What plans she has to link state pensions to whichever of prices or earnings is rising faster. [23052]

The future uprating of the basic pension is being considered by the pensions review. In the meantime, we have met our manifesto commitment to uprate it at least in line with prices.

Many of my hon. Friends will recall that during the general election campaign, we often sat with Labour candidates who made all kinds of promises on pensions. Does not the Minister feel humbled in the face of the fact that the Government have been unable to live up to the promises made on many platforms? Once again, pensioners and future pensioners realise that their pensions are not safe with a Labour Government.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am immensely proud of the Government's unprecedented action to deliver £200 million of winter fuel payments to all pensioner households.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government need to prioritise the case of the 1 million pensioners who are entitled to receive income support but who, for one reason or another, do not claim? What measures will the Government take to provide additional assistance to that vulnerable and important group?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Government have made it clear that the poorest pensioners, including those who do not receive the income support to which they are entitled, will be our priority. That is why we have already initiated research into why pensioners do not claim that support. From April, we shall initiate a series of pilots to determine the best ways in which to get help to those pensioners.

Is the Minister aware that there is unprecedented anxiety among millions of old-age pensioners and those who are looking forward to receiving their pensions in a few years' time on the basis of their many years of national insurance contributions? Will he address that great concern and give us an unqualified assurance that the Government will not means-test the basic old-age pension and will continue to index it?

There is no question of the Government's not honouring our manifesto commitment to uprate the basic state pension at least in line with prices. We have already met that commitment.

If she will make a statement on the progress of the review of pensions. [23053]

When she expects to announce the outcome of the pensions review. [23066]

On 1 July, I announced the pensions review that we promised in our manifesto. We have already received more than 2,000 submissions. The next stage will be the publication of our proposals, which will be in the first half of this year, and consultations will follow.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the biggest challenge facing the Government on pensions is the need to provide decent second-tier pensions for the 12 million people who are in work yet not in a company pension scheme? Does she further agree that we face that challenge because of the lamentable record of 18 years of Conservative Governments who, unbelievably, chose to try to encourage people to opt out of good company pension schemes in favour of fundamentally flawed private pension plans?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We face two challenges relating to pensions: one is the situation of today's pensioners, and we have said that the poorest of them must be our priority; but we are also determined—this is why we have our pensions review—to ensure that today's people at work, the next generation of pensioners, retire not on the basic state pension and means-tested benefits, but on the basic state pension and a good second pension. For many people who do not have access to occupational schemes, the only alternative has been private pensions, which have eaten up too much of their savings in administrative costs. That is why we issued our consultation document on stakeholder pensions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of a change in the computer system, many new pensioners have their pensions incorrectly assessed and often get less than the full allowance to which they are entitled? Will she take urgent action to resolve that situation and publicise her plans for the future? As part of the review, will she take action to ensure that such things do not happen again?

Of course, we are concerned that pensions are paid accurately and promptly. We are always concerned that the system delivers that. I shall look further into the matter and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman or find some other way of reporting on it to the House. There are a number of problems with the administration and delivery of pensions. The system needs to be modernised so that it gets it right first time, and all pensioners receive the income to which they are entitled.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that pension inequality has widened dramatically over the past 18 years and that if things carry on as they did under the previous Administration's policies, inequalities will continue to widen, with the poorest pensioners suffering the most? With the cut in VAT on fuel, the zero rating of the gas levy and the winter fuel payments, have not the Labour Government done more for pensioners in the past six months than the Tories did in the past 18 years?

My hon. Friend is right. Overall, the average income of pensioners has increased, but that masks the fact that the incomes of pensioners at the bottom of the income scale have increased by less than half as much as the incomes of those at the top. There is a widening divide in pensioner income inequality. We are determined to address that, which is why we have said that our priority will be the poorest pensioners. We have already taken steps to address that inequality, and we shall look further at those issues in the pensions review.

Have not the right hon. Lady and the Government done all that they can to create a shambles on pensions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer plundered pensions through his changes in advance corporation tax, much to the dismay of the Minister for Welfare Reform. Everyone has had to switch back into the state earnings-related pension scheme, which the Minister for Welfare Reform has said that he wants to abolish in the long term. What is the Government's policy? Are they going to sustain SERPS, encourage private pension provision or carry on with the present muddle?

We have said that, in addition to the basic state pension, we want to improve second-tier pensions and make them accessible to all. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts in his allegations against the Government. The shambles on pensions came not from us but from the previous Government, who presided over growing inequality in which the poorest pensioners were left behind. They instigated the policy of mis-selling personal pensions and left hundreds of thousands of people uncompensated. We are acting on that. They left many working people with no opportunity to pay into a good-value second-tier pension. We are addressing all those issues. What is more, instead of doing it on the back of an envelope like the previous Government, we are having a proper consultation through our pensions review to build a consensus for the long term. That is the way to do it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that among the poorest pensioners are those who lost their health working in industries such as coal mining and slate quarrying and their widows? Will she join me in welcoming last week's court announcement that compensation will be paid to coal miners and their widows for emphysema and chronic bronchitis? Will she give an assurance that this time, the needs of slate quarrymen and their widows will be taken into account?

Everyone in the House will welcome the fact that, at long last, justice will be done to those whose health suffered through working in coal mining. Many people will wonder how it was that so many people ignored for so long the warnings about how working in coal mines can seriously damage health. It is a timely warning to us to ensure that workplaces are safe from accident and disease. I shall draw the attention of my ministerial colleagues to the right hon. Gentleman's point about slate quarry employees.

In answer to an earlier question, the right hon. Lady said that she was a great supporter of occupational pensions and accepted her party's manifesto pledge to support them. Last week, however, the Government did a U-turn on pensions because they announced that they had increased the national insurance rebate after having said that it had no effect. They did so because people were having to opt back into SERPS as a result of the chaos caused by the Budget and the announcement of the abolition of ACT dividend credit.

We have done no U-turn. No pensioner has been mistreated by the Government. We sought and considered the advice of the Government Actuary, who, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is there to advise on such matters. We took his advice, which was—as reported in a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—that there was some risk that some people might be advised to opt back into SERPS. We considered the Government Actuary's advice and we changed the rebates. That action was a normal part of the process, and we acted promptly and correctly. It is important not only to make an immediate and appropriate response but to address the long-term problem, and ensure that we have a strong economy and a high level of investments. Thus we can ensure a good return on people' s second-tier pensions in the future. Our approach has been based on that aim.

The right hon. Lady has failed to answer the question that I asked her. As a result of the mess that the Government got into at the Budget, is it not a fact that the change to the national insurance rebates will cost the Government £500 million over the next five years? Does she accept that? Will she answer that Question, and apologise?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second question. He will know that the Government Actuary's responsibility is to advise the Government when, from time to time, it is necessary to adjust rebates. We sought that advice and acted properly on it. The important thing is to ensure that in the longer term we have the right level of investment to sustain the growth of second pentions. We have taken the right action.

How many families are in receipt of family credit in (a) Monmouthshire and (b) Wales. [23054]

Figures for Monmouthshire are not available. The latest available figures for the Benefits Agency offices in Newport and Cwmbran reveal that there were approximately 4,000 families receiving family credit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that family credit is equivalent to the taxpayer subsidising bad employers, especially in Wales, the land of low pay? Does he further agree that the introduction of a national minimum wage will reduce expenditure on family credit and reduce the incidence of poverty pay, as well as the inequality between men and women in the labour market?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Government's proposals on a national minimum wage are so welcome throughout the nation. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the immense amount of work that he did on behalf of low-paid workers before he entered the House. The national minimum wage will address that issue.

Will the Minister tell us whether the earned income tax credit, which we understand is to replace family credit, will be subject to an affluence test?

In Wales?

In Wales.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget statement that the Government propose an integrated tax and benefits system, of which that is part. It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage on his final plans.

What estimate she has made of future income inequality rates among pensioners. [23055]

We want today's and tomorrow's pensioners to enjoy security in retirement. Estimates show that the gap between the best-off and worst-off pensioners will be even wider in the future than it is today under current policies, so a key objective of the pensions review is to ensure that pensioners have an adequate income in retirement and that they share fairly in rising national prosperity.

Is it not the case that most people will rely on the state earnings-related pension scheme right through to the early part of the next century? There appears to be some doubt in people's minds about the future value of such pensions. Does my hon. Friend accept that, the more people go into private pensions, the more share churning goes on, the more fees go up and the more arrangement costs increase? In fact, through the rebate, taxpayers' money is going directly into the pockets of the richest people in the country. In the pensions review, should we not reinforce our commitment to SERPS on a proper basis of related-to-earnings income in retirement?

We said in our manifesto that we shall retain SERPS as an option for those who wish to remain in it; and the pensions review is looking at a wide range of issues relating to the future of pension provision. Many people who enjoy security in retirement have a pension whose income comes from investments. It is possible to create a framework for value-for-money, flexible and secure stakeholder pensions, based on investment income, which can assist those with a basic state pension to enjoy security in retirement.

On the Government's own figures in the November consultative document, I recollect that there are about 40.5 million people with pension provision and 7.5 million without. Will the Minister give an undertaking that improving the position of those without pension provision outside the state will not come at the expense of those who have made provision, by the tax deductibility of pension contributions being reduced? That applies particularly to the over-40s who have made plans and who will find those plans all awry if there is yet another retrospective change in such taxation.

Taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we wish to encourage people to save for their retirement.

What plans she has to take action to reduce the numbers of false national insurance numbers in circulation. [23056]

The Government attach the highest importance to safeguarding the integrity of the national insurance system and its numbers system. There is a programme under way that is looking at the validity of each number: 750,000 numbers have been checked so far and the programme continues.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply and ask that he investigates an issue raised with me by members of the Luton jobcentre and Benefits Agency, with whom I recently worked for a day. They expressed concern about the estimated 14 million to 17 million national insurance numbers in circulation, which might be subject to abuse. I am sure that he will want to address that issue, so that we can start to modernise our benefits system, get rid of the shambles that we inherited from the previous Tory Government and ensure that benefits are targeted on the most needy.

To the three points that my hon. Friend raises, the answers are yes, yes and yes. In addition, section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. which is coming into operation over time, ensures that claims to benefit are made dependent on the production of a valid national insurance number and that checks on each number will be made at the point of benefit claim.

The Prime Minister said that benefit fraud cost this country £4 billion to £5 billion a year. Does the Minister agree?

The Government have always been careful about giving estimates of the amount of benefit fraud. It is sensible for the whole House to accept that we have a duty to be ever vigilant on behalf of taxpayers. That is the approach taken by the Government.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell us how many of the national insurance numbers already examined are false?

Of the more than three quarters of a million national insurance numbers that have been checked, there have been 133,000 plus duplicate accounts. A number of them are being studied for further investigation. I shall be happy to report progress to the House and to my hon. Friend on that basis.

What estimate she has made of the number of new applicants for lone-parent benefits from Yorkshire in the year beginning April 1998. [23057]

It is estimated that around 25,000 new awards of income support will be made to lone parents in Yorkshire in 1998–99. Similar estimates cannot be made for new awards of the lone-parent rate of child benefit.

While any measures that help lone parents who are looking for paid work are welcome, does the Minister acknowledge that a proportion of those new claimants will wish to work full time at home, bringing up their young children? Does he accept that they do so with the best possible motive, of lone parents having to provide the parental contact of two parents? Will the Minister consider reinstating extra benefit for lone parents with children under five?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. All families will now receive the same rates of child benefit and family premium, but existing lone parents will continue to receive the higher rates—there will be no cash losers. We have brought forward the new deal for lone parents, and an extra £25 million has been made available under the new deal, to lone parents who wish to work and whose youngest child is under five.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country, including Yorkshire, lone parents are attempting to improve their education by going to university to study and are finding it increasingly difficult to pay their mortgage, study full time and raise their children? Will my hon. Friend consider providing extra support for those lone parents and making a statement to the House at a future date?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I encountered a similar constituency case just this weekend, involving exactly the same point. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider the matter urgently, to see what assistance may be available.

Has the Minister been able to make an estimate for Yorkshire—or if he does not have that exact figure, for the rest of the United Kingdom—of the proportion of lone mothers who will come off benefit because of changes in circumstances in the first full year, such as going to work or finding a new partner? What proportion of existing lone mothers on premiums will come off benefit in the first year?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments. I do not have those estimates, but I shall write to him with an evaluation of the point that he raised.

What was the average payment of maternity grant to mothers in the Crewe and Nantwich constituency in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95; and how many received sums of £15,000 to £20,000. [23058]

Approximately 50,000 pregnant working women do not qualify for maternity pay because their earnings are below £62 per week. We want to help all women balance their careers and family responsibilities and ensure that the system is fair to all women.

That was a rather long way of saying no; I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. If we are to talk seriously about maternity payments, and the women who do not qualify as well as those who do, might it not be useful to do so on the basis of fact? To raise fears before all the replies are detailed is to cause enormous harm and considerable worry and to place needless pressure on people who do not need it.

It is important to set out the problem. The system is complex; it is hard to understand and difficult for employers to administer. It excludes 50,000 low-paid women from benefit each year, while others receive substantial amounts. The system is not seen to be fair, which is why we need to consider a coherent package of measures.

What plans she has to increase the pension entitlement of women. [23059]

One of the major challenges facing the pensions review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July 1997 is to narrow the pensions gap between men and women, to give women more security in retirement. Many pensions are simply not flexible enough to cope with women's working patterns and the fact that they earn less on average than men and are more likely to have caring responsibilities. We are committed to introducing pension sharing for divorcing couples from April 2000. Our proposals for citizenship and stakeholder pensions will be of particular benefit to women.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that low pay and the earnings limit on contributory benefits have a serious impact on pensions? Does he therefore agree that the introduction of a statutory minimum wage will be very beneficial? Would he consider studying the idea of relaxing or abolishing the earnings limit on contributory benefits?

Measures such as the minimum wage, which enable women to earn more, will obviously help them to develop better pension rights, as will measures such as our proposed stakeholder pensions, which will bring within their reach value-for-money, flexible and secure pensions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicated some of the areas that he was studying in relation to national insurance and contributions limits, and will make proposals in due course.

May I say how nice it is to see the Minister for Women in the House today and, through you, Madam Speaker, ask her whether she has had a chance to consider the impact of the reforms that the Government wish to make, by abolishing the independent taxation of women, on women's pension entitlement?

I believe that I am answering the question, Madam Speaker. I think the answer to that is—[Interruption.] The pensions review is considering a wide range of issues. One of the challenges that we set ourselves in establishing the pensions review was the much-needed one of narrowing the pensions gap between men and women, so we shall be considering many of the obstacles that currently prevent women from developing good pension rights.

Perhaps I could ask the Minister for men a question. Given that many women in their working lives become carers of elderly relatives or perhaps of a frail husband, and as a consequence suffer the penalty of poverty in old age because of loss of pension entitlements, will the Government make provision in their plans to ensure that we have decent and generous credits for those in the community who, by doing vital work—although not in the waged economy—save the country billions of pounds?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although we obviously want to encourage as many people as possible to develop a value-for-money, funded, invested second pension, obviously some people are unable to do so as they are exercising caring responsibilities and are not in a position to contribute. In the pensions review, we are examining proposals for a citizenship pension, with the aim of ensuring that people who spend a large part of their lifetime caring do not end up in retirement on means-tested benefits, which is a poor reward for the service that they have given to their families and the wider community.

What plans she has to change the status of actors with respect to national insurance contributions. [23060]

We are reviewing the position of performers for national insurance purposes and are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We have also met Equity. No decision has yet been made. An announcement will be made in due course.

I wonder whether the Minister knows of many actors, dancers and musicians who really, really want to be unemployed. May we encourage him, in his negotiations with the Treasury, to persuade it that nurturing artistic talent is more important than administrative convenience? Until the Treasury sees sense, would he put his daughter on the stage?

I am sure that the House does not want to know about the forthcoming performance of a certain amateur ballet company in Southampton.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House that this is yet another mess that we have been left, after 18 years, because of the inaction of Conservative Governments?

My hon. Friend is right: the issue has been around for some time. It is important that everyone involved in the industry and the performing professions knows what the future will be. Therefore, we are reviewing the position, taking all factors into account. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

When the Government were pushing through their proposals to cut benefit paid to lone parents, the Prime Minister was having a champagne reception at No. 10 Downing street with various glitterati from stage and screen. Did he tell them that they would have to foot the bill for that party because the Government were withdrawing that element of benefit?

I find it hard to believe that that is the most serious question that the hon. Gentleman can ask.

If she will make a statement on her plans to help pensioners with their fuel bills. [23061]

How much extra money will be provided for payments to pensioners for heating in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement. [23065]

How many pensioners have received the additional payments for winter fuel bills announced by the Chancellor in the Budget; when he expects that all pensioners eligible will have received this payment; and if he will make a statement. [23067]

I am making a winter fuel payment of £50 to all the 1.5 million pensioners on income support. I can today announce to the House that payments have already been sent this week to 1,117,000 pensioners on income support. All other pensioners on income support will be sent their £50 payment by the end of the week, and they do not, of course, need to claim it. For pensioner households not on income support, I am making a £20 payment. We are making the payments as swiftly as possible and we expect to make the vast majority of them by the end of March.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which demonstrates what a real difference a Labour Government have made. Is she aware that the legacy of the past 18 years is that the health of my constituents is the sixth worst in the United Kingdom? Does she accept that keeping warm is essential to the health of pensioners, and that the steps that the Government have already taken will improve pensioners' health? Will she work with other Departments, so that pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere can have good, warm housing, a better income and assistance with their fuel bills?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course poverty and inequality in income are closely linked to inequality in health. She will know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health have been working on the matter and will shortly publish a Green Paper on the health of the nation, which will make explicit the relationship between the problems of the poorest in the country and issues of income inequality and health.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether constituents on disability living allowance and attendance allowance will have access to that money, how much new money is being pumped in over two years, and what sum is available to pensioners in Wales—perhaps as much as £30 million? Does she accept that pensioners greatly appreciate what the Government are doing for them, bearing in mind the record of the previous Government?

I can assure my hon. Friend that all pensioners will receive a winter fuel payment—all pensioners, irrespective of whether they are on additional benefits or simply on the basic state pension. A sum of £400 million has been allocated to help pensioners with their winter fuel bills which, as I said, means an extra payment to those on income support. I thank my hon. Friend for the warm welcome that he has given from pensioners in his constituency to the extra help that the Government are giving to pensioners.

Having travelled from Scotland to London today, I can confirm that it is very cold in Scotland. Does not the delay in payments of winter fuel compensation to pensioners prove the case for a properly designed and resourced cold climate allowance which takes account of the wind chill factor, which is a vital issue in many communities throughout the country?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no delay in paying out winter fuel payments. We have made the payments to those on income support a priority, which we shall have concluded by the end of this week. We will start the payments to those who are not on income support right away thereafter. We are doing it as fast as we can, within the limits of the machinery that we inherited from the previous Government. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that, next year, we shall have got the system sorted out, so we shall be able to make the payments more promptly.

The Secretary of State has told us that some of the £20 payments will not be made until March. Does she realise that many of the pensioners who will be receive their extra payments as late as that—even if they are not claiming income support now, they could be doing so then—are among the poorest in the country? Many of those people have pre-payment meters. What help will it be to them if they receive their extra money just in time for what, in effect, will be their summer fuel payments?

We are concerned that all pensioners should receive their payment. We raised the issue when we were in opposition—it continues to be a priority now that we are in government—that 1 million pensioners who were entitled to income support did not claim it. They do not get their income support and so lose out, on average, by £14 a week. In addition, they do not receive cold weather payments and all the other benefits that are passported in.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest inequalities in pensions is that between men and women, and that the Government's winter payments, which go disproportionately to women, will do much to overcome that inequality?

Two thirds of the £50 payments will go to women pensioners. One of the challenges that we have set for the pensions review is to narrow the pension gap between men and women. Women are less likely to make full national insurance contributions because they are likely to be below the lower earnings limit. They are less likely to be in well-paid work and have the opportunity of an occupational pension. They are more likely to be living on their own in retirement with no savings, no state earnings-related pension schemes, no occupational pensions and possibly no basic state pension. We are concerned to narrow the pension gap between men and women, which grew so alarmingly wide under the previous Tory Government.

The Secretary of State talks about Green Papers. Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing about Green Papers and reviews, and so are pensioners.

One of the major differences between myself and the hon. Gentleman is that he voted for VAT on gas and electricity in pensioners' fuel bills to be 17.5 per cent., whereas the Government cut it to 5 per cent. and are giving extra payments to help with fuel bills. Perhaps he will spare us his bleeding-heart concern about pensioners, who did so badly under the Conservative Government.

Will my right hon. Friend consider extending this very welcome measure to other groups on state benefits whose health can be adversely affected if they are unable to afford to keep warm, especially families with young children, including lone-parent families?

All families on low incomes will particularly welcome the fact that we have cut VAT on gas and electricity, and that we will press ahead, through our environmental task force, with help for people to insulate their homes. The most important thing for people of working age on low incomes is to enable them to improve their incomes—by far more than they ever could on any rate of benefit—by helping them into work. That is why we are investing £3 billion in a welfare-to-work programme to ensure that people of working age can have opportunities for high-quality training and worthwhile jobs.

Will the right hon. Lady kindly tell the House, first, why the Government are using taxpayers' money on an advertising campaign for a scheme that is being given automatically to every pensioner in the country? Secondly, how much is it costing? Thirdly, why—against the advice of civil servants, who recommended to Ministers that this was a party political advertising campaign and should not have taxpayers' money—are the Government pressing ahead? Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough not to give a spurious answer, to avoid the sound bite and to answer the question for once?

I shall seek to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. For a start, there was no recommendation that we should not go ahead with the advertising campaign because it was political. We have gone ahead with it because this is a wholly new payment which has never been paid before.

How much?

I will answer the hon. Gentleman; I promised to answer all his questions. I am explaining why we are going ahead with the advertising campaign, if he will let me finish.

What proposals she has to tackle organised landlord benefit fraud. [23062]

The initiatives include new powers for local authorities to collect information, a new criminal offence, and a new power for local authorities and central Government to share information when they attempt to crack down on fraud.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I used to prosecute Department of Social Security fraud and I am reluctant to deprive my ex-colleagues of a chance to follow up cases in the courts. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to tackle fraud is to prevent it from happening in the first place? What plans does he have to identify areas where fraud is most likely to occur and to target resources at those areas?

As my hon. Friend suggests, our plans are to ensure that counter-fraud measures are built in at the start of any benefit claim. May I stress that, while the Government attach enormous importance to countering benefit fraud, we attach equal importance to seeking out diligently those who are eligible for benefit but not claiming it. We run both those policies in tandem, which is one of the many factors that distinguish us from the Opposition.

If she will make a statement on the future of child benefit. [23063]

I remind the right hon. Lady of the two commitments made in our manifesto.

When I worked for the right hon. Gentleman 27 years ago, we campaigned to protect children from the Chancellor's threats. Will he give an undertaking to work as hard and to fight with as much determination today to protect children from the Chancellor's menaces? I have not changed my mind about the importance of recognising the extra costs and needs of children at every income level. Has the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind?

I have not changed my mind, but when the right hon. Lady and I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group, we were both trying to protect family allowance—it is now called child benefit—from a Tory Chancellor.

In view of the Secretary of State's well-publicised concerns, how many women who are millionaires draw child benefit?

If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question on that specific point, I shall try to find the answer.

Does the Minister realise that working mothers throughout the country have been seriously alarmed at the recent report in The Times of 15 January that, in order to tax child benefit and cap maternity benefit, the Chancellor may end the independent taxation of women? Does he agree that abandoning separate taxation would further undermine the institution of marriage and make it more tax advantageous to cohabit? Will he now rule that out completely to set working mothers' minds at rest?

Traditionally, taxation issues are the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If she will make a statement on proposed changes to disability benefits. [23064]

If she will report progress on welfare reform with particular reference to disability benefits. [23070]

Benefits for people with sickness and disabilities are part of our review of the social security system. We shall come forward with proposals later in the year and they will be followed by full consultation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to reassure disabled people that their position will not be worsened?

I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important to reassure disabled people that their position will not be worsened—far from it. Two principles drive our social security review in respect of people with health problems or disabilities. The first is to ensure that those who cannot work have the right support, whether it is cash or services, or a combination of the two. The second is to ensure that we do not follow the path of the previous Government, who told people with health problems and disabilities that, even though they might have some capacity to work and might want to work, they would be written off to a life on benefits. Our approach is to extend opportunities to people with ill health or disabilities. We are backing that with £195 million of investment in innovative schemes so that the minority—it is, however, a significant minority—of those who are long-term sick or disabled can have attention paid to their needs and can be supported in getting into, and staying in, work.

Before I was elected to the House, I worked with people, most of whom had learning disabilities. I am still in close touch with them and, last week, I had a meeting with representatives of DIAL house in Chester. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is familiar with that organisation. Given the concern fuelled by all the scaremongering in the media, will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that, before any key decisions are finally taken, there will be full consultation with organisations such as the Disability Benefits Consortium and the DIAL network?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that the organisations that she mentioned and many others will be fully consulted. I want to allay her concerns. She raised the important issue of the prospects in adult life of people with learning disabilities, which is of particular concern to them and to their carers. Although we provide a proper framework and many opportunities for people with learning difficulties while they are of school age, many of them are written off when they reach school-leaving age. They feel that they cannot continue to develop, and their parents feel a sense of desperation and worry about whether there will be any framework for the lives of their sons or daughters when they are not around to care for them. We must ensure that we take account of people's abilities and capacities as well as their disabilities and incapacities, and we must provide opportunities for all. The days when people were told, "You've got an incapacity. You've got a disability. You're written off. Here's some money"—

Order. All the right hon. Lady was asked for was a categorical assurance. I have to take two more questions on this subject.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that, judging by the number of telephone calls and letters that 1 have received, my constituents in Southend, West already believe that this rotten Labour Government are cutting disability benefit? Will she explain to the House why, since 1 May, many of my severely disabled constituents have been called in by doctors for further examination and have had their benefits taken away? If they have gone to appeal, their cases have taken an awfully long time to be heard.

That is another first-rate example of—I do not want to use an unparliamentary word—synthetic concern. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the benefit integrity project, which was crafted, fashioned and consulted on by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) when he was Secretary of State for Social Security. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into a lather about this issue, he has missed the boat. Our approach is to keep a careful eye on the benefit integrity project to ensure that people on disability living allowance receive the right amount of that benefit under the current conditions of entitlement. However, that has nothing to do with our review of benefits for the long-term sick and disabled, so the hon. Gentleman's argument does not wash.

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the purpose of her review is to reduce spending on people with disabilities?

The purpose of our review is to ensure the right level of care and support for those who cannot work, and to ensure maximum opportunities for those who can work. The exercise is driven by principle, not by cuts.

If she will make a statement on the planned meeting of the commission on the status of women in March. [23068]

As part of our focus on women during our presidency of the European Union, I am pleased to announce that I will be heading the EU delegation at the next annual meeting of the United Nations commission on the status of women, which will be held in New York in March. I will be working with women's organisations and our EU partners to ensure that we represent the views of European women.

I thank the Minister for that reply. The commission will consider violence against women. Today is the launch of domestic violence week in my borough of Merton. Although services are available, women who suffer from domestic violence, and the doctors, nurses and health visitors, who may be the first people with whom those women come into contact, often do not know what help is provided. Will my hon. Friend ensure that consideration is given to finding ways in which to inform everyone, across the board and not on a departmental basis, about what services are available?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I can assure her not only that action to prevent violence against women is one of the major priorities of the Ministers for Women, but that it is part of the United Nations platform for action on women.