What assessment he has made of the responses to the pensions Green Paper received to date. [68005]

How many responses to the Green Paper on pensions he has received to date. [68022]

How many responses to the Green Paper on pensions he has received to date. [68024]

The pensions strategy set out in our Green Paper has received a great deal of support. We have received a number of written responses and expect to receive many more by the closing date, which is 31 March.

Thousands of my constituents who rely on income support will be substantially better off from 1 April, with the Labour Government's minimum income guarantee. However, many thousands more of my constituents rely on a mixture of modest savings and small pensions, and they are little, if at all, better off—and, in some cases, worse off—than pensioners on income support. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, under the proposals in his Green Paper, pensioners will be substantially better off in the future?

My hon. Friend is right. From April, the minimum income guarantee will mean that a single pensioner will get at least £75 a week, and couples will get at least £116.60. He correctly identifies a problem that has existed in the social security system for many years, where pensioners may have a modest amount of savings and perhaps a small income. As I announced in December, the Government are studying that difficulty with a view to removing it, because we want to reward saving, and because saving should not be penalised.

Given that one of the Government's first actions, in their first Budget, was to take £5 billion a year from pensioners, will the White Paper give them that money back?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the best things that we can do to help pensioners now and in future is to create a climate of economic stability. Part of our objective in modernising the corporation tax regime was to ensure that companies were more profitable, which would benefit their shareholders, including pension funds and individual pensioners. We now have the lowest corporation tax ever, thanks to this Labour Government; that is good for pensioners because it is good for the long-term profitability of the corporate sector.

Was it entirely fair to the general public to launch the Green Paper on pensions in December and then, last week, just two or three months later, to launch the lifelong individual savings account—a new form of pension saving—without any mention having been made of LISAs in the original document in December? Was that fair?

I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman did not read the Green Paper because, had he read it, he would have seen that it was clearly set out there that we were going to make a further announcement, adding a further option to stakeholder pensions. The important thing is—

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but it was written in the Green Paper. He should read it rather than criticise it.

Will the Government publish a detailed analysis of all the responses to each of the Green Papers?

As my right hon. Friend will know, yes we will. He knows that we have published all the responses to all the consultation exercises that we have carried out, including those to the two Green Papers that he had a hand in drafting. I believe that they are not in the Library because they are too bulky, but they are available, except when people have expressly said that they do not want their response to be made public. The analysis is, of course, taken into account when the Government develop their policy. Therefore, the answer to my right hon. Friend's question is that we are analysing the responses and publishing them in full.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a glaring gap in his proposals as far as the self-employed are concerned? Does he also accept that the self-employed are unlikely to invest sufficiently in second-tier pensions for themselves unless there is at least an element of compulsion?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my statement on 15 December and whether he has read the Green Paper, because I explicitly said that the case for compelling the self-employed was stronger than that for compelling everyone else. We know that many self-employed people are not making provision for themselves. Part of the logic of introducing the stakeholder pension, and of last week's announcement, is to give self-employed people more options than before, so that they have no excuse for not saving.

My right hon. Friend will know that, during last week's debate on pensions, a possible misinterpretation could have been put on the facts as to whether there was an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul in the state second pension. Can he confirm unequivocally that all those who will be on the state second pension will be better off—whether they are above or below the £9,000 divide—than they would have been on the state earnings-related pension scheme?

My hon. Friend is right because the new state second pension is not earnings related. Therefore, it disproportionately benefits those on low incomes as well as everybody on that part of his or her income below £9,000. The objective is to ensure that those on low pay will accumulate during their lifetime a decent pension on which to retire. Moderate earners will have the increased rebate, which they can take into their funded pension, which we believe will mean that they will be better off than otherwise.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Secretary of State was trying, retrospectively, to pretend that his Green Paper, which came out in December, was consistent with the Treasury's proposals for lifelong individual savings accounts, which came out last week. If that were the case, why does page 55 of the Green Paper state:

"The legislation for stakeholder pension schemes will provide for schemes to be set up under trust law",

Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman. We are legislating to provide for stakeholder pensions to be set up under trust law because without that legislation they could not exist. That is why we are introducing the legislation.

What plans he has to review the payment of those benefits under which vouchers are issued to employees. [68006]

In November 1998, we referred draft regulations to the Social Security Advisory Committee to make non-cash vouchers subject to national insurance contributions, in the same way as cash earnings.

My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the anomalies raised in the draft regulations became known as the Great Yarmouth anomaly. An unscrupulous employer at a care home was dodging national insurance contributions by paying in Asda vouchers. Does my hon. Friend consider that luncheon vouchers are in the same boat, as it were? After all, first they have never been considered to be part of wages and salaries. Secondly, their use would discriminate against people who do not have national insurance-free and tax-free canteens in their workplaces. Thirdly, it might lead to much unemployment in the catering industry.

We announced during the summer of 1997 that we wanted to reduce the burden for business by bringing together the arrangements for income tax and national insurance. The Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Bill which will be considered by the House this afternoon is an example of that process.

When considering those persons on benefit and those in receipt of vouchers, will the Government take into consideration the discussion that is now taking place between the Secretary of State and the Home Office about involving the benefit system in the penal system? Will those in receipt of vouchers be treated differently from those in receipt of general benefits? Will the benefits that are designed to support the family be affected? Are there other proposals to bring the penal system into the benefit system?

As far as I know, people on probation are not in receipt of luncheon vouchers. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in resolving the issue and coming forward with proposals in response to the report that we have received from the Social Security Advisory Committee, we shall take all relevant issues fully into account.

What assessment he has made of the responses to the Green Paper on tackling fraud in the benefit system. [68007]

The majority of responses supported the direction suggested in the Green Paper. As I announced on 14 January, we shall shortly publish our strategy for combating social security fraud in the light of those responses.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Green Paper? It is an excellent document, which emphasises that fraud, whether it be a fiddle or an organised gang stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds from the system, robs the poor and the vulnerable. Is my right hon. Friend therefore prepared to set tough targets for his Department, to ensure not only that such crime is detected, but that it is stopped?

My hon. Friend is right. Part of the problem that we inherited is that far too much attention was devoted exclusively to the detection of fraud. Clearly, detecting fraud is of the utmost importance, but preventing fraud in the first place is just as important.

On what basis do the Government state in the Green Paper that there is £7 billion-worth a year of fraud in the benefits system? Can he point to any initiative that the Government have taken in the past 21 months to tackle fraud in the social security system?

On the latter point, lots. For example, just two weeks ago, we prevented the Royal Mail from redirecting mail in connection with housing benefit, which is one of the major sources of housing benefit fraud. Just before Christmas, I announced a £100 million initiative to get local authorities to check housing benefit claims properly. There is a list of steps that we have taken.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to comment on the departmental document on family credit fraud, recently published by the Select Committee on Social Security, which shows that the family credit system is wide open to fraud? Although we understand that it was based on a pilot survey, and that statistically there are some doubts, it suggests major family credit fraud. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to tackle such fraud, and how are we building into the new working families tax credit defences against fraud, as suggested in the Green Paper on fraud?

My hon. Friend is right to say that that preliminary study suggested that there were gaps in the safeguards in the family credit system, which have built up over a number of years. The findings were never published because the sample was so small that they were said not to be statistically accurate. Nevertheless, I decided that, as the Select Committee had asked to see them, they ought to be made available.

Given that one of the most sensitive areas of benefit fraud concerns the application of the cohabitation rules, and in the light of the overwhelming vote to equalise the age of consent, is the right hon. Gentleman considering equalising the effect of the cohabitation rules?

I cannot say that we have any immediate plans to do that. I am aware of the difficulty in the cohabitation rule, and the right hon. Lady will be aware of it, too, because there is nothing new in it. Indeed, as I understood it, the previous Government were not inclined to do anything about the cohabitation rule either. This is a difficult issue, and something that we keep under review, but I cannot promise her that there is about to be an announcement. I do not think that there is.

If he will make a statement on the work of the Child Support Agency independent case examiner; and how many cases are currently pending a decision. [68008]

The Child Support Agency's independent case examiner began work in April 1997. As at 31 December 1998, she had received a total of 2,193 applications. Of those, 416 are still awaiting a decision.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response, but was not the independent case examiner brought in because the parliamentary ombudsman could not handle the vast number of cases that were referred to that department? Will she confirm that 40 members of staff in the independent case examiner's office are dealing with cases and that it has taken more than 17 weeks to process one case?

It is absolutely true that the current system of child support maintenance assessment that we inherited from our predecessors requires, in some cases, up to 104 pieces of information to be gathered before an assessment can be made. Clearly, the answer to that lies in the simplification that the Green Paper on reforming the Child Support Agency suggests. I can tell my hon. Friend that 1,500 individuals and 80 organisations responded to the consultation and we hope to make a statement on the way forward soon.

Can the Minister explain the basis of the Government's claim that 75 per cent. of absent parents and parents with care will be better off under the new system?

First, one of the reasons why almost everyone will be better off is that the new system will work faster and people will get their maintenance. At the moment, 90 per cent. of CSA time is spent assessing maintenance rather than collecting it, so one of the big advantages of the new system will be a much streamlined, and more effective and efficient, way of getting the money to the parent with care.

If he will make a statement on the implementation of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [68011]

The minimum income guarantee will be delivered through income support. We plan a number of improvements to help those who are entitled to claim the guarantee to do so, for example by triggering claims at particular events when entitlement is likely to arise. We have also said that we will examine how we might reform the rules to reward better those who save for their retirement.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, particularly because about 9,000 pensioners in my constituency will benefit from the minimum income guarantee. However, Age Concern and the citizens advice bureau have raised a number of concerns, some of which he has addressed, in respect of the fact that thousands of people are unaware of their entitlement to income support. They will therefore be unaware of their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee.

My hon. Friend is quite right. We estimate that between 400,000 and 700,000 pensioners eligible for the minimum income guarantee are not currently claiming income support. Pensioners who are not initially eligible for the guarantee are most likely to become eligible when they reach 75 or 80, or when they start to receive attendance allowance, because, at that point, a higher premium becomes payable and another group of people comes within the scope of the guarantee. We are looking at how to trigger claims from those people automatically at those points, and at other measures that could encourage people to come forward, including a take-up publicity campaign which we hope to run later in the year.

In answer to an earlier question, the Secretary of State referred to the anomaly whereby people who have saved modest amounts or who have small pensions are penalised by the existing benefits system. In considering the minimum income guarantee, will the Minister confirm that, as it stands, the number of such people will be greatly increased, and that disincentives to save for pensions will become still greater? Will he also confirm that it will take more than tinkering with this proposal to remove the considerably increased disincentive to save for pensions?

The question that the hon. Gentleman must answer is: does he agree that even the least well-off pensioners should share in rising national prosperity? Of course, it would be possible to increase the guarantee only in line with prices to keep it at a lower level. That would reduce the number of people benefiting from it, and it would also leave a large number of pensioners stranded on lower incomes than they should be receiving. We are committed to security and a decent income for all in retirement. My right hon. Friend has made it clear—and it is spelled out in the Green Paper—that we are looking into the amount of savings people can have before they become ineligible for the minimum income guarantee, and we shall produce proposals to address that issue.

Do I take it that the minimum guarantee does not exclude other matters? Is my hon. Friend aware that I am pursuing the case of one of my constituents, who is 79, very unwell—that is not in dispute—has been housebound for three years and has been refused a social fund grant for a mobility chair? Will he give me a promise that, once Question Time is over, he will investigate this matter carefully? The reply that I have received stated that the case has gone through review and has been rejected. That is totally unsatisfactory. I want justice for my 79-year-old constituent, and I want it very soon indeed.

I was not previously aware of the details of my hon. Friend's case, but I should be delighted to look into it if he would write to me about it.

The Government want people on £10,000 a year to take out stakeholder pensions, but will not require them to put anything in beyond their rebates. If someone on £10,000 a year puts in just his national insurance rebates at the start of his working life, will he reach retirement needing to depend on the minimum income guarantee?

No. The state second pension has been designed to ensure that everyone who is in it will, when he gets to retirement age, have an income above the minimum income guarantee level. People earning more than £9,000 who choose to move into a stakeholder pension should also be above that level. We hope that stakeholder pensions will ensure that people who contribute to them and receive them are above—well above in most cases—the minimum income guarantee level when they retire.

How do the measures that the Government are introducing to support pensioners, such as the minimum income guarantee, compare with what would have happened had the link with earnings been restored?

The restoration of the link with earnings would have been an extremely expensive measure. We have chosen to concentrate help on those who need it most. The minimum income guarantee allows us, from April, to offer pensioners dependent on income support an increase in their income three times the rate of inflation. That is a significant boost for the pensioners who need it most.

How many lone parents have been sent a letter about the new deal for lone parents since July 1997; and how many of these (a) have received a job and (b) remain in that job under the scheme. [68012]

Up to 25 December 1998, 88,662 initial letters had been sent to lone parents. Information on the number of lone parents who have been sent letters and who have subsequently found a job and on the proportion remaining in work will not be available until the full evaluation of the prototype phase, which is due to be published in the autumn.

Does the Minister accept that I find her answer rather lame and surprising, given that the Government—certainly until last summer—have always answered this question in written form, month on month? Did the Minister sidestep this issue because the figures show that almost 66 per cent. of people who receive a letter throw it away, and only about 7 per cent. of people find jobs, at a cost of £15,000 per job? The number of people who stay in a job long term is less than the 5,881 figure that the Minister gave, which shows a success rate of slightly less than 5 per cent.

I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. We do not know how many people who now have jobs took advantage of the new deal because they received the letter, and how many did so because—[Interruption.] That is the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his question. He will find that I have answered the question accurately, as you require us to do, Madam Speaker. Until the end of the pilot scheme, we shall not be able to distinguish between those who took advantage of the new deal following receipt of the letter, and those who went along to the office because, for instance, they had seen advertisements. The hon. Gentleman will have a final answer then; meanwhile, I can confirm that we shall continue to publish results for him monthly.

The success of the new deal for lone parents is shown not just by the number of lone parents who have returned to work, but by the cultural change that has taken place in the attitude to people on benefits. Personal advisers have advised lone parents on whether to stay on benefit or take up work, depending on which pays. Does that not constitute a dramatic change from the attitude of the Conservatives, who, when they were in power, described lone parents as scroungers?

I could not agree more. We should remember that some lone parents have been out of the work force for a long time. If we can get such people into training, or make it possible for them to contemplate looking for a job when their children reach a certain age, that will be a positive outcome of the new deal. It is not simply aimed at people who can go into jobs immediately.

Did not the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) show that the whole scheme has now failed? She has told us that, in fact, the Government have a strike rate of marginally above 5 per cent. in terms of people returning to work, and that the cost is £15,000 a job. Is it not the case that over the past two years, instead of looking properly at the programme and realising the direction in which it was heading, the Government have failed to take account of the problems?

I find it surprising that the hon. Gentleman can dismiss the fact that nearly 6,000 lone parents now have jobs and are able to support children in poverty. Part of the Conservative Government's legacy was the fact that almost one child in three was born into poverty. We are determined to do something about that, and this is a way of doing it.

If he will make a statement on his Department's role in the single work-focused gateway. [68013]

This Department and the Department for Education and Employment have joint responsibility for the delivery of the single work-focused gateway. Both Departments are working together to develop a more integrated and work-focused service for benefit claimants.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's view that work is the best form of welfare is generally shared? Does she also agree that many people in my constituency, including disabled people, have hitherto felt discouraged from working, and will see a fresh opportunity in the new single gateway? Is it not important for personal advisers to be trained adequately for their important task, and should we not proceed in the pilot areas, focusing attention on where help is needed, as quickly as possible?

We must deal sensitively with people with disabilities who may be entering the labour market for the first time. Research shows, however, that nearly 1 million people with disabilities want a chance to participate in that market. [Interruption.] Rather than sneering, the Conservative party should give us some credit for trying to include those people in society.

Does the hon. Lady agree that personal advisers will have a crucial role? I understand that parts of the Vale of York and City of York will fall within the pilot scheme. What will the precise role of the personal adviser be? How many of them will there be? What will the cost to the taxpayer be? The Minister touched on the role of disability benefits. Can she assure me that no disabled person will have benefit removed because he or she is not able to access the interview on the first date given?

The idea is to pass on to the benefits system some of the important lessons that we have learnt in implementing the new deal, where the role of the personal adviser has been much appreciated by people who have been through that training. The idea is for the personal adviser both to ensure that the correct benefits are claimed and to investigate pathways to independence for the person who is having the interview. The pilots will take place initially in 12 areas. The cost set aside for running the 12 gateway pilots is £80 million.

What increase in his Department's budget he expects between financial years 1997–98 and 2001–02 attributable to decisions made since 1 May 1997. [68014]

Social security spending is growing at less than half the rate under the previous Parliament. Our plans are prudent and address the real needs of families and the poorest pensioners.

Does the Secretary of State understand that I am disappointed that, in his answer, he did not recognise that social security spending will rise by £37 billion in the next three years? Will he confirm that about one third of that increase is directly attributable to Government decisions since May 1997? Will he further recognise that that runs directly counter to the Government's manifesto promise that they would

"break the spiral of escalating spending on social security"?

I am delighted to help the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that, of the increase in spending, some £12 billion will go towards supporting pensioners, some £7 billion will go towards supporting disabled people and carers and a further £7 billion will go to families and children, with a record increase in child support. If he is telling us that the Conservatives are against all those things, I am sure that pensioners, disabled people, their carers and families with young children will begin to wonder what on earth the Conservative party is all about.

Would the Secretary of State like to explain the difference between the proportion of the social security budget that is being spent on failure and joblessness, and the proportion that was spent under the previous Government? How have our policies shifted that proportion?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If people follow the exchange of questions, it will be increasingly obvious that the Conservative party has little interest in doing anything to help people to get off benefit and into work. We have announced a range of proposals. The single gateway into the benefit system will mean that, for the first time, everyone of working age will come through a gateway and be advised on how to get back into work, as well as to their entitlement if they are not able to work. We attach considerable importance to doing that because that is the way in which to cut the bills of economic failure. By doing that, we can do far more for those who need security and who look to the Government to help them.

Has the Secretary of State had a chance yet to study the recent work by the London school of economics, which examines the hitherto unknown proportion of people who are above the age of 55, are out of work and can be helped back into work by sensible targeting of the new welfare-to-work proposals? If there are some extra pockets of money that he can find, will he give priority to trying to help that group of the population into work? The LSE's work shows that much can be done to try to help that cohort of the population.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Many people over 50 are capable of work, but sometimes find themselves out of work, and they are beginning to wonder whether life has passed them by. The Government attach considerable importance to ensuring that everyone who can work does so. We shall look at what further action we can take to encourage not only that group of people, but others to get into work.

Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the point, quite simply, is that the Government were elected on a pledge—in which the Prime Minister was to the forefront—to cut social security spending? The Prime Minister made the pledge not once, but two or even three times. Now, we notice that Ministers never want to repeat the pledge, as they are clearly failing to keep it. Surely the admission that, next year, as a direct result of the Government's activities, social security expenditure is likely to rise by about 4 per cent. explains why Ministers are scrabbling round, trying to tax child benefit and penalise married couples—who have declared an obvious relationship and who will suffer directly as a result of the Government's policies. Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that, by increasing spending, the Government have changed the policies that they promised, during the general election, to pursue? Ministers have admitted the increase, and they have failed in their pledge.

The hon. Gentleman knows that he is quite wrong about that. He was at it again this morning, on the "Today" programme. Half what the Department of Social Security spends goes on pensioners; about 10 per cent. goes on families and children; and about a quarter goes to sick and disabled people. At the general election, we said that we would cut the bills of economic failure, and we are doing that. At the general election, we promised that we would do more for pensioners, and we are doing that. We also said that we would do more to support families and children, and we are doing that with a record child benefit increase. We also said at the general election that we would do more to help sick and disabled people, and their carers. Later today, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will be making a statement on that matter, to deliver yet another manifesto promise.

If he will make a statement on the habitual residence test. [68015]

Our review of the habitual residence test is on-going. We shall make our recommendations for its future once we have received and considered the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Mr. Robin Swaddling, which is due to be given on 25 February.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she concerned by claims that, although the Government save about £30 million annually by refusing claimants under the habitual residence test, an almost equivalent amount is paid out to families facing destitution under the Children Acts and the National Assistance Act 1948? Moreover, many people on benefit are discouraged from seeking employment in the European Union because of the risk of losing benefit when they return. Will the review take those two points into consideration?

We should remember that 89 per cent. of United Kingdom nationals who take the test pass it, and that 85 per cent. of all those who take it pass it. My hon. Friend will remember as well as I do the test's origin—a certain singalong performance at Tory party conference a few years ago. We shall consider the points that she has raised—especially in the light of the European Court of Justice statement, on 25 February—and continue to investigate how best we can balance the right of United Kingdom taxpayers not to subsidise people with very little connection to the United Kingdom with the understandable rights of United Kingdom citizens.

Does the hon. Lady consider that issuing identity cards would make that type of work much easier?

The identity card issue is really one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, on the habitual residence test, the benefit of changing policy to quite the extent suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

If he will publish summaries of responses to his Department's consultation papers. [68016]

Lists of those organisations and academics who responded to our consultation papers, excluding those who requested confidentiality, have been placed in the House Libraries. Copies of their responses are available on request from the Department.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that submissions to Government consultations are all read, that his Department collates them and that an assessment is prepared for Ministers' consideration? If that information is readily available—as one would expect, otherwise Government consultations would be shown to be a sham—and the Government are committed to openness and transparency, what is the problem with publishing it? Will he publish his Department's assessment of responses to Green Papers, including the important welfare reform Green Paper?

All the responses are read and considered by the Government; they inform Ministers' decisions. Summaries of the sort that my hon. Friend suggests are not prepared for Ministers. Any summary that the Government published could not give a totally balanced view. It would inevitably be open to the criticism that some important comments had been excluded or that a Government gloss had been put on others. We believe that all the comments should be available. I believe that my hon. Friend has requested copies of 49 of the submissions that have been made. We can make them available to others who request them.

Is the Minister aware of the responses made to his paper proposing changes to disability benefits by representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium at a meeting in the House before Christmas? The Government's proposals to means-test incapacity benefit were described as a betrayal and one disabled person said that he was incensed that, although the Government were encouraging him to save for a pension—which is often difficult, given that a disabled person may not have the same working pattern as others—he would now find them putting their hands into his pocket and taking some of that money away. Will not the Government's proposals result in some disabled people having their incapacity benefit cut and many failing to qualify for it? If he does not receive summaries of all the responses to his Green Paper, can the Minister be sure that he has taken all the comments into account? If he does not, what kind of consultation is it?

I have read the consortium's views. I should be a foolish Minister not to do so when forming an opinion on the views that have been submitted. It would not be sufficient simply to look at a summary. One needs to consider the whole document.

What proposals he has to encourage saving for retirement. [68017]

The reforms described in the pensions Green Paper published on 15 December should raise the incentives to voluntary saving through better-quality, better-value second pensions and restructured state support.

I congratulate the Government on the pensions Green Paper. It is about time that someone grasped the nettle of modernising this country's pensions industry. I am confident that the proposed new framework will be a major improvement. When working out the detail, will my hon. Friend ensure that those who change their jobs frequently or take career breaks are not penalised and are given effective options? Will he also ensure that the Government lead the way and build in a right to an employer contribution to a pension plan for any employment funded indirectly through grants, such as the single regeneration budget programme?

My hon. Friend is right. There has long been a need for the changes that we have proposed. For far too many people, a good-value funded pension—or one that they can access on reasonable terms—is not available, and they are exactly the people at whom the stakeholder pension is aimed. We are committed to ensuring that everybody who can afford to save for retirement should have every encouragement to do so, and the proposed framework will have that effect. I will be happy to have a look at the question of the single regeneration budget, to which my hon. Friend referred.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the combination of the guaranteed minimum pension and the increase in means testing will mean that many people who have saved for their retirement will be worse off than people who have made no provision for themselves at all? The Secretary of State may shake his head and Ministers may duck and weave, but that is a fact, and the Government are creating a monstrously unfair system. Is the Minister aware that, when people look behind the bland words of Ministers and see the facts, they will be deeply resentful?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The aim of the framework proposals is that those who are able to save should do so, but that there should be security for those who are not able to save. The state second pension is a 100 per cent. contributory scheme which will ensure that everyone who has worked and contributed throughout his or her life will retire on an income above the minimum income guarantee level, which will mean that he or she has the full benefit of all their savings. There is no disincentive to save; we are increasing the incentive to save. I hope that Conservative Members agree that even the least well-off pensioners should share in rising national prosperity.

Will my hon. Friend reassure those on low and modest incomes that the Government's proposals for modernising pensions will target them, and afford them the same support that the vast majority of people in this country get at the moment?

My hon. Friend is right. The state second pension will provide modernised support for people on low incomes, and will double the accrual rate on the state pension for people on £9,000 a year. It will treat people on incomes below that level as if they had been earning £9,000 a year throughout their working lives. That will be done on the basis of the existing 4.6 per cent. state earnings-related pension scheme contribution, without any addition. That is a very important step forward for people on low earnings—those about whom my hon. Friend is rightly concerned.

What plans he has to ensure that his welfare reforms encourage self-reliance. [68018]

We are building a modern welfare state, based on rights and responsibilities. We are actively providing opportunities and incentives to help people into work and to provide for themselves, and we are ensuring that work pays while providing security for those who cannot work.

Although we can continue to debate the consequences of means testing, does the Secretary of State accept that the minimum pension guarantee will lead inevitably to an increase in means testing?

The logic of what Conservative Members are saying is that we should withdraw support altogether from people who have not managed to save any money. We do not believe that the prospect of leaving pensioners, or anyone else, destitute is acceptable. One of the problems that we have inherited is that a third of people who are now working are retiring on benefit. Over the years, the poorest pensioners have suffered a great deal, and we have introduced the minimum pension guarantee to help those who have nothing. We are providing also a guarantee for the poorest disabled people. Most people who look at what we are doing will realise that we are doing the right thing by those people.

Do not high rents and high housing benefit payments totally undermine self-reliance? Is not the real answer to the problem to find a way of dramatically cutting rents in this country?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the housing benefit regime is in need of reform, and he is no doubt aware that the Government are considering how to improve the situation, but he must recognise that the system that we inherited has grown up over about 25 years, and that it will be some time before we can announce our conclusions on how to implement that reform.

Further to the very pertinent inquiries from my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), why will not the Secretary of State, instead of blathering, simply admit the obvious truth—that the Government's pension proposals will massively increase means testing at the lower end of the scale, discouraging savings at the margins? He must surely admit that, in that sense, the policy that he advocates will be a penalty for self-reliance and not a reward.

I do not accept that at all. The whole strategy behind the Green Paper is to ensure that as many people as possible have the choice to save for their retirement. The hon. Gentleman will have to face up to the fact that without a change of policy, a third of people currently working would retire on benefit. The Government have decided that the policy needs to change, to ensure that, if people work for a lifetime, they can save and retire on a pension that is above means-tested income support. We believe that that is of considerable importance, but we will not turn our backs on those poorest pensioners who, for one reason or another, have not been able to save for their retirement. We have a comprehensive strategy for pensions, which the previous Government did absolutely nothing about for 18 years.

What recent representations he has received on the benefit integrity project. [68019]

We have received representations on various aspects of the benefit integrity project, from a variety of sources, including through discussions with the disability benefits forum. We have listened to those representations. On 28 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the project would be cancelled from 31 March 1999 and replaced with a new, fairer system of periodic review.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply, and many of my constituents who have come across the benefit integrity project will be grateful for its abolition, but they will also be concerned about what is to replace it. Can he assure the House that the new review system will deal much more with the individual needs of claimants instead of simply trying to force everybody on to the same form, creating all kinds of problems?

Yes, we can give that assurance. The new system will be fairer because, unlike the system that we inherited from the Conservatives, it will allow benefits to be increased as well as decreased. It most certainly will consider the claimant's individual needs; the agency will have a much more personalised approach. The review process that we inherited for the benefit integrity project was designed by the Conservatives; we are developing the new process in consultation with the disability lobby, through members of that lobby on the disability benefits forum.

I understand that Ministers have said that some people are receiving disability living allowance who apparently have no medical reason for doing so. What is the Minister's estimate of the number involved, and how great is the problem?

In perhaps about a third of the cases reviewed, the evidence was not there. I cannot be more precise than that because, as the hon. Lady will know, some cases are still under review through the adjudication system and the appeals system.

If he will make a statement on the role of personal advisers in his plans for welfare reform. [68026]

Personal advisers currently operate successfully in the various new deals and have demonstrated that they can make an important and successful contribution, in assisting people to move towards the world of work and increase their independence. Under our proposals for a single work-focused gateway into the benefit system, all working-age claimants will be provided with a personal adviser, who will work with them to assess their job potential and provide access to a variety of help and information on work, benefits and services.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the success of personal advisers in the new deal, will he assure me that personal advisers for the single gateway get the resources that they need for such a demanding job? While I am on my feet, will he ignore totally the carping and whingeing of Conservative Members, who giggled like schoolchildren when personal advisers and the success that they have achieved were mentioned earlier?

It is important that personal advisers should be well trained for the demanding task that they face—and they will be well trained. They are making an important impact. The pilot schemes are at a fairly early stage and the lessons that we learn from them will help us to improve the training further.