What progress is being made on the upgrading of retirement pensions; and if he will make a statement. [88023]

A statement on uprating will be made at the normal time. Pensioners will share in rising national prosperity.

I appreciate all the contributions that have been made and the work that has been done by the Government to help pensioners. The present Government have done more since the general election than was done in 18 years under Conservative Governments. However, my concern now is for today's pensioners. Increases in water charges and in the television licence fee, and the fact that pensioners must now pay more for reduced services, mean that the increase in their outgoings is greater than the increase in the cost of living, according to which their pensions are calculated. That is driving more people into the poverty trap.

First, there is no question of pensioners losing housing support. All Governments have recognised that it is necessary to ensure that pensioners can meet their housing costs, and that will remain the case. However, my hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the problems that we have inherited is that, in this country, the gap between rich and better-off people and poor people has never been greater. The same applies to pensioners: the gap between better-off and poor pensioners is at its largest for very many years.

The Labour Government consider that the existing state pension is inadequate, which is why they are introducing the stakeholder pension. However, has the Secretary of State seen a recent report published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which shows that, instead of introducing the stakeholder pension, the Government could have achieved the same ends by reforming existing pension arrangements? Instead of setting the cart before the horse by introducing the Bill before the consultation period, why have not the Government come forward with a simple reform, buttressing the contributory principle and ensuring that people in future have a decent pension instead of the bewildering array of stakeholder and second pensions, which is confusing people and not achieving the Government's aims?

We inherited a situation where, after the Conservatives' 18 years in office, one person in three of working age was liable to retire on income support right from day 1—such was the inadequacy of the pension provision that the Tories left us. We have ensured that the basic state pension remains the foundation of pension provision. We have introduced the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners. What is more, we are making changes to ensure that people can retire on more than that minimum income guarantee because, if they do not have occupational pensions, or if it is not appropriate for them to be in personal private pension schemes, they can get access to a funded pension through stakeholder pensions.

I welcome the progress that has been made on welfare reform, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied that enough has been done, and is being done, on welfare reform to meet the challenges of the 21st century?

We have made a very good start in the first two years. We are the first Government ever to express our determination to eradicate child poverty within 20 years—something that the Tories never did, or would do. We are making changes to the benefit system to ensure that work pays and to ensure that people cannot be written off—or be allowed to write themselves off, as happened under the Tories—and we are making long-term changes to the pension structure, which was long overdue. However, we have far, far more to do, and we will not be deflected from reforming the welfare state, ensuring that a system that was designed 60 years ago is brought up to date. We have made a useful start; we have much more to do, and I am determined that we will see it through right to the end.

I presume that the Secretary of State means that he will not be deflected by his own unhappy Labour activists, who were causing him so much trouble at the weekend. Can he confirm that the value of the pension will be one of the subjects covered in the welfare policy review that he was forced to offer his unhappy supporters, such as the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), at the weekend? What other Government policies will now be reviewed under pressure from the right hon. Gentleman's party activists? At a time when the Government are presiding over an increase in welfare spending of £38 billion over three years, the last thing we need is yet another roadshow.

The hon. Gentleman has some cheek in lecturing us on social security spending. Despite all the rhetoric, over the 18 years during which the Conservative party was in power, Conservative Governments increased social security spending by 90 per cent. Under the Labour Government, the rate of growth of the social security budget is half what it was under the Tory Government. We are ensuring that the money that we spend is spent to the best possible effect. That is why we are spending a record amount on increasing child benefit to alleviate and then eradicate child poverty. That is something that the Tories never did.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that pensioners in Chorley and throughout the country will not be failed by the Labour Government—unlike the Conservative Government, who presided over 18 years of failure? That is a trap into which we should not fall. Will my right hon. Friend ensure also that, whenever possible, he will increase the basic pension for all our pensioners?

We certainly will. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), many pensioners' incomes have increased, mainly as a result of occupational pensions. The problem is that many more pensioners have lost out. Over the years during which the Tories were in power, some pensioners became poorer and poorer, and the Tories did nothing about it. The minimum income guarantee, the fivefold increase in the winter fuel allowance, the return of free eye tests and a host of other measures, including increasing investment in the national health service—all these things were opposed by the Tory party—mark the difference between this Government, who are concerned about the well-being of pensioners, and the Tory party, which both during its time in office, and now, it appears, in opposition, has had nothing constructive to say.

If he will make a statement on his proposals to reform the all-work test. [88024]

There is a provision in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill to replace the all-work test with the personal capability assessment. The personal capability assessment will determine entitlement to benefit in the same way as the all-work test has done hitherto. In addition, it will provide constructive information about what a person's medical condition or disability would allow them to do and advice on practical measures which might improve their chances of returning to work. This will enable personal advisers to help people identify and overcome the barriers that they face and take steps back into employment.

Is the Minister telling the House that there will be no change to the criteria applied by the new system, as opposed to the all-work test? Will there be a change in the frequency of the periodic review? Will the information that claimants have to provide change in any significant way?

I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question. It is clear that he has not been following the debate. We have made it clear time and time again that the functional ability tests which existed in the all-work test will be repeated in exactly the same way in the personal capability assessment, so that entitlement to incapacity benefit will not change in any way. However, there will be a change in that the test will stop ghetto-ising people into incapacity benefit and will start examining the way to get them off benefit and into work. That is the difference.

Will my hon. Friend say how the new tests will assist people who have mental health problems? People with mental health difficulties sometimes feel that the present system does not meet all their needs because their needs may be less tangible than those of people with physical incapacities. In my constituency, the benefits advice and tribunal unit feels that the presence of a qualified psychiatrist at an assessment would be helpful in recognising the needs of people with mental health difficulties.

I welcome my hon. Friend's question. She is right that concerns have been expressed about the way in which the test deals with people suffering from mental health incapacities. We are not changing in any way the threshold of entitlement to benefit, and people who currently meet the criteria will in future receive the benefit. The special procedures that apply to people with mental health problems will continue. Claimants suffering from a severe mental illness will in future, as in the past, be wholly exempt from the all-work test.

I notice that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who put the original question, has already left the Chamber, before hearing the final answer. I hope that hon. Members will note that that is not the way to behave.

The Minister knows that recently the composition of appeals tribunals hearing all-work test appeals was changed to allow for one professionally qualified chairman and no lay people. Will the new system encompass the fairer, older system? The change to one legally qualified chairman is seen as rubber-stamping a larger number of appeals being turned down.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under the new regime, which is now fully operational, a minimum of two people will be required. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was vital to speed up the appeals process, because justice delayed is justice denied. Many people had to wait months to have their appeal heard. That was unfair, so it was necessary to reform the system, which the Government have done.

What progress he is making with the introduction of a second pension for carers. [88026]

There has been a wide welcome for our manifesto pledge, now confirmed in the pensions Green Paper, to allow carers to build up a second pension. We are working on the details at present. We expect 2 million carers to qualify for credits each year. We are aiming for legislation in the next Session and for credits to commence in 2002, when the state second pension is due to be introduced.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the announcement of a carers pension is popular. May I press him on the situation of carers who should qualify for a second pension because they have been awarded invalid care allowance? The Green Paper states that qualification is automatic for carers who are in receipt of invalid care allowance, but in practice some carers who are awarded invalid care allowance do not actually receive it because they are in receipt of other contributory benefits, such as widows benefit or incapacity benefit. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the award—and not necessarily the receipt—of invalid care allowance will lead to entitlement?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and the answer is yes. Credits will, as he says, go to recipients of invalid care allowance and to those receiving child benefit in respect of children under five, and credits will also go to people in the circumstances that he described—people providing care for people receiving attendance allowance and the middle and higher rates of disability living allowance, but who do not actually receive invalid care allowance, in many cases for the reasons that my hon. Friend outlined. It is an important step forward for carers and recognises the immense contribution that they make.

In the reform of pensions for carers and others, does the Minister believe that simplicity is a virtue?

Indeed I do. That is why the state second pension is being reformed, to ensure that on retirement, everyone who has worked and contributed throughout his or her life will be delivered an income above the means-tested threshold. That is a simple goal which has been widely welcomed and which the entire House will recognise as the right way forward.

What action his Department has taken to improve the situation of poorer and working families. [88027]

In April, we increased child benefit by the largest amount ever. In October, the working families tax credit will be introduced, helping an extra 500,000 families and providing an income guarantee for every family in full-time work of at least £200 a week. Those reforms, together with other tax changes, will mean that a family on £13,000 a year will be better off by up to £2,500 a year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation we inherited when the Tories left power— one in three children being brought up in poverty—was an absolute disgrace? Although I warmly welcome the Government's commitment to eradicate child poverty within a generation, what practical steps are being taken now to help the plight of children? That is what concerns people most.

I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why we have been increasing child benefit by large amounts—a record amount last year and this. In addition, the working families tax credit, which the Conservatives are pledged to abolish, will mean that, because of the Labour Government, a family on £13,000 a year will be £2,500 better off than they would otherwise have been. That measure makes the case for welfare reform: it will make work pay, provide security for those people about whom we ought to be concerned and ensure that we eradicate child poverty within a generation. The Tories did absolutely nothing about that when they were in government.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the working families tax credit will have an impact on families also drawing housing benefit, whatever his long-term plans for benefit reform may be? Hundreds of thousands of families will face a combined tax and benefit withdrawal rate of 89 per cent. Such conditions will hardly encourage them to help themselves.

The hon. Gentleman—unwittingly, I suspect—makes the point that further reform is necessary. The working families tax credit reduces the effect of marginal rates of taxation for poorer families, but he is quite right: housing benefit also needs to be reformed—not only because its administration is inefficient and expensive and because it is open to fraud and abuse, as all of us know, but because it acts as a disincentive to many people who ought to be in work. Unfortunately for him, he is making the case for further reform of the benefits system. I repeat what I said earlier: we have made a start, but there is a great deal more to do to ensure that the benefits system, as well as providing security for those who cannot work, makes work pay.

I think I can anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply, but I shall ask my question nevertheless. There is a real sense of grievance among my constituents who previously received reduced earnings allowance, which, as we know, was abolished by the Tories. In opposition, we made strong criticisms of that abolition, and there is a real sense of betrayal—I do not think I am putting it strongly enough—among the people who came to my surgery this weekend saying that they are £30 to £40 worse off as a result of that. Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again?

I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. She is quite right that, suddenly and unexpectedly, the Conservatives cut the rate of REA, which miners thought they would receive after had they retired. The problem is that that benefit was meant to replace people's income when they were in work. That is clearly difficult for people who have entered into commitments. I say my hon. Friend, as I have said to many of her colleagues, that I am prepared to look at this matter, as I am prepared to look at all parts of the benefits system, but I do not want to raise her expectations or those of her constituents and I am not giving an undertaking that I will be able to resolve the problem to everybody's satisfaction. I think she understands that.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is particularly important for poor working families that their children should remain dependent for as brief a time as possible and should get jobs as soon as possible after they finish their education? Does he not therefore think that it is time he did something about the young people who are sometimes held up for five months before they receive national insurance numbers, thanks to the failure of the NIRS2 system? A number of businesses are refusing to give those young people jobs until they have national insurance numbers.

Many young people go straight into jobs on leaving school, but we want to ensure that many more go into higher education to achieve better skills and qualifications. Secondly, the new ONE service, which will bring together the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, will mean, for the first time, that someone of working age will receive advice immediately on entering the system.

On the point about working families, my right hon. Friend will know that Scottish schools are on holiday. While teachers are paid during the holidays, cleaners and dinner ladies are not—and nor are they entitled to jobseeker's allowance or any other benefit. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to redress that unfair anomaly?

I am fully aware that Scottish children are on holiday—and that we are not. I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. About two months ago, a commissioner's decision stopped the Department of Social Security paying benefit to the dinner ladies in question. The case has been appealed to Scotland's supreme court, the Court of Session, and we should receive a definitive ruling before too long. Many dinner ladies may be entitled to some help from the Benefits Agency, and if they are in any doubt, they should contact the local agency. I shall keep the situation under review, particularly once we have received the Court of Session ruling.

What discussions his Department has held with representatives of pension funds about the Government's proposed stakeholder pensions. [88029]

Ministers and officials have benefited from numerous meetings with representatives of the pensions industry, including those from personal pension and occupational pension funds. Pension fund representatives are receiving our consultation documents on stakeholder pension schemes and will help us to get the detail right.

Would it not have been wiser to wait until the Green Paper consultation period had ended before initiating legislation? Is it not clear that both the Government's required top limit of 1 per cent. on annual fees and the low level of contributions—down to 10 per cent. a month—will squeeze life offices and pension funds that are already suffering severely under the Labour Government? Is not the axing of 4,000 jobs by the Pru a foretaste of things to come unless the Government listen and change their mind?

We consulted widely on the framework for stakeholder pensions contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill before the Green Paper was published. I listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman's appeals on behalf of the insurance industry. It is our ambition that every employee in Britain should, for the first time, have access to a good-value, dependable funded pension.

I congratulate the Government on the extensive consultation on their welfare reform programme, and I welcome the extension to the consultation announced yesterday. However, there appears to be a contradiction between a stakeholder pension policy that relies on voluntary saving, and the introduction of a minimum earnings guarantee, which will make it impossible for many workers to save enough to be better off than they would be under the guarantee. Will the review announced yesterday consider that matter?

I do not believe that there is any contradiction. As formulated, the state second pension will take people above the minimum income guarantee if they have saved and contributed throughout their lives. If, instead, they are in a stakeholder pension, it, too, will contribute.

Following the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), let me say that surely a basic premise of the stakeholder pension scheme is that it will be popular because there will be a set 1 per cent. annual charge. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are sticking to, and will continue to stick to, that 1 per cent. figure?

I can confirm that we shall drive a hard bargain on behalf of scheme members. We are in consultation, and we shall take account of everything that we hear in response to the proposal. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct a misapprehension under which the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), is labouring with regard to the consultation process. I welcome the hon. Member for Havant to his new position, and I accept that it is a tough brief to get on top of, but I informed the hon. Gentleman and the House last Wednesday that we published two consultation documents last month and we plan to publish four more this month. The hon. Gentleman issued a rather bizarre press release under the heading "Conservative Party News", in which he said:

"That brings the total number of such documents to a staggering 10".

Has any pension fund provider or any life assurance company opposed the principles of stakeholder pensions?

No, they have not. They have warmly welcomed them. As my right hon. Friend said, there has been an almost universal welcome for the principles which we have laid down and which are contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. It is important that we now work with the industry and everyone else with an interest in this matter to get the details right.

What estimate he has made of the cost in social security benefits of the waiting times experienced by patients for orthopaedic (a) consultations and (b) operations. [88031]

Spending on social security benefits is affected by very many factors, and it is not possible to isolate the benefit cost of waiting for orthopaedic treatment.

Will the Minister explain to the House why 25-year-old Jason Ganney of Buckfastleigh will be on state benefits until October 2001, as he has been told that that is the earliest date on which he can have a knee operation? He injured his knee while playing rugger for the Buckfastleigh Ramblers against the Exeter Saracens. He is a skilled young man. He is married and his wife is expecting a child, but he cannot look after her and has to stay on state benefits because the national health service cannot give him a date before October 2001 for a minor knee operation. Is that not disgraceful?

I have seen the correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Health, and it is for the Department of Health to answer on health matters. I shall confine myself to the social security matters. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He will be aware that the new deal for disabled people is already addressing the need to ensure that people who suffer an injury while in work can retain their jobs.

What steps his Department is taking to improve social security appeals procedures. [88032]

What steps he is taking to shorten the waiting times for appeals for incapacity benefit and disability living allowance claimants who have had their benefits stopped. [88036]

As we announced on 23 June, we are improving procedures for making decisions and handling appeals. These changes will help our clients, including those whose incapacity benefit or disability living allowance has been stopped. The Independent Tribunal Service has already taken action to shorten the waiting times for appeals, and is now making significant inroads into its backlog of cases.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply.

My hon. Friend makes a case for speeding up reform that cannot be questioned. I could point out that, again, the problem is due to the legacy of the Conservative party. There are backlogs of seven months. That is why we changed the system in the Social Security Act 1998, as a result of which new decision-making and appeals procedures are now being introduced. The chief executive of the new Appeals Agency has been set tough targets.

I, too, thank my hon. Friend for her answer; but does she share my concern about the number of claimants whose benefits are being stopped as a result of inadequate information given to adjudicators by medical examiners, and about the impact that that is having on the backlog? What steps can she take to improve and monitor the actions of medical examiners, to ensure that they perform better in the future?

There are many reasons why tribunal cases may be adjourned, or tribunals may not be able to reach a decision. We are trying to deal with all those reasons. Sometimes bad administration is to blame, but, by means of the new decision-making and appeals processes, we are monitoring the standard of work closely. Reports will be made to Ministers on how that is going. I hope that a significant improvement can be made in all these areas, but especially in administration.

Does the Minister accept that people with disabilities are especially vulnerable in respect of appeals, and delays in the proper payment of benefit? Those people are extremely worried. Although the Minister has given figures in an attempt to claim that there has been some improvement, that is not the way in which many of my constituents see the position.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench—I do not think that I have had the pleasure of doing so before—but I cannot agree with what he has said.

What steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners entitled to income support are encouraged to claim it. [88033]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, to which we are giving careful consideration. Last year, we undertook some pilot projects and research studies. We expect to receive the evaluation results from them shortly. We are watching with interest more recent partnership initiatives between the Benefits Agency and local authorities, which are showing encouraging results. We hope before long to be able to announce plans to encourage take-up among pensioners.

When did my hon. Friend last look at a pension book? There are references to the help available, but people need 20:20 vision to read it. Why do we not simply redesign the pension book and grab pensioners' attention by saying, "1 million pensioners are entitled to claim income support, but do not do so; it could be you."? Grab their attention!

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Actually, it is up to 700,000 pensioners, not 1 million, but I am attracted by his attention-grabbing proposal. Another helpful initiative would be to make it easier for pensioners to claim over the telephone. We have had a good deal success with a pilot service for pensioners to make retirement pension claims over the telephone. That approach has a lot of potential as well, but I agree: it is important that we are imaginative. I want everyone who is entitled to income support—every pensioner—to receive it.

Does the Minister acknowledge that one of the easiest ways in which to deliver help to some of the poorest pensioners is to look at the limitation of the threshold for capital? The limits have been at those levels for some time. The Government have said that they might look at them in the near future. Has he anything to report in that regard?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; we made it, too, in the pensions Green Paper. We intend to introduce some proposals during the life of the current Parliament, but there is no announcement to be made today.

I am sure that the Minister would like to join me in congratulating Birmingham city council, which has just completed a pensioner awareness week, which encouraged pensioners to claim all the benefits available to them. Is any focused work being done to identify areas where, as purely statistical evidence indicates, there is particular need and high incidence of non-claiming, and to target initiatives such as the one in Birmingham at city councils throughout the country?

I have been very impressed by what I have read of the Birmingham initiative; I have asked for more information about that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. There is potential in the statistical analysis that she has described. A couple of weeks ago, I visited Wolverhampton. There has been an effective take-up campaign there, run jointly by the Benefits Agency and the local authority. The local authority identified people who, from its housing benefit records, looked as though they were entitled to income support but were not receiving it. As a result of that initiative, 300 extra people in Wolverhampton are receiving the minimum income guarantee. There is much potential here, particularly in the partnerships between local authorities and the Benefits Agency. We want to explore them fully.

May I press the Minister further on the interaction between means-tested assistance for pensioners and the stakeholder pension for people on low incomes? He will be aware from comments that have already been made that there is widespread concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House as to why someone should take out a stakeholder pension if all it does is reduce their entitlement to means-tested assistance. He was talking about arithmetic earlier. Let me ask him an arithmetical question. How much money do people have to have—[Interruption.] I am afraid that it is a bit trickier than the earlier question. How much money do people have to have in their stakeholder pension fund if they have no other savings, so as to secure an income that will float them off means-tested assistance?

It depends on the level of the minimum income guarantee, which will be uprated in line with earnings, but the point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that, through the state second pension or a stakeholder pension, if people contract out of the state system into a funded pension, they will be delivered on to an income in retirement that is well above the level of the minimum income guarantee. They then have full access to all the additional savings that they have made. People will be much better off in a funded pension. That is why we want every employed person in Britain to have easy access to a good-value, dependable, funded pension scheme.

If he will make a statement on reform of the benefit integrity project. [88034]

The benefit integrity project was terminated on 31 March 1999. We have replaced it with a periodic inquiry process into disability living allowance awards that is both fairer and more sensitive to the needs of individual disabled people.

I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that a crucial part of the changes has been the move from a faceless, cost-cutting bureaucracy to a situation in which a claimant is, rightly, able to speak over the telephone to the person who is making the decision on that claimant's benefit eligibility? Will the Minister also reassure the House that the Government will continue to invest in training for Benefits Agency staff, particularly in disability awareness, to ensure that the changes are successful?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The benefit integrity project was introduced by our predecessors, before the general election, as a cost-cutting exercise, and was, therefore, seen as unfair by disabled people. The project considered only cases for reduction in benefit, not cases in which people were being paid too little benefit. Our periodic review, however, will do both: it will reduce benefits when people's circumstances change and they no longer qualify for higher rates, but also increase benefits for those whose needs increase. That is what is different about the changes, and it is why our new review process will be much fairer.

According to what precise criteria will discretion be used to decide whether reviewed benefits should be backdated or not backdated?

The rules on backdating are the same as those that applied under the benefit integrity project: one does not backdate benefit to the date of either the inquiry letter or the inquiry visit.

What recent discussions he has had with the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on reform of the agency's procedures; and if he will make a statement. [88037]

I meet regularly with the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, and, of course, discuss the way in which the agency works. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, last week, I made a statement to the House in which I described a number of improvements that we propose to make.

When mistakes have been made by the Child Support Agency on money due for maintenance and a deduction of earnings order is imminent, whose job is it to get the mistake corrected quickly? If the job is to be ours as hon. Members, surely we should be given power to put a stop on deduction of earnings orders while the matter is being re-examined. That is a perfectly reasonable request, and a reasonable Government would grant us it.

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to remember the time when all hon. Members had a power virtually to stop immigration cases, whereas—certainly in my experience—we were never in possession of sufficient information to be able to reach an informed judgment on those matters. I do not really think that giving Members of Parliament power to intervene in the administrative process—perhaps on limited evidence, and sometimes on the basis of limited partial evidence, from one view only—would be a particularly satisfactory way of doing things.

May I tell the Secretary of State that I do not want the powers described by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel)?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the next three years, we shall be investing £28 million in the Child Support Agency. We are strengthening the agency's senior management, and bringing in, as agencies, people with far more experience from other branches of the Department of Social Security, to tighten up the CSA's middle management and to get decision-making right in the first place.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested last week that it would be helpful to have cross-party support for reform of the Child Support Agency. Does he realise that the undertakings given across the Dispatch Box will bear materially on whether there is such co-operation? In his statement last week he dismissed our worries about the confidentiality of Inland Revenue files but, on 27 April, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), assured me that the files would be used only as a last resort, repeating that assurance six times in a relatively short debate. Were the Opposition duped by those undertakings? Has the policy changed, or does the Secretary of State stand by those undertakings?

I find it interesting that when we announce reforms that will help 1 million children who do not get help now, the hon. Gentleman is bothered only about the minority of fathers who fiddle the system and conceal their true financial state from their children. Let me make the position clear. We shall ensure that people have every opportunity to tell us how much money they have so that we can calculate how much they should be paying their children. Of course it will be only as a last resort, if they insist on misleading us or lying to us, that we shall go to the Inland Revenue and ask what that individual has said in their tax returns. It is high time that the Conservatives started addressing the real problem of 1 million children losing out because of the mess that we inherited at the Child Support Agency, which they set up.

How his Department (a) identifies and (b) helps young carers. [88038]

I know that my hon. Friend has a close interest in children's welfare. He will be aware that social security benefits are not available to children under 16 in their own right, but if, unusually, we received a claim from someone under 16 who was clearly a carer and requested help, we would give appropriate advice, such as suggesting that the parent should receive benefits advice or that the family should contact social services.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that some carers as young as 12 and 13 bear the heavy responsibility of caring for adults with disabilities? The national carers strategy challenges us all to identify and provide help and support to such youngsters. Although the main aim of that challenge is education and health services, there is a role for the Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency. One inexpensive way of alerting all claimants for invalid care allowance of the possible availability of local support is shown by the south Staffordshire carers support project, which has produced an excellent leaflet called "Young Carers Need You to Listen". Will my hon. Friend look again at the rules for entitlement to invalid care allowance, which currently exclude those who stay in full-time education? Will personal advisers for 16 and 17-year-olds be sensitive to the needs of young carers?

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting question. I am sure that he joins me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), whose Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill a few years ago contained proposals, opposed by the then Conservative Government, to ensure that the needs of young carers as well as adult carers were taken into account. That laid the groundwork. I have considered the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. It would not be appropriate to pay invalid care allowance to those under 18, because the benefit replaces earnings for those who are unable to work, although there are circumstances in which a full-time carer under 18 who is not in full-time education would be able to claim income support with a carers premium, which answers my hon. Friend's point.

Many people welcomed the words of the carers strategy. However, I ask the Minister to visit the home counties. He would be welcomed in Surrey, where he would find that the social services, education and health settlements meant that there was no prospect of expanding services—it was a question of retreating. Perhaps the most irresponsible step is to mouth the words, but not to make the means available to deliver the objectives.

Many things have changed since the legislation was placed on the statute book and since the publication of the carers strategy. I have visited a number of carers projects in different parts of the country, and they welcome the fact that, as part of the strategy, an additional £140 million has been made available, principally to provide breaks for carers.

What reduction in incomplete or incorrect first-time benefit claims he estimates will result from the introduction of the ONE service. [88039]

The first pilot offices offering the ONE service opened for business on 28 June. One of the many advantages of the new service is that advisers will be able to help clients to complete their claim forms during the initial work-focused interview. We therefore anticipate that there will be fewer incomplete or incorrect first-time benefit claims.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that one of the understated strengths of the concept of the ONE service is the opportunity to get claims complete and correct from day one? Will she therefore consider making that objective one of the yardsticks by which the pilots are judged?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We believe that there are large administrative gains to be made from preventing the duplication of work and the chasing of incorrect forms, and from ensuring that people can get their benefit payments quickly. They can then concentrate more effectively on how to get off benefit and back into work. I can confirm that that is one of the things that we will be measuring in the monitoring and implementation process, and we will be expecting significant beneficial effects.

What progress his Department is making with integrating the delivery of its services to the public with services offered by other parts of Government. [88040]

This Department is making substantial progress in planning the integration of its services to customers through a modern service programme which will deliver business change and enhance information technology support. Our primary focus at the moment is the ONE project pilots, which commenced on 28 June, in which we are ensuring the delivery of work-focused benefit services and promoting partnership, working with the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and local authorities.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of how confusing and time consuming it is for many disabled people in particular to try to access different Government Departments and local authority departments. What plans does my hon. Friend have to ensure that areas such as Blackpool, which are not part of the pilot for the ONE service, have a single gateway to enable disabled people to access all the services that they need?

We are hoping to learn from the ONE pilots how we can offer the service throughout the country. We are doing other things to try to integrate interdepartmental working, and the work of local authorities and the agencies of Departments. That includes the presence in all 349 local authorities of remote access terminals which allow people to look at the information we have to ensure that they can process housing benefit correctly. I assure my hon. Friend that the benefits of integration will be coming to all areas of the country as soon as we can ensure that that can be done practically.

As the Government are doing such a good job in integrating the services offered by different Departments, will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for Health and advise him that by focusing on the numbers on waiting lists, he is making waiting times longer, and thus adding tremendously to the social security bill?

The hon. Gentleman should know that both waiting times and waiting lists are falling.

What progress his Department has made in implementing the new deal for the disabled. [88041]

Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, we have introduced the new deal for disabled people. We are also piloting a personal adviser service under the new deal in 12 areas, including my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that he has visited the scheme and has taken a close interest in its work.

Not only has the pilot scheme in Bolton employed four people previously on incapacity benefit but so far, in the first eight months, it has seen 565 people, half of whom have been assessed and 88 of whom have been put into an occupation. There are excellent partnerships running; with Bolton local authority, for example, with whom the scheme has won European structural fund money for 200 workplaces. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Peter Jones and his staff on the excellent start that they have made?

I do indeed congratulate Peter Jones and his staff. I have visited the project and I know that it is working extremely well. It shows the difference between our approach to welfare benefits and that of the Conservatives. We seek to get people off benefits and back into work.