To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time for processing a disabled living allowance claim; and if he will make a statement.

Information is not collected in that form, but claims to disability living allowance are now being processed at the rate of nearly 9,000 a week in total, and the figure is steadily rising as staff gain experience with the new system.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Can he confirm that disability living allowance ensures that help goes to those who really need it, especially to the severely disabled? Can he confirm that it is the Government's intention to commit more resources to help the disabled?

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. We are determined to ensure that disability living allowance goes to the maximum number of people entitled to it. I am particularly pleased that we have received 153,000 claims for top-up benefits from people who were receiving mobility allowance or attendance allowance under the old system and who are claiming for the other component under DLA.

Is the Minister aware that, as a consequence of the admirable introduction of disability living allowance, claimants of the old mobility and attendance allowances face delays of up to nine months—I can quote instances since the Minister shakes his head —while their claims are processed, and delays of five months for adjustments such as a change from a day rate to a 24-hour rate of attendance allowance, because of the work load? Is he taking steps to increase the number of staff to process the applications, as far too many are outstanding?

All those under the age of 65 who are entitled to attendance allowance or mobility allowance will have been automatically transferred to disability living allowance under the new system. As hundreds of thousands of claims are being processed, I should be surprised if there were not an occasional hiccup or delay. If the hon. Gentleman cares to let me have details of any cases, I shall pass them to the Benefits Agency for urgent attention.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have an excellent record of spending on the long-term sick and disabled? Since 1979, such spending has increased by 168 per cent. in real terms, or £8.7 billion in cash terms.

I can certainly confirm that. We are spending nearly £9 billion a year more than was spent under the last Labour Government and we also have a better target system for benefits for disabled people.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Benefits Agency has told me that targets for delivering attendance allowance were not met either in February or in January? Is not failure to deliver benefits on time to the terminally ill a very serious matter and deeply disturbing? What good is financial help that arrives posthumously? Can he assure the House that the 2,426 claims that he told me about on 1 May have all now been resolved within the Government's targets?

I hope so. Obviously we are anxious that claims for the terminally ill, under the special rules, are met urgently. We were not helped by a surge of claims under that rule—90 per cent. of the people who applied were not entitled to the allowance. In practice, that meant that the claims of some of the people who were entitled to it were delayed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has concerning the consistency of payment of community care grants and loans between his Department's offices.

Social fund officers are provided with a framework of directions and guidance which allows them to meet highest priority needs wherever they occur. No two people's circumstances are precisely the same. That is why exact comparisons are rarely possible and why social fund officers have to use discretion in determining priorities.

Is not there something ridiculous and outrageous about a local office refusing one of my constituents a grant that he needs to provide furniture to move into ground-floor accommodation because, following a number of heart bypass operations, his health would be put at risk if he were to continue living in upstairs accommodation? Will the Secretary of State make it clear that he totally disapproves of my constituent's life being threatened because the Department's officers will not provide a grant?

The hon. Gentleman would have been frank with the House had he informed it that the inspector in that case overturned the decision and made the award that the hon. Gentleman wanted. That shows that our system for reviewing such cases works. The hon. Gentleman would have far more cause to complain if inspectors invariably upheld original decisions rather than put them right—as in this case.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous single payment system led to massive abuse and the grossly inequitable distribution of resources? Will he confirm the social fund budget for the current financial year?

My hon. Friend is correct. The previous single payment system was unsustainable and unfair. Eighty per cent. of the payment made under it went to 17 per cent. of the recipients, and there were gross variations in different parts of the country. Under the social fund budget, we have been able to make £300 million available in the current year—a 32 per cent. increase on the previous year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to reform the compensation recovery unit.

The compensation recovery unit was set up in 1990. To date it has recovered more than £32 million from negligent employers and other compensators. We have no plans to reform the unit or the scheme as a whole.

Is the Minister aware that the unit is failing to recover the amount projected and that its cost seems by far to outweigh the benefits? Is the Minister further aware that as claimants settle for less than the £2,000 compensation limit, insurance companies are enjoying windfalls because they are not compensating claims at the proper level?

The scheme was based on well-established Beveridge principles to which successive Governments have subscribed—such as that there should he no double compensation in accident cases—and on the Public Accounts Committee recommendations, which in 1987 criticised previous arrangements. It is the intention not that moneys should be recovered from individual claimants but that compensators' insurance companies live up to their liabilities. I dispute the hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning the unit's cost-effectiveness. By the end of 1991, its running costs were £3.5 million and its receipts were £15.6 million. Receipts will continue to increase, which will benefit taxpayers as a whole, and individual victims of accidents will not be left any worse off.

Is the Minister aware that the scheme's clawback operation is hitting some people unacceptably hard? When compensation of between £10,000 and £15,000 is granted after a long run in the courts before settlement is reached, the net benefit to the individual may be only £3,000 or £4,000. Surely that was not the Government's intention when they introduced the rules. Can the Minister arrange for them to be reviewed in the light of experience?

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it was not the intention that the scheme should work in the way that he describes. He and other right hon. and hon. Members do a service in bringing the scheme and its basis to the attention of all involved in personal injury litigation. It is the intention not to recover money from the individual claimant who was the accident victim but to recover it from the insurance company or negligent employer. It is possible for every settlement to take into account the benefits that must be recovered to the state. That is what should occur and if it happens in each and every case, there should be no loss to the individual.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were receiving state pension in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991.

Nearly 10 million people received a basic state pension in 1991, as against 8.75 million in 1979. That represents a 14 per cent. increase.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position. He has been a great friend, whether in his response to Customs and Excise cutters or Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries. This afternoon, I invite my right hon. Friend to be a friend to the pensioners who receive a 25p increase on reaching their 80th birthday. Will he ordered a review, because surely the £26 million that that costs would be better spent on pensioners who are truly in need, rather than on the clapped-out doctrine of universality? Such a ministerial review would be just as welcome as the money that is to be paid into the Maxwell pension funds that were plundered by that socialist brigand.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I am afraid that, on this occasion, I have nothing to offer him as good as launching a cutter. Although the 25p increase has been a longstanding arrangement, we have been able to improve the lot of the poorer pensioner by increasing the premiums of income support. In the past three years that has had the effect of increasing by £700 million the amount of money going to less well-off pensioners. I think that that is the way to go.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the principle that men and women should receive the same pension and that they should qualify for it at the same age, as is the European Community's objective?

We accept the objective of equalising the pension age. We have put out a discussion document and that discussion period is due to end at the end of the month. I approach with an open mind all the different options as to how this can be achieved. I should also make it clear, as a number of people imagine that agreement on a particular age will be achieved rapidly and that it will be implemented immediately, that every other movement to an equal age or an equal pivotal age, has taken a very long time to introduce. People of 59 years of age need not think that a change will influence them next year, and the same applies to those who are 64.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest threats to pensioners and their incomes is inflation, which is an indiscriminate and cruel tax? During the last year of the previous Labour Government, inflation ate into almost a quarter of pensioners' real incomes.

That is correct. In fact, in one year, it was more than a quarter, as 27 per cent. of savings were wiped out by inflation. There can be no more cruel or unjust tax than that. By contrast, our record has been exemplary, as we have increased the living standards of pensioners overall. During our period in government, living standards have risen by 34 per cent. in real terms, which is five times as rapid as the rate of increase under the previous Labour Government.

May I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Question Time? He has an opportunity that falls to very few men—to make millions of women happy. Will he tell the House, and the millions of female pensioners who are approaching pension age and those who are already drawing their pensions, what his plans are for the pension age for women? Earlier, he said that he had an open mind on that, so will he say whether that open mind includes a pension age for women of 63 or of 65? Many millions of women are anxious to hear his answer and I invite the Secretary of State to reassure them.

The hon. Gentleman offers something even more enticing than launching cutters. I assure him that I have an open mind which embraces all the options, more than are included in our discussion document. We have outlined a number of options for equalisation at the ages of 60, 63 and 65, and for the periods of retirement at which people would either retire early with a lower rate of pension or later with a higher rate of pension. All the options are being considered. Because we have asked people to tell us their ideas during the discussion period, it would be foolish of me to pre-empt that discussion and the benefits that we will obtain from people's contributions to it by making a premature decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the present working of the social fund; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount made available by his Department in the current financial year for (a) social fund loan payments and (b) community care grants; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to meet the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the social fund.

In 1989, we commissioned a major study from the university of York's social policy research unit into the social fund. When considering its report, which will be published shortly, we shall also take into account the recent report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the views of other bodies, including the Child Poverty Action Group, which is due to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 7 July. We all welcome him to the Dispatch Box today.

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of the comments that have already been made by the Campaign for the Homeless and Roofless—CHAR—to which many hon. Members belong? It has said that the present funding and the way in which the scheme works are totally inadequate for people coming out of institutional care or bed-and-breakfast accommodation and trying to build a new life in suitable accommodation. The fund as it now works does not meet their needs. Will the Minister assure the House that those views will be taken into account?

Indeed, there is little doubt that they will be taken into account, as I was a founder member of the parliamentary panel for CHAR and last week attended an important seminar close to the House, where the campaign's views were expressed vehemently. Of course I shall take its views into account, but the more dispassionate views of the social policy research unit will also play a part in our thinking.

In announcing the increase in the discretionary element of that budget, what estimate has the Minister made of the reduction in the number of people who are refused a loan? For example, last year 19,000 people were refused a loan because they were too poor to repay the debt. If we want to target money to the poorest sections of society, we should ensure that those who are most in need are guaranteed some form of assistance. In addition to the reports that the Minister has already mentioned, will he take account of the effective reports by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorites?

Of course I shall take account of that. The number of people who are refused because of inability to pay is a mere fraction of the overall number refused. The majority are refused because they do not meet the basic criteria for the fund.

Will the Minister encourage his hon. Friend to take the Secretary of State with him when he meets the Child Poverty Action Group? When he meets it, he will hear that the number of rejections for loans has doubled since 1988 and that the number of rejected community care applications—which are important—now exceeds 70 per cent. Precisely how do the Government intend to respond to the various reports, including that of their advisory committee? In particular, how can the Government justify any social security system that excludes the right of appeal?

First, there is a review system within the scheme, which is a speedier and more effective way of handling first-level requests for reconsidering cases. In the longer run, there is the social fund inspectorate. The Social Security Advisory Committee paid tribute to the independence of the social fund inspectorate in its consideration of appeals. We have responded to the increased demands on the social fund by providing the extra resources that I announced earlier. The hon. Gentleman will know that the fund for his local office was increased by nearly 16 per cent. for the current year, so we are responding to pressures on the fund. However, in response to a variety of reports that either have been or will be produced, we shall look again at its future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an element of lottery and luck in whether an application is accepted? If there are pressures on the local social security budget, it depends at what time of year an application is made, and that can vary from one area to another. Will he look at that problem and ensure that it is levelled out between social security areas?

In any scheme that depends on discretion there are bound to be differences between offices about apparently similar cases. They may not always be exactly the same. Obviously we are anxious to ensure that pressures on local budgets are dealt with, sometimes within the year, but, more generally, as we deal with the balance between demand and need in our year-on-year allocations.

Given the sort of claims made on the social fund, it is extremely important that decisions are made quickly. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the present arrangements whereby most decisions are made within a few days will continue? Will he ensure that the position is monitored and that decisions are normally made within a few days, particularly those related to reviews?

We are conscious that the social fund meets exceptional needs and circumstances outwith the normal provisions of the social security system. Therefore, we want speedy decisions—those on crisis loans are normally made within 24 hours.

Does the Minister accept that the York university study provides a valuable opportunity to have a fundamental review of how the social fund works? From what he said earlier, am I to understand that that report will be produced before the summer recess and that the Government will give their response to it within that time? Will he consider the recent work done by the Policy Studies Institute that clearly shows that when the social fund was orginally introduced in 1985–86, about 2 million families were dependent on long-term benefits over a substantial period, whereas the most recent figures for 1988 show 4.5 million families in that position?

As the hon. Gentleman says, there have been and will be a number of reports and representations on the future of the social fund and the Government want to consider all those once they have been produced. Yes, I would expect the York university report to be available before the summer recess.

Will the Minister be more positive today? I am sure that he is aware that the vast numbers of applications to the social fund are from young and homeless people seeking to set up their first homes and are for household items. Many of those people cannot afford to repay the cost of such items from the meagre income support that the Government give them. Does he support the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee to change the scheme to ensure that non-repayable start-up grants are given to such people? They could then buy essential items such as beds and cookers and would not have to stay in inadequate accommodation. They could set up their first home without the burden of debt that they would incur if they had to use their benefit to buy such items.

At the risk of repeating myself, we want to look at all the reports and the various recommendations that they contain. In 44,000 cases people who applied for loans were given community care grants instead.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the Christmas bonus for pensioners.

We have no plans to change the basis for payment of the Christmas bonus for pensioners.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the situation experienced under the last Labour Government, the Christmans bonus will be paid this year? Does she accept that, as the bonus has remained at the same value for so long, it has become increasingly difficult to justify it in cost-effective terms? Therefore, will she seek to review the value of the bonus with a view either to substantially increasing it or, as I favour, to merge it with a substantially increased state retirement pension?

I have great pleasure in confirming that the Christmas bonus will be paid this year. The reason that it will be paid is that the Conservative Government made it a statutory entitlement rather than a discretionary payment, thus avoiding for ever the situation that occurred in 1975 and 1976 when, despite the grand promises of the Labour party about what it would do for pensioners, the Labour party did not manage to pay any Christmas bonus for those two years. I well understand what my hon. Friend says about the value of the bonus having declined, but to restore it to its original level would cost £720 million. My hon. Friend should reflect that that equates well with the £700 million per year that the Government have targeted towards poorer pensioners—a better use of resources than the universal uprating of benefit.

Does the Minister agree that pensioners have made a magnificent contribution to this country and should be sharing in any increase in prosperity? As the Government have broken the link between pensions and earnings, how are pensioners to enjoy any of the extra prosperity? Is this not a good opportunity for the Government to restore the value of the Christmas bonus?

Pensioners have enjoyed the benefit of the increased prosperity to such an extent that the value of their total incomes has risen by 34 per cent. under the present Government. Under the last Labour Government, it rose by a mere 3 per cent. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in the best position to lecture us about helping pensioners to share in prosperity. More pensioners than ever before now own their own homes, have savings in addition to their pensions and have occupational pensions. They are sharing in prosperity—[Interruption.]

Order. This is Question Time—and answer time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are expected to gain from the recent reduction in the number of hours that must be worked in order to qualify for family credit.

We expect a substantial number of families to gain from the change to family credit introduced in April. So far, around 35,000 families have claimed it as a result of the Government's reducing the minimum number of hours required to 16 per week.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there have been some 2.5 million successful claims for family credit since its introduction in 1988? Is that not an encouraging statistic? The further improvement will be welcomed, because it opens up the benefit to more families on low incomes, while still not creating a disincentive to work.

Yes, the change will be widely welcomed, particularly by lone parents. Many lone parents want to work and the change will make it more worth their while to do so. My hon. Friend is also correct in regard to the number of claims, which has increased from some 243,000—for the equivalent family income supplement—to some 350,000.

Will the Minister confirm that the take-up rate for the benefit is only about 50 per cent., although when the benefit was introduced Ministers boasted about a projected 90 per cent. take-up rate? When will the Government improve the rate, or are they content with such an abysmally low figure?

In terms of expenditure, the take-up is about 65 per cent. What the Government can boast of is the fact that the amount provided in family credit is about double the amount that was provided in family income supplement. That is all taking place in the context of a social security budget which has increased by 52 per cent. in real terms. That is the extent to which we have improved on anything that the last Labour Government was able to do for people.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that four times more families now receive family credit than received family income supplement in 1979? Does that not represent considerable progress in the reduction of disincentives to work?

My hon. Friend makes the point very effectively. Those who receive family credit are paid, on average, about £35 per week, whereas the equivalent family income supplement was about £15 per week. We have a great commitment to low-income working families and family credit is the best-known benefit with which we assist them; the success of the scheme over the years shows how important it is to many families.

The recent change involves a huge disincentive to work, because the loss of income support passported benefit—particularly mortgage interest cover—far outweighs any gain in family credit. Does the Minister really consider this an advance? As a result of the change, 80,000 claimants in need will lose free school meals and access to the social fund, and those without children will receive nothing. Is this not yet another own goal by the Government? Short-sighted cuts in public expenditure will serve only to deepen the dependency culture that the Government are supposed to be against.

The own goal has been scored by the hon. Gentleman, who has reminded the House of the success of family credit and the fact that more people have been transferred from income support to family credit as a result of the change. Those who previously gained through income support have not lost, because their position has been protected, and the increase in the number who have come on to family credit over the years—far more people receive it than received support through the Labour Government's schemes—shows how popular and effective our scheme has been.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are owner-occupiers and have paid off their mortgage.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that nearly half of all pensioners own their own homes. Ninety-four per cent. of home-owning pensioners have no outstanding mortgage at all.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that nearly all pensioners who own their homes have no mortgages, and therefore possess a valuable asset which gives them extra security in their old age? Would she care to compare provision in this country with that in the rest of Europe? Most British pensioners receive a flat rate, regardless of income, whereas in other European countries low earnings ultimately mean much lower pensions.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her question and can indeed confirm that 94 per cent. of pensioners who own their homes have no mortgage. My hon. Friend raises a very important point with regard to the rest of Europe. Despite what is often said by Opposition Members about how good European pensions are, the fact remains that in France and Germany the pension is earnings related, so somebody who has been a low earner will get a low pension. Perhaps even more important, we alone give a woman a pension in her own right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the additional cost to date to his Department in connection with the collapse of the Maxwell pension funds.

My Department stands to meet the costs of guaranteed minimum pensions for the 240 Headington plan pensioners who have not been paid their May or June pensions. The amounts payable are currently being assessed.

Does the Minister appreciate the sheer misery of the 32,000 people who have been treated so shabbily? Is it not about time that the Government faced up to their responsibilities? I refer to the behaviour of the Department of Trade and Industry and some of the banks. Is the Minister aware that other companies that have been buying and selling pension schemes ought to be brought to book?

I do indeed recognise the plight of the Maxwell pensioners and will be making a statement after Question Time, if I catch your eye, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the numbers involved. As I said in my "Dear colleagues" letter, 35,000 people have pensions or are members of pension funds within the Maxwell group. About 15,000 of those people are guaranteed their pensions by Mirror Group Newspapers. Of the other 20,000, some 9,000 are retired and 11,000 are future pensioners. I mention those figures to give an idea of the scale of the problem.

What are the Government doing to recoup some of the costs from the Maxwell family and other companies? My constituents and many others are fed up with the way the Maxwell family seems able to go on living some sort of high life elsewhere in the world.

I am certain that my hon. Friend's point will be echoed throughout the House. It is up to the liquidators to trace the assets that have been dissipated, and they will naturally be looking in that quarter as well as others.

In view of the extra cost to the Secretary of State's Department, would it not be prudent for the Department to draw up legislation to stop the stealing of pension funds and their removal from these shores to offshore areas such as Liechtenstein? The Secretary of State may recall that the trend was started many years ago by Duncan Sandys, who shifted money from this country to the Cayman islands—

Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go into too much detail, thus anticipating a statement that is to be made later. I should like a direct question from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

I started, Madam Speaker, by asking the Secretary of State whether his Department would produce legislation to stop the illegal removal of funds from this country to offshore islands.

Stealing pension funds has always been against the law.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Governments of Switzerland and Liechtenstein, where much of the pensioners' money has been salted away, that if they want good relations with this country they had better make it clear to their financial institutions, which have profited from dealings with the Maxwell family, that they must meet their legal and moral obligations to the pensioners?

Order. That is a most interesting question, but it is totally out of order. Would the Secretary of State like to make some comment?

I am not sure that I can keep my answer in order, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's excellent point will be brought to the attention of the relevant powers. I will ensure that it is.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the things about which the Maxwell pensioners action group, which is lobbying today, is deeply aggrieved is that it is having to spend more than £1 million per month on legal and administrative fees to recover the stolen assets? That money cannot be used to pay pensions because, legally, advisers' bills must be settled before any benefit can be distributed. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those bills include 17.5 per cent. VAT, so the Government are getting their cut from the pensions as well? Will he therefore accept the proposal—

Order. I remind the House that this question relates to additional costs to the Minister's Department. It is very narrow and I ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to relate his question to the narrow point of additional costs to the Department.

Does the Secretary of State accept the suggestion that the pension rights should be assigned to him and that he should pay the pensions and then recover the costs by pursuing the banks? If that was right for Barlow Clowes, is it not right for the Maxwell pensioners, who are far more deserving?

I am sure that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to put that question—in order—in response to my statement later this afternoon.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what advice is currently being offered by the Commissioners on the matter of security in churches.

None—the Commissioners are primarily responsible for the financial support of the clergy while responsibility for parish churches rests with the parochial church council and church wardens. However, I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the General Synod's Council for the Care of Churches offers advice on security and has published a booklet entitled "Church Security—A Simple Guide", a copy of which I shall send him.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I find it peculiarly nasty that people should steal from unattended churches, especially as a number of the stolen artefacts are going abroad. It is a pity that the good Lord cannot look after his own gear a little better—the odd thunderbolt from on high might bring the villains to book. Is it not possible to draw the Commissioners' attention to the need for co-ordinated action across the Church and, indeed, internationally as a number of the artefacts being stolen go abroad?

Yes, it is worth investigating whether we can do more to safeguard churches. Local churches could consider an equivalent to the neighbourhood watch scheme. The problem—it is a subtle problem—is that the best way of keeping burglars out of churches might be to get them into churches.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen are (a) owners of the parson's freehold and (b) licensed priests in charge; and if he will make a statement.

As at 31 December 1991, there were some 6,500 rectors and vicars with freehold office and nearly 1,300 priests in charge and team vicars.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the gradual reduction in the number of parsons who own their freehold, and does he agree that the authorities probably intend that that should be so? Does he further agree that we do not want a bunch of vicars who are all yes-men, which we shall have if the freehold is abolished as it appears that it will be?

I sympathise with much of my hon. Friend's suggestion about the clause relating to parsons' freehold, although he will understand that the General Synod is considering the terms and conditions of the incumbent's basis of work. Part of the difficulty is that frequent requests have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House for some way of estimating the productivity of parsons, which can be done only if the freehold is abolished.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church of England clergy who are not yet retired (a) hold the living of their parish with no required retirement age, (b) hold the living of their parish, with a required retirement age, (c) are not instituted to any benefice, but only to a limited contractual term of office and (d) minister by virtue of other arrangements.

In the parochial stipendiary ministry, of the the approximate 6,500 vicars and rectors with freehold office, nearly 6,000 must retire no later than age 70, although the pensionable age is 65, whereas the remainder have no required retirment age. There are about 1,200 team rectors and vicars with leasehold office and 2,800 priests in charge, assistant curators and parish deacons.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that this is a rather technical matter. Would I be right in suggesting that, contrary to the view suggested by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), it would be cheaper and would offer better value for money—not for individual priests, but the Church of England as a whole—to move to a system whereby everyone has a contractually fixed period, as opposed to the traditional system whereby people are inducted for life and cannot be moved? If so, is that not the right way for the Church of England to proceed so as to avoid unnecessary expenditure based on historical arrangements?

I do not honestly think that there would be measurable financial advantage in changing the basis of the freehold purely in terms of the cost of pensions, partly because the flexibility which already exists between the ages of 65 and 70 gives a continuing option to a number of clergy to do what they want and partly because if there were no freeholds the determination of their retirement age would fall entirely into the hands of the bishops who had licensed the clergy. Also, each case for retirement will be determined on its merits, probably with a good deal of flexibility.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what efforts his Department is making to reduce court waiting hours.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he proposes to reduce delay in civil litigation.

The Government are currently implementing a programme of reforms in the civil courts designed to meet representations by the civil justice review for reducing delays and costs, promoting simplicity and accessibility, and updating procedures. A number of initiatives are also being taken, aimed at reducing delays and waiting times in the Crown court and the magistrates courts.

I welcome my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, especially as I understand that this is the first question answered in the House by the Lord Chancellor's Department and I wish him well in his programme of reforms to which he referred. What progress is being made on the situation in the courts in northern Kent?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, which are much appreciated. I will answer his supplementary question in the terms in which it was asked. Cases in the county courts in north Kent—at Dartford, Sittingbourne and Gravesend—are currently heard within 50 working days of being ready for trial at the Medway county court trial centre. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as an assiduous constituency Member, will be keeping an eye on that performance.

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary ignore the repeated representations of the Law Society about the chronic delays in the county courts in London and the south-east? Is not the problem the fact that the Government failed properly to fund and resource the county courts following their increased jurisdiction as a result of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990? Is not the problem further aggravated by the fact that the Government have orchestrated a recession which has caused an enormous growth in debt collection and repossessions through the county courts, in turn leading to a great choking of the system?

No, the answer and the remedy lie elsewhere, in following the recommendations of the civil justice review body. The key to the better dispatch of civil justice lies in matching the nature and weight of the case to the authority of the court to deal with it. There has been a great deal of decanting of court cases from the High Court to the county court and, in particular, to county court centres. The number of trials disposed of in county courts has risen from 9,000 in 1988 to more than 25,000 in 1991 while waiting times have been maintained at an average of 45 days.

Does my hon. Friend agree that improving the administration of both civil and criminal justice is not just a question of increasing resources, which has taken place in the past 12 years with a huge increase in the number of circuit judges and so forth, but a question of setting performance targets for courts so that the public can know which courts are most successful?

Certainly I agree with that. In the Crown court, it is necessary to improve the pre-trial dispatch of business to prevent, wherever possible, cracked trials. The future in the magistrates courts lies in best practice, in the Government's White Paper and in block listing so that everyone does not turn up at 10 am, which means that some people wait until the end of the day.

Does the Minister agree that if one does not provide litigants with legal aid as speedily and appropriately as possible, one builds up a backlog? Does he agree with the Lord Chancellor's circular that the way in which cases are banked up has delayed matters, just as the failure to grant expert witnesses and the failure to grant civil legal aid to most people have done? In all, there is no justice in this country because the Conservative party has sought to destroy the whole litigation system.

That is a fairly sour mouthful to ask me to accept, and I do not accept it. I will say a little more about the circular later.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is proposed to introduce fixed fees for criminal legal aid.

Standard fees have been in operation for some criminal legal aid cases in the Crown court since October 1986. It is proposed to introduce a standard fee system later this year for most criminal legal aid cases heard in the magistrates court. An independent survey is to be conducted to give guidance, not least on the evaluation of standard fees.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department's decision to introduce fixed fees was arrived at before the recent cases of miscarriage of justice came to light? Will he give an assurance to the House that any recommendation by the royal commissioners against the decision will be immediately honoured?

The proposals for standard fees—I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I correct him—were first mooted in 1987 and the Lord Chancellor has said that they will be cost neutral to the profession when they are introduced. I personally share the view that standard fees reward those who can do the work proficiently and with dispatch. The present system of payment by the hour or by the item can fall down by rewarding the slow and inefficient and penalising those who operate concisely, effectively and well. That cannot be in the public interest and it cannot be in the interest of taxpayers. We must remember that in every case, although the taxpayer does not appear as a party on the face of the action, sure enough, the taxpayer is involved.

I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that one of the ways in which to defray any additional costs which may arise from the change in the system of reward for criminal investigations could be to reform the green form system of paying legal aid as well, as the present system is wide open to the defrauding of the taxpayer by a small minority of bent solicitors? Does he also agree—this is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility—that the slowness of the investigations branch of the Legal Aid Board and the antiquated nature of the computer is holding up all the fraud squad investigations into the small minority of solicitors who have been exploiting the system in the past few years?

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I was studying his written question on this very subject this morning. There are some 27 cases of fraud on green form and, clearly, that is totally unacceptable. On the other hand, I gather than the hon. Gentleman's complaint related to computer delays may not be found to be substantiated. Certainly, there are cases of fraud and that is quite unacceptable—as, indeed, is the total amount that we are paying on legal aid at the moment. I should like the House to know that gross expenditure on all legal aid was £1.15 billion in 1991–92—a third more than in the previous year and more than twice the gross expenditure four years ago, in 1987 –88.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to keep two old courthouses in Calder Valley.

rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I apologise for keeping the House waiting.

I have invited my hon. Friend to come to Calder Valley with me to look at what is happening there. Does he agree that, although what goes on in a courthouse from day to day has nothing to do with the Member of Parliament concerned, where a courthouse is situated, and who attends it, has everything to do with that Member of Parliament, who is right to use every means available to ensure that that courthouse remains?

I concede the general point and, in particular, I concede that my hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I should tell him and the whole House that magistrates courts can be closed only on a local recommendation of the local magistrates courts committee, and that that decision can be officially opposed only by the local paying authority. Only at that point does the Lord Chancellor have any locus or status in these matters; until then, he does not. The initiation of a closure is local.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will withdraw the recent circular sent to justices' clerks concerning the proofs of wages paid or benefits received which are required from claimants before their applications can be considered.

The circular was issued in response to concern expressed by the Public Accounts Committee and other bodies to the effect that the regulations governing the grant of criminal legal aid were not always being properly followed. The circular was not intended to represent any change of policy. The Lord Chancellor and I have already agreed that consideration should be given to altering the regulations. In all the circumstances, and in the light of the widespread concern that has been expressed about paragraph 10 of the circular, the Lord Chancellor and I have decided that paragraph 10 should be withdrawn. A notice to that effect will be issued as soon as possible.

I welcome that most constructive reply. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the House a guarantee that when he considers issuing new guidelines, he will consult all interested parties? We share a common view that we need to achieve value for money, but we also believe that those seeking legal representation should have appropriate legal representation immediately so that they can face the courts. Will the Parliamentary Secretary advise the House today what he would say to a defendant remanded in custody? How would that defendant have access to the 13 weeks pay slips necessary to qualify for legal aid?

What I have just said about the withdrawal of paragraph 10 should have met the critical question with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his inquiry. The whole House should know that, early in April, the Lord Chancellor's Department could not look lightly on the fact that the audit of the Department for last year had been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that the Department had been heavily criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. To do nothing to try to tighten up the system would have been a neglect of duty.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his unique appointment and remind him—I am sure he will follow me—that he owes his first duty to justice and principle, above the interests of party and, incidentally, the Treasury. By withdrawing paragraph 10 of the circular on legal aid, the Minister has made a good start because that paragraph could have caused many injustices, and we are glad that he has withdrawn it. I hope that he will look in a similar light at fixed fees in magistrates courts and perhaps refer that issue to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks. I shall, of course, take fully into account the fact that my duty is to the administration of justice. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about paragraph 10 and I will bear in mind what he said about standard fees. However, in the spirit of candour that is appropriate in this House, I am bound to say that I am rather attracted by a regime of standard fees.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will make legal aid available for claimants in industrial tribunals.

No, Madam Speaker. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that green form advice is available in preparation for tribunals and lay representation is, of course, available in various forms.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Before he settles too deeply into the Establishment, will he reconsider the issue? However complex, crucial or important a case is to a claimant, surely it is wrong that he or she has no right to legal aid? Will it not get worse when the Government—absolutely rightly—increase the jurisdiction of the tribunals by transferring to them many cases involving contracts of employment and disputes which are at present, wrongly, dealt with by courts?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has a well-merited reputation in industrial law. I remember many years ago listening to instructional tapes recorded by him in an earlier stage of industrial law. However, he would acknowledge that the whole intention of tribunals was to achieve a greater degree of informality than the courts. It is common for both applicants and respondents to present their own cases in those proceedings and there is certainly no requirement for the parties to be legally represented. I remain conscious of the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman argued. However, we must all accept that the public purse is not bottomless and it is unrealistic to think in terms of the legal aid budget growing even faster than it is already.