I was told that about 4,000 letters had been sent out, and around 400 phone calls came back. Those who sent the letters were at pains to ensure that there was no mention of any Government Department. The logo refers only to the new deal. For disabled people, receiving a letter from a Department is distressing and stressful. Many phone calls came from people who said, "Thank you very much for writing, and the scheme sounds very interesting. If only it had been available 10 years ago, it might have been useful to me, but I do not think that I am able to participate now."

The people who have responded did so voluntarily, and they are receiving an excellent service. Even so, interviewing people with disabilities such as mental health problems is stressful for staff. I asked one of the team, an occupational psychologist, what her work was. Most of it, she said, was in assisting the team dealing with disabled people. Sometimes it can be extremely stressful if a person who suffers a mental illness needs a lot of time.

I am concerned that we could, if we are not careful, throw out the baby with the bath water in this new scheme. If teams who interview people have to spend much of their time on enforcement rather than offering a good service, the scheme could prove counter-productive. I believe that Ministers are well aware of that fact, and they have talked to the team that I met and to people who have experience on the ground.

A briefing sent to Labour Members in 1995 pointed out the insecurity that compulsion causes among disabled people. It said that changes from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit meant:

"more insecurity -- both for existing claimants who might become ineligible for any benefit, and for anyone concerned about their long term security should they fall ill."

It referred also to the difficulty of having one test intended to cope with complex disabilities, particularly mental health disabilities. My Front-Bench colleagues are aware of those issues.

I shall vote with the Government tonight, largely because of the answer that I received to a recent parliamentary question about compulsion. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security wrote that the requirement for compulsion "will initially affect only the 12 Single Work-Focused Gateway pilot areas and will be introduced in ways that take account of individual circumstances. The evaluation of the pilots will enable us to consider whether to extend this approach more widely." -- [Official Report, 31 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 840.]

The Government is aware of the pitfalls and they will go about the process carefully.

In so doing, I urge them to listen to the staff who will have to implement their policies and ensure that they are comfortable with having to implement whatever element of compulsion is eventually decided upon.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Has my hon. Friend discussed the proposal to curtail widows benefits with the Minister for Women? I understood that it was Government policy to involve issues concerning women's disadvantage in the mainstream of Government policy. Even when women are working full-time, they earn far less than men, and the disparity is greater the older they are. Given those facts, are the proposals not discriminatory against women?

Mr. Timms: I can reassure my hon. Friend that our proposal has the full agreement and assent of every member of the Government, including the Minister for Women. National Insurance contributions records for women are catching up with those of men.