How many lone parents have obtained jobs through the new deal for lone parents. [129319]

How many lone parents have used the new deal to date. [129330]

Since the start of the new deal for lone parents, 154, 731 lone parents have taken part. Of those, 16, 294 have entered education or training and 54, 241 have obtained jobs—more than one in three of those participating.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on the report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which says that the new deal has made the employment market very much more efficient because it has actually trained hundreds of thousands of young people? It also states that the new deal is value for money. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the belief that the new deal could be extended with flexible use of the benefits system? Will he also refute the comment from the Opposition that the new deal is an extravagant waste of money? It most certainly is not.

The fact that the new deal for lone parents has seen into work nearly one in three of those participating seems to me to speak for itself. It is also worth bearing in mind that in 1979, there were 300, 000 lone parents on income support. By 1997, that number had grown to more than 1 million. Many of those people had been out of work for a long time, and leaving it to the market to do nothing would have meant that they—and their children, many of whom live in poverty—would not have been helped. My hon. Friend is right to say that the report produced last week by the national institute has pointed to the fact that all the new deals are changing the culture in this country. By providing help, we are ensuring that work pays and, as a result, we have more than 1 million people more in employment and we are beginning to reduce child poverty—something that the Opposition would never do anything about.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the new deal was abolished, as suggested by the Opposition, those thousands of lone parents who have been helped into training or work would find themselves without that help in the future and would, in effect, be abandoned? Is not that the key difference between the parties?

The big difference is that we recognise that if we are to get people who have been out of work for many years back into work, extra help is necessary. That means not just the new deal, which the Conservatives would abolish, but the working families tax credit, which they would also abolish. Much of the training and education that is also essential to getting people back to work would be cut, because the Conservatives are now pledged to finding £16 billion of cuts in public expenditure. That is a false economy which would result in more people being out of work, bigger benefit bills, lower tax receipts and a return to the days of the 1980s and 1990s when a whole generation of people and their children were written off.

I acknowledge the success that the new deal for lone parents has been, although there is a danger that Ministers claim too much for it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the only specific help available to lone parents is access to a personal adviser? As he knows, the Government plan to extend personal advisers to everyone, when the working age agency comes into being. Will the Secretary of State look again at what additional help can be provided—for example, in terms of subsidised employment or access to full-time education—for lone parents?

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not only the new deal, but the tax and benefit reforms we have made—including the WFTC and help with child care, which never existed in the past and would be chopped as a result of what the Conservatives propose—which have made a big difference to individuals. The fundamental difference, when one considers all the measures that the Government have introduced, is that the culture has changed. We believe that people have a right to benefit when they are out of work, but that they also have a clear responsibility to help themselves. They also have a right to expect that the Government will help them to get back into work. All our measures would be at risk if the Conservatives were ever to get back, and the result would be more unemployment and more child poverty. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, we will continue to look at ways in which we can improve all the new deals and other measures to get people into work.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that back in March, the target group for the new deal was lone parents with a child over five, that in May, that became a lone parent with a child over three and that in June, the target became all lone parents on income support? The Government have redefined the target group to include any lone parent who calls at a jobcentre looking for work. In fact, every time he misses the target, the Secretary of State just makes it bigger so that it is easier to hit.

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is trying to be too clever by half. The new deal has been a success, as independent evaluation has shown. In the pilot projects, nearly one in three participants went into work at an average cost of £1, 300. That shows that the project is well worth the cost.

What plans he has to help lone parents to obtain the training they need to return to work. [129320]

New deal for lone parents advisers currently help lone parents into work-related training courses and pay for child care during attendance at the course. So far, the scheme has helped 16, 000 lone parents to take up training or education. Personal advisers can also offer back-to-work training through Employment Service programmes. From April 2001, we will be introducing a £15 per week training premium for lone parents taking up training through the new deal.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the phenomenal success of the Cheshire Oaks and Coliseum estates in my constituency, which is close to her own. The Benefits Agency and the jobcentre have worked with the local authority and local employers to help create jobs and to target them on people from the most impoverished part of my constituency. Does she believe that the announcement that she has just made will further assist women who are finding it difficult to bridge the skills gap, as many modern employers require?

We are doing our best, by means of other refinements to the new deal, to make work pay for lone parents, many of whom have been out of the labour market for a long time. Getting lone parents into work ensures that their children do not grow up with nothing to look forward to but a lifetime on benefit. The help with training that we are offering lone parents is part of the support that they need to get back into work.

Will the Minister confirm that, at the current rate, the new deal for lone parents will take 26 years to get the newly defined target group back into work?

It took 20 years to get 1 million lone parents existing on benefits. What is the Tory legacy? Between 1992 and 1997, there was a 14 per cent. increase in the number of lone parents on income support, compared with a 10 per cent. decrease between 1997 and today. A total of 100, 000 lone parents have got off benefit and gone back into work. We aim to continue to help those who still have not managed to make the transition—and we will do so.

What steps he is taking to help people who become disabled while in work to keep their jobs. [129321]

Under the new deal for disabled people, a number of innovative schemes are already testing ways in which both employees and employers can be helped when a person becomes ill or disabled in work. We have also announced plans for job retention and rehabilitation pilots, beginning from next year, which will test the effectiveness of early work-focused employment and health strategies.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer, but may I emphasise the need for close monitoring of the way in which Government Departments and employers work together? A disabled constituent of mine was offered a job last summer, but it has taken the relevant Government Departments and the employer until this month to get their act together and ensure that the proper adaptations for a disabled worker were in place. That case may be an exception, but will my hon. Friend ensure that the pilot schemes are monitored closely to ensure better co-ordination in the future?

May I start by paying tribute to the close way in which my hon. Friend works with disability bodies in his constituency? I was there just last week at a meeting that he organised with voluntary bodies representing the disabled.

Every penny lost through fraud means that less money goes to the genuinely disabled. What is the total amount lost in fraud on the disability living allowance? I ask this question because, according to the recent article in The Economist, the amount is now so large that the Government have stopped calculating it. Indeed, the article calculates that fraud amounts to between £3 billion and £7 billion. There are entire sleeper rings working in the Minister's Department who are garnering information, before they go out to work, to commit fraud. Is this a new form of welfare to work?

The Government are doing things to target disability benefits on those who merit them. We are, as a result, tightening the gateways. However, in relation to rehabilitation pilots, the hon. Gentleman needs to focus on the fact that every week, 3,000 people leave long-term sickness benefits and go on to incapacity benefits. Some 90 per cent. of them remain on incapacity benefits for life, although most would like to get back into work. That is what we are focusing on. We are avoiding the need for people to go on to incapacity benefits.

Along with many of my constituents, I welcome the rehabilitation pilots which will be started next year. I think that they will be very beneficial. As people in employment who become disabled are likely to need considerable health intervention and treatment, will my hon. Friend make sure that the Department of Health is working closely with the Department of Social Security to facilitate people retaining employment and retaining dignity?

The rehabilitation and retention pilots are a three-way collaboration between the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. They can work only if there is joined-up government between those three Departments. That is how they were conceived, that is how they will work and that is why we believe that we will achieve real results for disabled people.

As disability issues should not necessarily be a matter for political controversy, I am sure that the Minister will be as concerned as I am that 3,000 people a week leave the work force for permanent benefit and that the Post Office estimates that a single medical retirement can average some £80,000 of cost to the employer. In addition, there is the evidence of the report last week that ill-health retirement is concentrated in, although not exclusive to, the public sector. Will the Minister therefore bear in mind the experience of the disability pilots, particularly the St. Loyes transformation project in Exeter, which I know that he has visited, and make sure that these roll forward to adoption as soon as is practically possible? In addition, will he ensure that all those involved in providing disability advice to employees and employers have a proper, practical knowledge of the needs of the private sector and of what employers are looking for, showing them that it may well be cost-effective to retain the employee in employment and not simply to rely on benefit, which gives rise to the concerns that have been expressed from these Benches today?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken to draw a distinction between the private and public sectors. There is good practice and bad practice in both sectors. There is also very different practice between large firms which can carry people on long-term sickness benefits paid by the company, and smaller firms which cannot. The rehabilitation pilots seek to enable all businesses, whether in the public or private sector, to retain the employees they have, in whom they have invested by spending money on their training and building up their skills. At a time when unemployment is so low—the lowest level for 20 years—more and more employers want to retain people because they know that it is so hard to find others if they let employees go.

What assessment he has made of levels of poverty in the UK and other developed countries over the last 10 years, following UNICEF's recent report on poverty. [129322]

Research shows that we inherited one of the highest rates of poverty in the western world. As a result of policies that we have announced so far, we will lift over 1 million children out of poverty as well as tackling pensioner poverty.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that UNICEF's table on Britain's shockingly bad place in child poverty leagues shows that we score among the top countries for the numbers of children in lone parent families, in workless households and in households with low wages? Does it occur to him that if he were to respond positively to the siren voices of the Conservatives by abolishing the new deal for lone parents, we should sink even further down the international child poverty league rather than tackling that scandal?

The new deal for lone parents almost pays for itself, so there would be no great saving if it were cancelled. Indeed, the position would be quite the reverse. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we inherited a scandal: Britain is one of the richest countries in the world, but the number of children living in poverty trebled during the 18 years to 1997. She was also right to identify the importance of measures to get more people into work. The number of people living in workless households is falling, but it is necessary to do more, such as increasing child benefit.

The Secretary of State is right to point to the high poverty that he inherited. On 1 May 1997, many people hoped for a break in the long-term rapid growth of a divided Britain. Does he share my dismay, therefore, at figures produced by his Department last week showing that the trend continues, particularly among pensioners? How confident is he that the measures that he has introduced since those figures were published will reverse the trend and return pensioner poverty to the level that he inherited? Over what time scale will we begin to see serious inroads into the problem?

Let me deal with the point on pensioners. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the number of pensioners living in poverty has risen slightly. The reason is that although the proportion of pensioners living in poverty remains exactly the same, the pensioner population is increasing. He has not mentioned, however, that the minimum income guarantee and other measures were introduced only from April 1999 and do not, therefore, affect last week's figures.

No.

The hon. Gentleman may nod now, but that is not what he said to newspapers last week.

I am glad to hear the Secretary of State focus on pensioner poverty. I support the minimum income guarantee, which I, like others, have pushed hard in my own constituency. Does he accept, however—as I have said to him privately—that other measures such as the heating allowance are, according to the pensioners who have spoken to me, seen as gimmicks? What pensioners want, and what everyone wants for the sake of the Government's credibility, is a good, across the board increase for all pensioners. Will the Minister argue with the Chancellor for such an increase, on top of all the other measures, and when will pensioners receive it?

I shall not repeat what I said privately to the hon. Gentleman. He draws attention to the minimum income guarantee; since we launched our take-up campaign earlier this year, more than 130, 000 claims have been received, showing that the availability of the guarantee has begun to extend beyond the 1.5 million pensioners already receiving it.

What a fascinating exchange. At last, the Secretary of State admits that the number of pensioners in poverty has gone up, and his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly speaks for millions of pensioners who do not want the gimmicks; they want a reliable, basic state pension that is worth something. Buried on page 170 of the document that the Secretary of State published last week are some devastating figures. Do they not show that the number of families in poverty—with below half average income—has risen by half a million since Labour came to office? Many of those people are pensioners. Is that not a fraud perpetrated on the pensioner population?

What is a fraud is to suggest that the Tory party had nothing to do with the problems that we inherited or, indeed, to suggest that the Tories would do anything in the future. We came into office inheriting a situation in which the number of children living in poverty had trebled and almost 200 million pensioners were living in poverty. The problem arose because, whereas some pensioners saw their income go up by as much as 80 per cent. during the past 20 years, far too many pensioners saw their income go up by substantially less than that.

The Secretary of State well knows that our proposals on pensions would go to all pensioners, including those who pay tax and those who are on means-tested benefits. Our proposals are costed on that basis.

there are too many Government initiatives, causing confusion; not enough co-ordination; and too much time spent on negotiating the system, rather than delivering.

All of these things add up to a sense that the government…are somehow out of touch with gut British instincts.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the UNICEF report that is the subject of the question. When it was published two months ago, a Conservative party research bulletin was issued on the same day as the hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying:

We recognise that there is a problem with child poverty in this country…The report—

reveals shocking statistics about life in Britain for millions of children.

If he will make a statement about the take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [129324]

We have announced details of the first Government take-up campaign to identify pensioners most likely to be entitled to the minimum income guarantee, and to encourage them to claim it. As the House knows, the campaign started on 30 May with intense activity on several fronts, including a fairly long television advertising campaign in three separate parts over the summer. Furthermore, the Government will be writing to 2 million identified pensioners who may have an entitlement, based on the information we already have. Pensioners can also claim without leaving their home by calling the new tele-claim centre's freephone service.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Thora Hird for her contribution to the Government's take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee? The guarantee will increase pensions in line with average earnings and those over 75 have already seen it increase their incomes by £16 a week. Will he assure me that the pensioners of this country need to be reminded that that this is an entitlement and not a gimmick, which is what the Conservative party has said, and that it would be abolished if there were ever a Tory Government again?

My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to those, such as Thora Hird, who have assisted the campaign. In addition, Nerys Hughes has contributed to a Welsh version of the campaign and Peter Sallis has helped as well. The campaigns are having an impact, as my hon. Friend has just said. There have been 133, 000 responses to date but, as I told the Select Committee on Social Security last week, it is too early to estimate the net effect and say how many people have gained from the minimum income guarantee. We will not have a figure for that until the end of this month. So far, we have sent out 417, 000 letters, which is not a bad achievement for this stage of the campaign.

Should not the Government encourage people to make provision for their old age? How will the minimum income guarantee assist them to do that? Is it not the case that those on low incomes will see their savings set against the minimum income guarantee? The Government are therefore, instituting an active disincentive. Should they not be making quite sure that all those in retirement who have paid the stamp throughout their working lives get a decent state pension on which they can live?

It beggars belief to imagine where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last few years. The guarantee applies to today's poorer pensioners who are in that position because of the legacy that we inherited, in which the gap between the most well-off and the poorest pensioners had gone from a ratio of 2.5:1 to 3.5:1 in the 18 years that he sat sucking up to the Government whom he supported.

Is it not true that today's pensioners have made provision for their old age by paying into the national insurance scheme for the last 50 years? The cost of the contributions that they paid in increased at the high rate of inflation, but the benefits that are paid out come to them at the lowest rate of inflation. We should restore the insurance principle.

As my hon. Friend knows, we can pay the benefit only from the day on which it is claimed, and everyone knows that it is available to be claimed. We have gone out in a proactive way—and not just in television and newspaper advertising—to trawl the Department's records and we have located 2 million pensioners to whom we shall write individually.

The Minister has given us a raft of statistics about how many forms have been sent out, but will he tell us how many have been sent back and whether anyone has been paid under the minimum income guarantee since the campaign started? Does he agree with Help the Aged in Scotland that one of the reasons why pensioners are put off claiming the minimum income guarantee is that the benefits are so complex? Would it not be better for the Government to give pensioners a decent increase to the basic state pension, as we have already suggested?

I may get done for repetition—and I bear it in mind that this is probably the last time that I shall appear at the Dispatch Box with you, Madam Speaker, in the Chair. I said that we have had 133, 000 responses since 30 May and I also said, as I told the Select Committee last week, that it was too early to give the House a figure for how many people had been successful. We will not know that figure until later in the month.

I accept what my right hon. Friend says about the minimum income guarantee. Is he aware that if the prices link alone had been in place since 1948, the state pension would now be worth only £27 a week? Are we prepared to see the state pension, the basic building block of pensioner incomes, wither on the vine? Or will he rescue it by restoring the earnings link? On that subject, will my right hon. Friend remind the House who cut the earnings link in 1981? Was it the Tories, and if so, does not their pathetic posturing on pensioner poverty start to ring a bit hollow?

My hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that had the basic state retirement pension been linked to prices since its introduction, it would be nothing like as much it is today—indeed, it would be far less. If we used the pensioner prices index, the increase would be less, so we do not do that. We must look at the average of total pensioner incomes. Taking the basic state retirement pension in isolation is not a true and fair reflection of pensioner incomes, so we must look at things in the round. That is why a previous Labour Government introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme, which has allowed people on average earnings who have worked for 20-odd years since its introduction without a break in service to retire today with a pension income double the basic state pension. That is the legacy of the previous Labour Government.

What recent representations he has received on the level of the state pension; and if he will make a statement. [129325]

I receive many letters in relation to the state pension.

Does the Secretary of State regret the fact that he did not raise the state pension more when it was recently increased? That insulted pensioners, as the cost of petrol was increased more than the amount given to pensioners, thus saving his Department £90 million this year alone. Is he not embarrassed that the Conservative party is setting the agenda on pensions, and that pensioners realise that they will be better off under the next Conservative Government than they are under this Labour Government?

If anyone should be embarrassed, it should be the hon. Lady. She may not even have read her own party's manifesto, and may not recall that her party, in common with all the other principal parties in this country, stood on the commitment to increase the basic state pension in line with prices. The difference between us and the Tories is that we are doing more than that, spending some £6.5 billion more on supporting pensioner incomes than they propose to do. We are making sure that nearly half of that goes to the poorest third of pensioners, because we wanted to deal with the problem of pensioner poverty that has arisen in the past 20 years. An increase across the board would not have helped the poorest pensioners. We are reforming and strengthening SERPS, especially for those with low earnings. Frankly, when it comes to pensions, fairness and doing the right thing for the pensioners of today and tomorrow, the Conservatives have nothing whatsoever to say.

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has just said. I am delighted to hear that our party will continue to speak up on behalf of poor pensioners, which is why the minimum income guarantee is welcome in my constituency, as is the winter fuel allowance, which is certainly not regarded as a gimmick. That money is most welcome when it comes through to pensioners in December. If any Member does not want pensioners in his or her constituency to get their so-called gimmick, the pensioners in my constituency certainly need it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the winter fuel allowance of £150 will be paid before Christmas this year, as that is, of course, the time when pensioners most need the money?

Yes, this year the payment will be made in December again. My hon. Friend is right, and pensioners in Motherwell, and elsewhere, will remember that the legacy of the Conservative Government was to double VAT on fuel. The winter fuel of payment of £150, which Conservative Members intend to scrap, is of great help, especially to those on low incomes.

it is a one-off policy. It is money which is already being spent…

In a rural area such as mine, public transport does not run everywhere and the car is essential. Will the Minister answer a simple question that is frequently put to me by my pensioners? Why was the price of petrol put up on the basis of an inflation rate of 3.3 per cent., while their pension was put up on the basis of an inflation rate of 1.1 per cent.?

If there is no public transport in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I wonder whether he has explained to people that the Conservative party's policy of bus deregulation in the 1980s was largely responsible for damaging the public transport infrastructure.

How much central Government contributed to Lancaster city council in the year 1999–2000 for exceptional hardship payments for housing benefit. [129326]

We made £20 million available to enable local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to make exceptional hardship payments of housing benefit during the financial year 1999–2000. Lancaster city council's share was £79, 000, of which, I am told, it spent 3.7 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As she is aware, Lancaster city council spent only £1, 577 on exceptional hardship payments during 1999–2000, so the most vulnerable people in the area have missed out on those payments. What steps does her Department intend to take to make sure that exceptional hardship payments reach the people at whom they are targeted?

Realising that not all the money was being spent, we issued enhanced guidelines last year to encourage local authorities to use the money. They are also allowed to use another £30 million from their own resources, and clearly they are not doing that. In the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is currently going through the House, we are changing the law to ensure that if local authorities do not use the money for the hardship scheme, we will take it back from them; currently, they keep it.

If he will review the guidelines used by the Benefits Agency to ensure consistency of policy by doctors who consider reviews and appeals on disablement benefits on behalf of the agency. [129328]

Doctors do not make decisions on benefit entitlement. Reviews are conducted by trained Benefits Agency decision makers. Appeals against the decision makers' decisions are considered by independent appeals panels.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread dismay in north-west Wales—and, I suspect, elsewhere—that people who have been awarded incapacity benefit or disability living allowance, perhaps only in the past year or two, and sometimes for life, find that those benefits are being taken away from them despite the fact that their medical condition has worsened, sometimes significantly? Will he look at the guidelines that have been issued by the chief medical adviser for use by examining medical practitioners to ensure that there is consistency? It seems that some examining medical practitioners have a different interpretation of those guidelines; indeed, many of the cases in my area can be identified as arising from one person, who seems to take a very stringent view.

In the Government's response to the Social Security Committee's report on medical services, we undertook to take four steps to drive up the quality and consistency of the medical advice given by medical services doctors. One of those four targets will require Sema to provide all its doctors, within one year, with training in behaviour, attitude and sensitivity when dealing with claims and assessments for people with disabilities, mental health problems or musculo-skeletal problems. That is part of a national programme to train doctors to operate and give advice according to nationally determined standards.

Does my hon. Friend have any plans to monitor successful review and appeals decisions in order to ascertain whether such decisions relate to any particular doctor's reports?

I know that many hon. Members have suggested that, but there would be problems in tying the outcomes of appeals to the advice of individual doctors because the decision is made not by the doctor but by the decision maker. Nevertheless, it is on occasion clear to the appeals panel that the report provided by one of the Benefits Agency doctors is deficient. We have started talks with Judge Harris from the appeals service to find out whether there are ways in which he can notify our chief medical adviser when appeals panels believe that an inappropriate or inadequate report has been made by medical services doctors, so that we can take further action.

I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Is it still the case that more than 50 per cent. of appeals are successful? If so, does not that suggest that there is something seriously wrong with the initial assessments?

The proportion of successful appeals varies from benefit to benefit, but I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to get more decisions right first time. That is what our decision making and appeals procedures are doing, by ensuring that correct medical and other evidence is collected at the outset of a claim, that it is properly assessed by the decision maker, and that the right decision is made. There will always be more scope for different interpretation with disability benefits, because they are more subjective than, say, income-related ones. One can look at somebody's bank account and it contains either more or less than the capital limit, whereas decisions on disability benefits are based on the advice of a doctor about whether, for instance, a person is unable, or virtually unable, to walk. That is more subjective.

What assistance his Department is giving to help lone parents find work. [129331]

The new deal aims to make work pay, making it a practical choice for lone parents. The new deal for lone parents offers them help and advice on job-search, training, child care and in-work benefits. That is just one of a raft of measures that we have introduced, including the lone parent benefit run-on, the national child care strategy, the working families tax credit, and, of course, the national minimum wage.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply; I think that she knows that the legacy left in Plymouth by my Conservative predecessor was the poorest ward in England. Indeed, such was the poverty that one of the two Oxfam projects in this country operates in the city. I thank my hon. Friend for the programme. Will she join me in congratulating the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, which, with the active help of the local evening paper, the Evening Herald, have delivered the new deal to lone parents in such a way as to enable 238 of them to enter employment in the past year, and several hundred more to take the first steps on the pathway out of poverty, which the new deal for lone parents represents?

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the authorities in Plymouth. Their outreach programme has been very effective. I know that the Benefits Agency and various other authorities work closely together to ensure that the benefits of the new deal for lone parents are made as widely available as possible. They hire a bus, operate from community centres and playgroups and go where lone parents and their children are. That is one of the more effective ways of getting the message across.

Given the fact that, as was emphasised earlier, it would take 26 years for all participants in the new deal for lone parents to secure employment, and furthermore, that there is evidence that those outside the scheme have a better chance of securing work than those inside it, why does the hon. Lady not abandon her bluster, give up the unequal struggle, admit that the scheme is an expensive failure, and move to abolish it without delay?

The scheme pays for itself and it is successful. I will not accept counsels of despair from a complacent Conservative party which caused the problem in the first place.

If he will make a statement on the role of the social fund. [129332]

The social fund is targeted at the most needy. It provides crucial help through grants and interest-free loans to people on benefits who would otherwise have trouble affording essential items.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the decision to double the social fund maternity grant from March. Will she tell the House what impact a cut of £90 million would have on the work of the social fund? Does she agree that the fact that the Conservatives are now making such a proposal demonstrates that when it comes to paying for their policies, they are still more than ready to penalise the poor?

I can tell my hon. Friend that the current annual budget for community care grants is £100 million, so if £90 million were cut, those grants would be almost wiped out. That would mean, for example, that a pensioner who needed a special sort of bed to remain in his or her home, or a disabled child's parents who needed new bedding, or a washing machine, would find that the money was not available. The day the Conservatives announced that they would take that huge chunk out of the social fund, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is an Opposition health Front Bencher, said that it was essential that we had a social fund which could help people when they were in real need, because "every mother knew" that a washing machine was an "essential piece of kit". Yet the Conservatives would destroy that fund.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of a system of tax credits on pensioner incomes. [129333]

We believe that pensioners who have worked hard to provide for their own retirement should be rewarded rather than penalised. We intend to consult later in the year on proposals for a pensioner credit that will reward those who have modest pensions or savings.

Although it is absolutely right that the Government should do most to help the poorest pensioners, is it not true that some poor pensioners feel that they are losing out because they have modest savings or a small occupational pension that brings them above the threshold of the minimum income guarantee? Will my right hon. Friend seek ways—for example, tax credits or some other means—to reward those who make some provision for their future, and so ensure that all pensioners feel that they are treated fairly by the Government, while he, of course, continues to focus the lion's share of extra resources on those who need it most?

For years, the problem with the social security system was that it penalised those who had saved a little or who had modest occupational pensions. To ensure access to the minimum income guarantee we doubled capital limits, which as a result of Conservative policy had not been changed for years. Now we want to introduce a credit to make sure that if pensioners have built up a second pension—whether an occupational pension or a second pension under the amended and reformed state earnings-related pension scheme—they will receive the benefit of it. At present, under the system that has been in place for years, such people lose out.

If the Secretary of State is now a convert to the merits of tax credits, does he admit that the Chancellor was wrong to abolish tax credits on dividends? Does he defend the Chancellor, or does he agree with the senior No. 10 spokesman who was quoted in yesterday's press as saying:

Gordon may not accept it but lie has made big mistakes on pensions and fuel prices and sooner or later he will implode…He is poisoning relations with half the Cabinet and the sooner he goes the better…?

As far as our changes in company taxation are concerned, companies will start to see the gain as the system works through from next year onwards. That will, of course, benefit pension funds. However, so far as I am aware, the Conservatives do not plan to reintroduce the tax credit system to company taxation. If they are not going to do anything about it, a period of silence on their part might be appropriate.

I assure my right hon. Friend that in my constituency, there is great appreciation of the Government's efforts to help the poorest pensioners, who remember how they were treated by the Tory Government. There has also been a wide welcome for the establishment of a working party to consider how to assist pensioners who have small occupational pensions. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that when the working party produces a report, there will be wide consultation with pensioners and pensioners groups, such as the National Pensioners Convention, run by Jack Jones, so that we can take pensioners with us and make sure that they help us in shaping future decisions?

It is important that any change to pensions should have widespread support. During the course of this Parliament, we have made changes to the pension system to ensure that more people can build up a second pension to go with their first pension, thereby increasing pensioner incomes. An essential part of that is the pensioner credit, which is designed to help pensioners who have saved a little money in the bank, or who have a modest occupational pension. The problem with the present system is that it works for those who are very well off, and the remaining pensioners lose out. We were not prepared to put up with that. That is why we have made the changes, which I believe will result in many pensioners being far better off than in the past.

The Secretary of State heard the rant that the Minister of State directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) when he dared to suggest that the minimum income guarantee was a disincentive to savings. Does the Secretary of State at least agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said:

As more and more people in work on low wages realise the futility of saving when every penny is taken from the Minimum Income Guarantee…fewer and fewer people on low income will save…?

I see that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has now gone, leaving just six Conservative Back Benchers present for this Question Time. I shall deal with the point that he made, albeit in his absence. He said that the minimum income guarantee was a disincentive for pensioners to save. However, the minimum income guarantee is designed to help people who have already retired. Those are people who, through no fault of their own in most cases, have ended up in retirement with such low incomes that they are entitled to income support. If we abolished the minimum income guarantee, that would simply reduce the amount of money that poor people get, and that does not seem to be fair, or the right thing to do.

What assessment he has made of the extent of the problems experienced by the Child Support Agency in obtaining money from partners who are (a) domiciled and (b) resident abroad. [129337]

People who work abroad but live in the UK can be pursued for child maintenance by the Child Support Agency. Where possible, maintenance will be collected from wages by deductions of earnings orders. Non-resident parents who are not resident in the UK are outside the jurisdiction of the CSA. Parents with care who wish to seek maintenance in those circumstances must do so through the courts.

Ministers will know, through their excellent Falkirk office, that the genesis of my question lies in a poignant constituency case. What will be done about men who have skedaddled? I understand what my hon. Friend says about jurisdiction, but more could be done on reciprocity, could it not?

We have many reciprocal agreements with other countries on such matters, on which, in the circumstances, we must rely. We want the CSA to be effective, but I am not sure that we can use it to deal with men who skedaddle all over the globe.

If he will make a statement on the measures his Department is taking to reduce child poverty. [129338]

Increases in benefits are contributing more than £2.5 billion towards the extra £7 billion a year spending on families with children by 2001. That will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament.

All Labour Members are anxious to reduce and eliminate child poverty. Did the UNICEF report state that we were making good progress or that we had made a good start on reducing poverty? Is it not the case that the only guarantee from Conservative Members on which we can rely is that they will maintain and increase child poverty if they return to power?

When the Conservative party was in office, the number of children in poverty trebled. We have set an ambitious goal of halving the number of children who live in poverty in 10 years, and eliminating child poverty in 20 years. If we achieve our goal of reducing by 1.2 million the number of children in poverty by the end of the Parliament, we will be on track to fulfil our objectives.

Before I call the Home Secretary to move the Football (Disorder) Bill (Allocation of Time) motion, I should tell the House that two manuscript amendments to the motion have been tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), and that I am prepared to select them for debate.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard a little earlier that manuscript amendments had been tabled. Will you ensure that those amendments are made available to hon. Members?

I inquired about that some time ago. My understanding is that the amendments are available in the Vote Office. However, those concerned will have heard me raise my voice on this matter, and will no doubt make sure that they are.