If she will make a statement or the total number of retirement pensioners (a) at the latest available date, (b) five and (c) 10 years ago. [34043]

There were 10.7 million retirement pensioners at 30 September 1997 Five years ago there were 10.3 million pensioners and 10 years ago there were 9.9 million pensioners.

Retirement pensioners are now a substantial proportion of the community. Is the Minister aware of the genuine concern and alarm among pensioners about reports of a fundamental review that might lead to the retirement pension being means-tested? Can the Minister give a clear and categorical statement that that is untrue? Can he confirm that he and his fellow Ministers will resign if there is any such Government proposal?

I am pleased to make it clear to the House that we have a manifesto commitment to retain the basic state pension as the foundation for retirement provision and to uprate it at least in line with prices. We have more than honoured that commitment by taking the unprecedented step of issuing winter fuel payments to all pensioners who have fuel bills this winter.

More than a week and a half ago the Minister attended a dinner held by the Association of Consulting Actuaries at which the chairman told the Government that

"they must stop loosening the foundations on which the hitherto robust system of Occupational Schemes is built."

"were clearly not thought through at the time of the Mini-Budget."

At that enjoyable dinner, which the hon. Gentleman also attended, I was able to make it clear that the Government wish to support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions. During the pensions review we are looking at the regulatory system for occupational pensions and how the best occupational schemes can be marked by a quality pensions award. We are also examining ways to improve pension scheme members' understanding of their schemes and their entitlements.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory and ambiguous reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment

If she will make a statement on the Government's plans to tackle violence against women. [340441]

The Ministers for Women have been working with Ministers from across Government Departments on this issue. A national strategy for England and Wales on tackling all forms of violence against women will be published in the autumn. The Scottish Office is producing a strategy on tackling all forms of violence against women in Scotland, along the same lines as the national strategy.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement about a national strategy. Is she aware that the demand for refuge accommodation by victims of domestic violence throughout England, Wales and Scotland has increased? For example, last year, in Dunfermline, 246 women had to be turned away, and throughout Scotland more than 4,000 women and 6,000 children were turned away because of a lack of suitable accommodation. Does she agree that there is no excuse for violent criminal behaviour that causes women and children to flee their homes and that it is vital that combating domestic violence remains a Government priority?

One of the prerequisites of any effective national strategy is access to accurate statistics. In our early discussions between Departments, we found many gaps. My hon. Friend will wish to know that in Scotland a research survey was commissioned by the Scottish Office to review service provision for women who had suffered domestic violence. It was published on 16 March.

Given the concern about violence against women, will the Minister tell us whether she agrees with the Secretary of State for Social Security, who believes that it is only by appointing more women judges that the Government can show that they are taking domestic violence seriously, or with the Lord Chancellor who, when putting down the Secretary of State, said that

"We cannot have positive discrimination"

"the fullest confidence that all judges, regardless of gender, already deal with cases of domestic violence with impartiality and consideration for the victims of domestic violence"?

I assure the hon. Lady that we are all concerned with achieving equality of opportunity. The Lord Chancellor has made it absolutely clear that he believes that more women should have the opportunity to reach the highest levels in the court and justice system. We are all engaged in that and we have every confidence that, whatever judge is sitting on domestic violence issues, justice will be done.

If she will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of reform of the Child Support Agency. [34045]

If she will make a statement on the principles underlying the Government's review of the Child Support Agency. [34052]

This Government believe that all children are entitled to the financial and emotional support of both their parents, wherever they live. We are examining closely all aspects of the child support system and we expect to bring forward our proposals for consultation by the summer.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Most people will agree with the principle of the CSA, but not with the cack-handed way in which it was introduced by the previous Government. Will she ensure that the outcome of any review is both fairer and simpler not just for parents and children, but for CSA staff, and that it is clearly linked both with the excellent Budget proposals on families and children and with the forthcoming Green Paper on welfare reform?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the principle that parents should support their children. We further agree that that principle has not been put into practice properly by child support legislation and the agencies that work under it.

Does the Secretary of State expect any new formula to apply only to new cases, or will it apply also to cases that have already been agreed under CSA regulations—which would lead to difficulties such as cases being reopened and redecided and a lot of losers?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are trying to reform a system, but it is difficult to do so when we have a great tangle and a sense—and the reality—of injustice. For people who have had incorrect awards made and those who have had correct awards made but who have failed to pay, the issue of transitional arrangements will be critical in achieving public confidence in the new and reformed system that we should like to see evolve. We will discuss with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues how to deal with the transitional arrangements

Given that the great majority of mothers and children on income support receive no child maintenance from their fathers, will the Secretary of State consider setting a new target to tackle the tough cases: the men who are determined never to pay a penny? In my advice surgery on Friday night, I met a mother who had supplied all the information that was needed to the CSA. Two years on, she is still not receiving a penny.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is a huge sense of grievance among absent parents— usually fathers—when there is a delay in assessing maintenance and then, suddenly, they are hit with large arrears that might turn out to be incorrect; there is also a burning sense of grievance among parents with care— usually mothers—that although a correct award has been made, fathers sometimes avoid paying.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Child Support Agency plays a crucial role in helping abandoned families? What percentage of staff time is spent processing matters relating to absent parents, whether they be male or female? How many appeals under the new procedure are being processed?

There are 8,000 members of staff dealing with the 600,000 live case load, as it is called, but there are 800,000 further cases where no assessment has been made. I will write to the hon. Lady with any further detailed information that she wants.

If she will make a statement on the recent meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. [34046]

In my role within the presidency of the European Union, I was delighted to represent the views of the European Union at the meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations earlier this month.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance attached by women's organisations to the previous UN meeting in Beijing in 1995 and the criticism levelled at the previous Government for having taken no action following that meeting? In view of that, have this Government taken action, in particular to protect the girl child against all forms of exploitation?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The United Kingdom's participation in the CSW this year has been very successful. Throughout, our delegation has led on the need fully to implement the aims of the global platform for action. On the human rights of women, we argued for an end to customary and traditional practices that are harmful to women and girls such as female genital mutilation. On women and armed conflict, we proposed the creation of an international criminal court that would integrate a gender perspective in its statute. On violence against women, we called for national plans such as those that are in train in this country. On the girl child—a matter specifically mentioned by my hon. Friend—we were able, against very tough opposition, to get agreement on the provision of information and counselling services, to be carried out on a confidential basis, for both adolescent boys and girls, especially on the subject of personal relationships.

What the benefit status of people with disabilities who take part in the welfare-to-work scheme will be. [34047]

The Government's new deal for disabled people will be offered to people with disabilities or long-term illnesses in receipt of the following out-of-work benefits: incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but can he give the House an assurance that people with disabilities who participate in the Government's welfare-to-work programme will not lose any of their entitlements, especially if they are put on to the jobseeker's allowance?

Yes. Participation in the programme will be voluntary, but the House will recognise that the Government are implementing a strategy with several strands: we want to improve the quality of personal advice for disabled people who are seeking work; we want to tackle discrimination in the workplace; we want to make work pay—in last week's Budget, we announced the introduction of a tax credit for disabled people; and we want to reform the benefits system by, for example, introducing the 12-month linking rule for those on incapacity benefit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not need lectures from the Tories, whom we constantly had to fight during those tawdry years of Tory government to get disability legislation that would give equality to the 6 million disabled people in Britain? Will he also bear in mind the fact that the last thing we need from a Labour Government is a tax on disabled people's benefits? I was associated with the group Disability Rights Now in campaigning against the Tories. To prevent Downing Street from being daubed with paint again, would not it be a good idea for the Prime Minister to stop inviting tinpot so-called music makers to No. 10 and instead to invite the disability rights people to discuss these important matters?

I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has met organisations of and for disabled people to discuss welfare reform. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the announced introduction of a disabled persons tax credit and that he will also recognise the importance of establishing the disability rights task force, which will lead to a disability rights commission and comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled people.

Is the Minister aware that there are types of disability whereby people fail to find work because of basic communication problems, despite their intellectual ability and training or higher education qualifications to do that work? What plans does he have to build on the previous Government's piloting of the mentoring system, under which such people had someone alongside them, both at interview and in the workplace, not to do training or the job, but to deal with communication difficulties?

We are anxious to explore a variety of ways in which we can enable disabled people who want to work to get into work. This Government—unlike the previous Government—have allocated £195 million from the windfall tax to fund a series of innovative schemes to consider the different ways in which the barriers that disabled people face in getting into work can be overcome. Bids are being received for the first 20 of those additional schemes. The hon. Lady will, I am sure, be keen to see which schemes have been put forward by the wide variety of voluntary organisations and others who have been involved in that process.

If she will make a statement on measures relating to child care in the Government's new deal for lone parents. [34048]

The new deal for lone parents is, for the first time, offering lone parents an opportunity to work. It is already available in eight areas of the country and it will be rolled out nationally to new claimants of income support next month. The new deal is backed by our national child care strategy, which includes substantial help with the cost of child care through the new child care tax credit that was announced in the Budget last week.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that positive response. I recently had the opportunity to visit the Alpha Grove lone parents association on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency. It was very enthusiastic about the opportunities being offered under the new deal. Will she ensure maximum co-ordination between her Department and the Department for Education and Employment in introducing the new child care provisions so that lone parents can access them as soon as possible?

I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that we develop a national child care strategy that meets the needs of women for affordable, high-quality and accessible child care in all neighbourhoods. That is important not only for children's development, but particularly in helping lone parents into work. I know that the Benefits Agency—and the jobcentres—will work closely with voluntary organisations such as the Alpha Grove project to ensure that the new deal for lone parents serves the community.

Last week there seemed to be a bit of a dispute between the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Department of Social Security and the Treasury about the cost of child care credits. The Red Book allowed for £1 billion for the programme, but the IFS estimated that it could cost £4 billion, assuming that take-up rates are in line with present take-up rates for general benefits. The family credit take-up rate of 70 per cent., which is sometimes criticised by the Government, would not seem out of line with the cost of £4 billion What take-up rates have the Government allowed for in the child care credit assumptions? If their estimate is wrong and take-up is higher, will they guarantee that they have no intention of capping the amount that can be paid out?

With new proposals such as this, we cannot simply refer to the take-up rates of existing benefits. The previous Government got into all sorts of problems when they grossly overestimated the take-up for child care allowance under the old family credit rules. Indeed, that is one of the reasons we have had to make a change and get rid of the child care allowance under family credit, introducing a proper new child care tax credit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a comprehensive strategy must include time for parents to care for their children themselves, as well as nurseries and child minders? Does she further agree that the opportunities for part-time, as well as full-time, work under the new deal will enable many lone parents who so choose to combine earning a living and taking advantage of the working families tax credit with looking after their own school-age children?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those who have received the new deal for lone parents have warmly welcomed the fact that, so long as they can work 16 hours, which many can manage during a school week if their children are at school full time, they will get the top-up on their pay. Just as we will help people whose pay is depressed by ill health or disability, we will help those who can work only 16 hours or so to have decent take-home pay. What is more, we will help them with the costs of child care so they can be in work and make work pay.

I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). Is the Secretary of State aware that a growing number of mothers feel insulted by the Government's apparent denigration of the contribution of women who choose to care for their children at home? She needs to emphasise strongly the point that she made in reply to the hon. Lady.

I do not know what company the right hon. Lady is talking about, but if she wants to suggest a meeting, I shall be more than happy to consider it. I take exception to her suggestion that we appear to denigrate mothers who stay at home to look after their young children. Our proposals are simply a recognition of the fact that women are voting with their feet and going out to work. Nearly half the people in the work force are women and more than half the women with children under five—let alone those with children over school age—are working. The previous Government took no notice of that and did not support women in their choices.

What representations she has received on the expected participation rates in the proposed stakeholder pension. [34049]

We have received more than 200 responses to the recent consultation on stakeholder pensions. The majority are from organisations including financial services businesses, employers, employee groups and trade unions. The Government see a key role for such organisations, particularly in partnership with each other, in developing and promoting stakeholder pensions.

If the pension fund industry recommends overwhelmingly that for the stakeholder scheme to succeed—in terms of adequate participation—it will need to be compulsory or have some degree of compulsion, is that something that the Government will consider?

It is true that a number of submissions to the pensions review strongly support compulsory second pensions. We already have a compulsory pensions system—the vast majority of employees are compelled to be members of both the basic state pension and a second pension. We made it clear that we would consider all representations received by the review, including those on compulsion, and would respond in due course.

Will the Minister say that he is not minded to hand over the running of stakeholder pensions to those very firms that mis-sold at least 2 million personal pensions and left a large number of people facing poverty in their retirement years? Has he seen the Eagle Star submission, which lavishly praises the state earnings-related pension scheme, saying that it is the most portable of all pensions, is best value and has charges down to one tenth of those charged by the private firms? Indeed, Eagle Star complained that the only fault with SERPS is that its merits are not properly understood. Will he ensure that SERPS is properly considered and that we can have a rejuvenated form of it, independently funded and run, and separate from the national insurance scheme?

I have indeed read the Eagle Star evidence to the pensions review and can assure my hon. Friend that those are important issues for consideration by that review. He will also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for her action to clear up the problems of pensions mis-selling—in stark contrast to the record of the Conservative party, which did nothing to tackle that scandal although it was obvious for years that it needed to be dealt with

Despite numerous references to low-cost pension schemes, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in fact pension costs will inevitably be high and that if any new scheme is not compulsory it will lead to a pensions benefit trap, which will be unfair and unacceptable?

On his question about compulsion, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. I do not accept that it is inevitable that funded second pensions have to be as expensive and as inappropriate for those on low incomes or those who suffer intermittent working patterns as many personal pensions are today. I am confident that stakeholder pension schemes will be able to offer value-for-money, flexible second pensions to many people who cannot get such a pension at present.

What representations she has received about the benefit integrity project. [34050]

I have received a great many representations about the benefit integrity project. I have taken action to improve the quality of decision making in the project and am discussing it further with organisations of and for disabled people.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the impacts of the benefit integrity project is that each month up to 80 disabled people lose their vehicles and have no means of transport? Does she regret that? Will she step in to stop it taking place?

I very much regret the fact that if it is decided under the benefit integrity project that people are not entitled to higher-rate mobility allowance, their Motability car is taken away, but that if the benefit is restored on review it is by that time too late because the car has gone. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that disability organisations have raised with us. We are talking to Motability about it and are determined to sort it out.

I welcome the extra safeguards that my right hon. Friend has introduced into the benefit integrity project to protect people when it appears that their benefit may be reduced or disappear under the project. Will she consider suggestions made by DIAL, the disablement information and advice line, that would result in fairness for disabled people under the project? For example, where additional evidence is required from a doctor, it suggests that the doctor concerned should interview the disabled person before responding, because doctors often do not know that person as, frequently, disabled people are not ill people.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that, when we pay benefit, those in receipt of it are properly entitled to it. However, we are also concerned that, in checking people's benefits, we do not take benefit away from people who are entitled to it. As I said to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), giving it back later after review or appeal does not sort the situation out. We want to ensure that we get decisions under the benefit integrity project right first time. On 9 February, I introduced an extra safeguard so that no decision to reduce or remove altogether entitlement can be made simply on the evidence of the claimant; we should have a further check. We are always open to suggestions about how to ensure that that happens. It is our duty to ensure that recipients do not receive benefit to which they are not entitled but we must also do all that we can to make certain that we do not take away from disabled people income to which they are entitled and on which they are dependent.

Given that the Secretary of State has made much of the new safeguards, how many further such checks have been made and how many cases are outstanding? Is she satisfied that, after the safeguards have been implemented, there will be no more cases of inappropriate withdrawal of benefit?

We do not yet have a breakdown of cases after 9 February, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as we do because of his long-standing interest in the issue. Two thousand cases have been reviewed following a benefit integrity project decision to reduce or altogether remove benefit. Of those, 500 have had benefit instaured. Those figures showed us that too many decisions were going wrong and that we had to put in the extra safeguard. We do not yet have the analysis of the outcome of reviews and the ratio of correct decisions after 9 February but the intention of that change was not only to make things look better or to assuage people's fears but to get a better quality of decision making. If that has happened, the number of people whose benefit is restored under review should fall because we would hope not to have taken away the benefit in the first place.

The House will welcome the 9 February announcement about improving decisions under the benefit integrity project. Before 9 February, many people had their benefit withdrawn and have lost appeals. I met one of those people at my surgery on Saturday in Brechin, a desperate lady who failed to secure an appeal. I suspect that, if her case had been examined after 9 February, she would have been in a much better position. Will the Secretary of State undertake to re-examine all cases considered before 9 February where benefit was reduced? The problem is causing enormous hardship to many vulnerable people.

The objective of the 9 February change was to make the initial decision under the benefit integrity project more likely to be correct. We are trying to speed up reviews so that people do not have to wait 10 or 20 weeks before their cases are reassessed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rule for examining entitlement under the review involves considering legal entitlement and the evidence. The review is a second check. He knows that the appeal system is independent. Hon. Members will agree that we must check that people in receipt of benefit are entitled to it and that their circumstances have not changed in such a way that they are no longer entitled to it. We must ensure that the initial benefit review decision is correct.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that those who are mentally ill and who have the threat of losing benefit hanging over them can experience special problems. Are any special instructions given to the benefit integrity project on the reassessment of people with those special difficulties?

MIND is one of the organisations that have been prepared to talk to us about how we can improve the initial letter that lets people know that there is a review process under way and tells them what their rights are in relation to that. There are clearly difficulties regarding people suffering mental ill health and we want to make sure that we work fairly by them. One of the problems is that, because we wanted the letter not to be alarming and frightening, the original letter notifying people that they were going to be reviewed lulled them into a false sense of security about what the process was about; as a result, people did not always bring forward the necessary information. A balance must be struck between letting people know what the exercise is about and not unduly scaring them. We are grateful to MIND and other organisations for working with us to try to get the situation right.

What plans she has to improve the help given to low-income home buyers with their mortgage interest payments. [34051]

rose—

Ah.

The hon. Gentleman says, "Ah"—

Order. This is taking much too long. Members should put their questions briefly and Ministers should answer them briefly. The previous question, although an important one, took eight minutes, which was far too long. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has asked his question and is waiting for an answer.

The best form of protection for all home owners is private insurance, and we are working with the industry to develop better products and to improve take-up. We shall consider changes to the benefit arrangements as that work progresses.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that response. Is he aware that, when it surveyed unemployed people on income support, his own Department found that, whereas only one in six mentioned child care, one in three mentioned loss of help with housing costs in low-paid work? Does he accept that the lack of help with mortgage interest for people in low-paid jobs is a serious barrier to moving off welfare and into work? Does he have any plans to deal with that?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are reviewing welfare reform and will report on their findings on Thursday. The House should be aware that the scheme favoured by the hon. Gentleman, if it was modelled on housing benefit, would cost about £750 million. If there were £750 million spare, it would be interesting to see whether the House decided to spend it in the way the hon. Gentleman wants, or in other ways.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as soon as MIRAS is changed next month, the benefits system will be changed to ensure that people are not put in difficulties with their interest payments?

As my hon. Friend knows, the payments made for mortgage interest are a tracking arrangement and we shall, in due course, take into account changes in the mortgage interest rate.

If she will make a statement on the proposed changes to disability benefits. [34053]

As announced in the Budget statement, we shall provide extra help for disabled people who want to work through the extension of the invalidity benefits linking rule and the removal of voluntary work limits from October this year. In addition, the transformation of disability working allowance into the more generous disabled person's tax credit from October 1999 will mean extra financial help for those who get a job.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Labour party has always been the champion of the disabled? I hope that we shall always remain so. If he does, does he also accept that those who are disabled and not in a position to work should in no way be penalised and that there is no justification for means-testing or taxing the benefits received by the disabled? In that way, we could demonstrate our continued support for those who suffer disability.

My hon. Friend is right to say that there will be those who are not able to work, but who are sick or disabled, and I can assure him that they have nothing to fear from this Government. The Government will always provide support for those in genuine need and, in the course of the welfare reform reviews that are taking place, we shall look at the best ways to provide support for those disabled people who are unable to take opportunities to work.

Will the Minister now answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and say whether the Government intend to tax or means-test the disability living allowance?

We have clearly set out the basis on which we are approaching welfare reform. We recognise the extra costs involved for those who have disabilities. In the course of that welfare reform, we must identify the right way of providing support for those who need it.

What is the average delay between applications for benefits and payment of benefits by agencies accountable to her Department. [34054]

This Department deals with over 20 benefits. There are 48 targets measuring performance on the clearance of new applications. We are currently achieving 90 per cent. of those targets.

That was a pretty obscure answer, but no doubt it can be pursued. Does the Minister accept that, whatever the general position may be, in some places there are huge delays between the application for, and the payment of, benefits? That can mean the loss of entitlement. I understand that the causes of delay are often overstretched staff, people off sick, posts unfilled and a 25 per cent. cut in finance. Does the Minister accept that one thing he could do would be to reinstate district office factors, so that terribly over-pressed offices, such as mine in south London, which have to deal with many asylum seekers, mentally ill people and other difficult cases, have the funding to deal with their heavy and difficult case load? That would allow such applicants to get their benefits as soon as anyone else.

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall consider that idea seriously.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the delays in the payment of winter fuel benefits to non-income support pensioners, who are having to wait up to nine weeks for what is becoming a summer supplement, not a winter fuel benefit? Would he also care to comment on the 9,000 pensioners on income support and living in residential homes who have erroneously received cheques—some of which have been cashed while others have not? Will the Government seek to claw back that money?

In answer to that eight-minute question, I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman that, probably by the end of this week, all 10 million or so pensioners will have received their payments. Only 15,000 are still waiting to receive them. The benefit had to be introduced from scratch because the Opposition, when in government, did not think it important to deliver extra help in that way.

When she expects to announce the basis on which the state old age-pension will be calculated. [34055]

We said in our manifesto that the basic state pension will be retained as the foundation of pension provision in retirement and be increased at least in line with prices. We are considering all aspects of the basic pension as part of our pensions review, which will report later this summer.

Can the Minister confirm that, since the Conservatives broke the link with earnings in 1980, £11 billion has been taken out of pensioners' pockets; and that to reinstate the link would cost £500 million a year? Reinstatement would eliminate poverty among some people in retirement and reduce the pressure on those approaching retirement to take out expensive and inefficient private pensions instead of relying on state provision. Will the Minister ensure that the pensions review guarantees a return to the link with earnings which the Tory Government so cruelly broke?

The pensions review is considering all those issues and we are consulting closely with representatives of pensioners' organisations—something that the Conservatives never did in their 18 years in government. Ahead of the outcome of the pensions review, the Government have taken the unprecedented step of making £200 million available for winter fuel payments this year, and will do the same next year.

What steps she is taking to ensure that women receive equality of treatment for ovarian and other cancers throughout the United Kingdom. [34056]

The Ministers for Women are deeply concerned about women's health and are routinely in contact with colleagues at the Department of Health. I am aware of a recent parliamentary meeting on ovarian cancer organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and concerns that were expressed at that meeting about inequalities of treatment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has set out the Government's intention to improve the consistency of treatment for cancer in our White Paper "The New NHS".

I thank the Minister for that answer. She will be well aware that, each year, 6,000 people are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 4,000 women die from it. Does she agree that clinical treatments should be equalised throughout the country, and that women should be provided with all the clinical options so that they can participate in decision making on the treatment? Does she further agree that, in the national health service, treatment with Taxol is not provided equally across the country, and that that is a sad indictment of the NHS internal market and the high cost of that drug?

Since the meeting that I mentioned, I have raised that issue with the Department of Health. That Department is aware of variations in cancer services, and the availability of drugs such as Taxol is one aspect of that variation. I understand that health authorities and trusts are working to remedy that, but we must leave them some discretion to tackle first what they regard as the most pressing local needs.

What representations she has received on the impact of the abolition of the advance corporation tax dividend on pension funds. [34058]

A number of organisations with an interest in pensions have written about this matter.

Will the Minister encourage private pension fund managers to inform their pension holders by how much they must increase their monthly contributions to make up the shortfall in their pension funds—or would the Government rather keep their victims in ignorance, in the finest traditions of the late Robert Maxwell?

That is a remarkable question from the party that was responsible for the mis-selling of personal pensions on an unprecedented scale. I make it clear that it is a responsibility of private pension providers to provide best advice to holders of their policies.

Is it not important that people are given accurate information about their pensions, whether from the private or the state sector? Is my hon. Friend aware that it was a previous Labour Government who sent in the inspectors of Mr. Robert Maxwell and produced a report which said that, under no circumstances, should he ever be given any support, and that a Conservative City of London proceeded to lend him as many millions as he asked for?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I agree that it is important to ensure that people receive accurate information about their pension provision. That is why the Government have set up the pensions education working group to examine how to raise the level of awareness about financial and pensions information. I anticipate receiving that group's report in the next few weeks.

What plans she has for tackling violence against women. [34059]

The purpose—

rose—

I think that hon. Members are trying to follow your diktat, Madam Speaker, and make their questions rapid and brief.

It also applies to Ministers.

I shall try, Madam Speaker.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the two-day conference that will be held in my constituency next month, when local agencies will meet to develop a community plan to take action against domestic violence? Does my hon. Friend agree that those kinds of partnerships are essential if we are to deal with domestic violence, which is an abhorrent crime in which the perpetrators attempt to intimidate the victims so that they are too afraid and ashamed to speak out? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will speak out on behalf of the victims and will root domestic violence out of our society?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I confirm that the Government are absolutely clear about the fact that domestic violence must be stamped out. I certainly commend the conference to which my hon. Friend referred and I commend partnerships. I recently witnessed an excellent partnership in Norwich involving the local authority and the housing department, which have worked with the police to enable a community care alarm provision for the elderly to be used also by victims of violence. There are many good practices out there from which we can all learn.

I welcome the Minister's earlier answer. Will she confirm that one form of domestic violence that is even more common than violence against women is domestic violence against children? Will she reassure the House that children, who have no votes or voices, will be included in the Government's consideration of domestic violence issues?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the whole Government are deeply concerned about all aspects of child abuse. When we examine domestic violence—which is categorised as violence affecting adults—we also take into account the effects of such violence upon children. The hon. Gentleman is correct to believe that we are building that consideration into our strategy of concern. My colleagues across government are also paying particular attention to all aspects of child abuse, which we wish to see removed from our society.

Although we acknowledge the insidious crime of domestic violence, it is important that the Government strategy makes people aware that our priority is not only domestic violence but all forms of violence against women. Will my hon. Friend tell us something about the cross-departmental workings that are going on to ensure that women can participate fully in the home, in the world of work, on transport and in the community without the fear of violence?

I reiterate that the strategy that we are developing seeks to combat all forms of violence against women, including violence against women on transport. In terms of cross-Government working, I assure my hon. Friend that the women's unit and the Ministers for Women are having key input into the co-ordinated transport strategy document being developed by our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is essential to put women's concerns into all aspects of Government policy. We know that women fear violence when travelling on public transport and we hope that we can do much to make it safer for them in reality while addressing their real fears.

What percentage of those entitled have received their full entitlement of help towards winter fuel costs. [34061]

Winter fuel payments have been an enormous and unprecedented exercise involving the issue of almost 10 million payments to more than 7 million pensioner households. As of today, payments have been dispatched to more than 99 per cent. of eligible pensioners. About 15,000 payments remain to be issued over the next few days.

I am sure the Minister will agree that, until recently, the scheme was a bit of a shambles, with large numbers of payments being made very late in the day. After all the problems this year, can he give the House an undertaking that, if the scheme continues for a further year, it will run more smoothly next year?

I do not agree that winter fuel payments have been a shambles. They have been a great success. The Opposition did nothing to provide pensioners with help with their winter heating bills over 18 years in office. The winter fuel payments will be made again next year, and we shall examine the procedures to see what, if any, lessons can be learnt from this year's successful exercise.

What assessment she has made of inequality in pensioner incomes. [34062]

We want today's and tomorrow's pensioners to enjoy security in retirement. Income inequality between the best and worst-off pensioners has grown since 1979, and estimates show that that inequality is set to widen in the future.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a quarter of pensioners are on income support, and that pensioner poverty is a serious problem, particularly in Burnt Oak and Colindale wards in my constituency? Next week, I am due to visit a pensioners luncheon club. Can my hon. Friend tell me what progress I can report to those pensioners when I meet them?

A quarter of pensioners are entitled to income support, but many of them are not receiving it. That is why, next month, we are launching nine pilot projects using the most up-to-date computer data techniques to identify those pensioners. We shall work with local authorities and local voluntary organisations to find the best ways of encouraging them to do so. I hope that, on my hon. Friend's visit to the lunch club, he will raise awareness of the Government's action for the poorest pensioners.

It is both a great pleasure and an honour to open the final day of debate on this, the first full Budget of the new Labour Government: a Budget that starts to shape our future; a Budget that is radical and reforming. It begins to heal the divisions in our society and to tackle the weaknesses in our economy—a bold Budget from a Government who, I remind the House, have held office for less than a year.

Does the right hon. Lady think that DM3.06 to the pound is a good rate for British industry? Does she fear that it will mean big reductions in exports, a big surge in imports and a lot of factory closures?

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised that matter. I shall come to interest rates and the exchange rate later on. I am looking forward today to hearing from the right hon. Gentleman what the Conservative party proposes that the Government should do—

indicated assent.

I am very pleased to see that. We hope to hear a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman about the policies that his party now supports—because there have been some abrupt and rather surprising changes. When we introduced the competition and spectrum pricing Bills, the right hon. Gentleman attacked policies that his party had broadly supported before the election. That must have come as a surprise to the Leader of the Opposition. Before I had even begun discussions with Jaguar over Government support for a new project, the right hon. Gentleman put the jobs of thousands in Halewood at risk by attempting a crass bit of interference in the negotiations. That, too, was rather awkward for the Leader of the Opposition.

"The British company has to take the exchange rate risk as the pound will continue to fluctuate against the euro".

"The compulsory introduction of the euro in some European countries may change some business views of the balance of advantages and disadvantages of a European currency".

rose—

Order. Someone has an electrical device that is going off. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that Madam Speaker takes a very dim view of that.

As the Low Pay Commission met so quickly and no doubt will have to come up with a rate every year, will the right hon. Lady tell us what rate she expects for the minimum wage—not least because it has an impact on the Chancellor's Budget?

No, I am not prepared to speculate about what the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission will be. We set it up as an independent body to do its own research and come to a view and make recommendations, and those recommendations will be before the House and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in the not too distant future.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I shall continue a little further if I may.

Am I right in thinking that, in opposition, Labour pledged not to raise taxes when it was elected— and has it now breached that pledge in both Budgets?

No. We did not give the pledge to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We said very specifically that we would not raise—[Interruption.] Yes, I have read the record. I am very well aware of what we said, and I have no illusion about what it was. We were very clear and careful in what we said and what we promised. We promised not to raise either the standard rate or the higher rate of income tax. We promised to cut VAT on fuel, as we have done, and we promised—

Backtracking.

No. We were most careful to say on all occasions that of course no Government could rule out making other changes, in various tax allowances and so on. We were determined not to repeat the crass errors of the Conservative party in telling the British people a pack of lies and then complaining when they came home to roost.

Why is it that, on 20 January 1997, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said on "Newsnight":

"It is my aim to get the burden down for ordinary people",

I could not quite hear all of the end of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I can say to him that, as he pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that he wanted to make people on low incomes better off, and that is precisely what we are already doing in this Budget.

Is the right hon. Lady saying that the statement by the then Leader of the Opposition, reported on 21 September 1996 in the Financial Times, that

"We have no plans to increase tax at all",

My right hon. Friend was being asked about personal taxation. Of course—[Interruption.] What we said about tax before the general election was clear, and the British people completely understood it. We made it absolutely clear that we would not change the rates of income tax. We also made it clear that we would have a windfall tax on the privatised utilities. We made it plain that we would cut VAT on fuel.

Burden.

No one believes any of this nonsense from the Conservative party, for the simple reason—

Try reading the facts.

Yes, I am looking at the facts. No one believes what the Conservatives say, for the simple reason that what they say now about our proposals is as inaccurate as what they said about their own before the 1992 general election.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I am sorry; I have finished with that point.

To clarify matters for the House, can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Red Books for this and the previous Budget make it clear that, during this Parliament, there will be an increase in business taxation, including utilities tax, of £25,000 million? That is the Treasury figure. Can she confirm it?

Tell her, Gordon.

I am not familiar with the final figure that the right hon. Gentleman gives, but I am well aware that we are proposing a package of changes in corporate taxation. That package of changes, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware—[Interruption.] Ah; the right hon. Gentleman is including the windfall tax; that is why the figure that he gives is different from that given by most others. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we are indeed introducing a full package of changes in corporate taxation, which will make the tax system simpler and more stable, and which will encourage investment and long-term development. That is what the Government wish to achieve.

"The promise of a stable corporation tax framework and lower tax rates and enhanced reliefs for small and medium-sized companies … are all moves in the right direction."

I am most grateful to the Minister for her courtesy in giving way. Will she take this opportunity to confirm to the House that small companies, many of which are technology or knowledge-based and employ highly paid staff, will face a bigger national insurance burden as a result of this Budget—yes or no?

Overall, small businesses will benefit from this Budget—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware. The changes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made to national insurance contributions alongside the changes to corporation tax and all the other issues to which I have referred will mean a benefit to small business. That is why small businesses have welcomed the Budget—and obviously the hon. Gentleman wishes that they had not.

The Minister is making a very good point about the need to encourage small and medium-sized businesses. Does she acknowledge that, although the operators in the North sea are large multinational companies, many businesses that supply and service those industries are small and medium-sized? Does she agree that an adverse change in the regime when oil prices are at an all-time low could threaten both the home market and export opportunities for those businesses?

Those small businesses, like others, will benefit from the overall package in the Budget. The hon. Gentleman makes a different point about the review of taxation in the North sea. He is well aware that my right hon. Friend is continuing to examine that matter. My right hon. Friend has heard the hon. Gentleman, and we shall have his observations at the back of our minds when we consider the overall regime for the North sea.

rose—

I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman and I am beginning to be concerned about time. If he does not mind, I shall make a little more progress.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me. I am interested in knowing the policies of right hon. and hon. Members on his Front Bench.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that although the fiscal stance has been tightened a little, the tightening in the previous Budget was completely wrongly targeted, in that it attacked savings rather than attacking expenditure by the public? That is the reason for the present state of the economy.

No, my right hon. Friend did not attack savings, either in his previous Budget or in this one. As for an inadequate tightening of the public finances, I think that 2 per cent. of GDP is an extremely adequate tightening of the public finances.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Although he says that we should be doing more to tighten the fiscal stance, when it comes to saying what we should not be doing, he is silent.

"an overheating consumer side of the economy… Labour talk about 'hard choices', but they don't make them."

The right hon. Lady says that we were politically irresponsible. Our measures are producing an inflation rate of 2.6 per cent. She says of the present strong exchange rate that it is entirely a matter for the Governor of the Bank of England, but does she not accept that the exchange rate will not begin to ease until the markets expect that the next movement of interest rates will be downwards? Does she further accept that the narrative that she has just given explains why the Chancellor's fiscal policy will do absolutely nothing to create the climate in which that movement might begin? The Chancellor has raised taxes on business and on savings, and he has done so for populist reasons, because as she has just revealed, the Government think that short-term political reasons rule out taking any other step.