To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce discrimination against couples in the benefit system. [15737]

We intend to bring the benefits for new lone parents and couples with children more into line. From April 1998, new lone parents will receive the same rate of family premium and child benefit as do married couples with children. Existing claimants will continue to receive the current higher rates of cash benefit, but those rates will not be increased in April 1997. As well as being a more even-handed system, this will save around £0.5 billion a year.

As my right hon. Friend has confirmed, if his plan for a fairer family benefit system is brought in, it will save £500 million in the long term. If it is not implemented, will that not mean that public expenditure will have to be increased by £500 million or that the benefits of pensioners and disabled people will have to be cut? Has my right hon. Friend had any representations from the Labour party, which believes in what is called a fixed social security budget and which has opposed the reforms all the way through, to find out what benefits it intends to cut?

My hon. Friend makes a telling point, and the answer is that I am afraid that I have received no reply to the repeated letters that I have sent to the Opposition spokesman to find out what the Labour party intends to replace those savings with, should it, alas, find itself in power. Labour Members have said that they will stick to the departmental budgets laid down by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for the Treasury. If they are to forgo £500 million from those savings and spend more money on benefits for lone parents, they must, by definition, take it from other groups—families, single people without children, pensioners or the disabled.

What has the Secretary of State to say about the shocking fact that, for one in five couples of working age, neither partner is in work? Is that not because the Government have vastly increased the number of households on means-tested benefits while holding down earnings disregards? Is not the perversity of the Government's policy that, when one partner loses a job, it makes sense for the other to give up work?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to welcome the decline by some 300,000 in the number of households in the position that he describes. I am sure that he does not wish to give universally benefits to the non-working partner in a household, regardless of the income of the person in work, because he knows full well that that would be prohibitively expensive. He certainly knows that Labour Front Benchers cannot commit themselves to anything like that because they have accepted our spending totals. It is all very well for Labour Back Benchers to demand more money; they should speak to their Front Benchers, who say that our spending totals are exactly right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that married couples will welcome those reforms because not only are the reforms fairer to married couples, but they have felt discriminated against in recent years because they have been paying tax out of their pockets to support lone parents? Do not the reforms also pass a clear message that we want to encourage young people to have family relationships in which they are committed to each other and stay together for the sake of their children?

My hon. Friend is right. There can be no basis in the long term for a less generous benefit system for married couples than exists for lone parents. I welcome the comments of the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee that, if we seize this nettle, it should be supported by the Opposition. I have not noticed that it is being supported by the Opposition as yet.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, for lone mothers, the most important thing is not to depend on benefits paid by other families but to get off benefits and into work? Having cut lone mothers' benefits and abused lone mothers at the Tory party conference with his little list, why has he now given lone mothers a little leaflet? Although it cost £750,000, the leaflet tells lone mothers nothing about jobs, child care or training; it tells them only about how to get more leaflets about more benefits. Will he acknowledge that his policy of saying to lone mothers, "Here is your income support; come back when your youngest child is 16," has left 1 million mothers on income support, 2 million children on the breadline and a £10 billion bill for the taxpayer? Why does not he take up Labour's welfare-to-work proposals and invite lone mothers into the jobcentre for help and advice?

The House will notice that the hon. Lady has not chosen to inform us where she will get the £500 million that she wants to spend on higher benefits for new lone parents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for far too long, the benefit system has discriminated in favour of lone parents as opposed to married couples and that it is a long-overdue reform that married couples should now receive the same as lone parents? Has he received representations from the Labour party to the effect that it is prepared to pay lone parents another £20 a week on top of what they currently receive, and what would that cost?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He may be unconsciously echoing almost exactly the words of the only Opposition Member who has made similar points—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who used very similar words. I understand that the Opposition now propose to allow a maintenance disregard, which effectively will give an advantage of up to £20 a week to lone parents who receive maintenance from the absent father as a result of our efforts, so it will be a disincentive for them to return to work. That must militate in exactly the opposite direction to that which the Labour spokesman advocated a few moments ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) of 5 February, Official Report, columns 637–38, if he will uprate pensions in line with earnings. [15738]

No. If the basic pension had been increased by the higher of earnings or prices since 1980, the total extra burden on the taxpayer would be £8.6 billion in 1997–98.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the pledge given in the 1979 election campaign that the Conservatives would increase pensions along with the prosperity of the country? In every one of the past 18 years they have cheated on that promise. Pensions will be £62.45 in April; they should be £82.60. Is it not true that, throughout those years, the Conservatives have never honoured that promise, and is it not the case that we cannot trust the Tories on pensions? Will the hon. Gentleman answer without blaming the last Labour Government or the next Labour Government?

The last time that the hon. Gentleman asked me about that subject, I costed his proposals at £65 billion by 2030, but, if one takes into account his proposals for income support, that figure is too low—the cumulative figure would be more than £100 billion by then. He might like to ask his Front-Bench team where the cuts would fall to pay for his proposals. However, the Conservative Government have maintained the value of the basic state pension, encouraged private provision and given extra help to those most in need, and average pensioner incomes have increased by 60 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the last time that pensions were uprated with earnings was under the last Labour Government? That was a time when the increase in earnings was less than the rate of inflation, so the population generally were less well off in real terms. The then Government wanted the pensioners to share with the general public being less well off in real terms. It saved money for the Exchequer. The Labour Government did that, not because they believed in it, but because they were required to do so by the International Monetary Fund.

Under this Government, average incomes have gone up by as much each year as they did during the whole period of the last Labour Government. One has only to examine Labour's proposal to equalise the state pension age at 60, with a reduced pension of £40 a week, to see that that would spell disaster for those who later required income support and were refused it. Labour has always meant difficulties and poverty for pensioners, and it still would with its current policies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the state retirement pension. [15739]

The basic pension is the cornerstone of income in retirement. We remain committed to protecting the value of state pensions, and they will be increased in line with prices from April at a gross cost of £730 million.

Bearing in mind that pensioners' incomes have risen 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979, will my right hon. Friend advise pensioners to beware of the Opposition's policies, which would undermine savings by allowing inflation to rise, tax private pension funds that had invested in the privatised utilities, and fail to match the Conservative record of uprating each year the state retirement pension by at least as much as price inflation?

My hon. Friend can be reassured. We will give such warnings loud and clear to all the pensioners in this country. What she says is correct. The utilities tax would bear heavily on the pension funds that pay the pensions of retired people. She is right, too, to warn of the past failure and possible future failure of Labour Governments to uprate the basic pension. They did not do so properly in 1976, and it cost pensioners then £1 billion. Pensioners should be warned that the shadow Chancellor recently said:

"there cannot be an assumption that totals will be automatically adjusted upwards in the event of changes in inflation."

Will the Secretary of State condemn every Tory candidate who claims that Labour would cut the basic state pension by £20 a week? Will he condemn that concerted lie campaign, which is designed to create alarm and fear among elderly people, or does he support that disgraceful campaign—yes or no?

I happen to have with me a copy of a letter from the shadow spokesman for social security, which she wrote to me spontaneously. It states:

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

"We would seek the advice of the Government Actuary."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I took advice from an expert on pensions—my mother? She is 85 years of age and has just moved up to Lichfield. She first went on the state pension in 1972. She tells me that the worst time for pensions was in 1975 and 1976, when inflation was running at 25 per cent. and the Government cut the Christmas bonus. Can my right hon. Friend tell me which party was in power at that time?

I can certainly remind my hon. Friend—I am sure that his expert mother has reminded him, too—that it was the Labour party which failed to uprate basic pensions at that time, which cost pensioners £1 billion and which is now warning us that, in order to keep within the totals that we have established for Departments, it will not necessarily adjust those totals upwards, in line with inflation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent assessment his Department has made of the operation of the habitual residence test. [15740]

Our monitoring of the habitual residence test confirms that it is succeeding in its primary purpose of narrowing access to benefit for people who have little or no recent commitment to the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister agree that there are continuing problems with the operation of the test, not least with the inconsistent way that it is being applied by different offices? First, does he agree that benefits offices should be encouraged to work as closely as possible with advice agencies to ensure that people attending habitual residence interviews are well informed beforehand as to what they will be asked and how the questions will be presented? Secondly, has the Minister considered the possibility of helping to provide interpreters when interviewees do not speak good English?

I am happy to say yes to both the hon. Gentleman's questions. As to the first, the welfare action rights group in his area of Newham regularly meets the local Benefits Agency representatives to discuss those matters. We are aware of questions about whether the scheme is operating equally in different districts, and that matter has been examined.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of taxpayers find it repugnant that individuals think that they can come to this country, present themselves at a social security office, and receive a cheque that is paid for by the British taxpayers, when those individuals have had no connection with this country for many years?

My hon. Friend is right. We face some difficulty because European Union nationals are entitled to come to this country and, as a matter of legal entitlement before we introduced the habitual residence test, receive the full range of income-related benefits. We introduced the test because it is the one thing that we are allowed to do under European law, and it is embodied in one of the earliest European Union directives, 408/71.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners claim the income support to which they are entitled. [15741]

The Department and its agencies take extensive action to publicise income support and other benefits that pensioners may choose to claim. Help is there for those who need it.

Clearly, the extensive action that the Minister talks about is completely inadequate. Will he confirm that 1 million pensioners are £14 a week worse off because they do not claim their full entitlement? What effective measures do the Government intend to take in order to deliver their fair and full entitlement to those people who have contributed to this country throughout their lifetime?

A range of effective action can be, and is being, taken. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the campaign that the Benefits Agency ran in January and the document entitled "Pensions and Benefits: a guide for older people". Publicity in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Cardiff includes weekly benefit sessions at one of the community centres, fortnightly benefit advice at one of the hospitals and monthly benefit advice at another. Regular benefit talks are given to community groups and information appears in the local newspaper, of which I have some copies.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that he has received no workable proposals for identifying additional pensioners who are entitled to income support beyond the measures that the Government are taking already? Will he confirm also that, even if it were possible, paying income support to an extra 700,000 pensioners would cost more than £1 billion? Has he received any representations from the Labour party about what other benefits it would cut by £1 billion in order to remain within a fixed budget?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is often forgotten that more than 1.5 million pensioners already claim some £25 billion. My hon. Friend is correct to say that I have received no workable proposals from Opposition Members regarding a campaign.

What about the fraud Bill?

That was not workable. Proposals that use the Inland Revenue, which does not have information on savings, for example, will not do the job. Benefits campaigns must be targeted and, in the absence of any workable proposals, Opposition Members are left spouting empty words and offering no sensible ideas about how to bring more people into benefit.

The Minister's response provides a chilling example of how callously indifferent Ministers are to the plight of Britain's pensioners. Is he not seriously embarrassed that 1 million pensioners in Britain—10 per cent. of the total number of pensioners, or 1,500 pensioners in every constituency—live not on the breadline but below it? Does he not appreciate that that is a blight on Britain's pensioners, who have given so much and are receiving so little from the Government? Will he acknowledge that, in a few weeks' time, a Labour Government will reduce VAT on fuel, provide better health care and start to attack the scandal of Britain in 1997 having 1 million pensioners who are not getting what they are entitled to?

The hon. Gentleman is long on rhetoric but short on any practical proposals. I certainly deny the last part of his claims. Pensioners do not claim for a variety of reasons. It is wrong to suggest that all pensioners who do not claim income support are living below poverty levels; many live with families and enjoy the family life style.

Surely the Labour party is the same party that, a few moments ago, was complaining about information leaflets being sent to single mothers. Were not the Government criticised roundly for television campaigns and for the money that was spent on advertising to tell people about their benefits? Is it not the responsibility of individuals to find out what is available to them and for the Government to do their best, as they do in the clear leaflets that are provided in all social security offices, to get that information to them?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The departmental budget for publicity over the current three-year period is about £84 million. He is right. The Labour party cannot have it both ways: criticising the leaflets and not accepting that we have to get information across to people if benefits provision is to be sensible and good.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of denial of benefits on asylum seekers and their families awaiting (a) a decision or (b) the result of an appeal. [15743]

The changes that we introduced last year are reducing financial incentives for illegal immigrants and over-stayers to claim asylum.

Were not the Government humbled and shamed by the Court of Appeal decision on 17 February that asylum seekers should be entitled to food and shelter, not starved as the Government wanted? Were not the Government cruel and wrong to make families, especially children, destitute while the asylum seeker was awaiting his or her appeal to be heard? Will the Government accept that judgment, fully compensate local authorities and now act humanely and responsibly?

The answer is simply no. As far as the Collins judgment is concerned, the courts have disturbed a construction of the National Assistance Act 1948 which has stood and been worked on for nearly half a century. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be pursuing that matter further in the courts.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, from the beginning, it was known that the changes to the benefit rules would have some impact on councils and charities and that councils would in the end be compensated for that? Will not most people think it reasonable and, indeed, justified that those people who came to this country on the basis that they would not be a burden on the state, who would not be able to claim benefits, should continue in that position and not suddenly change their minds and become a burden on the British state?

My hon. Friend is right. The three groups that are directly affected by those measures are, first, illegal immigrants; secondly, people who have entered this country saying that they are visitors, business men or students and have means to support themselves; and, thirdly, those who have sought asylum and have had an unfavourable decision from the independent adjudicating authorities, which have said that they are not refugees.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria are used by the CSA to decide which parent has care of the children when parents have separated but are still living in the same house with their children. [15744]

The Child Support Agency can take on a case only where the parents genuinely maintain separate households. The "parent with care" is the parent who cares for a child for the greater number of nights or, if neither parent satisfies that criterion, the parent who receives child benefit for the child.

Does not that lead to unfairness in some cases? For example, one of my constituents owns the house in which his ex-wife still lives rent-free. He pays for the housing costs and most of the clothing and food costs of his children. He is not even allowed to claim shared care, on the grounds that there is no date on which the children leave the home in which the mother lives to move to the home in which the father lives. Of course there is not, because they live in the same home the whole time.

I have looked at the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises. His constituents share a house, but they say that they maintain separate households, and they disagree on the amount of shared care under consideration. During the period in question, the hon. Gentleman's constituent was abroad for six months, so it is difficult to see how he can have had shared care in that time. If the circumstances change, he can appeal. He has already made an appeal, and it will be heard in due course. It seems to me that the agency has handled that specific case correctly.

Would my hon. and filial Friend look into the case of my constituent Mr. Flint? He remarried, had twins, received a pay increase of £31 a month and, on reassessment by the CSA, had his maintenance payments increased by £41 a month. Would my hon. and filial Friend investigate that case further and see what he can do to put it right?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of that question. He sets a good example to the House for diligent representation of one's constituents. I shall look into the case, but although his constituent has recently had the happy arrival of twins, he has also had a significant pay rise of 20 per cent.

I am sure that the last two hon. Gentlemen who spoke have benefited from effective child maintenance policies during their lives. On a more serious note, will the Minister confirm that, all these years after the Child Support Act 1991, the great majority of lone mothers and their children receive no child maintenance? Does he accept that, in the absence of an effective and acceptable child maintenance policy, complemented by a welfare-to-work strategy, most lone mothers and their children are trapped in a dependency state on income support? Does he agree that that is bad news for the taxpayer, bad news for the mothers, and, most important, tragic for the children?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. He is wrong to say that most parents and children do not receive maintenance. Recent published figures show that 78 per cent. of the mothers who have come within the remit of the CSA receive maintenance in part or in full.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the availability of child care for lone parents. [15745]

The Government have taken, and are taking, effective steps to help those who need child care in order to work.

Will the Minister tell us at last why lone parents in Britain are the most dependent on benefits, and the least likely to work, in the whole of Europe? Is he not concerned about the fact that that is costing the taxpayer more than £10 billion a year, and that the figure is rising? Is there not an urgent need for a national child care strategy?

The Government have made a good many changes specifically to help with child care costs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the workings of family credit, and will know that the child care disregard was recently increased from £40 to £60. He should also know that, since 1993, the Department for Education and Employment has provided start-up grants which have generated more than 72,000 out-of-school child care places, and that, in his recent Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put £24 million on the table for further out-of-school places. We have invested £64 million in that scheme.

A typical lone parent is a woman bringing up children, but is my hon. Friend aware that I have been corresponding with his Department about a different classification—men who are widowers, and have the dual problem of trying to do their jobs and bring up their children at the same time? Will my hon. Friend take full account of widowers' interests in shaping Government support measures?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As he implied, some 5 per cent. of lone parents are men. I shall bear in mind what he has said.

I welcome the steps that the Government have taken, but Ministers will know that children under 16 should not be left unattended. At times, that is very difficult for mothers who are alone—not necessarily because they are single parents but for other reasons: for instance, their husbands may be serving abroad. Have the Government taken account of that clash between the law and pressures on mothers bringing up children? Those mothers need more family credit.

The Government recognise the tension to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In such circumstances, they consider it right for a mother to choose whether to work or to remain on benefit. They also point out, however, that the way out of benefit and towards independence is returning to work. It is not good for a child to see the state as the sole breadwinner: it is important for the parent also to be seen as the breadwinner.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Government are taking to prevent discrimination against disabled persons. [15746]

The Government introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to spearhead the fight to prevent discrimination against disabled people. On 2 December, we implemented new rights for disabled people in employment, and in accessing goods and services. The Act is essential if disabled people are to live their lives fully and independently.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. How are the Government helping the National Disability Council in its task of monitoring the Act?

We fund the National Disability Council—which is charged to deliver advice, either on our invitation or on its own initiative—for all aspects of monitoring anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom.

The Minister said in the debate on health yesterday that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was the flagship of Government policy on disabled people. If that is the case, why cannot it be used to force building societies such as the Halifax to give share options to the second named account holder, most of whom are disabled people? If the Act cannot be used in that way, surely he must agree that his flagship is missing at least a couple of masts.

The hon. Lady will probably be aware that there is a dispute of opinion about whether the action by the building societies contravenes the Act. I believe that someone is preparing to test it because the Act does prevent discrimination against disabled people and it may yet cover that situation. However, to avoid doubt, I think that the House would welcome the action taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who has introduced the Building Societies (Distributions) Bill, which will ensure that this problem does not happen in future. We have been delighted to give support and encouragement to his work.

Is the Minister aware that some 43,000 women in the United Kingdom are discriminated against because, when they reach the age of 60, their incapacity benefit is discontinued, whereas if they were male it would continue until the age of 65? Does he know that, during an Adjournment debate last week, I had the privilege of debating that point and his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, told me, "Yes, it is discrimination, but don't worry: the Government will put it right in 2020."?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has it right. This is covered by the Graham case, which has been taken to the European Court of Justice. Our policies have been found not to be discriminatory in the way that he describes. This has been fully tested by the court and the British Government's position has been upheld.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the provision of information on the child benefit register to other Government Departments and local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [15747]

Although no representations have been received by my right hon. Friend, I know that a variety of uses have been suggested for the child benefit database, for example as part of efforts to combat truancy.

Following the tragic disappearance and death of young Tommy Oakes in Bolton, will the Minister consider allowing local authorities access to the child benefit register to try to trace a missing youngster, and does not Bolton's new pupil attendance register allow child benefit to be linked to school attendance?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a particular interest in the case of Tommy Oakes, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, has taken an interest in the Bolton scheme to set up a register of school attendance, but it is too early to evaluate that scheme fully. The French scheme, which the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has also raised with me, has been rarely enforced. The Benefits Agency co-operates with social services in cases involving children who are at risk, but child benefit data are sensitive and data protection has to be considered.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that children between the ages of 16 and 18 would lose all chance of being on the child benefit register if benefit were taken away from them, as Labour proposes to do?

It is, I suppose, a particularly stupid idea to impose on parents of 16 to 18-year-olds a tax that means that they cannot support their children through the difficult years when their children are training. For Labour—which talks so often of training—to suggest that is particularly stupid. I know that my hon. Friend has made that point on a number of occasions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of lone parents who will be eligible for the parent plus scheme. [15748]

The parent plus scheme is a key part of our strategy to reduce benefit dependency by encouraging lone parents to support themselves and their families through work. We estimate that the scheme will offer advice and help to up to 100,000 lone parents on income support who wish to return to work.

Where have the Government been for the past 17 years? A dependency culture has grown over those 17 years, year on year, and ever more young lone mothers depend on low benefits. Those young mothers want an opportunity culture, not a dependency culture. It is too late for this Government, but the new Labour Government will introduce opportunity, not dependency, for those mothers.

We have been here: introducing family credit to help lone parents back into work; extending aid to provide a child care disregard to help lone parents back into work; and introducing parent plus to help lone parents back into work. The Leader of the Opposition—who has just entered the Chamber—goes off to Amsterdam to announce Labour's policy to help lone parents back into work, as well he might. The second plank of his plan was that he

"would relax the 16 hour rule for lone parents under 25 and without qualifications."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15767]

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 the Prime Minister join me in condemning the Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers who queued up yesterday to denigrate the reputation and character of the former Prime Minister and Father of the House? Does he agree that such attempts to vilify the Father of the House do great damage generally to the democratic process and particularly to the reputation of the Prime Minister and his Ministers?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has had a long and distinguished career. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We admire him and are fond of him.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15768]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of British Rail has been a great success story—so successful that it has confounded its critics? Is he aware that many of my constituents would like the same principles to be applied to London Underground, particularly if the proceeds were ploughed back into further investment?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement on that matter very shortly. The plans that he will announce will give London the world-class underground network that we wish it to have. We will expect standards and investment to rise while prices do not.

Most people remember who has been in charge of London Underground for 18 years. May I lead on from the question to the Prime Minister asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby)? The Transport Secretary has said that any proceeds from selling London Underground will go back into transport investment. This morning, however, the Chancellor said that he is relying on at least some of those proceeds as greatly benefiting the Exchequer to pay off Government borrowing. Who is right?

If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement that will answer all the questions that he and his hon. Friends are likely to ask about the proposed future of London Underground, but I shall not anticipate his statement.

I am not asking the Prime Minister to anticipate the statement—

You are.

Order.

I am asking him to comment on the Chancellor's remarks this morning. The Chancellor said that some of the proceeds would be used to pay off the national debt, which he has doubled. Is that correct? If all the proceeds do not go back into transport, what will happen if they do not cover the investment requirement? Will the customer pay more, will the public pay more or will the service be cut? I think that the Prime Minister should tell us.

The right hon. Gentleman will be told in detail and at length by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in just a few moments. The privatisation of any industry is always a complex matter. It deserves to be set out clearly, comprehensively and at length, which my right hon. Friend will do shortly.

I assume that the Transport Secretary will tell us the precise percentage of money that will be reinvested in transport. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout, but is not London Underground worth £7 billion to £13 billion, and do not many people fear that, once again, a key public service will be sold off at a fraction of its true value so that a few people can make a vastly inflated profit with no guarantee of a proper service for the future?

The answer to each of the right hon. Gentleman's questions is no. He is wrong on almost every point, as will become clear in a few moments. I find it extraordinary that the only two places in the world where privatisation is reviled and state ownership preferred are the Labour party and North Korea. No wonder the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) called the right hon. Gentleman the Kim Il Sung of the Labour party.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not the least of the advantages of the privatisation of London Underground would be the substantial capital receipts that could be reinvested in the system? How could any Government who voluntarily chose to deny themselves that capital receipt make good that funding other than through a substantial increase in public expenditure and the taxation necessary to raise it?

My hon. Friend is correct, of course. I find it odd that the Labour party criticises the level of investment in London Underground when the shadow Chancellor is committed lock, stock and barrel to every penny of my right hon. and learned Friend's spending plans, except that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has a £12 billion black hole in his plans, as he has failed to understand ours.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15769]

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

May I return the Prime Minister to what is clearly a central contradiction in his programme for the general election—the statement by a former Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir."] Forgive me, Madam Speaker. Sir Edward Heath—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—a former Prime Minister, who said that he agreed with the Labour party. He said that we were right on the social chapter, the national minimum wage and devolution. He agrees with us. Who is now standing up for the tradition of the Conservative party? Is it the Father of the House, a former Prime Minister, or is it the current Prime Minister, who has been manipulated by a bunch of extremists on his Back Benches?

The hon. Gentleman sits beside a bunch of people whom I would never consider calling extremists, but who hold almost every possible view on Europe and every other issue, so I find his question distinctly rum. It deserves to be ignored, which I shall do.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow, Her Majesty the Queen, in the presence of the President of Israel, will unveil a monument to Raul Wallenberg—a man whose bravery is an example to us all? Will my right hon. Friend also support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to find out exactly what happened to Raul Wallenberg 50 years ago?

I think that everyone will happily support my hon. Friend's request. The unveiling of the statue tomorrow is a welcome development and a just recognition of a great man who saved many lives during the last world war.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15770]

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

Lady Thatcher said back in 1974 that the establishment of a Scottish Assembly was a top priority. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has now confirmed that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament poses no danger to the integrity of the United Kingdom. Can the Prime Minister remember the last time his two predecessors agreed with each other about anything? How has he got himself into a position in which he appears to disagree with both of them?

rose—

Wait for it. Is the Prime Minister sure that Britain's fossilised constitution is the securest ground to choose for Major's last stand?

It really was not worth waiting for, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman. He is trying to pick out what my noble Friend Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said 20 years ago. What the leader of the Labour party said in 1983 is contradicted today by the leader of the Labour party in every particular. The proposals of 20 years ago that the hon. Gentleman referred to were not comparable with the tax-raising monstrosity proposed by the Labour party today.

My right hon. Friend will need no reminding that any objective assessment of economic trends in Europe shows that Britain is now winning. Does he share the bewilderment of a number of foreign commentators, who cannot understand the logic of saying that it is time for a change? "Does that mean that you want to be losers?" they wonder. Will my right hon. Friend use every effort to make sure that that weird logic is not accepted by the British people?

I certainly undertake to do as my hon. Friend recommends. The economic criteria right the way down the board—growth, investment or the fall in unemployment—make it patently obvious to those who wish to examine the figures for a moment that the United Kingdom is out-performing most of its comparable continental rivals. That is because of the policies that we have followed. The policies that they have followed, which have led them into greater difficulty, are the policies advocated by the Opposition parties.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15771]

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

The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) referred to the alleged success of railway privatisation, whereby £19 billion of public assets went under the hammer for less than £2 billion. Is it not a disgrace that £13 billion of assets resting in London Underground could be sold off in a fire sale for less than £600 million?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, waits for the statement that will follow in a few moments.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman produces all sorts of disparaging gestures. The interesting fact about the new Labour party is that it does not wish to know the arguments and it does not wish to know the facts; it just wants to parade the soundbites and prejudice invented by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the commitment—which became a promise, which became a pledge, which then became a withdrawal—by the Liberal Democrats to scrap the Christmas bonus in favour of an extra week's income? Does he agree that the best thing for pensioners, especially those in the south-west, is lower bills, which means no windfall levy on South West Water, whose customers are already paying far too much for their water?

I entirely agree that a windfall tax would undoubtedly add to the cost of fuel, water and other utilities—how much, of course, we do not know, because the shadow Chancellor either does not know what his plans really are or cannot say. It was very unkind of my hon. Friend to draw attention to the consistency of the Liberal Democrats concerning the retired.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15772]

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

What discussions does the Prime Minister intend to have with Governments of other nations to ensure that there are adequate international controls over the cloning of animals and other life forms?

My right hon. Friend is examining what discussions may be appropriate.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

"An injured person should not have the same need met twice over. He should get benefit at once without prejudice to any alternative remedy, but if the remedy proves in fact to be available he should not in the end get more from two sources together than he would have got from one alone."

"inquire into the policy and practice of the compensation recovery unit, and the legislation on which it is based".

"it was right for the Government to shift the advantage of recovery to the taxpayer who lost out to the insurer under the pre-1990 scheme."

"the taxpayer should not be in the business of paying benefit for compensating individuals who have suffered injury or disease for which the courts would hold someone else responsible".

"We cannot accept that the general taxpayer should be reimbursed out of damages awarded for an individual's pain and suffering."

"it was right for the Government to shift the advantage of recovery to the taxpayer who lost out to the insurer under the pre-1990 scheme."

Hear, hear.

I do not often get that sort of response from the Opposition Benches, but I welcome it. I had a helpful meeting with John Monks of the TUC. I hope that he, too, found it fruitful.

The Bill was introduced in another place and was the subject of thorough discussion there for more than seven hours. I pay tribute to our noble Friends for their effort in scrutinising the Bill. Important issues were raised and questions answered, so I do not need to go through them again. I shall merely point out that the matters considered included the relevant period for the recovery of benefit, issues of certificates of recoverable benefit, heads of compensation and appeal.