To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for invalidity benefit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the future of invalidity benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Invalidity benefit is being reviewed in the context of the fundamental review of social security expenditure. Many representations have been received. No decisions have been made, but when they are I will make a full statement to the House.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in Sheffield, the number of medical assessments for people on invalidity benefit has increased in every month since February, so that it is now 70 per cent. higher than it was in February? Is he also aware that, to use the words of a constituent who went for a medical assessment, it was undertaken in a way that made her feel "a criminal and a scrounger"? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, assure all the many people who are already sick and depressed from being out of work that they will not suffer continual harassment and worry that their income will be removed?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for writing to me about that case. I assure her that I have asked a senior medical officer in the area to look into her constituent's interview and report the details to me. Obviously, I would not like anyone to feel harassed in the way that she describes.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the sooner he can make a decision on that the better, and that many people who receive invalidity benefit are deeply concerned and angry that the Government may be targeting them—the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community—when wealthy donors to the Conservative party appear to be trying to persuade the Government to ensure that their incomes are protected? Can that be just and fair?

The second half of the hon. Member's question makes it clear that he is not seriously concerned about those on invalidity benefit. He is just trying to make cheap jibes at their expense. Nothing that has been said by the Government, or in any of the documents allegedly coming from us, would give rise to the fears that he mentions. Only the scaremongering of Opposition Members suggests that there is any targeting of people on invalidity benefit. Our objective is to ensure that those who are genuinely sick and disabled receive help and that it is not diverted to those who would be better off either working or on benefits that would help them back to work.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that his proposals to consult fully on a test of ability to work will be welcomed widely by the medical profession? Is he able to tell the House whether his Department has received any representations from doctors on the tightening up of procedures and current rules?

I agree with my hon. Friend that most people think that it is sensible to consider an objective medical test. We are considering it and we shall see whether it is possible to develop one. If so, we will consult fully about it. Since we began the tightening up of procedures under the existing legal powers in February this year, we have received about 300 letters from doctors, all but three or four supporting the changes that we are making and saying that it is sensible to tighten up, and that the previous arrangements were unsatisfactory for them as well as for their patients.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we all want applicants for state help to be sympathetically and courteously dealt with, he should not be deterred from carrying out a full review of all aspects of social security spending by all the smears and innuendo put about by the Labour party? Does he further agree that such a review is the only way to make sure that the money goes to those in need and not to those who would just like a little bit extra?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to carry out a deep and far-reaching review. The objective of that review is to end up with a better system, in the sense that it guarantees the position of the most vulnerable and needy in society and does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay. If we allowed the system to outstrip that ability, it woud collapse under its own weight and put at risk the very people who depend on it. Opposition Members who believe that nothing need be done are putting at risk those who depend on the system.

Is not it quite incredible that the Secretary of State accuses the Opposition of scaremongering and fails to deny that he will cut benefits to the sick and disabled who will have to pay the price for your economic impompetence? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Does not he realise that the average invalidity benefit payment is £79 a week, which is well below the national average? Those people will suffer hardship if you tax it, thus reducing the amount of benefit to which they are entitled. If you add to that the heartless decision to stop payments to the independent living fund for the terminally ill because the Government refuse to resource the fund sufficiently—this is not scaremongering—that is a tax on the sick and disabled because the Government are trying to cut public expenditure. Will the right hon. Gentleman today stop the attacks on the sick and disabled and make sure that they have the amounts to which they are entitled, so that they may live and die in dignity and independence?

I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for sharing some of the unwarranted blame that we have to face on this issue. Whenever we have reformed and changed benefits, we have always protected the position of existing claimants. Everybody knows that and people have our track record to go on. Equally, we have made it clear for many years, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was our long-term intention to tax all income replacement benefits, that that has been our intention in the case of invalidity benefit, as elsewhere. Because of practical difficulties, we found it impossible to do that. However, most people would agree that it is sensible that a benefit that replaces income should, where possible, be treated like income and taxed for people who have other income to accumulate with it. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that money grows on trees and that it is just a matter of the Government pouring endless, additional sums into the benefit system. We have increased expenditure by two thirds in total, but growth must be contained within the nation's ability to pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of central Government spending will go in social security payments this year; and what the figure was in 1979.

Expenditure on social security accounts for more than 30 per cent. of total Government expenditure. In 1978–79, the proportion was just 24 per cent.

Do not these figures show that, unless something is done about it, the growth in social security will overwhelm us all? Is not the main intellectual and political question for the Conservative party to seek to constrain that giant in the years ahead? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no better place to start than to set a date for the equalisation of the age at which men and women may retire?

My hon. Friend is right; we have to start thinking now about these problems if we are to ensure that they are tackled sensibly and that we or a future Government are not forced into arbitrary cuts later. Every Government in the world face such a problem. Some, who perhaps have shown less foresight than us, have been forced into difficult and arbitrary decisions. Last week, the German Government had to announce nearly £10 billion of cuts, including real cuts of 3 per cent. in many benefits.

Does the Secretary of State accept that he is panicking over his review of social security expenditure? Has he taken note of the Prime Minister's statement that 70 per cent. of the public sector borrowing requirement is due to cyclical—that is, unemployment—effects on the Government's budget? If that is so and the Secretary of State takes the Prime Minister's words to heart, should not he relax over the whole process?

The hon. Gentleman forgets that we have set a new control total for public expenditure that deliberately excludes the cyclical rise in spending on the unemployed because we believed that it was right, morally and economically, to finance that rise as the economy went into recession. As we come out of recession, it is equally right and proper to keep to the same total and ignore, therefore, the cyclical beneficial effects on unemployment. Otherwise, there would be a permanent ratchet effect—every time there was a down turn, the level of expenditure would be raised and it would never be allowed to recover. Even if one excludes unemployment, the underlying rate of growth of spending on social security spending has been 3 per cent. a year in real terms during the 1980s and is set to be 3·3 per cent. up to the end of the century. That is something which must be taken into account in any long-term review.

Is not the most disturbing consequence of the seemingly inexorable increase in social security over this long period the way in which it produces disincentives for people to take low-paid jobs? Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of my constituents, who saw me at my surgery on Friday, said that he has the possibility of taking a new job, largely on commission, selling insurance for £30 a week, plus any commission, whereas his existing income on income support is £300 a week? He complained that, when there is a disparity of that kind, where is the advantage of getting back into regular work?

My hon. Friend points to a difficult problem that arises especially acutely in the case of those on income support who get help with their mortgage payments. I do not think that it is possible to resolve that problem simply by extending that help to people in work, except at the potential expense of several billion pounds, which clearly is not affordable in any foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, we have to look at other ways in which we can try to improve incentives in the system and, of course, we are doing so.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many people are worried about the treatment of lone parents in future social security budgets following the speeches made by Ministers this weekend, some of which seemed to give the impression that lone parents were a feckless group of social outcasts? Is not it the case that 70 per cent. of lone parents are divorced, separated or widowed and that teenage unmarried mothers, so often represented as typical, are only a small minority of the total? Ministers preach family values, but does the Minister accept that their policies constantly undermine family stability?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on most points. The largest, fastest-growing group of lone parents —they cover a variety of different categories—is the "never married" category. The important thing is that we are not against any category of people and we are certainly not against lone parents. We are in favour of parents—both parents—accepting responsibility for their children and offering them love, affection and support. The state can and must sometimes step in with monetary help if marriages break down and the parents are unable to support their children. However, we can never substitute for that love and commitment.

"We need … real action to reinforce personal responsibilities. That means acceptance by fathers of their obligation towards their children and … housing policies which do not encourage the belief that the only way to a home is having a baby."

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual spending on family credit; and what was the spending on family income supplement in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of family credit have been made since the introduction of the scheme.

Family credit expenditure for 1992–93 was £864 million. This is 13 times more in real terms than the £24 million spent on family income supplement in 1978–79. Since its introduction in April 1988, more than 3,750,000 family credit awards have been made.

In spite of earlier criticisms of the scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that the average payment is now £42 a week and that more than 80 per cent. receive at least £20 a week, which is an incentive to getting back to work? Is it not a better scheme than the earlier one?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The average award now compares favourably with the average award of family income supplement, which, at current prices, would be about £17·40 a week, compared with the present average of £44 a week. The average for the self-employed is £55 a week. The numbers currently in receipt of family credit are at a record of 457,000. The scheme is fulfilling its aim of directing resources to where there is most need.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that a family credit helpline was introduced in March this year, thus fulfilling another election manifesto commitment? Will he also confirm that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is conducting an advertising campaign to help unemployed families better to understand the benefits to which they would be entitled when in work?

My hon. Friend speaks for some 1,300 family credit recipients in Basildon. I am pleased to tell him and them that our helpline, which now caters for potential as well as existing claimants, has received 250,000 calls so far. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the latest take-up advertising campaign is aimed at the unemployed and informs them of their potential to receive family credit, which can act as a real incentive to getting back to work.

Is not one of the reasons for the large increase in amounts paid out in family credit the large increase in the number of people on low pay as a result of Government policy? Will the Minister tell us how many people on low pay and living in poverty are entitled to family credit, but, unfortunately, not getting it?

The hon. Gentleman fails to distinguish the fact that the most important determinant in family credit is not the size of the wage, but the number and the age of the children. Part of his anger comes from the fact that family credit is a better system than any supported by the previous Labour Government.

In view of the Minister's comments about the spectacular increase in the numbers receiving family credit and about the amount of the awards, when can we expect the Government to undertake a responsible review of how the money is distributed? How much impact has there been from the change in working hours from 24 to 16? Why does the Minister not look again at the clawback of 94 per cent. for anyone receiving an increase in wages?

About 60,000 extra families have received family credit as a result of the change of hours from 24 to 16 as the entry to family credit. We keep the scheme constantly under review. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my pleasure in the fact that take-up is increasing both for expenditure and for case load. Take-up by case load is 14 per cent. higher than it was five years ago and expenditure is 6 per cent. higher. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes those figures.

Does my hon. Friend agree that family stability comes best from children being born of a loving relationship between a man and a woman? The strong movement towards girls and very young women to have babies to get flats and houses is damaging to them and to the children, because those children do not have the proper background that they should have. Will my hon. Friend consider that point and do all that he can to encourage proper family stability, because it is the bedrock of the nation?

Behind some of the newspaper rhetoric over the weekend have been sensible comments from hon. Members of all parties and from a variety of commentators on the issues raised by single parenthood. Family structure is important. It is the responsibility of social security to protect the most vulnerable and it is too often forgotten that the most vulnerable element in a single-parent family is the child. We ought to hear more about the child's situation than about the rights and responsibilities of everyone else.

Given the big increase in the need for families to have family credit, does not the Minister think that, instead of proposing the withdrawal of all benefits from mothers with children who have been recently abandoned by their fathers, the Government would do better to concentrate their efforts on eliminating poverty wages and the threat of unemployment, as that would do more to stabilise family life? Or does the Minister agree with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales who believes that penalising children is the right answer?

There is no question of withdrawing benefit in the manner suggested by the hon. Lady. It is important that the social security system acts to protect the most vulnerable. The hon. Lady will also understand that the most important thing that any Government can do for the poorest is to improve the jobs situation. The Government are determined to improve that situation by keeping inflation and interests rates low. It should be noted that the prospects for growth in this country are significantly better than in the majority of countries abroad. I would have hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome that development.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in pensioners' total incomes since 1979.

In the decade following 1979, pensioners' average incomes increased by 30 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the income of pensioner couples, excluding housing costs, has risen by almost a half since 1979, allowing for inflation? Will he further confirm that the proportion of pensioner couples in the lowest income groups has fallen from 19 per cent. in 1979 to 11 per cent. now? Does he agree that those figures show that pensioners are better off under a Conservative Government?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She rightly draws attention to the figures published last week showing that the total incomes of pensioner couples have risen by 48 per cent., excluding housing costs, since 1979. That is largely because of the growth in occupational pensions and in income from savings. But the Government have always recognised that not all pensioners have shared in that increased prosperity. That is why extra resources have been concentrated on helping the oldest and poorest pensioners.

Is the Minister aware that, last week, a strong deputation of pensioners from all over the country came to the House and that they were deeply anxious that their standard of living will be further eroded as a result of the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel? Does the Minister recognise that, in this country, there remain literally millions of pensioners who are living on the very smallest of incomes? That have not benefited in any way from occupational pensions and now find themselves living day by day, virtually on the breadline. Are not the Government largely responsible because they have refused to increase the pension in line with earnings? Should not they be thoroughly ashamed of themselves?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other members of the Government have always made it clear that extra help will be given before the increase in VAT takes effect next year. That help will be additional to the automatic increase in pensions and other beneftis that will reflect the impact of any increase in fuel bills. But the hon. Gentleman should remember that, in the past 14 years, total expenditure on benefits for the elderly has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms, to a level never dreamt of by any previous Labour Government. The Opposition should remember that on all occasions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of the additional cost of equalising the state pension age at 60 years.

The cost would be around £4 billion a year more than the current scheme at 1992–93 prices.

Would not the reverse be true if equalisation were to take place at a higher level? Would not there be considerable savings—amounting to billions of pounds—in the social security budget, which could be redirected to those most in need? Is not that why Germany and the United States are well on the way to equalising at a higher level and why Denmark has already done so?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the action taken by other countries in equalising, and in some cases increasing, their state pension age. Obviously, large savings stand to be made in those countries' expenditure. The Government are still considering all the options. No decision has yet been taken, but one will be announced in due course.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's continual dithering over this matter is causing a lot of hardship to people who have to make logical decisions about their retirement? Does he accept that what would help most people would be to offer a flexible retirement age between 60 and 65 to suit individuals and their savings?

Accusations of indecision or dithering come strangely from a party whose policy on this matter is shrouded in the deepest mystery and is likely to remain so for some time. The Government have received 4,000 responses to their consultation document about the state pension age. It is fair and proper to give full consideration to all those responses and to await the European Court judgment, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, before reaching a decision on any of the options, including a flexible retirement age.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments have been made since the introduction of the discretionary social fund.

Since the discretionary social fund was introduced in 1988, more than 7·2 million grants and loans, worth more than £1·2 billion, have been awarded.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging news. Will he confirm that, since the introduction of the social fund, more than £300 million has been given to community care projects and more than £800 million in interest-free loans? Is not that another good example of the Government targeting those most in need?

I have no doubt at all that, in the five years of its life, the social fund has demonstrated its ability to respond flexibly to need at the margins of the overall social security system and to control expenditure—something which its predecessor manifestly failed to do.

Why do not the Government admit the facts—that during their period in office, they have allocated £26·2 billion in tax cuts to the richest I per cent. of people in Britain, yet they have the cheek to tell people who are living below the poverty line that they cannot get money from the social fund? This Government stink to high heaven.

I am tempted to respond to the gross discourtesy shown by the hon. Gentleman earlier in our proceedings by ignoring his question. Instead of doing that, I shall say that the social fund has responded to need and that Governments of all political colours have always found that, at the margins of any social security system, there is a need for a flexible response to special need. The social fund has provided such a response. The single payments scheme was doubling in cost every two years and had simply become unaffordable. I believe that we were right to bring that expenditure under control while meeting special needs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on uprating benefits in April.

The uprating of all the main benefits by 3·6 per cent. in April this year cost an additional £2·5 billion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the Government, like other Governments, should live within their means when it comes to the social security budget? Is not it significant that the French Government have just announced that there will be no pension uprating in July this year and that they propose to claw back £3·8 million in health charges? Has my right hon. Friend also noted that the German Government propose a 3 per cent. cut in benefit across the board? Is there an example to be followed in all that, and will he follow it?

My hon. Friend puts his point extremely clearly. He will recall that, before the announcement of last year's public expenditure round, we heard scaremongering throughout the summer to the effect that we would have to make such a draconian cut. None of the scares that were run by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) turned out to be true. We fulfilled the uprating that was then necessary. We believe that it is sensible to carry out sensible structural reforms. We have begun that process with the long-term review. We have commitments and we have kept to them, unlike the Labour party, which singularly failed to do so when it was in power.

In the light of the decision of the Secretary of State to accept the judgment of the European Court of Justice—case number C328/CF91—will he ensure that all the women concerned, who will benefit directly from that judgment and his belated acceptance of it, will not only receive the benefits to which they are entitled under European Community law but will be paid all arrears dating back to this April? Will he give an assurance that he will not now proceed with his appeal at the Court of Appeal against Commissioner Skinner's decision, CS27/91?

He is no relation, I trust, of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was provided by his Department in benefits to single mothers in 1975, 1980 and the last year for which figures are available.

Although changes in the benefits system mean that figures for 1975 and 1980 are not available, expenditure on benefits for all lone parents has increased from £2·4 billion in 1981–82 to £6 billion in 1991–92 at constant prices.

Those are pretty incredible figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the welfare system encourages young women to have babies out of wedlock so that they can qualify for council houses and benefits, perhaps the system has gone too far? Will he confirm that the Government will take action to extend and encourage parental responsibility, particularly paternal responsibility?

There are many reasons why there has been a greater number of single parents in the past 20 years or so, including a greater tendency to divorce and separate, as well as a rising number of single, never-married young mothers. The responsibility of social security is that, whatever the relationship between parents may have become, a child has a right to be financially protected: in the first instance, by its natural parents, and the Child Support Agency will reinforce that; secondly, by providing what incentives we can for mothers to go back to work, where appropriate, because all the evidence that we have shows that the majority of single mothers want to get back to work; and, thirdly, where children are left vulnerable, they must be protected by the rest of society.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to condemn unreservedly not only the question put by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) but the speech made by the Secretary of State for Wales over the weekend, which quite outrageously alleged that young women deliberately make themselves pregnant to benefit from housing and social security benefits, when the Minister knows, as do Conservative Members, that there is absolutely no evidence whatever to support those scurrilous allegations? Will he further assure the House and the country that no woman and her children will be denied benefit because she will not name, or the Government cannot find, the father?

It was clear this weekend that the issue of single parenthood has now been raised, and a variety of sensible comments have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the quote from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).

"as a society we have to think seriously about how we try to help single mothers and I am not at all sure that putting them on their own with their children is the best way."

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many increases in child benefit have been announced in the past two years.

Since April 1991, there have been four increases in child benefit rates—in April and October 1991 and April 1992 and April 1993. These have increased the pre–1991 rate of £7·25 a week for each child to the current rate of £10 a week for the eldest eligible child and £8·10 a week for all other children.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have pledged to retain child benefit as the cornerstone of their policy for helping all families with children? Will he further confirm that the annual uprating of child benefit, in line with the increase in prices, fulfils that pledge? Does he agree that the greatest threat to universal benefits is the threat to means-test them, which emanated from members of the Labour party?

Yes, what we know from the Commission of Social Justice, which is not very much, shows that my hon. Friend is right to have such suspicions. Child benefit remains the cornerstone of our policy; but since 1988 the Government have been able to find additional resources worth £1 billion, which have been made available to the least well-off families with children. That is a record of which to be proud.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what account is taken of the size of congregations in setting the contribution required from each parish to diocesan funds.

It is not for the commissioners to set parish share or quota levels. Each individual diocese has its own method of calculating that and most take account, among other things, of the usual Sunday attendance figures, which are based on congregation size at times other than festivals or peak holidays.

Is not it a matter of regret that church finances, which are already reeling from a fall in property values, will now have to cope with compensation running into millions of pounds to clergy who are leaving the Church in opposition to the ordination of women priests—an avoidable and infinitely divisive issue which, unlike the Bishop of Durham, who is taking retirement, and despite what he says, will not go away? Would not it reduce the number leaving and ease the financial burden on congregations if the safeguards proposed in the Act of Synod were incorporated in a supplementary Measure and given the force of law, rather than expecting traditionalist clergy to run the risk of another fit of political correctness and militant feminism at some point in the future?

I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. We very much hope that the alarmist figures of likely resignations will prove, in practice, to be gross overestimates and that the pastoral provisions announced already by the bishops of the Church of England will go a long way towards reassuring those who are in danger of resigning. I should point out to my hon. Friend that the net cost arising from resignations will depend on the extent to which resigning clergy are immediately replaced.

The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be in favour of the safeguard being enshrined in a supplementary Measure. If that Measure came before the House after women's ordination had taken effect, would he be in favour of that?

I would certainly be in favour of that, particularly if the hon. Gentleman felt happy with it. But we would have to look at it on its merits, and it would be difficult to provide the safeguards for which he and I are looking. Much would depend on appointment factors, which are often subject to secret voting, and one could never be certain that the aims that we seek were achievable in a statutory form.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what is the latest estimate of the property assets of the Church Commissioners.

The commissioners' property investments were valued at £901·2 million net at 31 December 1992.

My right hon. Friend is possibly as surprised as I am that we have reached this question this afternoon. Has he considered the question of clergy housing? Is it desirable for clergy to live in a tied cottage for 40 years and then have to buy a home when they retire? Would not more women priests be attracted to the Church —many of us look forward to that—if they did not have to live in tied houses?

It would be very difficult to enable a clergyman to stay in the house from which he had been ministering to his parish, after he had resigned the incumbency of the parish. His successor would have to find somewhere to live, and there would be an increasing roll-on effect with the need to buy more and more property over the years. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Church has a very active and helpful rehousing provision to enable clergy, on leaving a tied cottage, to find property for their retirement which is well subsidised by the Church Commissioners.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for introducing commonhold.

The Government intend to introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.

Is not it absurd that condominiums and co-operatives, which are the standard way in which flat owners own their property throughout the English-speaking world and the Common Market, are not available in England? Would not commonhold put that right? Would not it be beneficial for this measure—which is supported by everyone who is interested in the proper forms of tenure for our great cities, from. the Duke of Westminster to the Labour Front Bench—to be introduced as soon as possible?

No one has done more than my hon. Friend to advance that proposal and see it thus far, with the enfranchisement legislation shortly to receive Royal Assent. I share his sense of urgency about getting the condominium rules, or commonhold, on to the statute book, although he may feel that those of his constituents who have lived, in their view, under difficult reversion regimes have achieved a vital breakthrough in being able to acquire the freehold reversion. I agree, however, that the picture will not be complete until we get the commonhold legislation on to the statute book as well. There is great pressure on parliamentary time, and the commonhold legislation will have to compete with other legislation that the Government are minded to introduce.

Does not the Minister accept that, following the Government's shameful climbdown in the face of the interests of the landed estates and the Duke of Westminster, the leasehold enfranchisement measures in part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill will prove to be a sham to the large number of leaseholders who will not be able to take advantage of them? When will the Government show a sense of urgency about the need to reform leasehold and introduce the commonhold measures that have been promised for far too long?

I have just answered the second part of the question. As for a climbdown, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, I am not aware of one. The measures introduced by the Department of the Environment, which are shortly to receive Royal Assent, have received a broad and proper welcome.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his latest estimate of the amount that will be spent on legal aid in the current year; and what the figures were for (a) 1978–79, (b) 1990–91, (c) 1991–92 and (d) 1992–93.

It is estimated that net expenditure on legal aid will amount to £1·284 billion in the current financial year. Net expenditure on legal aid in 1978–79 and in the previous three years was as follows: for 1978–79, £86 million; for 1990–91, £682 million; for 1991–92, £906 million; and for 1992–93, £1·093 billion.

The figures are clearly frightening because they reveal the speed at which the cost of legal aid is increasing. Has my hon. Friend thought to tackle the problem from the other direction, by reforming court procedures to cut the delays and waste caused by having many lawyers sitting around in court waiting for cases to be called and by frequent adjournments, thus also creating various costs?

As I have been one of those lawyers who used to sit around, I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's question. He may like to know that improvements to and the simplification of court procedures are a constant and urgent preoccupation of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Meanwhile, the royal commission will report tomorrow, and my hon. Friend will no doubt want to see the extent to which its proposals meet his anxieties.

What is the Minister's opinion of the fact that when Mr. Asil Nadir fled bail, he left behind a legal aid bill of £1 million which has to be footed by the British taxpayer, although Mr. Nadir is clearly not short of money? Will the Government consider examining the loopholes in the legal aid system to prevent such outrages happening again?

It is extremely unusual to hear the Labour party worrying about the taxpayer—refreshing perhaps, but just a touch unusual. The Labour party's usual cry is for more and more legal aid.

What are the Department's views on the projections for growth in legal aid costs over the next few years? Is the Department worried about the fact that it is projected that the legal aid bill will exceed the Government support given to manufacturing industry?

I do not have a brief to speak on industrial matters, but I can answer my hon. Friend's question about the amount by which legal aid is set to increase over the next three years. Very approximately, the figures are 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. in each of the next three years, and the anticipated usage of legal aid is expected to rise from the participation of 3 million persons per annum to 4 million persons per annum during the review period.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the recent restriction in eligibility to legal aid; how many representations he has received on this issue; and what proportion of them have indicated that this restriction is causing hardship.

We estimate that about 48 per cent. of households are now eligible for civil legal aid and about 21 per cent. for advice and assistance under the green form scheme. The Lord Chancellor and I have received a number of representations about various aspects of the changes to legal aid eligibility, a small proportion of which give examples of the effect of the changes.

What would the Minister say to the seriously ill leukaemia patient who is not able to sue for medical negligence because of cuts in legal aid and who said that he could not gamble with the money that is meant for his children's food? What consideration has the Minister given to the Home Affairs Select Committee's recommendation that the cuts in eligibility should be restored?

I remember that the hon. Lady raised the issue of the Home Affairs Select Committee's report with me during the debate on legal aid eligibility. I am at pains to tell her that the Lord Chancellor will shortly report, on the Government's behalf, on the Committee's report. I think that that will happen soon, and I do not want to anticipate it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that two hours' consultation under the green form scheme for someone with an income of up to £60 a week will be free and that two hours' consultation for someone with an income of £62 a week will cost £100? In view of the all-party Home Affairs Select Committee's recommendation that the suspension of the green form scheme should be dispensed with, especially as it is to continue in Scotland —the Lord Chancellor told the Select Committee that people north of the border would be better off than people in the south—will my hon. Friend undertake to look again at the decision to do away with the green form scheme other than for those on income support?

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the proposals were approved not long ago by a majority of 49 in this honourable House. They were subsequently referred to the High Court on judicial review, whereupon the Lord Chancellor's position was sustained in its entirety. However, it is not for me to anticipate future positions with regard to public resources and the many claims on them. We will continually and very closely monitor the effects in practice of the changes that we have made.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what study has been made of the parental background, gender and race of judges; and what proposals he has for change.

The Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint to judicial office, entirely on merit, those best qualified, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, political affiliation, religion or parental background. The Lord Chancellor has repeatedly made it clear that he particularly encourages applications for judicial appointment from women and ethnic minority practitioners.

Are not working-class, black, Asian and women judges scarcer than praise for Arthur Scargill from a Tory Government? Does not the hidebound and classbound composition of the judiciary contribute to its many mistakes? Are not many students—intelligent young men and women—saying that they now find it harder to obtain grants for courses in law studies? Is not it about time that the Government fast-streamed working and middle-class young men and women into the upper reaches of the legal profession?

The only figures available on the socio-economic background of lawyers are contained in the results of a survey of student solicitors at the College of Law. In that survey, just over half the students responding described themselves as being from socioeconomic groups A and 13, 28 per cent. described themselves as C1, C2 or C3 and 20 per cent. failed to respond. That is encouraging evidence of a growing social spread among new entrants to the profession, but it is by no means a cause for complacency.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the significant increase in judicial appointments in recent years from ladies and members of ethnic minority communities is greatly to be welcomed? However, does he agree also that it is ludicrous for the Labour party to call for some kind of positive discrimination when what the British people need are the best judges? Is not it absolutely right for the Lord Chancellor to continue to insist that judges will be appointed only on merit and does not the positive discrimination suggested by the Labour party lead Labour into the ridicule and contempt of the British people?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend may wish to know that the number of women in the judiciary is showing a steady increase. The trends at the lower levels are most important and they are the most particularly encouraging. There are now 50 female assistant recorders, compared with 35 some 15 months ago.

Does the Minister recognise that, the merits of the current judiciary apart, there is a need for special training for judges hearing, trying and sentencing in cases involving sex offences? Does he recognise the extent to which the judiciary is brought into disrepute by the silly and inane remarks of some judges? What attempts will he make to ensure that the training for the judiciary in that important area is enhanced?

There is no more urgent area of anxiety and progress in the Judicial Studies Board programme and curriculum than that identified by the hon. Gentleman. It has the highest priority of all.

Would it not add to the diversity of the background of members of the bench if the Government were to ensure that rights of audience in the higher courts and eligibility to sit on the bench were opened up to all solicitors—not just solicitors in partnership but employed solicitors? Will my hon. Friend therefore override the objections of the barristers's trade union and introduce that necessary reform?

The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct published its advice on this important matter on Friday. The committee's advice gives the green light to solicitors in private practice appearing as advocates in the higher courts. I think that the lights are at amber for employed solicitors. The Lord Chancellor will be considering those matters with the appointed judges.

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information he has on the number of persons qualifying as (a) solicitors and (b) barristers in each of the last three years.

The information that the hon. Gentleman requires is collected by the independent professional bodies themselves. I understand from the Law Society that, in 1990, 3,389 solicitors were admitted to the roll, 4,614 were admitted in 1991 and 4,775 in 1992. I understand that, in 1989–90, 1,200 barristers were called, in 1990–91, 1,157; and in 1991–92, 1,340.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the detail of his reply. Does he agree far more women barristers and solicitors are needed so that, before too long, we have a sufficient number of judges who are of the female sex? Does he accept that far too many of our judges are way off beam and far too insensitive when dealing with cases that relate to sex crimes? Will he admit that his Department —indeed, the Government—must do more so that we might have a better show? There is a need for him and his Department to do better.

If the hon. Gentleman would re-read his question, he would see that there was no other way that I could answer it. He might take comfort from the fact that the most recent figures show that, in 1992, 49 per cent. of all those admitted to the roll as solicitors were women and that 13 per cent. were from ethnic minorities. Out of a total of 1,340 barristers called in 1991–92, 41 per cent. were women. The hon. Gentleman must regard that as encouraging.