To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of people are currently dependent on means-tested benefits; and what were the figures for 1979. [11368]

The latest estimate is that 26.4 per cent. of the population live in households receiving income support, family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit or council tax benefit. It is not possible to make a direct comparison with the position in 1979 since the present structure of the benefits did not exist then.

Can the Minister confirm that in 1979 one in 12 people were dependent on means-tested benefits and that today the figure has doubled to one in six? Is this not the result of what the Bishop of Liverpool recently described as the "running sores" of unemployment, low pay and poverty, all of which have increased dramatically under the Government?

I am surprised at the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked. He should know that unemployment benefit takes up about 10 per cent. of the Department of Social Security budget. He should condemn the Opposition Front Bench, which wants means testing to be extended. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government being returned after the next general election, I understand that Labour's proposals are to means-test both child benefit and the state pension, which would mean a significant increase in means testing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to get people off means-tested benefits is to get them into work? Is it not important, therefore, to recognise that under this Government two jobs have been created every minute since 1992? That figure has not been disputed by the International Labour Organisation or even by the Labour party. The Government are creating jobs. Should not we take the words of the Bishop of Liverpool as endorsing the Government's policies?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government's policy is dedicated to getting people back into work. It has been extremely successful, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. Since the general election, unemployment has fallen by more than 1 million. The United Kingdom has more of its citizens in work and fewer unemployed than any other major European country.

Can the Minister explain why it is that one in three babies in Tory Britain are born to families that are dependent on the means test, compared with one in 10 in 1979? Will he help the House work out why it is that a Tory Government who in 1979 promised to get the state off people's backs have ended up creating a massive dependency state, one which includes a quarter of all households in Britain?

We all care about helping the people whom the hon. Gentleman has just described. The Labour party has a pretty strange definition of poverty: it means that when we increase income support levels, its measure of poverty also increases. The Government have a range of policies designed to help people back into work. In the lone parent area, the hon. Gentleman will know of the importance of the after-school kiddies clubs, which have been greatly expanded under the Government's programme. The Government have put £24 million on the table to help expand that form of after-school child care. I reject what the hon. Gentleman said, and underline the Government's success in helping people back into work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for avoiding fraud in the benefit system; and if he will make a statement. [11369]

Tackling fraud and abuse is my top priority. The Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill, which successfully completed its Committee stage this morning, will strengthen our ability to fight fraud, and will enable us to galvanise local authorities into tackling fraud in housing benefit.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining the action that the Government are taking. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff in the King's Lynn benefits office, who work very hard to tackle fraud in Norfolk and elsewhere? Is he aware of a particular problem in Norfolk due to the recent arrival from eastern Europe of illegal immigrants who have sought work and, in some cases, benefits? Does he agree that such abuse must be tackled? What is he doing about it?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Benefits Agency staff in King's Lynn and throughout the country. They work with dedication and commitment to help those entitled to benefit and to ensure that money does not go to those who are not entitled to it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the data-matching powers in the fraud Bill will prejudice privacy and confer unprecedented powers on the state? Will he give constructive consideration to the case for introducing into the Bill a code of practice to ensure that central and local government departments and contracted agencies comply with the best international standards for data protection?

I do not accept that those powers are an infringement of civil liberties. We are not requiring any more information from individuals than is already taken. We are simply using the power to ensure that people are not, for example, working and claiming. We have said that we will consider the appropriateness of codes of practice, and we will discuss that matter with those responsible for data protection.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House about the success of his fraud hotline, which has been warmly welcomed by the majority of taxpayers who work hard and do not see why their taxes should help fraudsters?

I can tell my hon. Friend that the fraud hotline has been extremely successful. More than 100,000 calls have been received. They are still coming in at a rate of more than 5,000 a week, which is high such a long time after the original announcement. It shows that honest, upright individuals are incensed by the minority who try to rip off the system. We entirely uphold their opinions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on housing benefit fraud by landlords. [11370]

We have a comprehensive strategy, which is strengthened by the current fraud Bill, to combat all housing benefit fraud, including landlord fraud. We support local authorities through an incentive scheme and, now, through challenge funding, £8 million of challenge funds were made available to authorities in 1996–97, and we will double that to £16 million in 1997–98. We are also setting up an inspectorate to help to ensure that all authorities tackle fraud effectively.

Notwithstanding the Minister's answer, will he confirm that housing benefit fraud is currently estimated to cost us £2 billion a year, and that the largest part of that is recognised to be organised landlord fraud? Have not the Government missed an opportunity, during the passing of the fraud Bill, to introduce a new offence of landlord fraud, as the Opposition suggested? Does that not show the Government's commitment to a deregulated, private housing-for-rent market at all costs, including costs to the taxpayer?

I do not recognise all the figures given by the hon. Lady. Housing benefit fraud is estimated at about £1 billion, and landlord fraud constitutes about £150 million of that, so it is not the largest part.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that he pursues landlord fraud vigorously in Liverpool, London or wherever it occurs? At the end of the day, it makes honest landlords less likely to let their properties and, consequently, makes honest people looking for property less likely to find any.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important for the private rented market to continue to expand; it is important to the integrity of benefit for it to be properly handled, and for fraud to be clamped down. We are prepared to consider ideas advanced by all kinds of authority, and, indeed, the local authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) has received a £140,000 challenge fund grant to help it to root out more landlord fraud.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he received during the recent cold weather about cold weather payments. [11372]

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement. [11378]

We received 88 letters about the cold weather payments scheme during the recent cold period.

Is the Minister aware that when some of my hon. Friends and I went to No. 10 Downing street at the end of December to deliver a letter, although it had been extremely cold for some 10 days, no cold weather payments had been made during that time, causing untold misery and hardship to many pensioners on low incomes? Why are the Government so determined to oppose the measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) wanted to introduce to deal with the chill factor? Does that not show that the Government do not care a damn about those in need?

No. According to paragraph 9.7 of the advice from the Meteorological Office that we took last summer and placed in the Library,

"In much of the country, the additional domestic heating requirements generated as a result of the effect of the exposure of houses to wind are too small and too highly variable to be included sensibly in such a scheme."

Will the Minister look at the undoubted anomalies in this system? For example, in my constituency of Deeside payments are dictated by readings at RAF Valley, 90 miles to the west and warmed by the Irish sea. When the polar wind blew, many pensioners' domestic budgets were blown to smithereens because they only had enough money to heat their homes. Will the Minister please be more generous, and review the system thoroughly?

Every summer we ask the Meteorological Office to review whether the linking of particular parts of constituencies with particular weather stations is appropriate. The greater part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is dealt with from Crosby, which has triggered a cold weather payment once this winter.

Does my hon. Friend realise that measurements taken in Leeds city centre are consistently some degrees warmer than those in the rural hinterland, which includes much of my constituency? When he speaks again to the Meteorological Office, will he ask it to review where it takes its measurements in various parts of west Yorkshire, because they are not limited just to Leeds, so that people's entitlement to this important benefit, which was introduced by the Government, relates to their experience at home?

The simple answer to my hon. Friend is yes. If he or any hon. Member wants to make specific points, as numerous hon. Members did last summer, they will of course all be referred to the Meteorological Office and the advice will be carefully considered.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the number of payments and the amount of money that has been paid, but will he please take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) about the weather centre in the centre of Leeds? Taking measurements there is useless to people in my constituency who live on the hill. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have made representations on the matter. Will he please take it back to the Meteorological Office?

The simple answer is yes. My hon. Friend made the points last summer. The Meteorological Office was not persuaded, but I shall be happy to reconsider the matter if there is any further information or if there are any further arguments.

Will the Minister bear in mind the special needs of voluntary funded hostels such as Bolton's Salvation Army hostel, which faces higher heating charges in cold weather, but whose tenants are free to spend their supplements as they wish? Has he any encouraging message for voluntary fund raisers who have to raise the money to keep hostels going?

That is a separate issue from the cold weather payment scheme that we have been discussing.

Will the Minister explain why, after the Secretary of State for Social Security has spent an extra £15 billion on welfare in the past four years, pensioners and poor families throughout Britain still have to make a choice between eating and heating? Does the Minister accept that cuts in home insulation and the imposition of value added tax on fuel have only worsened the plight of the poorest people in society, especially in relation to fuel poverty? Does he agree that the deliberate sabotaging of the recent Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill and the failure to set up a trial project in Scotland only add insult to injury? Surely fuel poverty is a scandal in 1997. When will the Government start to take the matter seriously?

The House and the country will take the hon. Gentleman seriously when he tells us exactly what he is prepared to spend and on what. Since 1991, £350 million has been paid out for the home energy efficiency payment scheme and no less than 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom housing stock has had its insulation improved as a result of the scheme. I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman, and to anyone else who doubts it, that, if he wishes to extend the cold weather payment scheme to everyone on income support and to all pensioners, it will cost £250 million to £300 million a year more in a winter of last year's severity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the increase in spending on benefits since 1979. [11373]

Since 1979, spending has increased by £40 billion in real terms. More than two thirds of that increased help is for the elderly, the long-term sick and, above all, disabled people.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the growth in those benefits is almost twice the growth of annual average gross domestic product in Britain under Conservative rule? Does he not recognise that the figures that he has announced show that the Government's economic policy has failed? Most important, does he not understand that his Government have robbed young people of the understanding of the connection between work and welfare, and that the best welfare policy is to put young people back to work?

The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my answer. Two thirds of the extra help goes to disabled people, long-term sick and elderly people. Is he saying that it is a failure to increase help to disabled people and that Labour would undo it? Is he saying that it is a failure that there are more elderly people? The life expectancy of someone reaching retirement age now is more than two years higher than under Labour.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his reforms, including his proposed reforms of family benefits, are essential to control the increase in social security spending? Is he aware that his planned reforms of family benefits would not be implemented by the Labour party? Has it told him where the money will come from to compensate for the lost savings?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The reforms that we announced in the Budget will ultimately save about £500 million through equalising benefits for lone parents with those available to married couples, which is not only fair but makes it possible for us to improve benefits elsewhere. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has said that she will not implement the measures necessary to save that amount, but will live within the total budget. To increase benefits for lone parents by £500 million, she must take money either from married couples, single people who do not have children or elderly people. Can she tell us which?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the social security budget is £15 billion a year more than it was in 1992? Will he confirm that that means that, as Secretary of State, he has increased the social security budget by 20 per cent.? Will he admit that it is no good blaming the elderly? They account for only £1.5 billion of that £15 billion annual increase. Will he admit that it is no good blaming the disabled? They account for only £4 billion of the £15 billion increase. Will he admit that the main reason for the £15 billion increase is that one in five households are without work?

The hon. Lady's figures are wrong. That is the simple answer to her question. Perhaps she will answer my question and explain—[Interruption.]

Order. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this is Question Time, when the Government answer questions.

The simple answer to the hon. Lady's question is that her figures are wrong. Two thirds of the growth in social security spending in real terms since I took office has been spent on disabled, elderly and long-term sick people. That is fact, and I shall put the figures in the Library. I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not however use the privilege that the House offers to give us the answer that we want: where will she get the money?

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those retiring now are in receipt of occupational pensions; and what he estimates the proportion will be in 10 years' time. [11374]

It is estimated that in 1979, 55 per cent. of recently retired people were in receipt of an occupational pension, compared with 70 per cent. in 1994–95. This is projected to rise further to more than 75 per cent. in the next 10 years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that adequate occupational pensions have done a great deal to ease poverty and anxiety among retired people and that further extension of them is essential if retired people are to live fuller and more satisfying lives?

The Government's policy to maintain the value of the basic state pension, encourage more private provision and target help on those most in need has led to record rises in pensioners' incomes—rising almost as much each year as they did during the whole of the last Labour Government's period in office. My hon. Friend is right; we must go further.

After 18 years of Conservative rule, will the Minister tell the House how many pensioners are still poor?

The hon. Gentleman asks a question that I am very happy to answer. Even the poorest pensioners have seen incomes rise by 28 per cent. since 1979.

How many are in poverty?

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to ask that question, because he defines poverty in relation to the level of income support—so that, if one increases income support, one ends up with more poverty. It is nonsense. What is demonstrable is that, since 1979, under the Government, pensioners' incomes have increased dramatically—on average, by 60 per cent.—and that even the poorest pensioners have seen a 28 per cent. increase. That is very different from what happened under Labour, when pensioners were robbed of their savings through high inflation.

There has been spectacular growth in private pensions—which have given the elderly new horizons and new freedoms, and are a matter of great pride for Conservative Members. None the less, is my hon. Friend satisfied that expenses and commissions on the new pension schemes are now under adequate control?

As my hon. Friend says, it is important to ensure that pension charges are kept to the minimum. The new disclosure rules are having that effect, and the Securities and Investments Board is meeting with pension providers to discuss those issues. The most important factor, however, is the yield on pensions. Since 1980, there has been a 9 per cent. annual real yield on private pensions in the United Kingdom. We also have more invested in pensions than all of Europe put together. The result is that, in 2030, when the UK's finances are in surplus, France and Germany will have a debt of 100 per cent. of GDP, and Japan's debt will be 300 per cent. of GDP.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to ensure that SERPS becomes a partially funded scheme. [11375]

We have no proposals to make SERPS a partially funded scheme. Our policy is to encourage private pension provision through the contracting out of SERPS.

Does the Minister agree that the two most profitable pension schemes have been occupational pensions and SERPS? He failed to mention the 2 million people who face impoverishment in old age because of their money-purchased personal pension schemes, and that only 7,000 of them have been compensated. Does he realise that someone on average wages who has been in a SERPS pension since 1978 will now be receiving an additional £70 a week, doubling his or her pension? Why does not the Minister forget ideology and look anew at fresh pension schemes and at renewing and strengthening SERPS, so that it will be funded and run independently of the national insurance scheme and managed by independent managers?

I have examined the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I believe that they make him the most expensive Labour Member. His wish list of extra DSS expenditure on pensions would cost more than £6.8 billion by 2000, and more than £65 billion by 2030. He is proof of the type of pressures that a Labour Government—were one, heaven forfend, elected—would face to increase public spending. His ideas would result in national insurance costs rising by a third.

Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing people to opt out of SERPS is exactly what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) wants—a move towards a funded income-related scheme and away from a pay-as-you-go state scheme? Until the Labour party understands that we are achieving what it now says it wants, it is unlikely that Labour will be fit to govern.

My hon. Friend is right. Contracting out of SERPS and encouraging the private sector are what have helped pension incomes to rise so fast since 1979. Let us not forget, however, that the Labour party is proposing equalising the state pension age at 60—

That is not relevant.

It is relevant to SERPS, because Labour is talking about equalising the state pension age at 60, with a pension of £40 a week. With no income support, that would lead pensioners to destitution. It is risky—it is new Labour, new danger.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners entitled to income support who do not claim it. [11376]

The only way to determine the precise number not taking up their entitlement would be for them to come forward and make a claim. However, the most recent figures suggest that between 800,000 and 1.1 million pensioners have an unclaimed entitlement to income support.

Why are the Government so complacent about that extraordinarily high number of pensioners not claiming income support? The income of those million pensioners not claiming income support is £14 a week lower and they are not entitled to cold weather payments. Other estimates suggest that 800,000 of those pensioners are single women living on their own with no occupational pension and no savings. If the Government believe in targeted benefits, should they not be seeking out those people and ensuring that they get the money to which they are entitled, instead of wringing their hands and being complacent because they are saving money?

The Government are in no way complacent about those figures. It is the responsibility of the Department to present information to the public about the availability of benefits. The Department's publicity budget for the past three years, including the current year, has been £84 million. Some £9 out of every £10 worth claiming is claimed and four out of five claimants are paid. Take-up campaigns must be properly targeted to be effective. We do that successfully with family credit. It is not possible to target a take-up campaign on pensioners in the way that the hon. Gentleman would like. However, there is a new Benefits Agency national awareness campaign, running from 13 to 26 January, entitled "Pensions and Benefits for Older People". It is our job constantly to put information before the public. If someone comes forward with a claim, we can, we will and we want to honour it.

Will my hon. Friend give a commitment to maintain the level of old-age pensions above the rate of the rise in the cost of living, as the Conservatives have done over the past 18 years, unlike Labour, who allowed the value of pensions to plummet while they were in office?

I can make that commitment to maintain the value of the pension. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will be happy to learn that, while 31 per cent. of those in the lowest tenth by income of the population in 1979 were pensioners, today that figure is only 7 per cent. Our commitment to maintain the value of the pension in line with inflation is clear. We have not threatened to means-test it, as has been suggested by Opposition Members.

The Minister says that he is not complacent. Does he agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, his hon. Friend the Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who told the Standing Committee considering the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill in December:

"we do not know why certain pensioners do not take up income support"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 5 December 1996; c. 44.]

I am more than happy to agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who was entirely right. The hon. Gentleman's bluster would mean a great deal more if he committed himself and his colleagues to a take-up campaign that would deal with the problem that we face. No such commitment has been made, either while we were considering the Bill or since. It is all bluster and no money up front from Labour Members. We will continue to make sure that benefits are available to all who need them and to publicise them. The considerable advance in the position of pensioners under this Government is likely to continue only under the economic policies advocated by the Conservatives.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that taking up benefits is not compulsory? There may be a variety of reasons why elderly people do not wish to claim income support or other benefits. The best way to target those people is to make them aware that benefits are available if they want them, not to sneak into records of their savings and other matters to find out whether they are entitled and to tell them that they must have the benefit.

My hon. Friend is correct. It is not possible to define in every circumstance why someone has not taken up a benefit. It may further reassure the House to know that local authorities are now under a general obligation, set out in our guidance, to use whatever information they have if it is suggested that someone might have a claim for benefit. We have also provided local authorities with the software to assist them in that task. The matter is much more complex than the Opposition suggest. If they are to work, take-up campaigns must be properly targeted. That was the case with family credit, and we increased the number of people claiming it. We shall continue our efforts to ensure that all those who need benefits get them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the annual cost of waste in the social security budget. [11377]

The largest losses to the social security budget are the result of fraud. Stamping out benefit fraud and abuse remains our top priority. We have achieved record savings year on year and are on course, with the new "spend to save" initiative set out in the Budget, to save some £7 billion over the next three years.

My question was about waste in the social security budget, not loss. Is it not a waste that 600,000 young people under the age of 25 are not in work? Is it not a waste that that costs the country £10 billion through crime, the cost of unemployment and the loss of income to those involved? Is it not a disgrace that the Government are doing nothing for young people? Only the Labour party has a programme to put 250,000 young people into work.

The hon. Gentleman's question was about waste in the social security budget. If we did not divine the precise focus of his question, it was not for want of asking him in advance. The fact remains that unemployment is falling, and the Government have a series of schemes to promote youth employment.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the biggest ever waste in social security spending occurred when unemployment doubled in five years under a Labour Government? Will he also confirm that, in 18 years, unemployment has not become double what it was in 1979?

My hon. Friend makes powerful points, which I have no doubt are correct.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland have received cold weather payments since December 1996; and how many of these received payments for more than one week. [11379]

Since the beginning of last December, 195,000 people in Scotland have received cold weather payments. Of these, 188,000 received more than one payment.

Although we all appreciate that there have been changes in the trigger mechanisms for cold weather payments, which were very important in the recent very cold spells, does the Minister accept that we should be following the examples of countries such as Ireland which make automatic payments during the coldest months and weeks of winter to ensure that people on the lowest state benefits are guaranteed such payments? In Scotland, the excess winter death rate is 16 per cent., whereas in Finland, which has a good programme, it is 9 per cent.

The existing scheme is automatic in the sense that a person does not have to make a claim if he is in the qualifying group. A payment is made when the Meteorological Office records seven days at 0 deg or less or, much more important, when it forecasts that the temperature will be 0 deg or less for seven days. The prospect of that payment is widely advertised locally and people realise that it will be coming shortly thereafter.

My hon. Friend will be aware that our cold weather payments scheme quite properly takes account of the differences in temperature throughout the United Kingdom. Does he recall that southern Ireland—Eire—receives massive sums of our taxpayers' funds from Europe and is therefore spending our money?

I hear what my hon. Friend says about southern Ireland. On his first point, I welcome his support. The system is designed to target help where it is most needed when the weather is at its worst.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new proposals he has to increase the level of the basic pension. [11380]

The basic pension will be uprated by 2.1 per cent. from April, giving a standard rate pension of nearly £100 for a couple.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the British pensioner is treated worse than almost any other pensioner in the whole of the European Union in terms of basic pension rights? The Government have betrayed the British pensioners. Those who suffered and sacrificed during the last war have been betrayed by the Conservative Government. By breaking the link between pensions and wages, the Government have let the pensioners down and by gambling state earnings-related pension scheme money away on the stock market they have also let down the pensioners of tomorrow. The pensioners of this country will never forgive the Government.

The hon. Member is mistaken. I advise him to read the report by Watsons which showed that, because we have a flat-rate basic pension, those who have low pay during their working lives are—with the benefit of the basic pension plus other support—at least as well off as, and usually better off than, pensioners in most other countries in Europe. Because of our success in building up occupational pensions, those with average earnings also do as well as or better than their counterparts. Uprating the basic pension in line with earnings rather than prices would cost £7.5 billion a year, which is why we have repudiated it—as, I believe, have Opposition Front Benchers recently, at whom the hon. Gentleman's ire might be well directed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January. [11398]

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's continued support for successful schools? Will he sympathise with the head teachers and governors of St. Olave's and the London Oratory schools who will have difficulty in expanding their schools, even to accommodate more children of hypocritical Labour Front Benchers, if the Opposition have their way?

I can assure the House that we will press ahead with our plans to allow successful schools to expand, either before or after the general election. Last night, the Opposition voted to deny other parents the choice, and some children the opportunities, that they themselves enjoy. Our aim is to raise standards: they apparently peddle double standards.

I see now: it is now our fault that they cannot run a halfway competent Government. Why does the Prime Minister not simply call a halt to what is the fag end of a burnt-out Government? They have no legislative programme left and the country is tired of waiting: March—not March; May—not May. If they are so confident, why does not the Prime Minister, just for once, put a stop to the dithering, name the day and call a general election?

The right hon. Gentleman clearly is not aware of the importance of the legislation that he has just dismissed. He clearly does not want the legislation against crime that we are proposing. He clearly does not want the tougher sentences that we are proposing and he certainly does not want the educational choice for everyone that he himself has enjoyed.

Whenever the general election comes, will my right hon. Friend promise that, when he leads our party into it, he will not pledge to spend £30 billion more on public expenditure while at the same time saying that there will be no increase in taxation?

I can certainly confirm that we will not have £30 billion-worth of spending pledges. The Labour party is very keen to reassure people that it would not raise taxes, but it has not yet withdrawn the £30 billion-worth of spending pledges that make it inevitable that it will raise taxes, and it has not yet managed to school its Front-Bench spokesmen out of promising more expenditure on every occasion.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January. [11399]

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

I remind the Prime Minister of his words at Question Time on 28 January 1992, as this is the fifth anniversary of his pledge not to increase value added tax. Will he apologise to the millions of pensioners who this winter have had to pay the VAT that he imposed on their gas and electricity bills?

As the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I propose to answer.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not, and never has been, his intention to impose VAT on Severn bridge tolls—[Laughter.]—and that, contrary to what the new Labour candidate for Forest of Dean says, it was not the Government's idea, but that of the European Transport Commissioner, who is a former leader of the British Labour party?

I can confirm that. Perhaps if Opposition Members had listened to my hon. Friend before they began scoffing, they would have seen the trap opening in front of them. It certainly remains our view that tolls are not subject to value added tax, and we are opposed to the European Commission's view that they should be—a view that I believe is held by Commissioner Kinnock.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January. [11400]

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

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the present right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) on his honesty? He said in an interview on Friday that it was most unlikely that the Government would be re-elected. Is that not the real reason why the Prime Minister is so terrified of calling the general election and clings desperately to office day by day? Does he consider it dignified to carry on to the very last moment so that he can stay at No. 10?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that we have the most successful economy, with the highest growth and the best inward investment record, in western Europe. None of the socialist Governments in Europe can begin to match that record, which people are understanding more and more as day succeeds day.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the countries that form the United Kingdom—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—although proud entities in themselves, would count for nothing in the world as individual, separate nations? Will he therefore assure the House that his Government will never follow the lead of the Labour party in proposing constitutional changes that would lead to the break-up of this United Kingdom and provide the perfect scenario for our component countries to be nothing more than provinces in a federal Europe?

The shadow Foreign Secretary seems to think that we are heading for a Europe of the regions. I strongly disagree with that view. I believe that the United Kingdom is at its strongest while it remains united and I fear that the policies proposed by the Opposition parties—to be fair, not merely the Labour party but the Liberal Democrats as well—would lead to Scotland leaving the UK. Were that to happen, it would damage not only Scotland, but each of the other parts of the United Kingdom as well. It is a policy that should be opposed and we will oppose it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January. [11401]

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

Does the Prime Minister recall his pledge, which was apparently reiterated by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, to phase out mixed-sex wards? What condolences will he give to my constituents who have found that the Bradford Hospitals NHS trust has reopened and created two mixed-sex wards in the past month?

If the hon. Gentleman recalls, it was this Government who, in 1995, gave patients the right to be told before admission if it was planned that they would be cared for in a mixed-sex ward. The Labour party did not seem to bother about that at all when in office. We decided to take action. We are monitoring the process. The health authorities will report back by the end of next month with individual timetable plans for separating male and female patients—timetable plans for action that the Opposition ignored for years.

On the vote last night on grant-maintained schools, does my right hon. Friend recall the remarks of the Labour education spokesman, who said:

"I am having no truck with left-wing, middle-class parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area"?

I cannot imagine about whom the shadow education spokesman was speaking, but I gather that there was a miscount last night and the Government were not defeated in that Division. No doubt the usual channels are sorting out the position now. What is important is not Labour's student union ambush of last night, but what it shows about Labour party policy, which is that Labour Members will enjoy choice and opportunity for themselves, but will come together as an act of policy and vote against it for people who happen not to be Labour Members of Parliament.

Instead of spending public money on building the proposed royal yacht, will the Prime Minister consider using that money to kick-start the shipyards of this country so that our shipyard workers can get back to work to build ships in which our unemployed merchant seamen can sail?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the decision, because the yacht will be built in a British shipyard.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of being able to see league tables is greatly popular with parents? What significance does he give to the fact that the National Association of Head Teachers recently launched a major test case to try to ensure that parents would not have that right? What significance should be attached to the fact that the barrister who vigorously prosecuted that case was the wife of the Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.]

Order. The House will come to order.

The important element is the official policy of the Opposition, which has been to oppose greater information for parents and league tables—to oppose each and every one of the reforms that we have produced to give children and parents better choices and parents information about schools. We believe that parents should have information about schools; the Opposition policy is that they should not.

To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the highlands and islands. [11403]

I have at present no plans to do so.

That being the case, may I invite the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to explain to local people a glaring inconsistency that emerged over the weekend and that they have difficulty comprehending? Why is it that, on a £60 million contract, public money is ruled in and private finance is completely ruled out; yet, on a contract of half that value and one that is fundamental to the interests of the people of the west coast of the highlands, the Isle of Skye and, indeed, the Western Isles constituency, which is one of the lowest-income parts of the country, the public sector is completely ruled out, private finance imposed and people now face the highest toll bridge charges, not only in Europe but probably in the world, for a future generation?

The reality is that tolls on the Skye bridge are going to be no higher than ferry fares in 1995. Without the private finance initiative project, Skye would not have had the bridge for another 20 years. I note that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to using private finance. I hope that, in all the constituencies up and down the country where private finance is providing better facilities, it will be clear that the Liberal Democrats oppose those projects.