If he will make a statement on the take-up rate of the minimum income guarantee. [55487]

More than 2 million pensioners benefit from the minimum income guarantee. Those pensioners are on average £20 a week better off. Some 3,400 pensioners in the North Norfolk constituency are claiming MIG.

May I draw the Minister's attention to research carried out by a university of East Anglia student, Victoria O'Brien, which I will send to him? It sets out the extent and impact of the lack of take-up of the minimum income guarantee in North Norfolk and nationally. In particular, I draw his attention to the estimate that in North Norfolk alone the poorest pensioners are failing to receive between £2.5 million and £4.5 million. The impact on them, and on their access to food, heating and so on, is obviously considerable. What further steps is the Minister taking, beyond the big initiative back in 2000, to ensure that the poorest pensioners get what money is due to them?

I would welcome a copy of the review of MIG by the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Local authorities also conduct reviews. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), my Department, the local authority and community groups have collectively made a great effort extensively to increase the number of those who can benefit from MIG. We will do anything that we can to achieve that in North Norfolk and more widely between now and the introduction of the pension credit, which will be a further major boost by the Government to older people's income.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pilot programme to which he referred has increased the take-up of MIG from 76 per cent. to 81 per cent. in less than 18 months? Will he consider encouraging all local authorities to set targets to raise the take-up of MIG in that way, specifically using the unique system developed in Tameside whereby pensioners can claim online? Just by putting in their national insurance number and their council tax benefit number, they can automatically find out whether or not they are entitled to MIG.

I honestly did not know that my hon. Friend was behind me when I mentioned him; I thought that I would give him a plug for his excellent work anyway. I hope to visit his borough in the next few months. It has an exemplary record in introducing systems of working directly in the community. Those include making household visits to everyone over 60, introducing new technology, setting up local advice centres in conjunction with our departmental officers and working with community groups. As a consequence, there has been a huge increase in the take-up of MIG there. Indeed, more than £800,000 of additional income has been claimed through MIG simply as a result of the campaign.

With up to a quarter of those eligible for MIG not taking it up and with the take-up of housing benefit and council tax benefit falling, is it not now clear that the Government's mania for means-testing, which leads to low take-up, is betraying the very vulnerable people whom they were elected to represent?

One of the main reasons why the take-up of housing benefit has fallen is not a lack of take-up by older people but the fact that the Government have got more than 1 million people back into work. They are getting a fair wage, so they do not have to claim housing benefit, unlike the position that they were left in by the previous Government. As well as MIG, we are introducing the pension credit, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that measure in the Lobby on Thursday. The pension credit means not only that 5.1 million pensioners will get additional income, but that, for the first time, many pensioners will get access to both housing benefit and council tax benefit because of our changes to the rules on capital. That would never have been done under the Conservatives.

The Minister will agree that take-up of any benefit is important, but it is especially vital for our poorer pensioners. Will he assure me that pensioners will be able to visit the new Pension Service agency centres throughout the country and speak to staff face to face to ensure that they receive the benefit to which they are entitled?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. One of the new pension centres is situated in his constituency. It will be welcomed by pensioners in Scotland and will provide new jobs in the area. The role of the Pension Service is to create pension centres that will deal with up to 80 per cent. of the total case load. The other 20 per cent. includes household visits, take-up and special needs campaigns and issues associated with people with special needs such as language and disability. We will focus the local service to deal with that work on a local basis. Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres such as the one at Motherwell or receiving home visits and participating in other local activities. By providing that choice, we will make improvements for the older pensioners who need to access such services from time to time.

When the ratios of pensioners' income being derived from funded pensions from the state will be reversed. [55488]

In 1998, we set out our long-term objective of ensuring that funded pension provision is substantially increased. That remains our position.

I see three obstacles to achieving the Government's target of 40 per cent. of pensions deriving from state funding: first, the increasing number of pensioners on means-tested benefits; secondly, the poor performance of many private pension plans, which are giving pensioners a much poorer income than they ever anticipated; and thirdly, the very poor performance of mortgage endowments, which means that many pensioners will not clear their mortgage debts and will still be making mortgage payments in their retirement years.

The hon. Lady makes three points. In relation to endowment products, she raises a matter of concern, especially for people who were possibly not given the right advice some years ago. Of course, the regulatory framework has been greatly strengthened since that time, but she is right to express concern about people in that position. She also referred to private pension funds. As we discussed in the previous Question Time and on other occasions, increased longevity and the fall in the stock market have caused a number of companies to rethink their position. Interestingly, in the now corrected Office for National Statistics data, of which the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made so much, we find not only that there was no £100 billion fall in pension assets, as he claimed, but that contributions rose by £27 billion, which is encouraging.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the great driving force affecting funded provision is the new accountancy rules, which will make it more difficult for the Government to achieve objectives that the whole House supports? Is there not a case for suggesting that the Government should request the accountancy body to withdraw the rules to allow further consideration? Some accountancy rules are necessary in deciding what liabilities appear on what balance sheets, but the current rules are harmful to long-term funded pension provision.

My right hon. Friend refers to the accounting rule commonly known as FRS17. It is not FRS17 or any other accounting rule that is closing down pensions: companies are choosing to close down those pensions, but they should take a long-term view on their pensions just as they do on other matters. They would not make a major investment decision on one set of accounts, and they should not make a long-term decision on pension funds purely in relation to what is shown in respect of one accounting requirement. I have told the Accounting Standards Board that I think that FRS17 is exacerbating an already difficult situation. I find it difficult to understand why we have an accounting standard that is not shared by other countries—the standard used in the United States, for example, is different—and I have suggested to the board that it might be better for everyone concerned if we had a standard that allowed companies to look at their pension funds over a period of years, rather than taking a snapshot decision that could be grossly misleading.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the lesson of history is that one group that, on average, does badly out of privately funded pensions is women? Women past and present tend to have fewer and lower occupational pensions, and lower private pensions. Is it not also the case that only one in three of the Government's new shiny stakeholder pensions have gone to a woman? Will the Secretary of State tell us what projections his Department has produced of the future entitlements of today's working women to funded pensions? If no such projections have been produced, will he commission a study of women's pension entitlements, to ensure that history does not repeat itself and that women do not remain the poor relation in private pension provision?

The hon. Gentleman omitted—by accident, I am sure—to mention that most of the gainers under the pension credit will be women. He is right to say that women have not done so well out of funded pensions—partly because of low pay, and partly because, historically, there were fewer women in the labour market—and that the beneficiaries have predominantly been men. The pension credit, however, will predominantly benefit women. The state second pension—which I think that the hon. Gentleman opposed, although I might be wrong about that—will also benefit women, particularly those on low wages. Indeed, some 18 million people on low wages, and others, will gain from the state second pension, and women who take career breaks to look after children or other people will also now get a pension, whereas in the past they got none. So, in relation to both the pension credit and the state second pension, women have gained as a result of the changes that the Government have made.

What measures are taken against self-employed absent parents who accumulate excessive arrears to the Child Support Agency. [55489]

Assessing liability will be simpler under the new scheme, so a higher proportion of the agency's time will be spent on enforcement. Changes to legislation since January 2001 have enhanced the CSA's powers to recover sums due. For example, non-resident parents now face a penalty of up to £1,000 for refusing to co-operate.

I thank my right hon. Friend and congratulate the Government on certain changes that are being made. Does he agree, however, that it is disgraceful that certain self-employed fathers can escape their responsibilities to the Child Support Agency and to their children? I draw to his attention the case of Mr. Julian Barnes, who has made not one child maintenance payment to his former partner, Elaine Lanchbury, in seven years, and to that of Mr. Alan Shinton, who was recently assessed and ordered to pay the CSA £19,295.19. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who are responsible for bringing children into this world must be responsible for their upbringing? Will every effort be made to make these parents maintain their responsibilities?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Responsibility for maintaining children rests with the parents of those children. When we talk about the Child Support Agency, we should never forget that we are talking about making sure that money goes to support children. That is sometimes overlooked by some of the parties involved.

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), but will the Secretary of State's new assessment regulations cover the unacceptable situation, which I suspect all hon. Members have in their case files, of a self-employed man who deserts his wife or partner, leaving the children, and then claims that his income is a quarter of the actual amount? Although I agree that it is difficult for the CSA to find out the exact position, should not there be some system under which the burden of proof falls on the deserting father, rather than his wife having to prove that he is earning much more than he claims?

One reason why we took additional powers was to enable the CSA to access the records lodged with the Inland Revenue. It was very difficult to do so in the past. I am sorry that some Conservative Members opposed that measure when it went through the Commons. It is right that we should be able to access information held by the Inland Revenue. Very often, we found that people would not tell the CSA about their income, but that the Inland Revenue knew of it. We are keeping all those matters under review. The key must be to ensure that the money due to the child of that self-employed person—it is not for the benefit of the former spouse or partner—is paid, and as quickly as possible.

I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), but may I draw to the Secretary of State's attention a case that has led to arrears for one of my constituents of £30,000? A woman with three children has not received a penny from her ex-partner. She has been to an appeals tribunal twice and won twice. Her ex-partner has been found guilty of diverting his income, yet nothing has happened. Such situations are atrocious, and even something as simple as removing an individual's driving licence would clearly help. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should put more pressure on some of these absent parents?

The common theme of all three questions is that the agency should spend more time on enforcement. I wholeheartedly agree. The problem under the present system is that too much time goes into calculating what is due. The key is to make the calculation quickly and then to spend more time on enforcement. My hon. Friend will know that we took powers two years ago to ask courts to remove driving licences when people would not comply. Interestingly, when courts have been invited to do so, all bar one of those affected paid the money that was due. That shows that there is some value in ensuring that people's responsibilities are brought home to them.

Can the Secretary of State give any comfort to the many mothers who are owed excessive amounts by announcing a time scale for change in the current system? In my constituency, one parent is owed in excess of £15,000 by a husband who is apparently living the high life.

As the agency improves its performance in calculation and compliance, more effort is going into recovering sums due. As I told the House in March, until I am satisfied that the new computer network that is necessary to operate the new system of child support is operating effectively and acceptably, I am not prepared to authorise my officials to commission it. I hope to be able to tell the House something in the not too distant future. I am pleased to say that testing has continued and that good progress is being made. As soon as I am satisfied that the system will operate in the way intended, I will let the House know and, as I undertook to hon. Members, I will give sufficient notice in advance of its introduction so that all concerned can prepare for it.

What assessment he has made of the contribution of stakeholder pensions to saving for retirement. [55490]

Stakeholder pensions have made an encouraging start, and figures from the Association of British Insurers show that about 815,000 had been bought up to the end of March 2002. They have also had a wider beneficial effect on pension provision, helping to drive down other personal pension charges and stimulating the provision of personal pensions. Everyone now has access to a good-value pension arrangement. That is all good news for consumers.

While I appreciate my hon. Friend's reply, two things concern me. The first is the suggestion from the Financial Services Authority that there should be compulsion on private pensions and the second is the report published today that says that a number of private pension companies are apparently unaware that we are all living longer thanks to wonderful advances in medical science and our health service. Does she have any comment on compulsion in pensions and what has she to say to encourage people to take up stakeholder pensions, given their success so far?

My hon. Friend is right that there has been discussion around and about in the pensions industry on whether there should be compulsion. Opposition Members have raised the issue in debates, as have my hon. Friends occasionally. The Government have no plans to make it compulsory for employers to contribute to their work force's stakeholder pensions. In respect of living longer, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is entirely a good thing. Perhaps we should make that clear. [Interruption.] I am not going to claim that the Government are making people live longer. It is a Monday afternoon; I am not going to make claims like that.

I am in favour of increased life expectancy, having reached an age when mortality becomes all the more apparent. My hon. Friend will have seen the weekend reports that private pensions are not worth while for those on average or lower incomes. She will also be aware, as we all are, of the deterioration in employee occupational pensions. Is it not time for the Government seriously to consider a substantial increase in the basic state pension, funded by compulsory savings from employees and compulsory larger contributions from employers?

First and foremost, my hon. Friend is looking particularly well this afternoon, even if he is feeling mortality closing in on him. On his points about the basic state pension, Government policy in respect of the balance between state pensions and private provision is clear and he will have heard it discussed during debates on the State Pension Credit Bill. We believe that the balance is about right. We all recognise the fact that the key to ensuring that people have enough money to lead a pleasant and well-provided old age is a mix between private and public pensions. We must encourage people to save, where they are able to do so, into a good private pension, and that is what we intend to do.

If he will make a statement on trends in the labour market since 11 September. [55491]

There are problems in the world economy, but the UK is withstanding them better than other major countries. Compared with last September, there are more than 70,000 more people in employment and unemployment is broadly unchanged. Our labour market is in a strong position: the number of people in employment is at a record level—up by more than 1.5 million since 1997. The number of job vacancies is high—more than 10,000 are being notified to jobcentres every working day; and recent unemployment levels are the lowest since 1975.

I welcome that response, which clearly indicates that, contrary to some predictions, we have not gone into an employment downturn since 11 September. Indeed, in my Harlow constituency, the claimant count this month shows that unemployment figures continue to fall. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that certain sectors of the economy, especially telecommunications, face continuing problems because of the worldwide situation? Does he agree that where redundancies occur, it is the responsibility of both national and local government to work with employers and trade unions to help people to retrain and up-skill to take advantage of the job opportunities that are available?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. On job losses in the telecommunications industry, specifically in his constituency, I can confirm that Harlow jobcentre is in touch with local employers and that we shall do whatever we can to stand the corner of his constituents. Nevertheless, as he says, it is a fact that unemployment has fallen—it has halved in Harlow's travel-to-work area since 1997.

The Minister said that notwithstanding problems in the world economy, the United Kingdom's employment trends are better than those in many other countries. Is it not interesting that since 11 September last year—and, indeed, for some months before that—those trends have been particularly favourable compared with those in the eurozone? Will the Minister do the sensible and honourable thing on behalf of the hard-working British public in recommending to the Treasury, both to the First Lord and to the Chancellor, that we keep the pound?

I always try to do the sensible thing on behalf of the hard-working British public. I think that our colleagues in the European Union have much to learn from the way in which we manage the labour market.

My right hon. Friend will recognise that in constituencies such as mine, it is high-paid and high-skill jobs in the aerospace industry that have been lost or put at risk the most by what happened on 11 September. Will he reiterate that the Government remain committed, for the benefit of constituencies such as Burnley and, indeed, of the whole country's economy, to maintaining high-skill jobs at the sharp end and to doing everything possible for investment to secure those jobs in the future?

I understand what my hon. Friend says. It is true that in constituencies such as Burnley the labour market is undergoing a period of adjustment. To address some of those local issues, we have introduced a number of special programmes designed to bear down on unemployment, especially long-term unemployment. My hon. Friend is right that there has been movement in the labour market away from employment in manufacturing towards employment in the service sector, but it would not be true to say that there are not secure, well-paid careers in the service sector—there are.

Does the Minister agree that in this longest, deepest recession, which has been compounded by 11 September, two sectors—the airline industry and farming—have been particularly badly hit? Will he give some assurance to constituents of mine who came to see me having, in the case of the husband, just been made redundant from farming? Will people get a fairer hearing and more assistance from the jobcentre and Employment Service staff than was the case in that instance?

I do not agree with the hon. Lady that we are in a long and deep recession. Indeed, there have never been so many people in employment. However, I am happy to consider cases of individual constituents who, according to the hon. Lady, have been displaced from employment in agriculture. It is fair to point out that agriculture employs fewer than 1 per cent. of the total work force, but if the hon. Lady has a constituent who is looking for work and needs help, and she writes to me about the case, I shall see what I can do.

The electronics sector has also suffered since 11 September. After many years of decline, unemployment in my constituency has risen sharply since 11 September. A characteristic of the sector is the number of people employed on short-term and casual contracts. Too often, Government employment initiatives are not sufficiently flexible to deal with people who experience periods of unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend consider the operation of Jobcentre Plus and the new deal to ascertain whether people on short-term contracts can be caught more quickly and helped back into work so that they can benefit from the booming economy elsewhere?

Employment on short-term contracts is relatively low nationally, but if it is a peculiar feature of the labour market in my hon. Friend's constituency, I shall, of course, consider the problems that he mentioned. However, I must emphasise that the trend that he cites goes against the national trend. Perhaps he wishes to draw some local circumstance to my attention. I assure him that the staff who work for Jobcentre Plus—as it will become—are there to help his constituents. If he wants to draw a specific problem to my attention, I shall examine it.

How many staff vacancies there are in the Child Support Agency. [55492]

When expressed as the equivalent number of full-time posts, the latest available estimate for staff vacancies in the Child Support Agency is 798. At the end of March, the agency had just over 12,000 staff. That gives a vacancy rate of 6 per cent. We are taking several steps to fill those vacancies.

If there are so many vacancies, why does the Child Support Agency, like many other Government agencies, refuse to consider people over 65 who apply for jobs with them? Instead of waiting for Europe to direct the Government to do what is clearly right, why do not Ministers end Government age discrimination?

Many companies and public services have vacancies, not least because unemployment has declined—by 48 per cent. in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We are taking several steps, which include recruiting and promoting opportunities for evening work and family friendly employment. I acknowledge that there is a debate about ageism and appropriate retirement rates. That will continue in future, because as hon. Members have pointed out earlier, we are all getting older.

There will be a greater demand for staff at the Child Support Agency, and vacancies will increase when the reforms are introduced later this year. The reforms introduce two standards on maintenance payments. One is the new rate of 15 per cent. and the other is the old rate of 30 per cent. That will create a greater anomaly and more staff will have to be recruited to deal with it. Will my hon. Friend address that?

I do not recognise that the reforms will lead to more staff. We are simplifying the formula for child support and placing greater emphasis on enforcement. It was pointed out earlier that hon. Members of all parties are worried about absent parents who do not understand their obligations. We are therefore emphasising enforcement.

As the Minister said, the new formula will increase the efficiency of the staff of the CSA but will it better take account of cases in which the care of children is genuinely shared 50:50 between the parents, especially as 100 per cent. of child benefit has to go to one parent?

Yes is the short answer. Some children are brought up by both parents and we want to encourage that. The formula therefore takes account of it.

If he will make a statement of the number of final salary schemes that have closed since 1998. [55493]

Since 1998, about 4 per cent. of known defined benefit schemes have notified the pension schemes registry of their closure. The overriding issue is how much is being saved towards a pension. The fact is that most people are not saving enough towards their retirement. Therefore, building on the reforms we have already made, we shall be making further proposals to help individuals and companies to make provisions for retirement. As I said at the previous Work and Pensions Question Time, I expect to publish our proposals this autumn.

We are now witnessing the demise of the final salary pension scheme with the day-to-day closure of more and more of those schemes. Do the Secretary of State and his Government accept that the increasing burdens they have placed on such schemes since 1997 include the disastrous abolition of advance corporation tax relief, which is responsible for the precarious situation in which many of today's and tomorrow's pensioners find themselves?

No. Interestingly, the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds said in his recent address to the association's annual conference, at which I spoke, that he and his association were not calling for a return to the old ACT system. When we made the changes four or five years ago, we also cut corporation tax. It is now at 30 per cent., something that the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member never managed to achieve in its 18 years in power. That has helped investors, including pension funds.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the flight from final salary schemes is down not to FRS17 or the Government's inaction but to the almost £30 billion fall in equities in the market, as indicated by Boots, which moved from equities to bonds? Recognising that there is a £27 billion shortfall in savings, will he take the opportunity to ensure that companies that are not performing as they should by their employees close the savings gap? Otherwise, in future, many pensioners will be in penury.

My hon. Friend is right that there is a savings gap. Whether it is £27 billion or something near it, no one can be sure, but what is beyond doubt, as I said earlier, is that most people are not saving enough for their retirement. One of the measures that will help will be to strip away some of the unnecessary regulation in the pensions industry.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem is not just that final salary schemes are closing, but that conditions for existing pensioners are often changed retrospectively by employers, and that trustees are proving ineffectual or insufficiently independent? Does he also agree that the arrangements need to be looked at afresh, to breed some confidence in this rather battered sector?

There has been criticism of some pension trustees. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked about FRS17. In many cases, transparency in companies' affairs might have revealed serious problems with pension funds, particularly smaller funds, which tend not to be examined as efficiently as those of bigger companies. That is an example of how greater transparency and openness would help pensioners.

Does my right hon. Friend understand how deeply disappointing it is for long-serving employees to discover that, as a result of changes in their company's pension scheme, they will receive a significantly reduced occupational pension? That is totally unacceptable. What would happen if Members of Parliament and Officers of the House discovered late in the day that their anticipated pension was to be substantially reduced? This issue constitutes a clear injustice in the labour market, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue the matter.

A company scheme involves a contractual agreement between the company concerned and its employees—it is not something that the Government underwrite or stand behind. Of course, the Government do pay money into contracted-out pension schemes and take certain steps through national insurance contributions and tax relief.

May I invite the Secretary of State to agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—sadly, he is not in his place—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and the many other of his colleagues who have signed early-day motion 1180, which expresses concern at the impact of advance corporation tax on the former registered dockworkers pension scheme? That early-day motion also notes that their dividend income has been reduced by 33 per cent., and that that income could have been reinvested, or provided higher benefits. Instead of the complacency that the Secretary of State has shown this afternoon, why does he not listen to his colleagues? They understand the damage that the tax increase is doing to people's pensions, and everything that their early-day motion says about the dockworkers pension scheme applies to every other pension fund in the country.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions has just reminded me that, under several of the privatisations that took place when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister and his party were in office, pension schemes were sometimes the biggest casualties. I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman has joined the campaign group to which he refers, and I am sure that they will welcome him as a new recruit.

If he will make a statement on the availability of occupational pension schemes for future pensioners. [55494]

It is estimated that occupational pension schemes are available to 16.4 million employees, or 66 per cent. of the total number of employees in Great Britain. Many of those employees who do not have access to an occupational scheme will have access to either a stakeholder scheme or the second state pension.

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he ensure that one of the outcomes of the numerous reviews that the Secretary of State outlined in his earlier answers will be a legal and regulatory framework that will ensure that the decline in occupational pension schemes is reversed, so that more occupational pension schemes will be available to future pensioners?

The whole purpose of the reviews is to ensure that we encourage people to save in a way that they have not previously, and that schemes do not suffer overbearing regulation or disproportionate costs. The difficulties of management of such schemes make it less likely that they will continue or even be set up in the first place. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's views on the proposals when they are published. It is also important that we review proactively the role of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. It will be the first time that it has been reviewed since its establishment. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the body is recognised as one that represents the interests of pensioners when it considers the general problems of schemes or particular problems connected with the management of schemes.

Will the Minister of State take any notice of the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds at its annual conference less than a fortnight ago when he said:

"The Government is pursuing policies which have actually undermined company pensions."?

I would prefer to have a proper debate instead of juvenile ping-pong over the issue. So far this Question Time, we have had an adult debate about the issues. The hon. Gentleman asked for a list, so I shall give him one. The companies in question include BAE Systems, BP, British American Tobacco, Diageo, Corns, the John Lewis Partnership and Tesco, among others. However, I do not rest my case on that list. This is the first Government in a long time to set up several reviews in partnership with industry, the outcome of which will be to strip out regulations and burdens on schemes—both continuing and those being set up. This is the first Government to introduce stakeholder arrangements and pension forecasting. All that is being done in partnership with industry and, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a hell of a different picture now compared with when he left office a few years ago.

If he will make a statement on new measures he plans to combat benefit fraud. [55495]

In April, we introduced a range of measures using powers taken in the Fraud Act 2001 which will help us to tackle the fraudster. Investigators can now request information from banks and utilities to find evidence of fraud. They also have stronger powers to tackle employers who collude with their staff to defraud the benefit system. We now also have the power to remove benefits from those people who persistently abuse the system. That shows the Government's determination to crack down on the fraudster.

I welcome that reply, and those measures are long overdue. Previous Governments allowed far too much fraud by employers and unscrupulous people and it is good that this Government will put that right. Can the Minister give us some indication of the effectiveness of the measures that have been taken so far? Will he give consideration to further measures in the future, including perhaps biometric cards or other technological means to ensure the effectiveness of identity checks?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the possibility of identity fraud. We have systems and technologies enabling us to identify it wherever possible, and we are beginning to win the war against the social-security fraudster. Between 1999 and March 2001 we reduced the amount of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent., nearly double our first milestone of 10 per cent. Moreover, that was achieved a year ahead of schedule.

I acknowledge that much has been done, which is right and proper, but will the Minister turn his attention to housing benefit fraud and to the verification framework in particular? According to recent written answers and departmental research, central Government expenditure on the framework has amounted to nearly £1 billion, for a net win of £100 million annually. Bearing that in mind, along with some of the administrative delays caused by the framework, will the Minister ask his officials to conduct a cost-benefit analysis?

We are conducting a research exercise to produce an up-to-date figure for the amount of housing benefit fraud. We are not complacent, but we feel that the money we are spending will prove cost-effective. More and more local authorities are safeguarding the system by adopting the verification framework. They can now adopt chunks at a time, by means of a modular approach.

Does my hon. Friend agree that employers frequently know that their employees are cheating the system? Subject to evidence, should such employers not be prosecuted for aiding and abetting?

Yes. There is capacity in the system for employers to collude with employees, but we are on to the problem. It should be tackled, and it is being tackled.

How many national insurance numbers are there in the country? Will the Minister give us the latest figure, and tell us how much greater it is than the entire British population? Will he also tell us what measures he has taken to tackle abuse of national insurance numbers, one of the most rapidly growing forms of benefit fraud?

We are tackling the abuse of national insurance numbers. We now employ rigorous processes when people apply for them, and a number of people are turned down every week and every month.

Is the Minister aware that there are more than 80 million national insurance numbers, 20 million more—

rose—

It seems that the Secretary of State is going to answer my question. I look forward to hearing his answer.

Unlike a previous Administration, we are being rigorous about the issuing of national insurance numbers. As I have said, we turn down numerous people every week and every month. We are conducting an exercise so that we can explain fully to the House why the numbers in existence are in existence, but when someone dies, the widow or widower's entitlement is an issue. Common sense suggests that the national insurance number should therefore be retained.

What assessment he has made of the impact of single room rent restrictions on the accommodation situation in seaside and coastal towns. [55497]

We introduced improvements to the single room rent provisions last July. They now strike a more effective balance between ensuring that young people have access to accommodation while making sure that the benefit system does not provide them with better housing than young people who are in work.

Grateful though I am to my hon. Friend for that reply, does he appreciate that the present restrictions bear down particularly hard on young people in seaside and coastal towns who are looking for work? Streetlife, a charity in my constituency, said that it had about 30 landlords who would take young people presenting as homeless before the rent restriction was introduced. Since its introduction, the number has declined to zero. I ask my hon. Friend, in whom I have great faith, to speed up the review that is taking place over the summer and, notwithstanding that, to put some oomph into his officials, who have been remarkably complacent about the issue in recent years.

I can assure my hon. Friend that our officials have plenty of oomph—those who work on behalf of the House and the public are very energised people. We have changed the system for single room rent. It used to be limited to the average cost of a non-self-contained room with a shared toilet and kitchen. It now allows someone to have exclusive use of a bedroom, with shared use of a toilet, bathroom, kitchen and living room. I looked up the evidence, and about 71 per cent. of all single adults under 25 without children who live in the privately rented sector have accommodation of that kind. I am confident that we are striking the right balance but, of course, we keep all such matters closely under review.