To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department has taken to maintain support for families.

We have fulfilled our manifesto commitment to increase child benefit in line with prices. We have also already made extra help worth around £1 billion a year available to low-income families with children. From October 1994, we are introducing a £40 disregard of child care costs for claimants of family credit and housing benefit. This will remove one of the major stumbling blocks in enabling low-income parents to be better off in work and thus to reduce dependency on benefits.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £40 disregard in respect of child care costs is very much less than many organisations were pressing for? Does that not show the Government's determination to assist parents to get back into work?

I think that my hon. Friend meant to say "more" than many institutions were pressing for. The booklet, "Becoming a Breadwinner", issued by the Day Care trust, advocated a £35 a week disregard. We are going for slightly more than that—a £40 a week disregard, which will be worth £28 a week for lone parents and working married couples returning to work.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that future provision for families is part of the long-term series of reviews that his Department is conducting? Putting it neutrally, it is very difficult for people to conduct and engage him in sensible discussions about long-term future provision. In every speech that he makes and every television interview that he gives the Secretary of State is interpreted, rightly or wrongly, in different ways at different times. It is difficult to know whether the Secretary of State is coming or going. Would it not be better for him and for us if he were to make clear the remit of all the internal Government committees and what papers they are working to? We could then all engage in a proper public debate.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his positive contribution to the debate. I advise him to listen to what I say and to regard what I do, and not to listen to second-hand commentaries. He will then see a consistent theme. We believe in supporting and sustaining the traditional family and, wherever possible, encouraging families to consist of two loving parents. We accept that that is not always the case, and where families break up we want to provide support with the interests of the child in mind. That lies behind the measures announced in the Budget to enable parents to work and improve their well-being while providing proper child care for their children. That is consistent with everything that I have said and the Government have done. We would welcome any positive contributions from the Liberal Democrats, unusual as that might be

In view of the remarks made by the Secretary of State yesterday, is it not clear that child benefit will not be retained as a universal benefit if the Tories were to cling to office? In view of that, is there not every reason for people to be very concerned? The welfare state is being eroded and undermined at every stage. No one has any confidence that the Secretary of State or the Government believe in the welfare state, and there is every expectation that they will use their power to undermine it.

The hon. Gentleman is peculiarly ill informed. There have been two statements about child benefit in the past 24 hours. I have reaffirmed the Government's manifesto pledge to maintain child benefit as part of our provision for families with children. The Commission for Social Justice, established by the Labour party, suggested that it should be abandoned and replaced by national child care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the Child Support Agency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will suspend the operations of the Child Support Agency.

The Child Support Agency was set up to secure more maintenance more reliably for more children, and that is what it is doing. I have, of course, been examining the criticisms that have been made of some aspects of the new scheme. The work of the Child Support Agency in securing maintenance for children will continue.

Does my hon. Friend accept that most people—including the authors of the Select Committee report that was published this afternoon—acknowledge the principle that fathers, including absent fathers, should pay for the upkeep of their children? Will he bear in mind, however, that in areas such as Chelmsford, and even St. Albans, a significant proportion of the working population commute down to London and that total commuting costs are in excess of £200 per month? Given that the average non-endowment mortgage repayment is now just over that amount, would my hon. Friend be prepared to look again at the formula in respect of travel-to-work costs to establish whether something could be done to alleviate the burden for fathers?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, and for picking up the fact that the Select Committee has today endorsed the basic principles and operation of the Child Support Agency.

Regrettably, the Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory. Although he welcomed the report, he did not specify the parts to which the Government would respond.

We are usually given a statement in that time.

As my hon. Friend points out, we seem to be given statements very quickly. These problems have been going on for a long time. Some Conservative Members may not have noticed that thousands of families across the country are being thrown into chaos. We have already had the first suicide resulting from the operation of the Child Support Agency. Does the Minister recognise that the fundamental problem has been caused by an attempt to force all the individual circumstances of thousands of different families into a national straitjacket? Is it not time to suspend the agency's operations until proper guidelines can be incorporated and the matter returned to local determination?

I think that what has made the hon. Gentleman unhappy is the fact that his own campaign for the agency's suspension has not been endorsed by the Select Committee in any way. That is because the Committee understands that the agency is already working to produce maintenance for children and that the suspension of its operations would cause chaos for many families who are receiving the money.

May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said about travel-to-work costs? Will my hon. Friend also note that people cannot appeal against their assessment until a review has taken place? The reviews need to be more thorough, as mistakes are being made. They also need to be carried out more quickly. Will my hon. Friend try to improve the efficiency of the Child Support Agency and speed up its operations?

I am sure that to ensure the acceptance of the principles of the Child Support Act it is essential that the agency should operate administratively as effectively as it can. To date, we have had only 174 appeals coming through the system. We shall keep a careful eye on the work of the independent tribunal service which considers those appeals. I understand my hon. Friend's point, which was well made.

Does the Minister agree that, as other hon. Members have said, the Child Support Agency should take account not only of travel expenses but of items such as council tax, insurance costs and fuel bills? Does he further agree that it is totally unreasonable to expect one of my constituents—who is one of many—to be asked to live on a meagre £6·49 a week after he has paid his bills and met the increased maintenance costs, which he has always paid up to now? Does the Minister agree that response is considerably overdue on the points that I raised with him in October and early November about my general concerns about the operation of the CSA, especially the way in which responsible parents who have always paid maintenance are targets who are asked to pay more, while those who are irresponsible and have paid nothing continually get away with it?

I am not happy to accept the figures offered by the hon. Lady and I would welcome her clarification of them as they do not correspond with what should be the situation. The matter of targeting has been considerably distorted by media reports which do not give due credibility to the fact that some half of the work going on at the CSA at the moment is concerned with cases in which no maintenance has been in payment at all. In response to whether there are soft targets and people being unduly picked on, I will quote briefly from one paragraph of the Select Committee report because it considered the matter carefully—

What paragraph?

Paragraph 18. It states:

"A large part of the public debate about the Child Support Agency has centred on the accusation that it was picking unfairly on 'soft targets', that is, those absent parents who were already making maintenance payments. Behind this accusation has been an allegation that the Agency's work is governed by the requirement to make substantial savings in the social security budget. We believe this objective to be an important one—"

Order. I remind the Minister that it is Question Time.

Yes, Madam Speaker. It continues:

"The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents."

I am pleased to have an opportunity to back the Government's policy of getting "back to basics", but does my hon. Friend accept that when we voted overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation we thought that it made sense that the evil absent father was to be the target. However, after all the letters that I and other hon. Members have had about the matter, surely the Government must now take into account all the objections, which I share with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), that there is something wrong and it ought to be put right.

The agency is indeed pursuing those who have not paid. Its take-on strategy was clearly declared before the Act came into force and the Select Committee considered that. We are looking at the matters of concern that have been raised, but I urge my hon. Friend to acknowledge that some parents have been traced by the agency who would never have been traced under the previous system. We are delivering what the public want through the agency.

Does the Minister accept that it is essential to consider urgently the important recommendations made in the Select Committee report, especially those which add safeguards for second families, and deal with the protected income provisions? Will he also give an undertaking to look beyond the Select Committee report, especially at the experience in Australia, where it is possible to go to a review officer and depart from the usual rigid financial formula if special circumstances can be established? Will he consider the possibility of a disregard for income support to ensure that the children who are at most economic risk—those in families living on income support —gain support from a system which was introduced in their name and from which they often miss out?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The Select Committee report will be due a proper reply when its recommendations are looked at carefully. I undertake that the Government will give that reply. In relation to the principle behind the agency, it will help if it is recognised that the Select Committee has looked carefully at the fundamental objections put to it, but that it has essentially endorsed the existing principle and the work of the agency.

Does my hon. Friend agree that priority is now being given to cases in which a court order can no longer be given? Does he further agree that it is vital that parents who are already paying successfully should not in any way be victimised?

First, my hon. Friend is right to say that we give priority to parents who must use the agency because they have no other mechanism to use. That involves people who have some dependence on benefit as well as those who do not. Secondly, it cannot be classed as any form of victimisation to ask people to pay sums towards their children which they are due to pay under the law. We recognised from the start that there would have to be an increase in the amount paid in many cases to provide a realistic sum of maintenance. That work is going on and is another principle endorsed by the Select Committee. Given time, the principles will be accepted and the work of the House in passing the Act, with immense good will on both sides, will be vindicated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to safeguard the needs of those dependent on invalidity benefit; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that my right hon. Friend made to the House last week. He said—and I repeat—that there will be no cash losers among existing beneficiaries of invalidity benefit at the point of change.

Is the Minister aware that citizens advice bureaux in all parts of these islands are reporting cases of severely disabled people having their invalidity benefit withdrawn? They say that when the cases go to appeal, the independent tribunal service comes out against the Benefits Agency. Is he aware of the cases of disabled people being told that they should be looking for jobs such as swimming pool attendants, embalmers or artists' models? Surely that is not the road we should be going down. Will the Minister give an assurance that in any new regime severely disabled people will not be put in an invidious position?

The simple target set by the replacement of invalidity benefit with incapacity benefit will be to ensure that those who are rendered incapable of work by reason of their medical condition will receive benefit. Those who do not pass that test will not.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people who will most welcome a more rigorous medical check for cases of invalidity benefit are those of our constituents who are genuinely incapable of work due to disability of one sort or another?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Another group who will widely welcome the reforms being introduced are general practitioners who have not found it an attractive duty to be gate-keepers for the existing benefit.

Is not the truth about the new incapacity benefit best summed up by the Disability Alliance, which described it as

"penny pinching at its most callous"?

"standing unassisted for more than a few minutes"?

On the medical tests, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have published a consultation document which is now being considered by a number of organisations and individuals. A panel of some 80 people is being recruited to analyse the tests and to make judgments on their effectiveness. We believe that that is the right way—it is based, after all, on the methodology used by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on which the disability living allowance was based. That is a sound way of judging entitlement to the new benefit. We shall consult widely, and we will listen in particular to medical opinion about the effectiveness of the tests.

Will my right hon. Friend take no nonsense from the Opposition on this, as benefits paid to the sick and the disabled have trebled to £15 billion up to this year? Does that not show the Government's commitment? Will my hon. Friend confirm that existing beneficiaries will not have to pay tax on their benefits under the new arrangements? Will my right hon. Friend restate the Government's concern, and will he make sure that there is no misunderstanding or scaremongering by the Opposition?

I confirm what my hon. Friend says. Existing beneficiaries are not to be taxed. In general, we have taken the view that benefits paid as income replacement should be subject to tax; that is why the new benefit will be taxable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability claims are outstanding at the present time.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to claims for disability living allowance. At 30 November, the latest date for which information is available, there were 25,372 such claims on hand.

Are not the Government more interested in looking after themselves and their big business allies than in looking after the disabled? Is it not a scandal that they are now talking about imposing new tests on people who claim disability, invalidity and unemployment benefits? Why can Ministers who fall ill get money every week and every month without having to go through one of these ludicrous tests? The Secretary of State is sitting next to the Minister. How would the right hon. Gentleman like to have to push a wheelbarrow, hold a 5 lb bag of potatoes in either hand or wear a saucepan on his head? And is that not all that he is fit for?

If the hon. Gentleman will calm down slightly, he will learn that the Government have a record of helping the disabled unparalleled by any previous Administration. We have trebled the resources which go to the long-term sick and the disabled through the benefits system and a number of other improvements have been made to provisions for the disabled.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people have benefited from DLA? Does my hon. Friend remember the speeches in Committee from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) implying that few people would benefit? Does my hon. Friend agree that many have done so?

More than 1 million people have now benefited from the introduction of DLA, and their claims are being dealt with at an ever-increasing rate. We know that there were difficulties when DLA was introduced, due to a surge in claims which came because of the attractiveness of the benefit. The Benefits Agency now is exceeding by a considerable margin each target that it has been set for the delivery of benefit.

Whatever happened to basic values? In the good old days of basic values, when there was incompetence from a Secretary of State and a mix-up of the kind that happened with DLA, did not Ministers resign? Will not all the trouble, distress, heartache and ill-health which was brought on disabled people by the delays and the incompetence be repeated by the incapacity benefit? Is it not a fact that disabled people who are now on those benefits do not know what the criteria will be? Will the Minister start saying something about the criteria—in particular in relation to the sensitive subject of mental ill health and people suffering from stress-related diseases?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that I apologised for the difficulties over the introduction of DLA both to the House and to those who suffered distress as a result. That is all behind us now and I do not believe that the new benefit will run into such difficulties. Let me make it clear, not so much to the House as to the audience outside, that the new benefit will not come in until 1995 and that there is ample time for proper provision to be made for its introduction and for all decisions about the nature and operation of the tests to be properly considered before that date.

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

Child benefit has already been increased three times since October 1991 and my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday a further increase to take effect in April 1994.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that Government spending on families with children has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979—over and above price increases in that time—and that our child benefit scheme compared favourably with European equivalents? Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that it is wise not to exclude the possibility of any change in the scheme in the future, given the Government's strategy of targeting assistance on those most in need?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the large increase on spending on families with children —a 50 per cent. increase since 1979, compared with an 8 per cent. reduction between 1974 and 1979, which Opposition Members should remember. On the question of future policy, I should say to my hon. Friend that the manifesto commitment remains absolutely clear: child benefit remains the cornerstone of our policies for families and children, helping mothers who remain at home as well as those who work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will conduct an urgent review into the operation of the Child Support Agency.

I have always made it clear that we will be keeping the policy under review. We are looking at the comments and concerns raised and testing them against the basic principles of the new scheme, which were endorsed by members of all parties. If, after examination, we think that we can make the scheme better still, we will do so.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Child Support Agency is expected to raise £550 million in this financial year and that, of that total, only £50 million will go to help support children? Will he tell us what the agency is really for? Is it simply to help the Treasury, or does it have a role in supporting children?

The purpose of the agency is twofold—first, to ensure that both parents accept responsibility for maintaining their children and, secondly, that the taxpayer should contribute only if parents do not have the resources to maintain their children. I was glad that that principle was endorsed by the Select Committee on Social Security in its report published earlier today.

Paragraph?

Eighteen again. The report states:

"The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents."

Will my right hon. Friend note that half the questions asked today have been related to the Child Support Agency? We are delighted to hear that he is suggesting that the whole matter could be reviewed in the light of what the Select Committee said today and because of the common-sense practical approach that he takes to such matters. I have come across a number of serious problems in my constituency. I am absolutely convinced that the 60 or so people who came to see me the other day are not inventing the difficulties about which they told me and I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the representations that he has received and, if necessary, to make the appropriate adjustments to the statutory formula, to ensure that the agency works as intended in line with the principles on which we all agree.

I am glad that, like most hon. Members, my hon. Friend accepts the principles on which the agency is based. There have, of course, been widespread protests. My hon. Friend will remember that, before the agency began its work, I spoke to him and to many other colleagues in the House and warned them that although the expectation would be resistance from and difficulties for women when the agency was introduced, in fact the reaction would come from men who were reluctant to pay in full the costs of maintaining their children. We must recognise that there is inevitably some resistance to paying in full the costs of maintaining children if people have not been doing so until now.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is real anger—as evidenced in questions that have been raised by Conservative Members, and, not least, by hon. Members from other parts of the House—at the way in which the Act has been implemented in practice and that the patience of those who have been targeted by the agency is rapidly running out? When does he expect his Minister to report to the House on the Department's review of the agency? Will he give an assurance that the review will rest on the needs of the children, not the Treasury?

The hon. Gentleman talked about targeting and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained that the take-on schedule of the agency has not been changed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 96 per cent. of the cases so far contacted by the agency, the mother and child are on benefit and the father usually has a reasonable income. That fact has not come over in many of the representations that have been made. It is rare for the fathers to mention that they have been content to leave their child, and the mother of their child, on benefit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent to which Child Support Agency decisions have resulted in a second wife making a contribution to the maintenance of the first wife.

There are no circumstances in which a second wife of an absent parent will be required to contribute to the maintenance of the first. Details of the earnings of an absent parent's new partner are needed for just two reasons: first, to assess whether she can afford to contribute towards the upkeep of her own children in the new relationship; and, secondly, to determine whether the amount of maintenance that the absent parent has been assessed to pay can be reduced under the protected income provisions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, however laudable his aims, there are real problems faced by fathers when they receive a bill for 15 weeks' maintenance if they have not been quick enough off the mark in getting the form in? Does he further agree that that, for whatever reasons, is causing real hardship and that there is a danger that the second family will end up trying to support the first family through a circuitous route?

On my hon. Friend's point about arrears, it is not the case that those arrears need to be paid off immediately; the agency fully understands the impact that a sizeable amount of arrears might have on a family and it is possible to negotiate with the agency how the arrears should be paid off. It should also be remembered that there is another voice, which tends not to come out in press reports, and has not come out much here, although it has been commented on by the Select Committee. At the end of all this, there is a parent and a child who are entitled to receive the maintenance. That voice is all too rarely heard.

Does the Minister accept that the principle of the absent parent paying maintenance was accepted at the time before the formula was published? The formula was published some time after the Bill went through Committee and the House. Does he further accept that, if children are in a family situation where benefit is paid, the involvement of the Child Support Agency should be limited to the amount of benefit in payment for those children and that any additional maintenance recovered should go to the family?

The formula was part of the Act. It was debated and consulted on. As to social security,

"it was always intended that, in cases where it was assessed that the absent parent could afford to do so, the financial responsibility for the care of children should move from the social security system to the absent parent. In some cases maintenance will be a substitute for Income Support; in others, the sums received by the children will certainly improve their circumstances."

Is not it clear to my hon. Friend that every hon. Member accepts that the agency is a good idea—

No.

As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is the odd man out. However, most of us feel that the agency has gone drastically wrong in the details and the implications of the scheme. Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ask him whether he remembers the warning that I gave him, that all hell would break out if court settlements were retrospectively overturned by the agency rather than by the courts? That is what has happened, particularly where husbands have made over houses to their wives. Much of the resentment and many of the difficulties stem from that.

The principles have been broadly endorsed by the House on a number of occasions and again today by the Select Committee and I do not accept that the way in which the agency has worked has been contrary to the character envisaged. However, some adjustments have been suggested and we are conscious of the criticisms that have been made and are endeavouring to meet them. We have tried to address the central point and the central principles, including the difficulty with the so-called clean break principle. I spent a lot of time on that with the Select Committee, which recognises that there is no other way for the formula to deal with the situation than the way in which we are dealing with it now.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received urging him to impose a moratorium on the market testing programme.

First, the Chancellor regrets that he cannot be here today. He is attending a conference in Brussels of the Council of Ministers, discussing the future of the framework for research programmes.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a moratorium would be a grave setback to other welfare spending projects? Has not the present system enabled £100 million worth of savings to be made—savings that will continue to be made every year? Will he confirm that, in encouraging market testing, he is, contrary to the behaviour of the Labour party, which is backed by trade unions, putting the public first and not the providers?

My hon. Friend is right. That sort of money would pay for a couple of hospitals, 50,000 primary school places or 10 secondary schools. All those items of expenditure would be in the public interest, as is low taxation, although the Labour party never seems to learn that.

Why does not the Minister call for a moratorium on market testing until it can be shown to have led to any improvement in service to the customer? That is the one element missing from any statement that Ministers make on market testing. They cannot show that it leads to an improvement in service to the customer.

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The market testing programme carried out this year was followed up by a review by my Department, with the managers of the individual services, asking what has happened to the quality of service provision. In every case, it was at least as good as that preceding it and, in 32 per cent. of cases, it was better.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will indicate the size of his Department's 1993–94 market testing programme and what it was in 1991–92.

The size of the market testing programme for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Department in 1993–94 is some £23·7 million, which is about the same as for the whole Government in 1991–92, and some 30 times higher than in their own earlier programme.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the good example set by his Department in saving money and improving services to its customers. Does he agree that it is necessary to find service improvements and cash savings through the market testing programme, to enable the Government to achieve the public expenditure totals that they set themselves in the Budget? Is not it also important to realise that that can be done while improving quality for the customer?

My hon. Friend is right. Our programme has identified savings of some £5 million, which is about 28 per cent. on the base cost of what has been addressed and roughly four times the cost of the analysis programme. We have heard a great deal of barracking from the Opposition about worse service or the absence of quality improvements. I will give them one example that centres solely on service improvement. I refer to the Strangeways prison market test, which was one by—

Group 4?

No, by the in-house team. That programme made small cost savings but improved the service delivered. It provides prisoners with 35 hours work per week and 60 hours of structured activity. When I think about it, structured activity is the opposite of what was happening at Strangeways the last time that I saw it on television.

Will the Minister admit that many people's experience of market testing—for example, in the health service—is of managers giving themselves massive salary increases? Given the scandals involving the misuse of huge amounts of public money, particularly in places such as Wessex health authority, will the Minister acknowledge that the public are wary of the much-trumpeted advantages of market testing? They see it as just another way of making a quick buck for the Government's friends.

The hon. Lady has wandered off into the realm of health service reforms, but my answer to her is entirely in line with the remarks of members of the Opposition Front Bench. They ask, "Ask the customers." For every 100 people treated by the health service before the reforms, 115 are treated now. That is the acid test of any reform.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the value for money is much more important than jobs for the boys and that where market testing and competitive tendering take place, the customer gets a better service at less cost to the taxpayer?

I agree with my hon. Friend and add to his point about jobs for the boys. Sometimes, the virtues of the market testing programme are lost in the propaganda that flies across from the Opposition. The last component of this year's market testing programme was the Inland Revenue's decision to award an information technology contract to EDS-Sicon. It is worth reading the four key objectives of the selection process:

"Substantial improvements in cost-effectiveness of IT servicess. Improved speed of delivery in development and enhancement of systems. Rapid access to 1990s skills, tools and technologies."

The Minister confuses objectives with achievement. If the Government really believe in fair competition between the public and private sectors, why are they still trying to wriggle out of the TUPE regulations by claiming that this is a matter of subsidiarity? Does not that make it obvious that the Government know that the private sector can only win on the basis of lower pay and worse terms and conditions for employees, not on the basis of greater efficiency? When the private sector cannot win even on that basis, is not the whole exercise reduced to farce when the Minister refuses to accept an in-house bid that is £1 million lower—as at the driver and vehicle licensing centre in Swansea—or even refuses an in-house bid altogether, as with the Inland Revenue's information technology work? It is clear that that has nothing to do with efficiency but has everything to do with political dogma.

I shall answer the six or seven questions that I can remember. The first question was on the DVLA. The exercise to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the so-called £1 million lower exercise—was a bench-marking, theoretical exercise. In case he is worried about that, I inform him that the DVLA will be allowed to bid for the contract in the next year or so. I do not think that he was listening to what I said about the EDS exercise. One of the points that emerged was the great benefit to staff as a result of EDS being able to find more work and introduce better technology. That helped staff and kept them in their jobs with more and better prospects. Not everybody in the private sector views TUPE as difficult. Indeed, Mr. Cox of Hoskyns has said that TUPE is an advantage because it gives some security in dealing with staff.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is planned on implementing the citizens charter in next steps agencies.

We expect all agencies that serve the public direct to publish a charter or charter standard statement and to report on performance against it over time. Many agencies, such as the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, already have a charter. Those that do not are to consider publishing one when their framework document is reviewed. New agencies should have a charter on launch. In the near future, the Department will publish a White Paper—the 1993 review—on next steps agencies in Government.

At a time when the DVLA in Swansea is being market tested, is the Minister aware that its staff feel deeply insulted by their special chartermark award, especially as £3,970 was spent on public relations trinkets —money that would have been better donated to a local charity—one of which was a tax disc holder that was illegal according to the DVLA's specification? Is he further aware that they feel deeply insulted that more than £300,000 has been spent on fees to consultancies to oversee the market testing programme, when their jobs are at stake and their futures being destroyed?

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman the comments that have been made by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen: the first test of the market testing programme is in the eyes of the customer. The DVLA was awarded a chartermark for providing a good service to the customer, which will help it in winning the next contract. I should not underestimate that. The DVLA staff whom I met were certainly not as he described but were very much in favour of and pleased with winning the award.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the point of these agencies is to make the service more responsive and sensitive to the customer and to enable Ministers to raise standards and to ensure that we go more for total quality? Will he let us know what he is doing to ensure that improvements are more widely recognised?

Give him a chartermark pullover.

I think that my hon. Friend has enough pullovers of his own.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government intend to increase or reduce the number of citizens charters in the forthcoming year.

The citizens charter covers all public services. Thirty eight charters and many statements of charter standards have been published by Government Departments, agencies and public services. I expect a further two charters to be published in 1994 and up to 10 to be reissued with improved standards.

Does the hon. Gentleman see the need to protect the quality of service and the efficient use of public money spent by the Franchising Director in purchasing public service rail services by extending the passengers charter to the private sector companies which will be running rail services in the future, or is there to be a different quality threshold for private rail operators than there is for British Rail?

The whole point of the franchise exercise is to improve services, to ensure that better services are provided after they have been privatised.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Strathclyde university on becoming the first university to win a chartermark for the excellence of its career service? Does he agree that it is proof of improving standards in the higher education sector as a response to the market? Does he also agree that there is a great need for continuing improvement in the standards of service offered by the public services?

My hon. Friend goes to the nub of the charter, market testing and, indeed, of all Government reform activities. They are aimed at improving the quality and value for money of services. The value-for-money component is by no means in opposition to quality. Often delivering better quality—getting things right first time —means that things do not have to be done twice and that it costs less to do so.

Has the Minister examined the way in which compensation schemes work under the charters, for example, in the public transport sector where lack of investment means more breakdowns, an increase in compensation payments and, therefore, even less money being available to tackle the causes of those breakdowns? In view of the lack of capital investment, which has been seen most starkly on London Transport in recent weeks, is not it obvious that those compensation packages could tackle the problem that the customer wants to see tackled, which is to get from A to B on time?

The hon. Gentleman picked an extraordinary example because London Transport has four times the level of capital investment that it received under the Labour Greater London council. He is pinning down the wrong problem. One of the most important components of improving the reliability of delivery in public as in private service is management. Compensation does two things: the first is to give proper and appropriate recompense to those who have suffered from poor service and the second—the other side of the coin—is to give a strong signal to management that they must do something to deliver better service, which is what the charter is all about.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much Government activity will be market tested in 1993–94; and what was the size of the 1991–92 programme.

We plan to subject central Government activities costing more than £800 million to competition in the 12 months to 30 September 1994. This is a 30-fold increase over the 1991–92 outturn of just under £25 million.

I am extremely grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend encourage all Government Departments to examine further ways in which they could increase market testing and embrace it vigorously? As he has already mentioned the Inland Revenue, will he welcome its decision to enter negotiations with a private company to introduce market testing in its strategic information and technical services?

I welcome that company, as I have already said. The programme has delivered virtues and benefits throughout Government services and does so not only in terms of the direct public services that we have already mentioned—it delivers the capacity to give wider service, including perhaps more defence, which was discussed at the weekend.

It is a pity that the Minister did not also quote the sums which, between 1991 and now, each of the Departments that had pushed out its charters and its market tests had spent on management consultants. Before he does any more of that, will he speak to the Secretary of State for Wales, who reportedly called in the heads of the quangos and the next steps agencies in Wales and warned them that they were to cut off the gravy train to the management consultants who had been doing very well out of that exercise?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address the latter part of his question to the Secretary of State for Wales. In my Department the costs that were incurred at the beginning of the market testing programme were matched 4·4 times over by the savings that arose. That has been the experience right across the board—four times or better.

Does my hon. Friend believe that in setting priorities for market testing in Government activity he should use some type of scientific endeavour? Would he consider using technology foresight, for example, as a method of choosing the areas of Government activity in which he wants market testing to occur?

My hon. Friend's suggestion is ingenious. In the process of market testing we discuss with the Departments the areas in which they think that they will obtain the most value for money and the best service provision improvement. That has turned out so far to be a very effective process.

Does the Minister recall telling me on 25 October that the First Division Association of civil servants was supportive of market testing? Subsequently he received a letter from the secretary of the association, saying that she could not conceive how he could possibly have reached that conclusion because of the letters that she sent to him before and after his answer. Will he now honestly admit, without quoting selectively from those letters, that he has seriously inadvertently misled the House and will he now apologise, because the First Division Association of civil servants very much opposes the present system of market testing?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to hear what I have already written to him and told him. I was speaking from memory last time, but I am now speaking from the text. This is Elizabeth Symons, writing to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 26 May:

"Perhaps I should make it clear from the beginning that the FDA does not oppose the principle of market testing; indeed there is much in your recently published pamphlet devoted to the subject with which our members would agree. The public sector cannot be immune from reform, and should not hold itself aloof from new management methods, where such methods can be shown to be delivering better standards, and better value for money for service users and for all tax payers."