To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on support for single parents. [9028]

Last week, the Government launched the first stage of our welfare-to-work programme—our manifesto commitment to implement a new deal for lone parents. This is a pioneering programme which marks a radical new approach to welfare, bringing work, skills, opportunities and ambition to all those who until now have been left behind.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. In my constituency of Harlow, 60 per cent. of lone parents are unemployed, not through choice but because of the inadequacy of child care support. Is not adequate child care support absolutely essential in helping lone parents move from benefit into work? In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend explain how the Government intend to restructure the single regeneration budget to aid that process?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that lone parents want to work rather than be dependent on benefit, but many of them say that they would be more likely to get work if there were more child care. That is why we promised in our manifesto that we would have a national child care strategy, which we have already started to implement. As well as increasing the child care disregard in family credit, which gives extra cash help to mothers moving off income support and into work, we have, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, said that, for the first time, child care provision will be an important focus for funds from the single regeneration budget. The new priority that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has given to child care as part of economic regeneration is evidence that we are putting child care at the heart of our economic strategy.

That was a statement.

It was much too long an answer.

With regard to lone parents who are unable to get off welfare and into work, and of whom there will presumably be several hundred thousand even after the new deal, will the Secretary of State confirm that, from next April, new lone parents on income support will have to live on £5 a week less than existing lone parents? What effect does she think that will have on the standard of living of the children in those families?

The hon. Gentleman well knows the proposals for the lone-parent premium and the one-parent benefit, which were debated in the House last week, but the clear message from lone parents is that they do not want to live on full-time benefits. They want to be in work, financially able to support themselves and their children. Our new deal for lone parents has started with an invitation to all lone parents with children of school age for an interview with a personal adviser, but, even in the first week after the launch of the new deal in eight areas, one of the things that have struck us—I shall report further to the House as the scheme proceeds—is how many of the lone parents who have rung up were not those who were invited, but those whose children are under five but who also want to be able to work rather than bring up their children on benefits.

The Social Security Bill which we debated last week will implement a Conservative proposal to reduce the level of child benefit for lone parents. Even though the right hon. Lady opposed it previously, she is now pushing it through, but the point is that there is still a proposal to reduce the premium on income support for lone parents, which requires secondary legislation. Will the right hon. Lady tell us when she intends to introduce that, or does she have some other plans?

That proposal will be brought forward shortly.

When?

I have answered that question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to improve services to claimants by sharing information within her Department relating to claimants. [9030]

Improving services to claimants to help rebuild public support for the social security system is central to our plans to reform the welfare state. It is unacceptable that claimants have to give the same information over and over again to different parts of the benefits system. Through the Social Security Bill, we shall take steps to remedy the matter.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her answer. Time and again, people have come to my surgeries in despair at the amount of time and energy that they are wasting in trying to find their way through the very complex and inefficient system that we inherited from the previous Government. Will she confirm that, on average, some people who appeal against decisions must wait six months for a decision, and that, in some cases, they must wait up to two years for a hearing? What will she do to tackle that intolerable situation?

My hon. Friend raises two important points: the amount of time that claimants must waste in providing the same information to different parts of the social security system; and the fact that claimants must, on average, wait six months before their appeal is decided. In many cases, those appealing against a benefit decision do not receive a decision for more than two years, and that is totally unacceptable. One of the objectives of our Social Security Bill is to cut the time required for people to have an appeal heard and decided.

Is not one related problem the amount of time required for claimants to reach benefits offices on the telephone? Does the Secretary of State have any proposals to improve communications between members of the public and her offices? If so, will she institute a review into the matter?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government need thoroughly to modernise the relationship between the social security system and claimants, and we intend to do so. The way in which the social security system currently operates—requiring claimants to provide, time and again, the same information to different parts of the system—wastes the time of staff and claimants and taxpayers' money.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of improving services to claimants would be to guarantee that they will have ready access to Benefits Agency offices? Is she aware that there is concern that, if the Government—as anticipated, under what is called the prime scheme, the private sector resource initiative for management of the estate—announce that they will dispose of benefits offices as heritable property and lease them back, it will be the prelude to a rationalisation process in which Benefits Agency offices will be closed? Will she give an assurance that that will not happen, and pay attention specifically to the needs of claimants in rural areas, who are sometimes already far removed from the nearest Benefits Agency office?

We are absolutely determined to modernise and improve social security services, not only for those who live in towns and cities but for those in rural areas. The opportunities provided by extended telephone use and new technology mean that there is no reason why claimants should have to waste half their lives trying to deal with different parts of the system. We are ensuring that we shall improve the system so that it wastes less time for claimants and staff, wastes less money for taxpayers, provides a prompt and efficient service and makes the right decision the first time.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's drive to reduce paperwork in the benefits system. Will she also consider the needs of disabled people who, under the benefit integrity programme introduced by the previous Government, are required to fill in a 33-page questionnaire? If they do not, a home visit can then be followed up by a tribunal. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether that is really necessary, especially in the light of reports from my local disablement information and advice line office, which is inundated by cries for help from disabled people to whom it cannot always respond because of the sheer weight of paperwork from the Benefits Agency?

My hon. Friend raises two points. First, he referred to people with disabilities being required to fill in dozens of different forms that require the same information and then having to repeat the exercise. I addressed that in earlier answers. We share his concern, which affects people claiming benefit as a result of disability as well as pensioners and the unemployed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to increase the number of people with fully funded second-tier pensions. [9031]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post as social security spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. As part of our pensions review, we shall examine ways in which we can further support and strengthen the existing framework of occupational pension provision where that is necessary. We shall consult widely on our proposals for stakeholder pensions that will offer secure, flexible and value-for-money funded second pensions for those who cannot join an employer's occupational pension scheme. They will be particularly aimed at those on low earnings or with intermittent patterns of employment, for whom personal pensions are usually unsuitable.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks and for his support in general for second-tier pensions. Does he agree that it is certainly regrettable that the Chancellor in his Budget introduced measures that will discourage people from taking out fully funded second-tier pensions?

Pensions are a long-term investment and they depend on the success and the strength of the economy. It was therefore right for the economy and for future pensions provision that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took measures to remove biases against investment and to increase the level and quality of long-term investment. That will produce the wealth on which pensions can be paid in future.

Is it not time to do something for pensioners such as those in the Bellings pension fund scheme who will not get what they paid for because of the fraud that was committed by the former directors of the scheme? When they retire, those pensioners will get only about 30 per cent. of what they expected.

My hon. Friend is right to raise that problem. The new regulatory authority for occupational pensions came into operation at the beginning of April. I hope that the measures in the Pensions Act 1995 will strengthen the protection of pension scheme members. However, we shall take stock of the practical workings of that Act to identify any areas where further improvement is necessary.

Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents thought that they had fully funded pension schemes until 2 July and they are now affronted to discover that they have lost 15 to 20 per cent. of the benefit of those schemes? Is he aware that my constituents are furiously angry that the Government are now promoting second pensions when the Chancellor removed many of those benefits on 2 July?

Those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who have defined benefits schemes will have their benefits protected by the schemes. Those in personal pension schemes who are approaching retirement would in the normal course of events have already seen their investments switched away from equities either automatically by some providers or, in other cases, on the advice of financial advisers. In any case, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the performance of the stock market since January, as that should give him some reassurance.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that some of the hardest-working people in the country are not in the waged economy, but are carers for elderly people and for others with disabilities? They are often denied access to a decent pension. What plans does he have to ensure that carers in Britain—our most responsible citizens—can have a decent old age with a decent pension?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that some people work hard for society, but are not in a position to pay into a funded second pension. That is why, as part of our pensions review, we shall consult widely on our proposals for a citizenship pension, to explore ways in which those who exercise responsibilities as carers can develop rights to a decent second pension and avoid the fate of retirement on to means-tested benefits—a prospect which faces far too many people today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if her Department will write to those people with personal pensions informing them of recent or prospective changes to their pensions. [9032]

The package of measures in the Budget will promote an environment in which pensions will flourish. It will encourage investment, stable economic policies and sustainable economic growth. Pensions are a long-term investment. Responsibility for advising policy holders lies with individual providers and financial advisers, within the guidance offered by the regulators.

The Minister should be able to answer my question more quickly than that—a simple yes or no will do. In view of what he has just said, do the Government welcome the fact that a number of companies are considering whether to move from final salary pensions to money-purchase pensions?

Many factors govern the decision of employers as to what type of pension scheme to offer. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there was much speculation before the Budget about whether schemes would switch to contracting out on a different basis. I am sure that he agrees that what matters is the quality of the pension on offer, rather than the detail of the scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's new deal proposals to help lone parents into work. [9033]

Our manifesto committed us to introducing a new deal for lone parents. That has already begun in eight areas, including Sheffield—in which my hon. Friend's constituency lies—where it is offering hope and opportunity for 10,000 lone mothers on income support, who are bringing up 20,000 children.

I welcome the Government's programme of removing the barriers that prevent lone parents who want to work from doing so. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that a lone parent who finally takes a job but who then, for reasons that were unforeseen initially, cannot continue with that employment will not be financially disadvantaged relative to their previous situation?

There is no question of people being penalised if they leave their work. Lone parents who go to work are, on average, £50 a week better off than they were on benefit. That is why so many of them want to work. Part of the job of the personal advisers to lone parents, who have been appointed already in eight areas, including Sheffield, is to assist lone parents when they start work, helping them to get their child care and benefits sorted out and advising them during their first few weeks and months in work to ensure that they manage to keep their work rather than falling back to income support.

Bearing in mind the fact that some of those who pay taxes for such child care are low-earning families, which group of lone parents does the right hon. Lady think will benefit from the extension of the child care disregard from £40 a week to £100 a week?

The child care disregard is designed to increase the affordability of child care, as part of our national child care strategy. We want more people to be trained with child care qualifications to improve the supply of child care workers. We also want to increase the number of child care places. We shall do that through the single regeneration budget, as a start, and with funds from the midweek lottery. That will benefit not only lone parents, but low-income families in which the woman is working and wants to ensure that her children are safely looked after while she is at work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects the review of the reduced earnings allowance to be completed; and if she will make a statement. [9034]

We have completed the review of reduced earnings allowance. Those affected by the transfer of over-pension-age recipients of reduced earnings allowance to the retirement allowance 16 months ago were harshly treated by the previous Government. Many people lost up to £30 a week in benefit with little or no advance warning, and without the transitional protection which we proposed at the time.

Well, I am very sorry to hear that answer, particular given that my hon. Friend described the situation in which such people were left as harsh. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to me in a letter last year that those people had been left in an appalling situation. We are talking about 20,000 people, many of whom live in the poorest parts of the country. Certainly in Wales, many are widows and living on very low incomes. They have already taken a 75 per cent. cut in their income through the withdrawal of the reduced earnings allowance. If it was wrong last year, why is it right this year?

I have recognised the hardship caused by the previous Government's action. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise the difficulty in putting right every single injustice perpetrated by that Government. To restore reduced earnings allowance to those who are transferred on to retirement allowance would cost about £45 million a year and would require us to cut expenditure elsewhere. This Government have not been afraid to take the difficult decisions necessary in order to stick within our manifesto commitments.

As the Minister fairly said, it was right that those who were about to retire should receive advance warning of changes of plans. Where, therefore, in the Labour party's manifesto will pensioners and future pensioners find a reference to advance corporation tax?

I am not clear whether that was a substantive question. If the hon. and learned Member wants an answer, perhaps he will table a substantive question, to which I am sure that he will be given a response.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact of the welfare-to-work proposals as they affect single parents. [9035]

The new deal for lone parents offers help to every lone parent with school-age children to give them support and advice to help them off benefit and into work. Following the launch on Monday in the first eight areas of our new deal, we shall monitor progress in those eight areas and report back to the House.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that, in my constituency of Peterborough, 22 per cent. of families with dependent children are single parent or lone-parent families? Does she, like me, deplore the comments of Conservative Members, especially those of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has tended to blame single parents for all the evils in society rather than the disastrous policies of the previous Government? Will she be prepared at some time in the future to visit my constituency so that she can tell lone parents how Labour's policies will benefit them?

I shall certainly visit my hon. Friend's constituency and talk to the personal advisers who are working with lone mothers there. She is right to remind the House that the previous Government simply blamed lone parents. They left 1 million on income support, bringing up 2 million children, which left those families with a low standard of living and the taxpayer with a high bill. That is why we have a welfare-to-work programme to improve the standard of living for lone mothers and their children.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the best way in which to deal with differentials in income in our society, as identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies today, is not by increasing rates of taxation or introducing penal rates of taxation but by helping people who are not in work to get back into work?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The best way to deal with inequality in income is through education and work opportunities. Those are the findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies report and are two key planks of the Government's policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the reasons why pensioners do not claim income support. [9036]

Our review of pensions is looking at the central areas of pensions insecurity for elderly people. Pensions are of key importance to people's lives and it is vital to build a sustainable consensus on the way forward so that everyone can look forward to a secure and dignified retirement.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that an estimated 1,150 pensioners in my constituency do not take up pensions? When I contacted my local DSS office, I was told that it had no strategy to encourage the take-up of pensions. Is it not the case that pensioners have no choice, contrary to what the Conservatives claimed when they were in power, and that we need a strategy to ensure that people who feel that a stigma is attached to means-tested benefits are encouraged to take up their entitlement?

My hon. Friend is right. The previous Administration took the view that the only explanation for non-take-up was choice by poor elderly pensioners. The figures that she has given from her constituency show why it is so important that we understand the obstacles that those pensioners face in claiming the benefit so that we can examine ways forward.

Does the Minister understand that the main reason why pensioners do not claim income support is that they are not eligible for it because they receive a second pension? Therefore, will he confirm, as a matter of simple fact, that the value of the pensions—which millions of personal pension plan holders looked forward to receiving—were substantially devalued by the Chancellor's smash-and-grab raid on 2 July?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in both assertions. Pensioners who are entitled to income support but who do not claim it do not have a second pension or, if they do, it is not enough to take them above income support level. The hon. Gentleman would do better to express some concern about why that situation exists, as we are doing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some pensioners do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled because the Conservative party created a culture in which people believe that anyone who claims benefit is a scrounger? What we need to do is to persuade pensioners that, far from scrounging, they are claiming something for which they have paid all their lives and on which they have a legitimate claim.

My hon. Friend is right. One of the problems that we have to overcome is the legacy of 18 years in which everybody who claimed any benefit was labelled a scrounger. That is one of the reasons why proud elderly people are reluctant to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.

The Government's aim is to encourage pensioners to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. How does that square with the nasty and vindictive clause 70 in the Social Security Bill which will reduce the back-dating claim time from three months to one month? If more pensions are claimed, what assessment has been made by his Department of the amount of public money available and how much has been set aside to meet those claims?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already set out, in last week's debate on social security, why we intend to have a social security system that operates efficiently and effectively in the interests of those who use it. That is what we shall do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about the priorities of the Minister for Women. [9037]

My priorities as Minister for Women are to open a new dialogue between Government and women, and to deliver the Government's commitments to women. We have already established a powerful Cabinet sub-committee for women, which will meet for the first time this afternoon and will put women's concerns at the heart of the Government. The sub-committee will ensure an effective cross-departmental approach to issues of concern to women.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many women feel more disconnected from politics and government than men do? At the election, 101 Labour women Members of Parliament were elected, compared with 13 Tory women and three Liberal Democrats. What will my right hon. Friend do to build on the opportunity of by far the largest representation in the House that women have ever had to make politics and government more relevant to women?

My hon. Friend is right. Women feel more disconnected and alienated from the work of political parties and Government than men do. Now that we have the opportunity provided by the presence of an unprecedented number of female Labour Members of Parliament, it is our responsibility to establish a new dialogue with women. We can do that in two ways: through better communications with women's organisations and by reaching out to women across the country by new means—deliberative opinion polls, citizens' juries and representative people's panels. Many women see no reflection of their views in the House of Commons, and no connection between their lives and Government. The new Labour Administration will put that right.

Where in the priorities of the Minister for Women will come the case of the child carer in my constituency who tells me that, as a result of the changes in the Budget, she will now have to contribute an extra £20 a month to a personal pension scheme?

Many people who took out personal pensions were hard done by at the hands of the last Government, whose policy allowed people to be encouraged to opt out of good occupational pension schemes and to be mis-sold personal pensions. Many of those people have not even been compensated for their loss of income in retirement. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about increasing the connection between the work of Government and women in his constituency.

Is the Minister for Women aware that, at the last general election, more public schoolboys than women stood as Labour candidates? What steps will she take to increase the number of women Members on the Government Benches?

The last general election was a great step forward in terms of women's representation. We have an unprecedented number of women Members. We still have further to go, however. We want to ensure that women understand that their views are listened to in Government. I am not referring just to women on the inside track, or women involved in organisations, but to all women. For 18 years, we had a Government who thought that women's demands were there to be resisted and ridiculed, but all that has now changed. Opposition Members should recognise that the tide of opinion has moved past them on this as well as many other issues.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact on the state earnings-related pension scheme of the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit. [9038]

The Budget measures will encourage stable economic policies, sustainable economic growth and the long-term performance of investment and of British companies. Companies providing occupational pension schemes will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax and other measures announced in the Budget to encourage investment. The advance corporation tax credit change will have no direct impact on SERPS, which is not a pre-funded scheme.

Now that the Labour Government have increased the cost of pensions by more than 15 per cent., do they intend to encourage or compel people to save for second-tier pensions? If so, why should people do that when they do not know whether a Labour Chancellor will rob them yet again in the future?

Opposition Members are not in a good position to talk about the value for money that people receive from their pension schemes, given the large number of people who lost out through the mis-selling of personal pensions—which the last Government encouraged—and the high fees and charges that have been visited on many people with low incomes and intermittent earnings through personal pensions. When we carry out our pensions review—in which we shall consider ways of extending the coverage of value-for-money funded second-tier pensions—we shall set out to ensure that savers get real value for money for their hard-earned savings, and can benefit from that when they retire.

Has not the Budget removed the unfair circumstances in which people in SERPS did not have the advantage of a handout from the taxpayer, unlike those with personal pensions? When examining new pension schemes, however, would it not be better for us to build on the advantages of SERPS? At worst, 2 per cent. of its charges are spent on administration. Could not that advantage be built on with a new, funded SERPS, since in the case of present private pensions at least 25 per cent. of charges are spent on administration? Would it not be better to build on SERPS, as a funded scheme, rather than go into private pensions?

My hon. Friend asked a lot of questions, which I doubt whether Madam Speaker will allow me to answer in full. In our manifesto, we are committed to retaining SERPS for those who want to remain in it. Clearly, it is for individuals to decide which is the best form of provision for them. My hon. Friend is right to focus on a central issue, which is whether people will get value for the money that they put aside as savings. How will that be reflected in their final pension and will they feel that they have had a good deal at the end of the day? It is clear that many people who have set out to save for their pensions in recent years do not feel that they have had a good deal for the money that they have put aside.

The hon. Gentleman knows from previous statements that the changes in the Budget affect the rebate, which will affect SERPS and is likely to leave people in SERPS rather than wanting to come out. On that basis, will he say once and for all whether the pensions review will consider SERPS in total and whether, if it concludes that SERPS should be phased out, the Labour Government will do so? Or, will they stand by their manifesto commitment to do no such thing?

Our pensions review will study the future of all second-tier pension provision, but the statement made in our manifesto is clear. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the rebate. I must point out to him that his Administration spent about £17 billion more—largely from the national insurance fund—to encourage people to opt out into personal pensions, than will ever be saved in the future on SERPS expenditure. I can assure him that we will aim to protect the integrity of the national insurance fund as we take our review forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to improve services to those claiming incapacity benefit. [9039]

In our terms of reference for our comprehensive spending review, we announced that we would review the purpose and nature of all the major components of the social security system, including sickness and disability benefits. A key priority will be to simplify the complex system of provision for sick and disabled people, which includes incapacity benefit, with particular emphasis on removing the barriers in the system that currently prevent people who are able and wish to work from doing so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government's approach to disabled people and those with long-term ill health was simply to write them off as unemployable, when many of them would value the opportunity of a job? Does he agree that the country really needs a Government who are committed to looking at people as individuals and not as statistics, and who are looking to give everyone who is able to work the encouragement and opportunity to do so, to provide a better life for themselves and their families?

My hon. Friend is right. Through no desire of their own, many sick and disabled people are trapped in a benefits system that encourages sickness and encourages people to stay out of work. We aim to remove the barriers inherent in the system, which prevent people from maximising their ability to work and will, therefore, be developing similar welfare-to-work proposals for the sick and disabled to those already announced for lone mothers.

Will it not be more difficult for people to claim incapacity benefits as a result of the stricter medical tests proposed in the Social Security Bill?

We all agree that the procedures that we use should be fair and that there should be a proper assessment of an individual's capacity for work. The focus should be on assessing that capacity, rather than having a benefit system that simply says to so many people, "All the incentives are to make yourself unavailable for work."

Following the Minister's point about fairness in the system of allocating incapacity benefit, will he give me some advice that I can pass on to those of my constituents who previously received incapacity benefit and whose health has not materially improved, but who have lost incapacity benefit and now find that they have to wait nine months for independent tribunals to examine their case?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I hope that we will enjoy his support during the passage of the Social Security Bill, one of whose aims is to simplify and streamline the system of appeals and appeal determination, while retaining the essential elements of independence and fairness.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received concerning the social security fraud hotline. [9040]

Of all the representations the Government have received, only one letter has been critical of the fraud hotline.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that the social security fraud hotline was a successful initiative by the previous Government? To enhance its success in future, will he ensure that British Telecommunications plc and other telephone book operators allow prominent display of the hotline in their pages? Will he also have discussions with BT and other public phone box operators? I cannot go past those boxes without failing to notice that they seem to be packed full of cards advertising all sorts of interesting and unusual services—I hasten to add that I am not interested in using them myself. Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the companies to clean up their act and ensure that the social security fraud hotline number is given a prominent position in all public phone boxes in the country?

During the Attlee Government, a Minister was asked a whole series of questions to which he replied: yes, yes, no, yes, but not necessarily in that order. The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions are: yes, yes and yes.

Is the Minister aware that when the hotline was established during the previous Parliament, I rang and complained about the fraud committed by Ministers—the then Prime Minister, the then Secretary of State for Social Security and a number of others—who in so many ways undermined pensions and social security provision? When I gave the names of the Ministers concerned, including that of the former Prime Minister, I was told that those complaints could not be taken up. My views on the subject remain the same, as, no doubt, do my right hon. Friend's.

I presume that the Department got my hon. Friend's letter muddled and included it as the one complaint against the hotline, so the answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that the Government have received no complaints about the fraud hotline.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the feedback to people who have made a complaint? They see neighbours apparently defrauding the system and then have no way of knowing that action has been taken. I recognise the problems of sub judice and confidentiality, but will he look carefully at ways of ensuring that there is proper feedback, or at least that everybody is told that every case is looked at? If prosecution follows or someone is found to be at fault, surely the public should be told what action has been taken.

Yes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for getting the long-term unemployed off social security benefits and into work. [9041]

By the middle of next year, the Government will bring on stream two policies aimed at helping the long-term unemployed back to work. There will be a job subsidy for that group. In addition, those wishing to participate in up-to-year-long education courses that are related to their work aspirations will be allowed to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. What work is his Department doing in conjunction with other Departments to ensure access to high-quality—I stress, high-quality—employment opportunities for my constituents and to move away from the rag bag of often Mickey Mouse schemes to which they were subjected by the Conservatives?

The Government's intent is clear: we are aiming for high-quality employment opportunities. If people gain opportunities in the private sector, the chances of their long-term employment prospects being enhanced are greater and that is where much of our effort will go.

Does the Minister agree that one way of helping people into work is through family credit, which is paid as a benefit, often to the mother? Does he also agree that that contrasts with tax allowances or the earned income tax credit, which are payable to a person in work, often the father? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his strong arguments when he was in opposition in favour of giving the benefit to the mother rather than the tax allowance to the father? Is that still his view?

Given the views of the hon. Gentleman, clearly when one sinner repents, there is great delight in heaven; when two repent, goodness knows the extent of the enjoyment there.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on welfare reform relating to social security tribunals. [9042]

We are determined to reduce the current delays and complexity in the appeals system. On 9 July, we introduced the Social Security Bill, which paves the way for modernising the delivery of social security. The Secretary of State will assume responsibility for the administration of the appeals system; set and publish demanding targets for the appeals service to meet; and report on the results.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full and honest reply. If we are to have a modern, efficient and fair system, does he agree that the Social Security Department needs to do more to ensure that people take up the benefits to which they are entitled? What action will his Department take to ensure that all those who are eligible receive that to which they are entitled? Can he assure me that action will be taken as quickly as possible?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. We want to introduce a modern, efficient and effective social security system. We also want to ensure that everyone is aware of his or her rights and that the information they require to ensure that they take up their entitlement is available to them. We will debate those matters as the Social Security Bill goes through the House and I assure my hon. Friend that his points about take-up will be considered then.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received from organisations representing lone parents on the impact of the welfare-to-work proposals announced in the Budget. [9043]

The national lone parent organisations—Gingerbread and the National Council for One Parent Families—have warmly welcomed the new deal for lone parents, which we announced in the Budget. They are working with us on that programme as it gets under way.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome given by lone parent organisations in my constituency for her new deal for lone parents which she launched in my constituency last week? Will she also consider, however, that some parents are still experiencing difficulties, namely, those who work anti-social hours and who therefore have to use informal kinds of child care, which at present are not eligible for the child care disregard? Will she take that into account when considering the effect of her scheme?

Certainly, we shall need to look at the opportunities available for child care and combining it with work governed by inflexible hours. As my hon. Friend will know, we are establishing a national child care strategy which will help to improve the affordability of child care through the child care disregard. That strategy will also help the provision of child care through after-school clubs, which will be funded by the national midweek lottery, and the provision of more places in those clubs and at nurseries through the use of the single regeneration budget.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to change benefit entitlement for those aged 16 to 25 years. [9049]

We want to ensure that all young people are in employment, training or education rather than dependent on benefit. That is why we are planning to replace youth training for 16 and 17-year-olds and enhance other opportunities for such young people. Through our proposals in the new deal, we shall be investing in the future of the young jobless aged 18 to 25, helping them to improve their employability and allowing them to participate fully in the labour market.

Can the Minister tell the House how young people who have been excluded from benefit for periods of up to two or four weeks and who are unable to find employment are expected to live during that time?

Our priority is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to take up one of the four options available in the new deal. The arrangements will ensure that every support and opportunity is given to young people to take up one of the options. We shall pursue that with the Employment Service at that time to ensure that those opportunities are available to all 18 to 25-year-olds.

Can the Minister give an absolutely clear account to the House of how the additional £200 million welfare-to-work moneys will be spent—how much on the 18 to 25 programme, how much on the raising of the earnings disregard, how much on training child minders? There is considerable suspicion in many quarters that the Secretary of State for Social Security has already spent the available £200 million several times over.

The hon. Gentleman may be muddled in his figures. The £200 million relates solely to lone parents and the help and support that they will be given. They will be given support by personal advisers, who will consider possibilities and career prospects for them. That money will help with child care, which is essential if lone mothers are to return to work, and all the other arrangements that will be necessary. The £200 million is in the first phase of our roll-out programme to help lone parents to get back to work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the availability of value-for-money pensions for those on low income. [9050]

Occupational schemes provide good-quality second pensions for half of all employees, but some personal pensions can be poor value for those on low incomes and with intermittent patterns of work. As part of our pensions review, we will consult widely on how best to take forward our proposals for stakeholder pensions to ensure that those without good-quality occupational pension schemes have access to secure, flexible, value-for-money second pensions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what the people of Scarborough, Whitby and the nation need is a flexible second pension, which will mean that they need not rely on a means-tested pension when they reach old age, and that they can have a proper standard of living and afford a proper existence in retirement?

My hon. Friend is right. His constituents and many other people throughout the country want an end to the situation whereby, if they join a pension scheme for a few years and then have to leave work, a high proportion—in some cases 50 per cent. or more—of their savings can be eaten up by fees and charges and is not available to provide a pension when they retire. If that happens, they are likely to be in poverty on retirement and the state is likely to have to meet, through means-tested benefits, the cost of providing them with a basic level of financial support. That is why I believe that our proposals are so important and long overdue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will change the system of benefit payments in respect of mortgage interest payments to monthly payments. [9051]

We are undertaking a general review of housing benefit and housing finance, but, at the present time, we have no plans to change those specific arrangements.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, although there may be no immediate plan to make a change, if he discusses the matter with benefit officers it will be found that there will be tremendous advantages in making 12 payments annually instead of 13 four-weekly payments, which cause great confusion to the recipient and to the bank or building society concerned?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. As part of our general modernisation of social security, we shall study any method that streamlines the system. I am grateful for his comments on that matter, and can assure him that I will include it in the general review of which I have spoken.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the changes she has announced relating to the Child Support Agency. [9052]

As indicated when we recently debated the Child Support Agency, we intend to look closely at all aspects of the work of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service. Our key objectives for the agency during the coming year are to sort out cases faster, tackle the backlog of work and pursue fathers who avoid paying. With this in mind, an additional £15 million a year will be invested in the agency from 1998–99 specifically aimed at getting more absent parents to pay. This is expected to result in an extra £121 million in maintenance payments.

Can the Minister state precisely how the £15 million will yield the £120 million extra savings which he just said it would yield?

That money will be used across the board to improve the efficiency of the Child Support Agency. We shall look particularly at out-of-hours work, including the telephone system, to try to ensure that people have better access to the agency so that their problems can be sorted out quickly and efficiently, and to ensure that parents pay the maintenance that they should pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were on income support at the latest available date. [9053]

In August 1996, nearly 5.6 million people were receiving income support, almost double the number in 1979. That is the legacy which we inherited from the previous Administration. We now have the opportunity for a fresh start. Most people who are capable of work want to work. We shall modernise the social security system to help them do just that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one thing the Government will have to do is ensure that work is provided? We cannot get work out of thin air. We can modernise and privatise those offices until the cows come home, but there are large areas of Britain—inner cities, old coalfield areas and other ex-industrial areas—where literally 30 or 40 per cent. of the people are without work. Many are on income support and not on unemployment benefit. The Government must turn their attention not only to welfare-to-work schemes but to providing work.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As a Member of Parliament representing an inner city, I recognise the problems that he identifies. We need to re-skill, re-educate and ensure that real opportunities in employment are available throughout the country. We need to look particularly at areas that have been devastated by the previous Administration's policies.