If he will make a statement on his plans to reform the housing benefit system. [107185]

We are committed to reform housing benefit and will publish a Green Paper this year. In the meantime, we are making improvements to the way in which it is administered.

The Secretary of State must be aware of the concern at the Government's delay in producing their proposals. Does he accept that the housing benefit system is seen as being in disrepute? In Stockport, there is a particularly grave problem with private tenants who are the victims of oppression by the Greater Manchester rent officer service. What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give that, when and if we get the new system, there will be an end to the economic cleansing of private tenants from my constituency?

I am aware of the problems in Stockport which have resulted in assessments being made by the rent officers. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and the three other Members of Parliament who represent Stockport are going to see the local rent officers to discuss the matter, so I do not propose to say anything further on that matter.

When reforming the housing benefit system, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that some pensioners have what might be called offspring-engendered poverty, in that they do not get the contribution from their grown-up so-called children that they might otherwise get? That creates difficulties for some of them, who must meet substantial housing costs out of very low incomes.

My hon. Friend is referring to the non-dependant deductions, which have been a feature of housing benefit for many years. If we did not take into account sums that someone living in a house could reasonably pay towards their upkeep, everybody else would have to subsidise that house. That is not right, as a matter of principle. People who live in a house and who have their own income ought to make a contribution towards the running costs of that house.

The Secretary of State was not very forthcoming about when the Green Paper is due—he was making similar promises this time last year. Will he confirm that his reforms have now run into the sand with a dispute between his and other Departments? Will he confirm that the biggest obstacle facing him is the £13 billion investment by housing associations, which borrowed that money on the basis of the level of benefit payments? Will any scheme compensate housing associations for that? Is he still serious about reforming housing benefit, or will the next Budget tinker with the poverty trap through the working families tax credit, which will leave 3 million out of 4.5 million housing benefit claimants unaffected?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on just about every point that he raises. The housing Green Paper will be published this year and will cover not just housing benefit, but other housing matters. He might want to reflect that, during the 18 years that they were in power, the Conservative Government did nothing about many of the problems with housing benefit.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policies towards pensioners. [107187]

Our objective is to make sure that retirement is a time to look forward to. We are doing more to help today's pensioners. We are reforming pension provision for the future to make sure that people retire with decent pensions. As a result of our policies, older and poorer pensioners are £500 a year better off than they would have been but for the change of Government.

Why should pensioners look forward to retirement as a result of the Government's policies? The Government have ripped off £5 billion from pension funds and abolished the married couples allowance, tax relief on private medical care, widows bereavement benefit and many other benefits affecting older people. On top of that, they are proposing to introduce a system in which there will be two classes of pensioner. There will be a disincentive to save at one end of the scale, and real unfairness for those who have saved during their working lives at the other.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that we now have the lowest rates of corporation tax that this country has seen, allowing companies to decide whether they want to reinvest their money or pay it out in dividends. He will no doubt have seen reports suggesting that many pension funds are beginning to benefit not just from our advance corporation tax changes, but because of the benign economic conditions that have been a feature of this Government.

I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about the minimum income guarantee, but is he genuinely happy with the 75p increase in the state pension?

I have explained on many occasions that the Government's pensions policy is geared towards providing the most help to the poorest pensioners who lost out in the past 20 years. Over those years, the richest pensioners did very well compared with the others, whereas the poorest lost out very badly. If we gave an across-the-board increase to all pensioners, those who were better off would not notice the amount and those at the lower end of the income scale would get no increase whatever because they would lose it pound for pound in benefit.

I agree with the Secretary of State. I agree with his statement in the House 12 months ago that pensioners are rightly angry when they save for a lifetime and then cannot get means-tested benefits. I agree with him in his statement of 12 months ago, when he said:

"That reform is long overdue."—[Official Report, 28 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 486.]

I have explained to the hon. Gentleman on countless occasions that the Government said in the Green Paper that the capital limits needed to be considered. I am glad that he agrees with everything that I said previously, because I notice that the Liberal Democrats' manifesto says that it is their policy that the basic state pension should be increased in line with prices and that there should be extra earnings-linked help for the poorest pensioners, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Given what my right hon. Friend has just said about the minimum income guarantee, and rightly so, when does he expect to be in a position to launch a publicity campaign to ensure that all the pensioners who are entitled to it are able to claim and receive it?

My hon. Friend asks a very good question, the answer to which is very soon indeed. I shall make an announcement in the not-too-distant future setting out how we intend to ensure that those pensioners who qualify for the minimum income guarantee get it.

The trouble is that, whatever else the minimum income guarantee may be, it is not a guarantee of a minimum income to pensioners. A pensioner with savings of more than £8,000 in a year is not entitled to any help, even though her income could well be way below the supposed minimum income guarantee level. It is a matter not only of pensioners not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled, but of the old income support rules meaning that pensioners with incomes way below the minimum income guarantee level are simply not entitled to receive it. The Secretary of State should either change the name of his policy so that it is not so misleading, or change the policy to do something to help pensioners with modest savings.

The hon. Gentleman's argument would have more force if he had done something about the capital limits when his party was in power, because they remained unchanged for many, many years. We have said that we will consider that, and we will. His policy is not to give more help to those receiving the minimum income guarantee but to take that guarantee away, so 1.5 million pensioners would lose money, not gain it. People should remember that when they listen to what the Conservatives have to say on pensions.

What steps he is taking to improve the public's knowledge of pensions and saving for retirement. [107188]

We shall be introducing new pension forecasts giving both state and private pension details. For the first time, individuals who work will have a clear statement of their current and projected pension rights. We hope to be able to provide that information for everyone by 2002, and this year it has been piloted in several large companies.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that young people, who are often unaware that it is important for them to join a pension scheme, do join a pension scheme? What will he do to encourage them to do so? Is he aware that many old-age pensioners are suffering because of the mis-selling of endowment policies under the previous Government?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The whole House will agree that it is not easy to encourage young people to think about pensions. However, when from 2002 everybody gets an annual statement of their pension entitlements—similar to a P60—and they see what is being accrued in their state, company, occupational or stakeholder pension, they will start to ask questions in a way that they did not before. It is likely that more young people will start to make better provision for their pension arrangements.

Obviously, the more information people have about their pensions, the better. In that context, all pensioners know that they will get a measly 75p increase in April. How does that square with the fact that the council tax in Chelmsford will increase by £1.31 a week, which will mean a 56p a week loss for pensioners before taking into account the increase in the rate of inflation since September, the increase in rents way above the rate of inflation and other income problems that pensioners face? The Chancellor seems to have about £7 billion to £8 billion spare next year, so why cannot the pensioners have a decent increase and share in the nation's prosperity?

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the 75p increase is tied to someone living on the basic state pension of £66.75. Average pensioner net incomes in 1997–98 for single people were £132, and for couples £252. To compare the 75p increase with the council tax increase is totally and utterly misleading.

As well as improving the public's knowledge of pensions, will my right hon. Friend ensure that pension advisers who advise members of the public and firms are also brought up to speed? Will he carefully consider the ombudsman's decisions on the collapse of H. H. Robertson's, a firm in my constituency, when they are published and ensure that lessons about the weaknesses in the current legislation are learned and that pension advisers take their share of responsibility for the collapse?

I do not know the particular circumstances of that firm, but any report from the pensions ombudsman that highlights a loophole in the protection of pensioners, future and present, will be examined seriously by the Government.

Many people will get a shock when they receive their personal statements and realise what they will be entitled to when they retire. Will the Minister use the opportunity afforded by the statements to give an up-to-date running total of what is in the national insurance fund? Will he confirm that, if the statements were sent out this week, the recipients would learn that the fund had a £16,000 million surplus, but many of them will receive an increase of only 75p in April?

If we did that, we would have to send out a volume the size of a telephone directory explaining that the position is not as simple as that—as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The national insurance fund can be in surplus at times because its level depends on the number of people who claim contributory benefits. The hon. Gentleman, in his position as Chairman of the Social Security Committee, should not give such misleading information in his questions.

Will the Minister confirm that the information that he has just promised for 2002 was indeed the information that the Green Paper on pensions promised for April 1999? Will he confirm that the delay is because of the decision about widows' inheritance of the state earnings-related pension scheme? Are we to conclude that there will not be a decision until about 2002, or can we expect it to be earlier?

I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. We expect to get the pension forecasting service to everybody in the system up and running by 2002, perhaps even by late 2001. It has been piloted with tens of thousands of employees in seven or eight large companies this year. Indeed, a pilot of the pilot has already started. This scheme is new—it has never before been attempted to combine state and private pension forecasts for everyone on an annual basis.

What is his estimate of the total savings to date to his Department as a result of the new deal for lone parents; and what forecasts he has made of future savings. [107189]

The independent evaluation of the programme's prototype phase is due to be published at the end of this month and will include a full cost-benefit analysis. The full national programme is being evaluated separately. It, too, will include a cost-benefit analysis and will be available in spring 2002.

I thank the Minister for that response and look forward to the results of the full evaluation. Is she aware that among the 100,000 lone parents who have benefited from the new deal so far is a young woman in my constituency who, after many years of unemployment, has gained so much in terms of skills and confidence that she is now working at Gravesend jobcentre? The help that the new deal has given her and so many other lone parents is a major factor in helping the Government to fulfil their commitment to halving child poverty in 10 years.

My hon. Friend is right to point to the successes of the new deal for lone parents. On his specific question, the Government have introduced a lone parents benefit run-on from last October. That means that all lone parents moving off benefits into jobs will receive an extra two weeks' income support or jobseeker's allowance, depending on what they were claiming before moving into work. There is also the four-week housing benefit run-on which continues to be paid for the month after lone parents come off benefits. We hope that together those measures will tide lone parents over that difficult gap.

Can the Minister confirm that 100,000 people only attended interview; they were not taken off the dependency list? Can she also confirm that there remain 470,000 single parents with children over five who would be eligible? What measures is her Department taking to encourage those people to break the dependency link? They would love to get off benefits and into a stable job, but her Department is singularly failing to encourage them to do so.

First, at least we have a new deal for lone parents and are trying to help them off benefit; the previous Government did nothing but abuse them. I can say that 32,710 lone parents are now in jobs who would not have been in jobs before, and 10,630 are in further education and training. This is difficult: 30 per cent. of lone parents have no qualifications, and 55 per cent. have qualifications under national vocational qualification level 2. Some, perhaps, are not job-ready, and we are doing our best with these programmes to prepare them for the labour market so that they and their children can look forward to a lifetime off benefits rather than the lifetime on benefits that the previous Government left them with.

If he will make it his policy to provide winter fuel payments for pensioners on a permanent basis. [107191]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in November 1999 that winter fuel payments would be made every year from now on. Additionally, in December, following a European Court of Justice judgment, we announced our intention to extend the scheme to those aged 60 and over, whether or not they are pensioners.

That is very good news on both counts. Has the £100 winter fuel payment not been of tremendous help to many pensioners, particularly those on low incomes? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, before 1997, no extra money was given unless the weather was freezing for seven consecutive days? Does he agree that that system, which the Conservative Government defended at every opportunity, was both inadequate and farcical? Will the Opposition perform a U-turn by accepting winter fuel payments if they return to office?

The exceptional cold weather payment system still applies but the greenhouse effect means that it does not often come into use. The winter fuel payment to pensioner households is all the more valuable for that. We did not, so far as I am aware, inherit any plan or budget from the previous Government for the payment of that benefit.

Will it help pensioners to pay for their fuel or anything else this winter if they are forced to take out annuities—currently at an all-time low—at 75? They are being forced into poverty and not receiving their just deserts because the Government are being totally inflexible.

This is not the time for a debate on annuities, but one must ask what pensioners who complain that they are being forced to buy annuities at 75 had lived on until then. I accept that annuities are a serious issue, but we must not run away with the idea that it affects the poorest people in this country. Those involved have managed to avoid taking out an annuity until they reached 75, and one must ask what they were living on.

If he will make a statement on the housing benefit verification framework. [107192]

The verification framework is a key part of our overall strategy to root out fraud and error in housing benefit. The framework is a good practice guide that forms a platform for secure and accurate administration by defining the evidence that should be gathered to support a claim for housing benefit or council tax benefit. It also defines the frequency of subsequent checks during the life of a claim. As of 28 January, 226 local authorities had received funding to implement the framework.

Various housing organisations in Bolton have expressed concern about how the housing benefit verification framework is operating. For the record, will my hon. Friend assure us that no one will be denied housing benefit—hence accommodation—because he or she cannot produce two bona fide forms of identification? Will she assure us that benefit will not be stopped after a housing officer has attempted a second visit, having failed to make contact on the first, particularly when it occurs as early as 7.30 am to 8.30 am?

The idea behind the verification framework is that it will secure the gateway to benefit, which was too lax in the past. That involves proof of identity. However, we have improved the framework in the light of its live operation, not by reducing security but by ensuring that we fit in with people's life styles. For example, hostel dwellers do not often have two proofs of identification, and we have made adjustments accordingly. However, we do not want to make housing benefit security any worse, and the verification framework is a big improvement. We want all local authorities to put it into effect.

Last year, there were nearly 250,000 cases of housing benefit fraud, but only 700 successful prosecutions. Given those figures nearly three years after the Government came to office, how can the hon. Lady continue to say that Ministers will be tough on housing benefit fraud?

We inherited a difficult system from the Conservative Government who fragmented the administration of housing benefit to 409 different local authorities with which we must co-operate. We realised that there was a problem with prosecution, and we have launched prosecution pilots in which we lend departmental lawyers to local authorities in order to pursue cases. We are tightening up.

My hon. Friend is aware that I have been doing some work on reform of the housing benefit system and on the relationship between rents paid and taxes paid by landlords. Will she tell me how that work is proceeding in the Department?

As always, my hon. Friend is most ingenious and has come up with some very interesting ideas. I assure him that the Department is taking a close look at them.

Is the Minister aware of a case in which a person was caught claiming for 43 children and 11 houses? He was an illegal immigrant and was jailed for three and a half years. Will she stress to people who are cheating the system that they cheat not only the Government but those people who could also be receiving benefits, if the system were not being fleeced as it is? As there are a reported 70,000 asylum seekers flooding into the country, will she reassure the country that, whereas the Home Office seems to have lost its grip on those people, the Department of Social Security will ensure that they are not fleecing the system?

As always in this matter, the hon. Gentleman makes a disgraceful contribution. I assure him that we take fraud extremely seriously. He proves that by citing a case that was prosecuted successfully and in which the person was jailed. Prosecutions are going up. We shall not tolerate fraud in the social security system; we work night and day to ensure that we minimise successful fraud.

What representations he has received regarding time taken in dealing with housing benefit claims. [107193]

The Department regularly receives correspondence about local authority administration of housing benefit. Working with local authorities, we aim to transform the delivery of housing benefit so that it is faster, more accurate and more secure against fraud and error.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. We acknowledge the actions that have already been taken. However, does she agree that the housing benefit system remains complex and that, although a verification process is needed, many councils are struggling with the system and many people have to wait far too long? That is extremely worrying, especially for elderly people who have never been in debt and who think that they are in debt although in fact they are not. Will she ensure that councils are able to deal with those claims speedily, thus removing such anxieties?

We always have to find a balance between securing the gateways to the benefit and speed. Some local authorities experienced a decline in their ability to process housing benefit forms when they adopted the verification process. However, because of the co-operation that we are receiving over live running, I assure my hon. Friend that we aim to get right the balance between accuracy and speed.

Given the critical importance of that benefit, the figures cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and the importance that the Government attach to the benefit, why have no proposals for its reform been put to the House during the lifetime of this Government? When can we expect them?

We have introduced many reforms to the housing benefit system. For example, we set up the benefit fraud inspectorate, which is currently examining every local authority among the top 30 housing benefit spenders. We have also introduced changes to weekly benefit savings to encourage prosecutions. Almost all local authorities have remote-access terminals, which give access to Benefit Agency records so that they can make cross-checks. We are introducing the electronic transfer of data between the BA and local authorities, beginning this month. We have set up a pilot to examine the single gateway to the benefit system. We have done much; the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer for the Green Paper.

If he will make a statement on the impact upon people in rural areas of proposals to computerise the benefits payment system. [107195]

About half of new pensioners and more than half the people in receipt of child benefit prefer to have their benefits paid into their bank accounts. However, for some people, especially in rural areas, receiving their money in cash at the post office is very important, and we want that choice to remain. So, even after the move to paying benefits directly into bank accounts, from 2003, people in rural areas will still be able to collect their cash at the local post office if they want to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. People who live in east Northamptonshire, a rural part of my constituency, have been greatly concerned about press reports that were not the same as his reply. Will he assure me that the Government have joined-up thinking in this matter and that they recognise the vital social, as well as commercial, functions of post offices? Will he further assure me that in future we shall see a halt to the decline of services in rural areas that began under the Tories, and that there will be a real rural revival?

My hon. Friend is right—doing nothing and sticking with the present system would be an absolute disaster for post offices, because more and more of those who are coming into the benefit system, especially pensioners and people receiving child benefit, are asking to have their money paid direct into a bank or building society account. That is their right, and there is nothing that the Government can or should do about that.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he received from officials the same advice that I received about the impact of moving to compulsory ACT—compulsory payment of benefits through the banks—namely, that it would lead to the collapse of the post office network across the country, that the only way to prevent that collapse would be to introduce a subsidy, that such a subsidy would absorb a large part of the savings that it was hoped to make in the first place, and that the net effect would be a minimum saving but maximum hardship for old, disabled and young people, and that communities would be destroyed? Will he think again about this disastrous policy?

The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Conservative Government—and he belonged to the right-wing, doctrinaire part of that Government—who wanted to sell off the whole of the post office network, which would have put many post offices at risk—so he has no credibility as a defender of the Post Office.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning certain newspapers and certain Opposition politicians who, by their scaremongering, are serving only to undermine public confidence in sub-post offices, in spite of the fact that the Government and my right hon. Friend today have clearly stated that cash benefits will still be available at post offices? Does he agree that comments to the contrary serve only to frighten elderly people, and that those who are calling for the abandonment of ACT would compel the 50 per cent. of people who have chosen ACT to return to the ration book type of payment?

The point that those who differ with us on our policy should remember is that more and more people—whether we like it or not—are asking to have their benefits paid into their bank accounts. Therefore, if we did nothing, the post office network would suffer, and anyone who believes that that is a sensible policy needs his head looking at.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, in any departmental publicity leaflets, equal emphasis will be given to both choices, including the post office choice, and that the option to retain payments through a post office will not be buried away in the small print of the leaflets?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. A poster campaign is being mounted jointly by the Benefits Agency and the Post Office. Posters and leaflets explaining the new system should appear in every post office throughout the land to give people the reassurance that they will have a choice as to whether they receive their money through the post office or their bank or building society.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the end of last week in which he pointed out that 3,000 extra cashpoint machines will be available in rural post offices? Many people will want to receive their benefits through the new system and, despite the scaremongering of Conservative Members, that will add to the renaissance of services in rural areas.

My hon. Friend is right. The Post Office already has an alliance with, I think, three banks and offers banking facilities as a result of that. I fail to understand the policy of the Conservative party. I know that it is conservative in every sense of the word, but its recipe is to do absolutely nothing and to stick with a system that is not sustainable. That is nonsensical and it would also cost the DSS substantial sums in administrative costs and in money lost through fraud and error. Surely nobody in their right mind could defend that, but let us hear what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has to say.

I begin by assuring the Secretary of State that I feel very much in my right mind. I am sure that he would wish to join me in acknowledging that the effects of rural transport difficulties are compounded for those who are elderly or who have disability problems. While we are discussing states of mind, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman suffers from a degree of selective amnesia. He seems to be unaware that the sub-post office network is already privatised and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who spoke so eloquently a moment ago, had initiated a project for the automation of the benefits payments system that would have been highly beneficial.

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt reflect on the fact that rural transport was significantly run down by the previous Conservative Government, principally because of the deregulation of bus services that took place in the 1980s when Mr. Ridley was the Secretary of State responsible for such matters.

What further measures he proposes to reduce family poverty in the next decade. [107196]

We are committed to eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and we expect to make substantial further progress towards that goal over the next decade. For most families, the best way out of poverty is through work. Measures in the last two Budgets will mean that the poorest families with children will gain more than £1,000 a year.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that I share his pride in Labour's objective of eliminating child poverty in 20 years, and that I also recognise the wretched situation that the Government inherited after the growth in the disparity of incomes and the considerable growth in poverty during the Thatcher-Major years?

I reassure my hon. Friend that our policies are already making a difference. As a result of tax and benefits measures, the families of 800,000 children who were living in poverty have been raised above the poverty line, and that is just the start. We have set an extremely challenging objective, which is why it will take 20 years of work to achieve it, but the Government are determined to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is real, if sometimes hidden, poverty in rural areas, as confirmed by a study last week? Contrary to the Prime Minister's rather rosy view, poorer families in rural areas face difficulties in accessing services and they have additional costs. Will the Minister make sure that his policies directly address that problem?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is indeed poverty in rural as well as urban areas. Hon. Friends from constituencies throughout the country, including my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) and for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler), make that point. The Government's policies to attack poverty apply equally in rural areas as in urban areas.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is tremendous support among Labour Members for the Government's objective of countering child poverty? Will he further confirm that, in achieving that objective, the higher that the Government feel it safe to set the statutory minimum wage, the lower will be the cost to taxpayers of the working families tax credit?

We have made it clear from the start that the rate of the national minimum wage will be kept under review, and indeed it will.

I welcome back the Minister from his visit to the Ceredigion by-election, where Labour went from second to fourth place. I hope that he will be paying many more such visits around the country. I have a simple question for him. Will he give the House a cast-iron promise that the working families tax credit will be delivered through the pay packet from April, as planned?

Yes, it will.

What measures his Department has taken to reduce barriers in the benefits system to education for lone parents. [107197]

The benefits system provides support for lone parents who take up education and training. Time spent on study does not affect their benefit. Lone parents on the new deal may also get help with course fees, travel expenses and the cost of child care while attending approved work-focused training or education.

Does my hon. Friend accept that counting the student loan as income rather than money that must be paid back can pose a particular problem for mature students? If she cannot change that rule, will she describe the extra help that she and her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment may make available to help people who want to improve themselves through education in order to get back into work?

This year, the total budget for child care access funds in education colleges is £25 million, which is almost three times the amount made available last year. There is extra student support in higher education—£12 million in the current year—through access funds, too. The DFEE has announced that it will be introducing in due course means-tested child care grants for parents who want to study. So we realise that this is an issue, and we are tackling it.

What percentage of single parents successfully getting a job following invitation for interviews under the new deal for lone parents does the Minister regard as a good return for investment in the scheme?

There are more than 32,000 lone parents in jobs who would not have been given any help by the Conservative party. Any lone parent getting a job is a benefit. In due course, we shall be publishing an analysis of the new deal for lone parents. A report on the pilot project, which is due at the end of the month, will show that the scheme has covered 90 per cent. of its costs. All those 32,000 lone parents with a job have children, and they came from workless households. They are now in households with work, and that is how we shall tackle child poverty.

If he will make a statement on his proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency. [107199]

The Bill that gives effect to our proposed reforms of the child support scheme is being discussed in Standing Committee. We are on course to start the new system in 2002.

The overwhelming number of CSA cases in my constituency involves men who are very happy to contribute to the maintenance of children from their first marriage, but who find it extremely difficult to meet the agency's demands. Given that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said in October that 190,000 absent parents—in most cases, that means the fathers—are likely to face higher assessments under the Government's proposals, does the Secretary of State share my concern that such proposals will lead to much greater stress and further suicidal tendencies among some fathers, while the feckless escape into the night?

Most assessments will in fact be lower and, as the changes that we are introducing will be phased in, both families will have some time to adjust to any vastly different settlement. I agree that difficulty arises because fathers must sometimes wait months before they find out how much they are supposed to be paying, and when they get the bill it is very often much more than they can afford, and that naturally leads to great tension. Under the new, simplified system that we are introducing, it will be possible to calculate in days, not months, how much a father—it is usually the father—will have to pay, so payments will flow far more quickly. We should not lose sight of the fact that, as a result, up to 1 million children will gain, and that must be a good thing.

Does the Secretary of State not realise that an arbitrary, formulaic system is ineffectual and that each family's circumstances are different? To criminalise those who withhold payment will surely lead to them absconding and going into hiding. If, ultimately, the sanction of jail is invoked, how will that help their earning prospects or make it easier for them to look after their children?

There are two points. First, the simplified formula makes it possible to calculate quickly—within days—the amount due. Anyone who has children knows that it is difficult to calculate down to the last penny how much children cost, or how much should be paid when two people are living together. We consulted widely on the new simplified formula and it has been widely welcomed. Very few people suggested that we should retain the present system. Some suggested that we should go to the courts, but most people think that the simplified formula is better.

What steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [107200]

We are committed to taking action to find more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we will shortly announce our decisions on the Government-sponsored national take-up campaign. We hope to do so next week.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, given that it is now almost 17 months since the Secretary of State said that the NIRS2 computer breakdown, which deprived 285,000 pensioners of their just entitlements, would be resolved "in the next couple of weeks", will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that those payments, unlike Billy Bunter's postal order, will arrive; that full interest will be paid on top of them; and that Government coffers will not profit by so much as a single penny from this woeful saga of ministerial incompetence?

It is not our intention that the Government should benefit from the inherited disaster of NIRS2. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is a regular attender at Question Time, I said a couple of weeks ago that we had not met the target of clearing the entire backlog, and that there were 83,000 people still to be paid. We are convinced that their payments will be brought fully up to date before the end of the year. We regret the delay. The compensation payments are being paid to people who have experienced delays to their pension payments. The entire saga is very much regretted. That it why it is important that we get to the bottom of it. We must make sure that we do not overload the system in future, so that it can deliver regular payments to our pensioners.

To solve the problem and ensure that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled, would it not be easier to lift the state pension?

I can tell my hon. Friend that it would not. We could raise the state pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it would not benefit the 1.6 million people who already get it. They would lose pound for pound. Also, it would cost £3 billion to do that. As I said earlier, the average income of a single pensioner in 1997–98 was £132 net. I can think, as can my hon. Friends, of much better ways of using £3 billion in the social security system, such as by targeting help at those who really need it.

If he will list the functions of his Department in relation to those suffering from vibration white finger. [107201]

The Department's function in relation to vibration white finger is to administer the industrial injuries scheme to employed earners who have been disabled by the disease. People could also apply for other social security benefits, depending on their individual circumstances. Payment of damages awarded by the courts for this disease to employees of British Coal is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Against the background of the constructive meeting in Cardiff today with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, and the meeting convened by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) with two distinguished doctors, which some of us attended last week, could the Government do something to speed up the payments to coal miners and shale miners, who have the feeling—it may not be justified, but they have the feeling none the less—that people are waiting until they pass on before awarding the compensation that is surely due to them?

I thank my hon. Friend for notifying me this morning of the nature of his supplementary question. I hope that progress was made in Cardiff today. Delays have to do with the courts process, although departmental responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are referred to it.