How many staff are employed in Benefits Agency offices (a) in Inverclyde and (b) in Scotland as a whole; and what was the equivalent figure in (i) 1990, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1996. [83991]

At 30 April 1999, the number of BA staff employed in Inverclyde was 242. The number in Scotland was 6,966.

Those recent figures sound encouraging enough. Jack Martin and his team of officials have my respect, especially the local customer relations officers, Liz McArthur and Margaret Mitchell, but I have received representations concerning the number of doctors and support staff who carry out medical examinations to determine the award of incapacity and other benefits. Is it true that their number is still too low for the number of examinations that they have to carry out? I hope that my right hon. Friend will dismiss the idea that the Sema Group, which carries out that work for the Benefits Agency, is screwing down the number employed to maximise profits. That would be detrimental to our constituents, who have to wait far too long as it is for such medical examinations.

We keep the number of medical staff throughout the country under review. I am not aware of there being a particular problem in Greenock or in the surrounding area, but I will happily look into it for my hon. Friend.

What progress has been made in improving co-ordination between the Benefits Agency and local authorities in combating fraud. [83992]

There is good progress on a range of fronts. We have earmarked funding in each Benefits Agency area to help to build stronger links with local authorities. Last month, the Benefits Agency and local authorities were invited to submit joint proposals for projects to tackle fraud together. Service level agreements are in place giving each party a clear statement of how co—operation should work in practice. Among other initiatives, we have, so far, installed more than 300 remote access terminals to allow local authorities access to Department of Social Security benefits data.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Thanet district council has recently been commended by the benefit fraud inspectorate for its work to prevent and to detect fraud? That accolade was earned after much hard work and as a result of being able to put resources into fraud detection and prevention, which includes co-operation with the Benefits Agency. If the system of weekly benefit savings is to be replaced, will he assure me that the new system will continue to provide councils such as Thanet with the resources that it needs to co-operate with the Benefits Agency and to invest in such fraud detection and prevention?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I commend the achievements of Thanet district council in tackling fraud. Indeed, I commend the efforts of my hon. Friend, who was the chair of finance at that local authority when the lamentable record of the Conservative administration at Thanet was being turned round.

One of the best ways in which to combat fraud would be to automate the payment of benefits, but that has been the subject of a long-standing dispute between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Social Security. Will the Minister honestly say what has happened to the ICL contract? We gain lots of information from unattributable briefings to the press. Will he come openly to the House and explain what is going on?

There have been a number of delays with the Horizon project and against that background, the Government commissioned a substantial review of the project, which began last year. Everyone involved—ICL, Post Office Counters Ltd, as well as the Department of Social Security—has been looking again at the project to find a way in which everyone can make a commitment to it. I understand that we can expect an announcement about it from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry later today.

What estimate he has made of the number of people in Warrington, North who will benefit from the minimum pension guarantee. [83993]

We estimate that approximately 2,000 pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee in Warrington, North. The increases in income support rates for pensioners will mean that, this year, in real terms, a single pensioner could be approximately £160 better off.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she tell the House whether it is the Government's intention that, if possible, the minimum pension guarantee will be uprated in line with average earnings? If so, does it not highlight the contrast between the Government's policy of protecting the poorest pensioners, and the Opposition's policy of abolishing that minimum income guarantee?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government's priority is to protect the most vulnerable pensioners, which is why we have been focusing money on them in the way that I have just described. She was also correct to have noticed that the Chancellor announced that we intend, next year, to uprate the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings.

Will the Minister confirm that, under those arrangements, according to which the minimum income guarantee is pegged to earnings, whereas the basic pension is pegged to prices, the proportion of people in Warrington, North and across the United Kingdom who are dependent on means-tested benefits will rise indefinitely year on year?

The hon. Gentleman talks about means testing, but omits to mention that, in 1979—when the Tories took control of Government—16 per cent. of all benefits were means-tested whereas, in May 1997, when they were finally driven from office, that figure had risen to 34 per cent. Therefore, we need absolutely no lessons from Conservative Members about means testing. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Government's priority is to ensure that we get help now to those who need it now. The minimum income guarantee will focus real extra resources on those who need them most.

May I transport the Minister to Warrington, North, in the year 2064—which is the year in which constituents of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) who are born this year will reach state pension age? Will the Minister confirm that, under current policy, the combined value of the full basic state pension and the full state second pension for those people will be below the value of the proposed minimum income guarantee? Does she accept that that proves that the Government's policy is unsustainable?

The hon. Gentleman should stop transporting in time, and start examining the very important changes that we are making to pension provision to ensure that we float off means-tested benefit all those who work a full working life—plus people who care. The state second pension will achieve that goal.

May I welcome the proposal in the pensions Green Paper to examine ways of helping pensioners in Warrington, North and elsewhere whose small second pension takes them just above income support levels and therefore just beyond eligibility for the minimum income guarantee? Many of those pensioners feel that, despite their modest savings, they are little or no better off than those who are on income support and qualify for other benefits. Will my hon. Friend say when the Government might make such proposals?

My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that, paradoxically, those who have small occupational pensions and find themselves just above income support levels often end up worse off because they do not receive passported benefits. It is a very difficult issue of public policy, which we are examining. As he will know, we have announced a review of the capital limit, and shall make an announcement on that when we are able to do so.

When he last reviewed his target for the reduction of benefit fraud for the year 1999–2000. [83994]

For the first time, we have set a measurable target for reducing fraud and error. Our target is to reduce the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by at least 30 per cent. by 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Pursuant to the reply, a moment ago, of the Minister of State—on the ICL computer project, and the fact that an announcement on it may be made today—may I have the Secretary of State's assurance that, whatever the outcome of his deliberations on a project which has a key part to play in the fight against fraud and inaccuracy, Britain's 23,000 sub-postmasters and postmistresses will continue to have an opportunity to play a key role in the front-line fight against fraud?

Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Later today, my colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will be making a statement on the matter—

To the House?

No, he will not be making it to the House. [Interruption.] I can tell the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) that the problem with the project—which we inherited from the previous Government—is that it is three years late, and that its costs were being overrun. Because of that, my colleagues and I conducted a lengthy review of the project to ensure that we had a system that reduced fraud and errors while helping to safeguard the post office network for the future. I am pleased that we have reached an agreement between all the parties. It is a good deal for the Post Office and an extremely good deal for the Benefits Agency.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. I cannot take points of order until the end of Question Time. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) knows what action he can take if he finds the answer unsatisfactory.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the benefit card. Did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State read the interesting article in The Sunday Times yesterday that suggested that the national identity card that some of us have been calling for might be announced in the near future? Might that be true, and has the Department of Social Security had any influence over any decision that might be forthcoming?

I read lots of things in the newspapers, some of which are true and some of which are not. That matter of policy is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

The Secretary of State talks about the pathway project knowing that his Department has had a massive involvement in it, but he gives us no information on the situation. Briefings have been given to the Daily Mail, as we saw on Saturday, and to The Independent, in which the Government have deliberately undermined the programme. A written answer by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), when he was a Minister, gave no indication of any problems. He said that the programme would be up and running by the end of the year 2000. Last week, the current Minister of State said the same. Now we are told that the Government are going to make a statement, but not to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the current situation on the programme? Let us hear the answer here first.

I think that we have had enough of the hon. Gentleman's synthetic anger about this. Let me repeat that this is another example of our discovering, on coming to office, that a project begun by the previous Government was not working. It was running three years late. That is why we had to review it to ensure two objectives. The first is to safeguard the post office network, which we have done. That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The second was to ensure that we can make payments as effectively, cheaply and efficiently as possible to Benefits Agency customers. We have sorted out the mess. If the hon. Gentleman wants further information in the House or elsewhere, it is perfectly possible for him to get it through the usual channels, as he knows full well.

The usual channels have twice produced anodyne answers, such as the statement that the programme is due to go ahead with no problems. Never has there been an admission of a problem in a written answer. The Government are prepared to brief the press about problems, but not once do they say anything to the House. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to pledge at the Dispatch Box that, as a result of whatever decision that the Government make, pensioners and disabled people will still be able to receive their full range of benefits, as was the plan, through local post offices?

Yes of course they will, as they can at the moment. I repeat that the project was three years late and was not working. That is why the Government had to review it. We have had long discussions with ICL, the supplier. The hon. Gentleman would hardly expect those discussions to be taking place on the front pages of the newspapers.

The right hon. Gentleman briefed the papers.

The hon. Gentleman must contain himself, particularly when he is making wild and unsubstantiated allegations. We are acting in the best interests of the Benefits Agency and the post office network to ensure that we get payments into the hands of people who are entitled to them, to reduce the amount of fraud and error in the system and safeguard the post office network. When people see the announcement later today, they will understand that we have protected the public interest, unlike the Conservative party.

What plans he has to improve the take-up of war pensions among ex-service personnel and civilians injured by hostile acts in world war two. [83996]

We are committed to ensuring that those who are entitled to war pensions receive them and we are actively looking at ways of improving our communication with ex-service men, such as the use of a claims telephone helpline.

Does my hon. Friend share my experience from constituency surgeries, which suggests that many veterans or civilians injured in the second world war who did not claim war pensions at the time, but who now find that their injuries are becoming more severe as they get on in years, may not be aware that they are entitled to claim those pensions? That is particularly the case among civilians who were injured. Will he pay particular attention in the review to trying to bring those rights to the attention of those affected?

The war pensions scheme for civilians applied only to the second world war and is now largely finished. The scheme had a time limit for claims of three months from the date on which the injury causing the disablement was sustained; however, the Secretary of State has the discretion to waive that limit in certain circumstances. These days, 50 years after the end of the war, we still get a small number of applications each year for such waivers to be made. That facet of the scheme, as well as all other parts of it, is advertised as widely as possible through leaflets and posters in some 13,000 outlets around the country. The scheme is also advertised in every telephone directory, and in many other ways. We always look to make sure that those who are entitled to a war pension have every opportunity to claim and receive it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that probably the best network for reaching war widows and others who may be entitled to war pensions is via regimental and corps associations? Will he confirm that, in addition to the work that his Department does with the Royal British Legion, it tries to ensure that all the regimental associations, which do so much for the welfare and benefit of old comrades and their families, are kept fully in touch about the benefits to which those people are entitled?

I can confirm that we work with the regimental associations, and we issue leaflets and posters to regimental museums. We make sure that all those who leave the armed forces are given information about how to claim, should they need to do so at some time in the future.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a degree of confusion at the heart of Government about the relationship between war widows pensions and housing benefit. He will recall that, on 20 May last year, at column 952 of the Official Report, the Prime Minister, in response to a reasonable question from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), promised a review of that relationship. This year, on 12 May, at column 315 of the Official Report, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what had been done about that review, and was given a contradictory answer. The following day, the Leader of the House gave another contradictory view, saying that responsibility for the matter had been transferred to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the hon. Gentleman give us a definitive reason why nothing has happened in a whole year, despite the Prime Minister's promise? Is the indecision of the Government final on this matter?

The hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am—not least because of his links with Yorkshire and the campaigning of the Yorkshire Post—that the discretion lies with the local authority in that matter. As a member of my Department, I know that, under the law as it stands, the discretion lies with the local authority.

What steps he is taking to ensure that all pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [83997]

We are particularly concerned about pensioners being worse off than they need to be because they are not receiving the help to which they are entitled through the minimum income guarantee. The pilot projects that we set up last year were designed to test new ways of identifying potential beneficiaries and the best way of encouraging them to claim. We will examine the results when they become available and make proposals as soon as we are in a position to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the minimum income guarantee's future reliability depends on ensuring that pensioners claim the income support to which they are entitled? Is he aware that South Staffordshire district, part of which lies in my constituency, was one of the pilot areas? Can he confirm that often pensioners who do not claim their income support entitlement nevertheless claim other help, such as council tax benefit and housing benefit? Will he instil into all Benefits Agency staff the approach that pensioners who come to them who are entitled to receive income support will indeed receive it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the minimum income guarantee is an entitlement. Like him, I am interested in the fact that more people seem willing to claim council tax benefit and housing benefit, even though they are means-tested, than are willing to claim the minimum income guarantee. There are some important lessons for us to learn. We look forward to the results of the pilots in his area and in others so that we can find out what those lessons are.

I am sure that many hon. Members will have received visits in their surgeries from pensioners rendered very anxious by the extension of means testing to incapacity benefit, widows benefit and other basic state benefits, through the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. How does the Secretary of State intend to deal with the disincentive to save that the measures will produce?

There is no disincentive to save. We want to ensure that even the least well-off pensioners in our society can share in the benefits of rising national prosperity. The increases in the minimum income guarantee this year and next will mean an extra £250 a year for a single pensioner on income support, and up to £400 for a couple in which one partner is over 80. Those are large sums that can make a significant difference to the least well-off pensioners in our society.

Does my hon. Friend have a recent estimate of the number of elderly people not claiming means-tested income support? Are there any early indications—either virtual or non-virtual—from the pilot schemes? What is the target for the number not claiming that entitlement in 10 years' time? Does he agree that if we are to have a genuine pension guarantee we must find more sensitive and effective ways of ensuring that every person who is entitled to income support—many are in their 80s or 90s—actually gets it?

I have much in common with my hon. Friend on this point. We estimate that between 400,000 and 700,000 pensioners are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but have not claimed it. We are reviewing the figures, and we expect to have revised figures by the summer. We are considering a range of approaches to the problem. It is interesting to note that in some areas the take-up of housing benefit and council tax benefit is as high as 95 per cent., but the take-up rate for the minimum income guarantee among the same population is a good deal lower.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to anxiety caused to pensioners by Government policies. Will not much more gratuitous anxiety have been caused to millions of pensioners who collect their benefits from post offices, and to post office staff, by the Secretary of State's reluctant admission just now at the Dispatch Box, which was dragged out of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), that the pathway project was facing problems? There were two disgraceful, unsatisfactory and unacceptable aspects to that admission. First, if it is true that there had been problems for several years, why was my hon. Friend given a deceptive parliamentary answer last week on the pathway project that did not mention any problems? Secondly, why did the Secretary of State say that the answer to the question will be given not by him but by some other Minister in a different context? The people of this country will begin to wonder why we waste our time with Question Time if this Government intend systematically to bypass Parliament.

It is Conservative Members who are doing the scaremongering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt fully with the point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for the Post Office and that is why he will make the announcement later today.

What representations he has received on housing allowances for students from (a) Scotland and (b) England. [83998]

We have received several representations concerning students' entitlement to housing benefit. Most full-time students are not entitled to housing benefit because they are supported through the educational maintenance system. Certain students in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, can claim benefit.

In the light of the complex constituency case that was brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during his visit to the excellent Bathgate office of the Department, and in the light of the background with which my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar, is there any hope of improvement in the situation of those mature students who are, rightly or wrongly, dependent to some extent—possibly completely—on housing allowances for the continuance of their education at institutes of higher education where they are well received?

I am aware of the constituent's case to which my hon. Friend refers. He wished to take a full-time course, but had he taken a part-time course, he would still have had access to his housing benefit. He had been unemployed for three months which rendered him ineligible for new deal, which might have given him the opportunity to do a full-time course and still have access to benefit or to undertake training for work, for which an individual must be unemployed for six months. The training opportunities are focused on periods of unemployment of six months or two years to give assistance to those who have fallen out of the labour market to try to make them more employable. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says and we will bear it in mind during our review of housing benefit.

Has the Minister made an assessment of how many students will be eligible for housing allowances and benefits when the introduction of tuition fees takes effect? May I assure the House, Madam Speaker, that I am not a Labour rebel, as I was described in a leading newspaper last week, but that I am and remain a Conservative loyalist?

I am sure that the hon. Lady was glad to get that off her chest. Newspapers seem to think that any women Member of Parliament must be a Labour Member. I wonder why that is. I am not certain what point the hon. Lady was making about housing benefit. The only people who are entitled to receive housing benefit if they are studying are those in vulnerable groups. Lone parents qualify, but others would not.

If he will make a statement on the proposed changes to severe disablement allowance. [84000]

The proposed changes to severe disablement allowance will give more help to those with the greatest need.

The Government set up the disability benefits forum last year, but 12 major charities with interests in disability and severe disability have since resigned from it. How does the Minister explain that? The forum was described as giving the disabled a "pivotal" role in shaping policy. How does he intend to replace those important charities?

Naturally, I regret that the charities withdrew from the forum. They have made an important contribution to the development of the Government's welfare reform proposals on disability benefits although, ultimately, there were areas of disagreement. That is perfectly obvious to the House, and it would be extraordinary if a Government followed each and every proposal made by the charities. Any hon. Member who had read the representations made in response to the consultation document would form that view, not least because on many occasions the charities argued for different things.

Does the Minister accept that the abolition of severe disablement allowance will hit especially hard those who in early adulthood have caring responsibilities for children, for people who are disabled, or for elderly parents? Such people often are unable to make national insurance contributions, and so are not eligible for incapacity benefit. If their marriage partners have incomes of their own, they probably will not be eligible for any means-tested benefits either. Is it not rather unfair that people who, through no fault of their own, become incapacitated after several years of looking after other people will get no recompense for their loss of earning capacity?

If we were doing nothing for carers, the hon. Gentleman would be right, but we are doing a great deal for such people—as I should have thought the hon. Gentleman, who sat through the Committee proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, would know. For example, we have taken the decision that all carers entitled to incapacity benefit will carry that entitlement through the period that they receive invalid care allowance for as long as is required. Also, carers will be credited into the state second pension. That will mean that, for the first time, people who forgo a job to care for a relative or some other person will not be left in poverty in retirement as a result.

Does not the Minister accept that disabled people, and organisations of and for disabled people, know most about their own needs? Does he not accept that the overwhelming weight of evidence given to the all-party disablement group and other Members of the House is against the Government's proposals? Last week's vote on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill indicated that there are grave reservations among Labour Members on this matter. Will the Government therefore think again when the Bill goes before the House of Lords?

I wish the right hon. Gentleman would read the representations from the charities and other voluntary bodies in response to the Government's consultation document. They welcomed many of the things that the Government are doing. For instance, they strongly welcomed our decision to raise people who are disabled at birth or early in life above the level provided by the severe disablement allowance. Whereas 70 per cent. of those people used to be left on means-tested benefits for life, we are providing that they should be passported on to incapacity benefits. That will leave them about £26 a week better off.

As another female Conservative Member of Parliament, may I point out to the Minister how pleased I am to do something that too many of the Blair babes hardly ever do—stand up for disabled people and women? The Minister responded rather coyly to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), saying that there had been something of a disagreement between the former members of the disability forum and the Government. It was not just a disagreement: the disability organisations thought that the Government had got it wrong. We think so too, and so do 67 of the Minister's hon. Friends. When will the Government wake up to reality? Their changes to disability benefits are not the right thing for disabled people, but a betrayal of those people.

There are few enough women Members on the Conservative Benches. It will not have escaped the memory of Members who were here before the general election that a woman Conservative Member tabled dozens of amendments to wreck a Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), which would have extended civil rights to disabled people. For Conservative Members to pose as people who support disabled people's rights is a travesty of the truth, and disabled people and the voluntary bodies which represent them know it.

Does my hon. Friend remember how, in the previous Parliament, a Labour private Member's Bill to help the disabled was so badly wrecked by the Conservative Government that the daughter of the then Minister for the Disabled disowned what was being done, and the Minister himself resigned soon afterwards? Did not that incident show the Tory Government's total contempt for disabled people, and does it not expose the Tory party's present hypocrisy?

It was a Labour Government who introduced the Commission for Racial Equality to provide civil rights for people regardless of their race. It was a Labour Government who introduced the Equal Opportunities Commission to do the same in respect of gender. The Conservatives blocked civil rights for disabled people, so it is a Labour Government who are introducing legislation that will set up a Disability Rights Commission to guarantee civil rights for disabled people.

What plans he has to increase local authority discretion in respect of the payment of housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [84001]

We have announced our intention to publish a housing Green Paper later in the year. A modern housing policy should ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. The Green Paper will discuss options to address weaknesses in the current system of housing and housing benefit within our overall objectives for welfare reform.

Is the Minister aware that, in many areas, housing benefit has become a subsidy for some of the worst landlords? The interests of both taxpayer and tenant might be better served if local authorities were given some discretion over which kind of landlords were eligible to receive housing benefit. I appreciate that my hon. Friend may tell me that the benefit goes to the tenant, not the landlord, but she knows that, although that happens in theory, in practice the money often goes directly to the landlord without touching the tenant's pocket.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we will consider it in our overall review. In November 1997, we introduced more discretion for local authorities to stop direct payment to landlords who are not fit and proper. That allows local authorities to enter into dialogue with local private sector landlords to ensure that correct standards are maintained, and to raise standards in some cases.

When the hon. Lady says that her hon. Friend is on to something, it is the understatement of the year. Is he not on to one of the biggest frauds and rackets in the administration of public money? How can the public have confidence that action will be taken? The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said in the House that the Government

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's realisation that the housing benefit system, which was created by the previous Conservative Administration, is in need of much improvement. I also note, although it was not quite an apology, his indirect admission that in creating housing benefit and ensuring that its administration was fragmented to 409 different local authorities, particular difficulties of administration were created. Some local authorities administer the housing benefit system superbly and some do it very badly indeed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, the biggest ripper-off of public funds is the landlord who buys a cheap terraced property in a constituency such as mine for £5,000 and can pay for it with housing benefit within 18 months. That is an abuse of public money and it needs clamping down on and stopping.

It is that sort of matter that the review of housing policy and benefit will be considering. We will be publishing a Green Paper later in the year. We are as aware as anyone of some of the bad administration and the rip-offs that occur as a result of the system that we inherited. However, I caution hon. Members that we are talking about the roof over people's heads, so we have to be careful how we change a system on which many millions of people rely. We will do it, and there will be a lot of consultation around the Green Paper. We are serious about reform, but we must not underestimate the complexity or the seriousness of the issues that face us as we approach the publication of the Green Paper on housing policy later this year.

If he will make a statement on his policy for the detection of organised benefit fraud. [84002]

We have a national team of highly trained investigators in the Benefits Agency security investigation service, which exists to counter the threat of organized fraud. I visited its office in Manchester recently and was impressed with what I saw. Last year, just over 650 cases were accepted for prosecution as a result of the service's work. In addition, we have commissioned an independent review of the Government's approach to tackling organized fraud in social security, which will report in the autumn.

Why is the London organised fraud investigation team being wound up?

Because of serious concerns about the way in which it operated. We are learning the lessons from that experience. That is why, in February, I asked John Scampion, the commissioner of the social fund, to carry out a review of our approach to organised fraud. He is extremely well placed to carry out the work owing to his familiarity with the benefits system—he was the local authority chief executive at Solihull for 18 years.

As the Government have promised an announcement later today on the benefit card, and as one of the reasons for it was that it should act as an effective measure against fraud, does my hon. Friend have to hand the figures for the savings that taxpayers would have made had ICL delivered it on time? If not, can he make them available in the Library before the end of the day?

I do not have the figures to hand. If they are available, I shall ensure that they are placed in the Library.

Does the Minister understand that virtual reality is no answer to the staggering amount of fraud in the system? Why are the Government reducing investigation and the emphasis on detection? Does he believe that detection and prevention are incompatible?

No; that is nonsense. We are not reducing the effort at all. We are making sure that there is proper attention to prevention, and not just detection. That is the basis of the strategy that we published in March. We are measuring the amount of fraud in the system systematically for the first time, and we will reduce it. Through such measurements, we will be able to demonstrate that we are reducing it, as the hon. Gentleman will see.

What estimate he has made of the cost of linking the minimum income guarantee for pensions to average earnings. [84003]

We intend to raise the minimum income guarantee for pensioners in line with earnings as resources allow, so that even the least well-off among today's pensioners can share in rising prosperity. We have pledged to raise it in line with earnings next April and estimate that that will cost an additional £220 million.

As the Secretary of State accepts the need to raise the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, does he not accept that the basic state pension should also be raised in line with earnings, instead of being raised only in line with prices, which means that pensioners are significantly worse off than they were when the Tories broke the link? Should not the Government at least redress that imbalance?

No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend, because that would not help the poorest pensioners. I have made it clear in the House before that the Government's priority is to address a major problem that we faced on coming into office: the fact that many pensioners live on very low incomes. That is why we are investing more than £4 billion over this Parliament. The new minimum income guarantee for pensioners targets help on the poorest pensioners. We have increased the winter fuel allowance fivefold, to £100, for every pensioner household, starting this winter. We have also reformed pensions in the long term, particularly through the new state second pension, which will greatly increase the pension that low earners can accrue during their lifetimes.

Why do Ministers continue to say, more in hope than belief, that there is no disincentive to save? I am sure that the Secretary of State saw the reply to the parliamentary question that I tabled earlier this month showing that a single pensioner receives £60 a week more if he has done nothing to save for his retirement than someone who has savings of more than £16,000. The accumulated facts show that it would cost £43,000 to buy an annuity with that return. [Interruption.] Those facts were revealed in an answer given by the Minister of State, who is even now briefing the Secretary of State. Does not that mean that people must save £43,000 or not bother at all? Is not that the most massive disincentive to saving?

No. The hypothesis behind the hon. Gentleman's question is unrealistic. Pensioners in the position that he described would have a SERPS entitlement that he seems to have ignored. Let me deal with the minimum income guarantee, which is what he is complaining about. As I understand it, in so far as the Conservatives have a policy on welfare, they are against the minimum income guarantee. That would mean that 1.5 million pensioners would lose out immediately.

What plans he has to assist mothers with the costs of maternity. [84004]

We are extending maternity allowance to women who earn £30 a week or more and increasing it for self-employed women, who currently receive less benefit than employed women. The existing social fund maternity payment will be replaced with a sure start maternity grant from April 2000, and doubled from £100 to £200 for each child.

Is my hon. Friend aware of how widely welcomed the extension of maternity allowance to less well paid women and the new maternity grant have been? Does he agree that that will allow less well-off mothers to stay in touch with the workplace? Will he assure the House that his Department will do everything that it can to be involved in the Government-wide plans for family-friendly policies in the workplace?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues. This package of policies demonstrates joined-up Government at its best. People widely welcome the doubling of maternity payment from £100 to £200. People should also be aware that the person claiming has to be in touch with health professionals, so that individuals can obtain advice on how to bring up their new child. Those improvements are welcomed throughout the country and throughout the House by everyone apart from Conservative Members who, last week, voted against the extension of maternity allowance.

What plans he has to minimise fraud in the administration of housing benefit. [84005]

"Safeguarding Social Security", published in March, makes it clear that we are developing a benefit system that is secure from start to finish. We have already taken a number of steps to make the administration of housing benefit more secure. Those steps include providing £100 million to fund a rigorous programme of checks by local authorities on the authenticity of claims. We have also introduced a scheme, in conjunction with the Royal Mail, to prevent fraudsters from redirecting postal payments.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The previous Government did nothing about benefit fraud. Is not the level of fraud that we inherited from that Government unacceptable? Will my hon. Friend do all that she can to work with local authorities to ensure best practice; and, more important, will she ensure that that best practice is spread throughout local government?

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. Some local authorities are extremely good at administering housing benefit, while others fail and fall below the kind of standard that we would expect. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing is introducing best value pilots, which will include housing benefit and will set—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Conservative Members seem to think that sitting there and sneering about the Government's plans is somehow—[Interruption.]

Order. Members on the Opposition Front Bench must remain silent while the answer is being given. I want no running commentaries from them—or from Members on the Benches behind them, for that matter.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hooligan element has taken over the Tory party; all Tory Members can do is sneer—they have no policies.

Further to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), will the Minister confirm that a recent Audit Commission report shows that, in no fewer than 25 per cent. of local authorities visited, the commission found evidence of fraud committed by officers or members of the local authority? Does she agree that that disgraceful situation should be addressed urgently, ahead of other reforms to the housing benefit system?

If the hon. Gentleman had read the rest of the reports, he would realise that they both compliment the Government on the progress made in detecting and reducing fraud. I agree that such an incidence of officer or councillor fraud is utterly unacceptable, and we are producing a whole strategy to deal with it. Perhaps he should sit back and reflect on how he went through the Lobby and helped the Tory Government to create a housing benefit system that is so fragmented and fractured that it is extremely difficult to administer efficiently.