What steps the Government are taking to ensure that all those severely disabled people who are potentially eligible for severe disablement allowance are encouraged to claim it. [102927]

Severe disablement allowance does not provide sufficient help for those in the greatest need—those who were born disabled, or who were disabled so severely early in life that they may never be able to work and to build up a national insurance contribution record. When our welfare reforms come into effect, those young people will be able to claim incapacity benefit without having to meet the usual contribution conditions. After a year in benefit, that will be worth up to £26.40 a week more than severe disablement allowance. Existing recipients of SDA will retain the benefit in future, as long as they continue to meet the entitlement conditions. We are already taking a number of steps to raise awareness of SDA among severely disabled people, and we will ensure that the forthcoming changes are well publicised.

Those who warned the Government against abolition of severe disablement allowance—which will undeniably have a particular impact on some disabled women, on young carers and on low earners—look to them to soften the blow that their policy will inflict on a group of people who are, after all, disabled through no fault of their own. Bearing that in mind, along with the fact that this is the first question of a new century, will the Minister openly recognise that the policy will have a severe impact on some people, and ensure that awareness and take-up campaigns are given high priority this year?

The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that severe disablement allowance does least for those who are poorest. Seventy per cent.—the poorest—of those who receive it receive not a penny of benefit, because every penny of the SDA that they receive will be lost from their income support. The changes that we are making will help those who need help most: the poorest and the most severely disabled. That is why we are making the changes, and are proud to be doing so. In future, we shall benefit young people of both sexes who in the past would have faced a lifetime on means-tested benefits, but who will now be raised to incapacity benefit level.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, when people are wrongly turned down for this benefit—or for any other disability benefit—they are caused severe upset and disappointment? When does he expect to be certain that arrangements are in place to ensure that that does not happen any more?

When anyone is wrongly turned down for benefit, it is a serious matter. We need an appeals system to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The appeals system that we inherited was inadequate, partly because of delays and partly because of the faults inherent in it. We have reformed it: we have speeded it up, and our approach to benefits seeks to ensure that the right decision is made in the first place and that decisions remain right thereafter.

What steps he is taking to ensure that all tiers of government are involved in tackling child poverty. [102928]

If he will report on the progress of the Government's proposals to tackle child poverty. [102930]

We are making real progress in tackling child poverty. We are the first Government to be committed to eradicating child poverty in a generation, and to halving it within 10 years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the north-west, more than half a million children live in households with less than half the average income? My constituency has some of the highest poverty rates in the country, and has the highest infant mortality rate in England. Child poverty is an important issue in the north-west.

My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government spent considerable time denying that poverty even existed, which damned a generation of children from the start because they happened to have been born in the wrong place at the wrong time, under a Tory Government.

Is not the worst thing that a child can inherit from its parents a belief in the welfare dependency culture, and are not the Government's policies increasing welfare dependency? Is not the best lesson that children can be taught the lesson that welfare can provide only a very basic standard of living, and that the phrase "work ethic" constitutes, of itself, an important concept?

The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The Conservative Government increased welfare dependency during their 18 years in power. They increased social security spending by 90 per cent., but there was more poverty, there were more divisions, the gap between rich and poor widened, and nearly a third of children were born into poverty. No decent Government could tolerate that, which is why we have introduced the new deal to get people into work, increased child benefit by a record amount, and increased spending on education and health to ensure that all children are given the best possible chance in life. That would never have happened but for the change of Government.

I commend the Government's actions to combat poverty, especially on behalf of the 3,800 families in Lancaster and Wyre who are benefiting directly from the Government's national minimum wage and the working families tax credit. They are being assisted to work their way out of poverty. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is also looking at the impact of housing benefit and council tax benefit on those families to ensure that the Government's commendable actions are not undermined by further reductions in those benefits?

My hon. Friend is right. The objective of the Government's policy is to ensure that everyone who can work does work and that they do not depend on benefits. That is why we have made changes to the tax and benefit system to ensure that work pays through the working families tax credit—again, a measure that is opposed by the Conservative party—and why we are looking at housing benefit reform to ensure that it pays to go into work and that people do not face unnecessary barriers to getting into work.

The hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) is right to say that all tiers of government have to be brought to bear to tackle matters such as child poverty. However, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the next financial year, his budget for pilot projects and other new programmes, including interdepartmental programmes to tackle such matters, will be top-sliced by some £50 million? Does he share my concern that the top-slicing of the Department's budget is in danger of getting out of control? Who is co-ordinating the work to deal with child poverty and other matters? Will he assure the House that someone is properly evaluating that work?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I spend many hours looking at my budget. I also confirm that the Government have embarked on a number of projects to ensure that we use the best possible means to eradicate child poverty. I commend to him "Opportunity for All" which was published last year and which, for the first time ever, shows what we are doing across government to tackle poverty and, most important, to deal with the causes of poverty, such as lack of educational opportunity, lack of jobs, poor health and poor housing. All the measures are being brought together.

What support his Department is providing for carers. [102929]

Invalid care allowance and the carer premium in income support are specifically designed for carers, who may be entitled to other more general benefits, depending on their circumstances.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the position of carers can be improved not just by those benefits, important though they are to carers, but by improving the help that is available to the disabled people for whom they care?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Measures that help both deserving groups are especially valuable. I am therefore particularly pleased to announce extra help for disabled people who have to spend time in hospital. The change will also benefit carers. I intend to lay regulations to provide that people receiving disability living allowance or attendance allowance will be able to receive benefit for the days both of admission to, and discharge from, hospital. The regulations will also ensure that all disabled people receiving DLA or attendance allowance who pay the full cost of their care and residential accommodation, however it is owned or managed, will be eligible for benefit.

Can the Minister explain why someone who is on income support, reaches the age of 65 and wishes to become a carer should not be allowed the carers premium? Is that not an outrageous example of ageist Government policy?

Benefits for carers were introduced by the previous Labour Government under Jim Callaghan. In the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power, they followed a policy that was adopted before they came to power: that an income replacement benefit, such as invalid care allowance, should not be paid in addition to another income replacement benefit, such as retirement pension. That policy was operated under the previous Conservative Government, the previous Labour Government and the current one, and there is no intention to change it.

The Minister will be well aware that caring is a difficult job and hard work; that many carers are themselves elderly; that provision of respite care is desperately important for all of them; and that there seems to be no national basis for the respite care provided by local authorities. Is he prepared to examine the current situation—in which different standards of respite care are offered—and ensure that every local authority is required to provide sufficient places, so that every carer is able each year to have at least a few weeks away from having to care for the elderly, the disabled or people with learning difficulties?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am glad to say that my colleagues in the Department of Health have improved availability of respite care by making available an additional £140 million as part of the national carers strategy, and that they are creating a charter for long-term care to address the type of issues raised by my hon. Friend. Additionally, the measure that I announced today—which will reduce the amount of benefit lost by those who go into hospital for respite care—will make respite care more generally available.

Although the extra two days are welcome, Opposition Members were disappointed with the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley). Substantial change is occurring within the population, and, in the next 10 years, the greatest challenge facing people in care will be the number of carers who are themselves relatively elderly, but who take care of frail parents or look after disabled children. If the state were to provide that care, the bill would be considerable. Surely it would make sense to help those people to continue to care by getting rid of the age restriction of 65 on invalid care allowance and carers premium. Will the Government reconsider their position?

Invalid care allowance was introduced as a benefit to replace the income of people of working age who were forced to give up full-time work because they were caring for someone who needed care for more than 35 hours a week. It is a benefit for people of working age: it was introduced for that purpose, and it has always been a benefit for that purpose. In the 18 years in which the previous Conservative Government were in power, they did not seek to change the benefit. I am surprised that, having done nothing about it in their 18 years in office, they have suddenly changed their mind.

I welcome the new initiatives that my hon. Friend has announced today. They will make a considerable difference to people in my constituency, many of whom are elderly or disabled carers. However, I underline the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). There is somewhat—to put it mildly—of a lottery in local authority social service provision for carers. Will the Minister, in addition to making available the funds that he announced today, ask his officials to consider encouraging—if encouraging does not work, requiring—local authorities to take the matter on board?

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. The Department of Health is responsible for making services available to carers and for social services policy throughout the country. I have no doubt that Health Ministers will take note of what has been said in the House today. They are already acting on the basis that my hon. Friend suggests.

What discussions he has had with the Treasury on the effect on pensioners of the abolition of the ACT dividend tax credits. [102931]

The Government withdrew the tax credits as part of a wider package of reforms that will help companies and benefit the economy overall.

Will the Secretary of State come clean and acknowledge that one of the most iniquitous effects of the Government's stealth tax on pensions was to deprive the less-well-off pensioners who are not liable for tax of a few hundred pounds in tax credits, on which many of them greatly depended? Will he stand by his soundbites about giving a fairer deal to poorer pensioners and lobby the Chancellor hard to give back those ill-gotten gains to the 300,000 poorer pensioners who really need them, including many in my constituency?

The changes that we made after the general election have been widely welcomed because they will benefit companies and the economy overall. [Interruption.] The shouts from the Conservatives would have more credibility if they were committed to restoring the previous ACT system—I do not think that they are. Since the abolition of ACT in 1997, there has been a positive cash flow of £1 billion to business. In addition, because of the action that we have taken, two thirds of pensioners do not pay income tax. We have taken 200,000 pensioners out of tax and 1.5 million pensioners will benefit from the extension of the 10p starting rate of income tax by an average of £55 a year. Every one of those measures was opposed by the Conservatives.

Is not one of the most effective ways of helping pensioners with modest incomes to take them out of the tax system? Will my right hon. Friend continue to press his Treasury colleagues for above-inflation increases in the pensioner's personal allowance?

As my hon. Friend said, the Government have done a great deal to help those pensioners who previously paid tax. Two thirds of pensioners now do not pay tax. We have taken 200,000 pensioners out of tax. Across the board, regardless of whether pensioners pay tax, the Government are honouring their manifesto pledge to ensure that pensioners share in this country's rising prosperity, not just through the tax system but through the winter fuel payment, the minimum income guarantee and other measures that help them a great deal. That help was never there under the previous Tory Government.

Does the Secretary of State agree with his former ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who was a Minister at the time that the changes were introduced? He says that they imposed a £2.5 billion tax hit on pension funds in 1997–98. If the Secretary of State does not agree, will he give his estimate of the impact on pension funds of that horrific change in their tax treatment? Of all the Government's stealth taxes, is not that the biggest and the worst?

The hon. Gentleman's protestations would have more credibility if he were committing his party to the restoration of the ACT system. I do not believe that business in this country wants another change to corporation tax. As a result of the changes that we have made, there has been a £1 billion cash advantage to businesses and we have the lowest-ever rate of corporation tax. That has increased the profitability of companies. On top of that, we have a healthy and stable economy and an end to the boom and bust that characterised the Tory years. Most businesses welcome the way in which we are running the economy. By helping businesses and the economy, we help pensioners as well.

I asked a simple, factual question to which we are still waiting for an answer. If the Secretary of State will not take responsibility for pension funds as a whole, will he at least accept some responsibility for the ACT burden that he has imposed on public sector funded pension schemes? Will he confirm the figures in Pensions Week today that show that local authority pension schemes around the country face enormous extra charges because of the change in the tax regime: £30 million for Greater Manchester; £33 million for Cornwall and £75 million for Staffordshire? We will find that, along with the pensioners referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and future pensioners, council tax payers will pick up the tab for the hefty increase in tax on pension funds. However, we do not have a simple answer to a simple question about how big the tax hit is.

The answer is that our tax changes will benefit the economy and companies in this country and, because of that, will benefit pensioners and pension funds. We have reduced the rate of corporation tax, and we have some of the lowest interest rates that this country has seen for years. We have a benign economy that is helping companies to increase their profitability, and that will help pension funds. The changes that we have made are in the best long-term interests of the economy. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is saying, on behalf of the Conservative party, that he intends to scrap the system and go back to the old one. That would be another reason for British business to regard the Tories as hopelessly out of touch with the needs of this country.

What measures he is taking to monitor the operation of the new rules covering appeals over claims for disability benefits. [102932]

Arrangements are in place to monitor the effects of the changes that we have made to decision making and handling appeals. We will look, for example, at the time taken to prepare submissions and the length of time that it takes for an appeal to be heard.

I welcome the changes to the appeals system, which mean that the Appeals Service is at last starting to clear the backlog of cases. In monitoring the changes, will my hon. Friend look at the new one-month deadline for clients between the adjudication officer's decision and the appeal? That is causing some concern to local benefits advisers in Rotherham. Will she keep an open mind on extending that time limit if there is evidence that some clients genuinely cannot cope with that tight deadline?

We introduced the changes in decision making and appeals in respect of disability living allowance and disability working allowance on 18 October, so it is far too soon to say whether the problems that my hon. Friend suspects may be occurring are occurring. I have no problem about pledging that we will keep the matter under review. However, to ensure that the appeals process is fast and effective, there has to be balance. The Independent Tribunal Service—the new appeals agency—has reduced the case load backlog from 70,000 in February to 11,800 last October. Waiting times have gone down from the average of seven months that we inherited to about 16 weeks, which is an enormous improvement.

If he will make a statement on the future of the all-work test.[102933]

We are in the process of replacing the all-work test with the personal capability assessment, which will play a key role in supporting disabled people and encouraging them to take steps back to work. Regulations are now in place to enable medical assessments to provide positive information on what people can do, as well as what they cannot. Last month, we started using the personal capability assessment in the ONE areas.

The concept of changing the all-work test to a test to gauge people's personal capabilities may be a good one, but is the Minister aware of the concern among many disabled people, particularly given that Ministers originally talked about some people abusing the system? How can we keep the existing medical criteria—as the Minister intends to do—and stop people abusing the system without putting undue pressure on people, especially those with learning difficulties, who often find form filling demanding?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the medical criteria for entitlement to incapacity benefit will not change as a result of the changes that we have made to the all-work test. For example, people who cannot walk and use wheelchairs will score 15 points, and therefore qualify for incapacity benefit, as they have done in the past. Many people who use wheelchairs can and do work. That includes Members of this House and of another place who use wheelchairs and do extremely demanding full-time jobs.

Is not it essential to raise the standard of examinations? Several of my constituents have been traumatised by medical practitioners who have performed poorly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is working hard to raise standards in the all-work test? Some of my constituents have been advised that they cannot take along a representative to the test; will he confirm that they can in fact do so?

The simple answer to that final point is yes, they can.

If he will make a statement on the work load of the independent case examiner of the CSA. [102934]

The case load of the independent case examiner rose from 1,087 cases in 1997–98 to 1,536 in 1998–99. The average clearance time for cases being dealt with by early resolution was 17.2 weeks, and 33.6 weeks for those that were accepted for full investigation.

In view of the volume of complaints, the independent case examiner warned the Social Security Committee in November that she may be turning complaints about the unfairness of the legislation back to parliamentarians. Is it right for her to do that?

The legislation governing child support is being changed. Indeed, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill has its Second Reading tomorrow. It would seem odd for the independent case examiner to do other than examine how a case has gone through rather than taking complaints about the structure of a system that Parliament is right in the middle of changing.

Will my hon. Friend have regard to the pressure on the independent case examiner's department? Perhaps a little more co-operation from the Child Support Agency might help, but a substantial improvement would result if some of the Government's proposals to improve the agency's work were brought forward. With such an approach, it would be substantially easier for people to understand the system and there would be less reference to the independent case examiner.

The case examiner's case load has gone up, but it is still the same proportion of cases, because the case load of the Child Support Agency as a whole has gone up. The proportion was 0.015 per cent. of cases last year, and 0.016 per cent. this year.

The case examiner will be rushed off her feet in October 2001 if the new computers that the Child Support Agency is paying for are not ready in time for the new formula. Given that the Department is incapable of paying pensions on time because of a computer bungle—despite a year of promising to sort out the problem—will the Minister guarantee on the record that the new system will not be put into place until the computers are ready?

I was astonished by the coverage that the hon. Gentleman provoked in the newspapers today about a reply I gave to him. He claimed that the computer system—which, by the way, does not yet exist, because Parliament has given us no money to buy it—is in chaos and delayed already. It is not delayed. It is on time to the extent—[Interruption.] We are in discussions with the providers of the computer system and we are drawing up the spec for it. The hon. Gentleman should—[Interruption.] We have been open about the fact that we will not introduce the new arrangements before we have a viable computer system in place. The previous Government did that when they bought an off-the-shelf system from Florida that was first made in 1975 and is now hopelessly out of date and useless at the job. We still have to use it and that is why the system is in such disarray.

How successful his Department was in getting winter fuel payments to all eligible pensioners before Christmas. [102935]

The payment process for the winter fuel payments went extremely well indeed. Some 10 million people in more than 7.5 million households were issued with their winter fuel payments before Christmas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the judgment of the European Court in the Taylor case, what action will he take to get payments to those who are now deemed eligible for them?

We shall take every action, because the judgment means that everyone who is ordinarily resident in Great Britain and aged over 60 is eligible. Significantly, that includes people who are not in receipt of any of the qualifying benefits and, because the payments are non-contributory and not means-tested, it includes those who are working. We are committed to finding the extra 1.5 million people to pay them what they are owed for the past two years and we will make an announcement on the issue in due course.

I am encouraged to hear that all pensioners over 60 are eligible for winter fuel payments. Can the Minister explain why Mrs. Stockdale of Leeming village has not received a winter fuel payment for 1999 or 1998?

I did not talk about pensioners. In the context of the European Court's decision, it is no longer appropriate to talk about pensioners. Everyone aged over 60 who is ordinarily resident in this country is eligible, whether they work or not. I cannot explain why someone has been missed out more than once, but if the hon. Lady will give me the details, we will do our best to rectify the mistake forthwith.

What assessment he has made of the scope for improved IT in the administration of his Department and of benefits payments. [102937]

The potential for new technology to transform the welfare state is enormous. However, our current IT infrastructure is old and out of date. It also essentially computerises clerical processes. We have ambitions for a major transformation, including more interactivity, telephone access and more remote access, all of which cannot be achieved overnight.

My hon. Friend the Minister has reminded the House that the chaos that the CSA brought to the lives of many of my constituents was amplified by the horrific computer-generated literature that it used to send en masse, with people sometimes receiving two or three five-page missives a week. It is obvious that we need to learn the lessons of the past when considering computerisation in the future and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's reassurance that the arrangements in the new Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill will be properly supported. It was clear when my hon. Friend visited my constituency that wholesale reform of the Department's IT is needed. Is there a timetable and is the budget sufficient?

There is a timetable. Clearly, the Child Support Agency computer system must take priority because of the new legislation to go on the statute book, which we cannot put into effect without a new system. It says something for the legacy of the previous Government that the CSA, the newest agency in the social security system, still has a computer system that is unusable in the modern age.

Part of that legacy was a benefit card project that would have ensured a future for post offices around the country delivering benefits. The Government have abandoned that project. Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern among post office staff about their future under the Government's proposals? Under the previous Government, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), now Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, wrote to all the sub-postmasters and postmistresses in his constituency recognising the widespread concern about any change in the method of payment for pensions and other benefits to automated credit transfer. The hon. Gentleman said that such a change would

"cause severe difficulties for many constituents who rely on the post office to cash their benefits and, in some cases, may not even have a bank account."

I hate to carp, but part of the problem with all these computer systems is the huge mess that we inherited from the previous Government, from the national insurance recording system 2 to the Horizon project, to which the hon. Gentleman refers. This project was three years behind time when it was cancelled, and was providing infrastructure that has already been overtaken by other developments. The new system will automate the Post Office and will still enable people to get their benefits from post offices if they so desire.

If he will make a statement on the treatment of local exchange trading scheme units for the purpose of calculating benefits. [102938]

If unemployed people undertake local exchange trading scheme activities for less than 16 hours a week on average, they can earn up to £260 worth of credits in a year without affecting their benefit. Our understanding is that the average level of earnings from local exchange trading systems is around £80 a year.

My hon. Friend has taken a great interest in LET schemes, and is aware of the report of the policy action team on jobs, which was published before Christmas. That made a number of recommendations, including piloting changes to the rules on local exchange trading schemes and units. Is my hon. Friend considering such changes to the rules so that LET schemes can play their full role in helping people to re-enter the labour market?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in LETS and is involved in their development. We recognise their value in promoting social inclusion and their potential in easing a move to full-time work. We have received representations and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the report of the policy action team on jobs, issued on 7 December by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, also makes similar points. We are looking closely at the report's recommendations, and will make announcements in due course.

What proposals he has to address the financial needs of women pensioners. [102940]

We are committed to ensuring that our pension reforms improve women's pension rights. Our plans to reform the state earnings-related pension scheme through the introduction of the state second pension will dramatically enhance state pension provision and will be of particular benefit to women, many of whom work part time or as carers. The state second pension will give a dramatic boost to the additional pension entitlement of low earners and, for the first time, will help carers and some long-term disabled people with broken work records, to build up a second pension.

In my constituency, some 8,000 women—about a quarter of all the people in employment—work part time. Almost all of them are in the income bracket that qualifies for the second state pension. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pressures that many women face when they have to give up work to look after disabled relatives, so that raises the possibility of a break in their pension entitlement? Does he agree that, for future generations of pensioners, a carers pension linked to the state second pension would ensure that people have a decent and independent pension entitlement? Would it not also ease the pressures that women face by rewarding them, through the pension provision, for staying at home and looking after families and disabled relatives?

Yes. Figures show that some 2 million carers—at least 1.5 million of whom are women—would benefit under the second state pension, for which, for the first time, people are beginning to build up entitlement. There are 4.5 million low earners in this country, of whom 70 per cent. are women, and 6 million moderate earners. All those people—more than 10 million of them, the majority of whom will be women—will gain under the state second pension.

The Minister told us some weeks ago that he was looking with urgency at the position of war widows, in whose circumstances I know that he is deeply interested. Does he now agree with us that war widows should be allowed to retain their husbands' occupational pensions, or will that possibility be lost from sight again?

It will not be lost from sight, as there is at least one clause on war pensions in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill that we are to debate tomorrow. However, the matter is under active consideration in the Ministry of Defence, where the decision will be taken. In due course, the appropriate Ministers will come to the House and account for their decisions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there remain significant numbers of pensioners, mainly older women, who refuse to apply for the minimum income guarantee because of the income support label that it carries? Will he urgently consider how the benefit is labelled? Might it not be better to call it a supplementary pension, or something similar, so that what is sometimes wrongly considered to be a stigma could help those pensioners who need it?

Yes. Our research shows that the largest group of people missing out on the minimum income guarantee are older women. We are to initiate a Government-sponsored take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee, which will include a partial rebranding of the benefit to meet the point that my hon. Friend makes about the stigma attached to it.

If he will make a statement on the provision of financial support by his Department to the voluntary sector. [102941]

Voluntary organisations make an important contribution to helping families and pensioners, and to helping people into work. We are already involving voluntary organisations in the ONE pilots and the new deal, and we are establishing a children's fund to help voluntary organisations to do more to eliminate child poverty.

The rough sleepers initiative set up by the previous Conservative Government was an excellent example of how the private and voluntary sectors can be involved in helping those in our society who are most in need. For example, the Number Five project in Guildford benefited under that initiative. Will the Minister assure the House that this Government will give as much money to the initiative in this Parliament as was provided by the previous Government in the previous Parliament?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter. The Department of Social Security's resettlement programme assists the voluntary sector to provide more than 4,000 bed spaces in more than 100 organisations. The statutory framework that binds the Department contains no general legal power to provide support to voluntary bodies. However, given that constraint, we will do all that we can to assist voluntary bodies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the right people are more likely to receive the right benefit to which they are entitled if they are well advised? In particular, I refer to disabled people, so would my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work carried out by local DIAL—disablement information and advice line—organisations? Does he also recognise that such organisations often struggle on from year to year unsure about local authority grants and lottery applications? Will he consider how he can further help such organisations to carry out their valuable work?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend that the advice that voluntary bodies give to disabled people about their benefit entitlement is an extremely important part of the benefits process. As I said earlier, the Department of Social Security has no general legal power to help voluntary bodies. Other Departments have such general powers and they include the Department of Health, which puts more than £50 million into grants for voluntary bodies through its two main programmes which support such organisations.

Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said about rough sleepers, is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to tackle the problem given that, to the untrained eye, there seems to be no obvious diminution in the number of people sleeping rough? During the period of the previous Government, the media made a great deal of rightful protest about that problem, but they are strangely rather silent about it now.

The Government took, particularly over the Christmas period, a series of new initiatives to expand the support that we give for people, both inside and outside London, who are homeless and roofless. Such initiatives are part of the Government's overall strategy to tackle the problems faced by the poor.

If the Government will accelerate the transition of CSA cases to the new system as soon as possible. [102946]

We want to introduce the new scheme as quickly as we can, but we have to be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the previous scheme, which failed because it was introduced too quickly. By 2001, there will be 1 million cases on the CSA's books. Transferring them to the new scheme will be a major task that will need very careful preparation.

I warmly support the Government's view on this matter. It is vital that we do not have a new catastrophe to match the one that was introduced by the previous Government with the CSA. However, many of my constituents, who are particularly enthusiastic about the reform, regret the fact that, even when a case has been transferred to the new system in perhaps three or four years' time, the adjustment to the new figure—whatever that may be—will be at the fairly leisurely rate of £5 a year. That means that many people who are now in the system will not benefit to any significant extent before their children grow up. Will my hon. Friend have another look at the matter?

We have had a very close look at all these difficult issues in the White Paper that preceded the Bill and in the Green Paper consultation that preceded that. They are difficult issues, and there is always a balance to be struck. The Government believe that they have struck the right balance by knowing that they can prudently get the system into place effectively and by warning people sufficiently about it. Many people at either end of the system are bound to feel that it is not fair, but we are being as fair and as open as we can be, and we consulted as many people as we could. I believe that we have reached a general agreement that our way forward is correct, but, as always, we shall listen.

Under the new system, how many parents will see their entitlement to maintenance reduced and by how much?

The Opposition keep carping on about that, but the fact is that entitlement to maintenance under the new system and getting paid are two very different things. We have always taken the view, in the Green Paper and the White Paper, that it is good for everyone if people receive and are actually paid smaller sums of money instead of receiving theoretical payments.

If he will report progress on achieving reforms in welfare benefits. [102948]

We are reforming the welfare system to eradicate child poverty by creating opportunity for all. The working families tax credit, together with the minimum wage and other measures, will lift 1.25 million people, including 800,000 children, out of poverty.

I am grateful for that report of progress. Will the Minister confirm that, according to the definitive measurements that his party supported in opposition, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened in the past 30 months? If he claims that it has not, will he publish the figures that would prove his assertion?

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I gave only a partial report—I could spend the rest of the day detailing the successes of our welfare reforms. The hon. Gentleman's point is correct and has been raised before. It is based on research and evidence that predate the Government coming to power. As everyone knows, we freely entered into a contract with the electorate to accept the spending limits imposed by the previous Government for the first two years. That has consequences, which we all understand. In September we published "Opportunity for All", the first-ever national audit of poverty in Britain by any Government. We will produce a report each and every year, so that we can be judged against the standards in that report and, in due course, we will alter the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that some of us would have been happier if he had junked the figures agreed with the Opposition much earlier. Although the Government have produced some positive and useful results, will my right hon. Friend give me one undertaking? There have been a number of cases recently in which the detail of various benefit arrangements has been incorrect. It would be helpful if we could guarantee in future that all the calculations coming from the Department were as accurate as possible. Although human beings always make errors, in these matters errors can have devastating effects for the people in receipt of the benefit concerned.

I can only answer yes. If my hon. Friend has particular examples, I will be pleased to look into them. We are endeavouring to take error out of the system by getting the calculations right at the beginning. It is better for people to get the lawful rights to which the House has agreed that they are entitled, and it helps us to stamp out error and fraud. We have a programme to get the figures right at the outset, and if there are specific problems, I will be happy to look into them for my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister confirm that, with the introduction of the working families tax credit, the number of households with children that are dependent on means-tested benefits and tax credits will rise; that, where the working families tax credit is combined with housing benefit, the net taper of tax and benefit withdrawal will be 89 per cent.; and that that must lead in the long ran to large numbers of households having no incentive to better themselves—the very reason why the WFTC was abolished in Canada recently?

As we say from the Front Bench, that was a very good point. It does not alter the fact that 1.25 million people—800,000 of them children—have been lifted out of poverty as a result of the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage. We have arranged matters so that it is no longer possible for people to say that it does not pay to work and that it pays to stay on benefit. We have reversed that position, which must be wholly good for both the country and the individuals concerned.

What representations he has received from organisations representing the disabled on the operation of incapacity benefit. [102949]

We regularly receive representations about benefits from organisations representing disabled people, including on matters relating to incapacity benefit.

Albeit that the Government have—rightly or wrongly—got their way on incapacity benefit, do they recognise that the controversy has not gone away? Problems remain. Would it not be a good idea if, in a year or 15 months, there were a formal review of what was taking place, with formal evidence requested from the disability groups that are still so uncertain as to what is happening?

My hon. Friend knows that the process by which legislation is made by the House is one of debate and amendment, and the Government did indeed listen to voluntary bodies, hon. Members and Members in another place, and changed our proposals on incapacity benefit in several ways. The final amendments raised the disregard for occupational pensions from £50 to £85, and extended from two to three years the period during which people could pay the qualifying national insurance contributions.