How many meetings she has had in the past three months to discuss disability-related benefits with organisations representing the disabled; and if she will make a statement. [38475]

During the past three months, my ministerial colleagues and I have met on 10 occasions with national organisations and umbrella groups representing people with disabilities.

I welcome the belated conversion of the Secretary of State and her Ministers to engaging in reasonable dialogue with disability groups. In the light of the admission by Ministers and civil servants to the recent Social Security Committee that there had been some bad errors of judgment in respect of decisions on the benefit integrity project, will the Secretary of State confirm that every single decision involving the withdrawal or lowering of benefits before 9 February will now be reviewed?

Yes.

I call Mr. Duncan Smith.

rose—

rose—

I have not asked a question yet. Perhaps the Minister would like to hear it before answering. During his meetings with various disability groups, was the subject of taxing disability living allowance raised and, if so, what was his opinion as to what should happen?

A wide variety of topics were discussed at those meetings. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that there is no such proposal in the welfare reform Green Paper.

What estimate she has made of the number of people with disabilities who will be helped back to work as a result of the new deal programme. [38477]

The new deal for the long-term sick and disabled aims to help the 1 million disabled people who are not in work, but who want to work.

Does the Secretary of State agree with me and many disability groups that the £195 million allocated to the project is not enough to get disabled people back to work? Does she accept that, although the numbers involved vary greatly, on average just £100 per disabled person will be made available? Will she give the House a commitment that if the project fails to get people back to work, in a year's time she will allocate more resources so that more disabled people can return to the work force?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the aim of trying to help people with disabilities back to work. The £195 million that has been allocated is intended not to help all disabled people back to work, but to finance pilot projects to ascertain what works best to help people with disabilities or health problems get into work and stay there. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House the undertaking that, when we find out what works, we shall roll it out nationally. It is seedcorn money for pump priming and its purpose is to find out what will work with a view to making it national.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must be ambitious about the programme? In the borough of Croydon, people with serious learning difficulties, including young women with Down's syndrome, have been successfully placed in employment. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that we must consider the poverty traps that can affect people with disabilities, particularly those in residential care? Will her Department study the particular poverty traps facing people with severe learning difficulties who want to re-enter work?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. We should be ambitious about the opportunities for people with learning and other disabilities to work when they want to do so. It is not good enough for us to write people off and not consider their capabilities and abilities. The Keyring project in my constituency helps people with learning disabilities to do what they consider an important job. The Shaw trust also provides a number of projects, as does Mencap, to help people with learning difficulties have the shape, self-respect and dignity of work in their lives. At present, the benefits system traps people with health or disability problems out of the labour market. In the Social Security Bill, we are taking powers to strip away the benefit disincentive and recognise, as we do for people on the jobseeker's allowance, the ambitions of people on incapacity benefit to work.

When the Minister for Welfare Reform came before the Social Security Committee a couple of weeks ago—he came on his own on that occasion, which may, in retrospect, have been a mistake—he said that the Department of Social Security was conducting a survey into the incomes of recipients of disability living allowance. The Minister said that the reason for the survey was to assess whether it was worth while taxing DLA. Does the right hon. Lady agree with that approach? What is her opinion about whether DLA should be taxed?

The hon. Gentleman is not engaging in the constructive opposition that we should like to see, as some hon. Members are. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is being completely misquoted—he did not say that we were considering taxing DLA; he said that we needed the fullest information about people on benefits and their income levels. That is our responsibility, and one which we are discharging.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for many years, there has been a system of providing welfare to work for disabled people, known as Remploy? During the 18 years of Tory Government, I went on marches with those disabled people round towns such as Alfreton, in an effort to prevent the Tory Government from closing Remploy factories. I suggest that, in her review, my right hon. Friend considers building more Remploy factories in other parts of Britain. There is no doubt that they work, and disabled people like to attend.

I pay tribute to Remploy. In the years when the previous Government were not interested in concerns about opportunities for people with disabilities to work, Remploy carried forward that flag and provided much-needed opportunities. We are determined to build on the good work of Remploy. With the new deal for long-term sick and disabled people, Remploy's work will be to provide new challenges for people with disabilities.

Given that the right hon. Lady has talked a great deal about what the Government are planning to do to bring disabled people back into work, and in the light of her comment about constructive opposition, will she tell us whether, given the new deal plans, she will be measured by whether unemployment among disabled people is lower at the end of this Parliament than it was at the beginning?

We want to be judged on the success of our programme to help people with disabilities tackle the barriers between them and the world of work, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. We have four ways of dealing with that: first, active help to get people into work through the pilot projects that we have announced; secondly, removing discrimination in the benefits system against people on incapacity benefit; thirdly, the disabled persons tax credit, which will help to make work pay for people with disabilities; and fourthly, making the workplace disability friendly. Through that package of four thrusts of policy change, a greater percentage of people with disabilities will go into the world of work. Obviously, we must aim for a greater percentage because the figure will depend on how many disabled people there are.

What assessment she makes of housing costs in setting levels of income support. [38479]

Help with housing costs for people receiving income support is given through specific allowances within income support, mainly for mortgage interest, and through housing benefit and council tax benefit. Those are assessed according to the circumstances of the individual concerned. Housing costs are not met through personal allowances and premiums within income support, and are thus not taken into account in setting the levels of those payments.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I have been corresponding with him over the past few months concerning the non-dependant deduction rule whereby, if tenants in receipt of housing benefit have someone come to stay with them who does not qualify for housing benefit but is in receipt of income support, they could stand to have their housing benefit reduced by up to £7 a week. That is an anomaly; it implies that the personal element of income support contains an element for rent, which it does not. That can increase poverty among many of the families affected. Will my hon. Friend re-examine the interrelationship between housing benefit regulations and income support regulations, with regard to that particular rule?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for again raising that matter with me. As he rightly says, he has been in lengthy correspondence with the Department on the matter, and I assure him yet again today that the interrelationship between income support and housing benefit will be reviewed in the light of our general review of housing benefit and housing policy. I assure him that the matter that he has brought to my attention will be included in that review.

In the spirit of constructive opposition, and on behalf—I guess—of the whole House, I acknowledge the Government's positive work on welfare to work generally. After the introduction of the working families tax credit, housing benefit, as currently constructed, will be the biggest obstacle to getting people off benefit and into work. The Minister said that there is a benefits review. When will the housing benefit review be completed? Will he give a guarantee that housing benefit will be reformed before the working families tax credit is introduced?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's constructive contribution. He is absolutely right to say that housing costs represent a significant barrier to a successful return to work under the welfare-to-work programme. I assure him that further work is continuing as fast as possible to ensure that we investigate clearly the implications of that barrier and the way in which housing benefit is structured. As soon as we have completed that analysis, we shall feed it through the housing review so that it is harmonised with other reform programmes, especially welfare to work, to ensure that any impediment to people moving successfully from welfare into the workplace is removed.

Are controls or further restrictions on rents in the private and voluntary sectors being considered as part of the housing and social security reviews? If they are not, tenants will be further punished at the end of the exercise.

The review that we are undertaking is, as my hon. Friend is well aware, a joint review with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I assure him that all aspects of housing benefit, and crucially the interrelationship between housing benefit and housing policy, will be considered. That obviously includes the level of rents. I assure him that his point will be brought to the attention of the review.

If she will make a statement on Government actions to assist the poorest pensioners during the last year. [38481]

We have taken steps to help today's poorest pensioners, and want to ensure that all pensioners share fairly in rising national prosperity. Our pensions review is looking at how we can meet that objective.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the plight of pensioners and the problems that they face. I am sure that she is also aware of unnecessary worry caused to them by some inaccurate press reports, particularly over Christmas. Will she confirm that the basic state pension will remain the bedrock of future pension provision under this Government?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The basic state pension will remain the foundation of income in retirement. We promised that in our manifesto; that is yet another of the promises that we are keeping. We also said that we would uprate the basic state pension at least in line with prices—and we have kept that promise, too. We have gone further than that to help pensioners with their income. We have cut VAT on gas and electricity, helped all pensioners with the cost of their winter fuel and, in particular, given extra to the poorest pensioners on income support. I know that one of the reasons why my hon. Friend is concerned about the matter is that about 80 per cent. of the poorest pensioners are women. She has been very concerned about that, in her constituency and in Wales.

The right hon. Lady has talked about the reduction in the cost of domestic fuel. Will she confirm that poorer pensioners—indeed, all people—have received far more help not so much from the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel, which I reckon to be in the order of a third of 8 per cent., but from the significant decreases in gas and electricity prices since the privatisation of those industries?

With the abolition of the gas levy, we have reduced costs even further. I should expect someone who wanted to increase VAT on gas and electricity to 17.5 per cent.—as the hon. Gentleman did—simply to brush to one side the problem many pensioners have with paying their fuel bills. One of the big problems is not fuel bills, but pensioners not having enough money in their pockets—even money to which they are entitled. As you will know from your work with your constituents, Madam Speaker, many pensioners who are entitled to income support do not claim it because they find the 35-page form too complicated, or because they are too proud to fill it in. We are also making progress in helping pensioners with their costs by ensuring that, at the very least, they get the income to which they are entitled.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although she has outlined important measures, many pensioners in this country, and in my constituency in particular, are concerned about the basic state pension and want security now, and not just in the future, because they are living from day to day? When will the pensions review be completed? Will it provide for pensioners today, and not just for those of tomorrow?

I set up the pensions review—a manifesto promise—in July, and it has been proceeding. The voice of pensioners has been at the heart of the review, and we have consulted with Jack Jones of the National Pensioners Convention and many other pensioners' organisations.

The Secretary of State said that a number of pensioners are not claiming the income support to which they are entitled. Does that number include a large number of our most elderly pensioners? Would not the best way to help the poorest pensioners be to take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that an extra amount should be paid to the most elderly pensioners—those over 75, perhaps? Will the hints that we have been given by Ministers that the Government have this in mind come to fruition; if so, when?

The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has played an important part and has made constructive proposals about how we can best target our help at those who need it most without giving people a sense of stigmatisation. The issue of the oldest pensioners—those who did not have a good occupational pension, or whose occupational pension has run out—is a problem which we are bearing in mind in our research project. We have set up nine pilot projects to discover which pensioners are not claiming their income support and how we can best get help to them. Focusing extra help on people when they reach a certain age is very much on the agenda.

The Secretary of State has acknowledged the low take-up by some of the poorest pensioners of income support to which they are entitled. Does that not illustrate the problems of means-testing in the welfare system; not only do many people who need extra money not get it, but it encourages fraud and stigmatisation? Should we not be moving away from means-testing in the benefits system?

We should be moving away from stigmatisation. People will not claim what they are entitled to if they feel that that will be embarrassing or humiliating and that they will have to go through hurdles and hoops. We are considering more automatic ways—which would avoid the stigmatisation of the means test—in which to help the poorest pensioners.

In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), the Secretary of State said that the needs of today's pensioners were never far from her mind. Did her Department make any representations to the Treasury before the March Budget to increase the basic state pension beyond the commitment to link it with prices?

Hardly a day—no, an hour—passes without my Department making representations to, and holding discussions with, the Treasury.

When the Green Paper on pensions reform is published, will there be the widest possible consultation on its findings? When the Government took office nearly a year ago, they discovered that 1 million pensioners had been abandoned—they were not claiming their pensions—by the previous Government, who had failed to provide a decent pension. Taking into account the cut in VAT on fuel and the extra winter fuel payments, have we not done more in the past 12 months than the previous Administration did in 18 years?

We have already received 2,000 responses to the pensions review, which will be drawn together in a Green Paper. The publication of that Green Paper will signal an important round of consultation, which we intend to hold with hon. Members from both sides of the House and organisations outside the House.

Given the right hon. Lady's comments on income support, measuring poverty and the means test, will she now—finally—take this opportunity to say whether the Government will means-test the basic state pension, regardless of whether it is universal?

We said in our manifesto that the basic state pension would remain universal—it would remain the foundation of income in retirement for all. Therefore, it will be not means-tested, but uprated at least in line with prices. The hon. Gentleman constantly creates scares. Pensioners lost out by up to £20 a week as a result of the way in which Conservatives treated the basic state pension. We want to tackle the legacy of poverty and inequality.

Given that answer, will the right hon. Lady say whether she agrees with the Minister for Welfare Reform, who said, as recently as last week, that the attempts of Labour Members before and after the election to link poverty to take-up figures for income support were "cheap and futile"? Does she believe that she falls into that category?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform said neither thing. In his work on the Select Committee on Social Security when he was in opposition, he pointed out the number of pensioners who were falling through the net—we, too, highlighted that when we were in opposition. We shall proceed by ensuring a universal basic state pension and focusing more help on the poorest in retirement—that is what people think fair.

What initiatives her Department is taking to promote good parenting. [38484]

One of the key issues for parents, both mothers and fathers, is balancing work and family responsibilities, so family-friendly employment is a top priority for the Government. We are already taking action to provide high-quality child care for all families, and we shall ensure that parents can take time off from paid work to spend with their children.

The Government's rhetoric over the past few months has concerned lone parents who work, but does the Secretary of State accept that, in many couples with children, one parent, usually the mother, gives up work to look after them, and that those responsibilities fall doubly heavily when there is only one parent? Can she reassure me that the Government are fully supportive of couples in which one parent devotes the whole of her—it is usually her—time to looking after children and the family home?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We want to offer lone parents, and indeed all parents, more opportunities to work. One of the problems was that, although married women, who are not trapped in the benefits system, are able to return to work, particularly after the youngest child has started school, lone parents are often trapped into remaining on benefit, even though many have not been receiving any income from the father and have wanted to go back to work to increase the income for their children.

Is the Secretary of State saying that she has no plans to introduce any element of compulsion whatever? Is she aware that her ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), said in a written answer on Friday that there were no figures for the control areas of the pilot scheme for lone parents? Is it sensible to proceed without having tested the figures, and on what basis do the Government plan to proceed in those circumstances?

The hon. Lady raises two points. On the first, the new deal for lone parents is entirely voluntary. The previous Government simply said, "Stay on income support until your youngest child is 16. We don't assume that you've got any interest in going back to work and we're not going to give you any help." Our policy is to extend help to get lone parents into work and to provide child care so that, particularly once the youngest child is of school age, they can return to employment.

What is her Department's long-term policy on the involvement of the state in funding the mortgage costs of unemployed home buyers. [38485]

We made it clear in the Green Paper on welfare reform that we are working with the industry to provide better protection for all home buyers, including the unemployed. We aim to develop a sustainable policy, in line with the eight principles underpinning the Government's approach to welfare reform. We shall consider state involvement in the provision of help with mortgage costs as work on reforms proceeds.

Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Welfare Reform said to me a month ago that the best form of protection for all home buyers is private insurance? Does he agree that that is a mistaken view, that there are many people for whom private insurance is not appropriate and whom private insurers would not touch with a barge pole, and that there needs to be a continuing role for the state?

There is an awful lot of quoting, or rather misquoting, going on today, which we shall examine carefully. Let me make it absolutely clear that we are working with the industry to ensure that products that are appropriate to meet the needs of people to protect their homes, and to protect themselves in their home ownership, will continue. We shall introduce proposals in line with that work as our welfare reform programme unfolds.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the short term, people still have problems under the present system, which often does not provide the correct range of interest because of standardisation and the fact that the standardisation update follows some time after a mortgage rate increase? Another problem which still exists is that we pay the benefit four-weekly, whereas most mortgage interest is paid on a monthly basis, making it difficult to calculate whether the correct payments are received.

I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and many others. The difficulty is in managing the complex administrative procedures and ensuring that people get help and support with mortgage housing costs. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the standard interest rate will increase from 7.97 to 8.34 per cent. from 24 May.

What plans she has to reform the system of social security tribunals. [38486]

Our plans are detailed in the Social Security Bill.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the present system imposes totally unacceptable delays on people? I shall give two examples from my constituency. One constituent lodged an appeal on 20 January and is still waiting to hear something. In an even worse case, an appeal was lodged on 8 July last year and was not even acknowledged as accepted by the Independent Tribunal Service until 8 January this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in those cases, justice delayed is justice denied? As well as considering reform for the future, will he urge the ITS to do something to clear that backlog of cases, which is imposing a terrible burden on some of the poorest people?

The answer to the first question is yes, as is the answer to the second question. Our proposals in the Social Security Bill are aimed at drastically speeding up the length of time that people have to wait between lodging an appeal and its being heard.

Does the Minister recall a case which I discussed with him and about which I wrote to the Secretary of State—that of a constituent who, sadly, died earlier this month having been waiting 18 months for an appeal to be heard about a disability benefit for a disability from which he died? Is it not an absolute disgrace that the resources that should have been available to that person while he was alive were denied? What will the right hon. Gentleman do urgently to get that sorted out?

The right hon. Gentleman makes the case for reform more effectively than I could.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity in the past few months to read the Hansard Standing Committee reports on the Social Security Bill from last autumn? What change between then and now has led his Department in another place to accept amendments tabled by the Conservative Opposition in Committee, which the Government refused to accept then, concerning having someone with legal representation as a member of a tribunal? In the spirit of constructive opposition and government, are the Government now also prepared to accept the important principle which we put forward in amendments—that we should not have one-member tribunals, in the interests of natural justice?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for illustrating to the House what a listening Government we have. I should have thought that he would congratulate the Government, rather than trying to carp.

What has changed?

I will give the answer for a second time: this is a listening Government.

What action she has taken to tackle organised landlord fraud since 1 May 1997. [38487]

We made it clear in our election manifesto that rooting out fraud is an essential part of our reform of welfare. We have already introduced regulations that give local authorities tough new powers to tackle fraudulent landlords and tightened the rules on paying benefit direct to landlords. That is another election pledge being fulfilled.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In Bolton, up to 80 per cent. of rents paid to private landlords are paid directly by cheque, and I suspect that the figures are similar in other towns and cities. That creates the problem that tenants often leave premises without informing the local authority and the landlord does not inform the authority, for convenience or for other reasons. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need tighter inspections of such premises to ensure compliance?

I do. My hon. Friend's local authority concentrated its £20,000 challenge money on landlord fraud and has doubled its weekly benefits savings. I congratulate it on that.

When she last met representatives of the National Association of Pension Funds to discuss the Government's proposals for pensions. [38488]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have met representatives of the National Association of Pension Funds on a number of occasions since the pensions review was launched last July, most recently at the annual council dinner on 11 February.

Did the Under-Secretary hear the chairman of the Association of Consulting Actuaries warn recently of the damage inflicted by the Government on industry's willingness to support pension schemes? A year ago, the Government promised to support occupational pension schemes, but the result was a £5 billion raid without consultation. Was that another election pledge being delivered?

I should have found it difficult not to hear the comments of the chairman of the Association of Consulting Actuaries, as I sat next to him when he spoke. In my own remarks to that organisation, I made it clear that this country's future ability to pay pensions—in whatever form—depends critically on our developing sound economic policies, avoiding boom and bust and achieving the long-term investment needed to create wealth.

The Minister for Welfare Reform told me in the Select Committee last week that the state retirement pension would remain universal for the lifetime of this Parliament. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will want to avoid any doubt on that point, which can perhaps be cleared up once and for all: will he confirm that the Government will not, in any circumstances, means-test the basic state retirement pension?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to earlier exchanges. Let me make it clear that we will honour the manifesto on which we were elected, as we have done on uprating and maintenance of the basic state pension as the foundation for retirement and on the many other measures that we have taken to help pensioners.

Did the National Association of Pension Funds agree that the best-value pensions in this country are paid by the state earnings-related pension scheme? Did it agree that the previous Government got away with damaging the value of SERPS because that was not appreciated by the general population and that our best way forward is to ensure that SERPS is well understood—as is the pensions points scheme in France—to pay index-linked pensions of superb value? Would the association also agree that the worst way to go forward with stakeholder pensions would be to entrust them to those who wickedly mis-sold personal pensions to millions of people?

In fairness, the National Association of Pension Funds would be more anxious to stress that the majority of those who enjoy security in retirement have a good second pension from an occupational scheme. However, I agree that one of the critical challenges for the pensions review is to ensure that each individual has the fullest possible understanding of his or her pension provision and of the available alternatives. The pensions education working group established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in September is considering that and we hope to receive its conclusions shortly.

How many people have not received their winter fuel payments. [38490]

What steps her Department has taken to help pensioners with their fuel bills since 1 May 1997. [38499]

All payments should now have been sent to eligible pensioners' homes or bank accounts, or issued to post offices for collection. An estimated 100,000 girocheques have not been collected from post offices. That may be for a variety of reasons, including death, hospitalisation and holidays, but the Benefits Agency will follow up each case to make every effort to ensure that the proper entitlement is received. We have committed a total of £400 million for last winter and the next to make winter fuel payments to help eligible pensioners with their fuel bills. This is the first time that any Government have provided automatic help to more than 7 million pensioner households with fuel bills to pay.

The £850,000 television advertisement gave pensioners the impression that the cheques would drop through their letter-boxes. When they discovered that that was not the case and that they had to collect them, many people discovered that they could not cash them because they were already out of date. Why were the cheques issued with a four-week time limit on them?

For obvious security reasons, girocheques for Benefits Agency payments are normally time-limited. The advertising scheme was necessary to ensure that pensioners had the confidence to keep their heating on, and not be cold in the winter, because help was going to arrive.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the amount spent by the Government on winter fuel payments is larger than we would have spent had we restored the link with wages so scandalously abandoned by the Conservative party, with the added effect that the help has gone to those who need it most? Given that, will my hon. Friend consider extending the scheme beyond next year?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the scale of the support that the Government have given to pensioners. In doing that, we have given priority to the poorest pensioners, as we promised in our manifesto. We made a commitment to the operation of winter fuel payments last winter and next winter. A variety of initiatives is under way across government, examining, for example, utility regulation and energy conservation. We will take stock as the reviews come to conclusions on the best way to ensure that pensioners can heat their homes in winter.

Given that the Under-Secretary mentioned the advertising campaign, will he say why the contract for it was awarded, without going out to competitive tender, to an agency that just happened to have a close link to the Labour party?

The reason is that that agency was extensively used by the Conservative party in government. Since 1989, the agency has had a standing contract—I forget the technical term—with the Department, properly agreed under EC procurement regulations. We merely continued to use the same agency that the Conservative party used when it was in government.

What representations she has received on the Green Paper on welfare reform since 26 March. [38491]

What representations she has received from the Churches about the results of the Government's review of the social security benefits system. [38494]

More than 100.

I thank the Minister for Welfare Reform for that reply. As the Government's mood music accompanying their papers has suggested that those currently in receipt of benefits will not lose out, does it not follow that any process of welfare reform risks increasing the costs of an already expensive system? Has the Minister told the Chancellor or is the mood music unsustainable?

At the end of last week, I wrote to all hon. Members to ask them to take the ideas of the Green Paper to their constituencies to consult party activists and other stakeholders in their areas. I look forward to receiving the hon. Gentleman's replies.

Does the Minister recall in the correspondence that all candidates got in the general election the report of the Churches' inquiry into unemployment and the future of work? Will he take on board in the welfare review the strong message contained in that document that, although the right to work is inalienable—a right neglected by the previous Government—implicit in that is quality of work? People should have a right to work appropriate to their aspirations, skills and needs. That must be the objective of the Government. Will the Minister be mindful that people should have the right to safeguard and look after their families? There should not be a presumption that people must work while neglecting their other obligations.

The Government believe that those who can work should work. We also believe that we have a duty to help people to achieve that objective. The Chancellor made it plain in his Budget that those who work would be better off in work. Although it is desirable that people find work that fulfils their talents to the full, their primary duty is to earn a wage to look after themselves and their families.

I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the response from some of my constituents in respect of reform of the welfare state. First, it is coming through loud and clear that both providers and users believe that reform is well and truly overdue; but, secondly, they are explicitly asking for an assurance that benefits staff will not only effectively administer reforms when those are in place, but do so with compassion.

I was in my hon. Friend's constituency on Saturday. I was able to give her that assurance then and I give it to the House now.

Does the Minister agree that one of the main objectives of the Government's welfare reforms ought to be to encourage more people to save more money for their old age? He has asked what our constituents think about his proposals and I can tell him that in Bromsgrove one of the major concerns among hard-working decent people who have saved hard for their old age is that they see others who are similarly elderly, but who spent their money during their working lives and now receive considerable benefits from the state to which those who did save are not entitled. They are angry about that and they would like to know what the Government's proposals are for reform in that respect.

People saving adequately is one of our objectives in welfare reform. I very much agree with the second part of the hon. Lady's question.

What proposals she has to include capital from the sale of the matrimonial home in the assessment of child maintenance; and if she will make a statement. [38493]

Money from the sale of the matrimonial home that has been earmarked for a new home or to acquire furnishings is ignored for a year. Any interest and dividends received from other capital are taken into account in the calculation of assessable income. We are looking at all aspects of the child support scheme to see where improvements can be made, in line with our manifesto commitments. We intend to consult widely on the issues raised by our reform of child support.

I thank my colleague for that reply. I appreciate what he and the Secretary of State are doing to try to erase the bristling anomalies arising from the Child Support Agency which we inherited.

May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members for their significant contribution to our review of the child support system? Their knowledge and experience from individual case work in their constituencies are extremely important in guiding us as we try to unravel the problems of the Child Support Agency. I assure my hon. Friend that his point is extremely important and it will be considered as part of the general review.

The Under-Secretary referred to the CSA, but does he accept that it was set up with support on both sides of the House—not only the previous Conservative Government, but the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and every other party in the House? Will he ensure that, in dealing with the matter, the House has more time and can consider what is to be done in a more measured way, so that we do not make the same prize error as we did when the House—not just the Government of the day—established the Child Support Agency?

It is clear that the House agreed universally with the principle behind the Child Support Agency, but not with the way in which it has been set up and administered. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take views from all sections of the House on the reform of the CSA. We shall take particular account of the views of the Select Committee on Social Security, which will have a valuable role in examining the proposals which we bring forward. We want to ensure that there is full consultation on the proposals so that we can try to unravel the mess that we inherited.

If she will calculate the impact of the measures contained in the Budget relating to VAT on fuel, and the consequent adjustments in benefits including the state pension, on the weekly income of a typical old-age pensioner not in receipt of income support. [38495]

One of the first actions of the Government was to implement our manifesto promise to cut the rate of VAT on fuel, an issue which has been of particular concern to pensioners. As a result, on average, a typical single pensioner receiving the basic state pension will be 20p a week and a couple 25p a week better off.

Is not the import of what the Under-Secretary has just told us that the actual benefit for the average old-age pensioner of this much-fanfared measure is paltry? Is it any wonder that many people are saying that, whatever other merits this year's Budget may have had, it was not a Budget for the old-age pensioner?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Conservatives in government attempted to establish VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. We carried out that manifesto commitment, but, in addition to carrying it out, we introduced winter fuel payments, at a cost of about £200 million this winter, and the same again next winter. Those were significant commitments to today's pensioners.

What estimate has the hon. Gentleman made of the effect on the lives of old-age pensioners who do not receive income support, and who live in rural areas, of the Chancellor's decision to increase excise duty on petrol in the Budget?

The issues of transport will be addressed in the forthcoming transport White Paper. As I have said, we have taken action—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has already asked a question. He should let the Minister answer.

The Conservative party has already forgotten its determination to make pensioners pay VAT on domestic fuel at 17.5 per cent., and no amount of trying to side with those in rural areas will divert pensioners' attention from that fact. The issue of rural transport will be addressed in the forthcoming transport White Paper.

What are the terms of reference of her Department's review of housing benefit. [38496]

Housing benefit is under consideration in the housing comprehensive spending review. The full terms of reference for the housing review were included in the press release issued by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 24 July, which covered all the reviews being undertaken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Copies of the press release have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Earlier this afternoon, in reply to a supplementary question on Question 3 by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Under-Secretary gave the illuminating reply that the housing benefit review would be published as soon as it was completed. I wonder whether, without being intrusive, I may press the Under-Secretary a little more. Will the review be completed by July this year, or some time next year? Will Under-Secretary be a little more specific than "as soon as it is completed"?

It would be extremely difficult to publish it before it was completed, but we shall complete it later this year.

When she expects to publish the review of the Child Support Agency. [38497]

What representations she has received about the reform of the Child Support Agency. [38498]

We believe that all children have the right to support from both their parents, wherever they live. That is why we are looking in detail at all aspects of the child support scheme to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service to all our clients, as we promised in our manifesto.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that the current child support system is failing children, parents and the staff who must administer it? Will he ensure that, whatever else comes out of the review, the system is simplified and made efficient, and that promptness in delivery of service to consumers is paramount?

I should like to answer five loud yeses to those questions. I can assure my hon. Friend that, as I have said previously, all aspects of the Child Support Agency are under consideration, and we value the contributions made by hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Will my hon. Friend join me in deploring the appalling mess left behind by the previous Government which has caused untold damage to many of the most vulnerable people in society? When an absent parent abandons more than one family, the CSA as it is currently set up is unable to cope with the children of the second or the third abandoned family. Does my hon. Friend agree that that matter must be addressed urgently?

My hon. Friend rightly highlights yet again the detailed complexity in the system. It needs simplifying and presenting in such a way that both partners understand not only the CSA formula, but its administration. We shall consider those matters carefully as the review continues.