact that almost 50 per cent. of those who have appealed have been successful show that the test has not targeted those who really need the benefit?

No. As I said, the number of people whose appeals are successful is very similar to the number who were successful using the social security appeal tribunal. As for incomes, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me earlier when I said that the Government have quadrupled spending on benefits. Those facts answer his charges. The Government have shown no meanness towards disabled people.

Will my hon. Friend tell us how many claimants succeed in appeal who do not succeed in their first application, and what the main reasons for that success might be?

The reasons for success at appeal vary. People sometimes succeed at appeal because they are able to bring extra evidence to the tribunal; sometimes they succeed simply because the panel reconsiders the decision. The great strength of the system is that it enables an independent review to be conducted. In terms of the number of people who succeed in their appeals, the system is working in a manner that is not dissimilar to how it worked before.

Does the Minister accept—not least because of the figures he has just given to the House—that there are well-founded apprehensions that people are falling between the two stools of receiving incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance, unable to find work and falling into destitution? In the interests of public confidence and the good functioning of the incapacity benefit system—as well as open government and an appropriate accountability of the Executive to Parliament—will he make available for scrutiny by Parliament the draft contract for contracting out the Benefits Agency medical service?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have hardly any evidence of people—as he described them—falling between the stools. The answer to a parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) revealed that only a tiny percentage of people who applied for the jobseeker's allowance did not receive it after they had been knocked off incapacity benefit, and that they were unsuccessful only because they had placed restrictions on their employment. A range of measures has been designed to make it easy for disabled people who may have lost incapacity benefit to retain benefit. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the fact that we have asked the Policy Studies Institute to conduct a review of those who leave incapacity benefit so that we can ensure that some of the worries that he expressed are not realised.

To ask the Secretary of Srate for Social Security what work he has commissioned from the Government Actuary to examine the cost of allowing people to claim a full state pension at 60 years. [1709]

The cost of allowing people to draw their pension at age 60 would be an extra £15 billion per year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very informative reply. Does he agree that such a proposal would require huge increases in taxation, or a reduction in the value of the pension? Furthermore, is he aware that the Labour party is merely trying to lure pensioners with those promises? But pensioners will not be fooled. They know that they have had a very good deal under the Government, and they will stick with us.

My hon. Friend is right: the Opposition's policy is to allow people to draw their pension at age 60. The cost of doing so would be an extra £15 billion, unless the level of the basic pension were reduced. The former Opposition spokesman used to refuse to tell me which option they would choose. Imagine my astonishment, therefore, when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) wrote to me to say:

"we anticipate … a lower level of basic state pension."

Why is the Secretary of State wasting the time of the Government Actuary's Department by asking what the cost of retirement on a full state pension would be at 60, when no political party is making that proposal? Is this not another example of civil servants' time being wasted on party-political propaganda? Instead, why does he not accept the growing case for flexibility in the state retirement age? Why does he insist on a one-size-fits-all welfare state when different people want to live their lives in different ways? Why should not people have some choice in the way in which they take the pension benefits that they have paid for? As long as personal choice is not subsidised by others, and no one needs to be worse off, why does he want to stop people having the right to choose when they draw their pension?

I asked the Government Actuary to cost Labour's proposal of allowing people to retire at 60 because the hon. Member for Peckham wrote to me suggesting that I did. It is wrong to suggest that Labour's policy would give pensioners more flexibility than ours does. At present and in future, anyone who defers retiring by a year can increase their pension by 7 per cent. for the rest of their life; deferring for two years leads to an increase of 14 per cent., and so on. The only difference in Labour's proposals is that pensioners would start with a basic pension £20 lower.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1726]

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.

Why is the Prime Minister so determined that people who work in this country should have no statutory minimum holiday rights, while also having no statutory maximum working hours, meaning that they can be forced to work more than 48 hours a week contrary to their wishes? Is not that an unjust, unreasonable and typically Tory policy, going against even their own alleged policy of supporting family rights?

I shall tell the hon. and learned Gentleman crisply; Britain wants good jobs, not worthless directives.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1727]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a huge contrast between yesterday's excellent news of British Aerospace's success in winning the large Hawk order from Australia, which will guarantee British jobs, and the dismay felt by many British businesses at today's news of the adverse European ruling on the 48-hour week? Will he reassure British business that he will do all that he can to resist that Euro-measure, which will undermine the competitive edge of British business and is an adverse decision by a political court?

Australia's selection of British Aerospace to supply Hawks is the latest illustration of the keen competitiveness of British industry generally and the British aerospace industry in particular.

Will the Prime Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? Quite apart from Europe, why is he so opposed to a law that says that people are perfectly free to work more than 48 hours a week, but cannot be compelled to, and gives them minimum holiday entitlements? Is he going to fight the next election on the basis of, "vote Tory for no right to a holiday"?

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman is in danger of missing the point. Unemployment is falling as we become more competitive. The directive could reverse that trend and similar directives could push unemployment up, instead of it continuing to fall. I am not prepared to accept that. I want jobs, not directives. I want Britain to continue to create jobs and unemployment to continue to fall. I do not want to place more burdens on business so that unemployment either remains stuck at a very high level or rises from that very high level as it has in other European countries. Competitiveness will create jobs. I want people to be in work. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to keep them out of work.

Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us of a successful company in Britain that does not give its work force a holiday.

Exactly.

Order. Stop shouting and barracking, for goodness' sake. I want to hear the questions and the answers.

If the directive is so dreadful, why did the Minister not vote against it when he had the chance to do so? May we be clear about the Government's position at the intergovernmental conference? Will the Prime Minister confirm that his position is this: all member states must agree at the outset of the conference that no progress will be made on any change proposed by any country in respect of any issue until the directive is reversed? Is that his position?

If the right hon. Gentleman's first point was correct, why do we need the directive? He made precisely the Government's point. Such directives pile burdens on business and they are bound to undermine our economic success. Their damage to the fruits of our economic success will affect the extra resources that we are providing to the health service, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will set out in a White Paper tomorrow. They will damage the provision of opportunity for all four-year-olds to have nursery education, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will set out tomorrow. I am not prepared to allow the product of years of good, sound economic management to be undermined by regulation from Brussels. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely what the position is at the intergovernmental conference: it is exactly the same as it was on the social chapter at Maastricht. I shall not accept what has been determined by the court today and, at the end of the intergovernmental conference, I shall demand that change or there will be no end to the intergovernmental conference.

So it will be at the end of the intergovernmental conference—which will, conveniently, be after the election. We can hear escape routes being planned already. Is it not back to beef when, five months on, the Government have not even got the gelatine ban lifted? It is the same old pattern. They seize on an issue, they talk tough, they alienate everybody and then they cave in. May I suggest that the law that gives people the right to a minimum holiday is not the issue upon which to launch beef war mark 2?

Saving British jobs is the issue upon which to draw the line. The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to live in an area of high unemployment. Unemployment in Britain is falling—I want it to come down much further—but prescriptive directives from Brussels will stop that. We shall seek treaty change, without which there will be no conclusion to the intergovernmental conference. I shall not accept the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about the directive without understanding its impact on British companies. I have written today to the President of the Commission to make clear that we are tabling our proposals for a change in the treaty, and we shall expect that change to be agreed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1728]

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

In the light of the demolition by the Confederation of British Industry of the case for a so-called windfall tax on the privatised utilities, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House that he will not make it his policy to impose such a tax? Does he agree that the effect of such a tax on the prices of shares held by trade unions and other pension funds would, in fact, be a tax on pensioners—to say nothing about the disastrous effects on consumers through higher prices?

My hon. Friend is of course right. A windfall tax would hit consumers; it would hit shareholders; it would hit employees. It is a tax not on utilities but on jobs, pensions and people's utility bills. The shadow Chancellor either cannot or still will not tell the House which privatised companies would pay, how much they would pay and how he would stop investment and customers being hit. If he wants professional advice as to what such a tax might mean, perhaps he might go home and seek it. He ought to tell the House exactly what he proposes. His silence means that the only thing that we know for sure is that Labour would put up taxes and is keeping quiet about just how much the increase would be.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1731]

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

May I refer the right hon. Gentleman back to the negotiations that took place over the European directive? If he looks at Hansard, he will find that, on 7 July 1992, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment boasted to the House that

"the United Kingdom secured all its key objectives, in particular the right for employees to work for more than 48 hours a week if they choose to do so."—[Official Report, 7 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 175.]

My right hon. Friend did get significant exclusions—that is true—but the directive is damaging. We made it clear from the outset that we would seek a change in the European Court and that we would then seek to have the directive's impact reversed. The right hon. Gentleman should realise two things. First, this is a damaging directive. Secondly, if we were to accept this directive under that treaty head, it would be but the first of many others, as was implicitly made clear by the European Commissioner this morning. I am concerned to ensure that we protect our jobs and our competitiveness. All over Europe—[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not like it. There are 18 million unemployed people across Europe. Elsewhere in Europe, they are staying unemployed; here, they are getting back into work. That is why we will not accept such legislation.

Surely the real issue is not whether what the Leader of the Opposition says is right or wrong or whether the working time directive is right or wrong, but whether the matter ought to be decided in Brussels or by the elected Government of this country. What is the point in holding elections if the elected Government cannot carry out the policies on which they were elected?

I have no objection at all to businesses and their employees reaching whatever agreement they wish on working hours. That is entirely right in a properly functioning competitive economy. Like my right hon. Friend, what I object to in principle is working conditions being dictated from Brussels when they should be determined here, in this House. Other European countries can accept that if they wish, but they cannot then complain if businesses relocate from the rest of Europe to here as a result—like the 1,200 that Le Figaro reported last week have relocated from France to here. As Le Figaro said:

"Why stay in France if conditions for entrepreneurs are better in Britain?"

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1732]

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

Will the Prime Minister tell the House why he favours a free vote on caning but not on gun control?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks the question of gun control is appropriate for a free vote, I do not agree with him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The Government considered the Cullen report, we made a judgment on the right way to implement it and we propose to stand by that judgment, lay it before the House of Commons and invite it to support us.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1733]

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

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the by-election result on Thursday to Newark and Sherwood district council? The Conservative candidate, Mr. Bryan Richardson, took the seat from Labour with a swing of 5.8 per cent. May 1 put it to my right hon. Friend that results such as that are far more typical of support in the country than the public opinion polls, and that if we continue with sensible policies my right hon. Friend is on course for a record fifth Conservative victory?

I congratulate Mr. Richardson on his win, although I am assured by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend, the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), that we have taken seats with even larger swings elsewhere in Nottinghamshire in the past two or three weeks. What we are seeing, if I may put it this way, is Conservatives coming home.