To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will further review the arrangements for the payments of benefits.

My Department has made significant progress in modernising and streamlining the delivery of benefits. For instance, clearance times for most major benefits have been reduced by nearly a third in the two years since the creation of the Benefits Agency. The Benefits Agency has published proposals on moving towards a one-stop service so that each claimant can obtain a comprehensive service covering all benefits from one point of contact.

Will the Secretary of State tell me how I am now to reply to the cries of concern and anguish being expressed by my constituents in West Cumbria and throughout the north-west region over the prospects of cuts and revisions in invalidity benefit, in housing benefit and in sickness benefit, which can only generate even greater insecurity in families who already live on the breadline? Does the Secretary of State understand that people throughout the country are deeply concerned about what is happening in his Department'?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman responds in two ways. First, he should speak to his Front-Bench spokesman who has been deliberately scaremongering. Secondly, he should refer his constituents to the exchange between myself and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 19 May, when I asked him to name a single scare that he had run in the whole of the past year which had come true. He failed to do so because he could not do so. He is a scaremongerer. We are in the business of improving the benefit system—that is what our long-term review is designed to achieve.

In my right hon. Friend's proper concern to ensure that benefits are provided both cost effectively and in a manner convenient to clients, will he, with colleagues in other Departments, look again constructively and sympathetically at the case for allowing local authority social services departments to make cash payments directly to severely disabled people to enable them, when they wish to do so, to make their own arrangements for personal and domestic assistance?

I recognise the important part that my hon. Friend has played in this question. He was concerned to ensure that there was a cash element and we did achieve a cash element in the disability living allowance. My hon. Friend would like it to go further. We were not able to make it possible for local authorities to give cash grants —indeed, they do not have the legal power to do so. However, I will keep the matter under continuous review. I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's point.

The fears of claimants throughout the country, not only in the north-west, are about the level of benefits. They are especially concerned following the imposition of VAT on fuel. Since the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that pensioners will be more than compensated—I repeat, more than compensated—for the imposition of VAT on fuel, will the right hon. Gentleman allay the fears of millions of pensioners, both those on benefit levels and those just above, and tell us today exactly what that compensation will be?

I have made it clear that I shall be announcing in the normal way—in the uprating statement in November—the arrangements that we propose to make to give extra help to the most vulnerable groups. That is over and above the automatic reflection of the increase in the cost of living that comes through in all benefits in the subsequent November. We will have extra help in the pockets of people in the most vulnerable groups at the time when the increased cost comes through.

My right hon. Friend made it quite clear in that interview that he had referred to the additional money that we have already put in people's pockets from April this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "More than compensated."] Oh, he did. He referred to the change in arrangements that means that no one will have to pay a penny of council tax. For the most vulnerable groups, that is worth £2·90 a week.

In reviewing the arrangements for paying benefits, will my right hon. Friend look again at the arrangements for so-called new age travellers? It seems that those people can still claim benefit. They are clearly not available for work; they are an absolute scourge on the south-west of England; and they are taking up a lot of police time in our constituencies.

I understand the great concern that is felt both by hon. Members and by people at large at any thought that people who are not entitled to benefit are ripping off the system—whether they are new age travellers or not. My hon. Friend will remember the changes that I made last year, which meant that people who are not actively seeking work and make no pretence of doing so will not be entitled to even the hardship rate of income support. I am pleased to say that during one large gathering—called a rave, I believe—at which several thousand of these gentlemen and ladies were present, only 100 people made any request for benefit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he expects to pay in 1993–94 in compensation for late payments of benefits under the new compensation arrangements announced on 4 May.

The revised compensation scheme significantly improves the arrangements that have been in place since 1977. It is not possible to predict how much will be paid in 1993–94. However, we expect some 80,000 to 90,000 people to benefit from the special scheme for disability living allowance customers, at a cost of around £3 million.

I am grateful to the Minister for the statement that he made. Does he not accept, however, that much more important than compensation for late payment is prompt payment of benefit to which people are ordinarily entitled? In that context, will he tell us what is the review procedure for ensuring that the backlog is reduced, what rights people have to enable them to deal with maladministration resulting in benefit delays of the sort with which his statement of 4 May was intended to deal and, above all, how organisations such as the Drink Crisis Centre in my constituency—which is owed more than £50,000 by the Benefits Agency—can expect to be able to secure prompt payment so that people suffering hardship today, rather than in the future, can be compensated at the time at which they are meant to be paid?

If the hon. Gentleman has a look at what is being achieved by the Benefits Agency in the delivery of benefits, he will find that there have been substantial improvements. For example, income support, in respect of which we set a target of five days, is now being delivered in 3·5 days on average and social fund decisions, which were being made within seven days, are now made within 4·3 days. That improvement in performance is reflected across the board.

There is a specific question about DLA later and I prefer to deal with that subject then.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Benefits Agency is doing to try to speed up the payment of disability living allowance?

Yes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency announced some months ago the specific actions, which included an increase in the number of staff, the establishment of remote processing units and the working of overtime. Those measures have delivered: virtually the whole backlog of DLA claims has now been cleared and the benefit is being delivered ahead of the targets that we have set.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the objectives of the system should be to ensure that unnecessary fears are not placed in the minds of recipients of benefits? In that context, does he further accept that there is a great deal of fear among old-age pensioners—fear that has been generated not by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by the interpretation placed on the future intentions of Ministers by organisations representing post offices and by the popular press? In the light of the words of the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm undertaking that no changes will be made in the present system under which old-age pensioners and others can receive their benefits through sub-post offices?

I cannot do better than to reflect the remarks of my right hon. Friend not a few months ago but a few moments ago, which was that our aim is to secure an improvement in the present system of social security, including the delivery of benefits to those who are entitled to them. We regret as much as anyone the scaremongering that takes place among Opposition Members.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the aims and objectives of the social security system.

Our aim is to ensure that people have the means to cope with the main risks and needs that they face during their lives from their own or their employers' provision, from contributory benefits or from the state safety net.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that the overriding priority of the social security system must be to provide help for the genuinely less well off? Will he confirm whether he has seen suggestions that have been floating around for using the tax system to claw back universal benefits and for the possibility of ending the universal provision of 'child benefit? Given that those proposals are being put about by the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, does not he think that it is time that the Labour party stopped shedding crocodile tears and spreading scare stories and came clean about what benefits Labour would tax and what benefits it would cut?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that the focus of our benefit system is increasingly on those in greatest need and about getting the Opposition to come clean about their proposals. The Labour party spokesman is present so perhaps he can comment on the proposal of his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that we should merge the tax and benefits systems. That can only mean means testing every universal benefit. Is that not what it means? Is that Labour policy or can the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscaden (Mr. Dewar) explain it?

May I first observe the niceties and courtesies of the House by welcoming the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to the Government Front Bench? I doubt whether he will be able to fill in full technicolour the role played by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), but we will all watch with interest the development of someone whom the Yorkshire Post described as

"Just William: the schoolboy sensation becomes a Government Minister."

With regard to the question, is it the Secretary of State's view that reflecting and questioning the expressed views of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury amounts to scaremongering? If he is concerned about the fears that are undoubtedly arising from the present review, would it not be sensible for him to trim off now some of the more damaging examples? For example, will he rule out the taxation of invalidity benefit and any changes in eligibility designed to exclude people who are genuinely struggling with ill health? Will he make it clear now that the housing costs of the poor will not be unreasonably increased by mean-minded changes in housing benefit?

Does not he recognise that the fears of those struggling to make ends meet on limited incomes are greatly increased by the failure of the Secretary of State and his like to slam the door on schemes that would spell disaster for some of the most vulnerable in our community? He is in government. He has the power to legislate. I think that he should clear up the situation.

I can respond very frankly to that. I can whole-heartedly and unequivocally assure the hon. Gentleman that none of the changes from our long-term review will make vulnerable people worse off or, in the hon. Gentleman's words, will be unreasonable. However, I do not expect that in any way to influence his campaign of scaremongering or that of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who, on 29 October, released some documents allegedly from my Department which, he said, showed that it was

"the poorest, weakest and frailest who have been targeted to pay the price"—

blah, blah, blah—

"in the coming PES round."

He was wrong, but what has he done? He leaked exactly the same documents last week and made different assertions about what they indicate—never knowingly underleaked.

In view of the disaster that overwhelmed my constituency this weekend when one of our greatest hotels slipped into the sea, will my right hon. Friend ask the local manager of the benefits office to make an urgent visit to the area to help those most in need who have been affected by this most dreadful event?

I realise what impact that very sad event must have had in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will certainly convey his point to the local benefits office. It has a record of prompt response to such emergencies, and I am sure that it will deal with the matter appropriately.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, although every political party has a duty to taxpayers to look carefully at the size and delivery of benefits, the review that he is undertaking is Treasury-led and is about cutting the size of the social security budget? Does he further accept that if the Government got the unemployment level down to the level that they inherited from Labour in 1979 and recouped merely half of the tax cuts going to the richest 1 per cent. of the population, there would be no crisis in public sector borrowing?

Although I normally agree with the hon. Gentleman on quite a lot of things, I would not agree that the review is Treasury-led or that the objective is to go back to a lower level of benefits—certainly not the much lower level of benefits that we had under the Labour Government, since when we have increased spending by two thirds.

What we want is a better system which ensures that the most vulnerable people in society are protected and that all of us have the means to cope with the needs and variations of life. But to do that we must make sure that the benefits system is affordable. It cannot indefinitely outstrip the economic means that the country has to pay for it. If it did so, it would become unsustainable. That would be the greatest betrayal of those in need and damage the economy. We have a long-term review to ensure that we have a better, but sustainable, benefits system which is growing at least in line with what we can afford to finance.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in recent years the disincentive for people to work because they are on social security has been greatly reduced? Will he confirm also that many people are inhibited from going back to work because of the threat to their housing benefit? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take that matter very seriously in his review?

On the latter point, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we will take into account such matters when we review those aspects of the benefits system in the long-term review. My hon. Friend is right; there are still some people who face disincentives to work, and we have to keep them under close review. Equally, we have removed the appalling situation in which people actually earned less when they returned to work than they did when they were on benefits. The over 100 per cent. withdrawal and tax combined rates have been eliminated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has now resolved the backlog of disability living allowance claims.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current backlog of claims for disability allowance.

The Benefits Agency has been meeting its primary clearance targets for new claims since February, and only a very small number of older disability living allowance claims remain to be processed. I am pleased to tell the House that the one millionth award of DLA and attendance allowance was made last month. That amply demonstrates the success of those benefits.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, following the introduction of DLA in April last year, the original situation was quite appalling. May I express my thanks to the hotline people for their assistance to Members of Parliament? However, it should never have been necessary to establish a hotline for hon. Members. Indeed, I am sure that the many cases in my constituency represented only a fraction of the cases in which there were delays. May we be assured that such a situation will never occur again? If there are delays for any reason, will the Minister consider people being notified of why there is unacceptable delay so that they will know exactly what the situation is?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers and the Benefits Agency have studied very carefully the lessons to be learnt from the introduction of DLA and the delays that occurred because of the unexpected surge at its introduction. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has been pleased with the service that he has had from the hotline, but it was only one of a number of steps that were taken to enhance the ability to respond by telephone to Members of Parliament, those who advise customers of the Benefits Agency and customers themselves. A very great deal has been done. I am delighted to say that we have made substantial improvements. It is worth pondering, particularly by Opposition Members, that in the first year of DLA we delivered that benefit to seven times as many people who received mobility allowance when the Labour Government introduced it.

Why does the Minister not have the guts to tell us how many people have died since the backlog built up in the first instance? Will he tell the House that no fewer than 1,000 people have died waiting for benefit and that, as a result, that money has been saved? If some of the beneficiaries live to be old enough to get their pension, they will find that the Post Office has been closed by this lousy rotten Government and they cannot get it. I have two proposals for the Minister. One, use the computer that collects income tax to get those benefits paid and, secondly, he should pay some of the people who cannot get their benefits out of the Norman Lamont legal aid defence reserve fund.

As ever, the hon. Gentleman goes way, way over the top. I do not know from where he invents his figures, but the fact is that the delivery of disability benefits is better than it has ever been in the history of their payment. There is no question of any savings accruing to the Government from any delays that have occurred. We are determined not only to maintain but, where possible, to improve the level of service that we now give.

I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the DLA. That benefit has been introduced in one go, unlike the mobility allowance which it took the Labour party four years to phase in.

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. The staff of the Benefits Agency deserve our congratulations and not our criticisms on their performance. This year, we set the Benefits Agency an enhanced target of delivering 65 per cent. of claims within 30 days. Today, it is delivering 75 per cent. of DLA claims within that period.

I share my right hon. Friend's pleasure in the fact that the service to DLA claimants has improved dramatically, but he is aware of a number of cases involving my constituents which are still subject to considerable delays. I have sent him the detail on those cases and I am grateful to him for the attention that he has already given to them. Will he take further steps to ensure that the speed of service in dealing with outstanding claims is yet further improved in the light of the welcome improvements that have already been made?

I will certainly do that. I am aware that a handful of claims—about 40—that were made in 1992 are still outstanding for a variety of reasons. In a number of cases, people may have failed to respond to inquiries by the Benefits Agency or sometimes a payment is already in payment because of a duplicate claim. It is worth the House grasping one figure in particular: of the 705,000 claims for DLA made last year, 99·99 per cent. are in award.

I am sure that the Minister will be aware that many hon. Members have processed cases to the Department that have been subject to long delays, sometimes due to the loss of papers and goodness knows what. I recently dealt with a case that had been considered for more than two years before the person finally got his entitlement. Is it not correct that there should be some kind of cut-off line, so that after three months or six months, when a claimant is finally paid his benefit, he should at least be paid interest on his entitlement? The same thing happens to people who pay income tax and who are charged interest if they delay in paying the Government.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the matter, I think that he will find that the Department has improved its arrangements for compensation for the late payment of benefits. Special arrangements have been made for those who have been affected by delays in the delivery of DLA.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the future of the Maxwell pensions unit; and at what point he will consider its work complete.

The Maxwell pensions unit still has an important role to play in assisting the pension scheme trustees, the liquidators and others in their work. We expect such assistance to continue for some time.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that he has inherited a very heavy responsibility towards Maxwell pensioners, which is also a source of concern to many hon. Members. He will be aware that many thousands of those pensioners have had 18 months of uncertainty about whether their pensions will be met in full. There has been some success in recovering funds. At what stage would the Minister be prepared to guarantee that Maxwell pensioners will receive the sum that they anticipated receiving before the death of Robert Maxwell?

I am certainly aware of the depth and scale of the problem described by the hon. Gentleman, and I fully understand and sympathise with the anxieties expressed and uncertainties faced by Maxwell pensioners, many of whom are connected with the Headington plan in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is worth reflecting on the enormous progress made during the past year. The long-term gap between the Maxwell pension scheme's assets and liabilities seems likely to be less than £100 million. The scheme trustees have told the Select Committee that they are guardedly optimistic about meeting their pension liabilities in full. That represents a huge improvement on the scheme's position only months ago. There is no question of using taxpayers' money to compensate people for the consequences of fraud, but the Government, the Maxwell pensions unit and all involved have made tremendous progress during the past few months—I hope that they will continue to do so.

I unreservedly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment which, I am sure, will be one of a number of glittering future appointments—

The Minister should make the hon. Gentleman his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

That would be too much. I pay tribute to the work of the Maxwell pensions unit. Together with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I perhaps have the most experience of the work of the unit, which has done a magnificent job in helping the Maxwell pensioners. That fact must not be forgotten by the House. Will my hon. Friend lift his eyes to the horizon to see whether his Department can work on legislation to protect future occupational pensions and protect the innocents of the future from the Maxwells of the future?

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous welcome, and I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for his earlier words of welcome. My hon. Friend was right to speak of the outstanding work of the Maxwell pensions unit, which, since it was established, has done a tremendous job in helping to mediate in its investigatory role. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, on the issue of future legislation, the Government can make no commitment until the pension law review committee has reported. We expect its report at the end of September. No doubt my hon. Friend will have representations to make then, to which we shall be delighted to listen.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to encourage contracting out of state benefits.

The Government have always favoured encouraging people to choose to make extra financial provision for themselves where appropriate. We are committed to introducing age-related rebates to make it equally attractive to people of all ages to join private pension schemes.

Can the Secretary of State confirm whether, as part of the current review being conducted, his Department has held meetings with private insurance firms about the possibility of contracting out state benefits and arrangements for the payment of health service and other benefits of the welfare state? Does he realise that extending the privatisation principle to the welfare state will sound its death knell? Where in the last Tory election manifesto did it say that the Conservative party would butcher the welfare state?

The last point made by the hon. Lady is unworthy of someone of her intelligence. A modern welfare state is expensive and we may have to stop doing certain things in order to perform other tasks more successfully. It was not me who said that, but the Labour Co-ordinating Committee. The hon. Lady had better have words with her friends if she is worried about people ceasing to do things in the welfare state. It does not damage the welfare state to enable people to make additional provision for themselves, which was an intrinsic principle on which Beveridge based the system.

We are meeting people in the insurance and pension world to discuss the proposals that I mentioned in my main answer, the arrangements that we shall have to introduce and the consultations that we shall have to hold to enable pension funds to conform to the European Court judgment on the equalisation of private pension arrangements and their co-ordination with a state scheme. We consult on and discuss all these things. There is no question of doing anything surreptitious that will butcher the welfare state.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid growth of the Department's budget since 1979 not only reflects our commitment to the most needy but is a cause for concern? Is not the contracting out of genuinely insured benefits to the private sector, where they are genuinely fully funded, an advantage to the people concerned and an advantage to the Department—because that enables resources to be better devoted to those who really need them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in both respects. The fact that we have increased public expenditure on the welfare state by two thirds in real terms since 1979 is guarantee enough of our commitment to that system; but my hon. Friend is right to say that the great advantage of private provision—unlike state provision, which is based on pay-as-you-go arrangements with nothing set aside or saved or invested for the future—is that private schemes are fully funded and savings are made and invested in British industry to develop the assets which will create the resources to pay for pensions and other benefits in future years. That is good for the economy, for the individual and for the welfare system.

This Government seem to spend many thousands of pounds on advice and instruction, much of it to do with the social security system, including contracting out. Will the Secretary of State reply to one of my constituents, who has written to ask me whether the Government will provide a helpful guide setting out the best way in which people can survive on their pensions? Perhaps he will consider starting with another of my constituents, who is 76 years old, who has no savings and who has £67·55 a week to live on. Could the right hon. Gentleman give him any guidance on how he can pay his gas, electricity and water charges, his council tax, fares and telephone charges, and save towards maintenance and repairs of his home? In addition, my constituent has to clothe himself, eat and pay for his one pleasure in the form of a television licence. Will the Secretary of State produce a helpful guide for this constituent?

The hon. Lady knows full well that no one in this country has to survive only on the basic pension. Because we have encouraged so many people to make additional provision, two thirds of all new pensioners have occupational pensions on top of the basic pension; a great many other people have other savings and investment income as well, and those who have none receive income support on top of the pension—and other income-related beneits to which they are entitled. We have been able to enhance those benefits because of our success in encouraging people to make private provision and in focusing additional help on those who need it—as we did last October, when we gave £2 more a week to individuals and £3 a week to couples on income-related benefits. In all, £1 billion more has been focused on these very groups in recent years.

My advice is to continue voting Conservative and not to risk going back to Labour, which undermined all pensioners by inflation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst possible world would be means testing for the basic state pension, which would discourage people from making private provision? Is not the future for people in work now to make their own private pension provision; and will the Government continue to encourage them to do just that?

My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely the mix towards which Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are moving—discouraging private provision and means testing the basic pension. Then they try to scare everyone with the idea that we would do something so foolish.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he now expects the Court of Appeal to resume hearing of the chief adjudication officer's appeal against the Commissioner's decision (CS/27/91); and if he will make a statement.

It is for the Court of Appeal to set a date for the hearing. Although we expect a date to be set imminently, I understand that that has not yet been done.

This is one the Government are going to lose. Moreover, more than 450 women in my constituency are directly involved in Commissioner Skinner's enlightened decision. Lord Henley assured me about two months ago that any women suffering hardship would have their invalidity benefit restored. Why is it that when women in my constituency make such a claim to the local officers they are subjected almost to an interrogation, whereas women in other constituencies have had the money paid with arrears of benefit? Why is there a hard line and inconsistency in Greenock and Port Glasgow? Will the Minister investigate this legitimate complaint against those officers in my constituency?

To my knowledge, this is the first time that such a claim has been made. The hon. Gentleman well knows that benefits are administered equally all over the country. He also well knows the reason for the current appeal. The case that Commissioner Skinner decided deals with a principle that the Government are not able to accept in relation to contributory benefits. We are waiting for the appeal to clarify the law, and when that has been done the law will be applied equally to all. As I have said, this is the first time that that specific complaint has been made. I will, of course, investigate any evidence that the hon. Gentleman puts to me about inconsistency of the type that he describes.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to increase the science research councils' emphasis on wealth creation.

The central purpose of the White Paper that I published last month, "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology", was to bring our many excellent scientists and engineers into an even closer working relationship with the users of their research. This will enable them to contribute more effectively to wealth creation and to improvements in the quality of life in general.

Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of reaction to the White Paper from the leaders of science and engineering?

I am delighted to say that there has been a widespread welcome. I shall quote just two. The noble Lord Flowers, the Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, wrote:

"I welcome your White Paper and congratulate you warmly on its content and tone."

The four engineering institutions—chemical, civil, electrical and mechanical—said in a joint statement that they welcomed the White Paper on science and technology

"because it identifies correctly the importance of engineering and technological innovation in the process of wealth creation."

In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, the White Paper has its critics. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy explain why another attitude seems to have been taken by the Department of Trade and Industry? For example. the ceramic, scientific and resèarch establishment in Stoke-on-Trent is waiting for the Department of Trade and Industry to provide £190,000 that is desperately needed. How does that square with the contents of the White Paper?

I will, of course, pursue with my colleague the specific matter that the hon. Gentleman raises and write to him. The Department of Trade and Industry has been reviewing its grant schemes and has refocused them, particularly on small and medium-sized firms, which is right. Perhaps that review has delayed matters in this case. I will find out for the hon. Gentleman.

My right hon. Friend's important White Paper is based on a careful balance between considerations of utility in science and considerations of scientific excellence. Will he assure us that, in implementing the White Paper's provisions, he will pay proper regard to considerations of scientific excellence, especially in relation to the research councils?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the major part that he played in writing the White Paper. His has been a clear voice for science in his constituency and in his work in my Department. I thank him for that. I can give the House the assurance that he seeks. Nothing in the White paper detracts from the importance of the best basic research. We need to do such research, but it must be done against the background of closer interaction between the science base and industry.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to publish a comprehensive charter for the disabled.

None. All charters should address the needs of all those who use the service.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the fact that organisations representing different categories of disabled people are extremely anxious to see comprehensive legislation on their behalf and that 297 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion relating to such legislation. Will he think again about providing at least a citizens charter that would cater for those who are disabled and would tell them what they can expect in a civilised society, even from this Government?

The Government understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. However, the best approach to charters is a service-by-service approach. That is because the people working in that service have targets and performance measures that they can seek to achieve in the interests of the disabled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that 27 out of the 31 charters contain a direct reference to disabled people.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend as he makes his debut at the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that the Government's commitment to people with disabilities is shown by the trebling in real terms of expenditure on the disabled? Is not that a far better record than the Labour party ever had when it was in power? Has any other Government programme shown such a big increase in spending?

I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I shall try to be as helpful to the House in this role as I was in my last. He is quite right to say that the Government have trebled their real commitment to the disabled in the past 15 years. That is not all we have done. We have also made progress on legislation targeted at giving access to new non-domestic buildings, at employment—85,000 disabled people have been helped by specialist advisers—at transport and at many other sectors. That will continue for the future of the Government.

I also welcome the Minister, and look forward to his giving the House the same benefit he gave it in his last job.

However, may I press the hon. Gentleman on the need for disabled people to know what is available to them? In an ideal world, that should be by comprehensive legislation such as anti-discrimination legislation. If such legislation is not forthcoming, there most certainly needs to be a citizens charter. If no such citizens charter is forthcoming, will the Minister add his voice to ensuring that we have an antidiscrimination Bill in the next Session of Parliament?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I shall not call him my hon. Friend. The reality is that disabled people want practical assistance and practical access to the services that the Government provide, and we are trying to provide that practical service. For example, as part of the new experimental charterline telephone service that we are providing to tell citizens in the east midlands about Government services, there is a minicom service to help hearing-impaired people. Throughout our policy, everything that we do reflects that practical commitment to giving real access to the disabled.

While welcoming the Minister to his new position, may I ask him to be more vigorous on behalf of people with a disability? That is what they are, as there are no disabled people in our country. All people with a disability and their organisations have consistently asked not only for a charter, but for a commission to safeguard their rights. Is not it about time that his Government listened to the voice of people with a disability and acted in their interests?

I am not going to bandy politically correct words with the hon. Gentleman. My interest is in providing the best service possible. That is what we are trying to do. He may think that that is not the right approach, but we are interested in delivering a good service to every single person suffering from a disability.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government intend to publish a further White Paper on the progress of the citizens charter.

Yes, in due course. That will show that excellent progress continues to be made.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that education is one of the sectors where there is a demonstrable need for greater accountability on the part of educationists? Will he confirm that, in due course, arrangements will be made for the parents charter to be adjusted to reflect the additional information that will be forthcoming once the Government have ensured that national curriculum testing has been implemented throughout the country?

I can confirm my hon. Friend's remarks. It is extraordinary and wrong that, in this most crucial of all public services, some people are trying to prevent publication of comparative information—despite the fact that almost right across the public sector such information is being made available. The majority of people, both in the House and the country, will regret the current action to block testing.

We used to have serious Question Times about issues such as energy before the Government disbanded the Department of Energy. Now, there are questions about charters, which are a complete and utter waste of time. Does not the Minister think that it is about time that some serious issues were brought before the House?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has contributed to serious questions because he has not even asked one. Surely he is aware that his Front-Bench spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), is so keen on charters that she has claimed that she invented them herself. The hon. Gentleman may be a little out of tune with his Front Bench.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his meeting with the authors of' "Reinventing Government".

I have had meetings with both authors and have been impressed by the way in which they have put forward proposals very similar to ours in the citizens charter, aimed at getting better performance out of public services at a time of spending restraint.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for a considerable number of years the Government have been putting in place many of the elements of what Osborne and Gaebler term "entrepreneurial government"? Rather than mock the citizens charter, would not the Labour party do better to learn from it?

Does my right hon. Friend further agree that if the approach outlined in "Reinventing Government" is to be developed further here, as I believe it must be, two implications follow—we will need a new and better concordat between central and local government and we shall need more freedom of information?

On the latter two points, first, the Government have made it clear that they want good relations with local government. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently met the leaders of the various associations. Secondly, I assure my hon. Friend that no other Government have taken such steps to widen the publication of information.

On the Osborne and Gaebler point, I shall quote Joe Rogaly, an independent journalist who writes in the Financial Times. He said about the Labour party:

"It is as if it not only missed the Osborne and Gaebler bus, it never saw it coming."

That is an accurate description of the Labour party's understanding of these issues.

I want to clarify one point. The Labour party did create charters at the local authority level—in York, Birmingham and Leicester—before the Minister even thought of them. The distinct point is that charters actually work at the local level because there is commitment to accountability and freedom of information, which is not shared by the Government. The Minister was fulsome in his praise of "Reinventing Government" and he quoted Joe Rogaly. Is he aware that the authors said that if market testing is just about skimping on wages, the Government should re-evaluate what they are doing? The authors of the Minister's favourite book asked for that, and for some time we have been asking for a moratorium on market testing. It now appears that the Minister will not meet his targets for market testing that he wanted to achieve by September. Is he now listening to us about moratoriums on market testing as well as about charters?

It is not my job to sort out the problems within the Labour party on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Lady should have some discussions with her hon. Friends. It is clear that she has not read the book, which has a strong passage in support of market testing. Obviously, she has also not read the White Paper "Competing for Quality". It is not just about cutting costs; it is about quality. If we can get quality at lower costs, that is certainly what we should do.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the principles of Osborne and Gaebler is that both national and local government should be steering rather than rowing, to put it in their terms? Is not that in line with the Government's commitment to contracting out? Are there not lessons for Labour local authorities, especially education authorities, in their attitude towards grant-maintained schools, which have precisely the independence that is so lauded by Osborne and Gaebler?

My hon. Friend is right, although I think that some far-seeing people on the left also understand that. I am sorry that the Opposition do not. John Willman, who used to run the Fabian Society, wrote:

"In the UK it has been the Conservatives under John Major who have seized the 'reinventing' government agenda."

That is true.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultation he has had regarding the future of the research vessel service at Barry, Glamorgan.

None. That matter is for the Natural Environment Research Council.

Notwithstanding that buck-passing answer, and despite my earlier congratulations to the Minister on his elevation from the Whips Office, does he agree that the key to the research vessel service's move to Southampton, if it does occur, is that it must remain an independent facility available to all marine science and oceanography university departments and other research bodies in the United Kingdom? The NERC's latest proposal is that the service will become part of Southampton university's department of oceanography, so the marine science departments in Cardiff, Cambridge, Bangor, Aberdeen and elsewhere believe that they will get the mucky end of the stick and that Southampton will run the whole show. Does the Minister agree that that contradicts the original purpose of the service's move from Barry to Southampton?

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I did not realise that universities had become closed societies. The intention behind moving the facility to Southampton is to create a world-class centre for research and development and training on one site, which will make more efficient use of resources and improve support for staff and students. All that is to be welcomed.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the research vessel service is a classic example of the kind of NERC facility that could be put out to market testing? Should not more NERC services be put out for market testing?

My hon. Friend is correct. It is our intention to put out the operational side of the research vessel service to market testing. We would expect to see improved efficiency and quality of service arising from that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from disabled people's organisations in respect of the citizens charter.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had a constructive meeting with the all-party disablement group in December 1992.

My question referred to "disabled people's organisations". Does the Minister think it right —citizens charter or no citizens charter—that a disabled person should be shown the door of a public house simply because he or she is deaf? Does he believe that it is right for it to be legal to discriminate against a disabled person, who can be ejected from a cinema or prevented from taking out an insurance policy? Is that first-class citizenship for the disabled? Will the Government legislate against such practices? If not, what will the Minister do about them?

Obviously, no one approves of the sort of behaviour to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The solution is not the creation of legal rights specific to people with disabilities. That would not be practical or effective.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures his Department is taking to improve Britain's scientific links with Japan.

I can announce that an advisory group is being set up by the Office of Science and Technology to advise the Government on developing links with not only Japan but all Pacific rim countries. Later this year, we shall host the third in a series of high-level, round-table talks between senior science policymakers from the United Kingdom and Japan. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will visit Japan in the autumn.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that when bilateral meetings with the Japanese take place to discuss scientific links, they will truly be two-way dialogues? Does he agree that it would be inappropriate for us to continue to provide ideas for the Japanese to develop without a balance of information in the opposite direction?

My hon. Friend voices a widespread belief, which is not entirely unfounded, that Japanese business scours the world for free ideas. One has to say, who can blame them?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The reality is, if Opposition Members will wait for it, that Japan is paying hundreds of billions more every year in royalties to purchase licences, and so on. It is in our interests to encourage that, because we receive more than £1 billion a year in royalty and licence income. As to my hon. Friend's specific question, the White Paper, "Realising our Potential", set out our way of making the best use of British research. That includes technology foresight, which is a Japanese technique for achieving the very aims to which my hon. Friend referred. We will, of course, seek to make the meetings, as my hon. Friend said, a two-way dialogue.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria are applied in decisions on whether to make departmental policy papers available to the public.

Ministers and their Departments have a duty to give Parliament and the public as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions of government, within necessary constraints such as considerations of national security, protection of privacy and confidentiality of advice given by civil servants to Ministers.

Given the Government's alleged commitment to open government and freedom of information, and given that national security implications are not involved, will the Minister arrange for the publication of the review contained in the public expenditure departmental papers? If he is able to do that, will he also arrange for me to pop round and look at some of the papers this afternoon?

No. Discussions within government leading to public expenditure decisions should be—and would be, under any freedom-of-information regime in the world—private to government until those decisions are made.