If he will make a statement on the impact of new deal 50-plus on getting older people back into work. [102943]

New deal 50-plus has been a success, and nearly 92,000 people have moved into work while claiming employment credit. Evaluation has shown that it is also helping people by giving them the increased motivation and confidence they need to find jobs. New deal 50-plus is also making a good contribution to our wider campaign to tackle age discrimination and improve the prospects of older people.

I congratulate the Government on their work in this difficult area, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the acute problems in former coalfield areas such as my constituency, where one household in four still has no one in work? That is a frightening statistic. Many are older people, former miners who were thrown on the scrap heap by the Tories when the pits were closed. Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention in any further rolling out of the new deal to blackspots such as the one I represent?

Yes indeed. New deal 50-plus and the Government's other programmes, including the excellent work done by the coalfields taskforce in partnership with local communities, is making headway in tackling pressing social concerns. The gap between the employment rate among those over 50 and the average rate has been narrowing as fast in the more deprived regions as in the less deprived, if not faster. There is more to be done, but we are determined to build on the progress that has been made.

When will the Government do something to help people such as my constituent Jill Lambard-Brown, who has been sacked from her job as a swimming teacher by Eastbourne borough council simply because she is approaching the age of 65—although she is as fit as a fiddle, popular with families and children and very keen to carry on?

I have a great deal of sympathy for people like the hon. Gentleman's constituent. That is why we are committed to legislating to outlaw age discrimination, and why the Department of Trade and Industry is consulting on the ending of mandatory retirement ages. An important aim of our Green Paper is to encourage people who want to continue working for longer. We should make the most of the talents of all in our community, regardless of their age, and that includes the hon. Gentleman's constituent.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the pension credit on the incomes of the poorest pensioners. [102945]

Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for pension credit, and, on average, stand to gain around £400 a year. In total, as a result of the Government's tax and benefit changes, the poorest third of pensioner households will be on average £1,500 a year better off than in 1997, with pensioner households as a whole better off by an average of £1,150.

As my right hon. Friend will know, many constituents like mine whose incomes are just above the income support level will benefit greatly from pension credit. Sadly, however, many are still unaware that they can claim it and of how much it would be worth. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that all pensioners who are entitled to the credit know of their right to claim, and are helped to do so? Many are put off by the need to fill in forms and so forth.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is exactly why we are introducing pension credit—to help those who previously just lost out because of modest occupational pension or savings income. We will make claiming simple and straightforward. Only a telephone call will be necessary: all the information is provided for the claimants, and they will not have to complete complicated forms. The forms will be sent to them to be signed. Moreover, those already receiving the minimum income guarantee will automatically be passported on to pension credit.

As for my hon. Friend's important point about take-up, since we launched our take-up campaign in May 2000, over 150,000 more people have received the minimum income guarantee, and have benefited by an average of £20 a week. We need to build on that.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that about 1.6 million pensioner families will be floated on to benefit entitlement by pension credit, and therefore lose their incentive to save. About a month ago, however, the Minister of State said that there was no inherent disincentive. Is the institute right, or the Minister of State?

That is a very easy question. The Minister of State is right. I heard what he said. He pointed out that, with the introduction of the pension credit, we reward saving where previously it was penalised. In opposing the pension credit, Conservative Members should open their eyes to the fact that they are committing to going back to 100 per cent. rates of withdrawal, which penalise saving and thrift and hit those on modest incomes hard.

When parents take time off work to look after their children, they get home responsibilities protection and, therefore, contributions towards their pension. When foster carers do the same, they do not get HRP, so they lose those contributions towards their pension. Foster carers do extremely important work. Often, they are struggling on low incomes. Can my right hon. Friend do anything to put that right and give them the right to the basic state pension and therefore to full pension credit entitlement?

There is widespread support in the House for what my hon. Friend says. I pay tribute to the energy and persistence with which he has campaigned on that issue. I can announce that we shall extend home responsibilities protection to foster carers, so that those years of caring count towards their pension entitlement. They do an invaluable job for this country. It is time that that contribution was recognised in the way they build up their pensions. I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the good news that we shall go ahead with that.

Is it not wrong that so many of the poorest pensioners, particularly women, will miss out on pension credit through low take-up? Can the Secretary of State confirm that his projection is that only two thirds of those entitled will receive it in the first year, and that the target that he has agreed with the Treasury for 2006 means that 1 million pensioner households will still not receive pension credit? Is that the best he can do for our poorest pensioners, and how does he justify a benefit that was set up on the basis that millions of pensioners would not receive it for many years?

It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should seek to berate us when we are trying to maximise take-up. The approach of the Conservative party is to take pension credit away from those people altogether. On the projections for future years, it of course depends on the numbers who will be eligible at that time but I am confident that it will be more than the 67 per cent.; that figure is purely a planning assumption. We will do everything that we can to ensure that everyone entitled to the pension credit receives it. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in campaigning for that, and not get on their high horse about abolishing it.

In my constituency at least, pension credit has universal backing. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Pensions for developing an excellent policy. Many people in Leigh have small works pensions. Many of those are former miners or their widows. They may have just received, or be about to receive, a lump sum compensation from the coal health compensation scheme. It would be unfair if those payments in respect of ill health affected eligibility for pension credit or the level at which it is paid. Will the Secretary of State assure me that such payments will be disregarded when calculating pension credit?

I can indeed confirm that such payments, which are important for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, will be disregarded in the calculation of pension credit.

If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency. [102947]

The Child Support Agency has steadily increased its effectiveness since the mid-1990s. In 1995–96, the amount of money going to parents with care was only £300 million. By 2001–02, it was around £770 million. The new CSA system for new cases has got off to a smooth start.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Were the new system applied to all cases simultaneously, how many parents with care would gain, and what proportion would that be?

Around 60 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the biggest categories of complaints from people trying to get payments due to them under the CSA involves men who are self-employed, who can give the system the run-around and who avoid declaring the money and income that they have. Is my right hon. Friend sure that steps are being taken to ensure that the mother gets what she is entitled to in those cases?

Yes. That is a very important purpose of the reform and the introduction of the new system. Because the new system is much simpler, it will enable us to spend far fewer resources on assessing and perpetually reassessing cases. It will thereby enable us to put a lot more effort into ensuring compliance, and making sure that people pay the assessments that they are supposed to be paying. As I have told the House before, particular effort will be made in relation to the self-employed, whose compliance rates are significantly below the average.

:The Government's intention was that, in cases where CSA assessment under the new system is very different from that under the old system, change can be phased in over a period of up to five years. A month ago, I drew the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that some people are circumventing that principle by opting out of the CSA and turning up three months later as brand new cases, thereby getting the entire five-year increase in one go. Has he done anything about that problem since I raised it, and given that, as my experience shows, such cases do exist, what will he do to prevent the Government's and Parliament's intention from being thwarted?

:As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, rules have been put in place—in particular, the 13-week provision. We must have a practical way of operating that minimises the incentive for people to try to work the new system to get on to it, but which enables its operation without the addition of yet further bureaucracy and complexity—the very problems that brought the old system into such disrepute and made it so difficult to get the standards of effectiveness that are now being achieved. People on the new assessment are assessed on the much more simple, straightforward basis that we have set out: 15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two children, and 25 per cent. for additional children. That is accepted by hon. Members and by the country, on the basis of consultation, as a fair method of payment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will join us in supporting the principle that money that is due to children ought to be paid, and that they will support the new system, which will ensure that more children benefit.

:The Government originally promised the new system by October 2001, and then by April 2002, but we now have this half-baked arrangement whereby new and recycled cases are handled under the new system, while existing ones continue under the old one. When will existing cases move to the new system? Is the five-year transition that the Secretary of State has talked about actually going to happen, and how will it work? There are both winners and losers out there who face great uncertainty as a result of continuing delay.

It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to accuse us of implementing a half-baked system, given that we have had to work so very hard to put right the utter shambles of a system, for which everyone knows the Conservatives were responsible. On reflection, he will surely accept that it is very sensible indeed to ensure that the system works with new cases before switching over existing ones. I will announce the date for doing that when we know that it can sensibly be planned for, and not before. On the five-year transition, yes, it will operate.

What percentage of the population are in receipt of means-tested benefits. [102948]

About 17 per cent. of individuals in Great Britain over the age of 16 are in receipt of one or more income-related benefits. This Government are committed to targeting help at those who need it most, while putting in place a range of initiatives to help people back into work, such as new deals, improvements in child care, the national minimum wage and our new tax credits. All are about making work possible, but also about making work pay.

Once the changes in April and October come into play, will not some 40 per cent. of the population—about 20 million Britons, according to House of Commons Library figures—be subject to means-tested benefits? Does that not horrify the Minister? Rather than luring more and more people into the sticky and complicated web of welfare dependency, would it not be better to reduce the burden of tax on hard-working families and set them free to make their own choices?

The reality is that we are seeking successfully to get people out of benefit dependency and into work. The number of people receiving income-based jobseeker's allowance, for example, fell from 1.2 million to 600,000 between 1997 and 2002. It is wholly appropriate, however, that we support children and work, so that when people make the often difficult transition into work, we can guarantee that it pays. That is the purpose of the tax credit system.

Has the Minister seen today's powerful report from the Association of British Insurers, which says that eventually 80 per cent. of pensioners could be on means-tested benefits and that

"today's state pension system won't work tomorrow"?

The association joins a long list of organisations—the National Association of Pension Funds, Help the Aged and many others—that have warned about the spread of means-testing under this Government. Instead of reforming benefits and making them simpler, all Ministers do is to introduce yet more means-testing. Why will not the Government join the growing consensus that benefits for pensioners need to be made simpler, instead of introducing ever more means-testing and complexity?

We have published our proposals in our Green Paper on pensions. Our strategy—to reduce means-tested dependency for those who are out of work by providing them with work—is the right one. However, it is wholly appropriate that we have a strategy, for both pensioners and those of working age, to support savings and to support those who are in work, but often on low wages, through the tax credit regime. It is an appropriate and consistent strategy to attack poverty in this country.

It is not a strategy at all. The Minister spoke of means-testing dependency for the unemployed, but it is the same for pensioners. Why will not the Minister listen to what so many outside groups are saying? Why are the Government so confident that they have got it right when everybody else is warning about the implications of their system? More means-testing means weaker incentives to work and save and a system that is so complicated that fewer and fewer people get the benefits to which they are entitled. Why will the Minister not listen to those powerful warnings from everyone else?

We listen to many groups. In opposition, we listened to the oldest and poorest, whom the last Tory Government did so little to support. Our targeted strategy has brought huge gains to some of the poorest and most deserving among our elders. The Opposition need to explain why they would take away pension credit from many hundreds of thousands of people who need and deserve it.

When he will reach a conclusion as to the impact on the payment of social security benefit of the Scottish Executive's proposals to compensate people who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood products. [102949]

Discussions about those proposals and their impact on the payment of social security benefits are still ongoing. No conclusions have yet been reached and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

I thank the Minister for his answer, which I find deeply disappointing. He will be aware that the Scottish Parliament and Executive have made clear their wish to compensate hepatitis C sufferers. As there is already a precedent for exempting similar payments from the operation of the clawback system, why will not the Minister today confirm that Westminster will not frustrate the will of the Scottish Parliament to pay compensation to hepatitis C sufferers?

Although suffering from hepatitis C is a serious matter, the hon. Lady's question raises a number of complex issues, not least to do with the legal competence of the Scottish Executive. That point has been acknowledged by the Scottish Minister for Health and Community Care. We need to consider advice carefully and I am not yet in a position to make a decision.

How many Child Support Agency cases of arrears of maintenance payment were taken to court in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [102950]

The total number of cases taken to court in the past five years has ranged from approximately 2,800 per annum to more than 4,600 per annum. I will send my hon. Friend the precise figures.

My question concerns the procedure that the Secretary of State has set out on deduction of earnings orders. We are advised that. before a case goes to court, the Child Support Agency, following the directions of the Secretary of State, should ask the absent parent if a deduction of earnings order would be applicable. How many cases have been taken to court without the deduction of earnings order having been applied in the first instance? if that is happening, what will the Minister do to ensure that the regulations that have been set out by Parliament, through the Secretary of State, will be adhered to, ensuring that attachment of earnings orders are applied before cases go to court?

Whenever possible, it is sensible to use methods such as deduction of earnings orders before resorting to going to court. Going to court is the last resort. We have used more than 100,000 deduction of earnings orders. I know that my hon. Friend has a constituency case in mind. Obviously, I will not comment on that case now. When someone changes employer, it can be difficult to use a deduction of earnings order. In such cases, on behalf of the parent with care, we have to go to court, but we do that only as the last resort. Outside the Chamber, I will be happy to discuss particular cases with my hon. Friend.

Hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about a minority of parents who persistently and deliberately refuse to pay child support that they are able to pay. In extreme cases, the CSA has the power to remove driving licences, but it has done so in only two cases. Will the Minister seek to ensure that that happens more frequently?

The purpose of the new powers is to deter. Nine people have gone to prison as a result. Others, when threatened with the loss of their driving licence, have paid up. That is the whole purpose of the policy. It is one of the weapons in our armoury to ensure that absent parents recognise their responsibilities towards their children.

Is it not the case that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned a moment ago, there are serious flaws in the CSA's recovery process in relation to self-employed people? Would closer co-operation and co-ordination between the Department for Work and Pensions, the CSA, the Inland Revenue and others not lead to more certainty in the contacting of non-resident parents who are clever at avoiding paying what they should be paying?

I have considerable sympathy with that point. We all have cases in our constituencies where fathers—it is normally fathers—have not paid up. Many of those people are self-employed. We are doing what my hon. Friend suggests: we now have close working relations with the Inland Revenue. It is, after all, up to the Revenue to determine the income of a self-employed person. However, in cases where there are grounds for thinking that the lifestyle of the man—or, sometimes, the woman—is inconsistent with their reported earnings, we can pursue the matter using the new powers. We have to ensure that all parents, whatever their employment status, acknowledge their responsibilities to their children.

If he will make a statement on the number of lone parent workless households. [102951]

In autumn 2002, there were 707,000 workless lone parent households in the UK. Since 1997, the lone parent employment rate has increased by almost one fifth. For the first time, it is over 50 per cent. Recent independent evaluation by the National Centre for Social Research has shown that the new deal for lone parents more than doubles lone parents' chances of finding a job.

Why does the Minister not come clean with the House and admit that, over the past year, there has been an increase of 55,000 in the number of children in workless households? Is that not a savage indictment of the Government's failure to tackle poverty in the way that they promised—quite apart from being a breach of the solemn undertakings that were given by his party at the general election?

No, it is not. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters and I know that he serves on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. However, he has a pretty grudging way of looking at the issues. By far and away the best way in which to help the poorest households is to ensure that a member of such households gets into work that pays and that the jobs are available. That is the direction in which we are moving and, frankly, the results speak for themselves.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that 250,000 fewer children are in workless households than in 1997? Indeed, will he confirm that up to 1 million children stand to benefit from the changes to child maintenance premium to the tune of up to £10 per week as a result of the Government's recent initiative?

Of course, my hon. Friend is right. One would pay more attention to the representations of the Opposition if they could set out their alternative policies clearly. Do they want to go back to 3 million unemployed, and the 15 per cent. interest rates and 10 per cent. inflation rates that they visited on the country? People very quickly forget what happened.

What further steps he will take to help people into work in communities with high levels of long-term unemployment. [102952]

In areas with high levels of long-term unemployment, we have introduced initiatives such as action teams for jobs and employment zones. The north-west Wales action team and employment zone, which works in my hon. Friend's constituency, has helped more than 1,100 people into work. In addition, we are building on the new deal by providing transitional jobs, through the StepUp pilots, to act as a stepping-stone for long-term unemployed people moving from benefits into work. Further action in areas with the highest concentrations of worklessness was announced in the pre-Budget report. The Government's active labour market policies have played an important part in reducing long-term unemployment by more than three quarters and youth unemployment by 88 per cent. since 1997 in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The unemployment rate in my constituency is 3.1 per cent., so unemployment has virtually disappeared. However, 44 per cent. of the unemployment is concentrated in only two wards. More than 2,500 jobs are being created six miles away on the St. Asaph business park, and excellent initiatives such as the working links car loans scheme are having an impact on transport. What additional transport initiatives can the Government take to connect the jobless with the jobs?

There are two great advantages of the action team approach. First, it is proactive and can go out and help unemployed people, rather than requiring those people to seek help. The second great advantage is flexibility, which includes underpinning transport schemes such as the one that my hon. Friend mentioned, with which he is familiar from his constituency, and more generally. I understand that the car leasing scheme is to be expanded and that, in his constituency, it will be extended to a scooter leasing scheme in April.

When can my right hon. Friend announce the areas chosen to pilot the Government's new pathways into work programmes? If one of those areas turns out to be in Scotland, will he assure me that he will liaise closely with the Minister for Health and Community Care in the Scottish Executive so that if unemployed people required a rehabilitation course, for example, they would be able to access one as easily in my constituency as in his?

My hon. Friend makes his representations very well, as ever. We shall make the announcement as soon as we can. I had the opportunity to visit Scotland recently and saw at first hand the good rehabilitation work that is being undertaken locally.

If he will pay full pensions to people who are in hospital for longer than six weeks; and if he will make a statement.[102953]

We have already announced that we are increasing the period to 13 weeks from this October. We estimate that at any point in time some 26,000 people will benefit from the change, of whom some 18,000 will be people receiving state pension and 2,000 will be people receiving pension credit. By contrast, when the Conservative Government reviewed the rules, they introduced a standard six-week period for all benefits, including some that had previously had an eight-week rule, which meant that many people suffered detriment under that Government.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but does he recognise that the problem is bigger when people have to stay in hospital much longer because of bed blocking? Is it not also a problem that other benefits, such as the disability living allowance and the carer's allowance, make it increasingly difficult for people to leave hospital? I welcome the change of the six-week rule to 13 weeks, but will the Minister review other benefits and ensure that people are not kept in hospital when they should not be there?

Some 95 per cent. of hospital admissions for older people last less than six weeks, thank goodness, while the figure for the general population is 97 per cent. The Government are investing hugely in carers and people in the community through intermediate care, as well as funding the biggest ever investment in primary and acute care in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman's party opposes such investment and wants to make a 20 per cent. cut., so I will take no lessons from him on downrating or on investment in public services.

I welcome the extension by my right hon. Friend of the number of weeks during which pensioners are still entitled to payment while in hospital. However, the payment of council tax is an important issue, particularly for pensioners in my area, who face higher payments as a result of the decision by Liberal Democrats in borough and district councils significantly to increase council tax. In addition, Conservative-controlled Hertfordshire county council is significantly increasing council tax, despite the fact that the Government have given it an above-inflation funding increase. What assistance can my right hon. Friend provide for all pensioners, as it is clear that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats care about them?

When I announced those changes in the State Pension Credit Bill, I made it clear that they not only applied to those who receive the basic state pension but extended to people who receive housing benefit and invalidity benefit.

As my hon. Friend says, Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the country are penalising pensioners and others by making draconian increases in council tax despite the record amount of money that they are receiving from the Government to improve and modernise services.

Is not one of the problems when Ministers make concessions—as all parties are pleased that they have in this case—that it tends to leave unfinished business? Will the Minister consider seriously those benefits that have not been improved as a result of his alleged generosity? I think particularly of attendance allowance and associated carers' benefits. The rules are still very tight, with a limit of four weeks, I think. Does the Minister appreciate that, when an elderly person is taken into hospital, the last thing that they or their family are thinking about is whether their benefits may be clawed back? Will he reconsider whether that nasty shock may be avoided, and administrative feasibility improved?

The change was not a concession. One of the first things I did when I was appointed Minister for Pensions was to make it clear to the organisations representing older people that I wanted to make changes in this area. I made a promise, and I kept that promise. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are separate. He asks about the rules on benefits that are related to people's disability and intended to contribute to their everyday living costs when they are in the community. Those costs are transferred when they have long-term illness as a result of their disability and are in hospital.

I am aware of the need to review these matters, but I make it clear that the change that has been made benefits 97 per cent. of individuals who go into hospital. Other changes, such as the increases to benefits that we made in the uprating statement, assist the different beneficiaries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

What plans he has to assist disabled people with access to pension payments. [102954]

For convenience and safety, many disabled people and pensioners already have their money paid straight into a bank or building society account, and others will want to have their money paid into an account that they can use at the Post Office. I was disappointed therefore to note that the Post Office's new PIN pad is not as user friendly as it should be. We are working closely with the Post Office and customer organisations to ensure that the new arrangements fully meet the needs of all our customers, particularly those of disabled people and pensioners.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Which disabled groups did she consult prior to the introduction of the smart card?

The Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Post Office consulted the usual disability organisations, including the Royal National Institute of the Blind. Today, I am laying before Parliament the Visually Impaired (Blind and Partially Sighted) Regulations 2003, which automatically include more blind and partially sighted people in the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 without them having to prove that they fit the definition. That should make it clear that under the DDA there are legal obligations on service providers such as the Post Office to make their services accessible to disabled people, including those with a visual impairment, and not to ignore them. All customers with a disability will still be able to access their payments at a post office, if that is what they want.

Can the Minister explain what happens in circumstances where a disabled pensioner becomes ill and has not previously nominated somebody to operate their Post Office card account, and thus cannot attend in person to enter their number? Will pensioners in those circumstances be able to gain access to their pension? What is the arrangement? At present, it is not clear whether the exemption scheme will cover that situation. It is not clear how people will get their pensions in such circumstances.

The Post Office has admitted that it needs to examine more closely the way in which the PIN pad works. It is examining how to make it more user friendly, and other ways of accessing the Post Office card account without a PIN pad. The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described are no different from those that currently apply when a pensioner cannot get to the post office: they are able to nominate someone else to get their money for them.

What assessment he has made of the future impact of the new children's centres on supporting parents in work. [102955]

Local authorities are just beginning their strategic planning for children's centres, so it is too early for such an assessment to have been made. However, we are expecting them to make a significant impact. Every children's centre must provide day care suitable for working parents, five days a week, 10 hours a day, for a minimum of 48 weeks a year. They will also act as service hubs for providers of child care services for children of all ages, linking to Jobcentre Plus offices, and offer support to parents who wish to consider training options.

I welcome the funding for the new children's centres, which for the first time will enable child care, early-years education and support for parents to be provided in the same place. Such children's centres will be especially welcome in Brinnington in my constituency, which has the highest number of parents on income support and the lowest number of childminders. There are jobs available, but child care continues to be an issue. Can my hon. Friend say when decisions are likely to be made about where the children's centres will be? When she makes the decisions, will she bear Brinnington in mind?

As usual, my hon. Friend has been early in the queue of hon. Members to see my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who is responsible for those matters, to make representations to us. We expect local authority proposals to be with us by October, and we shall make decisions shortly thereafter. My hon. Friend's council, Stockport, has already had an indicative allocation of more than £1 million to make the children's centres work in her constituency. I am sure that both the council and my noble Friend will consider the Brinnington ward when the decisions come to be made, especially in view of what my hon. Friend has said today.

:What role Jobcentre Plus has in ensuring that advice and information on child care is available to parents looking for work. [102956]

Child care partnership managers are being introduced to all Jobcentre Plus districts from April 2003 to ensure that parents are provided with the advice and information that they need on child care. In Stockton, South, that means that parents moving into work will be able to take advantage of nearly 700 new child care places created in the past three years, providing care for more than 1,100 children in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that thoughtful and valuable response, especially his reference to my constituency. Will he comment further about affordability and quality, which are two of the most crucial features that persuade parents that they can leave their children to seek work further away from home? Has any research been conducted to assess the impact of child care provision in terms of the numbers of people getting back to work?

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, and I acknowledge that she is a long-standing campaigner on those issues. This is an important labour market issue—child care must be affordable, which is why the child tax credit, which is available both to employed and self-employed people, pays up to 70 per cent. of eligible child care costs.

What steps are the Government taking to make child care more accessible in rural areas, where there are particular problems with the provision and accessibility of child care, and where there is certainly not equity of provision?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter. There are obviously difficulties with child care provision in rural areas, but he will know that the Government are proposing a substantial expansion in the number of places. We aim to increase help so that it covers 2 million children by 2006. The hon. Gentleman is of course right that that expansion should encompass rural areas as well.

What account is taken of the average level of council tax for the purposes of calculating pensions and benefit uprating. [102957]

The retail prices index, by which most non income-related benefits are uprated, takes account of rises in council tax. Other income-related benefits are uprated by the Rossi index, which excludes housing costs and local taxes. That is because those costs are met through separate benefits—for example, housing benefit for rent and council tax benefit.

Is the Minister aware that the average council tax increase for councils of all political persuasions across the country is likely to be about 14 per cent. this year, which is very hard indeed for people living on fixed incomes such as state pensions? The Office for National Statistics announced today that it is changing the basis on which inflation is calculated for pensions purposes—not to give a greater weighting to council tax, but to include takeaway latte coffee, kebabs and hair gel, none of which, I suspect, figure highly in a pensioner's average weekly budget. When will we get a price index that deals with the real expenditure of real pensioners?

It is not for my Department but for the ONS to alter or possibly kebab the index according to its own criteria. Council tax is set by individual councils of all political colours, not by central Government. Council funding has gone up by 25 per cent. in real terms in the past six years, whereas in the four years before 1997 it was cut by 7 per cent. Also, as a result of the interaction between pension credit and the applicable amounts for housing benefit and council tax benefit, we estimate that about 700,000 pensioner households who will not get pension credit itself in future will gain from the changes, which is welcome news.

While I understand the problems that would arise if pensions and benefits had to be adjusted simply on the basis of council tax, does the Minister nevertheless agree that it is unfair to have a national level of pensions and benefits in particularly high-cost areas? London weighting, however ham-fisted it is, is now evident in virtually every job in our capital city, so should not that principle be looked at and perhaps extended to pensions?

I do not know whether that is an announcement of a new policy, but the index is not a matter for us. It is based on precedent, and historians in the Opposition will remember Hugh Rossi, the ministerial author of the index. On the point made by the hon. Gentleman, council tax benefit goes to 4.6 million recipients, is worth on average £11 a week, and is a particularly important benefit at this time.

What percentage of pensioners are dependent on means-tested support. [102958]

About 30 per cent. of pensioner families are in receipt of income-related benefits. Our priority has always been to focus help on those who need it most, which is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. Almost 2 million people are benefiting from the guarantee, and the take-up campaign has put an extra £20 a week on average in the pockets of 149,000 people who would not have received it otherwise. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, around 1,500 people are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. We are now going a step further and introducing pension credit, which will reward—not penalise—saving. As a consequence of that change, the poorest pensioners will receive an average extra income of £400 a year.

Does the Minister not realise the disservice that the Government are doing to pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere? Through their new credits they are creating a complicated mechanism for pensioners to get some money back from the Government, but extra taxation, particularly the council tax, is taking much more out of pensioners' pockets. Will the Government adjust means-tested benefits to make them simpler to access and to make them reflect the huge extra cost of living that pensioners are absorbing this year because of the tax rises?

The Government have swept away the Tories' means-tested, mean-minded approach to pensioners' income. Consequently, come October this year, a pensioner in the hon. Gentleman's constituency can make one phone call, complete an application with a civil servant trained to act as their advocate, sign a commitment that the information given is correct, and receive pension credit. In addition, we have changed the rules with regard to council tax and housing benefit, so unlike the situation under the Conservatives, who gave benefit with one hand and took it away with the other, pensioners will qualify for housing benefit and council tax benefit as well.

Will my right hon. Friend pay no attention to Opposition Members' hypocrisy in respect of targeted benefits? Can he confirm that as a result of the targeted benefits and the minimum income guarantee, the poorest pensioners have received weekly increases of up to £30 a week? Can he also confirm that the poorest pensioners are on average 30 per cent. per year better off?

My hon. Friend is correct. Opposition Members, both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, must explain in the next few months why the Conservatives have a secret plan to privatise the basic state pension, and why the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has a Mickey Mouse Budget under which the youngest pensioners, who he says are the poorest, will lose about £30 a week in benefit to pay for his mad-cap idea of simply increasing pensions for people over the age of 75.

What plans he has to link benefits to the behaviour of recipients. [102960]

The Government have previously recognised the case for a role for housing benefit sanctions in tackling bad neighbour nuisance. Many of us have constituents who have suffered from the so-called neighbour from hell. However, sanctions need to be workable and capable of being applied decisively—[Laughter.] Our constituents who suffer from antisocial behaviour do not find it a laughing matter. Sanctions need to be workable and capable of being applied decisively in response to antisocial acts in the local community. They must act as a deterrent, not simply as a punishment after the event, and they must not be so cumbersome to administer that the costs outweigh the benefits. We intend to consult on a proposal to sanction housing benefit. If a workable measure can be developed, we will legislate to implement it.

Having accepted in principle the linking of housing benefit to behaviour, why have the Government rejected the Prime Minister's idea of linking child benefit to behaviour? What is wrong with the Prime Minister?

Answer!

What is wrong with the Prime Minister? Nothing at all. I should like to be quoted on that. There is a serious issue about the measures we can employ to tackle antisocial behaviour of different kinds. That is the purpose of the recent White Paper and that will be the purpose of legislation. If housing benefit sanctions can be made to be a workable instrument of policy, we will do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has made other proposals to ensure that truancy, which is big problem and a contributory factor in our shopping centres, can be tackled.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the original setting up of the Child Support Agency is a bad precedent for the judicial function being taken over by an administrative body? Does he not worry that decisions about who is telling the truth in behaviour disputes and whether the alleged antisocial behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable are matters not for administrators, but for courts, to decide?

The reality is that the Child Support Agency, with the agreement of the whole House, is delivering maintenance more effectively than the old court-based system, which simply did not work. However, I have said that we will take great care to ensure that the Government's concern to tackle antisocial behaviour, which I think is shared on the Conservative Benches but not the Liberal Democrat ones, is workable. That is why we shall consult very carefully to ensure that aspirations to tackle the yob neighbour can be translated into something that is workable, legal and effective.

The Minister has chosen to interpret the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) in terms of antisocial behaviour as it is conventionally understood. However, can he tell the House in what number or proportion of cases jobseeker's allowance has been withdrawn from those recipients of it who have thrice refused decent job offers?

The sanctions regime in Jobcentre Plus and new deals has been very effective. There are different sanctions regimes and I shall send the hon. Gentleman the data, but I have met unemployed people who admitted that the sanctions regime made them seek employment. Instead of playing party games on this one, what the British public—not least those living in fear of the yob neighbour—want to know is whether this Parliament can bring forward workable solutions. We are determined to do that, and I think that most of the House is. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would prefer to play the party political game.

What the change in the level of unemployment in the North-West Leicestershire constituency has been since May 1997. [102962]

Since 1997, in my hon. Friend's constituency, claimant unemployment has been more than halved and long-term unemployment cut by more than 80 per cent. Those figures are clear evidence of the strength of our labour market policies, which have helped to deliver record levels of employment across the country and unemployment at its lowest levels since the 1970s.

The reductions in unemployment in the former mining constituency of North-West Leicestershire are most welcome, but recent downturns in areas such as textiles, engineering and food manufacturing are a source of concern. Will the Minister receive a delegation including local Members of Parliament and workers at the United Biscuits factory in Ashby, where a planned phased run-down in 2004 could lead to the loss of 900 jobs? Economic success must not be holed below the waterline in that way.

I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says and I congratulate him on getting in twice at Work and Pensions Question Time. I represent a constituency with similar problems to those to which he alludes. I shall receive his delegation, and whatever Jobcentre Plus can do to help in the difficult circumstances that he describes, we will do.

What recent representations he has received on the level of benefits paid to carers; and if he will make a statement. [102963]

There have been no recent representations from national organisations, but there have been 16 written representations about the level of invalid care allowance, which is to be renamed the carer's allowance in April, from MPs writing on behalf of their constituents in the past six months, although to my knowledge, they do not include the hon. Gentleman. We have already made substantial changes to carers' benefit and we are in the final stages of implementing the carer's package, which improves financial support for carers by an estimated £500 million over three years.

May I thank the Minister for that response? I should also declare an interest£I forgot when I tabled the question that I am a recipient of carers' benefit.

Does the Minister agree that as important as the level of benefit is the very poor take-up that we still have in this country and the desperate need for respite care? Is she aware that almost all the carers who come to my surgery are investigating or making points about respite care and its availability? Given that the Government are now providing more money to local authorities in terms of carers' grants, which I welcome, is it not now time for some mandatory requirements for respite care for those who are looking after elderly relatives or disabled children?

The hon. Gentleman is right that respite care can be an important part of keeping carers going and I shall certainly pass on his remarks and suggestions to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has responsibility for that.

In respect of numbers, it is estimated that at the outturn of this year some 421,000 people are in receipt of ICA, which is an increase over the past year resulting from our extension of eligibility for ICA to those who are over 65 years old.

If he will make a statement on the number of final salary pension schemes that have closed since May 2002. [102964]

The Green Paper acknowledges that the trend towards defined contribution schemes has accelerated over the past few years, but the trend should not be overstated. One hundred and nineteen defined benefit schemes have reported their closure to new members to the pensions schemes registry since May 2002, which is just over 1 per cent. of the total number of defined benefit schemes where members are still building up pension rights.

A number of companies—for example, Unilever, Centrica and John Lewis—have recently declared their desire to retain their existing pension arrangements, increasing their own, and in some instances their employees', contributions. That demonstrates partnership in action, an approach that the Government advocate.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but the fact is that nobody denies that final salary schemes are in crisis. It might have been hoped that many people could find comfort in personal pension schemes, but the collapse in share prices over the past three years means that those are also in crisis. In the light of that difficulty facing pensioners, will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Treasury to the effect that it is high time that the changes to advance corporation tax—representing a tax on shares that has cost our pensioners £30 billion, or £5 billion a year—should be suspended so that we can at least for the time being, end this crisis, which is afflicting our pensioners so seriously?

The crisis of confidence over private pensions started with the last Government and the misselling of £13.5 billion of pensions, and it took this Government to clear up the mess. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, along with his colleagues on the Front Bench, should play a more active and positive role in replying to the response to the challenges put forward in the Green Paper. He might then get somewhere when he talks in such terms about the problems of second tier pensions. This Government are trying to sort out the problems caused by the last Government.