What assessment he has made of the likely impact of the reform of the Child Support Agency on child poverty. [98745]

What assessment he has made of the impact of the planned reform of the Child Support Agency on the income of the poorest lone parents. [99069]

More than 1 million children will benefit from the reforms. More non-resident parents will support their children. A total of 600,000 children in the poorest families will gain more than £150 million a year because parents will be able to keep an extra £10 a week.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the maintenance disregard on working families tax credit provides a positive incentive for both parents to co-operate fully with the CSA? Non-resident parents will see that every penny they provide in maintenance will go to the child, and not a penny to the Treasury, while parents with care will see that the money will be of total benefit to them. Is not that one of the major factors in ensuring that CSA reform contributes to the Government's agenda of eliminating child poverty in two decades?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the weaknesses of the previous system was that many parents did not feel that the money that they paid was going into the hands of the parent with care and, therefore, into the hands of the children. We want to ensure that far more children gain. We introduced the disregard so that parents on income support can keep up to £10 a week, which will make a big difference to their children. As he says, it will go a long way towards our objective of eradicating child poverty within 20 years and halving it within 10.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one in three children are in poverty and that, of those, many are likely to be children of separated parents? Will he ensure that, under the new system, the delay in deciding the award for children will be ended? At present, 67 per cent. of decisions are not made within the 22-week target. What will the target be under the new system?

My hon. Friend makes two good points. First, of 1.5 million children on the CSA's books, only 300,000 are directly seeing the benefit of child support. Secondly, she is right to say that the children who live in families that have broken up are more likely to be poor.

Is the Secretary of State convinced that child poverty will be relieved by his reform, which will result in absent fathers who do not pay being criminalised? The taxpayer will have to pay twice: to keep absent fathers in prison and for the children. Would it not have been better for the Government to proceed along the excellent lines suggested by the Woolf report and replace criminal with civil remedies in this difficult area?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the agency will try every possible means to ensure that fathers who will not pay do pay. A variety of sanctions can be brought to bear against a parent who will not pay. For example, if a parent enters into an agreement to look after the children and breaks it, the CSA will immediately attach that person's wages so that it can get that money into payment. Clearly, if all else fails and a parent will not co-operate, criminal sanctions might have to be brought against that person.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it must be in the interests of both the paying and receiving parent that the system works efficiently? Is his experience in constituency surgeries the same as mine—namely, that the CSA is woefully inadequate and gets the most basic calculations wrong? People who come to see us give a litany, which is always the same, of telephone calls that are not answered and letters that are not adequate. Does he agree that, in the end, the reforms will stand or fall on whether the CSA provides a service that does justice to both parents?

I did not think that I would ever see the day when I agreed with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said. However, he misses the point. He sets out the difficulties that the present system has encountered. That is precisely why we are making changes to the CSA. Fundamentally, it does not work because the calculations needed to work out how much is due to a child are so complicated and convoluted that it takes far too long for the payments to be made. That is why we are introducing a simpler formula that can be easily calculated. The ready reckoners are in the back of the White Paper for anybody who wants to see them. We are making payment easier for those who can pay and want to do so, but we are going to be far tougher on the minority who can pay but will not.

Those ready reckoners do not show the number of people who will lose out under the proposals. Some 350,000 parents will be worse off by an average of £17 a week. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to tackle child poverty in those households that are going to be worse off? The Conservatives are broadly supportive of the Government's attempts to reform the Child Support Agency, but unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to address the fundamental flaws in his proposals, we might not be able to support him as readily as we would like.

I hope that the Conservatives and others will reflect on the fact that, as a result of the changes that we are making, nearly 1 million children will be better off. Of course some people will be paying more—that is clear from the White Paper proposals—but they will be paying it to their children.

Parents with care will be worse off.

The hon. Gentleman says that parents will be worse off. It is a parent's obligation to look after their children. The children will be better off. I remind the children—sorry, the Conservatives—[Interruption.] It is easy to confuse the two. The Tories have to work out which side they are on. I believe that we should be on the side of the children, not on the side of those who can pay but will not.

I welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend has set out. Simplifying the system will reduce non-payment and ensure that the problem of child poverty is dealt with. However, I should like him to explain two points. First, how will the income of the self-employed be assessed? That has been a particular problem in my constituency. Secondly, when will existing claimants come into the new system, which people in my constituency have welcomed?

My hon. Friend has raised two points. First, we have made it clear that if a self-employed person will not co-operate with the Child Support Agency, we shall take powers to gain access to Inland Revenue records to see what they are saying to the tax authorities. We have all come across constituents who tell us that they are not getting a penny from the absent father, yet they see him driving around town enjoying a good quality of life while the children have to go without the basic necessities of life.

What representations he has received on reform of the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [99060]

If he will make a statement on his plans to reform the Child Support Agency. [99067]

What plans he has for reforming the Child Support Agency. [99076]

There is widespread support for radical changes to the current system. We have received a wide range of views on the detail of the proposals since the White Paper was published in July. New legislation on child support, announced in the Queen's Speech, will address the failures of the current system and put children's rights at the heart of the child support system.

Page 7 of the Green Paper gave a written assurance that

"responses will normally be available to the general public unless you specifically ask us to keep your views confidential."

There was not overwhelming opposition to the basic restructuring of the CSA, although many comments were made on some aspects of it. Some responses have not been made public because they would disclose individual circumstances which it would be unfair to place in the public domain without the say-so of both parents involved.

What steps will be taken under the new proposals to deal with absent parents who either refuse to co-operate with the CSA or give deliberately misleading information to the organisation, ensuring, in many cases, that parents with care have a long wait before they receive any money while others play the system to their own advantage?

One of the basic points about the new system is that in place of more than 100 different facts about the non-resident parent, three or four facts will be all that is needed to calculate maintenance. Non-resident parents can have a good idea of their liabilities if they have a calculator. We will have simpler assessments which will be made much faster. If the non-resident parent refuses to pay, deduction of earnings orders can be introduced. If the parent provides misleading or false information, that will be a criminal offence—for the first time—and subject to penalties of up to £1,000.

Has not the bungled way in which the CSA was introduced meant that, far from children being put first, there has been increased acrimony so that shared care arrangements have been jeopardised and sometimes have fallen down as a result of the CSA? Will the Minister assure me that shared care arrangements will be brought into the reckoning in the new reforms, and that a fair way will be found to balance financial obligations and care arrangements in the interests of children?

My hon. Friend and I could spend all day talking about the many things that have been wrong in the practice of the CSA and in the legislation that set it up. I believe sincerely that the reforms will do much to take away the acrimony. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that we wish to encourage the sharing of care by increasing the allowance made in the maintenance assessment for time spent with the child by the non-resident parent. We hope that this will encourage estranged parents to work together, rather than using the agency as a further attempt to pursue their own vendettas against each other, and to put the child and his or her welfare at the centre of their thoughts.

If the Minister is so keen to reduce acrimony between parents and to encourage shared care and shared financing, and as the Government are so keen to proclaim joined-up government, why are the Government delaying the implementation of part II of the Family Law Act 1996? What discussions is she having with the Lord Chancellor's Department on that matter?

The right hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that that is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Could I invite the Minister to correct the Secretary of State, who seems to have got the wrong end of the stick? Will she confirm that about 350,000 parents with care, whose non-resident parent is in paid work, would have a lower maintenance assessment as a result of the new child support rates, and that the average reduction would be about £17 a week? Just to help her, that was in a written answer that she gave to the House only three weeks ago. Does not that reveal that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was correct? How is that fact compatible with the Government's rhetoric on child poverty?

I wish that the Opposition would stop trying to play one parent off against the other by talking about gainers and losers. The people who will gain from the proposals will be the children. The hon. Gentleman's analysis of my parliamentary answer would be absolutely accurate if 100 per cent. of people were paying maintenance. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, 1.5 million children are on the agency's books, but only 350,000 of those children receive any maintenance at all, and only 100,000 receive full maintenance payments. The reforms will get maintenance flowing and more children will be better off—everyone will gain.

Given the inept operations of the Child Support Agency, the continuing problems in the Benefits Agency and the difficulties that the Passport Agency has been through, have the Government considered that the problem may lie with the agency model? Perhaps we should consider getting back to a system in which civil servants and public service provisions are to the fore.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on the Passport Agency. After all this time, only 20 per cent. of women on income support receive their maintenance. The figure was the same the day before the Child Support Agency was set up. We must consider why the agency's existence has made no difference to the flow of maintenance. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the formula was too rigid and prescriptive and there was simply too much to do, which is why we have gone for a very basic, simple and easily calculated formula.

What estimates he has made of the numbers of people receiving means-tested benefits (a) in May 1997 and (b) in May 2001. [99061]

We estimate that the number of people in receipt of one or more of the means-tested benefits in May 1997 was about 8 million. We forecast that the number will reduce to about 7.9 million in May 2001, including those receiving the working families tax credit. The reduction reflects the Government's success in enabling people to get off jobseeker's allowance and back into work.

The reply reflects the fact that unemployment is falling at this point in the economic cycle. Does the Minister accept that putting a large number of new people onto a means-tested benefit—the working families tax credit—and putting many of them on a combined tax and benefit withdrawal rate of more than 80 per cent. will in the long run militate against self-help, lead to a loss of self-confidence and encourage dependency?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that our economic policies have reduced unemployment and increased the total number of people in work by 400,000, to the highest level ever. His comments about the working families tax credit are entirely wrong. It will boost the incomes of 1.5 million families by an average of £24 a week. Come the next general election, the Conservative party will find that its opposition to it will cost it hundreds of thousands of votes.

My hon. Friend will no doubt have been encouraged to learn that over the first two years of this Parliament the number of income support claimants fell by more than 400,000, or more than 750,000 if one includes children and other dependants. Is not that proof that the Government are not merely talking about defeating poverty but are getting on and doing it?

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely powerfully. The Government have set extremely challenging targets over the long term to reduce poverty. We have made a start and our policies are having the desired effect.

Will the Minister reflect on three facts: that pensioners resent being forced to go through a means test simply to get a decent income; that his decision to increase pensions by 75p next April will force thousands more into the means test; and that his policy of a state second pension and stakeholder pension will not touch pensioner incomes for a decade or more? Is it not true that the Government have no policy to reduce pensioner dependence on means tests for a decade to come?

That is absolute nonsense. The Government have policies in the long term to reform the pension system so that so many elderly people—the proportion is one in five at present—do not have to be dependent on means-tested benefits, and we are taking action now to improve the position of pensioners. Our predecessors, the Conservatives, simply increased the pension each year by the rate of inflation. On top of the 75p inflation increase this year, we have provided a £100 winter fuel bonus for all pensioners—that is almost £2 a week extra for each pensioner household.

Has there been a reduction or increase in the take-up of housing benefit, and how is the review of housing benefit coming on? Are we getting somewhere?

The review of housing benefit is continuing, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will make an announcement in due course.

What plans he has to improve the confidence of the public in the handling of individual cases by the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [99062]

Our plans to reform the child support system were set out in a White Paper on 1 July. The new system will be effective and easily understood, ensuring that maintenance is paid regularly and reliably. The Child Support Agency is also being reformed to provide a service that is better focused on its customers.

May I have the Government's assurance that the computer system will be properly tested for the new system, simple though it is, because many of the problems with the existing system have reflected an inadequate and failing computer system? Secondly, will the approach be changed, because the absence of case officers has, in many of the cases I have dealt with, caused mistakes due to clerical error, with no apparent central responsibility for any one case? The new system may be simpler, but unless its software is efficient and it is administered well, it runs the risk of experiencing many of the same weaknesses as the present arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman is right on both counts. The present computer system operated by the CSA is not very good. It was purchased by the previous Government and it should have been a lot better. I can assure him that the new system will not be brought in until we are satisfied that the IT systems can cope and also that the culture in the CSA has changed, because we have to offer a radically different approach. In the meantime, the staff, who still have to cope with a complex system, are making changes.

No one doubts the Secretary of State's commitment to making the system work better, and indeed it would be difficult to make it work worse, but is not the hazard involved in the length of time the changeover is taking the fact that many people are in real trouble because they are not receiving assistance from the CSA? I had three cases on Saturday—each one was genuine—and unless some urgent action is taken, many people will not receive assistance. Some people feel that the agency does not investigate when they provide evidence and others are loth to get involved with the CSA because of its apparent incompetence.

I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friend makes. She will appreciate that, at the moment, before any calculation can be made, some 100 pieces of information have to be obtained from the non-resident parent. Sometimes that is difficult, and even when the agency gets the information the position can change before the application is processed and the amount due to be paid is calculated. I do not apologise for that; it is simply a matter of fact.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact target time in which Child Support Agency staff should return telephone calls to members of the public? Furthermore, according to exactly what criteria will individuals under the new system be able to appeal against decisions under the flat-rate formula?

It is made clear to the staff that they should return calls as quickly as possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that performance is sometimes not as good as it should be. However, we have put some £28 million more into the agency this year to ensure that we retain some of our best qualified staff and to improve things.

If he will make a statement on the progress being made by his Department in improving the accuracy of testing for eligibility for disability living allowance. [99065]

We are making progress on work to ensure the correctness and reliability of awards of disability living allowance. We are doing so in consultation with organisations of and for disabled people.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I recognise that there will always be cases in which the decision on eligibility is debatable. However, a number of constituents have sought my help in the past 12 months because of perverse decisions or recommendations by doctors carrying out medicals for DLA eligibility. My concern is that the Department should monitor doctors' performance in carrying out such medical checks. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the number of cases in which perverse decisions are made is reduced, because the unwarranted removal of DLA eligibility creates a great deal of distress and hardship for constituents everywhere?

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. Let me reassure him and the House that the Government's approach to DLA and other benefits is to change the delivery system so that the decisions are right in the first place, and continue to be right thereafter.

But is there not a conflict of interest here? Doctors obviously want to remain on the panel, but if they find in favour of applicants too often they might find themselves off the panel.

I reassure the House that doctors employed by the Benefits Agency have never been remunerated according to the decisions that they make. Such a system has never existed, and will not exist in the future. Doctors must make the best clinical judgment. There is no pressure on them to err in the claimant's favour, or against the claimant's favour. When we review doctors' performance, through the review that I mentioned in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), management action is triggered as a result of variation from the norm in either direction; discussions about a doctor's clinical practice then take place.

Does not the Minister appreciate the real distress caused to many people with disabilities when they are reassessed despite the manifest difficulties that they have? What proportion of appeals is allowed? Will he give me an absolute assurance that the initial assessment process is not used to reduce the number of benefit recipients to those who are sufficiently articulate or well advised to appeal successfully?

The assessment process was agreed with disabled peoples' organisations, and with those organisations that represent and speak for disabled people. They wanted a self-assessment system. The form used is a long one, but it allows people applying for benefit to put their own views. That is the primary basis on which the award is made.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the disability benefits system works better when disabled claimants understand it more clearly? Will he join me in paying tribute to the work of local disability information and advice line organisations, which provide advice to disabled people?

I agree that local disability information and advice workers have an extremely important job. In fact, on Friday evening in Birmingham, I spoke at the conference of the Alliance of Disability Advice and Information Providers. My hon. Friend will know that I recently made a couple of presentations in the House to inform hon. Members of what the medical service of the Benefits Agency is doing to improve the quality and consistency of decisions. I shall certainly consider taking those presentations out on a roadshow with voluntary bodies up and down the country.

What research his Department is currently evaluating into the advantages and disadvantages of means-testing benefits. [99066]

The Department is not currently carrying out any research on the advantages or disadvantages of means-testing.

The Government's pensions Green Paper, published a year ago, had as one its objectives the aim of giving

"greater rewards to those who have made provision for their own retirement."

Disgraceful.

I understand the reasons behind the question but it is disgraceful, as my hon. Friend says, to describe as improvident people in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. Such people, because of the nature of their employment, may never have had the opportunity to contribute to an occupational works pension or superannuation scheme.

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the complexity and duplication in having to produce information for many means-tested benefits. What progress are the Government making on one-stop benefits, which will help people and save cost?

We are piloting the one-stop benefit around the country. Eight new pilots start today.

Does the Minister recall the Chancellor's statement to the Labour conference before the election, in which he said:

"I want the next Labour government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved, the end of the means-test for our elderly people"?

I am not clear what solution the hon. Gentleman advances—he would probably argue that that is not his job. Too many pensioners are on the means test, and that has been the case for many, many years. Without the proposals in the Green Paper mentioned by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), 3.5 million pensioners—one in three—would be on the means test in 2050. The proposals in the Green Paper on the stakeholder pension and on the second state pension will reduce that figure considerably. We do not intend to tip pensioners into the means test, as the Opposition allege.

There is no point in talking about such long-distant visions if, year on year, the Government spread means testing. Does the Minister accept the calculation of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that people will need a fund of £130,000 to avoid being trapped on the Government's minimum income guarantee? If he does not, will he offer an alternative calculation? People planning for their retirement must know how much to save to keep themselves above the Government's means tests?

Yes, indeed. The No. 1 priority of people should be to plan for their retirement throughout. They were never told that by the previous Government; they were left high and dry and too many have ended up on the means test. As we have made clear, there must be a policy for today's pensioners and for tomorrow's—but not the same policy. There are pensioners who have to be helped today, which is why the minimum income guarantee was introduced. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, helping those pensioners by an across-the-board increase would not put an extra penny in their pockets. We are determined to target resources on today's poorer pensioners while making adequate plans and preparations in law to ensure that tomorrow's pensioners retire on a decent income above the means test.

What assessment he has made of the obstacles raised by social security rules to volunteering. [99068]

We are keen to encourage voluntary work. We recognise that it can play a significant role in preparing people to enter work, especially those who may have been out of the labour market for some time. People who are in receipt of social security benefits may do unlimited amounts of voluntary work without it affecting their benefit, as long as other eligibility conditions continue to be met.

On Saturday, I co-hosted a conference in Stafford for voluntary organisations about recruiting and retaining volunteers imaginatively entitled "Desperately Seeking Volunteers". Those present were complimentary about the Government's attitude to allowing people to undertake voluntary work, but they identified two residual areas where obstacles remain. The first was the obstructive attitude of a small number of staff at the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service who tried to get in the way of their volunteering. The second was the medical eligibility test for benefits such as incapacity benefit and disability living allowance, where, if people put their heads above the parapet for voluntary work, they run the risk of being ruled as fit for paid work. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with a little central direction from her, both those minor obstacles could be smoothed away?

If there are pockets of obstruction, perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know where they are and I will see what I can do to put an end to them. When we abolished the 16-hour rule for incapacity benefit, we made it quite clear that we encourage people who are currently on benefits to volunteer. There is no limit to the number of hours for which they may volunteer. If my hon. Friend can give me further details on that matter, I shall deal with it.

Does acting as a local councillor qualify as voluntary work? If so, should a local councillor be able to collect disability benefits?

I understand that there is a disability benefit disregard for those who serve on councils. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point of detail, perhaps he will write to me and I shall certainly deal with it.

If he will make a statement on his Department's forecasts for expenditure on social security payments. [99070]

Social security spending is growing at well under half its rate during the previous Parliament, and is now taking a declining share of national income—an achievement that the Conservative Government never managed.

That is exactly the answer that I received during the statement about two weeks ago. When the Prime Minister spoke at Church house on 7 May 1997, he said that one of his main priorities would be to reduce social security spending. In that case, why does table B12 of the Government's figures in the pre-Budget report show that social security benefits will increase from £93.3 billion to a massive £103.6 billion?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now getting the message that social security spending is growing at well under half the rate that it did under the previous Government. Of course, it is growing slightly, but it is growing at half the rate that it did under the previous Government. He may be interested to learn that so far in this Parliament, as a result of getting more people into work, we have saved more than £7 billion. That is a direct result of the Labour Government's economic policies and of our policy of getting people back into work.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the Opposition's attention to the simple fact that, if more and more of us live for longer in retirement, the social security bill—for example, that for pensions—will rise? Is not the important commitment made by the Government that, although the total social security bill will rise, the proportion met by taxpayers—if we consider public and private provision—will fall?

My right hon. Friend is right. The Government's strategy, as set out in the Green Paper published a year ago, is to ensure that all those who can make provision for themselves should do so. The first leg of improvements needed to implement that is part of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999; the second is in legislation that will be put to the House shortly.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the second most important reason for the reduction in social security plans between March and November is the £1.7 billion fall in disability benefit expenditure? Will he explain why, over the past seven months, he has miraculously reduced his forecast for disability benefit spending by £1.7 billion? Does that have anything to do with the means-testing of benefits that was put through the House only the other day?

When the hon. Gentleman thinks about the matter—he has a reputation for thinking about things—he will realise that the changes in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act do not come into effect until 2001. There are two reasons for the reduction in expenditure, the first of which results from changes introduced by the Conservative Government in 1995. Secondly, we are tightening all the gateways to the social security system to ensure that those who are not entitled to benefit do not receive it. If they are entitled to benefit, we ensure that we give more help than ever before. Those changes will be welcomed by most reasonable people.

If he will make a statement on his policy on the link between pensions and increases in pay. [99071]

Our policy, which was set out in the manifesto, is that the basic state pension should be uprated at least in line with prices. The poorest current pensioners will, of course, benefit from the recently announced increase of 4.6 per cent. to the minimum income guarantee. In the longer term, pensioners will benefit from the state second pension, legislation for which we shall shortly introduce. I can also announce that a consultation document on the contracting-out aspects of the state second pension will be published later today. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The Conservatives broke the link between pensions and pay. I accept that the Government cannot cure overnight the problems associated with 18 years of the previous Government, but does he agree that pensions received by the elderly are not charitable donations from the Government, but are earned as a result of the national insurance contributions that they paid throughout their life, which increased as their wages increased? Is it not morally right that pensions should increase as wages increase?

My hon. Friend is quite right about national insurance contributions, but let us not beat about the bush. The basic state pension has never provided an adequate income on which to live, whether people have been fully paid up or not. I remind him that in the first three years of this Parliament pensioners as a group have received, via the winter fuel discount, which is not means-tested, and the minimum income guarantee, which is means-tested, £800 million more than they would have received if the basic state pension had been increased in line with earnings.

Does the Minister agree that his policies will increase the number of pensioners receiving means-tested benefits?

No, I do not accept that.

What estimate he has made of the number of pensioners benefiting from the minimum income guarantee. [99074]

In May 1999, 1.4 million pensioners were benefiting from the minimum income guarantee.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. That figure means that a huge number of pensioners throughout the country, including in my constituency of Gedling in Nottingham, have benefited from the Government's policy. However, as he is aware, there is a problem with take-up. Will he investigate whether we can introduce imaginative measures to get pensioners who are not claiming the minimum income guarantee to claim it?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is a problem with take-up—which, before anyone says anything, is inevitable with a means-tested benefit. However, there are also problems with take-up of attendance allowance, which is not means-tested. Too many pensioners are missing out. We estimate that take-up is about 40. per cent., so there are opportunities to increase take-up of that allowance. Millions of pensioners receive council tax benefit and housing benefit, as do millions of other people, and no stigma is attached to those benefits. We shall run a Government-sponsored take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee early next year.

Has the Minister taken any notice of the results of the focus groups that insurance companies have been running on the minimum pension guarantee, and is he not concerned that the message has obviously got across to generations of people whose retirement is some time away that they will gain no advantage from investing and saving for their future if their income is low?

I hate to admit this, but the answer is yes. I have taken account of the focus groups because, along with some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I recently attended one of those groups, which was illuminating. The reaction was exactly the same as that of some of my constituents.

If he will make a statement on the gap between the rich and the poor, as measured by household income. [99077]

The gap between rich and poor widened dramatically in the 1980s. We are, as a Government, serious about creating a fairer society—an aim that I hope the hon. Lady shares. We want all our citizens to have the opportunities to maximise their potential and we want to create a society in which all can share in the growing prosperity of the nation. The facts on poverty and social exclusion in this country are absolutely shocking; we intend to address them.

As usual, the hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. Before the election, the Labour party made great play of the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor was widening. That is still true under this Labour Government and it must increasingly be true while state benefits—some people will always rely on state benefits—increase according to inflation and the market increases salaries by a greater percentage. Is it not one of the great Labour lies that his Government will do anything to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor?

I regret that the hon. Lady takes that approach. It is a fact that we have taken hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, have introduced the working families tax credit so that no one else will ever be better off on benefit than in work—that must make a substantial difference—and are the first Government to produce a poverty audit of this country. In effect, that was an audit of the legacy of the previous Government, for which we are prepared to be accountable year in, year out. Between 1979 and 1995 –96, the share of income received by the bottom 20 per cent. of the population went down from 9.8 per cent. to 6.7 per cent. while the share of the top 20 per cent. went up from 35 per cent. to 41 per cent. I do not know how the hon. Lady had the brass neck to ask her question.

Would it not be appropriate for every Tory Member in the Chamber to apologise for the appalling poverty into which so many people—my constituents and others—were forced as a result of Tory policies during their 18 years in government? Does my hon. Friend expect any such apology to be made by any Tory Member from the Front or Back Benches?

I expect it, but I suspect that it will not happen.

Will the Minister depart for a moment from ploughing through his set text to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)? She referred to the increasing gap between the rich and the poor under this Government. Is it not a fact that the latest survey of households on below average income shows that the gap between rich and poor is increasing under this Government? Will he nominate—or will he even take a flier at guessing—which year the Government will succeed in closing that gap rather making it wider?

I answered the question that I was asked. I was asked to make a statement on the gap, and, as I said, it is too wide. Although I thought that the hon. Gentleman was bright enough to do so, he cannot take on board the fact that, as everyone knows, for the first two years of this Administration we kept to the spending limits of the previous Government —

It was the Government's choice.

Yes, it was our choice. We kept to those spending limits and the policies of the previous Government will permeate for some time to come. There is no doubt about that. Everything—[Interruption.] I am telling the truth. Everything cannot be solved in 32 months.

If he will make a statement on steps his Department is taking to improve customer service in the social security system. [99078]

The Department is considering how to ease the transition from benefits to work as part of customer services improvements and to improve the administration of benefits to remove barriers to work. Among other things, we are looking at linking rules and run-ons, such as the two-week run-on for lone parents who are on income support and jobseeker's allowance that was recently put into effect and the 12-month linking rule for those on the new deal for disabled people.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Does she agree that as well as addressing the poverty trap we need to continue to address the process trap, by which I mean the problems that claimants can experience in moving off benefit and into work and back again, which act as an obstacle to seeking a job?

I cannot agree more with my hon. Friend's comments, and I assure him that we are focusing on the path leading from benefits back into work and on what happens when people take part-time or temporary jobs. That is why the new ONE pilots include a better-off calculation to reassure people about whether they will be better off in work. We are considering redesigning the system to ensure that if a job does not work out, people can get back on to benefits with the minimum hassle.