To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [6820]

Jobseeker's allowance has now been in operation for two months. It is helping people back to work and securing better value for money for the taxpayer.

Is it correct that this vicious, half-baked and ill-conceived measure is now producing all kinds of problems behind the scenes? Benefit offices are overwhelmed with work, so cases are taking two to three times longer than they took under unemployment benefit. Is it also correct that share fishermen, with their share fisherman's stamp, are experiencing unique difficulties because of their inability to produce proof of earnings from their last trip?

The general thrust of that question is misguided. Of course there are difficulties with such a complicated scheme, which involves many officials, but broadly speaking it is working well. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman makes that point about share fishermen. With jobseeker's allowance—as before with unemployment benefit—they enjoy a special protected status that is unique in the benefits system, which reflects the hazardous and arduous nature of their work. The rules regarding their earnings have not been made more difficult. Share fishermen have been exempted from the remunerative work rule, and the averaging rules for their earnings under JSA are favourable to them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing serves the recipients of benefits worse than for us to regard our responsibilities as having ended once we have handed over the money to them? Is it not much better for financial help to go hand in hand with active encouragement to find work and to get back into the labour market, because unemployment is the greatest evil that stalks this land and is the root of poverty in Britain?

The thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is right. In connection with the jobseeker's package, we introduced the back-to-work bonus, the national insurance contributions holiday, the extended four-week payments of housing benefit and council tax benefit, earnings top-ups and child disregard. Those measures are part of the Government's general package to get people off benefit and into work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the proposals by the management of the Benefits Agency in Wales for the closure of processing units and public caller offices. [6845]

A number.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, in the past 12 months, there were 16,000 personal calls to the Benefits Agency office in Holyhead, 5,000 claims for social fund payments and 3,500 payments over the counter? How can the Benefits Agency claim that it provides a better service to the people of Holyhead, Llangefni and other areas in Wales when it is withdrawing facilities and closing offices? Vulnerable people will be worse off if the plans are implemented. We are grateful to the Minister for the two-months extension of the consultation period. Will he go one step further and scrap the plans?

The proposals are subject to consultation. As the hon. Gentleman said, the period has been extended and has not yet expired. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the use of Benefits Agency offices in Anglesey at the moment, but he should bear in mind the fact that powerful factors are changing, and will change, the way in which people use Benefits Agency offices. The jobseeker's allowance is a streamlined benefit that has covered all unemployed people since 7 October. Previously, 70 per cent. of the unemployed case load was on income support, and those people went to a Benefits Agency office. There are four jobcentres in Anglesey, all of which provide a service for JSA.

Does the Minister accept that the proposals for south Wales are, at the very least, ill conceived and half baked, and that whoever drew them up had no concept of the geography of south Wales? In the Rhondda valleys, for example, people will have to travel many miles by means of very poor public transport, because many of them do not have any private transport. The idea that they can do their business by telephone is just as daft. Will the Minister issue telephones to them so that they can contact his Department?

The hon. Gentleman's comments, and all other representations, will be taken into account before any decision is made. I must point out to him, however, that telephone calls to the Benefits Agency are increasing in number and that, in certain circumstances, they are a more popular way of doing business with it. Modern technology enables telephone inquiries to be moved from where they are received to anywhere where an official is immediately available to deal with them. All those are important factors, and they will be borne in mind before a decision is taken.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ask the Government Actuary to estimate the additional cost of paying a full basic pension from age 60 years. [6847]

At the instigation of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), I have already asked the Government Actuary to estimate the additional cost of allowing people to draw the full basic pension from age 60. He calculates that the cost would build up to an extra £15 billion per year.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, to avoid the £15 billion cost of setting the pension age at 60, the basic state pension would have to be cut by £20 a week in Basildon, Southend, and across the country? Will he confirm that cutting the basic state pension by £20 a week is now the policy of the Opposition?

I can confirm all the points made by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Peckham wrote to me after I had pointed out that the cost of her policy would be £15 billion a year. She stated:

"In government we will protect the public purse from any increase in expenditure … We will have to consider what level of basic state pension should be paid … We would seek the advice of the Government Actuary, but we anticipate … lower level of basic state pension."

Speaking of pensions, the Secretary of State has referred to changes in the rules governing war pensions as "simplification". Since when does "simplification" mean cuts in four separate allowances for war pensioners and a tightening of eligibility rules for others? In whose dictionary does "cuts" mean "simplification"? Is it not merely a Tory con trick?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is joining in on a scaremongering story, which has been discredited since the leader of his party started it the other day. He should now know that we sent a detailed explanation of the measures that we were proposing to every member of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, including the Labour party representative, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). They have had a week, since the Budget, to consider the explanation. Last Thursday, they met in full session—although the hon. Member for Mansfield was not able to attend and did not feel that the measures were a threat to the people he and the other committee members represent—at the end of which they unanimously deplored the leaks and the story in The Guardian, and commended the manner in which my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State had handled the matter.

"The overall consensus was that there is nothing unduly confrontational in the paper to cause concern among the ex-service organisations".

"a number of grave errors which can only cause distress to War Pensioners."

In addition to protecting the basic pension, have we not also protected basic savings, in contrast to the Labour party, which presided over a great destruction of savings between 1974 and 1979, as inflation ripped away?

My hon. Friend is right. The greatest threat to pensioners is inflation. We know that inflation is what happens under Labour Governments. In a single year, the last Labour Government wiped out one quarter of the value of the lifetime savings of pensioners. That is why we have had to introduce extra help for the elderly people who retired under Labour—to enable them to rebuild their savings under a good Conservative Government.

As those in retirement who are entitled to extra help from the Department of Social Security are war pensioners, will the Secretary of State confirm that one option that was not put out for consultation, but was under consideration as recently as 14 November, was

"restricting in some way claims by those with psychiatric conditions"?

I am astonished that the hon. Lady should make that statement when she knows, because I wrote to her earlier today, that it is false. Neither I nor any of my Ministers have considered any such proposal. The hon. Lady may have a bit of paper written by a junior official purporting to suggest that it has been considered, but it has never been submitted to Ministers, has never been considered by Ministers, is not approved by Ministers and is not part of the package put to war pensioners. It is shocking and discreditable that the hon. Lady is trying to cause distress to elderly people who rightly receive help because of the mental suffering caused by their treatment at the hands of the enemy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage of gross national product represented by Government spending on social security in (a) 1995, (b) 1990, (c) 1985 and (d) 1980. [6848]

The figures are 12.5 per cent., 10 per cent., 11.5 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. Social security spending is now projected to drop as a proportion of national income over the remaining years of this century.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply. As social security spending still accounts for a considerable proportion of gross national product, thereby preventing wealth from going into investment and the creation of wider prosperity and jobs, will he put in the Conservative manifesto imaginative, radical proposals such as a funded national state pension scheme, which, in the medium to longer term, would reduce the proportion to well below 10 per cent.?

My hon. Friend is right. Social security has been among the fastest growing areas of expenditure for the past 50 years, since the welfare state was established.

That is a mark of failure.

The hon. Gentleman thinks that it has been a failure since Beveridge set it up. We have introduced reforms that will result in spending growing less rapidly than national income, to leave scope for reducing taxes and creating a more prosperous economy, getting people off work and enabling them to save and meet the costs of retirement, as my hon. Friend suggests.

You have been getting people off work for the past 17 years.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House the percentage increase in real terms in social security expenditure since 1979? When he meets the electorate, will he consider that record a matter for congratulation or for concern?

I cannot give the figure offhand, but I think that it is about 4 per cent. a year. That is a matter both for congratulation and for concern. It is a matter for congratulation that we have met and safeguarded the needs of the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, the elderly and carers. However, it is a matter for concern because the bill has been outstripping the nation's ability to pay. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), introduced reforms in 1986, which I have continued. The beneficial effects of those reforms have begun to show. We are now almost alone in the western world in having got a grip on the problem, and we can look forward with confidence to the future.

Can my right hon. Friend explain the fact that, in 1980, just after the Government took office, social security expenditure represented quite a low proportion of gross domestic product? Was it because there were a number of social security cuts between 1974 and 1979? Is my right hon. Friend old enough in political terms to recall Labour cutting the pension in real terms in 1976? Is it not a tribute to the Government that, since 1979, we have always increased social security in relation to inflation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do recall the cuts in real terms to pensions and the fact that for two years in succession Labour broke its promise on the Christmas bonus for pensioners. I do not believe that pensioners can look forward with confidence to another Labour Government, and I trust that they will remember that next May.

Given the spending total on social security, does the Secretary of State really expect war pensioners to contribute to social security cuts? Is he really planning to stop the four-yearly assessments that lead to increased entitlements for veterans? Given the great service of our veterans, is that not a cut too far? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the war pensions memorandum was called "Sweeteners" and that he received a copy of it? Does he accept that people do not want sweeteners, but want justice for veterans?

I had thought better of the hon. Gentleman than that he should join in such shameful scaremongering. He has got it wrong. The changes in long-term assessments to which he refers mean that pensioners can seek a review at any time they wish, but they will no longer receive a letter, which many pensioners and the pensioner lobbies found disturbing as it suggested that their pensions would no longer be paid. That will no longer happen. The change will not save significant money, but it is welcomed by the pensioner lobbies. It is particularly extraordinary that the Labour party should suggest that we pick and choose our medical advice on such matters. That is a frightening suggestion, as the only part of the benefit system that allows Government some discretion as to how much they give war pensioners is in local government matters, and all but two of the local authorities that do not give full help to war pensioners are Labour-controlled—[Interruption.] There are 18 of them. If anyone decides to pursue the scare, I shall list those 18 local authorities in the House.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, apart from invalidity benefit, nearly all benefit increases have been in means-tested benefits, not universal benefits? Does he agree that we have to consider the dynamic effects of changes to the benefits system on social structures, not merely their immediate short-term impact? Does he accept the support of many Conservative Members for the courageous changes that he has made to housing benefit and payments to single-parent families as, in the long run, they should benefit the social structure and not merely produce short-term savings?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points that he makes. The growth has been not just in means-tested benefits. Benefit spending on war pensioners, for example, will increase next year—just as it has this year—because, unlike the Labour party, we are determined to protect and help war pensioners. My hon. Friend is right about trying to avoid means testing: I deplore Labour's plans to extend means testing into child benefit for those staying on at school and to pension entitlements—a proposal that Lady Castle has rightly condemned as a major extension of means testing to all pensioners.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the real-terms percentage change since 1979 in social security spending on incapacity benefit. [6849]

Between 1978–79 and 1994–95, expenditure on invalidity benefit rose by 216 per cent. in real terms. As a result of the introduction of incapacity benefit in April 1995, we expect expenditure in the long term to be significantly reduced.

Is it not clear that the introduction of incapacity benefit will reduce benefit for people in ill health regardless of their circumstances? In the past month, two constituents have told me that they have had heart attacks and are still under the care of the local hospital and their general practitioners, but have had their incapacity benefit taken off them. Following my intervention, those benefits have been restored. Surely such people should be treated as being in exceptional circumstances due to their severe medical condition and should not have their benefit taken away. If the Minister agrees, will he ensure that fresh instructions are given to the Benefits Agency medical service so that no people who have had heart attacks and are under the care of a local hospital or a GP suffer the distress of having their benefits taken off them?

I have looked at the two cases that the hon. Gentleman raises: the matter is not quite as simple as he suggests. The treatment of those who have had heart attacks varies, as do their chances of getting back to work, depending on their condition. In the cases to which he referred, the system worked because there was an opportunity to review them. Whether somebody is capable of going back to work must essentially be a medical decision.

By their nature, war disability pensioners are a declining band. Was it really necessary, therefore, for the Government to deprive them of that to which they would have been entitled this year and in the years ahead? Will my hon. Friend clarify exactly when the measures that were announced on 5 December will be implemented? I have already received a significant number of disturbing letters suggesting that, for deafness, the policy was implemented several months ago. Consequently, many hundreds—if not thousands—of people are being deprived of £40 a week that they would have stood to receive under the previous arrangements.

I am not altogether sure whether my hon. Friend heard the earlier replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If he did not, I suggest that he reads them in tomorrow's Hansard. I can tell him that it has been the practice right the way through the system to accept the medical advice that has been given to the Government when dealing with such cases. Most often, medical advice may allow extra claims and extra opportunity. If my hon. Friend is siding with the Opposition in wanting to allow the Government to pick and choose what information is accepted, he must appreciate the great danger of that course. The medical evidence on which the Government are relying has been placed in the Library. All that I can do is urge him not to believe everything that he might read in The Guardian—

When is it being implemented?

but to listen to colleagues and read debates that have already taken place with the groups with which the Government discuss the proper implementation date for such measures.

Does the Minister accept that a number of people are not now getting incapacity benefit because they are allowed only five working days to prepare their appeal? That is happening at the same time as the Government are cutting benefits to war pensioners who gave their health in the service of this country. Is it not about time that the Government stopped attacking disabled people?

Expenditure on the sick and disabled has risen by some 280 per cent. since the Government have been in office. That record is based on the strength of the economy and is one that the hon. Lady, had she been a member of the Lib-Lab pact, could never have afforded. The success rate for appeals on invalidity benefit is running at about 44 per cent., which is comparable with other social security appeals. There is no way that the Government are being mean towards disabled people. Indeed, we have produced a range of legislation that will improve the quality of life for disabled people for many years to come.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the millennium compliance of his Department's computer systems and those connected with them; and if he will make a statement. [6850]

We have set up a central project to assess and manage the effects of the year 2000 date change. Investigative work is well under way. A full analysis of the work necessary to achieve compliance and an estimate of costs are expected to be completed by the end of January 1997.

In view of the crucial importance of the efficient and uninterrupted provision of pensions and benefits, not least at the turn of the century, does my hon. Friend agree that it will not be enough to ensure that the computer systems for which his Department is responsible are millennium compliant? What is he doing to ensure that computer systems in the private sector to which his Department's systems are connected will be safe in time?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this important topic. I can confirm that the Department is working with its external suppliers, as their compatibility is crucial. I am sure that he will be glad to know that all new contracts are year 2000 compliant, and that existing contracts are being reviewed—and renegotiated where necessary—to ensure full compliance.

A Minister told us yesterday that the switch for the millennium would be an extremely expensive project. Can the Minister tell us whether his projections for costs, which clearly come before the final projections in January, are included in the Red Book for the coming year and up until 1999?

At the moment, it is not possible for our Department to estimate precisely what the costs will be. The programme is that the report I mentioned in my main answer will be ready for the departmental board by the end of January 1997. By the end of August 1997, the work that needs to be done on costings will be done, and we expect the project to be implemented in the Department and all our systems to be compatible by the end of August 1998. We have some 18 major systems and some 1,500 small and medium-size systems. At the moment, it simply is not possible to make an estimate with any degree of credibility or accuracy. The work is under way, and as soon as those costs are available they will be made available to the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds on the number of children staying in full-time education. [6851]

The proportion of 16-year-olds staying on at school is up from 42 per cent. in 1979 to 71 per cent. in 1995; for 17-year-olds, it has more than doubled from 27 per cent. to around 60 per cent.; and for 18-year-olds, it has nearly trebled, from 15 per cent. to 40 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, for many families, the sum of £560 makes the crucial difference between the education and non-education of their children? Can my hon. Friend confirm that that sum—£560 for parents with children at school over the age of 16—would be lost under proposals from the Labour party?

My hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. Furthermore, Labour, having wrongly analysed the problem it sought to address, now compounds its error by proposing to take away more than £1,000 from parents with two teenagers. That is Labour's teenage tax and it is the equivalent of 5p on the income tax of such families.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of the number of persons receiving benefit in Newham. [6852]

Some information on the numbers receiving individual benefits in Newham is available. However, as people often receive more than one benefit, I cannot supply information on how many, in total, are receiving benefit.

That sounds a bit like a cop-out. We know that there are tens of thousands of such people. It would help if the Minister would register that fact, because it shows the extent of poverty in Newham.

It is not a cop-out. I can supply the hon. Gentleman with the detailed figures, but I will not weary the House with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the House wishes to be wearied, I shall start reading. For the most recently available date, the figure for those on income support is 33,000; for unemployment benefit before 7 October, it is 16,000; for housing benefit, 41,000; and for council tax benefit, 35,000. For many of the other benefits, information is not broken down on a borough basis.

My hon. Friend has told us how many people receive benefit in Newham. How many more people in Newham would receive benefit if we were to sign up to the minimum wage and the social chapter, thereby adopting the job-destroying policy of the Opposition?

An unknown number, but a great deal more.

Is the Minister aware that an increasing number of people in Newham who previously received benefit because they were incapacitated are now, on a medical examination, found allegedly fit for work? Will he tell the House whether the recent changes in the rules were based on sound medical advice—and, if so, from whom—or whether there is some other motivation in the Government's mind?

The latest figures that I have show that 7,447 people in Newham receive incapacity benefit. My hon. Friend the Minister of State set out the position with the appeals process a moment ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in respect of a review of the decision to raise pensions in line with prices rather than earnings. [6853]

We receive many representations on this point. The fact remains that the estimated net cost of increasing the basic pension from April 1997 by the higher of earnings or prices since 1980 would be £7.9 billion.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy remains one of continuing to increase the retirement pension in line with inflation and targeting additional help on the elderly poor? Does he agree that, from the figure that he has mentioned, no Government could afford to restore the earnings link? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Opposition to criticise the removal of the earnings link without committing themselves to restoring it?

Despite the ending of the earnings link, the average net incomes of pensioners have risen by 51 per cent. since 1979. That is because we have maintained the value of the basic state pension, encouraged private provision and targeted help on those most in need.

Among the pensioners who have to supplement their basic state pensions are war pensioners. Will the Minister confirm that three of the administrative changes that are proposed—ending reminders, ending automatic uprating or review and requiring independent evidence—will mean that, over and above any administrative savings, 16,000 war pensioners, according to the Department's own civil servants, will lose out? Will the Minister confirm that 16,000 war pensioners will lose out as a result of those so-called administrative savings?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier—it made the position clear—and also to what BLESMA, the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association, has said:

"The Government proposals introduce a number of improvements which will benefit both War Pensioners and War Widows and materially assist the War Pensions Agency in dealing more expeditiously with claims and appeals."

Does my hon. Friend recall how easy it was for the Labour party to link pensions with rises in average earnings? In those days, Labour's management of the national economy was so incompetent that prices were rising a good deal faster than average earnings.

As my hon. Friend says, the Labour party in government robbed pensioners. There was 15 per cent. inflation every year for people who had saved throughout their lives. That is why we now need to target extra help on those who are most in need—and we are doing that: an extra £1.2 billion has been provided every year since 1988.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the percentage of single mothers who are dependent on state benefits. [6854]

In 1995, 65 per cent. of lone mothers were receiving income support and 17 per cent. family credit.

What help can the Minister announce for single parents who want to find work but cannot, because of the benefits trap, the lack of affordable child care and the lack of employment and training advice? Why do the Government continually use single parents as a scapegoat? Why do the Government not lend a hand to help them out of benefits dependency?

The hon. Gentleman asks what help the Government can announce. Every week, the Government announce measures designed to help lone parents to return to work. In October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the parent plus scheme, to be piloted over the next three years. That scheme will be the best of its type practised anywhere in the world.

Is not the real benefits trap in circumstances of this kind the fact that, if a woman had three illegitimate children, she would receive far more benefit than the possible earnings of any probable husband? Instead of reinforcing family life, the benefits system now positively undervalues it by making it clear that the family must view the state as the father of first rather than last resort.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not a month goes by without an improvement in the performance of the Child Support Agency in getting maintenance through, principally to mothers. My hon. Friend is right in other respects as well. Through the into-work and in-work benefits, and through the after-school places endorsed by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the Government have made a real difference in helping the 90 per cent. of lone parents who want to work to achieve their aim.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he proposes to reduce the transport difficulties faced by benefit applicants in scattered rural communities. [6855]

The Benefits Agency provides a full range of services from its extensive local office network, by post, by telephone and, for those who need it, by home visits.

Will the Minister pay particular attention to the problem of those in rural areas who are trying to obtain the jobseeker's allowance? In such areas, insistence on attendance at a jobcentre often means a journey of many hours in the more scattered rural areas. Even if public transport is available, the cost may be £4 or £5 a time, taking a major proportion of the allowance that those people may receive. When will the Government stop discriminating against rural areas?

It is quite the reverse. Until the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, 70 per cent. of the unemployed were on income support and were dealt with by Benefits Agency offices. The Employment Service's jobcentre network is more widespread; there are five jobcentres in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and the jobseeker's allowance is administered through them.

Is the answer to reduce not the transport difficulties but the number of unemployed in rural areas, and are we not doing precisely that, by reducing rates and improving the economy so that more people can get back to work in both urban and rural areas?

My hon. and learned Friend is right on all points.

Does the Minister agree that all recipients of benefit should get equal value from that benefit? Despite the help given by managers and staff in Department of Social Security offices in alleviating poor transport to offices for claimants, will he consider providing travel warrants for those who have to attend?

The position is that, if people are required to attend a Benefits Agency office for a specific interview, in Great Britain, the costs are met less 80p. The fortnightly signing on at an Employment Service jobcentre is not covered, but the service pays the full cost of transport if a special interview is required.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December. [6874]

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.

In spite of commendable resolution at the weekend, is it not clear to everyone that attempting to run a minority Government, with a party in open revolt, makes it impossible to secure a deal that is in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, at Amsterdam, Dublin or anywhere else? If, as the Prime Minister suggested on Sunday, he is motivated by the national interest, will he operate on that basis and call for an early Dissolution of Parliament, so that we can have an early general election?

The hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I will pick the election date in my own time and not at his behest.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how greatly the public at large, especially parents, will welcome the Government's decision to press the broadcasting authorities to curb television violence? Does he agree that, if there is even slight evidence that increased screen violence is linked, via imitation or disinhibition, to increased crime, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the potential victims of such crime and no reasonable remedies must be discounted?

I believe that my right hon. Friend has spoken for parents throughout the country. There is a difficult balance to keep in ensuring that we have free and open media and that they maintain the standards that are appropriate for society generally and for children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has today agreed a plan of action with the chairmen of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council, and we look forward to its being carried out.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Leon Brittan, who said this morning that Conservative party divisions were weakening Britain's negotiating position in Europe?

There are two things that really damage the national interest in negotiating in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that, when the House of Commons is not united on any issue, that weakens any Government's position in international negotiations. That is certainly true; but what also undermines our national interest and our negotiating position in Europe is the fact that many of the socialist Governments in Europe expect, were there to be a Labour Government, a very easy ride and a distinct change of policy. They believe that a Labour Government would make changes and surrender positions to which this Government have held—positions which, if surrendered, would be damaging to the United Kingdom.

May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, after his interview on Sunday, much of which I would agree with, there is less clear water between him, his deputy, one half of the Cabinet and the Opposition than between him and most of his Back Benchers? If he is not prepared to agree with Sir Leon Brittan, does he stand by his own comments at the weekend that the Conservative divisions were "self-evidently" damaging to Britain's interests?

I made that perfectly clear at the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I have also made it clear that the Government have set out a position that we believe to be in the national interest. The national interest is going to come before the party interest. There is no doubt about that, and I made that absolutely clear again. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that what also damages the national interest is the belief among our partners in Europe that many of the positions that we hold would be surrendered by an alternative Government.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has admitted that these Conservative divisions damage the country's interest. [Interruption.] "It is obvious," shouts a voice from the Back Benches. It is obvious, except to the Conservative party. Is the Prime Minister aware that Lord Blake has said in the past few hours that he has never seen the Conservative party in such disarray in 14 general elections? Is he aware that, this lunchtime, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) referred to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) as "politically insane"? Some might say that he is a good judge of such matters. If all that is the case, does not the Prime Minister agree with the vast majority of people who say that, if the Conservatives cannot be trusted to run themselves, why should they be trusted to run this country?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that he has precisely the same divisions on his own Back Benches. I look at the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I ask whether they share the same position on European matters as the right hon. Gentleman. But I shall tell him about unity: we are united in our opposition to a centralist, federalist Europe as much as Labour is united in favour of a federal Europe. We are standing up for Britain's interests in Europe; the Labour party is determined to stand up for Brussels' interests in Britain.

My right hon. Friend knows, because he has visited it, that Ribble valley is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom that attracts many thousands of tourists every year. Many hundreds of jobs are involved in the tourism industry there; many of them are in small businesses, such as bed and breakfast, small restaurants and cafeterias. What does he believe would be the impact of the introduction of a minimum wage and the social chapter and of caving in to every rule and regulation from Brussels on small businesses in Ribble valley?

There is no doubt about the impact. Small businesses would suffer greatly were those policies to be imposed on them. Not only would existing small businesses suffer greatly but jobs would be lost. Not only would present jobs be lost but the future construction of small businesses would be inhibited and future jobs that would otherwise be created would not be created.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December. [6875]

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the changes taking place in the administration of war pensions include the end to automatic reviews of entitlement, an end to reminders to submit claim forms and a requirement to provide independent evidence before a review can take place? Most important, will he confirm that civil servants estimate that, over and above any administrative savings, 16,000 war pensioners will lose out as a result of those changes?

Last week, the Leader of the Opposition made a number of charges about war pensions which he now knows to be incorrect. He may not have known it last week when he said it in the House, but he now knows that it was incorrect and I hope that he will correct it. A few hours ago, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) made charges about war pensions, which she now knows were incorrect. She was told, in the past half-hour in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, that they were incorrect. The fact is that some of the changes made last week extend benefits rather than reduce them. Some claimants will get more. No claimants will lose.

Will the Prime Minister confirm full and continuing support for grammar schools, which provide unique opportunities for children from low-income homes to achieve educational excellence? Will he resist in all ways something that is worrying us in Southend, where a quarter of all our children attend such grammar schools—abolition of selection tests, which would be a recipe for the destruction of these excellent schools?

I can confirm that. As my hon. Friend will know, there are proposals before the House to allow a limited amount of selection in schools of all sorts in the state sector. What we seek to do in the education sector is provide a degree of diversity that matches the diversity of the children. A single, regimented, rigid system does not enable the diversity of education that our children need to have provided. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is presenting a Bill to the House that will extend diversity and prevent the problem set out by my hon. Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December. [6876]

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

Surely the Prime Minister must now accept that the civil war in his party makes it impossible for his Government to have any clear authority in negotiations in Dublin or anywhere else. Would he take seriously any other European Government who were in the same shambles as his own? The last time this happened, the Prime Minister resigned as party leader. Now that it has happened again, will he, in the interest of the country, resign as Prime Minister and call a general election?

The simple answer is no. As for divisions, if the hon. Lady is so concerned about them, perhaps she might have a word with the 50 or so of her colleagues who have made it perfectly clear that they are wholly opposed to a single currency. On one day, we have 50 of them saying that they are opposed to a single currency and others, led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), writing to The Independent saying that they are in favour of it. The hon. Lady had better realise that the splits in the Opposition are seismic.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the MORI poll published in The Sun newspaper yesterday, which was, in part, conducted in my constituency and which showed that 68 per cent. of respondents felt that they did not wish to be in a single currency and wished to keep the pound; and that almost 50 per cent. said that they would rather not be in the European Union at all? Is he aware of other polls that reflect similar sentiments? Does he not think that the honest way to clear the air would be to have a referendum and ask the people of Britain which way they would like our country to go in future?

We made it clear last April that, if the Government decided that we would enter into a single currency, there would be a referendum on the specific question whether we should go into a single currency. That has been settled policy since last April and I hope that my hon. Friend will support that policy.