What representations he has received on the Green Paper on reforms to the Child Support Agency. [53466]

We published our proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency in July. The consultation period is not due to end until the end of November, but about 750 responses have been received so far. It is already clear that our proposals for a simple, straightforward and transparent service have widespread support.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome him to his new position, as I think that this is the first time that he has appeared on the Treasury Bench since the reshuffle. I welcome also his ministerial colleagues, whose careers I am following with great interest. Has my right hon. Friend come across situations such as those in my constituency where self-employed absent parents who appear to be living wealthy lives seem to have received nil assessments from the CSA and are escaping maintenance? Will he devise a way to make sure that self-employed absent parents are properly assessed by the CSA?

First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her words of welcome. My ministerial colleagues and I will be glad to hear that she will watch our careers with great interest. Secondly, on her substantive point, it is a matter of concern to the Government that 1.8 million children are not receiving a penny in maintenance from their non-resident parents and, in particular, that there are self-employed people who have managed to avoid paying any money partly because of the assessment levied on them.

I join the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new position. In doing so, I look forward to several months of constructive opposition from my party. Are the many supportive representations that he tells us he has received mainly on the ground that the over-complication of the present system is beyond belief? It is certainly causing enormous problems. Is it not true that, by simplifying the system, he may endanger himself, in the sense that the original system—introduced by the Conservative Government—was known to be unfair because it was so simple? Is there not a danger that, in the end, he may find that his own simplified system is more complicated? Is he prepared to listen to further representations from members of the National Association for Child Support Action when they visit the House on 18 November?

That was certainly a complicated question, Madam Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I hope that he will be in opposition for longer than just a few months. With regard to his point about the formula, we believe that a simpler formula will be quicker to implement, and that therefore we will get payment far quicker than at present. The system will be more readily understood, will deliver money to the parent with care and will benefit the children themselves.

Given that the modern family tragedy is that most absent fathers do not pay child maintenance for their children and that, in turn, too many of those fathers are denied access to their children, will my right hon. Friend work with other Departments and agencies to produce a rounded family policy that will enable all the children in Britain—except in extreme circumstances—to be brought up by both their mother and their father?

I strongly believe that someone is a mother or father for life and that contact with children should be maintained. However, I do not believe that there should be linkage between access and payment of sums due for the maintenance of children—they are separate matters. However, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that absent parents should be encouraged by whatever means are appropriate to maintain contact with the child for whom they are responsible throughout that child's life.

Will the Secretary of State kindly direct me to the place in the Labour party manifesto where it states that the Government have plans to tax child benefit?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the fact that, in his last Budget, the Chancellor increased child benefit and he said that, if there were to be further increases, there was certainly a case for looking at taxation of the higher rate of child benefit, but the point that most people will remember is that it is this party and this Government who have increased child benefit by a record amount. Most people support us in doing that.

If he will make it his policy to uprate the state pension in line with the higher rate of earnings or the retail prices index. [53467]

We are committed to retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision in retirement and to increase it at least in line with prices. We have already honoured that promise with last year's increase. A statement on uprating for next year will be made in due course.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a strong earnings-related pension scheme is the necessary basis for both security in old age and the development of public-private pension partnerships? Does he further accept that, if the national insurance scheme and the Treasury grant had been combined with the restoration of the cut in employers' national insurance contributions, which was carried through by the previous Government, there would have been enough money to make pensions earnings related for the next five years at least?

As I have said, a statement on uprating for next year will be made in due course, but my hon. Friend will recognise the substantial action that the Government have already taken to benefit all today's pensioners, through, for example, winter fuel payments, as well as taking and promising action to give greatest help to the poorest pensioners: those on income support and those who are entitled to income support but do not receive it.

Is the Minister of State aware that one group of British pensioners receives no uprate in its pensions—those living abroad in certain Commonwealth countries? As part of his pensions review, will he have another look at that injustice and see what can be done to rectify it?

I am interested to hear the point that is made by the hon. Gentleman. There seems to be some confusion on the Conservative Benches as to whether this Government should be spending less or more on social security, but I make it clear to him, as I have done in correspondence to a number of people, that there are competing pressures and demands on the social security budget and it is unlikely, under the present circumstances, that that particular plea will receive priority.

Is the Minister aware that many female pensioners were widowed before they reached pensionable age and were very grateful for the support that they were able to receive from widow's benefit? Does he agree that to replace a relatively simple-to-claim widow's benefit with an overlapping array of means-tested benefit would add to themisery and sadness of people at a very vulnerable time?

May I make it clear that the Government have no intention of making any changes to the arrangements for existing recipients of widow's benefit? In considering whether any reforms should be made to the system, I assure the House that they will be based on principle, that they will be fair to men and to women and that they will fit the modern world.

Does the Minister accept that there are some worries about the gap between the haves and the have-nots, particularly as evidenced by the recent study on households below average incomes? If he is looking at ways of getting extra help to low-income pensioner households and he is setting his face against linking real income with earnings, will he look at the possibility of getting extra help to the age cohorts at the elder end of the life span, so that we can get money to people who need it most, without the necessity of going through the bureaucracy of a means test?

The statistics to which the hon. Gentleman refers are an indictment of the record of the previous Government. They back this Government's case that reforming the welfare system so that it gives greater support and greater opportunity to those who wish to enter work is the right way to proceed. He is right to say that we have said that we want to make a priority of assistance for the poorest pensioners, including those who do not receive their entitlement to income support, many of whom are women living alone and in the older group of pensioners. In addition to the substantial increase in the guaranteed minimum income for pensioners, which we will bring in from April, we will make additional efforts to ensure that those who are entitled to that support receive it.

What further steps he is taking to reduce pensioner poverty. [53468]

One and a half million of the poorest pensioners will benefit from a significant increase in their income support from next April—three times the amount that would apply under normal uprating. We are also committed to continue winter fuel payments for a further three years beyond this coming winter. From next winter, every eligible pensioner household will receive £20.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the excellent teleclaims initiative, which helps people in my constituency to submit their pension claims in a more user-friendly and efficient way? Can he assure me that, when that initiative is evaluated, the voluntary sector—in particular, Age Concern and the citizens advice bureaux, which do excellent work in my constituency—will have a direct role in the evaluation of that scheme and others to combat the low take-up of benefits by some pensioners?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the initiatives that the Department has been taking to increase telephone take-up. I strongly believe that the Department of Social Security can do far more to use the telephone to reach people in their own homes. The experience so far with the take-up of pensions, and the pilot programme to which he referred, shows that only 1.3 per cent. of cases required any further action. Getting cases right first time not only means that pensioners get the money that they need, but saves valuable resources in the Department, so we certainly want that to be encouraged. We also want to ensure that the voluntary sector, including Age Concern, continues to work with us, as its advice is sometimes invaluable.

The Opposition sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion, and indeed the Minister of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), on managing to survive the night of long knives.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is required to ask a question at Question Time.

In the past 10 years, I have enjoyed many hours of exchanges with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on Finance Bills. I wondered where he had gone, but now I know. Frankly, putting this in the nicest possible way, he is talking complete nonsense. The Government have done more for pensioners in the past 18 months than the previous Conservative Government did in 18 years. This Government not only introduced the minimum pension guarantee, which is helping the poorest of pensioners, who lost out under the previous Government, but have cut value added tax on fuel to the lowest level that we could, have abolished the gas levy, which has meant that household fuel expenses have decreased for pensioners and, in addition, have introduced the winter fuel payment, which meant that pensioners got real help last winter with their fuel bills and will get it again this winter. The Opposition did absolutely nothing about that in the 18 years that they were in power.

If he will make a statement on the results of the pensioners benefit take-up pilot in Torbay. [53469]

The Department has been running nine pilot schemes, of which Torbay is one, since April this year to find the best way to provide more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. The pilots are only just being completed. We have commissioned an independent evaluation of them, which is being carried out, and the results are expected early next year.

I am afraid that we need to see the results before we can make any judgment. I hope that the Minister will agree that the Torbay citizens advice bureau, Torbay council, the Benefits Agency staff in Torquay and organisations such as Age Concern and Brixham Does Care should be congratulated on the part that they have played in trying to find the trigger points where pensioners come into contact with the Benefits Agency. Will he give me an assurance that, if the results show the pilot to have been a success, it will continue in my constituency and, more importantly, will be extended to benefit pensioners throughout the country?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited those involved in the take-up pilot in Torbay, and I am more than happy to pay tribute to everyone involved—those in the voluntary sector, the local authority staff and our own staff—for their efforts. The whole point of the pilot exercises is to find the best way of identifying those pensioners who are entitled to income support but are not receiving it, and enabling them to make a claim. That is the basis on which we want to implement the increased benefit from next April.

If he will make a statement about winter fuel payments for the coming winter. [53471]

This winter, we will give almost 10 million individuals in more than 7 million pensioner households extra help towards paying their heaviest fuel bill. Details of those payments were announced on 30 July and I wrote to all hon. Members last week providing further information.

That is all very well, but what are the Government doing to help those many pensioners who were expecting winter fuel payments last year and have not received them? My constituent, Mrs. Hinton, has been told that she will get her payment tomorrow. Many thousands of other pensioners are suffering, not only from that incompetence on the Government's part, but because of the failure of the new national insurance recording system—NIRS 2—in Newcastle, which is depriving many newly widowed people and pensioners of their entitlement based on a lifetime's contributions. The Government are not caring about those people.

It is nice to see that the hon. Gentleman is so caring. It was the Conservative Government who ordered the NIRS 2 computer system. More than 10 million payments went out at very short notice last year, when the new scheme was announced, and less than 1 per cent. went to the wrong place or did not turn up; the hon. Gentleman is being very churlish. This year, we have set up a national helpline, the number of which should be in the letter that I sent him: it is 0645 151515 If any of his constituents have problems claiming the money that the Conservative Government never gave to pensioners to help them with their heaviest fuel bill—the Labour Government have committed nearly £1 billion for that in this Parliament—the helpline operators will be more than happy to help them.

During the summer, when she read through the mountains of Department files and briefing notes from civil servants, did my hon. Friend come across any letters of apology from the Tories for imposing VAT on fuel for our pensioners?

Funnily enough, I did not come across a single such letter, but I think that the Tories owe the pensioners of this country an apology for the appalling way in which they were treated in the 18 years of Tory power.

I congratulate the Minister on her new position. Given that the policy was announced in July, why was it felt necessary to repackage it in October without providing any new money? Can she explain to pensioner groups in my constituency and throughout the country why the Government spent a sum that would have provided winter payments for the whole of Greater Manchester on a misleading advertising campaign that left an awful lot money—more than 1 per cent.—unclaimed in post offices, because people thought that it would arrive on the doorstep? Will she ensure that no more propaganda will be paid for by ratepayers and that money will go to pensioners as it should?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It is important that he remembers that the information campaign is designed to ensure that pensioners know that the money is coming, so that if there is a cold snap they do not worry about turning up their heating. They know that they will get £50 help at the end of November if they are on income support and £20 by January if they are not on income support. No pensioner needs to worry about turning the heating up if there is a cold snap. The information campaign is to reassure pensioners that the money is on its way.

I welcome the progress that has been made on what is a serious issue for our society, but does the Minister's estimate of the number of pensioners on income support who are eligible to claim the £50 payment coincide with the estimate produced by Age Concern? There seems to be a difference and we must ensure that everyone who is eligible claims. On the subject of the special payments that may be made, are we to continue to rely on the geographical niceties of the various weather monitoring stations? Or will the wind chill factor—a great concern to people in my area of the north-east of Scotland—be taken into account?

The hon. Lady asks about the number of pensioners who are entitled to income support but who do not claim it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already explained to the House some of the pilot schemes designed to encourage people to claim. Any pensioners who are entitled to income support should claim it before 9 November, because that is the qualifying week for the payments. If they do not claim by then, they might lose out on the extra £50. Our estimates vary at between 750,000 and 1 million pensioners, but it is not possible to be precise. We do not quibble too much with Age Concern's estimate, and we join it in trying to persuade pensioners who think that they are eligible for income support to claim it at their local office. That will give them access to the extra £50 payment which will be paid by the end of November.

What new proposals he has to ensure that all pensioners share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation. [53472]

One of the aims of the pensions review is to ensure that pensioners have an adequate income in retirement and that they share fairly in national prosperity. My hon. Friend will be aware that we intend to publish our proposals in the Green Paper on pensions later this year.

Although I recognise the many good things that the Government have done for pensioners, I would like the new Secretary of State to explain to us—following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—why the basic pension was not increased last year or this year by the increase in the rate of earnings? The money was in the kitty and the increase could have been made without infringing the promises made by the previous Government or by this Government. The basic pension is not a handout or a gift: it is paid for by personal contributions, which take into account the rate of inflation and are made for up to 50 years. The words stating that all pensioners shall

"share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation"

My hon. Friend is right to the extent that the Government had a choice last year in the comprehensive spending review. Some £2.5 billion was allocated to pensioners and we chose deliberately to spend it on doing more for the poorest pensioners rather than spreading the sum thinly among all pensioners. The poorest pensioners have lost out in the past few years. The restoration of free eye tests, concessionary travel and the winter fuel payments will help all pensioners, but especially the poorest whom we were most concerned to help. That is why we took that decision and I believe we were right.

I suppose that those most pleased with the minimum pension guarantee will be those who have done nothing to save for their retirement. Question 6 is about fairness. Can the Secretary of State confirm, for those who have saved for their retirement, that there are no circumstances in which they will be worse off than those who have not done so?

The hon. Gentleman raises a matter that is inherent in any system that has a degree of means-testing. There is nothing new about the point, as means-testing has been with us for many years under successive Governments of different colours. However, I do not agree that the help is going to pensioners whom the hon. Gentleman dismissed as somehow not deserving of any help. Through no fault of their own, many pensioners do not have sufficient means on which to live, and it is those pensioners whom we want to help the most, as they would otherwise face real difficulties.

One group of pensioners who will not share in the prosperity of the nation are the ex-employees of H. H. Robertson in my constituency. Now that the Serious Fraud Office has completed its inquiries into that company scandal, will my right hon. Friend liaise with colleagues in other Departments on whether mechanisms can be introduced to protect pensioners from having money removed from their pension schemes in future, and to ensure that they are treated as preferential creditors, and not in the outrageous way that they have been treated in that outrageous scandal?

I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He is right to raise the matter. We are looking into it, and the regime presently in place quite clearly has not been able to deal with that situation. I hope to be able to report to the House in due course on proposals to deal with the problem that money that should be available for employees is not available because of action that should not have taken place.

May I ask the Secretary of State about the position of people who have money purchase personal pensions, many of which are relatively small? In particular, may I ask about those who have already retired? As the Minister will know, one can delay buying an annuity until the age of 75. In view of the enormous rise in the cost of annuities, the fall in what we can get for our money and the weakness of markets, will the Government consider ending, or at least suspending, the age 75 rule?

I am aware of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot say anything this afternoon, but the Government consider the point from time to time. I cannot make any immediate promises.

May I say to the Secretary of State that I was pleased to hear him point out to the Conservatives that many millions of elderly people were quite unable to save for their senior years because of the nature of their employment? One example is trawler company fishermen who were never given security of employment. May I say that much more needs to be done for the many elderly people who do not take up the benefits to which they are manifestly entitled? Pilot studies do not go far enough. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every Benefits Agency office should be told that more needs to be done for elderly people in their areas?

Order. The hon. Gentleman did not put a proper question, a point that applies to Back Benchers as well as to Front Benchers. We must have brisk questions at Question Time.

I shall endeavour to give a brief answer. My hon. Friend is quite right. Many pensioners are entitled to benefits that they do not take up. I have said that I wanted far greater use of the telephone than previously because experience shows that that is one way in which to reach pensioners at home to persuade them to take up money that they would not otherwise receive. We have been conducting pilots because the reasons why pensioners do not take up their entitlements are quite complex. They are not as straightforward as people may initially have thought. I am anxious to ensure that we pool the evidence that we receive over the next few weeks so that when we embark on a national take-up campaign we can use the best techniques we can find to ensure that we deal with the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend. Far too many pensioners will sit at home in hardship this winter when they need not necessarily have to do so.

What steps he will take to ensure that medical tests for disability living allowance are objective and professionally conducted. [53477]

The conduct and quality of medical assessments that may be required in the determination of entitlement to disability living allowance are subject to close monitoring and regular and random audit against nationally determined standards specified in the Benefits Agency's contract with the SEMA Group, which provides medical services.

I thank the Minister. Is he aware that, with the current climate of financial austerity at the Department of Social Security, there is much anxiety among the disabled that their allowances may be cut as a result of cursory examination by medical generalists without reference to general practitioners? Will he examine the shortage of doctors in this field to ensure that a proper service is available?

Very specific medical quality standards on experience, qualifications and training are included in the Benefits Agency's contract with SEMA. All doctors undertaking examinations for disability living allowance must now be approved by the chief medical adviser on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am aware of some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised. We are satisfied that enough doctors are available and are determined that the standards to which they work should be of the highest possible quality. The assessments are vital to many people. We need to ensure that they are right and we are investing significant resources in ensuring that they are. As an illustration of our determination to secure the highest quality, we are working with the Royal College of Physicians on the first ever diploma in disability assessment medicine, which will be awarded for the first time next year, to raise standards in this important area.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. I appreciate his comments, but I have two points. First, will he reconsider the position of children identified by schools as having general special needs without a specific need being diagnosed—children who are unable to work because of a kind of general disability? Secondly, is enough advice provided to those who help people to fill in forms? Sometimes they are family members and have great difficulty in coping with the voluminous questionnaires that they are sent.

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. She raises two important points. We know that there are particular difficulties for people who become disabled when very young because they cannot gain national insurance credits and so do not become entitled later in life to incapacity benefit. We are considering that in our current review. We are also aware of the need for those who advise disabled people to have access to the best possible information. We will do what we can to make progress on that.

I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to the Front Bench. I am sure that he is aware that on 12 September, as reported in the press, the Prime Minister wrote to Lord Morris of Manchester saying that the Green Paper on welfare reform did not put forward any proposal to tax disability living allowance and that that remained the position. Is the Minister aware that, to many people, that seems reminiscent of the position when the then Leader of the Opposition said in April last year that the Labour party had no plans to introduce tuition fees for university students and then, three months later, did so? Will the Minister clarify the record, put aside the carefully chosen words of the Prime Minister and say that the Government will not tax DLA for existing or future recipients?

I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations and extend mine to her on her appointment. The Government's action on student support has been widely welcomed. The position on taxation of DLA has been made very clear and has been accurately reported. There are no plans to introduce taxation of those benefits. That remains the position. Her statement of the Government's position is correct.

If he will make a statement on his Department's progress towards the introduction of stakeholder pensions. [53478]

When he expects to publish his proposals for stakeholder pensions. [53487]

We are developing a framework for stakeholder pension schemes, which will offer secure, flexible and value-for-money second pensions for people who do not have the opportunity to join an occupational scheme and for whom many personal pensions can be unsuitable. We will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year, which will include more details of our proposals for stakeholder schemes.

May I remind the Minister that, on 15 December last year, he said that early this year, the Government would publish their review proposals on pensions? Is not that Green Paper an unconscionably long time coming? Is not the delay even worse for those who read the Labour party's election manifesto of spring 1997, which said that low-wage earners and those with patterns of employment that were not fixed could expect a funded pension in their own right? It seems that that expectation has, along with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), gone walkies.

The welfare reform Green Paper that we published in the spring said that the pensions Green Paper would be published later this year, and that is the timetable to which we are working. We are keen to get our proposals right, because no one—at least, no one on the Government Benches—has forgotten the introduction of personal pensions by the previous Administration, or the mis-selling that was a consequence of the failure to get the regulatory and legal system right. I do not believe that anyone involved in the provision of pensions begrudges the Government a month or two in which to do the work necessary to ensure that our proposals meet the needs that we have set out.

Will the Minister tell us the reasons for the delay in publishing the Government's proposals? Will he confirm that the delay stems not from him, but from the Treasury? Will he tell us why the Treasury blocked proposals, reliably reported to have been circulated by him and his Department, for a compulsory stakeholder pension scheme?

The hon. Gentleman refers to a series of myths of his own making. We set out the timetable for the reform proposals in the welfare reform Green Paper earlier this year and we are working to that timetable. What is different is that the current Government recognise the difficulties faced by people on low and modest incomes, or those who have intermittent working patterns, in obtaining a decent value-for-money pension. Instead of continually sniping, Conservative Members might better spend their time explaining why they did so little over so long a period to enable such people to get a decent pension.

Are the Government planning a form of stakeholder pension that contains an element of redistribution, so that the poor can be made full members of the scheme; or will the Government be content to allow that most vulnerable group to be dependent on means-tested assistance?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that we shall publish proposals later this year. He can be assured that we are concerned about the ability of people on low incomes to build up adequate pensions for their retirement.

Given the tax increases that have taken place, especially the changes to advance corporation tax and the abolition of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, what are the Government going to offer people who have an acceptable disposable income to induce them to take up a stakeholder pension?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the changes made by the Government in our early months in office, including a large cut in corporation tax on major employers, were part of a package of measures designed to put the economy and the public finances on a sound basis. The Government and the country are now able to benefit from that action, because it created an environment favourable to long-term investment in the economy—the sort of long-term investment that creates the wealth from which future pensions can be paid. By creating that sort of stable environment, we create the conditions for a sound pensions policy in future.

If he will estimate the number of self-employed people who do not have any pension provision arrangements. [53479]

In 1996, around half of all self-employed people were estimated to be contributing to a personal pension. A further 11 per cent. of the self-employed were not making contributions, but had contributed to a personal pension in the past.

Does the Minister agree with the recent report published by the Federation of Small Businesses which warned that any compulsory increase in contributions above the current 6 per cent. level would have a devastating effect on that area of the small business community?

Evidence to the pensions review included quite a number of submissions calling for an extension of compulsion. However, those arguments were by no means unanimous—indeed, the arguments about compulsion are by no means one-sided. We promised to look seriously at all those arguments in the welfare reform Green Paper, and we shall do that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials and I have had meetings with the Federation of Small Businesses and that we are listening carefully to its concerns.

What plans he has for guaranteeing a minimum payment of (a) benefits generally and (b) housing benefit to claimants within 24 hours of the claim. [53480]

We are committed to modernising the system of delivering welfare so that it is flexible, efficient and easy to use. The Department deals with more than 20 benefits and there are more than 47 targets measuring performance on the clearance of new applications. Those targets are achieved in 90 per cent. of cases, but I recognise that, in some cases, delays are long and difficult to explain.

Will the Minister examine the performance of the London borough of Southwark, which is delivering neither a modern nor an efficient housing benefit system? Some people wait not just for 14 days or a month but for a year, and there are tens of thousands of unprocessed housing benefit claims. Pensioners are receiving summonses for eviction, as are single parents with young children, and the whole system appears to be on the verge of complete collapse. Will the Minister investigate the situation and undertake to report on it publicly and to the House?

I am aware of the problems being experienced in Southwark. My officials have received a detailed report from the authority which confirms that there are delays. An action plan has been drawn up to clear the arrears of work that have been implemented. I have asked to receive reports from the authority so that progress on the action plan can be monitored by my officials. Southwark and the private contractors to whom it contracted the work are working together to improve the situation. I am told that the arrears of work have been reduced considerably and that the authority expects to make further progress on the work load until the situation returns to normal in November.

Given the Audit Commission's recent criticisms of local councils, will the Minister publish a list of the 50 worst offenders with regard to the non or late payment of housing benefit so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can see for themselves how many Labour local authorities are in the premier league of incompetence and mismanagement in this important area?

The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that most local authorities are Labour-controlled—the good and the bad.

When he plans to publish the results of his pensions review. [53482]

When the Green Paper on pensions will be published. [53492]

At the risk of repetition, as set out in our Green Paper on welfare reform, we will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. There will then be a period of further consultation before final proposals are developed.

When the Green Paper is finally published, will it drop the absurd pretence that the Government are guaranteeing pensioners £75 a week? Does the Minister recall writing to me during the summer and admitting that, even when the so-called guarantee is in place, half a million pensioners with weekly incomes below £75 a week will not get a penny from the so-called guarantee?

The hon. Gentleman might have done more to welcome the fact that income support will increase in April by three times the normal uprating. That means that the guaranteed minimum income, subject to the usual assessment, will be £75 a week for a single pensioner and £116.60 for a couple. That will be coupled with action to bring that benefit to pensioners who do not yet claim it, but who are entitled to it. No Government have taken action previously in that form and on this scale, and the hon. Gentleman might have welcomed our initiative.

The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly suggested that the Green Paper is on schedule and that it will be produced by the end of the year as originally planned. However, on 15 December last year, at column 11 of Hansard, the Minister committed himself to publishing the Green Paper in the first half of this year. As he is now already at least four months behind schedule, will he now commit himself to publishing the paper within the next month?

We shall publish the Green Paper later this year. The hon. Gentleman should accept that we have inherited major problems from the previous Administration, including that of the large number of pensioners who do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. The previous Government refused even to admit the existence of that problem, let alone address it.

What changes he proposes in the habitual residence test. [53483]

I expect to bring forward our proposals for the future of the habitual residence test later this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many British citizens who return to this country are caught by the rule introduced by the previous Government and suffer great hardship as a result of the way in which it is enforced?

I agree with my hon. Friend's observation. The habitual residence test was introduced after the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) sang at the Tory party conference. The rule was intended to end benefit tourism, but 76 per cent. of those who fail the habitual residence test are UK citizens. We are examining the test in great detail to determine its future and find out what can be done to make it more effective. I assure the House that we shall make changes based on facts and cool reflection rather than bigotry and performances at the Tory party conference.

What steps he has taken to improve the operation of the CSA. [53486]

We want a child maintenance service that is simple and straightforward to use and that parents can trust, but that cannot be achieved overnight, so in the meantime, we need to improve the operation of the current scheme while we discuss the radical changes that are proposed in our Green Paper.

I know that many people will benefit from those improvements. Will my hon. Friend consider the case of a family in my constituency in which both parents were absent and the grandparents took over the care of the children? The CSA, the local authority and the Benefits Agency were unable to help in that emotional situation. The CSA should try to improve its efforts to make absent parents pay. Will my hon. Friend include other agencies in the review? The grandparents in that case were told that, if the children had been taken into care and then fostered or adopted, the Benefits Agency and local authority could have helped. I find that unforgivable.

My hon. Friend has made a serious point about what happens when neither parent is able to look after children. If he will give me the details of that case, I shall consider what can be done to assist those involved. We shall consider that issue in our response to the Green Paper.

Will the Minister act quickly to reply to the strong criticisms made in the first annual report by the CSA watchdog, particularly those concerning instructing staff to respond more swiftly to queries and, when assessments have been revised, to process the revision as quickly as possible?

I shall do that. The Government recognise that the system is complicated and difficult to administer. That is why we have published the Green Paper, which suggests radical reforms. I remind the hon. Lady that the previous Government asked the CSA to administer a system that is so complicated that staff must spend 90 per cent. of their time making assessments and can spend only 10 per cent. chasing up payments.

What estimates his Department has made of the increase in social security spending for each percentage point which the September retail prices index exceeds the target set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [53488]

Uprating of social security benefits based on the September retail prices index will not add to our prudent spending plans. I am currently reviewing the rates of social security benefits and I will announce the uprating of social security benefits shortly.

That is all very well, but is not the right hon. Gentleman—who, in his previous incarnation as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so signally failed to achieve any savings in the benefits budget—ashamed of the fact that his budget will increase by £37 billion during the next three years, and that there is no likelihood that there will be savings of any kind anywhere in his budget?

The hon. Gentleman's difficulty results from the fact that he tabled his question before the summer recess; now that it is October, he has got things badly wrong. However, he might like to bear in mind the fact that, under the previous Government—whom, no doubt, he supported—social security spending was increasing at a rate of about 4 per cent. a year. Under the present Government, it is increasing by about 2 per cent. a year.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place, but is not the fact that he is now in place and that his predecessor has gone an admission by the Government that they have completely failed on that agenda? My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asked a specific question about the Government's failure to cut any costs. By their own figures, everything that they have done has raised the cost of social security. Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that Library figures show that they inherited a budget that was falling—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it was not."] Yes, it was. Do not those figures also show that the Government have turned the budget around, and are increasing it? What will he do seriously to reduce a budget that is rising, and costs taxpayers money?

For the past hour, I have watched the hon. Gentleman pawing like a bull desperate to enter a china shop, and now here he is. He must face the facts that, under the previous Government, social security spending was rising at about 4 per cent. a year, and that inequality and exclusion increased nevertheless.

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman has adopted his predecessor's habits; he avoids the real question. Although, at the time of the general election, Labour pledged to cut the costs, every single thing that the Government have done has increased those costs. Moreover, as growth is now falling to 1 per cent., the budget will increase by nearly £1 billion in addition to their previous increases. I therefore make the right hon. Gentleman an offer.

What would they do?

The hon. Member for Bolsover is tossing his right hon. Friend a question, asking what the Conservatives would do. We would cut the working families tax credit, thereby increasing the budget dramatically. Why does he not do that now—saving us all money—and stop wasting our time?

Now we at least have a policy from the Opposition, and it is to take away money that is being spent to ensure that work pays for hundreds of thousands of people for whom it has not paid in the past. This Government, unlike the previous Government, are determined to take measures that reduce the number of people who are out of work, including measures to make work pay. Therefore, we are reforming the tax and benefit system and have introduced the working families tax credit. Those are examples of methods by which the Government are helping people get into work in a way that did not happen in the past.

What plans he has under the proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency to ensure that maintenance payments from absent parents who are self-employed are enforced. [53489]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, those are some of the most difficult cases. We are considering basing the child support assessment on the most recent year's taxable income for self-employed non-resident parents. That information will be easy for non-resident parents to provide and should result in fewer disputed assessments.

I was glad to hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier that the Government are considering the use of the tax system in the long term to clamp down on such absent parents. What would my hon. Friend say to a constituent from Rawmarsh who contacted me last week, whose husband left her with two kids and six months pregnant? He had a £25,000-a-year job, but within weeks went self-employed and has evaded any maintenance payments since. What encouragement can my hon. Friend give to that woman and many others like her that action will be taken in the short term, not just in the long term?

In the short term, the CSA has piloted arrangements including specialist teams to deal with self-employed cases. We have evidence that that is beginning to show beneficial results. However, as I said earlier, such cases are some of the most difficult to deal with. We believe that in the medium term, dealing with them through the income tax assessment system is a more effective way in which to get to the truth in these matters.

Will there be a Child Support Agency Bill in the Queen's Speech? If not, how do the Government intend to implement their new proposals?

Madam Speaker, I am sure that you would not expect me to tell anyone in the House what was in the Queen's Speech. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to reform the mess that the Conservatives left us when they left office, and that the promise made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that there would be a draft Bill next year will be fulfilled.