What criteria he plans to issue to investment managers on investment policy for stakeholder pensions. [93744]

As with existing pension arrangements, the overall investment policy for stakeholder pensions will be a matter for those running the schemes. We propose that schemes should prepare a statement of investment principles, including social, environmental and ethical considerations, but policy action will be up to those running the schemes.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he assure me that all pension trustees will have the absolute right to manage pension funds to achieve the best possible return for their pensioners, and that the pensions will not be affected by considerations other than the right of best return?

Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance.

I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time in his current capacity. On appointment, he was the fourth pensions Minister in 27 months, so I wish him luck.

Neither I nor any of my colleagues in government have taken the approach of simply sweeping away ideas and suggestions from the Opposition. There is plenty evidence of that in legislation that has gone through the House. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, given the changes made in the other place to a Bill that has not yet completed its passage through the other place, I cannot answer his question in detail.

May I take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he is quite happy for pension funds to invest in tobacco companies?

It is for those who manage the funds and the trustees in charge of the funds to make such decisions. They are the ones who are accountable, not Ministers.

What provision will the Government make to ensure that adequate advice is available to those who take out stakeholder pensions? According to the Financial Times, no less than half the population of the United Kingdom have total savings of less than £750. Is that not a disturbing comment on the lack of real disposable income, and does that not make it all the more important that the investment choices to be made through a stakeholder pension are properly made?

I saw the report in the Financial Times, although I have not seen the document to which it refers. I got the impression under the previous Government that everyone was awash with funds. The vast majority of those at whom stakeholder pensions are targeted—people on moderate earnings, say between £10,000 and £20,000 a year—have no second pension provision. We estimate that their total earnings amount to £60 billion a year, and we believe that allowances and second pension provision can be made from that.

What steps his Department is taking to improve social security appeals procedures. [93745]

As part of our plans for modernising the social security system, we are bringing in important changes to procedures for making decisions on social security claims and child support assessments and for handling appeals. The changes will be completed by November this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for her response. I welcome the setting up of a new appeals procedure, which we hope will prevent unacceptably long delays in making decisions. One of my constituents, who suffered from myalgic encephalomyelitis, had to endure 18 months before his appeal was won. Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that all the old appeals will be tackled in the near future?

I understand my hon. Friend's frustration with the system that we inherited, where the average wait for an appeal decision was seven months. Clearly, if the average waiting time is seven months, some cases will go on for much longer. The backlog of old appeals, which in February stood at 70,348 cases, which was 50 per cent. of all outstanding appeals, was down to 15,405 in September, as a result of the changes that we have made in decision making and appeals. That is a substantial improvement, and I take this opportunity of complimenting the staff of the tribunal service, who have done so well to produce that result.

Does the Minister accept that the appeals procedure was reviewed only because of pressure exerted by the Opposition? Will the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Government, undertake to go back on the means-testing provision that is written into the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, to avoid a burdensome appeals procedure when that comes into force?

I have never heard such nonsense in my life; I am afraid that the hon. Lady is living in fantasy land. It is quite clear that streamlining, which maintains people's proper rights, had to be introduced for the cumbersome appeals procedure that we inherited, and that is what we have done.

Although everyone welcomes the clear acceleration in the hearing of such appeals, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that there is some doubt about the quality of some of the evidence that is being given to tribunals? Many of the most vulnerable people in our society are losing their benefits and having to appeal. The length of time in which an appeal is heard is essential. I know that she understands that, but will she keep a close eye on the situation?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and also, I hope, can reassure her that one of the main principles behind the changes to appeals procedures is avoiding the need for appeals altogether. In other words, we want to collect the evidence properly and ensure that benefit is awarded correctly first time so that we can take a lot of appeals, which are caused by mistakes and confusion, out of the system completely.

What steps he is taking to ensure that all pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [93747]

Research on barriers that pensioners face in claiming income support was published as recently as 15 October. Later this year, we will publish the evaluation of our pilots, which are aimed at encouraging pensioners to claim. That work is the most comprehensive analysis of pensioner take-up—or non-take-up, as the case may be—so far.

I am grateful to the Minister for that deeply illuminating reply. What explanation can he give pensioners who are claiming benefits today of the fact that their basic state pension is worth only a fraction of what it would have been worth had it been placed in a fund when they were making their national insurance contributions?

The hon. Gentleman asked me about ensuring that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. It is a deep cause of concern that some pensioners are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled because of the barriers to claiming. Some of them believe that they still have to go to the social—to the office—to claim, for instance, income support or the minimum income guarantee. That is not the case. Claims can be made through a home visit or, in some parts of the country, over the telephone.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post. Can he confirm that, generally speaking, the poorest pensioners are the oldest pensioners and that the national insurance fund is, to use a phrase he used a moment ago, awash with funds? Can he also confirm that the Government have records of pensioners aged over 80, because we pay them a few extra pennies a week, and that perhaps the most effective way of tackling pensioner poverty would be to give an increase of about £15 to those pensioners?

I thank my right hon. Friend—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend)—for their welcome. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, of the estimated average number of pensioners not taking up their entitlement to income support—which varies between 530,000 to 870,000; one cannot be precise—230,000 are single females aged over 80, so there is a major problem. The figure for single males aged over 80 is 40,000.

What steps he has taken to involve the public in the campaign against social security fraud. [93748]

What recent representations he has received over his proposals for eradication of social security fraud. [93749]

We are strengthening the social security system to cut down on fraud and error, and the reforms that we are making will strengthen public confidence and support.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but can he confirm that the truth is that the Government have run down the beat-a-cheat line and closed down the spotlight on fraud campaign, which was succeeding in saving more than £100 million a year? They have so starved the Benefits Agency fraud investigation service that it has had to shut down its operations because of lack of money. Is not the truth that the Government have gone soft on fraud?

No, it is not. I shall deal first with the national benefits hotline. We receive about 13,000 to 14,000 calls a month on the hotline, and from 1 November we shall spend nearly £500,000 on another advertising campaign because we believe that the public support and information that we get are invaluable in support of the fight against fraud. Since we came into office, we have increased by a third the number of serious cases that are prosecuted, which has resulted in a 50 per cent. increase in custodial offences. Many of the spotlight on fraud campaign features that worked have been incorporated into the Department's fight against fraud.

Surely that smells of complacency. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the last year of the previous Government, we achieved our fraud savings target by more than £50 million, whereas he is below his target by some £200 million? He says that he is not soft on fraud. Why, then, has he cancelled LOFIT—the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team?

That project was wound up—it was run not by my Department but by London boroughs—because of internal difficulties that made it impossible for it to carry on. That decision was taken by the London boroughs responsible for it. I remind the hon. Gentleman, that in addition to ensuring that we get income support cases right, since October we have insisted that every claimant establishes his identity before his claim can be accepted, which never happened under the Conservatives. We have stopped the Post Office redirecting housing benefit cheques to bogus addresses, something that the previous Government did not pursue. We have ensured that the benefit fraud inspectorate examines the 30 councils that spend the most on housing benefit to ensure that their procedures are tightened up, and we are now cross-checking information held by the Inland Revenue, the Benefits Agency and local authorities. There are more inspections because we are concerned not just about detecting fraud, but about preventing it from entering the system in the first place. Above all, the approach that we are now adopting is not only more robust, but supported by the National Audit Office, which, as the hon. Gentleman should know, expressed concern about the DSS accounts in just about every year that the Conservatives were in office.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Westminster council on its anti-fraud strategy, which has resulted in one of its Tory councillors spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure? Will he assure me that his new anti-fraud strategy will be implemented by councils throughout the country, because fraud is completely unacceptable, wherever it is found?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that not only the Benefits Agency but the local authorities that administer the housing benefits scheme understand that fraud is a serious problem. It undermines the general public's confidence in the system and is bad for the perception of those who legitimately claim housing benefit. We have offered much help to councils to ensure that they have access to Benefits Agency systems, that we all hold the same information and that we get claims right. We started a joint initiative with councils to ensure that housing benefit cheques are not redirected to bogus addresses.

My right hon. Friend referred to claimants having to establish their identity at the point at which they receive benefit. Is the national identity card back on the agenda?

No, what we are asking is that everyone who claims benefit must establish his or her identity, which means producing either a national insurance number or sufficient information to ensure that we can identify the national insurance number. The problem in the past was that many officers paid out benefit without checking that people were who they said that they were. It is all very well for Opposition Members to sneer, but for 18 years they did absolutely nothing about those problems.

Surely what the Government have been doing has undermined the efforts of local authorities to tackle this serious problem. Will the Secretary of State give us details about the amount of successful fraud detection by local authorities between, let us say, May 1997 and now?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If he had thought for just one moment before he asked his question, he would have realised that the Government have taken many initiatives with local authorities. I mentioned the service that will prevent redirection of housing benefit cheques, and the fact that we are giving local authorities, for the first time, access to the Benefits Agency system to ensure that the information that we all hold is exactly the same. We are sharing information in a way that never happened in the past. In addition, we have set up two pilot projects to find better ways of ensuring that the Benefits Agency and councils work together, so that there is one interview with an individual, the same information is held by both organisations and we get claims right.

What proposals he has for defining the qualifications needed by the personal advisers who will be implementing the successor regime to the all-work test for incapacity benefit. [93750]

What progress he has made in devising a replacement for the all-work test. [93760]

Our proposed replacement for the all-work test will collect information about what people can do, as well as what they cannot do. We are considering the results of a first pilot study of a proposed personal capability assessment, and we are also training personal advisers in disability awareness.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The qualities required by personal advisers may be significant, given that they will have to analyse the capacities of people with Asperger's syndrome and other difficult conditions, and the state of the workplaces where those people may have the capacity to work. Given those complexities, will my he assure us that personal advisers will be fully trained and highly qualified?

My hon. Friend makes some important points, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks. The training that personal advisers receive will be tailored to their individual needs. For instance, someone who has previously worked as a disability employment adviser will have different training needs from someone who has worked on housing benefit. To date, personal advisers have gone through an average of 200 hours training; some have received 300 or 400 hours. Particular emphasis is placed on all special client groups, although more time is spent on disability awareness than on understanding the needs of other groups. We have had input from a wide range of voluntary organisations, such as Scope, Mencap, MIND and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, on the content of the training programmes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing discredits the system that we inherited from the previous Government more than the all-work test? In devising a new test, will he ensure that more decisions are reached correctly at the first time of asking, so as to avoid lengthy appeals? Will he ensure that the questions asked elicit the real nature of the disability, because disabled people often say that they can perform a particular function but do not mention the extreme difficulty that they have in performing it? Sometimes that renders them ineligible for the benefit. Will he deal in particular with the problems of people who suffer from ME?

The trend in appeals shows that, as a result of the changes that our Department has made, more people are getting the right decision first time, but there is some way to go, and we shall press ahead with that. The all-work test remains the same for the gateway to incapacity benefit: we have not tightened up the system. However, we are taking a wide range of measures to improve the quality of the advice that Benefits Agency medical services practitioners give on claims, including those involving ME. My hon. Friend has taken a special interest in chronic fatigue syndrome, so he will know that the advice to personal advisers and to doctors making assessments that is published by the Department in the "Disability Handbook" provides much detail about ME and states that it must be taken seriously.

Is there not something rather cruel about the idea of slackening the medical criteria, while at the same time introducing means-testing for incapacity benefits? Is it really fair to fund this easing of medical criteria on the back of the savings of seriously disabled people?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we are doing. We are not slackening the medical criteria; we are not changing them in any way. What we are doing is expanding the all-work test into a personal capability assessment. As well as taking into account what a person cannot do, and thereby assessing that person's entitlement to benefit, we take into account what that person can do. The information will then be fed in to assist disabled people who want to return to work to achieve their aim.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain the change in Government policy that occurred between the passage of the Bill that became the Social Security Act 1998, when the Government rejected Conservative proposals that there should be legally qualified chairmen and that doctors should be present when appeals were being heard requiring complex medical evidence, and the passage on 18 May this year of a statutory instrument making precisely that provision?

We have made provision for a medically qualified person, as well as a legally qualified person, to be on the board when appeals relating to incapacity benefit are being heard. We have done that because we believe it is right. As for the arcane debate in relation to the 1998 Act, the Opposition can take responsibility for it. Nothing in the legislation prevented the Government from doing what we believed needed to be done, and that is what we have done.

Will assessments of people who can perform a task take into account whether it is medically advisable for them to undertake that task? I have a constituent whose joints were damaged by a wasting disease, and who has to have replacement joints. The surgeon has said that, if the task is carried out, another operation will be needed far sooner than it would be if my constituent rested the joints and engaged in limited activity with them. Although that person is able to perform the task in question, that task in itself will worsen the condition.

I would be extremely concerned if any doctor recommended that a person should return to work if work would worsen the person's condition. That is certainly not the Government's intention.

What proposals he has to amend the rules relating to incapacity benefit. [93751]

We are determined to bring the benefits system up to date, and to do more for those who need help most. During the Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, I made it clear that the principles that underpin these reforms were right, but that I was prepared to consider the details in the light of future representations. That remains the case.

Does the Secretary of State accept that applying means-testing to incapacity benefit not only undermines the contributory principle, but constitutes a massive disincentive for constituents—including mine—who have disabilities, and who want to save and make provision for themselves?

No, I do not accept that. I think it right that, when people draw down a pension early after retiring through incapacity, and when they have a significant income, that income ought to be taken into account. I bear in mind the fact that about 300,000 people who receive incapacity benefit along with an occupational pension have an income of some £400 a week, and the fact that nearly 50 per cent. of incapacity benefit recipients with occupational pensions are in the top income brackets.

Will my right hon. Friend listen very carefully to those on our side who have criticised his proposals, particularly those who have campaigned for disability benefits for years on end? I have in mind Lord Ashley and Lord Morris. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, although many of us recognise the improvements that have undoubtedly taken place in the past two years for many people who are affected by his Department—some of us have taken the opportunity to point that out on many occasions—there is deep concern over what is being proposed? To avoid what occurred on 20 May in the House of Commons happening again, I hope that he will bear in mind our concern.

I made it clear that I am and have been listening to representations over the past few months. I will have further proposals, but I repeat that I believe that the principles that underpin the approach that we are taking in this and other parts of the Bill are absolutely right.

The arguments that the Secretary of State has used for means-testing incapacity benefit—the fact that some recipients have big company pensions—would apply equally to retirement pensions, yet the Government think that it is wrong on principle to means-test the national insurance retirement pension. Why is it wrong to means-test the retirement pension, but right to means-test incapacity benefit?

Pensions that are drawn early after someone has retired because of incapacity are meant to replace income; incapacity benefit was originally designed in the same way. When the hon. Gentleman reflects that 50 years ago, less than 30 per cent. of people had occupational pensions and that now nearly 86 per cent. of men have such provision, he will realise that we cannot go on ignoring that fact. I understand that the Liberal Democrats' view is sometimes different and that they have all sorts of spending proposals without any means of financing them. However, there comes a stage when, if we want to do more for those who are most severely disabled, particularly children who have been disabled from birth or at an early stage, we will have to look at what is happening throughout the labour market and ensure that the social security system reflects those changes. At the moment, such people are paid so little that they are living on income support for the whole of their lives. Our changes will lift them above income support.

I welcome the Government's statement in another place that those on the higher care component of disability living allowance will be exempted from the clawback in incapacity benefit. However, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government, in modernising welfare, will continue to protect those in greatest need, particularly people who, through the severity of their disability, have never been able to work?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I confirm that Baroness Hollis, the Under-Secretary of State, made it clear in the other place that the Government, having listened to representations, would exempt from the proposals those who are most severely disabled. That change will be widely welcomed. I accept the arguments in respect of it. The Government will ensure that the appropriate amendments are made to the Bill.

Does the Secretary of State understand that there is so much cross-party opposition to his proposals not because of points of detail, but because of points of principle, such as the principle of a contributory incapacity benefit? I remind him that it is also a matter of holding him to account for his own statements about encouraging people to save for their own retirement.

We are talking about sums that are drawn down early by someone who has come out of the labour force because of an incapacity. The hon. Gentleman said that it was a matter of principle. I was interested in a letter—a copy of which someone was kind enough to send me—sent to all Tory Members by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), saying that today's Question Time would be a useful opportunity to see how determined the Government were to reverse the amendments in the other place. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said, however, that

"a degree of subtlety is required in that the Government is keen to brand the defeats as Tory plotting."

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is renowned for his subtlety, and it is a great asset to have him on the team.

No, it does not. On the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and other measures currently being considered by the other place, it is quite clear that the Conservative party and hereditary peers are determined to squeeze every last opportunity out of the time they have remaining in the other place.

What is his policy on the uprating of earnings disregards. [93753]

The earnings disregards are reviewed annually as part of the uprating process.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. As he well knows, for many years the previous Government restricted the weekly earning power of those on means-tested benefits to £5 for a single person and £15 for those with families. Through that policy they ring-fenced the shame and misery of those without work, bringing the fear of fraud to millions of decent families and taxing the energy and enterprise of the poorest in a way that no one has ever suggested should be done to the richest. They made women fearful of looking after their grandchildren and men fearful of mending their mate's car or painting their auntie's house. They restricted self-employment and limited community business. Following the introduction of the minimum wage, the disregard is worth 90 minutes of earning power or four hours for someone with a family. Is it not time that that, too, was modernised?

My hon. Friend is right. He asks what our policy is. It is to review the disregards annually as part of the uprating process. They have not been uprated for several years—not since 1988 for income support or since 1996 for the jobseeker's allowance. However, there have been other changes in the welfare benefits system, not least the working families tax credit, which means that it is no longer possible for any family person to claim that they are better off on benefit than in work.

May I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in welcoming the Minister to his post? It is a difficult one and I wish him well.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome. I know that it was not well meant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No one has ever accused me of being subtle, so I have no apology to make. Our document measures the year before our changes came into force and shows the legacy of the previous Government, which will still be rolling along for some time. The hon. Gentleman asked for an example. Constituents of mine—and those of most hon. Members—who have been claiming family credit and have now gone on to the working families tax credit will be substantially better off under this Government, notwithstanding those—

Which year?

This year. I am talking about those who are transferring now as family credit comes to an end. Those who are on the minimum wage will be substantially better off this year.

What plans he has to review the jobseeker's allowance regulations. [93754]

A large-scale research programme to evaluate the jobseeker's allowance has been conducted and the final report in the series will be published early next year. The findings from that programme will enable us to consider what changes we might need to make. In the meantime, we will consider changes to the jobseeker's allowance when problems occur or when a reason for amendments is identified.

I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement. Does she agree that the Tories introduced the present regulations not only as a means of cutting benefits for those made unemployed by their policies, but as one of 30 fiddles to hide the true unemployment rate at the time? Is she aware that people who are made redundant when their firm goes into receivership or liquidation cannot claim this allowance at the moment? Previously, such people were able to claim unemployment benefit, which was recovered from any payment due in lieu. Will she consider correcting that unfairness?

We are aware that people who have money owing because their employer has gone bankrupt are not able to receive benefit. We will therefore propose regulations at the earliest opportunity to remedy that anomaly. In future, jobseeker's allowance and income support will not be refused because of earnings owed to people when their jobs end.

What recent representations he has received about his proposals to reform the Child Support Agency. [93755]

We have received a wide range of views on the detail of our proposals since the White Paper was published. I am glad to say that there is widespread support for the radical changes to the current system.

To inform future contributions to the debate, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many parents will have their entitlement to maintenance reduced, and by how much?

We expect that about 1 million children will gain because of the changes. That contrasts with the fact that, at the moment, some 66 per cent. of children do not see all the benefit to which they are entitled under the present system.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing changes to the CSA regulations, and on offering the prospect of greater fairness in the making of maintenance assessments. Will he consider people who are working part time or in seasonal labour? The CSA often takes into consideration only the income based on periods when such people are in employment. Would not it be much fairer to take into account annual income when assessing maintenance, rather than three or four weeks when such people are in employment? The CSA has applied that principle in some cases, and it is difficult to understand how it can do so in some instances but not in others.

My hon. Friend raises a difficult point which also concerns people whose income can change dramatically because of the availability of overtime. The difficulty is that, at the moment, it takes up to 100 pieces of information to make a basic calculation. Under the new system, we will be able to calculate the sum due in a matter of days, rather than months. That means that where someone's income fluctuates because of the circumstances described by my hon. Friend, it will be far easier to make a more accurate assessment of what is due. There is a balance to be struck in terms of what is fair to the parent without care, as well as to the parent with care. However, I am sure that if we simplify the system to ensure that the calculations are made more quickly, we will have a better chance of making sure that we do the right thing by both parents—but above all, by the children concerned.

In the new proposals, what will deal with a parent without care who is self-employed and decides to ignore the CSA? I have constituents who have been waiting two and a half years for any payment, and some people are getting away with blue murder.

In the White Paper, we are considering what greater civil penalties can be imposed where parents will not co-operate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the CSA will be given powers, where appropriate, to get to the records held by the Inland Revenue to find out how much someone earns. Many of us have constituents who are not receiving a penny from, usually, the estranged husband, who can be seen driving around town in a BMW and leading a life style that is wholly inconsistent with his assertion that he has no money. I am sorry to say that, as I understand it, the Conservative party is against our proposal.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that more will be done to give the CSA power to investigate fathers who are not paying their children's maintenance, but will he ensure that the agency does not tackle only the soft targets: those who are already making a contribution and are being persistently pursued for more? Will he also ensure that bureaucracy is cut back so that my constituents can get a reply to their letters and telephone calls within a reasonable time?

My hon. Friend raises two points. One concerns the administration of the Child Support Agency, which we are overhauling. Part of the problem is that its case load has increased dramatically—by about 60 per cent.—in the past couple of years, and that is putting a strain on staff. The agency has a high staff turnover, a problem which we are seeking to tackle, and the complexity of the rules and regulations under which it has to operate leads to difficulties. I regard the situation as wholly unsatisfactory, which is why we are simplifying the rules and regulations so that instead of 100 pieces of information, three or four will be sufficient to get claims into payment.

Will the Secretary of State answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) asked? How many parents with care will have their maintenance assessment reduced under the Government's proposals?

I understand the hon. Lady's point, but let me repeat that, as a result of the changes that we will make, 1 million more children will get the maintenance to which they are entitled. It is perfectly true that, as a result of the simplified formula, which was published in the White Paper—the ready reckoners are there—some parents will pay more, and some less, but the fundamental point that concerns Labour Members is the fact that those 1 million more children will receive their benefit. I wish that Conservative Members would pay more attention to those children rather than concentrating on those who seek to dodge their responsibility.

What responses he has received to the White Paper, "A New Contract for Welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities", (Cm 4349); and if he will make a statement. [93759]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, responses to the White Paper show continuing support for radical reform of the child support system.

Have the responses reflected the total muddle, confusion and inefficiency that have dogged thousands of children and families because of the way in which the Child Support Agency was introduced in the previous Parliament? Thousands have been driven into our advice surgeries, desperate for some response from Government. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Government will concentrate on prioritising the needs of children; offering wherever possible a face-to-face consultation as opposed to the thousands of telephone calls that people currently have to make; and, above all, ensuring that there is an efficient and fully prepared set-up to deal with the changes?

We are acutely aware that, because of the muddle that the agency got in when it was introduced and the extreme complexity of the formula that it has had to try to implement, what my hon. Friend describes has come to pass. As constituency Members, we have all seen a string of people who have been affected in various ways by the agency's inability to do its job effectively. That is why the move to a much simpler formula for calculating maintenance has been widely welcomed. Changes to child support regulations are at the centre of our fight against child poverty. It is essential to get maintenance into payment efficiently and effectively.

In considering these responses, will the Minister consider offering congratulations to the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, Mrs. Faith Boardman, for her speedy, thorough and comprehensive replies to letters from Members, of which there are many? In so doing, will the Minister consider whether this splendid example of public service might not be taken up by Ministers, some of whom appear to treat Members' letters with contempt and delay replies for four months or more?

I am more than happy to pass on my congratulations to Faith Boardman on the job that she does in extremely difficult circumstances. As far as I am aware, delays in ministerial replies are not as long as the hon. Gentleman says, except in very occasional circumstances.

May I pass on to my hon. Friend the support that I have received from my constituents for the changes that are proposed for the Child Support Agency? Their only concern is the length of time that it will take to bring in the new and simplified procedures. Has my hon. Friend received any assurances from the Conservative party that when the necessary legislation is introduced, Conservative Members will help to speed its passage through the House, so that we can implement the changes, which are much desired, as soon as possible?

I cannot tell my hon. Friend that we have received any assurances from the Conservative party. If I had been responsible for the mess that it introduced, I would be less happy about coming forward to criticise how things are going now.

You voted for it.

We voted against the Second Reading of the Bill that introduced the CSA. Many of the things that we warned against during the passage of the Bill in 1991 came to pass.

In legislating for parents' responsibilities, would the Minister agree with me that it is essential in each case to be absolutely certain who the parents are? Further to that obvious point, and given the fact that one of my constituents has been instructed by the Child Support Agency to make payments of £111.92 per week, a sum which he cannot afford, to support a child who he insists to this day is not his, will the Minister agree that in any reform package for the CSA my constituent should have a right to demand a DNA test, which he has thus far unavailingly requested since February, to establish beyond doubt whether he is or is not the parent?

I never thought the day would come when I agreed with the hon. Gentleman—the week may even get better as it goes on. Clearly it undermines the whole system if parentage is not properly established. We want to do our best to establish DNA testing to solve the few instances where there is controversy over parentage.

What lessons his Department has drawn from the working of the new deal for the disabled in helping disabled people obtain employment. [93761]

There is clear evidence that the new deal for disabled people is helping people to move from incapacity benefit into work. One thousand people have found jobs through these new deal pilots so far.

I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that any problems that have been highlighted during the pilot scheme are resolved before the scheme goes national? Given the concern about the closure of Remploy factories, will he give me a guarantee that when the new system is up and running, when pilot schemes are extended, and when there are new deals for the disabled throughout the country, there will be better, not fewer, options for the disabled?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We have learned a great deal from the new deal pilots. We have found that it is possible to help people with a wide range of disabilities, including some who have been extremely seriously disabled. When I visited one of the pilots a few weeks ago in the north of Scotland, I met a man who had been unemployed because of incapacity for 29 years. The new deal had provided him with an opportunity that he had sought for a long time—the opportunity to work.

Will the Minister ensure that he takes more seriously than it has been taken before the research commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies that suggests an alarming shortfall in future supported employment placements? The figures suggest that there may be a deficiency of between 40,000, on a narrow estimate, and up to 179,000, on a broad estimate, of potential future demand for supported places. Will he therefore ensure that if he implements a national roll-out of the new deal for disabled people, he and his colleagues will provide the places before the scheme comes into effect, so that they do not disappoint the many disabled people who would wish to avail themselves of those places?

There is certainly a need to provide supported employment, but it would be wrong to characterise the new deal as a scheme that simply provides opportunities for people to work on Government-financed or Government-subsidised schemes. It is far wider than that. We have to ensure that work pays by changing the benefit and tax systems that we inherited; and we have to ensure that people who are disabled and seek work get the personal advice and support that they need to obtain employment. We are doing that. We must ensure that barriers to work—some employers are good but others are much poorer—are removed, which we are doing through the disability discrimination legislation. We must advance on all fronts, and we are doing so.