To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the target period within which applicants for disability living allowance should receive a decision; and what target he has set for responding to representations from hon. Members on behalf of constituents in respect of applications for disability living allowance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new steps he is taking to ensure that the delays in responding to applications for disability living allowance are eliminated.

Current targets are that 60 per cent. of applicants for disability living allowance should receive a decision within 30 days and 95 per cent. should do so within 55 days. However, the latter target is under review. The Benefits Agency has also undertaken to reply to correspondence from hon. Members within an average of 20 days.

I have had a rash of letters from the head of the Benefits Agency since I tabled this question, but none met the 20-day target—most of them were replies to letters that had been hanging around on his desk for three months or more. Does the Minister recognise that by the time constituents go to their Member of Parliament they have often been trying to get sense out of the system in person, by letter and by telephone for a year or more? Does he also recognise that these are some of the most vulnerable people in our society? Whom does he want us to blame—the head of the Benefits Agency, for running a sloppy and incompetent administration? Or should we not blame the Secretary of State and seek his resignation?

If the hon. Gentleman was present for previous exchanges on the matter, he will know how much the Government and the agency regret the backlog that was caused by the early surge of claims for disability living allowance. I am confident that it is now under control and that targets will be met in future. As for letters, the agency gave priority to the clearance of claims. It is now writing to Members of Parliament with an up-to-date report on the way in which the claim have been decided.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety about the quality of decision making by the Benefits Agency on disability living allowance? If the quality of decision making is bad, it will store up a great deal more trouble and anxiety for the vulnerable people who are affected. Will the Minister give two assurances? First, will he thoroughly investigate every allegation in The Sunday Times article yesterday and report to the House? Secondly, will he give a belated Valentine to the people affected and say that no one will lose out as a result of knock-on effects or any other repercussion caused by the disgraceful circus of disorganisation?

No one will lose money, because the payment of any benefit that is awarded will be backdated to the time of the claim. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the knock-on effects?"] As for other backlogs, outstanding letters from Members of Parliament should be cleared by the end of February. I believe that from then on we shall be in a steady state.

In considering the administrative practicalities of providing support for disabled people rapidly, sensitively and cost-effectively, as I know is his wish, will my right hon. Friend also look sympathetically at the case for providing cash rather than services to certain severely disabled people who would rather organise their own personal assistance? Is there any reason why the Government should not give a fair wind to the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)?

On the latter point, it will rest with local authorities from April this year to provide packages of community care. Local authorities are not enabled to pay cash, but they will be able to provide services. It is the intention of colleagues in the Department of Health that disabled people should be closely involved with the development of those packages. As the House already knows, I intend to legislate in the near future for a successor body to the independent living fund.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 200,000 people who were not benefiting previously have benefited from the introduction of the new disability living allowance? Is that not striking proof positive that the Government are mindful of the needs of the disabled and of helping constructively in that respect?

I well understand my hon. Friend's remarks and I am grateful to him for his support. The concept and, increasingly, the delivery of DLA has been spectacularly successful. Hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from it and the self-assessment system is working extremely well—better than any of the previous arrangements. The staff of the agency are to be congratulated on their achievement.

For those constituents who come to our surgeries because they are gaining no money from the benefits, could the Minister give us the timetable during which their claims will be met and paid?

I have already told the House what will happen to new claims, which will be met within targets. The Benefits Agency intends to ensure that all claims received up to December last year will be handled by April this year.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he responded to the embarrassement of riches in terms of the number of applicants for disability living allowance? Is it not worth pointing out that since 1979 the Government have increased spending on the long-term sick and disabled by 170 per cent?

That is true, and DLA will further increase that figure. About 370,000 awards are being made under DLA, which is a great achievement.

Does the Minister accept, as he must on the evidence, that the DLA experience has been a disaster for the many applicants left in limbo and also for the benefits system? The news that many people, some with no money coming in from a benefit source, will have to wait until April will add to the distress. Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the distinction made by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who argues that no DLA file has been lost, although some are difficult to find? Has he seen the reports about a DLA filing system which does not fit the files and is 40 miles from the officers who take the decisions? How on earth could something like that arise?

The remote filing system at Nelson serves not only DLA but a considerable number of other benefits and it seems sensible to keep those files at a central point. I acknowledge that there were delays, which caused considerable distress to a large number of customers during the early days of the benefit. I have apologised to the House for that, and I have acknowledged that the surge in claims at the launch of the benefit caused the problem. We are largely through that, and shall be able to meet targets from now on.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average value of an occupational pension (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that between 1979 and 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, it is estimated that the average value of occupational pensions in payment rose from £34 per week to £51.80 per week at 1988 prices—this represents an increase of about 52 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that about 70 per cent. of recently retired people obtain occupational pensions, and that that trend has been rising steadily throughout the past decade? Can she confirm that it remains Government policy to encourage as many people as possible to follow that means of provision?

Yes, I have pleasure in confirming that my hon. Friend's figures are correct. They exclude the 5 million people who now provide for themselves through personal pensions, which is another sign of the Government's commitment to a proper combination of private and public provision for retirement income.

Is the Minister aware that retired local government officers in Scotland on average receive only £2,014 per annum from occupational pensions? Does she accept that that is below the figure bandied about as the sort of pension paid to retired local government officers? Does that not show that, before the Government start to tamper with the state pension, they should have regard to the fact that many occupational pensions do not pay that much money to their pensioners?

I was pointing out that occupational pensions pay an increasing amount to their pensioners. The figures are somewhat depressed if one includes in them those who retired when occupational pensions were in their infancy. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of understanding what an average is, however, and that if there is an average pension, some people will receive far more than that and some will get somewhat less.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the occupational pensions industry is increasingly equalising the pension age at 65 and that it would be helpful from its point of view if we equalised the state retirement age at 65 as well? I declare an interest in that I fully intend to work until the age of 65 at least.

I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend intends to work until she is 65 and I am sure that she will represent her constituents well throughout that time. The Government are entirely committed to equalising the state pension age and our equalisation proposals were set out in a consultation document. Those four options are still under consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on maintaining the value of the basic retirement pension in real terms.

Since 1979, we have more than fulfilled our pledge to maintain the real value of the basic state pension.

The Secretary of State will recall that since the Government scrapped the link with earnings, single pensioners and married couples are, respectively, about £17–65 and £28 per week worse off. My city of Birmingham has more than 103,000 pensioners living in poverty who are forced to choose between having a decent diet and meeting the cost of rising fuel bills. Some 39 per cent. of them have no central heating and 45 per cent. have no loft insulation. Can the Secretary of State or the Government really be proud of their record of cutting the value of the state pension?

Because we have focused additional resources on the most needy, and because we have encouraged people to make increased provision over and above their basic state pension, the average income of pensioners has risen more every year under this Government than under the five years of the previous Labour Government. So the answer is yes, we are proud of our record and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his.

Will my right hon. Friend condemn a policy that seeks to means-test the state pension as well as to discourage private provision? Is he aware that such a policy is now an official policy of the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a most extraordinary combination for any political party to adopt. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has specifically required his social justice commission to consider means-testing every universal benefit, including the basic pension. The Opposition are bound to follow such a policy because of their commitment to uprate that pension in line with earnings rather than prices. If they are to get extra resources for the most needy, they will have to means-test that pension and they know it.

Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's assurances about the Government's intention regarding price protection for the basic state pension, does he acknowledge that the value of that pension depends to a large extent on fuel bills, food bills and public utility costs? If there is any truth in the rumour that the Treasury is considering imposing value added tax on those items, will the right hon. Gentleman's Department ensure that those costs are made up through the social security system?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not answer hypothetical questions, but he will be interested in the fact that if, since 1979, pensions had been raised in line with the pensioners index—the index which looks specifically at the goods and services that pensioners buy —rather than with the retail prices index, as we have done, pensioners would be receiving £6–65 per week less.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for increasing the control and choice individuals have over their social security benefits and pensions.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to enabling individuals to take greater control of all areas of their lives. Our policy on earnings-related pension provision is an excellent example of that commitment. Since 1988, 5 million people have taken out personal pensions, in addition to the 11 million people who are members of occupational pension schemes.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since 1979, Conservative Governments have maintained their manifesto pledges to increase the basic pension in line with prices? Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates that Conservatives take their manifesto pledges seriously? Will he therefore take this opportunity to condemn the scaremongering carried out by Labour Members of Parliament who frequently suggest that we are about to break our pledges?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party has a reputation second to none for keeping its pledges. The uprating statement in the autumn demonstrated that we keep our pledges to pensioners and families, despite the scaremongering by Labour Members which preceded the outcome of that round. The Labour party has a lot to be ashamed of, as it broke its pledges to pensioners, cut the real value of pensions by 60 per cent., cut the Christmas bonus and robbed pensioners through inflation, which wiped out their savings.

Does the Secretary of State realise that social security benefits constitute a two-way package whereby people contribute to the national insurance fund and then, in return, when the time comes, make their claims? In the 13 years of the Conservative Government there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the rate of contribution, but a withdrawal of the earnings-related element, sickness, unemployment and invalidity benefits, widows pensions and a range of other matters. How does the Secretary of State answer that charge?

I do recognise that. As I said to the Select Committee on Social Security, I think that there is more strength in the contributory principle than many intellectuals believe. However, the hon. Gentleman had better have an argument with one such intellectual, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who, in his leadership statement, questioned whether the Labour party should maintain the distinction between national insurance benefits, which are available only on the contribution test, and means-tested benefits. I said that I recognised that issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but does the Labour party? And will the Labour party keep its long-standing commitment to that principle? It seems not.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of encouraging alternative provision, especially occupational pension provision, is the control of inflation, and that no occupational pension fund, however well funded, could cope with the inflation levels that occurred under the last Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is right. We are uprating the pension by 3.6 per cent.—the rate of inflation prior to the uprating statement. The current, most recent, figure is 1·7 per cent.—half that level. That means that during the past 12 months inflation has risen less than it did on average for every month of all five years of the last Labour Government.

Is the Minister aware that the only choice open to many pensioners is to live from hand to mouth? Why does he close his eyes to the desperate plight of those pensioners who are refused additional benefits because they receive tiny occupational pensions?

We have been increasing the amount of resources channelled to pensioners with the lowest incomes. I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that in the uprating statement I was able to confirm that, on top of the increase in line with inflation, an extra £500 million would go, through the pensioners' premiums, to those on the lowest incomes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of Maxwell pensioners had no choice because membership of the pension scheme was a condition of their employment? Has my right hon. Friend a message for those office holders who are still haggling and delaying the unfreezing of the common investment fund, which should be paid to the benefit of those pensioners in need?

My hon. Friend powerfully makes his point, which I think will have much support on both sides of the House. We hope that Sir John Cuckney's request is successful and that matters will be resolved rapidly. We want those involved—liquidators, solicitors, executives or trustees—to bring about an early settlement and distribute the money so that the pensioners know that they can keep receiving their pensions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he is considering to the state retirement pension.

We have more than maintained the value of the basic state pension since 1979.

If the Government have really dropped the idea of means-testing state pensions—we do not know for certain whether they have—is not that only because of the outrage in the country when reports appeared last week, such as the one in The Sunday Times, which clearly showed that that was what the Government intended to do? What possible justification can there be for raising the state pension age for women from 60 to 65? There is no justification: it was not in the Tory election manifesto, and it would be quite wrong to take that step.

On means-testing the basic state pension, the more intelligent Members on both sides will be aware that our manifesto promises are a somewhat better guide than press speculation. Furthermore, actions speak louder than words. As we promised in our manifesto to uprate pensions in line with prices and, despite immense public expenditure pressures, still went ahead and did that in the autumn statement, I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman has not yet realised that we take our manifesto promises extremely seriously.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the greatest threat to pensioners, particularly those on small fixed incomes, is inflation and that in one year of the Labour party's term of office more than a quarter of the value of the basic pension was wiped out by inflation?

Indeed—for all the talk by the Opposition about how pensioners would be better off from an earnings link, the fact remains that when the Labour party practised it, not only did inflation wipe out the value of the increases but retirement income actually rose no more throughout the whole time of the Labour Government than it has risen every year during our period of office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on future arrangements for the operation of the independent living fund.

Details of these arrangements will be announced shortly.

Is the Minister aware that, putting it mildly, there seems to be some confusion between his Department and the Department of Health about the arrangements from April this year? Can he clarify the suggestion that there will be a £500 per week maximum for payment from the independent living fund plus the value of local authoriity services to any one client and that clients requiring more than that amount will be expected to enter residential or nursing care permanently? If that is so, and if care capping is to be introduced by the Department, does he accept that that completely undermines the whole process of assessment being introduced in the community care changes with effect from April?

I shall certainly not be tempted into commenting on what I understand was a leaked document. As I have already made clear, the time will come when it will be right for me to announce to the House the full arrangements for the assessment and delivery of services, and any additional cash which may be necessary to support independent living for disabled people.

When the Minister considers future arrangements, will he look again at the chaos governing relations between the disability living allowance and applications to the independent living fund? Although he said in an answer to me that the trustees have discretion to take applications from people who have applied for DLA, in practice that discretion has been taken away by the trustees due to lack of funds and they are taking applications only from people in receipt of the old attendance allowance. That is a double blow to people waiting in desperation for their DLA to come through. They are doubly disadvantaged because they will not now be allowed to apply to the ILF. Surely the Government have some responsibility for this chaos and for ensuring that people are not doubly disadvantaged, first by having to wait for the DLA and then by losing out in terms of money from the ILF. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into future arrangements and ensure that people are compensated for the chaos that the Government have created?

No, I do not believe that that is so. I can only repeat that it would have been open to the trustees of the independent living fund to use their discretion to deem people to be in a position in which they would qualify for a payment from the ILF. We are, in any case, only about six weeks away from the beginning of the next financial year and the launch of the new independent living fund.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to reduce the current levels of public expenditure on social security transfer payments.

Our spending plans were set out in the autumn statement on 12 November 1992.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is something deeply offensive about an evening-suited Prime Minister standing up at the Carlton club and addressing a bunch of well-fed Tories about the possibility of people on benefit having to work to get their benefit? Is not it outrageous that the poorest in our society, particularly unemployed people, should have in effect to pay twice over for the economic incompetence of this most stupid and recalcitrant Government? For the sake of better clarity, will the right hon. Gentleman now make it quite clear that under no circumstances will a Conservative Government means test the basic state retirement pension —yes or no?

The world has been a better place since the hon. Member and his party improved their sartorial appearance. Under the previous Labour Government, whom the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) supported, one condition of receiving benefit was that one did nothing. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it is more sensible to look for ways of increasing the opportunities and requirements for people to do something—to improve their qualifications, to improve their contact with work and to contribute to the community. I think that that has widespread support. I made it quite clear that, unlike the social justice commission, which was established by the leader of the Labour party, we have no plans to means test the basic pension.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are no questions about child benefit, because one of the ways of ensuring the welfare of children is for the Government to go on meeting their manifesto pledge, which was also set out in the autumn statement, that child benefit will continue to recognise that when people have children their taxable capacity is reduced but their needs increased? The child cash allowance is more equitable than a child tax allowance.

My hon. Friend will know that we have no plans to abandon our manifesto pledge, which we upheld in the autumn statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receive mobility allowance; and what was the figure in 1979.

In 1979 an estimated average of 95,000 people received mobility allowance. By 1992. the figure had risen to 660,000—almost a sevenfold increase. The introduction of disability living allowance has extended help with mobility costs even further.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those excellent figures. Will he confirm that they show an increase of 173 per cent. in real terms? Does he agree that that is acceptable progress, compared with the carping and jeering of Labour Members, whose party always failed to deliver the same level of support to sick and disabled people?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I am particularly glad that, unlike the Labour party, we were able to introduce the disability living allowance in one go rather than having to phase it in over four years. I am delighted at the success of the new lower rates that have been introduced for DLA, which will make a significant improvement in the provision for mobility costs.

May I press the Minister further on the reply that he gave earlier? Is he aware that since he last answered the question four weeks ago, hon. Members have received replies that had been waiting two or three months and that his assurances do not ring all that true? When will all those who are waiting have their cases cleared up, because it is they who are suffering from the Government's subterfuge in staging the introduction of the benefit?

I well understand the puzzlement of hon. Members who have received letters informing them of the outcome of claims that were settled weeks ago. It is perfectly understandable for the Benefits Agency to have concentrated on clearing those claims first and then bringing hon. Members up to date. Hon. Members' letters should be cleared by the end of this month. All new Members' letters will now be met within the 20-day target. Last year's claims will be cleared by April, and reviews and appeals should be cleared by May.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the speeding up of the payment—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask Question 11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to improve the administration of the disability living allowance.

As I have said before, I take a close, personal interest in the administration of disability living allowance and meet the chief executive of the Benefits Agency regularly to review progress and discuss the improvements in hand. Apart from the steps already taken, the agency is reviewing the procedures for processing claims, setting up additional processing centres and increasing the training for staff.

I welcome the additional announcements that my right hon. Friend has made for speeding up the payment of DLA, which will also be welcome to my constituents. Is he aware that dozens of my constituents have had their applications lost and have waited months without a reply, and that, according to The Sunday Times yesterday, more than 1,400 people are in that situation? Can he explain how that has happened and what measures he is taking to deal with the problem?

I say to my hon. Friend as I have said on a number of occasions, both from the Dispatch Box and in other forums, that we recognise that there was an unexpected surge of claims following the successful launch of the new benefit, and particularly as a result of the success of the advertising campaigns. There is no doubt that the agency went through a rough time early on in overcoming the problems. I am sure that it is now in a position to overcome them and that we can look forward to a much smoother path.

Can the Minister or the Benefits Agency now say how many DLA claimants died before their claims were processed and how long they waited in each case?

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is the same as it was when he last asked it—no.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has had from care providers regarding the costs of residential and nursing care.

Several representations have been received recently, from both individuals and representative bodies.

Is the Minister aware that the cost of a weekly place in a residential or nursing care home as calculated by his Department falls up to £50 short of the real cost? Can he comment on the fact that the Government's hope that the cost-care gap will be made up by charitable donations is pie in the sky, given both the scale and length of the recession and the fact that the National Lotteries Bill will reduce charitable income even more? What will the Government do to put payments for care places on a more secure footing?

I am sure that the hon. Lady will he pleased to know that expenditure on people in homes has increased enormously since 1979 from the £10 million spent then to £2.5 billion spent now. The last uprating increased the amount going into homes by over the rate of inflation—by about 3·6 per cent. The hon. Lady will appreciate that no Government can make a commitment to pay all the fees up to the full limit because that would lead to the abuse that there was before.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the main concern among private providers of residential accommodation in nursing homes is the risk of a vendetta by left-wing local authorities from 1 April, who, for purely ideological reasons, will refuse to finance the cost of accommodation in such homes?

My hon. Friend will be aware that matters relating to the registration of homes are the responsibility more of the Department of Health than of this Department, but I am aware of the concerns already expressed to Departments about such matters. The quality of care delivered to the elderly has been immeasurably increased over the past decade partly because of the quality of care in the independent sector, and the way in which that has increased and encouraged the delivery of quality care in the local authority sector. The quality of care given to elderly people by all providers is substantially better than it was a decade or 20 years ago.

Is the Minister aware that the Government have forced local authorities to get rid of their beds? The Government have put enormous pressure on people to go into private homes. There is a real fear that after 1 April many of the most damaged people will not be able to pay for their accommodation in the private sector because of the Government's actions and the lack of money available to local authorities. How does the Minister satisfy those people? There are many who are terrified of what will happen to their elderly, who in many instances are mentally handicapped.

Substantial resources have been placed into the community care system to cover situations such as those to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention. Before a new system comes into place, there are always concerns about what might happen on the actual day. We know that the amount of money put in and the degree of care exercised by local authorities will ensure, for the first time, that proper consideration is given to individual cases and all cases. This approach will ensure also that the available money is best spent to the benefit of everyone. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to return to a system where limited resources were poorly spent. I am convinced that the amount of money and the degree of care that will he exercised will ensure the success of the community care policy.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been achieved in implementing the citizens charter.

We have made good progress in implementing the charter. More than 90 per cent. of our initial commitments have been met or are in hand.

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy confirm that if the Government proceed with their plans to privatise Parcelforce and the Royal Mail sections of the Post Office, none of the quality of service, entitlements and obligations set out in the citizens charter will apply? Or was that the right hon. Gentleman's agenda all along?

The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters, knows that no final decisions have been made. As in other private utilities, there is the regulator. The charter covers those utilities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that both he and the Prime Minister have emphasised, in relation to charters, the importance of prompt replies to correspondence? Goals have been set for British Telecom and British Gas, for example. What are the goals for the right hon. Gentleman's unit? I wrote on behalf of someone in Swanage, Dorset, and it took him two months to reply.

I apologise for that—it was inadequate service. All Departments of Stale have published targets for answering their letters, and we should meet them.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he uses to assess the benefits of market testing and compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

In market testing, Departments assess savings in costs; and improvements in quality, such as reliability and timeliness. They monitor how these benefits are delivered in practice.

I welcome that answer. Given the success of the competitive tendering programme, especially in local government, will my right hon. Friend ensure that market testing in central Government delivers the savings that we desire?

Yes, I can confirm that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently announced what amounted to the saving of two regiments, he was able partly to attribute that to the savings that he has made in his Department as a result of market testing. That is a good example of market testing leading to proper savings.

What action are the Government taking to safeguard the confidence of taxpayers' records when sections of the Inland Revenue are privatised?

Any privatisation in that Department or any other in which confidentiality is involved would need contracts to cover that. Major state secrets in the

Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting the insensitivity of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which has bought six Mercedes tipper trucks at a time when many jobs are on the line at Leyland Daf, which produces extremely good—

Order. The Chancellor of the Duchy is not responsible for a local authority's purchasing policy.

I believe that that is the correct judgment, Madam Speaker, as always.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charters contain provisions for compensation to be paid to members of the public.

All charters contain information about what to do if things go wrong. Six charters contain provision for financial compensation. Those include the British Rail passengers charter and London Underground customers charter.

Will the Minister give a firm guarantee that all the provisions of the BR passengers charter will apply to private sector train operators if the Government go ahead with privatisation, or will the private sector be let off the hook?

The charter will apply to everyone who operates a service. Meanwhile, it applies to BR. The House should know that it is not simply a question of compensation for individuals, which the hon. Gentleman may have had in mind; there is a provision under which fares are reduced in a particular area if the service to it is performing below standard.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many citizens charters are now in place; how many more are expected; when these are expected; and if he will make a statement.

We have published 30 charters, including the Ulsterbus charter launched today. We plan to publish at least 10 more in 1993. Those charters empower the consumers of public services, better enabling them to insist on good quality services and proper redress where things go wrong.

Has my hon. Friend seen the interesting Fabian Society pamphlet by Margaret Hodge, the former Labour leader of Islington council, in which she welcomes the publication of local authority performance indicators such as those proposed in the citizens charter? Will he now consider extending the charters and strengthening them to ensure that they are effective for all citizens?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to Margaret Hodge's pamphlet. A number of serious Labour leaders in local government are coming out in support of some of the Government's actions. Margaret Hodge said—and it is something that is not often supported by Labour Members:

"Most important, Government can insist that authorities submit their services to external validation … They can insist on publishing outcomes and they can compare performance between authorities".

Does the Minister accept that, despite the citizens charter, many people who rely on the activities —or inactivities—of the Benefits Agency are suffering badly because of its inefficiency? Because of that serious problem, will the Minister undertake urgently to review the provision of compensation for those who are adversely affected by that inadequate service? Will he report to the House on that matter as quickly as possible?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I heard the point made on that subject during Social Security questions earlier. A full apology was made for the circumstances surrounding disability living allowance. The position is improving and it will be put right. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about compensation.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many non-departmental public bodies were in existence in (a) April 1991 and (b) April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

There were 1,412 non-departmental public bodies in existence in April 1992 compared with 1,444 in April 1991. The April 1992 total is the lowest since the data were first collected in 1979.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer—the fall in the figures is small, but welcome. Will he comment on the increase in the number of quangos that would have occurred under a Labour Government, especially in view of the Labour's plans for regional women's units and specialist—

Order. Not only is the hon. Gentleman's question out of order, it is hypothetical. If the hon. Gentleman has a substantive question that is in order, I shall take it.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the past year there has been a substantial fall in the number of quangos, which significantly would not have occurred under a Labour Government?

As you decisively said, Madam Speaker, any reference to a Labour Government is indeed very hypothetical.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to discourage scientists trained in the United Kingdom from seeking work outside the EC.

No. It would be wrong to do so. Science is international. The United Kingdom benefits from scientists coming here from other countries, and our own scientists benefit from experience overseas.

Does the Chancellor of the Duchy realise that his reply is breathtaking in its complacency —and also unpatriotic? Is he not aware that 1,000 British scientists are allowed to work in the United States alone, and that a real gap exists—both in terms of the graduates who seek to work in research science, and in terms of our ability to maintain them? Is it not time that the Government ensured that proper rewards existed in this country to encourage scientists to stay here working and developing their skills? Should not the Government also ensure that a proper career structure exists for research scientists?

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little carried away. The universities' own statistical records show that there has been a net inflow of scientists every year since 1983. There is a tiny movement either way: about 1 per cent. leave each year. If we hark back to the long-distant days of Labour government, we find that about 35 per cent. of those with PhDs left for the United States in the 1960s. The figure is now rather under 10 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who normally endears himself to the House, has looped the loop in his question? Does not Britain provide the world —particularly the developing world—with a great benefit by sending its experts, especially its scientists, to help other countries to develop? Does it not also encourage young people to come to this country to train as scientists, and then to return to their own countries? Neither would be possible if my right hon. Friend listened seriously to the hon. Gentleman.

My hon. Friend is right. All of us who spend our time going around university science departments welcome the fact that we hear many different accents from all over the world. Science is international. We are attracting as many scientists to this country as leave our shores—indeed, more. Of those who leave, the majority leave for short-term appointments and many subsequently return.

It is very sad that the Chancellor of the Duchy fails to distinguish between going abroad voluntarily to expand one's career horizons, and being forced abroad by the grossly inadequate remuneration given to research scientists in this country and the utter failure to provide them with an adequate career structure. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on figures produced by the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Medical Research Council over the past year, which show a 15 per cent. fall in the number of PhD awards?

I would be the last to say that more cannot be done to encourage science careers in this country, and I hope that we shall present appropriate proposals. It is wrong, however, to adopt the broad-brush approach of saying that every scientist who leaves the country represents a setback, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not adopt such an approach.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the next interdepartmental meeting on the citizens charter will be held; and if he will make a statement.

On Wednesday, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

That is extremely good news. At the meeting, will my right hon. Friend ensure that standards of service and propriety in local government—particularly in Labour-controlled Lambeth council—are well examined?

That might take up rather too much of our time. Others are interested in the matter, including the Audit Commission, which is right. That leads me to a natural development of my hon. Friend's point. Conservative Members welcome, for example, the Audit Commission's publication of comparative performance indicators for local authorities; the Opposition have opposed them at every turn.

Does the citizens charter offer any recourse to British Rail pensioners who, it seems, must stand by and watch the Government loot their pension funds to the tune of £4.25 billion, something about which those pensioners will, apparently, have no say?

I do not think that the hon. Lady is right about that matter, but I shall write to her further.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at Wednesday's meeting to press for further publication of the league tables to ensure better services all round?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Opposition, including their distinguished representative who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), always claim that they are in favour of open government, but whenever the question of the publication of information arises, such as the league tables on school information, they are against it.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to discuss funding for science in higher education.

My right hon. Friend has not recently met the distinguished chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council, but it so happens that I met the chief executive only a week last Friday.

What steps does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intend to take to stop the long-term decline in science funding in universities? Does he acknowledge that the dual support system is under threat and that that will have an adverse effect on attracting industrial funds to our universities?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken to talk about a fall in funding. Support for higher education in England will rise by 7·3 per cent. in 1993–94, or 4·4 per cent. in real terms. The figure for Scotland is about the same and that for Wales is about 9 per cent. The hon. Gentleman says that the dual support system is in jeopardy. We do not accept that it is. Total funding for academic research through the dual support system is now above £1 billion. The HEFC has allocated £673 million for research 1992–93. Estimated expenditure in higher education institutions by the research councils—the other part of the dual support system—in the current financial year will be £367 million. These represent considerable increases in funding over recent years.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at what age people become citizens for purpose of each charter promulgated by the Government.

People of all ages can—and do—benefit from better quality services promoted by the citizens charter.

That was not really the answer that I expected. The important issue, which I hope the Chancellor's Department will address—in conjunction, I assume, with the Home Office—is the ridiculous state in Britain whereby people come of age for different civic rights at different ages: some at 16, some at 17, some at 18 and some at 21. It would be much easier and much more in line with international practice to have a clear age of majority, which at the moment is meant to be 18, that applied to all civic rights and duties. Can the Chancellor look into that possibility and bring forward a proposal to that end?

Every Member of this House will have his own views on that issue. I shall look into the matter. The difficulty is that I cannot imagine that anyone would welcome the age for any of those civic rights and duties going up. To bring the age down in certain respects would involve very controversial matters for the House. The hon. Gentleman has, however, raised a serious matter and I shall consider it.

At what age might the patients of Wessex regional health authority be able to complain, through the citizens charter, about the fact that the health authority was ripped off for an undisclosed sum of between £23 million and £63 million of taxpayers' money to pay for a computer system that never worked and which made a lot of people rich?

Order. The hon. Gentleman should table a substantive question if he wishes to deal with a matter of that nature.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about recruitment of justices of the peace in the duchy.

The recruitment of justices in the duchy area follows the same pattern as in the remainder of the country. Advisory committees recommend suitable candidates after interviewing applicants and considering the balance of the bench, which takes into account age, profession, residence and political views. In this way we try to ensure that a bench broadly reflects the community that it serves.

Does the Minister accept that my constituents, particularly those who live in the Reddish and Brinnington wards of Stockport, feel very aggrieved that the bench in Stockport does not reflect the social composition of the whole of Stockport but appears to reflect the membership of the Conservative party and of secret societies, such as the masons, rather than a proper cross section of the population? What is the Minister going to do to ensure that we have a judiciary on the bench represents the whole of the area that I represent?

One of the things—and the hon. Gentleman has been helpful in this regard—is to bring forward more volunteers. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that since he quite legitimately began pursuing the matter in 1988, the number of people from the Reddish and Brinnington wards has increased from five to 13. That is an improvement and balances the number from the Denton ward. We must get good candidates and we need the help of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and all hon. Members in that regard.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to extend the citizens charter into the private sector.

The Government are pleased that so many private sector concerns are adopting the charter approach. However, I must emphasise that the purpose of the citizens charter is to raise the quality of service in the public sector where many customers have little choice about the services that they receive.

Yes, but if the Government are continually reducing the scope of the public sector through privatisation, surely the logic follows that the charters, which are mostly useless, should be extended into the private sector in respect of which hon. Members deal with a host of complaints. May I suggest that the Minister could start with a citizens charter for bank customers? Some customers have to face the most ridiculous charges imposed by greedy, grasping banks which, of course, are always looking to support the Conservative Government.

The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he agrees with his party's line on public ownership. I notice that he has been saying that the privatised bus and rail services would be absorbed back into the public sector. Some of us wonder how that squares with the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition to the proposition that ownership is irrelevant