If she will make a statement on progress being made on the Government's pensions review. [29074]

The pensions review that I announced on 17 July last year fulfilled our manifesto commitment. We have received more than 2,000 responses and we aim to publish our proposals for change in the first half of this year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that the impact of the television licence on pensioners is analogous to the impact of the poll tax? Does she agree also that any review of pensions should take that into account either through direct compensation in the form of a £2 increase in pensions or by ensuring that pensioners do not have to pay the television licence fee?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Television is very important to pensioners, and we are concerned to take action on all matters affecting pensioners' quality of life. The cost of the television licence will be considered further by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The value of the basic state pension is part of the pensions review, but our manifesto commitment is to maintain it as the foundation of income in retirement and to uprate it at least in line with prices.

May I give the Government yet another chance to give a straight answer to a straight question—which they have declined to do until now? Will they calm the serious anxieties and anguish felt by millions of people in this country by stating quite clearly that they have no intention of means-testing or affluence-testing the standard state retirement pension?

We have made a commitment in our manifesto that we will keep the basic state pension and increase it in line with prices. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity today to confirm that we will stick to our manifesto promise. We are certainly concerned to do what the previous Government never did: provide extra help for the poorest pensioners. We are doing that through winter fuel payments and by ensuring that those who are entitled to income support receive that benefit.

What the Government have done to help pensioners since last May is, of course, appreciated by pensioners and by Labour Members. However, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the earlier point about concessionary television licences? Pensioners' finances would be improved considerably if they did not have to pay television licence fees. In view of the rumours that are floating about, which have been mentioned in the press, will my right hon. Friend do whatever she can to ensure that pensioners receive justice as quickly as possible? Pensioners should no longer have to pay the television licence fee or the fee should at least be halved for pensioners.

My hon. Friend has repeated those points very strongly. Television licence fees are important when considering pensioners' quality of life and cost of living. My hon. Friend's points are well taken by me, but, more importantly, I am sure that they will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

The pensions review is concerned, among other things, with ensuring that people of modest means save more. The Treasury has undertaken an individual savings account review that is also designed to encourage people of modest means to save more. Will the Secretary of State explain the relationship between those two reviews? Why are they being conducted at the same time, involving different people and different time scales? How will she ensure that the two reviews reach consistent conclusions?

The reviews certainly will be consistent and will reach consistent conclusions. The two reviews are designed to complement each other and to have different purposes. The stakeholder pension, which we are consulting about, will ensure that people on low or intermittent earnings have the opportunity to save for their retirement so that they may retire not only on the basic state pension, but on a good, value-for-money second pension.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pensions review and, indeed, the delivery of welfare benefits depend on well-motivated staff? Will either she or one of her Ministers meet me and other hon. Members who represent Fylde-coast constituencies to discuss recent suggestions, which are causing grave concern, that up to 200 jobs will be lost in the major Department of Social Security centres along the Fylde coast?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The motivation of staff is critical to the quality of service and to its improvement, which we want to deliver. My hon. Friend asked for a meeting; I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform whether he is prepared to meet her and her colleagues from the area. My ministerial team and I regularly meet the DSS unions to ensure that they have a good working partnership with the Department, which was never done previously.

Last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer devalued pensions through his actions in the Budget. That was made clear by the Government Actuary, who advised the Government to change the rebate to the state earnings-related pension scheme to avoid creating problems for those who had opted out. Why did the Government not accept and implement in full the Government Actuary's report, rather than slash occupational pensions?

The Chancellor acted to ensure long-term investment, which is good for the economy, for pension schemes and for people with second pensions. I sought the advice of the Government Actuary, who regularly advises the Government. He gave his advice and we acted on it—everything remains completely in order.

The Government clearly did not act on the Government Actuary's advice; they did not implement the changes to occupational pensions that he advised. As a result, those with occupational pensions will now have to pay much more than before to stay out of SERPS. That goes against the Government manifesto commitment to

"support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions."

As I explained to the House previously—I take this opportunity to explain it again—I sought the Government Actuary's advice, which I considered and on which I acted. The previous Government left hundreds of thousands of people without compensation for the mis-selling of second pensions. We have acted promptly and appropriately, and we are also trying to sort out the mess that the previous Government left in relation to second pensions.

If she will make a statement on the level of fraud in housing benefit. [29076]

What plans she has for tackling organised fraud by landlords. [29077]

What plans she has to tackle housing benefit fraud. [29082]

The Government's resolution to seek out fraud wherever it occurs is matched only by our diligence to seek out those who are eligible but do not claim.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I particularly commend to him the London team against fraud, which consists of all 33 London boroughs working together and sharing information to stamp out housing benefit fraud. Will he deal with the team's concerns about whether banks and building societies can share information with it, or whether, as banks and building societies believe, they are precluded from doing so under the Data Protection Act 1988? Will he consider how he can ensure that the London team against fraud is able to deal effectively with housing mortgage fraud, which is part of housing benefit fraud?

I shall certainly consider the matter. The idea for a combined effort throughout London was put to the Select Committee on Social Security, and the proposal was implemented by the previous Government. I ask my hon. Friend to take the thanks of the House to his local authority, which regularly exceeds its target for weekly benefits savings on housing benefit fraud.

I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his answer. Does he accept that part of the problem of fraud by landlords relates to their bad or incompetent management of DSS tenancies? Will he countenance projects whereby good and responsible landlords are encouraged to collaborate with local authorities and manage those tenancies more effectively?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In the area which I represent in the Wirral, such projects are already occurring.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. He might be able to implement two further measures that could help. First, he could make it easier for local authorities, such as Slough, which has been doing a great deal of work in this area, to initiate a prosecution where a claim has been withdrawn. That happens when people think that they are being sniffed around. The claim then disappears and the ability to take action is reduced.

Last November, we increased the powers of local authorities to prosecute landlords who are committing fraud. In December, we issued a verification code, which enables fraud to be tackled at the outset of claims. I thank my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), whose local authority massively exceeds average weekly benefit savings.

If she will make a statement on the Government's approach to reforming the Child Support Agency. [29078]

The Government hope to bring forward proposals for reforming the Child Support Agency before the summer is out.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. For many in this place, reform will not come soon enough. The previous Government introduced the agency, and it has never worked. It has done nothing for children—in other words, it has done nothing to improve their livelihoods. The sooner that reform takes place, the better.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Baroness Hollis, the Under-Secretary of State, is spearheading the review. She has met many people already, as I have done. I am grateful for the critical faculties that Members bring to the outline proposals, which we debated the other day. I make a plea to Members on both sides of the House: when the proposals are published, let us have the most detailed and critical discussion. Last time round, we sleepwalked many of our constituents into a nightmare. [HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] We must not do that again.

In the light of the Minister's earlier answer, will he confirm that in his proposals to reform the CSA, absent parents will still be expected to make a significant contribution to their children's upkeep, and that the obligation will not fall on to the taxpayer, as before?

The answer to that question is a resounding yes. I heard one of my hon. Friends saying a moment ago that I should apologise for the CSA. I, as a politician, apologise for being a Member of this place who put the CSA on to the statute book. Responsibility for the CSA rests with the House. I do not approve of the behaviour of those who, like Pontius Pilate, endlessly wash their hands and blame the agency's staff when responsibility for the operation of the agency is political. The House established the CSA and the House will need to reform it.

What assessment she has made of (a) present and (b) future inequality in pensioner incomes. [29079]

We want today's and tomorrow's pensioners to enjoy security in retirement. Estimates show that the gap between the best and worst-off pensioners will be even wider in 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.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the sum that the Government are spending on extra winter fuel payments is more than would have been expended if we had reintroduced the link between earnings and pensions? There is the added advantage of helping poorer pensioners most, including nearly 7,000 in my constituency in Exeter. Does this not show that things can be done now, notwithstanding the outcome of the pensions review, to help narrow the gap between rich and poor pensioners?

My hon. Friend is right. We have taken action to help all pensioners with fuel bills to pay them through winter fuel payments. Help within that has been especially focused on poorer pensioners receiving income support, who have already received their payment of £50. The total cost of the package this year is expected to be about £200 million, which is more than the additional costs that would have been involved in uprating pensions by earnings rather than by prices.

The Secretary of State has told us that the Government sought the Government Actuary's advice and acted properly upon it. What does "acted upon it" mean? Does that mean that the Government implemented the recommendations in full, or in part?

We have considered the Government Actuary's report and have taken action.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, notwithstanding the welcome money for winter fuel, the real way in which to eliminate poverty for many pensioners is to re-establish the link with earnings and to increase the pension accordingly? The previous Government took more than £20 a week off every pensioner in this country. Private provision cannot—and never will be able to—help the poorest in this country, who often do not have long-term jobs that enable them to buy into occupational pensions. Should we not look to state provision to eliminate poverty?

We have already taken action to help today's pensioners. The pensions review will report later this summer. It has involved a series of meetings with Jack Jones and the National Pensioners Convention to discuss the position of today's pensioners and what action can be taken.

On pensioner incomes, will the Minister confirm that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State have boasted on numerous occasions that the winter fuel payment will be paid to all pensioners in the United Kingdom? Will he now confirm that that is not the case, that anyone reaching pensionable age on or after 6 January 1998 will not receive the payments this year and that the cut-off date will affect up to 150,000 pensioners by the end of March, when the money is finally expected to be paid? Will he consider making the money available to those pensioners, who are getting not a new deal but a raw deal from the Government? Will he explain the fiasco—and apologise to the House for it—in which cheques were sent to pensioners living in residential homes, and why some of those pensioners will be able to keep the money and others will not?

The House will remember that, on a number of occasions, the hon. Gentleman voted to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. Common sense suggests that once the announcement on winter fuel payments was made, it was essential to make payments as quickly as possible. It was important to have a qualifying period that was easier for pensioners to understand and was operationally deliverable. It was set as the week commencing 5 January. If it had been set later, the exercise could not have been completed in time for payments to be made to help with winter fuel bills.

If she will make a statement on the Government's actions to assist pensioners who are eligible for income support. [29080]

We are determined to help the 1 million pensioners who are not claiming their income support entitlement. We have commissioned research to find out why they do not make a claim, and, from April, we shall run a number of pilot projects to find the best way in which to encourage them to do so.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that in the pensions review, the needs of the poorest pensioners will be a priority, but, given that Opposition Members continue to peddle the notion that the basic state pension might be subject to a means test, will my hon. Friend confirm once again that cuts to, and means-testing of, the basic state pension were part of the previous Government's policy and are nothing to do with the present Government's policy, and that the basic state pension will remain a central foundation of pension provision?

I am happy to reaffirm, once again, our manifesto commitment on which we were elected, and for which pensioners voted in large numbers. The basic state pension will be retained as the foundation stone for retirement and will be uprated at least in line with prices. I am grateful for the opportunity once again to make that statement to the House.

I am most grateful to the Minister for what he just said. Perhaps he will now give a straight answer to my question. Will the Government rule out means-testing the basic pension—yes or no?

This Government will keep their promises. We have promised to uprate the basic state pension at least in line with prices. We have already honoured that commitment. From this April, the basic state pension for a couple will exceed £100 for the first time. We deliver on what we promise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who are in work cannot save with an occupational pension because their employer does not have such a thing? Those people might not be able to afford a private pension scheme. Indeed, those with caring responsibilities are not at work and therefore cannot contribute. Is he aware that if that situation continues, there will be growing inequality in the years ahead when those people reach pensionable age? Can the Government assure the House that, in the pension review, they will look at how we can provide second pensions that are affordable and accessible to people on low incomes or with caring responsibilities?

Yes. The pension review has two key elements: first, our proposals for stakeholder pension schemes, which will be value for money, low cost, flexible and particularly suit those who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme or those for whom personal pensions are far too expensive; secondly, we are also considering—again in line with our manifesto—a citizenship pension for those such as carers who cannot contribute to a funded second pension because of their important role in looking after a member of the family or another person.

When she last met representatives of disability interests to discuss welfare reform. [29081]

What recent representations she has received about benefits for the disabled. [29084]

We have received a number of representations on welfare reform. My right hon. Friend and I have twice met members of the all-party disablement group to discuss their views on this important issue. The most recent meeting took place last Monday.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he confirm that neither he nor his Secretary of State—nor, indeed, briefings from No. 10—has yet answered the basic question: whether the entitlements of the 6.5 million people with moderate disabilities will be cut as a result of the Government's welfare reform proposals? They need to know—is the answer yes or no?

I can reassure the House that the Government want to ensure that those in genuine need receive the support, in cash and in other ways, that they need. No changes will be made without full consultation, particularly with organisations of and for disabled people.

Will the Minister bear in mind the representation that his Department received from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who said that transferring the disability living allowance to local authority social services departments in any way would make the disabled the victims of the lottery of local authority discretion? Will the Minister rule that out, as it is worrying many disabled people?

We are, as I have said, determined to ensure that the appropriate support, in cash and in other ways, is available for disabled people. We are considering ways in which that can be done as part of the welfare reform process. We will publish our proposals, and they will be subject to the fullest possible consultation.

Did members of the disability groups raise with my hon. Friend the matter of the complicated disability living allowance self-assessment forms? Will he consider making the forms simpler because many people are losing benefit who need not do so?

Many important issues have been raised by organisations of and for disabled people, including the complexity of the assessment process. They will be looked at during the review.

Is the Minister aware of the Government's credibility gap on the future of disability benefits? It has been caused by the cut in single parent benefit and the work of the benefit integrity project, which has led to many people losing their disability living allowance, although they are perfectly entitled to it, and trying to have it re-established on appeal. What are the Government going to do about overcoming their problems with presentation to show that they will not cut out the rights of disabled people in the future?

Evidence from the benefit integrity project broadly confirms the initial estimate of the level of incorrectness in that benefit. We have learnt from the project as it has developed, which is why my right hon. Friend recently announced extra safeguards to ensure that no one would have their benefit stopped or reduced unless additional evidence—not just that provided by the claimant—was available. That is a step forward in safeguarding the work of the project and it shows that we are listening to organisations of and for disabled people as the work progresses.

Forty thousand people have been through the benefit integrity project, many of whom have wrongly had their benefit stopped or reduced, but have not appealed. Will the Minister reconsider their cases? They feel intimidated and unable to go back through the appeal process because of the way in which the project has worked. To ensure that people receive the benefit to which they are entitled and to restore the project's integrity, will he ensure that interviews are reconsidered and claim forms re-examined to see whether they have been completed incorrectly?

If people feel that they have not been properly treated, the review and appeal process is available to them. I am sure that decisions have been made in accordance with the law laid down by Parliament, but we have introduced the extra safeguard to which I referred. If people are in the position described by the hon. Gentleman, they should exercise their right to a review or an appeal.

What action the Ministers for Women are taking during the UK's presidency of the European Union in conjunction with their European counterparts. [29083]

The priority of the Ministers for Women has been to ensure that the women's perspective is introduced into the presidency's key theme of employability. Various activities are taking place on that theme. An initiative on action on violence against women is under way as part of our presidency.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity during the UK presidency to discuss the real problems faced by low-paid women, particularly in finding affordable child care? Will she encourage initiatives on a European level, such as the working family tax credit, which would greatly help some of the poorest women in our society to meet child-care costs?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am pleased to tell her that her view that affordable child care underpins the employability of women concurs with our thinking and our priorities as Ministers for Women in the United Kingdom. We intend to discuss these matters in an informal presidency meeting of Ministers for Women of European Union member states in Belfast on 5 and 6 May. That will enable us to compare best practice, and to show for the first time that the UK Government take child care and the employability of women very seriously indeed. We want to share our thinking with our European partners.

Do the Minister's plans to improve the employability of women extend to the employability of the remnants of the Greenham Common women, of whom she used to be such a prominent supporter?

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes up valuable time at Question Time to make such frivolous points. The employability of all women in this country is of deep concern to the Government. We believe in equal opportunities. Women want to work, and we shall make it possible for more and more women to take their place in the workplace and to balance their family responsibilities, which they also take very seriously.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I welcome the initiative that the UK is taking under its presidency. Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain is the poor parent of Europe in respect of child care? My sister, who lives and works in Paris, has been entitled to child care for her three children since they were one year old. My constituents in Luton would dearly love to have such a system. Can my hon. Friend assure us that, during the UK presidency, we shall see an expansion of quality child care?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I assure her that we shall have particular regard to good practice elsewhere as we develop a national child care strategy. We shall learn from other countries, and shall for the very first time put into practice a system of quality, affordable and accessible child care for parents and children, whose development will benefit greatly from that opportunity.

Does the Minister agree that in the United Kingdom, despite a great improvement under Conservative Governments, women's pay for full-time work is still on average only 80 per cent. of men's hourly pay, and that that issue is of great concern to all women? Does the Minister believe that she or the Prime Minister sets a good example to employers, or that the United Kingdom sends a positive message on equality to her European counterparts and gives the right lead, when the Prime Minister appoints her to a ministerial job at a rate of pay £23,623 less than that of her male colleagues? What does that say about the Government's attitude to women employees?

The hon. Lady is perfectly well aware of the technical reasons for the impossibility of paying a salary for the new position.

Not for men.

The hon. Lady protests, but there are men in the Government who are not drawing ministerial salaries.

What proposals she has for increasing the resources devoted to fraud detection efforts in respect of social security benefits. [29085]

We are currently spending £400 million a year on tackling benefit fraud. We will take whatever measures are necessary to tackle fraud in social security.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more sensible to begin the necessary work of reforming social security with a more vigorous onslaught on fraud and fiddles, whether they are perpetrated by employers or by beneficiaries, than to create an atmosphere of fear and terror by talking of cuts—cuts in benefit, cuts in rates, cuts in eligibility—and continuing the shakedown that the Conservative Government started among the disabled, which is going on at this moment?

Let me take this opportunity to reassure people with disabilities and people who are claiming benefits that no one who is genuinely entitled has anything to fear from our welfare reforms. However, we want to rebuild support for the welfare state and we cannot do that if people believe that, although the House lays down the rules for entitlement, they can decide for themselves whether they will draw benefits. We will take tough action to ensure that there is no fraud—tough action in relation not only to claimants, but to employers who evade their national insurance contribution responsibilities.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the number of cases of disability benefit fraud has proved to be extremely small? Will she state categorically that that is the case? Will she also reconsider the request from the all-party disablement group for the Government to suspend the benefit integrity project pending an independent review, in the light of real cases of hardship in which disability benefit has been cut or taken away?

The benefit integrity project is not an anti-fraud project; it is a project to ensure that those who receive disability living allowance are entitled to it. Some people, although they may have been entitled to it when they first claimed, cease to be entitled because their circumstances change. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that it is right for us to ensure not only that those who are entitled receive their benefit, but that those who are not entitled do not receive it. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said earlier, we are taking steps to improve the quality of decision making in the benefit integrity project.

As the Secretary of State will know, fraud accounts for only 12 per cent. of the 20 per cent. of cases in which disability living allowance has been reduced; the remaining 8 per cent. are the result of other factors.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made it clear earlier that it is important for anyone who feels that he has been unfairly treated by the benefit integrity project to understand that he has a right to review if he wishes to take up that option. We introduced extra safeguards to the benefit integrity project so that if it is proposed that someone should have his disability living allowance cut or taken away, action will not be taken until further evidence has been sought to ensure that the decision is right. It is unsatisfactory for benefit to be reduced or taken away and for people to have to wait eight weeks for the matter to be sorted out by a review. That is why we have introduced the extra safeguards. We are reviewing the fraud targets on disability living allowance that were laid down by the previous Government because our evidence so far from the benefit integrity project suggests that they were not right, although it seems that the overpayment estimate probably was.

What the targets are for the number of lone parents who will obtain work through the new deal for lone parents. [29086]

The new deal for lone parents is already up and running in eight areas. It will be extended nationally to new claimants in April and to existing claimants in October. About 500,000 lone parents with children over five are bringing up their children on income support.

What is the full cost of the scheme per lone parent? Perhaps more important, what is the full cost of the scheme for each lone parent placed in a job?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made available some £200 million to finance the new deal for lone parents over the next five years. The cost of more than 1 million lone parents bringing up 2 million children on income support at the end of the previous Government's term of office was about £10 billion. People think it inconceivable that the only Government message to lone parents on income support was, "Stay on it until your youngest child is 16." We are confident that our measures will help lone mothers to get into work and will begin to reduce the number of lone parents on income support.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the £50 a week better off figure that has been mentioned does not include the cost of child care? In my constituency, wages are so low that even with the benefit of the minimum wage, for single parents to be better off it would be necessary to make substantial changes to in-work benefits. Are such changes proposed?

We are concerned to take all the steps we can to ensure that lone mothers do not have to bring up their children on income support but can get work and make it pay. The minimum wage and the working family tax credit will help low-paid families, the overwhelming majority of whom are lone parents. The cost of child care is an important factor for lone parents. For the first time in this country, we shall have a national child care strategy and in his Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make further announcements about further help with the cost of child care through the tax system.

Does the Secretary of State agree that after she launched the programme last year she said that it was a major success and claimed a 20 per cent. success rate? It was discovered that the actual rate of those going into work was 5 per cent. She told everybody to wait because some people still had not had a chance to act on the letters and that the scheme would be much more successful as the months went by. The success rate is now 6 per cent. Is not the reality that the programme is floundering and is not getting people into work? Most of those who are going into work are likely to have obtained jobs without that help. What is the right hon. Lady prepared to do to put the programme back on an even keel and make certain that it is a success rather than the failure that it is now?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying, "Why do we need a new deal for lone parents because they would all get jobs anyway?" As that is not true, do I take it that he is backing the new deal for lone parents? If he is, that is very welcome. In the eight pilot areas, more than half the lone parents have been contacted. That is in stark contrast with what happened under the previous Government, who told them to stay on income support until their youngest child was 16. So far, one in five lone parents who have been asked to attend for interview have attended. That is in contrast with what happened under the previous Government, who never invited them. Of those who have attended, one in three are in jobs.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the new deal for lone parents, who agree with her statements. They are being treated as visible rather than invisible women, which is how they were treated for 18 years under the previous Government. However, many lone parents cannot go to work because they lack education and training. I would welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on how we can get the new deal to work for them, so that they are encouraged to go into education and training. Could we consider opening up to lone parents the new deal education and training option presently available for 18 to 24-year-olds?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want not only to help lone parents get into work, so that they can be better off than they are on benefits, but to ensure that they get opportunities for further education and training. Several hon. Members have raised that matter with me. We are examining whether the new deal can offer lone mothers additional opportunities by providing them with education and training, so that they can not only get a job, but get on in their job.

What the benefits status of those under-25s who take part in the new deal will be (a) during the gateway period and (b) during their participation in any of the four options. [29087]

The new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds gives young unemployed people real choices to improve their employability and their chances of fully participating in the labour market. During the gateway, young people will continue to receive jobseeker's allowance, provided they satisfy the normal eligibility conditions. Once they enter an option, they will receive either wages or a training allowance.

Will young people who choose an option other than the employment option be better off than on benefit? If so, will the extra funding come from the social security budget?

As I have explained, if young people take one of the options, they will receive either wages or a training allowance. If they receive a training allowance, they will be able to have passported benefits such as housing benefit and council tax benefit, which clearly come out of the social security budget.

What plans she has to promote international women's day. [29088]

The Government's most important contribution to promoting international women's day will be the debate that we have arranged for this Friday. We are ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to discuss women's priorities and how the Government are delivering on their promises to women.

Does my hon. Friend agree that child care facilities are needed in the House, both for members of staff and for elected Members and that, in the new institutions that we are setting up—the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament—child care facilities should be built in from the beginning? Does she agree that Cardiff city hall, one of the options that is being considered to house the National Assembly for Wales, has a ready-made, established, creche? Does she agree that that is a great advantage?

That was very international—well done.

My hon. Friend would not expect me to be drawn into where the Welsh assembly should be sited. However, in respect both to this Parliament and to any of the new institutions, the Ministers for Women are extremely keen that Members and people who work in these premises have the opportunity to express their child care needs. It is our view that all institutions should have regard to family-friendly conditions of employment and to assistance with child care. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recently visited the European Parliament, we saw the excellent facilities it makes available not just to Members, but to the many staff who work in the buildings.

Is the hon. Lady aware that an analysis of the list of Labour candidates at the election shows that it contained more public school boys than women? What steps will she take to stamp out that disgraceful inequality before the next general election?

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us on Friday, when he will be able to express all his concerns about the representation of women, which is a key priority for the Ministers for Women. I can say with pride that our party has put women to the fore and ensured that there is now a record number of women in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's party, and all others, will look carefully at equal representation for women, which I trust they will endeavour to bring about in all new institutions when they have the opportunity to do so.

How many new cases she expects the Child Support Agency to deal with over the next year; and what changes in staffing (a) structures and (b) numbers she will implement to manage demand. [29090]

In 1998–99, we expect the agency to clear about 560,000 maintenance applications, an increase of more than 56 per cent. compared with the number cleared in 1996–97.

The Minister of State said earlier that Parliament has sleepwalked into the nightmare of the CSA. Is it not time to stop the Rip van Winkle approach to the CSA, bearing in mind the fact that in one year Members of Parliament deal with 18,000 cases? Will the Government provide additional staff to ease the work load of hon. Members dealing with CSA cases?

Rip van Winkle woke up on 1 May. The Government are undertaking a thorough review of the CSA, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform explained. We will present proposals in the summer and the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will form part of the review.

If she will make a statement on her plans to help pensioners with their fuel bills. [29091]

This is the first time any Government have been prepared to help all pensioner households with their winter fuel bills. A total of £400 million has been made available to provide extra help, for this winter and next, to all pensioner households. One and a half million pensioners on income support have already received a payment of £50; other pensioner households will receive £20. Almost 10 million payments will be made to more than 7 million pensioner households. The majority of payments should be made by the end of March.

Northern Scotland will welcome all measures that reduce the misery of pensioners' going to bed unnaturally early for fear of fuel costs and the tragedy of cold-related illness and death. Will my hon. Friend consider what further steps can be taken to reduce the tragedy of that sort of suffering?

In addition to winter fuel payments, we have cut VAT on fuel and on materials used in Government-funded insulation programmes, we have abolished the gas levy, there is a review of utility regulation and an interdepartmental group is investigating fuel poverty. The winter fuel payments have been promised for this winter and next. The best approach is to take stock of that policy in the light of the other initiatives and reviews across the Government, including the pensions review, to find out the best long-term way to ensure that pensioners can always heat their homes in the winter.

Will the Minister confirm that 80 per cent. of the extra winter fuel payments will be made in March or later, meaning that almost all pensioners will have to pay their winter fuel bills before they get the money?

It is a summer supplement.

This is the first time a Government have taken such action. Only in November was it clear that funds would be available for winter fuel payments. We have moved as swiftly as possible to make the payments. The majority will be made by the end of March. No other Government, including the Conservative Government of which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who is muttering on the Front Bench, was a member, have taken such action to ensure that pensioners can heat their homes in the winter.

What steps the Ministers for Women are taking on European Union-wide initiatives during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union. [29092]

In addition to what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), the Ministers for Women are urging all member states to address women's needs for family-friendly employment policies and child care in their national employment action plans. We also want to tackle all forms of violence against women. During our presidency, we are urging member states to work at a national level to raise awareness of that issue.

What steps is my hon. Friend taking to persuade employers to set up workplace facilities for child care? She will know that many European countries have moved ahead faster than us on this. Will she tell us about the training of people employed in workplace child care facilities? Does she agree that at least a minimum wage would be proper remuneration for such people?

We are concerned about the provision of child care and to ensure choice. Provision by employers is very welcome. We are aware of provision in other nations. We shall study those issues at our conference in Belfast. Quality and training are key to our national child care strategy. A considerable consultation exercise is under way to ensure that the child care provided is good for child development and gives a safe environment. Child caring should be properly remunerated. The minimum wage will give recognition to those who undertake that worthwhile and sometimes taxing work.

Will the hon. Lady take the useful initiative with her European counterparts of trying to find out why the majority of European Union countries have a lower rate of divorce than the United Kingdom? Those lower divorce rates result in less damaging and traumatic experiences for children and a lower cost to the social security budget. If she can discover the reasons, will the Government try to do something about them through their social policies?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are different cultural patterns—and that there have been different developments—across Europe. Many of us regret that divorce rates are rising throughout Europe. This country is not unique in that. We have learnt many things in our meetings, but such personal issues will not be brought into the European conferences that I have referred to.

What plans she has to improve the efficiency of public telephone contacts with the Child Support Agency; and if she will make a statement. [29095]

Many of the Child Support Agency's customers have said that the telephone is their preferred way of dealing with the agency. The agency recognises the need to improve its telephone service and is taking forward a number of new initiatives with this in mind.

Any improvement in the service provided by the CSA is welcome. Will my hon. Friend take on board the need for better training for CSA staff? People are referred from one department to another and computers sometimes go down, which means that answers to queries are not received. The latest problem arises from the fact that people are being advised that although the Government guaranteed that 70 per cent. of the net wage would be retained by the absent parent, that figure could be reduced to 60 per cent. or less. That problem must be dealt with because it is causing great concern, not only in my constituency but across the country.

My hon. Friend takes a great interest in this subject. As we move towards a more case work-focused, front-line service with greater use of the telephone, training will be an essential feature of that service, and we are determined to put extra resources into that part of the agency's work.