What meetings she has recently held with (a) disabled people and (b) disability organisations.[14630]

In the past six weeks Department of Social Security Ministers and I have met more than 40 organisations representing people with disability or health problems. We regard it as a crucial part of our work to meet disabled people and disability organisations so that they can help to shape our approach of helping to get people with health problems and disabilities into work and providing support for them to stay in work.

May I tell the right hon. Lady that there is genuine anger and frustration among many disabled people and disability organisations at the perception that the Government are not keeping to their pre-election promises, not least that of a direct Cabinet post? As for the consultations that are taking place, there is a feeling that those are leading to nothing and have no depth.

There is no question of our not keeping pre-election promises. Before the election and in our manifesto, we said that we would reform the welfare state around the work ethic and that we would comprehensively review Department of Social Security spending to ensure that it conformed with our priorities to help those who can work into work and support their staying in work and to ensure that those who cannot work have the right combination of care and cash in support.

Has my right hon. Friend given any further thought to the restoration of reduced earnings allowance to the disabled former miners, steelworkers and others who had the allowance taken from them? When in opposition, Labour said that it would take little money to compensate those people, so will she consider doing that, because it is an area in which the Labour Government could make a difference?

We were concerned about the taking away of the reduced earnings allowance, which the previous Government did without giving proper notice to people who were heading into retirement. We reviewed the reduced earnings allowance, but decided that we could not restore it to those from whom it had been taken and keep our manifesto commitment to stay within our departmental spending totals. However, as we move into a situation where those who are retired get retirement allowance rather than reduced earnings allowance, we have made certain that they are contacted by the Benefits Agency and made aware of what income they will receive when they retire.

Does the Secretary of State agree with her advisory committee that there appears to be a cliff edge in benefit entitlement between those judged to be incapable of all work and all others? Does she recognize that there should be more of a continuum between capability and incapability? Might not that lead to a reform of the all-work test to enable those who are partially disabled to dip in and out of temporary, part-time or sporadic work in a way that does not prejudice their entitlement to benefit?

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point and with the point made by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is certainly true that the previous Government concentrated on people's incapacities rather than on their capacities; their disability rather than their ability and that the result was a growing number of people written off to a life on benefit. We are determined to turn that around and to ensure that if people have some capacity to work—even though they have fluctuating health problems or quite severe disabilities—our responsibility is to help them get into the mainstream and achieve a degree of financial independence by helping them to get work and supporting them in work. We are looking to reform the benefits system so as to provide that help into work, rather than simply a handout.

I was interested in my right hon. Friend's remark that the Department had to stay within its spending limit. I assume that she means that the Government have accepted the fact that they have to deal with this lousy Tory budget for the next two years—a wrong—headed decision in my opinion. The cuts in reduced earnings allowances often meant that people who had worked in heavy industry lost about £30 out of a £40-a-week allowance. May we therefore assume that after the two-year quarantine is over we will get back on the road of doing what we all said in opposition—Front Benchers and Back Benchers alike—which was that cutting the allowances was an evil act by the Tory Government which the Labour Government would put right?

My hon. Friend has asked about the first two years and thereafter. We said in the manifesto on which both he and I were elected that we would stay within the laid-down departmental spending totals for the first two years. Thereafter, we said, we would reform the welfare state around the work ethic so that we can invest more public money in opportunities and need to spend less on the costs of social and economic failure.

Will the right hon. Lady confirm how many written representations she has received on her recent social security review? Is she aware of the widespread unease about it on the part of disability organisations, which naturally feel that they are not being properly consulted? Can she reassure the House that there will be no radical changes to disability benefits until there has been full consultation with interested parties in the course of a full and formal review?

My Ministers and I are meeting the full range of organisations concerned with issues of disability on a regular and continuing basis. Not only are we discussing with them the issues that fall to us to review but we are discussing with them how they will play a part in our pilot projects under the new deal for the long-term sick and disabled. We intend to work in partnership with the voluntary organisations to invest £195 million from the windfall levy in pioneering projects to help people into work. So not only are we talking to the organisations concerned with people with disabilities but we are working with them to shape and test our projects.

If she plans to announce proposed changes to the state old-age pension system before the Christmas Adjournment. [14631]

We have no such plans.

I am grateful for that answer. Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the much trumpeted stakeholder pension was one of the central planks of his party's election manifesto? Will not the public be disappointed that there has been no concrete action to date? Since 2 May, have not the activities of the Department to which the Minister belongs been largely characterised by personality clashes, turf wars and a supine acquiescence in the dictates of the Treasury, which removed dividend interest tax relief, to the detriment of private and company pension holders?

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The first phase of consultations on the pensions review has produced a consensus not just on the need for low-cost, value-for-money, flexible stakeholder pensions but on the possibility of introducing them—which the previous Government signally failed to achieve. We will consult shortly on the further details of the stakeholder pension, but the truth is that since the Government were elected, low-cost, value-for-money second pensions for people who cannot join employers' occupational schemes have moved from election policy to something that can be turned into concrete reality.

May I point out to my hon. Friend the need to raise awareness among the public at large of pension provision, especially in the private sector? Has much progress been made during the pensions review regarding a widespread education programme on pensions, especially for people at the start of their working lives?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that we increase knowledge about and understanding of pensions and that individuals are empowered to take the right decision for them about their pension provision. That is why we established a pensions education and awareness group, drawing on governmental representatives and the private sector, which will report in January on the best way for us to improve pensions knowledge.

How do the Government explain their double standards? Before the general election they promised pensioners that they would identify those who were losing out and ensure that they got everything to which they were entitled, yet now, apparently, part of the Government's plans for pensioners—who very often are the people who find it hardest to claim benefit—is to refuse to allow them to claim benefits, including income support, backdated by more than one month.

We have already taken action to initiate research into why 1 million pensioners do not receive the income support to which they are entitled. We need to undertake that research so that we can modify and modernise the social security system to make it work more effectively. Equally, we must simplify and modernise the social security system so that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled at, or as close as possible to, the moment they can claim them. Allowing many people not to claim their benefits for a long time is not the way to run the system. We need to establish why pensioners are not claiming and to ensure that the system makes it easier for them to claim.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the review provides the chance to get rid of an anomaly—it is a problem that occurs year after year—regarding the non-index-linked parts of the pension, such as the £10 Christmas bonus and the 25p extra for 80-year-olds, that has existed for about 50 years? Does not the review give us the chance to remove those problems from the system permanently?

The Christmas bonus and its future value is one of the topics that are under discussion with the national pensioners convention as part of the wider review of all the forms of income that pensioners receive.

What assessment she has made of the impact of the single room rent rules for housing benefit for recipients aged under 25 years. [14633]

We are currently gathering information from a wide variety of sources to assess the national impact of these changes which we inherited from the previous Government. We will keep them under review. We revoked the regulations laid by the previous Government, which would have extended the rules to people over 25 years of age.

You have had six months now to do the review. How much longer is it going to go on? Will you accept from me that—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak through the Chair. It is not "you". He has been here six months now.

Does the Minister agree that the Government have had six months to do the review?

The Department has commissioned research on this matter and we are taking information from a sample of local authorities throughout the country. We are also receiving direct representations from a number of organisations and a number of reports have been commissioned on that aspect. We hope to be in a position to report on those matters early next year.

Why does the Minister think that the position of 26 and 27-year-olds is so different from that of those just under the age of 25? Specifically, does he believe that it is right that anyone should be supported on benefit in a better level of accommodation than their working counterparts on modest wages can afford, living on their own?

There is clearly a cost differential between the under-25 and over-25 age groups. We are determined not to extend the mean-minded measure put in place by the previous Government for people aged between 25 and 60. We are reviewing the position for those who are under 25 and will report on our findings early next year.

What proposals her Department has to encourage lone parents to find employment. [14634]

In July, the Government launched the new deal for lone parents in eight areas of the country. It will be rolled out nationally in October next year. The new deal is a pioneering programme that recognises and backs lone parents' desire to work and it is the first step in our plans to reform the welfare state around the work ethic.

Will the Secretary of State apologise for spinning a story about a one-in-four success rate in the pilot project for the new deal for lone parents whereas, as is revealed in today's The Times, the success rate was one in 20? Is she alarmed by the report from the United States that her policy is doomed to failure while that of the Minister of State is more likely to succeed?

I shall answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question first and then return to the first part.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Government's abject failure to enable lone parents to return to work was to the detriment not only of those families but of the nation's purse? For example, this year's £100 million housing benefit bill has been escalating. Does she further agree that, by helping lone parents into work, the new deal will release some resources for those in greatest need?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was not just that the previous Government left lone mothers on benefit, written off to a life on benefit dependency; worse still, they stigmatised them and used them as scapegoats for all society's ills when they criticised them once a year at the Conservative party conference. The pioneering programme that we have established within six months of coming to office backs lone parents in their desire to work for a better standard of living for themselves and their children. They tell us that they do not want to depend on benefit but would rather work, which is why they welcome the hand up that we are giving them instead of simply a handout.

The welfare-to-work programme and the jobseeker's allowance—particularly the jobseeker's allowance, which is proving a success—have at their heart a compulsory element: they compel people to take up jobs. From recent reports in the press, we learn that that is even being considered for the new deal for lone parents. Will the right hon. Lady come to the Dispatch Box and confirm or deny those reports? Will she tell us whether compulsion will form any part of the new deal for lone parents during the lifetime of this Parliament?

Compulsion is not the issue for the new deal for lone parents. The hon. Gentleman is muddling up two things. We are clear that when young unemployed people are offered—as they will be by this Government—a choice of high-quality training and work, they will be expected to take up those opportunities and that the option of a life of full dependence on benefit is not available to them. In respect of lone mothers, the hon. Gentleman need only read our manifesto, which says that we will invite lone mothers whose youngest child has started school to meet their new deal personal advisers. Compulsion is not the issue. Lone mothers are being invited in.

If she will make a statement on the role of the pension provision group. [14635]

As part of our wide-ranging review of pensions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed the pension provision group to provide her with an independent analysis of the current state of pension provision in the United Kingdom and of likely future trends.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the appointment of the pension provision group provides an opportunity to deal with the mess that we are in, with today's pensioners having inadequate resources and tomorrow's pensioners not saving adequately to meet their needs? Does he agree that we have the opportunity to provide for today's and tomorrow's pensioners in a way that will make real progress, rather than merely grab cheap headlines?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the critical roles of the pension provision group will be to identify the groups that face retirement on low incomes because they are unable to build up an adequate pension. That is also why we hope that it will provide the essential background to take forward our case for value-for-money stakeholder pensions, to bring better value-for-money, flexible pensions to those who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme at present.

In the new spirit of openness and contrition that affects the Government, will the Minister make it clear whether any members of the pension provision group have bought their place in it by donations to the Labour party?

No.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, when considering the work of the pension provision group, to ensure that future pensions policy takes account of the rapid changes taking place in employment and family structures? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the providers of personal pension schemes who, while claiming greater flexibility for their product, are penalising their contributors who are subsequently offered the opportunity to join an occupational pension scheme?

My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. The world in which pensions have to be delivered for the future is changing rapidly. For example, the number of large employers offering final salary occupational schemes is declining and there is a need for better pension provision for those in the more modern and flexible work force. Pension mis-selling was a scandal, and I am extremely grateful for the measures being taken by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to clear up that matter. It is also clear that, in the future, people must have access to value-for-money, flexible pensions that do not penalise them if, for example, they change employment or must alter their pension provision after a relatively short time in a pension scheme.

Does the Minister accept that, while the pension provision group is conducting its deliberations, many pensioners will be suffering from cold and inadequate heating this winter? Does he accept that it is perfectly obvious why most elderly pensioners do not claim benefit and that we do not need lengthy research to discover the reasons? Does he agree that immediate action, such as an increase in the addition to pensions for the over-80s, would be an immediate and constructive response that is guaranteed to reach pensioners in need?

It is essential that we establish why a million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they are entitled: we must have that information if we are to move forward. A series of measures—including the cut in VAT on fuel, the reduction in the gas levy and falling fuel prices—will enable vulnerable groups, including pensioners, to heat their homes this winter.

In his earlier answers, the Minister quite understandably attacked pension mis-selling and reiterated the importance of pension funds being sufficiently strong to guarantee the payment of earnings to retired people. Will the Minister send a message to Scottish local authorities which estimate that, in the next financial year, they will have to find £36 million in additional contributions to pension funds in order to compensate for the cut in tax credit on advance corporation tax introduced in the Budget in July?

The tax change introduced in July was part of a series of measures designed to promote long-term investment in the British economy that will improve the future of British firms and, most important, generate the wealth from which future pensions can be paid. We shall consider the situation of local authorities at the appropriate time.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that the operation of the pension provision group is of great concern to the women of this country. Therefore, can the Minister tell me what input into the workings of that group will be made by the Minister for women who, since her belated appointment, has been conspicuous by her absence from the Dispatch Box—and is conspicuous by her absence again today? Is she part of the Department of Social Security team? Will she have any input into the pension provision group or any other policy area, or is she the invisible woman?

I make it clear that three women serve on the pension provision group—Ruth Hancock, Joanne Segers and Anne Wood—and represent the wide range of experience and knowledge that will be brought to bear on the group. Women's pension rights are a central concern of the pensions review, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear when she launched the review in July. We have made it perfectly clear that closing the pensions gap between men and women is one of the fundamental challenges of the pensions review.

What estimate she has made of the number of new claims by lone parents for income support in financial years (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [14636]

The Department estimates that there will be 350,000 awards in both years.

I am grateful for that reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister for Public Health, who claimed that many poor women smoke because they feel that their lives are hopeless? Does he believe that the many lone parents who are unable to find work will feel more or less hopeless when their benefits are cut?

I am sure that all of them will feel more hopeful because this Government have a positive, proactive policy that is helping them back to work—unlike the previous regime.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which to reduce the number of lone parents who are forced to claim income support is to provide available and affordable child care? What plans does he have to improve that provision as part of the new deal?

The Government are developing a national child care strategy, which will be implemented during the life of this Parliament. Each of the single parents coming forward for interviews is seeking that information and being given it.

Can I press the Minister to confirm that, notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said, of the 8,600 letters that went out in the pilot scheme, 75 per cent. —about 6,600—of the people who received them did not bother to reply; and that, of the 1,600 people who went to see a personal adviser, only 433 have gone into a job, which is about 5 per cent. of all those who were contacted?

The answer to the first of a series of questions is that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Of the people who were invited to attend, three quarters responded and, of those who responded, a quarter are already in work. I thought that the Opposition would support that. My views vis-a-vis Lawrence Mead are made very plain in the document that the hon. Gentleman is holding.

What steps she is taking to make benefit information and advice available (a) by telephone and (b) electronically. [14637]

Local offices are trying to improve their telephone services. We have advice lines for family credit, for pensioners and for sick and disabled people and their carers. We want to modernise the social security system, so we shall explore all possible ways to use new information technology to improve the speed, accuracy and accessibility of benefit advice.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the Conservative party lost the election of 1 May not simply because it consists of a bunch of sleazebags but because the Conservative Government were the architects of the dependency culture, which has left too many citizens in Britain without a sense of right and control over their own lives? If she tries to telephone some of the plethora of numbers that she has inherited, she will find that she will need a Ph.D in code breaking to understand them or get through. Will she consider setting up one 0800 freeline to cover all social security inquiries, and also consider a form of smartcard so that citizens, who have as much right in times of trouble to help from other citizens through the state benefit systems, have some control over their lives? We should break the dependency culture, which is the most wicked of all the wicked inheritances from the Conservative party.

Yes, I shall consider having a single benefit advice line. We need to modernise the delivery of services, and that means the right mix between telephone advice and face-to-face advice, and also advice that people can access without being face to face—through kiosks and computer software. One of the things that we shall also look at is how we can deliver information and benefits using new technology so that people do not have to go from pillar to post giving the same information five different times and then having to work out how all the different answers fit together. Modernisation of the delivery of social security is long overdue.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most cost-effective ways of getting information to claimants is through citizens advice bureaux, where volunteers give advice in a very professional way? However, very often citizens advice bureaux have to struggle year on year for funds, both core funding and funds to run themselves. Is it not in the interests of central Government to provide further assistance to citizens advice bureaux?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Department of Social Security does not give grants to voluntary organisations. However, we are working in partnership with citizens advice bureaux on a pioneering project on how we can use new technology to share information between the Department and voluntary organisations. It is designed to ensure that those organisations that give advice to claimants have the most up-to-date information and can settle those claimants' queries. We believe that, whether such claimants turn up at a benefits office, citizens advice bureau or other advice centre, they are entitled to receive full, accurate advice promptly.

We would all welcome the modernisation of the forms that people are required to fill in and we would welcome any kind of modernisation that means that people can get accurate information quickly. However, will my right hon. Friend remember that many of our constituents still have the old-fashioned idea that speaking face to face to a human being is infinitely preferable even to the best organised kiosk with a computer in it? It will be a long time before the people whom my right hon. Friend is talking about will be happy if they do not receive personal service.

We want to ensure that everybody receives personal service, but the question is whether it is the right sort of service. We know that some people want face-to-face advice and information, and we are considering that option. Some people want to be able to talk to someone direct. Other people do not want to go into the benefits office or wait there to talk directly to someone because they would rather sort it out on the telephone. A third category wants neither to talk to anyone on the phone nor to see anyone face to face, but to access the system. The key to modernisation is a personalised service and flexibility. It is not a matter of considering the people about whom my hon. Friend or I am talking, but providing the right range of services so that people can receive the services that they want in order to get the advice that they need in a manner with which they feel most comfortable.

Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the Secretary of State pay some attention to the variable quality of the personal advice given at different offices? I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience as me when constituents have complained that they have been to various offices several times and only on the fourth or fifth visit to a particular one have they been offered a constructive suggestion by someone which makes all the difference. Can we have some system whereby staff are encouraged to take a constructive attitude towards trying to help people? I am sure that many of them do so, but some do not.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which relates to a number of different issues.

What plans she has to move towards the harmonisation of the social security system of the UK with its European partners. [14638]

The Government have no such plans.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the statement made by the Minister with responsibility for pensions that there is a need to integrate an efficient social protection system throughout Europe? If there are no such plans, what did that mean? If that statement is correct, does it mean that, if pensions were integrated throughout Europe, we might have to forgo our national pension fund, which is probably larger than the rest of the pension funds of Europe put together? Or would it mean that we would have to pay more to assist countries that had not made prudent pension provision, or even both? Would the right hon. Gentleman comment?

The Government have no plans for harmonisation. That does not mean that we do not consider carefully the evolving social security agenda to discover where the British interest lies and to advance it. We are giving particular attention to three areas. First, we want to ensure that, if pensioners move between countries, they are not put at a greater disadvantage vis-a-vis their occupational pension than they would have been if they remained in their own country. Secondly, we are examining the position of migrant workers to ensure that, as they move between two countries, they do not pay taxation and social security dues in both. Thirdly, we are interested in how the single market rules will operate for the transference of pension capital. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as I used to say when I was in opposition, this country has an enormous advantage in that area.

What is the current average response time by Child Support Agency offices to inquiries for reviews submitted by (a) individuals and (b) hon. Members on behalf of constituents. [14639]

No figures are available on average response times but, in the current year, 86 per cent. of reviews have been cleared within 13 weeks, and 99 per cent. within 26 weeks. We are not complacent about the state of the Child Support Agency. In June, the Government announced that we were looking closely at all areas of the child support system to ensure that the CSA is consistently fair and efficient. We aim to move forward with our final proposals on the CSA in the first half of next year.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he appreciate that Members of Parliament often have to request reviews on behalf of their constituents because the initial assessment is inaccurate? Will he give us the latest figures on the accuracy of first assessments?

I am unable to give the hon. Lady that figure today, but I shall write to her. We are not complacent about the accuracy of initial assessments. We have put extra money into the child support system to ensure a more efficient and effective service on behalf of all our constituents. I assure the hon. Lady that that will continue to be our resolve. We shall examine all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it works in the way that we expect it to, and in the interests of our constituents.

I welcome the Minister's enthusiastic efforts to improve the system that was introduced by the previous Government, which many of us believe is administered incompetently. It is a cock-up. Does he agree with many hon. Members that the Child Support Act 1991 is the most infamous, iniquitous Act that has gone on the statute book since the poll tax legislation? Administrative incompetence, together with the injustice in the system, adds insult to injury for thousands of conscientious parents, and brings financial distress to many second families throughout the country.

I thank my hon. Friend, because I know that he has taken a great interest in these matters throughout the period that the Child Support Agency has been in existence. We are reviewing all aspects of the agency, and we shall publish our plans for it early next year. I hope that the problems that my hon. Friend has identified will be addressed as a result of those proposals.

Does the Minister agree that, when a review has been successfully concluded and it is deemed that an overpayment has been made, that money should be reimbursed in a short time? Does he accept that three months is too long before that money is repaid? Does he agree that overtime should not be included in an assessment, especially when it is seasonal?

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I should point out that a third of absent parents are still not paying, and we must ensure that those payments are made. However, I have noted the hon. Lady's comments and I recognise their force. I assure her that we want an efficient organisation of the Child Support Agency, so that such overpayments are repaid in the time that she suggested.

What assessment she has made of the benefits of calculating future pension increases on the basis of the rise in average earnings. [14640]

We are committed to increasing the basic state pension at least in line with prices. Pensioners can be reassured that, for 1998, we are meeting that commitment. The basic state pension—including its value—the state earnings-related pension scheme and other issues of concern to pensioners are being considered as part of our pensions review, which will report in the first half of next year.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the great achievements of the last Labour Government was the linking of pensions with either prices or earnings, whichever was rising faster? As a result, pensioners enjoyed a much higher standard of living under that Government. The last Tory Government cut the link, thus robbing every pensioner of more than £1,000 a year. Does my hon. Friend accept that a high basic state pension, linked to earnings, is cheap to administer, is fair, and will do a great deal to eliminate the disgraceful levels of poverty that many older people have to endure?

As we said in our manifesto, we want all pensioners to share fairly in rising national prosperity. We must take into account all the sources of income that enable pensioners to share in national prosperity—pensions from the state, pensions from non-state sources, benefits, savings and other forms of pensioner income—and we will do that in the review.

Will the Minister confirm that the review will consider re-establishing the link, either partially or wholly—possibly for all pensioners, or even just for those who start receiving pensions after the review is complete? What will be the range of the review in that context?

Our manifesto makes it clear that all aspects of the basic state pension—including its value—will be considered in the review.

What plans she has to ensure that appeals by benefit claimants are dealt with more speedily. [14641]

If she will make a statement on ways of improving social security appeals. [14645]

We are determined to reduce the current delays and complexities in the appeals system. On 9 July, we introduced the Social Security Bill, which paves the way for the creation of an active, modern social security system. The Bill includes several measures that will enable us to provide a quicker, simpler and more efficient appeals service for customers. The Secretary of State will take personal responsibility for the administration of the appeals system, will set and publish demanding targets to shorten the time that it takes for appeals to be heard, and will report on the results.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the social security benefits system inherited from the last Government is in crisis? Does he further agree that the sheer number of people who depend on benefits and the harshness of the regime introduced by the last Government are resulting in too many appeals, long waits and the clogging up of the independent tribunals service?

The disability review will be completed early next year.

I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to improving the appeals system. It is indeed slow and inefficient and causes a great deal of distress, not least to the staff who must administer that inherited system. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with staff and their representatives, and how soon will they be reassured and involved in the system?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the concerns that she has expressed on behalf of staff. I share those concerns because, during modernisation of the social security system, there are always anxieties about the way forward, but I assure her that I shall continue to have constructive discussions with trade unions and staff representatives as our plans for streamlining and modernising the social security system unfold.

What is the comparative administrative cost of distributing (a) means—tested benefits and (b) benefits which are not means-tested. [14642]

The administrative cost of income-related benefits is 7 per cent. of benefit expenditure. The administrative cost of all other benefits is 2.5 per cent. of benefit expenditure.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, superficially, means-tested benefits are attractive because, from a Treasury point of view, globally, they cost less money? However, there is a trap within every means-tested benefit as there is no incentive for the individual to escape from that means test. Does he agree that, in the longer term, it would be good to phase out as many means-tested benefits as possible?

Yes.

If she will make a statement on the Government's plans for pension sharing. [14643]

Pension sharing recognises the contribution that both women and men make to a marriage. The Government are committed to introducing pension sharing for divorcing couples from April 2000. We are working in partnership with the pensions industry, family lawyers and others, and plan to publish a draft Bill for consultation. That is an important step in our programme of modernising the pension system to improve the income of women in retirement.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and particularly welcome the announcement that the Government are honouring their commitment, made in opposition, to introduce legislation on pension sharing. Is he aware that many women experience much discrimination with regard to pensions? For example, women are less likely than men to have a good second pension and they are more likely than men to be poor in retirement.

My hon. Friend is correct. Introducing pension sharing is one measure that the Government intend to take to improve the position of women in retirement. The development of stakeholder pensions will enable women who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme to have access to a better value, funded second-tier pension. We are also exploring the possibility of introducing a citizenship pension to enable people, particularly carers—who are most likely to be women—to gain additional pension rights to reflect the fact that they are unable to contribute to a funded pension because of their caring responsibilities.

What changes she proposes to make to child maintenance assessments by the Child Support Agency; and over what time scale. [14644]

The Government believe that all children are entitled to the support of both parents, whether or not they live together. The Child Support Agency was established to ensure that absent parents meet and fulfil their responsibilities. Although there is some sign that the agency's performance may have improved since its early days, there is still a very long way to go before public confidence in it reaches an acceptable level. We are therefore examining all aspects of the agency's work, with a view to ensuring that it provides a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients. As I have already said, we aim to come forward with our proposals on the CSA in the first half of next year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, today, child assessments are much more realistic than some were in the early days of the CSA? Nevertheless, does he agree that disappointment among both parents with care and parents without care is still high, mainly because of the slow speed and inaccuracy of assessments, and that the feeling among parents is that their individual circumstances are not taken into account? I welcome the review, which I hope will result in changes, but they will clearly take some time. Cannot guidance be given now to try to iron out at least some of the major inconsistencies in terms of speed and inaccurate assessments?

Clearly, the change in the form, which was introduced some time ago, is having an impact and is being welcomed by both parents with care and absent parents. I have noted carefully my hon. Friend's comments on the way forward for our review. In the meantime, we continue to work closely with CSA staff and the chief executive to ensure that delays, inaccuracies and inefficiencies are addressed. Work will continue to restore public confidence in the CSA.

Does the Minister agree that one of the problems faced by the CSA is that incorrect information is given to it, particularly by absent parents? That information is often fraudulent to avoid proper payment. Three parents with care came to see me at the weekend about exactly that. When he is reviewing the agency, will the Minister consider creating some offence whereby avoiding payment by a fraudulent statement is prosecutable?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. No one would condone misinformation being supplied to the Child Support Agency or the taking into account of fraudulent acts during the process. I shall look carefully at the way in which the process operates and shall ensure that, when we present our proposals for reform, the interests of the child, which are the most important part of the CSA's work, and the method of ensuring that maintenance is paid for the benefit of the child are properly taken into account.