What steps she is taking to tackle housing benefit fraud organised by landlords. [47468]

I thank my hon. Friend for his persistence with this question. Since the general election, we have made it easier for local authorities to stop payments to bogus landlords, to recover such payments and to collect information on other properties that the landlords may have and from which they may be making bogus claims.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is unacceptable for £4 billion-worth of housing benefit fraud to be perpetrated each year, and that the steps that he took in the regulations in November last year will go some way towards helping to prevent that abuse? Prevention is certainly better than the taxpayer being swindled by fraudulent landlords.

I can confirm all my hon. Friend's assertions. I draw to the attention of the House the record of his local authority, which has doubled its fraud savings target and introduced mechanisms for checking whether landlords are bogus, to prevent such claims from being made in the first place.

What representations she has received on the Government's proposals to assist the poorest pensioners. [47469]

What representations she has received on her proposals to assist the poorest pensioners. [47479]

What action she is taking to help the poorest pensioners. [47482]

We have received representations on a number of issues facing the poorest pensioners. An estimated 1 million of today's pensioners are not receiving the income support to which they are entitled. We are taking steps to tackle that by a programme of research into why so many pensioners do not receive their entitlement, and a programme of action involving nine pilot projects to test ways of getting more automatic help to pensioners.

Age Concern Harrow and Harrow Pensioners Action Group, two excellent organisations representing elderly people in my constituency, share my concern and that of my right hon. Friend about the number of elderly people not taking up their right to benefit. When does she expect her Department's research to be concluded, and can she assure the House that its findings will be acted on speedily?

We have already had interim findings from the research, showing that pensioners are losing out on between 24p and £51 a week in income support. We have also identified, through the interim report—I will let my hon. Friend have a copy—some of the reasons why they do not claim: the complexity; not understanding the system; and not wanting to have to prove that they are poor. We will take all those issues into account. The full report will be published at the beginning of next year, and we will certainly take action thereafter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the long term, the answer is not to offer pensioners more effective ways of claiming benefit but to make them independent of benefit, and is not the best way of doing that to phase back in the link with earnings?

In the long term, we need what has always been important to allow people to have a decent standard of living in retirement: the basic state pension topped up by a good second pension. We are committed to the basic state pension as the foundation of income in retirement, but we are also committed to extending occupational pensions and introducing stakeholder pensions so that people can put money aside and get good value for money from pensions on top of the basic state provision.

Is not it an indictment of the system that 1 million pensioners are not claiming the benefit to which they are entitled—a situation that we inherited from the previous Administration? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the independent report, "We All Need Pensions—The Prospects for Pension Provision", by Tom Ross, which says that there is likely to be a rise in pensioner inequality and that the majority of the poorest pensioners are women? Can she assure me, and the pensioners in Corby, that the Government will make meeting the needs of the poorest pensioners an urgent priority?

We will take immediate action to meet the needs of the poorest pensioners without waiting for the results of our review, and we will create a better long-term framework. We want to tackle the problem of growing inequality among pensioners caused by the growing gap in retirement incomes. We must tackle the problem of avoidable drops in income in retirement by making sure that people have a decent second pension. We must ensure that low earners or those who do not earn have a decent standard of living in retirement, which is the state's responsibility.

How does the right hon. Lady justify the fact that 300,000 of the poorest pensioners who do not pay tax but who have small savings will be deprived of their income as a result of the abolition of dividend tax credits? Is she aware that despite assurances given during proceedings on the Finance Bill, Ministers have done nothing to help those pensioners?

The best way to ensure that everyone can enjoy security in retirement is to build a thriving, skilled, well-paid economy. The opportunity to work and to put money aside for retirement is important. Companies providing occupational pensions will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax. Rebates for personal pensions will increase from April 1999. There is no long-term problem for occupational schemes. The Government are taking a long-term view of the economy, and of sustaining the investment that will lead to strong pensions. The pensioners who are losing out are those who have no second pension, no state earnings-related pension scheme, no occupational pension and no savings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am.

Will the Secretary of State take note of the question put by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) about the loss of the link between pensions and earnings? Her party campaigned vigorously in opposition for the re-establishment of that link. Pensioners have lost £20 a week as a result of the loss of the link, and those who are already pensioners have no opportunity to get a second pension. What will she do to make sure that the basic state pension is at an acceptable level, and that people do not have to revert to income support?

The Conservative Government's ending of the earnings link has certainly contributed to the growing gap in income in retirement. The poorest pensioners have been left behind. We have acted; within two years, an extra £400 million will be invested in support for pensioners, which will mean more money for pensioners than they would have had if we had reinstated the earnings link for this year and next.

The Government's plans for the poorest pensioners are believed to include a guarantee for older, poorer pensioners, if we are to believe the latest leak—and leaks from the Department of Social Security seem rather reliable. Will the Minister set out her thinking on how money can be guaranteed for the oldest, poorest pensioners?

In the short term, we want to see more pensioners on income support because we want all the pensioners entitled to income support automatically to receive their benefit. In the longer term, a combination of basic state pension and wider provision of second pensions will mean that fewer people are left to depend on means-tested benefit. The basic state pension is part of that equation.

The right hon. Lady failed spectacularly to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Let us hope that she does better with me.

The Government are very concerned about health and social services for all pensioners, particularly the poorest pensioners. The responsibility for social services authorities and for health service provision for the elderly lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, we work across Government to see how different departmental policies affect pensioners. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), is chairing a ministerial group to explore how Departments work together to ensure proper support and provision for pensioners.

When she expects to announce her proposals for changes to the Child Support Agency. [47470]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be making a statement within the hour.

I thank my hon. Friend for that most surprising answer. I am sure that all hon. Members are hoping that the new system that my right hon. Friend is about to unveil will be fair to the child and to both parents, and will work administratively. As a valedictory to the present system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope so. Does my hon. Friend agree that the current system has lost all credibility as a result of its record of inaccuracy, delay and failure to communicate? That system has been a nightmare for the many people caught up in it. In view of that fact, does not the new system deserve a new name?

It would clearly be totally inappropriate for me to give details at this stage of the proposed changes. However, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the Child Support Agency has experienced problems and that its staff have had difficulties dealing with the system that Parliament put in place. It is appropriate to put on record that the staff have worked extremely hard to make the system work as efficiently as possible against a background of legislation that is almost impossible to understand. I am confident that the statement that will be made later this afternoon will address many of the problems that my hon. Friend has identified.

What steps she is taking to improve the quality of child care. [47471]

Quality is one of the three watchwords of our national child care strategy, which aims to ensure good-quality, affordable child care for children in every neighbourhood.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In Ealing, North, many parents are becoming increasingly reliant on child minders and ensuring the quality of that care is becoming increasingly important. Many child minders are low paid and receive little or no formal training. Is my hon. Friend prepared to comment further on the present system? Does she have confidence in it?

Many parents have confidence in the present system but, as I have said, we are always looking to raise quality in this area. We want to improve the image of working with children and to make it an attractive career. We are concerned that 70 per cent. of child minders do not have formal qualifications. However, some local authorities—including my own—provide a great deal of training and advice for child minders. We want to encourage them to gain qualifications and to achieve nationally recognised standards, and we are doing a great deal of work in that field. My hon. Friend will be aware of the current consultation paper on regulations and the overall strategy in which I hope that all hon. Members will be involved.

Does the Minister accept that child benefit is important for many parents—particularly lone parents—when it comes to providing quality child care? Will the Minister confirm reports that the Secretary of State intends to change the date for payment of child benefit to 16-year-olds from the first Monday in September to 26 June? Will that not mean that some mothers will lose up to £856 and that all parents will lose £114 on average? Will the Minister tell the House why, given that state schools usually recess for the summer in mid to late July, the date of 26 June has been chosen? Is the Secretary of State confusing that date with the rising date of public schools, such as Fettes college and St. Paul's school?

I really do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information from. In respect of his benefits inquiry, the answer is definitively no.

What action the Government have taken to improve support for children through the social security system. [47472]

Our commitment to support families and children is central to our policies to modernise the welfare state. We will increase benefits for all families with children by increasing child benefit for the oldest child by £2.50. We are increasing benefits for children in the poorest families by increasing the child allowance on income-related benefits by £2.50 from November. We are ensuring that parents can work, and that work pays.

I thank my right hon. Friend. Does she agree that the new Labour Government have done more in the past year to help children through the social security system than the Conservatives ever did? Given their record and policies, which caused so much neglect and abject poverty for children, rather than sneering at our policies, should not they hang their heads in shame?

I welcome my hon. Friend's points. We have not only taken action to give extra benefits to the families with the poorest children but, above all, by helping their parents into work, we are helping such children to become better off than they could ever be in workless households.

In that case, will the Secretary of State assure us that she has no plans to abolish child benefit for 17 and 18-year-olds still in full-time education?

We have said that child benefit for those over 16 will be subject to review. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that before the general election. He has expressed his commitment to child benefit and increased it. He has said that we want to do even more and that we are going to make it fairer by clawing it back from higher-rate taxpayers.

Given that disproportionate numbers of our poorest citizens are children under five, will the Department consider reviewing the pros and cons of introducing an under-fives child benefit premium? That would not only target poverty without a means test, but give parents of children under five a proper choice about whether to seek employment in the labour market or stay at home to look after their children.

As ever, my hon. Friend raises an important point. It was always an assumption and a principle of benefit policy that as children get older, they get more expensive and therefore their benefit should be increased. It is also evident that some of the poorest children have been young children in poor families. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor took a step towards sorting this out when he introduced the premium for children in workless families under 11, on the basis of the Joseph Rowntree research report. My hon. Friend made a further point about the problems of children under five. We will carefully examine poverty among young children.

What progress has been made in increasing the take-up of work by lone parents. [47473]

The Government are committed to providing viable choices for lone parents who, in the past, were written off to a life on benefit. The new deal for lone parents is a major step in achieving this objective, and independent research has shown that it is having a clear effect on the number of lone parents getting off income support. Our approach is in tune with what lone parents want: the opportunity to work, and a better quality of life for their children. Progress is encouraging—10 per cent. more lone parents moved off income support and on to family credit in 1997 than in the preceding year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. How many personal advisers are employed in Coventry to help lone parents? How many lone parents in Coventry has it been possible to assist? I congratulate him on the last quarterly figures, which show that 30,000 lone parents have found employment. Put another way, the number of lone parents now out of work is below 1 million, which is a lot more than can be said for the time when the Conservative party was in power.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, although I am not able today to give him the precise figures for Coventry alone; I shall look into that. I have visited the new deal for lone parents pilot area in the midlands and seen the quality of the personal advisers and of the support that they are giving lone parents, who welcome the opportunity to return to work. The national roll-out of the new deal for lone parents will follow in October and, currently, many more personal advisers are being trained, which will be of further major benefit to lone parents in the midlands.

Can the Minister explain why his Department has rejected the model set out in the new deal for the young unemployed, which is that the objective should be to increase employability, and adopted instead in the new deal for lone parents an objective of getting people into work?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. The new deal for lone parents equally looks at the employability of lone parents, helps with the barriers to work such as child care, looks at the appropriate training they require and ensures that there is a link between that and the labour market. We have a common approach towards all unemployed people to ensure that they can maximise their opportunities to return to work, which is what they want to do.

My hon. Friend will know that I strongly support the new deal for lone parents and the making work pay strategy. Will he investigate the circumstances, which I am sure neither he nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intended should arise, in which a lone parent on family credit with one child leaving school at the end of June can be £25 a week worse off than a lone parent in identical circumstances on income support?

I recognise that that matter has been raised in the press—the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has already commented on it. The press report is totally inaccurate: the date for child benefit has not changed. Similarly, we inherited the date for family credit, which was changed in July 1996. Any proposal that now has an effect on work disincentives that we inherited will be looked at by the Government.

Does the Minister accept that the increase in the number of lone parents who are finding a job specifically as a result of the new deal is a mere 0.9 per cent., and that each costs about £22,000? Given the rate at which the money is being used, what plans has the Minister for continuing to help lone parents to get into work when all the money allocated from the windfall tax has been used up?

Yet again, the Liberal Democrats are interested only in criticising a scheme that, by their own admission, is helping lone parents to get back to work. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, because much of the cost arises from the initial expenditure on getting the scheme up and running. For once, the Liberal Democrats should applaud a Government who are trying to help people to get back into work, instead of adopting their usual practice of criticising anything that comes forward.

My hon. Friend will be aware that many lone parents in Slough and elsewhere have been able to get into work, in part because of individual advisers. However, a matter that concerns me is that lone parents in work have nobody to share the burden of family crises and other problems that occur while they are at work. Is there a case for continuing support once lone parents are in work, to help them to retain their employment by helping them to deal with family crises? Does my hon. Friend plan to give lone parents better support so that, having won a job, they can hang on to it and earn a better income for their family?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have visited most of the lone parent schemes in the country and what is remarkable is not only the support given to lone parents trying to obtain work, but the fact that that support continues after they have got into work to ensure that any crisis can be addressed immediately, so that the person can remain in work and does not have to return to benefit. Linked to that is an obligation on employers to look closely at their own employment policies and to make them much more family friendly, so that they can appreciate the problems that a lone parent might experience and, in conjunction with the lone parent's personal adviser, sort out the problem and ensure continued employment.

Is not the Minister avoiding the point? The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), made exactly the right point, which is that at a cost of £22,000 to £23,000 per job, the programme is very expensive. It is no good the Minister saying that those are the wrong figures and that they include start-up costs when there is a continuing rolling cost, such as the recent advertising campaign of £2.15 million which was intended to get more lone parents involved.

Once again, I reject the figures that the Opposition spokesperson has identified. Independent researchers have said that the Opposition figures are "meaningless". Most importantly, we cannot afford to allow lone parents who want to work to remain on benefit without substantial help from the Government to get them back into work. The Opposition did nothing but leave lone parents to languish on benefit. No help was forthcoming; no schemes were brought forward which helped lone parents back into work. The Labour Government can be proud of the new deal for lone parents.

What representations she has received on the impact of the Government's proposed crime and disorder legislation on women. [47474]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Women's organisations, many of which depend on volunteers, do not find it easy to enter into partnerships with public bodies such as local authorities and the police. In their representations, women's organisations have made the point that there is not enough working together of all the key players, including women's organisations. The provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill for effective inter-agency working should, we believe, address these problems.

My hon. Friend will be aware that one of these organisations, the Women's Refuge Movement, undertakes valuable work on domestic violence. However, quite often it does not get the co-operation at local level that we would all like to see. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the national guidelines for co-operation between local authorities, women's refuges and the police are implemented?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I want to give her the reassurance that she seeks. Co-operation at local level, as my hon. Friend says, between different agencies has not always been as good as it might be. For the first time, a statutory duty will be placed on local authorities and the police to create partnerships to tackle crime. One of the main duties of these partnerships will be to undertake audits to establish local crime statistics and experiences, with the idea that crime should be reduced. In looking to devise those audits and carry them out, we expect that women's organisations will be able to give valuable expertise to the other partners that they might otherwise lack. I give the assurance that domestic violence will be one of the crimes that we regard as extremely serious and that we shall give guidance on the new partnerships.

The Home Secretary gave a clear commitment to the House that women victims in rape cases would not be cross-examined by the defendant. Has that commitment been dropped and overturned by him?

I am sure that the hon. Lady should properly direct that question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I certainly have no knowledge of any change of heart on his part. We have made recommendations about the treatment of rape victims and they are now being consulted on. I will, of course, refer the hon. Lady's remarks to my right hon. Friend, and I undertake to write to her in due course.

What incentives she is giving local authorities to decrease the number of cases in which those committing housing benefit fraud are not prosecuted. [47475]

The Government have released £200,000 of taxpayers' money so that legal resources in the Department can be made available to local authorities to bring, we hope, successful prosecutions where they are so desired.

The Minister was recently reported as having told the Child Poverty Action Group that it is not true that most benefit fraud is accidental. He will be aware of the Public Accounts Committee's criticism that only one case of detected fraud in every 100 proceeds to prosecution. Will he explain what further measures might raise the prosecution rate? Will he confirm that any steps that are to be taken will be revealed first to the House, and not, like the Child Support Agency proposals, to the press—let alone to the dreadful Derek Draper to enable him to stuff his bank account with another £250 an hour?

Tomorrow, I shall meet the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to follow up the very points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I hope that we shall shortly be able to make a statement to the House on our counter-fraud strategy.

Does the Minister recognise that one of the disincentives to local government in managing housing benefit is the enormous administrative cost associated with that benefit, which must be borne by local government? In effect, local government throughout the country is asked to subsidise the Department of Social Security in that respect. Will the Minister make proposals fully to fund all the costs of administering housing benefit?

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that I shall think about it.

): Does the Minister of State essentially agree with the Public Accounts Committee's report and its general criticism? Will he tell the House when he is likely to introduce a Green Paper on the changes?

The Public Accounts Committee's report is a serious document, and I drafted part of the reply to it. As with the Green Paper on welfare reform, counter-fraud proposals will be brought before the House soon.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have such a legacy of fraud in housing benefit is the reduction in assistance to local authorities that the previous Government introduced in their final days, which prevents local authorities from effectively detecting and prosecuting fraud? Does he agree that another problem is the failure to ensure that we have a coherent information technology system linking the Benefits Agency and local government, as I witnessed when I worked in Luton Benefits Agency office for a day last week? The information technology system is crumbling and needs greater co-ordination. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that measures are taken swiftly so that we have a comprehensive review of the information technology system to link the Benefits Agency and local government and achieve more effective tracking of housing benefit and fraud?

My hon. Friend's second question is linked to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). That is an issue that we take seriously. We are also concerned that some local authorities do not bring any prosecutions whatever. The biggest fine that fraudsters can face is the loss of benefit, and they can then continue to claim in the same local authority area or that of a neighbouring local authority. I hope that shortly we shall put plans before the House which deal with each of my hon. Friend's questions.

What is her estimate of the net effect on benefit levels of the introduction of the minimum wage. [47477]

The national minimum wage is one element of the Government's strategy to make work pay. People receiving in-work benefits may see a reduction in the amount of benefit paid, as they would with any increase in income. However, the current benefit system is structured so that increases in income are not deducted pound for pound from benefit entitlement.

Will the Minister confirm that, if a single mother of two who is working full time and currently earning £3 an hour is lucky enough still to have a job when the minimum wage of £3.60 is introduced, her family income will rise by just £3 per week, with £21 clawed back by the Exchequer in lost benefit? Only 7.5p per hour will go to that employee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for all the soundbites about attacking poverty pay, the minimum wage is just a tax on business, designed as a revenue-raising exercise for the Treasury?

The national minimum wage is an essential part of our strategy to put a floor under in-work benefits and ensure, by combining the minimum wage with the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit, that people in work are significantly better off than they are currently. We shall ensure that, as the national minimum wage and the changes that we are making to in-work benefits through the tax system unfold, people see the benefit that the Government are bringing about by that combination of measures.

Is it not a fact that those on low pay throughout the country know that, as a result of what the Government are doing on the national minimum wage, national insurance, tax and benefits, they will get a much fairer deal than they ever would have done under a Tory Government? Is it not also a fact that employers paying a fair wage to their employees are fed up with paying in taxation to subsidise those who are paying poverty pay?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on every point.

With several reports this morning showing that Britain sadly appears to be on the edge of a recession, I wonder what work the Department of Social Security has done to estimate what the impact of a minimum wage will be if the economy is to dip into recession, bearing in mind the fact that the minimum wage will not only increase the wage bill nationally for those on low pay, but have a knock-on effect on differentials.

I refer the hon. Lady to the appropriate Departments: the Department of Trade and Industry for the national minimum wage and the Treasury for the state of the economy. However, on the changes that we are making in the social security system, the working families tax credit and the child care disregard have been warmly welcomed throughout the country by those who recognise that work should pay, and that employers should pay a decent wage.

Whenever a Conservative Member gets up to attack the minimum wage, would it not be useful to find out how many jobs that Tory Member has and the likely total income received? Is it not the height of hypocrisy for such people to criticise a scheme which would give the lowest-paid workers something of a lift-up?

Once again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. The previous Government were not prepared to put a floor under benefit levels. They allowed family credit and other in-work benefits to take the strain of low wages, ensuring that very poor employers did not take their responsibilities seriously and provide a decent wage for their employees.

What assessment she has made of the impact on women of implementing the part-time workers directive. [47478]

This Government are committed to part-time workers having at least the same rights as full-time workers. This is particularly important to women as 83 per cent. of part-time workers are women. Implementation of the part-time workers directive will remove discrimination against them and increase the status of part-time work generally. This, I suggest, is a positive step for all those who choose to work part time in order to balance work and family life.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she share my regret that Britain, which has the second highest proportion of part-time workers in Europe, is one of the last countries in Europe to introduce legislation covering part-time workers? Does she agree that the 1984 equal pay directive was implemented inadequately, creating hurdles for women seeking equal treatment, and that such directives provide minimum standards on which Governments may improve? Will she therefore give an assurance that she will work closely with her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that the directive is implemented in a way that gives effective rights to part-time workers?

I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question. I very much share her concern that, as a result of the previous Government's failure to sign the social chapter, employees in this country were denied a raft of improvements to their working lives. She draws attention to the deficiencies of the equal pay legislation. I assure her that we share the concern that it has not brought equality of pay to women; at present, women are paid about 80 per cent. of the average for men.

Given the changing patterns of work in the United Kingdom, which are to be welcomed, and given the great value of part-time jobs to women and, indeed, to men, does the Minister agree that the steps rightly taken to protect those jobs should be balanced by our making sure that there is sufficient scope for latitude in regulation, so as not to hinder the creation of many more part-time jobs for women?

The hon. Gentleman has not asked me a specific question. The wording of his remarks is not at all clear. As he knows, the Government have repeatedly said that we want flexibility at the workplace, properly protecting workers but preserving the interests of employers who have taken advantage of flexibility and given us a vibrant economy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the part-time workers directive is part of the Government's acknowledgement that family-friendly employment is essential to create stable environments at home and at work? We must ensure that women can continue to play a vital role in employment—there has been an explosion in the number of women in part-time work—and that they can work secure in the knowledge that there will still be enough flexibility for them as mothers to play a full role in home life, especially when the children are sick. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Ministers for Women will work with the Department of Trade and Industry team to ensure that the White Paper on family-friendly employment considers the responsibilities of women and families when children are sick, and when women need to dip in and out of employment?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have in circulation a consultation document on fairness at work, which lists the ways in which the Government propose to legislate for a range of opportunities for people to combine their working lives with good parenting. For example, the parental leave directive which is to come into UK law will make provision for people to have time off work around the time of the birth or adoption of a child. We are also considering time off for family emergencies. The consultation will attempt to define such emergencies.

As was evident from the figures that the Minister gave in response to the main question, part-time work offers many women opportunities to enter the workplace that flexibly meet their needs and those of their family circumstances. Conservative Members have noted that, when asked to do so by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the Minister failed to support the continuing need for a flexible economy and an increase in the number of part-time jobs for women.

I shall answer the second point first. I am sure that the House is unaware that the hon. Lady referred to an occasion on which I was not present when the publication of an important document on public appointments of women and men was announced. The Ministers for Women had contributed substantially to that programme. We have a principled position of 50:50 women and men in public appointments. For various reasons, the date chosen for the announcement was one on which I was speaking at an important conference in Bristol. There is no difference between my right hon. and hon. Friends and me on these matters: 50:50 women and men in public appointments, which the previous Government signally failed to achieve.

If she will review the 25p per week pension addition to pensioners aged over 80 years. [47480]

The pensions review is looking at the central areas of insecurity for elderly people, including the value and uprating of the basic pension.

Is it not an absolute disgrace that the 25p age addition for pensioners over 80 has not been increased since its introduction in 1971? If it had been uprated since then, it would probably now be worth about £1.70 or £1.80. Is it not a fact that what pensioners over80 really want is a decent state pension? If we are to continue with the age addition, it should be uprated—otherwise it should be scrapped.

My hon. Friend is right: no Government have uprated the age addition since it was introduced. That is one of the reasons why a fundamental pensions review is necessary.

If she will make a statement on the consultation process undertaken in connection with the new deal for sick and disabled people. [47483]

The Government have four strategies for helping disabled people who want to work. We are providing the active help and encouragement that people with disabilities need to move into work under the new deal for disabled people; taking obstacles to work out of the benefits system; making sure that work pays; and promoting radical change in the workplace to ensure equality and opportunity.

Does the Minister share the concern felt by many disability groups about the fact that, of all the new deal programmes, those aimed at encouraging disabled people to return to work are taking the longest to get off the ground? We were promised that the contracts for the pilot schemes would be awarded in June, but to date there has been no announcement. Can the Minister reaffirm his Government's commitment to making progress, so that disability groups realise that getting disabled people back to work is at the top rather than the bottom of the Government's agenda?

It is not true that disabled people are at the bottom of the Government's agenda. The new deal pilots are very important, as we need to establish what measures will be most effective in enabling disabled people to work.

If the mobility component of disability living allowance related to people living in accommodation provided by the NHS will be included within the welfare benefits review. [47485]

Yes.

I am grateful for that reply, succinct as it was. Is my right hon. Friend aware that people with learning disabilities and physical handicaps who move from long-stay hospitals to live in community homes run by health trusts are classed as in-patients? As a consequence of changes to the higher mobility component within disability living allowance that were introduced in 1996, they are no longer able to claim it. Such people, however, are classed as out-patients in respect of prescription charges and are allowed to receive the benefits of that classification. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an anomaly, and that a review is required? Will he liaise with the Department of Health to ensure that that vulnerable group of people are able to get out and about, as they need to if they are to take part in community life?

Yes to the first question; yes to the second; and yes to the third.

What representations she has received on the subject of individuals being required by law to make additional pension contributions into private sector funds. [47486]

Many submissions to the pensions review have argued that compulsory second-tier pensions should be extended to groups not covered, and that the minimum second-tier contribution should be raised from current levels. We are looking at these proposals seriously, and will publish our response in a Green Paper on pensions later this year.

The previous Government were rightly proud of the growth in private sector pension provision and the rise in living standards for millions of pensioners which that has provided and will provide. Will the Minister none the less accept that if any Government went further than encouraging such provision, and coerced people by the force of law to engage in it, they would be morally obliged to stand behind any such fund which failed?

As I said earlier, we are considering these issues carefully, and the type of pension vehicle that might be suitable for second pension savings is an important part of our consideration. It is certainly true that, whatever we do on pension policy, we need more cost-effective, value-for-money and flexible second pensions than are currently available, especially for those who cannot join an occupational pension scheme. We must not, under any circumstances, have a repeat of the pension mis-selling scandal for which the previous Government were so clearly largely responsible.

Dr. Iddon.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On a previous occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question 19."] I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker; Question 19.

My hon. Friend has a speech for every occasion.

If she will make a statement on measures taken to improve the quality of treatment under the benefit integrity project of those suffering from mental illness. [47488]

The benefit integrity project seeks to secure the correctness of certain awards of disability living allowance. In June 1998, we decided that people who have been awarded DLA because they fall within our definition of severe mental impairment should not be contacted directly as part of the project.

It is Monday, I am afraid, Madam Speaker. On a previous—

At least my hon. Friend has that one right.

On a previous occasion—if my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) will allow me to continue—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State kindly told the House that she was discussing with Mencap the way in which mentally ill people are dealt with by the benefit integrity project. My hon. Friend the Minister has also told the House that seriously mentally ill people might be excluded from it. I welcome what he has said this afternoon, but my concern is that a large number of mentally ill people are still losing their benefits by being put through the benefit integrity project. May I suggest that more sympathetic consideration be given and that specialist doctors be employed so that we can genuinely assess those people?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the further changes that we have made to the operation of the benefit integrity project. I can of course assure him that we shall continue to meet and consult organisations of and for disabled people on the project's operation, and we shall always consider further proposals for the improvement of its running. We take steps to ensure that those who advise our adjudication officers on DLA decisions are properly medically qualified to deal with the range of conditions that come before them and to seek additional information where that is necessary.

What plans she has to assist home buyers on income support following the recent further rise in interest rates. [47491]

There are no plans at present to change the way in which help with mortgage interest is calculated, using a standard rate. The standard rate is based on variable rates of mortgage interest that are charged by the main building societies and excludes discounted and fixed-rate mortgages, which are available to many borrowers.

I welcome that answer. Actually, I do not welcome it; I am so used to saying that sort of thing.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have regular discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and it assures us that it will take a sympathetic approach to ensure that people remain in their homes. I announced an increase in the standard rate to 8.34 per cent. from 31 May and the Government are committed, through their housing review, to ensuring that there is sustainable home ownership.