To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for ending payments of mortgage interest for income support claimants.

None, but in the course of the long-term review, we are examining and encouraging discussion on all aspects of the benefit system.

Does not it seem a bit strange that the party and the Government who have done so much to encourage home ownership over the past 15 years now see fit to do away with mortgage interest payments—or even to reduce them—when repossessions are running at 1,000 a week? Rather than reducing the assistance available to people who are losing their jobs and who are being placed in difficulties, should not the Government be doing more to help them?

The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to my answer, which was "none". The Government have very much in mind the need to maintain an effective and appropriate safety net for those who purchase their homes.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his well-deserved new position. Sympathy is obviously required for existing mortgage holders who find themselves in, or close to, difficulties. However, as we are the party that is committed to value for money, is not it time that we drew a line and said that, for future mortgages, the taxpayer is not willing to take on such a burden because private insurance is available? People should in future take that out at the same time as they start their mortgages.

My hon. Friend has made a point with his customary force. The Government have in mind the importance of an appropriate safety net. Although insurance may have some part to play, it may well not be the complete answer to providing a safety net.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures he is proposing to combat fraudulent benefit claims.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out his Department's objectives in pursuing fraudulent claims for social service payments.

Many measures are being developed to improve the security of the entire benefit system. They include strict checks to help discover cheats when they first try to make a false claim and more use of computers to weed out frauds already in the system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has reinforced his commitment to crack down on fraud by appointing a senior official to head a special security branch within the Benefits Agency.

I am grateful for that answer. I take this opportunity to give my hon. Friend a warm welcome to the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that he has already clamped down on fraudulent claims by benefit tourists and by new age travellers? When will he do the same for payments of housing benefit to convicted prisoners and yuppies who try to avoid national insurance contributions?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I confirm that we have introduced an habitual residence test because it is quite wrong to allow tourists to claim benefits when they have no intention of looking for work in the United Kingdom. We are also introducing changes for new age travellers. It will be impossible for the unemployed to claim benefit unless they can prove that they are both available for, and actively seeking, work. As to prisoners on housing benefit, subject to certain conditions, single prisoners get housing benefit for up to a year for rent on empty houses. In response to genuine public concern about that being over-generous, we intend to limit the period to 13 weeks from next April. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has also announced that he intends to put an end to scams involving the use of diamonds and wine to fiddle national insurance claims.

I also welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I hope that he takes a lot more action on that front than his colleagues have over the past 15 years. Would not the most effective way to deal with gang attacks on the benefits system be to give everyone a free giro account? Why was such a step, which would have saved taxpayers billions of pounds, not taken 15 years ago?

For a long time, the Government have given high priority to attacking fraud, and the year-on-year savings show that that is the case. This year we have made the highest ever saving—£654 million, which is up 17 per cent. on last year's figure. As regards the hon. Gentleman's other point, we are introducing an automated benefit payments system, which will probably take the form of a card. It will stop fraudsters, help taxpayers and be good for rural post offices.

I also welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. May I ask him to commend the fraud squad at my local DSS office, which covers Lancaster and Morecambe? Although it is a small squad, it is extremely efficient and has saved a substantial sum since it was set up, all of which can be devoted to helping those who are in real need.

My hon. Friend is right, and I certainly commend her local fraud squad. Everyone in the system must remember that every pound that is wrongly claimed in benefit is a pound that is not available to those in genuine need. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing that to our attention.

Is the Minister aware that, a couple of years ago, a House of Commons Committee found that more than £200 million was lost to the Exchequer as a result of firms not passing on the tax and insurance that they had taken out of the pockets of many low-paid employees? There have been hardly any prosecutions as a result of the loss of that enormous amount of money. What steps are the Government now taking to recover that?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I take as his support for the Government's strategy on preventing fraud. We have a strong strategy, which depends on prevention, detection and deterrence, and we are now concentrating on the prevention of fraud. We shall introduce new electronic measures, more home visits and computer data matching and automated benefit payments systems. Those measures will ensure that the social security system will not be seen as a soft touch, as it has been in the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his objectives for the delivery of social security benefits; and what new initiatives he is considering to ensure sufficient delivery with reduced opportunity for fraud.

I have three clear aims: to ensure that pensioners and others can choose to be paid via the Post Office, to reduce administrative costs and to crack down on fraud. That is why in May I announced our intention to automate the process by which benefits are delivered at post office counters. That is good news for customers, good news for taxpayers and good news for post offices.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that he intends to involve the private sector in the automation of benefits delivery and that that improvement will enable those changes to be made more cost-effectively, more efficiently and more quickly and will be welcomed by sub-post offices?

I can confirm that we shall seek to involve the private sector in the introduction of the system to computerise the 20,000 post offices. It will be an immense operation. We have already invited expressions of interest, and more than 90 firms have expressed an interest in taking part in the consortia. Post Office Counters is now trying to narrow the number of those who will be invited to tender. The result will be that we shall be able to involve private sector finance and private sector expertise to get fraud savings more quickly, more efficiently and better.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the merging of income support and unemployment benefit under the job seeker's allowance will discriminate unfairly against 18 to 24-year-olds who have been in previous employment? They will have £9.55 less than they have at the moment. Is not that unfair?

I am not quite sure what that has to do with the delivery of benefits through post offices, but in the spirit in which the hon. Lady asked the question, let me say that I shall be making a statement immediately after Question Time about the job seeker's allowance. We shall bring together income support and the contributory unemployment benefit in a single structure of benefits. We shall naturally have a single structure of rates, including the lower rate for the under-25s, as is long established for those who are on income support. That is right and it reflects the lower level of financial expectations, and often of costs, of younger people and the shorter period during which they have been paying into the system.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Home Secretary's announcement on a voluntary identity card system in the United Kingdom? Would not a voluntary benefit claimant's card, for use in sub-post offices and post offices, be good news not only for the Government, as it would save taxpayers' money in relation to fraud, but for sub-post offices, which would then provide a secure route for the delivery of benefits?

Yes, the proposals to which I have just referred will probably result in the introduction of a payments card for those whose benefits are paid through post offices. It would be voluntary in the sense that if they wish to have benefits paid through the banks, they will have whatever means the banks require to identify and ensure secure payment. That sensible approach will benefit pensioners and others, and will save the taxpayer money, as about £150 million-worth of fraud should be eliminated. It is right that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should approach cautiously the issue of a national identity card, as he is through the discussion of a Green Paper and consideration of whether there is a prospect of widening the use of the benefit card. However, that is very different from a compulsory identity card, which would not be the same as my proposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to change the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991.

I have said on many occasions that the Government are keeping the policy under close review and that continues to be the case. We have no specific proposals at this stage.

I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that I have written to him in support of fathers and mothers affected by the inadequacies of the Child Support Act. Will he confirm that he and his officials met many groups over the summer and that all of them pressed the case for sweeping changes to the Act? Will he now give a commitment that such changes will be introduced as a matter of urgency, in the interests of all parts of families?

I and colleagues met several groups over the summer. However, one of the problems is that people's interests in the matter are not necessarily the same. The reforms that some people want may not be wanted by others. As I said at the start of my reply, we keep the policy under review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on Social Security is considering the matter at the moment. It would be presumptuous of us to comment on policy direction before the Select Committee has reported.

Does my hon. Friend agree that top priority must be given to sorting out the operation of the Child Support Agency? Does he also agree that policy change inevitably leads to disruption and that such changes should be kept to a minimum?

My hon. Friend has made two significant points. First, with regard to the agency's administration, it is common currency in the House that the agency's first year was not a good one, and that was acknowledged by the agency in its report. During the summer, we took steps to implement administration reforms to ensure that more people receive more maintenance and that all cases are dealt with better. There is already some fruit from that. From April this year, about 300,000 cases have been cleared, compared with just over 360,000 for the whole of last year. We are endeavouring to ensure that administration is better. We know just how much that means to all hon. Members.

Why is the agency's operation entirely inept? Why is the principle upon which the agency is operating entirely heartless and one which requires considerable transformation? Will not it be like the operation of the poll tax in respect of which there were transitional demands and transitional alterations until finally it was transformed into something else? The operation needs to be transformed.

No. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's major point, I do not think that it is wholly inept. I certainly do not think that the principle behind it is heartless. That principle has been endorsed by the House on several occasions since the Child Support Act was passed. We all want to ensure that the principles behind child support are delivered properly. That is our determination and I believed that it was the determination of the whole House.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are under the misapprehension that the CSA chases only those absent parents—generally fathers—who have paid money in the past? When my hon. Friend deliberates on the changes, will he bear that point in mind? What proportion of cases now involve chasing fathers who have paid nothing in the past? How will that change in future?

The misapprehension that my hon. Friend speaks of is appropriately raised. It has always been considered that the agency would look for those who had not previously paid maintenance as well as for some of those who had previously paid maintenance but whose maintenance payments needed to be raised. Of the 210,000 cases taken on since April this year, more than 77 per cent. involved those who have not regularly paid maintenance. We have also been pursuing 45,000 absent parents who had disappeared. I remind the House that, under the previous system, there was no mechanism for finding those absent parents, and we have been successful in 80 per cent. of cases. That is a solid gain for the children involved and for the mothers who have been looking for those fathers.

I congratulate the Minister on keeping his job in a very changed Department. [Interruption.] Perhaps commiseration is much more appropriate. Will the Minister comment on reports in Sunday's edition of The Observer that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has privately told Conservative members of the Social Security Select Committee to oppose fundamental changes to the Child Support Act? If the Government do not favour taking clean-break settlements into account, do not want a disregard for parents on benefit and do not favour changing the existing formula for calculating maintenance, what changes do they favour, or would that question be more appropriately put to the Treasury, which seems to be running the Department?

I dealt with policy in my first answer, when I said that we continue to keep the policy under review and that we must consider carefully what representations are made to us. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, newspaper comment on this topic abounds. If the Government were to take notice of every report, they would do nothing else.

Does my hon. Friend accept that I have brought cases to his notice which show that some conscientious fathers are now required to pay wholly unrealistic amounts which bear no relation to either their obligations or their means?

It is precisely because of the depth of concern expressed by my hon. Friends that we are looking carefully at the matter. The formula, which was put into place with considerable support in the House, is causing more maintenance to be paid, and that has been uncomfortable on some occasions. It is because of those cases that have appeared to be particularly hard that the Government are taking the time that they have—indeed, that is why the Select Committee has taken the time that it has—to make sure that they see the way forward clearly and carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to alleviate child poverty.

Extra help worth more than £1 billion in the current year has been directed through the social security system toward low-income families with children. The new child care disregard will benefit about 150,000 families, and through that and other improvements to family credit we are helping more than 500,000 families to be better off in work.

Does the Minister realise that while Tory Members have been dining at the Ritz, the number of children growing up in poverty has been increasing dramatically, with one in four now growing up in families for whom even an 1876 workhouse diet is too expensive? For the sake of those children and for the rest of us who are increasingly affected by divisions in society, is not it time that the Government got to grips with the magnitude of the problem?

I am sure that the House is aware that, since 1979, average income has risen by 36 per cent. It is common sense to understand that unemployment levels over the years have affected the figures for those on the lowest incomes—we know that. Therefore, the best way for the Government to proceed is through increasing opportunities for employment. That is why our unemployment rate is going down in comparison with the rate in the European Community, where it is going up. That is also why the unemployed have been protected. The hon. Lady might care to know that a couple on unemployment benefit with two children are now 24 per cent. better off in real terms than they would have been under the equivalent benefit under the previous Labour Government. If the hon. Lady supports the idea of a minimum wage, she should be aware that it is calculated to make poor families still poorer as fathers lose their jobs.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the child additions for those on income support and the new arrangements to help those caring for children to get back to work will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he continue to ensure that the House is aware of the figures which illustrate that those who are, sadly, out of work or dependent on income benefit are sharing in the increased standard of living? Will he ensure that our policies are directed not only at getting more people back to work but at continuing to protect those at the bottom of the heap?

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I said a moment ago, the benefit system has tried to protect those who still find themselves unemployed. I gave the comparison of unemployment benefit rates for a couple with two children which shows how that is done. The crucial point is to help people back into work. Other parties do not have a monopoly on that particular aspect of social welfare. For some years, the Government have seen the welfare system as an opportunity to move people back into work—we will hear more about that today—but the family credit system has been uniquely successful in ensuring that that happens. That is contributing in no small way to the improvement in living conditions for many low-paid families.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on tests for invalidity benefit.

All benefits for people who are incapable of work are subject to medical control procedures, which may include a medical examination by a doctor from the Benefits Agency medical services for a second opinion about a person's capacity for work.

Given that the report on the new tests was published more than a month late, and that there were considerable delays in issuing copies of the report to members of the public, will the Minister stick to his departmental pledge that there will be a three-month consultation period so that members of the public, including many of my constituents, who have grave concerns about the new tests can make their fears known to the Government?

It is important to ensure that the tests are soundly based, and that is why the time was taken to consider the work of the panel of 80 experts which led to the document mentioned by the hon. Lady. That has meant that the time for consultation is compressed. Obviously, it is also important that the tests come into force at the time next year that the Act states. That means that the consultation period is shorter than intended, but I hope that all who are interested will take the time available to contribute to the document and to send their views to the Government.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Can he tell the House the trend in the number of recipients of invalidity benefit over the past 10 years, at a time of improved health standards? Does not that increase lead one to suspect that some people who have been getting the benefit should not have been getting it?

My hon. Friend refers to an important point. The number of people on invalidity benefit has increased from about 700,000 to more than 1.5 million. The Government's reforms are intended to ensure that incapacity benefit goes to people who are genuinely incapable of work. The social security system should be geared to looking after people in that position, not to people for whom the benefit was not originally intended.

I welcome the Minister to his new range of responsibilities, and I welcome all the extra Ministers whom the Government have put up against the quality, if not the quantity, of the Opposition Front Bench. Can the Minister confirm that, since he belatedly published the medical test, the Government's original estimate that there will be an extra 200,000 people claiming unemployment benefit but not eligible for the new incapacity benefit is still the case? What will be the impact of the new job seeker's allowance on those people who are in receipt of invalidity benefit but who will fail the new medical test and be expected to go on to other benefits?

Yes, I can confirm that our estimates of the numbers involved are the same as before; we have had no reason to change them. Obviously, for people who are not eligible for incapacity benefit, the full range of other benefits of the social security system are available, as, indeed, they are to everyone else.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to change the system of regulation for occupational pension schemes.

Yes. Our proposals are set out in the White Paper "Security, Equality, Choice: the Future for Pensions" and we have undertaken to bring forward legislation to implement them at the first available opportunity.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities and also welcome his proposals, which will bring to millions of employees a sense of security about their retirement and encourage employers to continue to provide occupational pensions. Does my hon. Friend share my concern at proposals which would be detrimental to the interests of those on occupational pensions such as the proposals made by the so-called Commission on Social Justice?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is right to welcome our proposals in the White Paper. A recent survey by Alexander Clay and Partners showed that almost nine out of 10 companies welcomed our White Paper and the key proposals in it. They felt that we had struck the right balance between security of pensions for employees and keeping costs to the minimum for employers. As regards the Commission on Social Justice, I have not yet read its proposals in full and I need to study them with care. My initial reaction to what I have seen of them is one of disappointment as they might impose considerable costs on top of the national insurance contributions for which employers are already liable and which we opted out of the social chapter specifically to avoid. I should like to know what the Labour party thinks would be the costs of the proposals. Unless it faces up to that, it can never be taken as a serious party.

Will the Minister confirm that in his world of a deregulated labour market with constant changes of employment and patterns of unemployment and part-time work, the only suitable pension for workers is the state earnings-related pension scheme?

The Government aim to maximise the choice and flexibility in the provision of pensions. We recognise that there is a definite need for additional pensions over and above the state retirement pension, but the state retirement pension will remain the sound foundation of our pensions policy.

I join in welcoming my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. I also welcome the Government's proposals for member-nominated trustees of occupational pension schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that member-nominated trustees with time off for training and information for members will greatly safeguard the interests of members of occupational pension schemes?

Yes, I agree. It is right that members of schemes should have the right to nominate a third of the trustees as that will give them a say in the running and safeguarding of the assets of their pension fund. As my hon. Friend says, training is vital. That is why we intend to make employers give employee trustees paid time off. We do not think that it is right to prescribe that for all trustees, but we believe that it is extremely important.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what change would result in the administration costs of the social fund if loans were to be ended and the resources used for grants only.

It is impossible to make a useful comparison between the present system of grants and loans with the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical grants system. But if grants were to replace loans entirely, for the same amount of money far fewer people would be helped.

Does the Minister accept that that answer must be nonsense when in a previous answer the Under-Secretary of State said that more than 45 per cent. of the social fund was used in administrative costs and that a large part of that was due to the administration cost of giving loans? Is not the system targeted to help the poorest section of the community? Is it not nonsense to try to administer a scheme with all the costs involved and to ask people to pay back loans when they cannot afford to pay them back in any case?

The answer is firmly no. In fact, people pay back the loans. The recovery level is very high indeed. The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the force of the point that for £43 million net cost, total loans of £255 million in total are currently advanced. What might be described as the multiplier effect of giving loans increases the amount of help given fivefold. Any system that is designed to be attuned to specific needs and responsibilities is bound to be more expensive to administer.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, for a total outlay of £280 million over the life of the fund, it has been possible to offer loans of £1.2 billion? Does that not show the benefits of recycling money in that way?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has cast the figures that I gave a moment ago over the period since the scheme was introduced and they point my previous reply. By making a loans system operate in the way that we have done, we have vastly increased the amount of help given.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy in respect of the automation of benefits payments at post offices.

I intend to move as rapidly as possible to an automated system for paying benefit at post offices. That will reduce costs for taxpayers, be more secure for customers and guarantee the future of post offices.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the plans that he has announced represent a massive vote of confidence in the future of the sub-post office network and give the lie to suggestions that that network is under threat? Does he further agree that the increased opportunities available to sub-post offices as a result of those plans will allow them to win new business, thus ensuring their continued survival?

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. When I announced the proposals to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, it especially welcomed the fact that our decision to computerise post offices was the clearest possible commitment that we could give that we would continue to deliver benefits through post offices for the foreseeable future. Once that network is installed, it will open up to sub-post offices the opportunity to undertake other business through the computer system, such as the payment of electricity and gas bills, or any other business that they might be able to secure which is not possible at present. It opens up a rosy future for sub-post offices.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the majority of sub-postmasters, while welcoming the automation of benefit payments as I do, believe that post office privatisation will threaten rural sub-post offices and small post offices and that the social security claimants whom he is seeking to help by automation will find their local post offices being closed by the thousand? Why do not the Government abandon their crazy proposal for post office privatisation?

No, they mostly realise that that sort of propaganda is the sheerest nonsense. Sub-post offices are private enterprises and sub-postmasters know the benefits of private enterprise. We want to reinforce their ability to provide excellent service to their customers. That is why we are considering the proposals laid out in the Green Paper. Whatever happens, the future of sub-post offices is secure as a result of the decisions that I announced.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he will take to combat fraud in occupational pensions.

The great majority of schemes are well run. We will, therefore, impose the minimum burden on schemes and employers consistent with providing adequate security. We propose a clear framework of statutory obligations on employers, trustees and professionals, backed by a powerful regulator who will focus on schemes with problems.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that about 20 million people in the United Kingdom have rights to an occupational scheme and that that is about a quarter of all personal wealth in Britain or some £500 billion, which is a greater sum than in all the other countries of the European Union put together?

I will indeed confirm that. Our pension policy is the envy of Europe. We have given millions of people the right to build up funds for their retirement. Our proposals will be very good for pensioners and for the future economy of this country.

Do the Government accept that the major fraud in occupational pensions involved the 500,000 people who were persuaded against their financial interests to leave occupational pensions and go into personal pensions? Will the Government accept their debt in that? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, while the Prime Minister is promising to double the standard of living in the next 25 years, he is also promising to halve the value of the state pension in the same period?

Dealing backwards with that rather backwards question, the Government have always promised that the state retirement pension will be uprated in line with prices. That is a promise that we have kept and will keep.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce fraud involving order books and giros.

In addition to the measures to replace order books and girocheques which I announced earlier, we plan to improve security in advance of this by the electronic stop notice system which has been successfully tested in parts of London and is soon to be extended. The trial reward scheme for post office staff has also been extended, following the excellent results achieved in Birmingham.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a huge increase in the amount of fraud that has been stopped by the Benefits Agency in terms of both order books and giros? Is not the reason why sub-postmasters in Worcestershire have given such a warm welcome to his plans that they realise that the plans will not only help to contain fraud but will guarantee the future of their own sub-post offices?

Yes, indeed. The plan has been particularly warmly welcomed in south Worcestershire, and elsewhere in the country. Sub-postmasters are aware of the level of fraud and abuse of the archaic order book system, and they are anxious to see the move to automated payment in the interests of the wider community, as well as their own self-interest. The system will be more secure for them and for pensioners and it will be less open to fraud and abuse.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the National Audit Office expenditure on value for money inquiries relating to capital spending on buildings.

In the absence of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who is away on a parliamentary delegation, I have been asked to reply.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will the Public Accounts Commission look further, particularly at defence office block building and the enormous overruns which have occurred on so many projects such as the MOD headquarters in Whitehall?

The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, but the Committee does have the power to ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine certain projects and to come to a conclusion as to which will be the subject for examination. I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's message to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role and I hope that it will presage an unprecedented case of getting accurate answers to questions in the Chamber. Will he extend the role of the National Audit Office to look at the vast amounts of taxpayers' money being thrown away on unnecessary changes to Norman Shaw North, where a listed building is being changed irrevocably in a way which has not been consulted about and which can only damage both the fabric and the use of the House of Commons?

As I said in reply to an earlier question, that is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many staff are employed by the National Audit Office; and how many are qualified accountants.

I have been asked to reply. As at 30 September this year the National Audit Office employed 768 staff. Of these, 308 are qualified accountants and a further 124 staff are undertaking professional accountancy training.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his temporary position. Does he believe that the number of qualified accountants employed is adequate?

The staff are doing very well, in fact. Not only are the accountants taking the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy qualifications, but they are becoming chartered accountants. That means that they are able to deal with Government Departments in the same way as the leading accountancy firms in this city are able to handle such matters. That gives the NAO accountants a much greater status and standing, to the benefit of the public administration.

Would it be possible for the NAO to employ sufficient accountants and to have the authority to look into cases where Members of Parliament receive payments from outside sources, the money involved, the services provided and, for example, how much money is given for putting down parliamentary questions? In the absence of any other form of regulation, would it not be desirable for the NAO to have such authority?

As my hon. Friend says, the NAO does not have that kind of power and it would rest upon the House to give it that power, which I think might be rather difficult to achieve.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what financial provision will be made for the provision of refreshment facilities for visitors to the House.

Following the approval by the House of the Catering Committee's report on refreshment provision for Line of Route visitors, the amount of financial provision for a visitors centre will be for decision by the Finance and Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission.

Is it not an insult to coachloads of visitors, who have often got up at dawn to get here, that they cannot even get a cup of tea in the House? As Westminster Hall is some kind of mausoleum at the moment, why cannot it be turned into an open area with tables and chairs where people can get a cup of tea and a snack? In that way the House would present a warm and friendly reception to visitors instead of a stiff and snotty one.

I know that the hon. Member has been pursuing this case for many years and I pay tribute to him for that. He will recognise that the Catering Committee has recommended that the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted into a visitor centre. When that is achieved it will meet a great many of the points made by the hon. Member. That cannot be done at once, of course, because 400 people already use that cafeteria and they must be given somewhere else to eat. We cannot let down the staff and policemen of the House by not providing somewhere else for them to eat.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what progress has been made in the provision of child care facilities in the Palace of Westminster.

The Commission has arranged for a survey of potential demand for child care provision to be made available in the Vote Office. The Commission wishes to hear the views of Members and I understand that consideration is now being given to the timing of a debate on the matter.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing the publication of that report, which clearly shows that there is a demand for affordable child care facilities. I hope that, following the debate, progress will be made as quickly as possible. When I first came to this place, my youngest son was only two years old. Now he is nearly five. What is holding matters up? If the answer is finance, perhaps we could consider reducing subsidies to the bars so that money can be made available for this very important facility.

The normal way in which new or extended services are provided in the House is when the relevant Committee puts forward a proposal and the Finance and Services Committee and then the Commission consider whether it can be financed. That route is not being followed in this instance because the relevant Committee did not agree to the provision of such a service. The matter will therefore be debated in the House and the Commission will consider what to do following that debate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should improve facilities urgently for the long-suffering wives and husbands of Members of Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman has not made any specific suggestions, but if he has some I hope that he will put them to the relevant service Committees of the House.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what consideration has been given to a minimum wage for House employees.

The House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 requires the House of Commons Commission to ensure that the complementing, grading and pay of staff in the House Departments are kept broadly in line with those in the home civil service. For most staff, the rates of pay are the same as those of the equivalent grades in the civil service. Where variations have been introduced, they have been achieved through negotiations with the appropriate recognised trade unions. No consideration has been given to a minimum wage for House employees.

Is it not scandalous that no consideration has been given to this issue when people who serve us and work on an extremely low wage are hard put to it to live in London, which they are bound to do by the very nature of their work? I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman and the Commission to reconsider this issue and to consider carefully what is a fair and just wage for our employees.

The lowest rates of pay for full-time employment in the House are above any of the minimum wage suggestions that I heard put forward at recent party conferences.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be unwise to introduce a policy that is likely to put some members of staff out of work?

My earlier answer makes it clear that that would not happen. Rates of pay in the House are, by statute, linked to civil service grades, so we could not introduce a different method of determining pay without changing the statutory basis on which we do it.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what financial contribution is expected in the current and next financial year from the use of banqueting rooms by outside organisations; what account is taken of this income in the overall financial planning of expenditure on the House; and if he will make a statement.

In 1993-94, banqueting contributed a net profit of some £200,000 to the Refreshment Department trading fund. In that year, £190,000 was transferred from the fund to the House of Commons administration vote and a further £530,000 was contributed from the fund's accumulated surplus to the works vote. It is too soon to forecast those sums that are to be similarly transferred in the current and coming financial years to offset part of the cost of the Refreshment Department's agreed programme of modernisation.

Perhaps we should charge somewhat more for the use of those facilities. Are not some 80 per cent. of all the bookings of private banqueting rooms made by Conservative Members, often on behalf of outside companies? There are examples of Conservative Members using those facilities to raise money for the Conservative party. Why are we no longer allowed to ask the party affiliation of those who book rooms, and why are we not told which organisations benefit? Is that not a further example of sleaze and the fact that the Tory party does not want to give us that information because it will embarrass it?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the hon. Gentleman's allegations and assertions, I am glad to tell him that that matter is the responsibility not of the Finance and Services Committee but of the Catering Committee. I hope that he will address his remarks to the Chairman of the Catering Committee and his colleagues so that they may consider them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will consider introducing a personal identity card as one of the means to reduce fraud.

I propose to replace payment by order book and girocheque with a benefit payment card for customers who collect benefit at post offices. This should largely eliminate theft, forgery and fraudulent encashment of instruments of payment. However, most social security fraud arises from false representation of circumstances rather than false identity.

Will not my right hon. Friend's earlier answer about automation and payment of benefit at sub-post offices be welcomed by sub-postmasters? His earlier announcement presaged the fact that he might introduce a social security benefits card. Will its introduction be coupled with a consultative paper to be issued by the Home Secretary and its results taken into account when the benefit card is issued? Will not any measure that reduces social security benefit fraud be welcomed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming those proposals. I shall proceed with all speed in introducing a more secure method, probably involving a benefit payments card. That will not depend on the outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's discussions about the possible wider development of a voluntary identity card, although the proposals could be linked if that proved fruitful as a result of those consultations.

How much does the Secretary of State expect the manufacturers of those cards to earn, and how much are they likely to pay consultants to try to get the contract? Is there not scope for increased crime as a result of such cards, given that people in most cities can find opportunities to buy forged passports, car discs and driving licences? Will not the manufacture of the identity cards simply create a new form of crime?

No, that is twaddle. The present system of payment through order books is one of the most archaic and unsecure systems of transmitting money known to man. It is sensible to update it and we are looking for methods that will be more secure. We shall seek competition to keep the costs of that system down, but the system itself will save not merely large sums of money that are presently wasted through fraud and abuse but up to £60 million a year in administrative costs. That must be good for the taxpayer and I should have thought that it would be welcomed by a modern Labour party, were not so many representatives of the old Labour party still around.

I warmly support the identity card proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). In view of his 1993 Conservative party conference speech, is the Secretary of State now satisfied that no immigrants are fraudulently claiming social security benefits from United Kingdom agencies?

I am not sure that I specifically discussed immigration in my 1993 conference speech, or in any other. However, following that speech I introduced a residence test for people coming from the European Community who claim benefits, thereby putting us on a par with other countries in the Community. I know that that will please my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It will mean that we are no longer unique in handing out benefits to people who have not made a contribution to this country.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to implement changes to the sitting hours of the House.

As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and I told the House last Thursday, we have had further constructive discussions during the summer recess. In the light of those, I hope shortly to have an opportunity to discuss matters with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, to whom I offer my congratulations on her assumption of that position.

I am sure that the Leader of the House is as tired of answering this question from me as I am tired of asking it. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has given him any sign whether, like her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), she will take two years to be persuaded that progress should be made.

My hon. Friend will understand if I concentrate on repeating that I have had some very constructive conversations with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. I have no reason to suppose that the hon. Lady will be any less constructive, but I suspect that she has hardly had time to catch her breath since her appointment last week and, if she has, I have not.

Opposition Members want Parliament to work more efficiently, but also more effectively, and we shall co-operate fully to those ends. Does the Leader of the House agree, however, that in doing so we must be mindful of the need to improve accountability, especially by allowing Parliament to scrutinise more closely the activities of those quangos which are causing so much public alarm at present?

I think that the hon. Lady, knows that her supplementary question is somewhat wide of the subject matter of the Jopling report, but let us hope that whatever we are able to agree will enable Parliament to do all the things that it wishes to do as effectively as it would wish to do them.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to limit the number of oral and written parliamentary questions an hon. Member may ask; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to recommend any changes to the existing arrangements. If my hon. Friend wishes to make proposals, he might wish in the first instance to express his thoughts to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir Peter Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Question Time is a uniquely British democratic institution? Will he undertake to safeguard its adversarial nature against any pressures to reduce, terminate or tame it by the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else?

I certainly have no personal or ministerial plans to reduce, terminate or tame it, although my hon. Friend must be aware that the Procedure Committee, following many observations from various parts of the House, is currently considering the subject of Prime Minister's questions.

As early-day motions now have to contain the letter "R" beside the principal proposer, will the Leader of the House propose that those who table questions for Question Time should have the letters "FR" put after their numbers, meaning "fee received", and how much they get paid for them?

Ingenious though the hon. Gentleman's question is—I foresaw, if not precisely that question, that some effort might be made to introduce currently controversial matters—I had better fall back on the observation that I am Chairman of the Select Committee on Privileges.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when the recommendations of the Select Committee on the sittings of the House will be implemented.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce).

The House will understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman and of his opposite number, who has just taken up her job. However, will the Leader of the House remember the extremely strong views held on both sides of the House? The matter was without resolution for years and years before the Jopling Committee, let alone since. The Leader of the House indicated, without an undertaking, that at the beginning of the new Session—after the Queen's Speech—proposals would be introduced to reform the time of our sittings. Is that still his expected timetable—that something will be announced before the end of 1994?

That is very much my hope. I can only confirm it as an expectation when I have had the opportunity for discussions with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in her new position. There have been further constructive discussions during the summer. I shall look for an opportunity—I think that I have an arrangement—to speak to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on the subject.