To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the recent uprating in benefits.

The uprating of benefits in line with the annual increase in prices has been widely and warmly welcomed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following a particularly tough public expenditure round in which public sector pay has been significantly constrained, his decision to uprate the pension in full has been greatly welcomed? Does he feel that that decision provides an eloquent contrast to that taken by the Labour party, on two separate occasions, to slash the annual Christmas bonus to pensioners? Which party is really the friend of the pensioner?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to the uprating statement. The day of the statement revealed graphically the answer to his question, because we saw the gloom on the faces of Labour Members as they welcomed the good news of the uprating and that contrasted with the warm welcome that the rest of the country gave it. The fact is that we try to help the poor and needy, whereas the Labour party tries to exploit them.

Can the Secretary of State tell us who exactly "warmly welcomed" the uprating, because I have not encountered anyone engaged in that warm welcome? Is not it the case that the Secretary of State just deludes himself and that what he did was minimalist—it was the least he could do and what he had to do under the statute—and that this afternoon he is engaged in empty cant?

I think that the hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he moves in narrow and exclusively socialist circles. If he ventured forth, even so far as to read the columns of The Guardian, not a paper normally noted for its warmth of welcome towards me, he would know that it said that the decisions I had taken on that day deserved praise.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House what chance he has had to study the recent Joseph Rowntree Trust report, which clearly showed that the level of benefits made available to recipients simply left them short, in some cases by between £30 and £40, of what they needed to live a decent, ordinary life?

I always study documents from that quarter closely. I could not help noticing, however, that the trust thought that the amount of money required to maintain a modest standard of living was about the same as the point at which those on the Opposition Front Bench think that punitive taxation on the rich should start. Obviously that affected my understanding of the whole report.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will bring forward regulations to ensure that interest accrues on social security payments due to claimants that are delayed in the Benefits Agency.

The Secretary of State has no power under existing legislation to bring forward such regulations.

As the customers charter states that all citizens have the right to expect that their benefits will be processed efficiently, accurately and promptly, does the Minister think it right that my constituents should receive just sweet, apologetic phrases from Mr. Bichard of the Benefits Agency when benefit payments of more than £2,000 are outstanding? Is it right that they should receive no compensation? February of next year is coming up very quickly, which means that it will be a year since the new benefits came into force, but many people will still be left waiting after that year for payment. Does the Minister agree that claimants should be entitled, automatically, to receive compensation or interest accruing after the 30-day period that the Secretary of State set in that customers charter?

The hon. Lady completely ignores the considerable measures that have been taken to speed up the payment of disability living allowance. I do not share her pessimistic view of the numbers that may be left at the end of the year. However, it is crucial not to presuppose that it is an ordinary standard, and therefore make arrangements for compensation, but to make all possible efforts to ensure that the system works. That is why we have drafted 800 additional staff and made 400 extra computer terminals available, which is a far better solution. I shall take no lectures from the Opposition, whose idea of speeding up claims was to phase in mobility allowance over four years.

How long, on average, does it take from first applying for income support until the receipt of an income support payment, and how does that compare with past performances?

Against a current national target of five days, income support is often paid within 2·5 days and the overwhelming majority of local offices are well within target.

How many of the delayed payments were for people with life-threatening conditions, like my constituent, Mr. Ken Vince, for whom payment was made more than eight months after his claim and two months after he died? Is the Minister aware that bereaved families are not consoled by posthumously word-processed sympathy and that my late constituent's case came to me 13 weeks after all the distress and expense of phoning the Benefits Agency, sometimes 20 times a day, without response?

I entirely echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State four weeks ago in the House in saying that we deeply regret the problems that arose. They happened because of the policy's huge success and the large number of claims that it generated. We have now taken all possible measures to ensure that that does not recur. I am very sympathetic to the distress suffered by the right hon. Gentleman's constituent and his family.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.

We expect that, in the long term. absent parents will contribute some £600 million to the maintenance of their children, a cost currently borne by taxpayers.

I warmly welcome the establishment of the Child Support Agency. It is a relief to the average taxpayer—every father and mother in this country—who takes strong exception to paying to support other people's children. What estimate, for the average family, does the Child Support Agency make in asking absentee fathers to support their children?

Current information is that average maintenance awards for families are between £25 and £30 a week. We hope that that will rise to £45 a week. Maintenance is a helpful source of income, not just for the present but for the future. I recognise that many single mothers will want to go out to work, and the portable income that maintenance will provide should assist that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the effects of the Child Support Agency is not only to achieve the benefits that he mentioned but to target help effectively on lower-income families? Will he give the House an assessment of how much such families have benefited since the social security reforms of 1988?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Since 1988, we estimate that some £750 million extra has been provided to low-income families by way of the changes. In 1979, some £1·5 billion was spent at current prices on benefits for lone parents. That figure is now £4·3 billion.

Notwithstanding the fact that two Conservative Members have had the creativity to ask the same question about savings, does the Minister agree that the purpose of the Child Support Act 1991 should be to support children, not to produce Exchequer savings? Does he agree that more than seven out of 10 families with children in that position will receive no extra money as a result of the child support legislation? Is not it appropriate that the Minister should change the policy so that a pound for a pound is not withdrawn, for child support, from income support and that we have a reform so that children and not just the Treasury are supported by that measure?

As so often with the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. There is no saving to the Treasury. The saving is to the many millions of mothers and fathers who currently pay through their tax for other people's children. The point about the Child Support Agency is that the money goes to support the children. In future, many mothers will want to go out to work and the portable maintenance income will assist them to do that. I do not see any reason to change the current policy on income support.

We shall carefully monitor the work of the Child Support Agency. Does the Minister accept that real fears have to be addressed in cases where there has been a record of violence or no continuing relationship between, probably, the father and the mother and child? The Minister almost managed to give the impression that the cash that would come in from the work of the Child Support Agency would be ring fenced specifically for child benefit or some other relevant benefit. That is not true. Is he prepared to look again at some form of disregard for those on income support so that a parent paying maintenance has the satisfaction of knowing that the family will benefit and so that the parent, very often the mother who has custody of the child, has a real and positive incentive to co-operate?

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are maintenance disregards for in-work benefits such as family credit and housing benefit. Maintenance disregard will assist. As I explained to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), there is no maintenance disregard for income support, which is not an in-work benefit. The availability of maintenance to the mother will help not just at present but in the future because that mother will not stay on income support for ever. For her, it is the acquisition of maintenace that is most important.

Does my hon. Friend recall irresponsible demands a short time ago to withdraw the Child Support Act 1991? Will he join me in inviting Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to condemn the resolution passed at the last Labour party conference that that legislation should be withdrawn? Now the Opposition seem to want to monitor it carefully. What a change!

As always, my hon. Friend is the champion of those who resist irresponsible demands. He is right to condemn the last Labour party conference on its callous attitude towards mothers who require proper maintenance from fathers, I invite the House to support my hon. Friend's attitude in this matter rather than the attitude adopted at the Labour party conference.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of the extension of the severe disability premium to those living with a blind person, as announced in his benefit uprating statement; and if he will make a statement.

We estimate that this improvement will cost £1 million a year.

Does the Secretary of State accept that in principle the premium ought to be available to everyone who qualifies medically? Will he undertake to deliver that principle over time? If he will not do that, will he at least adopt the shorter version, by accepting the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that the premium should be extended to those who are over the age of 75 and living with someone?

I fully understand and sympathise with the feelings of those who recently lobbied the House. I met people from my constituency and elsewhere who would like to see the severe disability premium applied universally. In a tight financial settlement we obviously thought it right to take this small step which helps those who live with blind people. That has been warmly welcomed by the organisations for the blind who came to speak to me. To go as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes could cost several hundreds of millions of pounds.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since 1979 Government spending on the long-term sick and disabled has gone up by 173 per cent. in real terms? Is not that an impressive record, of which the Government should be proud?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have given priority to help for the sick and disabled, and the House recognises and welcomes that. The amount of help has grown far faster than that for other benefits, and it way outstrips that provided under the last Labour Government.

May I press the Secretary of State about the care of the over-75s? Does he realise that the Social Security Advisory Committee recognises that where the carer is over 75, it is unreasonable to expect him to deliver that care, and that it has to be bought in, but that no extra financial support is given in those circumstances? The committee said that the cost of extending the severe disability premium to the over-75s was only £17 million and it had to compare that with the likelihood that the severely disabled person would have to go into residential care, at a much greater cost through income support than extending the severe disability premium. Will the Minister look at the real needs of families where the carer is over 75 and consider extending the severe disability premium, to ensure that those people do not suffer even greater hardships?

I look closely at the recommendations from my committee. The proposal that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned, for assistance for those living with blind people, came from that committee and we were able to adopt it. There is some uncertainty about the costings of the other proposal that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but when one is talking of tens of millions of pounds, that is a significant sum.

I talked of £17 million.

That is still tens of millions of pounds. A significant cost is involved, and we should have to consider whether it would always be well targeted. Some over-75s are very fit—I am happy to say that my mother is—and others are not. We have tried to focus assistance more accurately, while continuing to give help to those living with other people through the method that I have suggested, which channels considerable sums to help them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what review he has made of the adequacy of the administration of claims for disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

I am, as the hon. Member will know, fully aware of, and concerned about, the problems that have complicated the introduction of DLA in its early stages and I continue to take a close personal interest in its administration and delivery.

Will the Minister acknowledge that there are thousands of unanswered claimants' application forms lying in the DLA office, and that it is virtually impossible for a desperate claimant to make any sort of telephone contact with the office? Is he aware that Mrs. Mullen of Clinkham Wood, St. Helens, in my constituency, rang the DLA office on 17 November in an attempt to find out what had happened to the application that she had made in July? At 2.30 she was told to wait because she was in a queue. At 3 pm, her phone went dead and she immediately rang back. Again, she was told to wait because she was in a queue. At 4.50, her phone went dead again. Is not this a disgraceful way to treat impoverished people? Is not the answer that the agency was deliberately underfunded when it was set up?

Clearly, it is impossible for me to respond on the Floor of the House to individual cases of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If he would like to write to me with details, I will certainly follow it up.

Bearing in mind the difficulties with inquiries, can the Minister confirm that the awards will be backdated where necessary and, therefore, that applicants will not continue to lose out?

I can certainly given my hon. Friend that assurance. What is more, I can say that general rules on benefits provide that compensation is available when a benefit has not been paid for 12 months since the date of claim or when some delay has led to an interruption of the benefit for three months. Some 76 such claims have already been met.

Can the Minister tell us why a constituent of mine received a letter about disability living allowance from the Benefits Agency on 1 November saying that if she wants her benefit to continue after 1 May next year—that is six months later—she should claim straight away, and that if she delays, the Benefits Agency may not have time to deal with the claim before it ends on 1 May? Why does the agency need six months to be certain of renewing a claim?

The present target for the Benefits Agency is to clear 60 per cent. of claims in 30 days. Half the disability benefit centres are meeting that target. [Interruption.] If I may say, the proper way for the hon. Lady to deal with the matter is for her to write to me, and I shall take it up with the chief executive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what success his Department has had in tracing money owed to the Maxwell pension funds.

My Department's Maxwell pensions unit is actively assisting the trustees, liquidators and administrators of the Maxwell schemes who have responsibility for tracing and recovering the missing assets.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many hundreds of my constituents in Aylesbury still live daily with uncertainty and fear for the future because of the robbery of their life savings by Mr. Maxwell? What assurance can she give those constituents today about the future payment of their pensions? When can we finally expect to see the distribution of the assets in the common investment fund which seem to have been held up in legal bureaucracy for far too long?

My hon. Friend has correctly identified the single biggest measure that could be taken to restore peace of mind to the Maxwell pensioners—the distribution of the £123 million which exists, unlike the money that has yet to be recovered, but has not yet been allocated. The trustees of those funds have now had almost a year of discussions on the allocation of the money. It is our earnest hope that they will be able to make rapid progress towards a solution.

Will the Minister give an assurance that other firms such as British Coal which want to do a Maxwell—British Coal has pinched £735 million from the miners' pension fund—will not be allowed to do so in the future? In order to ensure that we get the money back for the Maxwell pensioners, perhaps the Minister will drop a line to Lord Walker who received £440,000 and a Mercedes car out of Maxwell just before he finished. The £440,000 came out of the pockets of the Maxwell pensioners, and Lord Walker should pay it back to those people.

I think that there are rather a lot of people in the other place to whom one could drop a line. Some of them sit on the same side as the hon. Gentleman. He has no good evidence that other firms are trying to do what he describes as a Maxwell. Nevertheless, he will be aware of the existence of the Goode committee which I hope will address such outstanding concerns and on which we will take appropriate action.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said. There is an equally serious problem in my constituency with Maxwell pensioners. Former Maxwell employees who were entitled to a deferred pension are extremely worried about whether they will get their pensions. Can the Minister say anything more today to reassure them?

Yes. Through the emergency measures that the Government have taken to secure funding for the Maxwell pensioners, deferred pensioners whose pensions are now falling due will receive their pension in the same way as other pensioners. For those deferred pensioners whose pensions are due not now, but in the longer term, the solution lies, initially, with the allocation of moneys from the common investment fund.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to consult disabled people and their representatives on the design and promotion of the new disability living allowance and disability working allowance.

The design and promotion of DLA and DWA were developed in close consultation with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. Following the introduction of those new benefits, we continue to consult widely both formally and informally.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the increased resources that his Department has allotted to the handling of the disability living allowance, there has been a substantial improvement in the speed at which claims are processed? Will he confirm that the Department remains committed to increasing the speed at which claims are handled?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that that is so. The backlog of claims—in excess of what we would normally expect for in-hand claims—has now been removed. We are also ensuring that claim forms and letters associated with benefits are kept in a constant state of review and improved as necessary.

From where have the 800 additional staff been brought, and what impact has that movement had on claimants in other sectors of the system?

Because of the relatively low take-up of the disability working allowance in its early days, we were able to move a number of people who were previously dealing with that benefit, and people from other parts of the Benefits Agency, on to clearing the backlog of DLA. A substantial amount of the work has also been achieved by the introduction of considerable amounts of overtime during the week and at weekends.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of low-income families facing marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. (a) in 1978–79 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.

In 1985, the earliest year for which information is available, 70,000 families had marginal deduction rates of more than 100 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department has organised successful campaigns since 1989 to increase public awareness about the take-up of family credit? Does he agree that those campaigns were most useful in spreading awareness and increasing the take-up of that vital benefit?

I can, indeed, confirm my hon. Friend's point. Family credit is a unique benefit, with little or no counterpart elsewhere in Europe. It serves a valuable function in helping people back into work, when they have only a relatively low earning ability initially. We want the benefit to be widely known and recognized—it is in the interests of families, as well as taxpayers, for people to shift from full-time reliance on income support into work, with family credit.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, for households in low-paid work, receiving assistance with housing costs and community charge costs, the marginal rate of withdrawal of benefit has risen from 62p in the pound in 1979 to a current rate of 87p in the pound? How can the Secretary of State justify the deep poverty trap into which he has plunged hundreds of thousands of households. Will he say how many have been affected by that totally unjust poverty trap?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we wish, as he does, to see any disincentive effects of the social security system diminish. That was the prime objective of my right hon. Friend's reforms in 1985–86. It was one reason why we moved from assessing income on a gross basis to a net-of-tax basis. The tax changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, particularly the 20 per cent. band for the lowest paid—previously, the band was up to 33 per cent.—has resulted in a reduced disincentive effect on their earnings combined with benefit. All those factors have reduced the number of people facing the highest rates of effective tax when on low incomes. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, not wish us to go back to a system under which many people suffered withdrawal rates of more than 100 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been more than 2·5 million successful claims for family credit since it was introduced in 1988? Is that not powerful evidence that that important benefit, which supports people in work, is supporting many thousands of low-paid workers in this country?

My hon. Friend's facts are entirely correct. The recent figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests that the take-up rate has been improving, and that those who do not take up the benefit are predominantly those who have the lowest entitlement to the money and, therefore, lose least by not taking it up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposed new medical control procedures for invalidity benefit from April 1993.

The changes announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 November will streamline controls that already apply to all claims for incapacity benefits. Better use of our medical resources will help to ensure that invalidity benefit is properly paid.

Is not streamlining another way of saving money for the Treasury? What qualifications does the Minister have to entitle him to overrule doctors who have responsibility for judging the invalidity of claimants?

At present, the majority of claimants are dealt with on the basis of judgments made by general practitioners. I see no reason why that should not continue once we have streamlined the proceedings. About 50,000 claimants a year fail to appear for subsequent medical examinations by our medical services. Those people will be given more notice of the dates of their examinations. They will be expected to give reasons if they are not to attend. I believe that the improved reports by the examining doctors will reduce the number of people who have to attend for a second examination, as about 50,000 now have to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will now meet pension associations to discuss the implementation of a pensioners charter.

Pensioners already have a charter, the citizens charter, which works towards making the service to pensioners more accessible, accountable and responsive to their needs and expectations.

The pensioners whom I have met throughout Britain do not rate that charter. They take the view that it will not do them any good. They are concerned about their own charter during this winter. They want to ensure that those pensioners who might well die of hypothermia will be able to use some of the 46 million tonnes of coal that we have in stock to keep themselves warm. Similarly, they want to be sure that those who are at risk of hypothermia will have enough food to ensure that they do not starve during the winter. They want the £20 back that the Tory Government took off them when they broke the link with earnings and prices. They want all pensioners to have a television licence.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must ask a question, and he is well capable of doing so.

They want included in the charter the abolition of standing charges for pensioners. Unlike—

Order. I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to ask a question. I want a question, not comment.

To follow up the charter, I hope that the Minister will introduce a Bill to abolish standing charges for pensioners. If she cannot find the money to enable that to happen, she should go to the Treasury, which has paid out £4,500 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and say, "We want the money for the pensioners of Britain."

Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants the money and he has the money. That is what was said in the autumn statement not long ago. Pensioners do not want to see their savings eroded by inflation, which is what happened during the 1970s under the Labour Government. They want to be able to rely on their Christmas bonus and not miss it for two years because there is an incompetent Labour Government. They want to ensure that the value of their incomes rises by 34 per cent., as it has under this Administration, and not by the miserable 3 per cent. that it rose under the Labour Government.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that people in glass houses should not throw stones? Does she agree that the only real threat of means-testing the basic state pension came from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?

All real threats to pensioners come from the Opposition. It is true that the only serious suggestion of means-testing state pension came from the Leader of the Opposition when he was setting up what he deemed to be the commission for social justice. I do not know what social justice is involved in means-testing the pension.

Means-testing was in fact suggested by a Tory pressure group two years ago. Why is it that Britain's pensioners are among the poorest in the European Community? This winter, hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country will be fearful of heating their homes properly because they know that they would be unable to pay their fuel bills. Would not money be better spent on pensioners, rather than paying the Chancellor of the Exchequer's bill in respect of what was essentially a private matter?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the Labour party draws its policy from Tory pressure groups. Far from Britain's pensioners being the worst-off in Europe, they are among the best-off. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only Britain and Spain supply free prescriptions to pensioners; that in any study of pensioners on half-average earnings, Britain's pensioners come out first or second; and that, unlike some other countries in Europe, we do not take into account children's income when assessing pensioners' rights? Should not the hon. Gentleman be ashamed? I recommend that he reads the good article that appeared in yesterday's Sunday Express.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate has been made of the numbers of ordained clergy resigning posts within the Church of England in the next three years and of the consequential effects on payments of stipends.

The possible cost of making financial provision for ministers of religion who resign in opposition to women being ordained as priests are set out in a report published by the General Synod, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Ministers of religion are entitled to such provision only if they resign after the promulgation of the relevant canon, and that is unlikely to be before November next year, and will possibly be later.

In view of the personal anguish suffered by priests who feel that they are being pushed out of their churches, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that their pensions will not be aflected—particularly bearing in mind the fact that the commissioners will find themselves in deep financial crisis trying to cope with the changes?

My hon. Friend may have heard of the substantial sums that have been notionally set aside. However, it is not a question of individual clergy being forced from their churches, but of their withdrawing or resigning voluntarily. Considerable sums will be made available in the form both of compensation and housing assistance. Pensions will not of course arise in the case of a number of younger men who retire before reaching pensionable age.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the financial implications for the commissioners of the proposal of the General Synod to open the priesthood to women.

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I have just given my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no consideration of costs should interfere with that welcome decision, and that it would be disgraceful if the House took an opposing view of the decision already agreed by the General Synod? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that equal pay and equal opportunity legislation will fully apply in the case of women priests?

On the hon. Lady's last point, there is no question but that a woman priest would receive exactly the same stipend and allowances as a male incumbent at the same level and of the same status. There will be absolutely no discrimination in terms of sex. As to the vote that might be taken in the House, it would be rash of me to lay down how right hon. and hon. Members in any part of the House ought to vote when the expediency or otherwise of the motion in question is debated. Certainly it is traditional that the House does not attempt to overturn the majority, as appropriately reached, in the General Synod. The hon. Lady will have heard that no financial considerations will in any way be put in the path of the ordination of women. We are making good and reasonable compensation terms for those who want to retire.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the commissioners have made of the financial effects of the proposals of the General Synod to approve the ordination of women to the priesthood.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) a few moments ago.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the financial implications of the measure—if it is passed by both Houses of Parliament—to enable women to be priests is that potentially a huge additional resource will be available to the Church of England in terms of qualified, ordained personnel and that once all the women who want to be ordained are in place the Church of England will be at a great advantage in reaching new congregations and bringing in new income?

I fully take the hon. Gentleman's point, though he went slightly wider than the financial implications of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. He is right that the admission of women to the priesthood in the Church of England would very much increase the scope and outreach of the Church of England, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of those who might be ordained as women priests are already deacons and to that extent already receive quite substantial pay, so the net increase in cost to the Church of England is unlikely to be as great as it might at first sight appear.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the new proposals concerning eligibility for legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of such representations.

Is there not something rotten in the state of Britain when, within one month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can announce proposals that will make 10 million people ineligible for legal aid and yet can be allowed to spend £4,000—his own private legal aid scheme—on paying his own private bill for an entirely private matter? What has Britain come to, and is there any integrity left in Cabinet Ministers and Officers of the Crown?

I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's references to 10 million people. I do not know how the calculation was made. Last year, 250,000 people litigated with legal aid, which makes claims of about 10 million people look pretty silly. The hon. Gentleman wholly improperly seeks to make a connection between my right hon. Friend's legal expenses on the one hand and legal aid on the other. They are quite different issues.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not alone in making that connection. Given the difficulty that increasing numbers of our fellow citizens, of modest means and with just causes, have in obtaining legal aid, can the Minister tell us what was the basis on which legal aid was granted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his own seemingly less than deserving case? Furthermore, will the Minister publish the guidelines upon which legal aid was granted? If there are no such guidelines and if the Lord Chancellor's Department has not been consulted upon them, why not? As the profession's friend in these matters, will the Minister also point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he must instruct a solicitor at public expense there are other solicitors to whom he might go who are considerably cheaper?

Yes, I used to be one of those cheaper solicitors myself. The hon. Gentleman wrongly referred to resources placed at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as legal aid. It was not legal aid of the kind that the hon. Gentleman and I refer to. The then Permanent Secretary to the Treasury decided at the time that it was reasonable to meet a small proportion of the Chancellor's legal fees, including covering the cost of putting out an initial statement and handling subsequent press inquiries. I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in this conclusion: we ought to bear it in mind that the provision of legal aid and assistance at public expense is almost unique in this country. It is infinitely the best provision that is made anywhere in the world. The authority for that is Lord Williams of Mostyn, chairman of the Bar Council, who speaks for the Labour party in another place.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he intends to take to ensure the efficient administration of justice in magistrates courts.

The Government's plans for the future of the magistrates courts service were set out in the White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice". One of the objectives of the plans, which are in line with the guiding principles of the citizens charter, is to yield improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the service.

Has the Minister had the misfortune of attending a magistrates court as a witness, as I did in October, having had my car stolen in September? When I arrived at the due time, none of the three defendants were present. There were, however, four other witnesses besides myself, including three public-spirited men from the village where the alleged thieves came from. The case had to be postponed, which must have caused much expense. The Lord Chancellor's Department should be making effective proposals to ensure that such events do not happen. Does he know how much the non-appearance of defendants is costing?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not invite me to the Dispatch Box to discuss his case, but rather the kind of difficulties that it represents. The White Paper "A New Framework for Local Justice" tries, above all, to achieve not merely best practice between different magistrates benches but the co-operation of all the agencies involved in court cases. It is only fair to bear it in mind, however, that it is extremely difficult to sustain a case when the defendant does not turn up because he is involved in a simultaneous court case somewhere else and does not bother to tell the court. Little can be done about that until magistrates courts are linked by a computer network, and it is our intention that they should be.

As an even cheaper solicitor than my hon. Friend and, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, an even better one, may I ask whether he has taken into account the views of the Bar Council that magistrates courts should sit at night, for some reason that is not entirely clear to me? Does he realise that if that suggestion were implemented, the solicitors' branch of the profession would have to work 12, 14 or 16 hours a day, unlike the more elevated and elegant members of the Bar? I hope that he will take that into account.

I will not follow my hon. Friend in the terms and idiom that he put his question, but I am prepared to take a close interest in and look at the suggestion of evening sittings to see whether it would advantage the court user, whose needs should be first and foremost.

The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that the administration of justice in poll tax cases—[Interruption] is nothing short of a national scandal. Magistrates have the power to insist on means inquiries and to waive charges where hardship is proven but are not using either of them. Will the Minister look at this as a matter of urgency because many people are suffering?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the working of the Children Act 1989 in the courts. A provisional review of the Act's workings show that it is broadly satisfactorily, but I share the hon. Gentleman's suspicion that some magistrates courts are working better than others. That is why fewer things could be more urgent that the introduction of an inspectorate of magistrates courts to achieve best practice in all magistrates courts.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on delays in the Commercial Division of the High Court.

The Commercial Division has reached a relatively stable position and has been able to allocate trial times for parties who are ready for trial. Recent promotions to the Court of Appeal have, however, had a temporary effect on waiting times, although I am confident that when new appointments are made, matters will improve rapidly.

My hon. Friend is aware of the reputation of the Commercial Division for the international resolution of disputes. Is he also aware that 90 per cent. of cases heard in the Commercial Division involve at least one foreign party, and that that generates an income running into hundreds of millions of pounds, which helps our balance of payments by way of invisible exports? Is not it short-sighted in the extreme to underman that court by a shortage of commercial judges which, I understand, will continue into next year?

No. At the beginning of the current legal term, only five judges were available to sit in the Commercial Division although lists are planned on the basis that six judges are available to sit. A further nomination can be expected very soon.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to hold additional Crown court sittings in York.

The work load of the Crown court at York is increasing. Some cases from York are currently being transferred to Leeds. Two court rooms at Hull will be utilised also to contain York's existing work load. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that exploratory discussions are taking place between my Department and York city council concerning the possibility of incorporating a new court building into a proposed development near the existing Crown court building in York.

What reassurance can the Minister give a constituent about whom have written to his Department? She was attacked by a man and had to spend 46 weeks living with him at large in the community, as he was remanded on bail between the date of committal and the date of the trial, at which he was found guilty. Will the Minister take action in the interim, before building a new court, to look for premises in York in which he could open a temporary third court to shorten the waiting time? After all, the courts charter published last week says that 16 weeks should be the maximum time between committal and trial.

It is certainly true that there has been an unusual surge of case load in the York area which has been against the national trend. I cannot comment on the individual lady's case, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I will ensure him a proper reply.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the number of applicants who will be denied access to legal aid in consequence of the proposed changes to the legal aid scheme.

We estimate that around 2 per cent. of households will no longer be eligible for legal aid as a result of the measures announced recently. In addition, the decision not to uprate the income limit from next April will result in a further 8 per cent. of households not being restored to eligibility.

Does the Minister accept that access to justice is one of the fundamental principles of a free and democratic society? How can he justify steps that will deny that right to a substantial number of our fellow citizens who are on modest incomes, especially when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets a handout for his legal action?

It is very important to remember that our legal aid system is probably the most generous in the world. Its cost has doubled in the past four years, yet, even so, it is destined under the autumn statement to go up by 10 per cent. in each of the next three years. Even after the changes announced, it will still be available to 48 per cent. of households, and one fifth of households will receive legal aid without any contribution. It remains targeted at the poorest people, as it should be.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if someone needs legal aid to defend a position, he is justly entitled to receive it if he qualifies? By the same token, there are people who are absolute scoundrels and who take on people through litigation. Some people have to put their hands in their pockets to pay for the case while the others get legal aid although they are not really entitled to it. We are the custodians of taxpayers' money.

Once again, that is a powerfully expressed view on the subject, with not a little of which I agree. I am at pains to say while I am at the Dispatch Box that the effect of the recent changes on criminal legal aid is likely to be small, although some people will have to pay more in contributions; I think that they should.

Has the Minister discussed the matter with the Law Society since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the announcement? Why is there such an extraordinarily large discrepancy between what the Minister has said this afternoon and the estimate of the Law Society which claimed that 10 million more people are ineligible as a result of the Chancellor's announcement?

I have noticed that the solicitors' estimate is similar to that of the Liberal party and I cannot account for either.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements there are to ensure that legal aid is available to all those who need but cannot afford legal advice.

All people whose disposable income is below £6,800 and whose disposable capital is below £6,750 will still be eligible for civil legal aid. For personal injuries cases the limits are £7,500 and £8,560. Those whose disposable income does not exceed income support level will be eligible for legal aid without a contribution.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in the opinion of Sheffield law centre for example, cuts in eligibility for legal aid will have a particularly serious effect on women who try to get support from the courts against violent men in their own homes or outside? Contrary to stereotype, the majority of such women are not on income support. What arrangements will the Government make to ensure that women who are in that threatening situation are encouraged to take up the legal protection to which they are entitled?

In addition to the services of the legal profession, valuable contributions are made by law centres and citizens advice bureaux. Women in the plight described by the hon. Lady are very much the concern of the Lord Chancellor's Department which is inquiring urgently into questions of domestic violence and how they affect women. Before long, it may be possible to legislate in that area to alleviate a very real grievance which is admittedly and very largely a women's issue and one that rightly claims the full attention and concern of society.