1. If he will make a statement on the recent performance of the Child Support Agency. (132661)

The Child Support Agency saw improvements in a number of areas over 2006 as a result of the operational improvement plan, with 58,000 more children receiving maintenance payments, a reduction in uncleared applications of 13 per cent. across both schemes, and new applications being dealt with more quickly. Legislation to replace the agency and overhaul the child support system will be introduced shortly.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but I gave him details earlier today of a case involving my constituent, Mrs. Marshal, who has been woefully served by the CSA. The MP hotline in Belfast that we have tried to access cannot seem to get any answers out of Bolton—it does not even have the telephone numbers. Mrs. Marshal’s investigations show that the amount paid in by dad is £22,365.24, yet she has received only £19,809.91, which means that the CSA is sitting on some of her money. Where is the money? Mrs. Marshal can see the discrepancies from the spreadsheets, so why cannot the Department? Why cannot I get any access via the MP hotline in Belfast to sort out this woeful mess?

The system is far from perfect—[Laughter]—I think that we all recognise that. However, unlike the previous Administration, we have put in place significant additional investment to try to improve the service provided to hon. Members. As I said, we are beginning to make progress. The details of the hon. Lady’s case have not yet been brought to my attention.

I sent a copy to the Department earlier today.

I am sure that the hon. Lady did so, but unfortunately I have not yet seen that correspondence. However, I assure her that I will look into the matter.

Does the chief executive of the CSA exist—perhaps this is one of the problems with the CSA—because I never get a reply from him to any letter that I write to him at the CSA? If the chief executive took some care in signing replies and, more importantly, reading our letters, he might get some idea of what still needs to be done.

I reject my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that the chief executive of the CSA is not doing a proper job. He is doing a proper job, and that is why the performance of the agency is beginning to improve in several important areas. We set out proposals in last year’s White Paper to bring about significant changes to the system of child support in our country, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will support those changes.

The Government’s figures show that fewer child support cases are being cleared each month and that the number of complex cases that the computer system simply cannot handle has increased by a third in the past 12 months. The system cannot cope. Does the Secretary of State now agree with Conservative Members that the assessment process needs urgent reconsideration, or is he happy to continue to tell families who rely on child support that they will have to wait until perhaps 2013 until they see some change?

We are determined to try to improve the operation of the CSA as much as possible. I understood that there was a consensus between the two sides of the House on the changes that were necessary. I also understood that Conservative Members supported the changes that we were trying to make through the operational improvement plan for the CSA. I am not aware that the hon. Lady and her colleagues have any other proposals to put forward.

My right hon. Friend is right to abolish the CSA and replace it with a new body. However, the fact remains that there are still enormous problems in dealing with the existing case load—that is the issue that is being raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. While I support what the Secretary of State is doing, what additional resources is he proposing to give the organisation in the meantime so that it can deal with the transitional arrangements? Many of our constituents have to wait an inordinate length of time just for their assessments to be made. That practical, administrative issue is the responsibility of the chief executive. What additional resources is my right hon. Friend prepared to give the agency now?

We are making £120 million of additional investment available over the next three years to support the turnaround in performance that is wanted by all hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend. The first year of the additional investment was spent primarily trying to improve training and recruit additional staff so that we could bring about improvements in the processing of new applications. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main), the length of time that it takes to process new applications is coming down.

Will the Secretary of State also consider, as a category, those people who flee from domestic violence, or whose partner has gone abroad? I will give just one example, but we could all give many: I know of somebody who left when their child was 10 months, and their child is now four. The child was meant to have received £94 a month, but they have received a total of £12 because the ex-partner boasts that he can always get away with it. That is unacceptable in any society, so will the Secretary of State consider those categories, and ask the chief executive to make them a priority, as well as other work that he has to do?

I shall certainly do that. If the hon. Gentleman will give me the details of that case, we will look into it. I agree that it will be of primary importance to improve the enforcement arrangements within the agency. To that end, we have proposed a number of additional measures to improve the enforcement powers available to the agency, but I am sorry to say that all of them have been opposed by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws).

The Secretary of State said that the CSA was far from perfect; that is an example of perfect English understatement on St. George’s day. I cannot remember the last time I held a surgery in which I did not have at least one case involving the CSA before me—I often have more than one—and I suspect that it is the same for the Secretary of State. Will he give some indication of the scale of the problems? How many cases where errors are being made are outstanding?

There is a backlog of, I think, over 200,000 cases in the system which needs to be dealt with, and we are trying to do that. Sensible Members understand that the problem did not start in 1997. I am afraid that its origins go right back to day one of the agency, which tried to do a job without the right tools and with the wrong policy framework, and which operated in a way that was simply never likely to deliver the results that all of us wanted and expected. When it comes to the CSA, it is easy for people to jump up and criticise its staff, the chief executive or anyone else, but we have a responsibility, which we should acknowledge in this place, for getting things wrong at the beginning and not correcting them in time. Now we are trying to do that.

2. What lessons have been learned from the result of work-focused interviews for lone parents. (132662)

There are more lone parents in work than ever before, and part of that success is because of regular work-focused interviews. Most lone parents think that the experience is useful and, crucially, the contact with advisers means that they are aware of the range of help and support that is available to assist them in their return to work.

I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has not quoted any of the studies that the Department has had carried out on its behalf, but given the success of the voluntary new deal for communities programme, and the fact that 69 per cent. of lone parents whose youngest child is over 12 are in work, what would represent better value for money: spending more money on more compulsory interviews and signings-on, or spending money on removing the barriers to work identified in the studies that have been undertaken for his Department?

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber, just in time to put her question. A range of studies show that over recent years there has been real improvement, both in the employment rate of lone parents and in the earnings potential of lone parents who enter work. I am delighted to confirm again to the House that the new deal for lone parents has helped more than 480,000 lone parents across the United Kingdom into work, but we have to go further. The issue is partly giving personal advice and support, so that we can get lone parents into work, but it is also about the barriers that remain, to which my hon. Friend referred, quite fairly. The top of the list of those barriers remains making affordable, flexible child care available to all, and that is what we are determined to do, across the Government.

The Government welcomed the Freud report, which advocated greater involvement of the voluntary and private sectors. Will the Minister confirm the story in The Guardian last Friday, which said that despite that welcome, the Government are not able to implement measures in the report because the Chancellor is refusing to provide any funding for pilot schemes?

I have not had the opportunity to read last Friday’s Guardian, unlike the hon. Gentleman, but the whole Government are committed to delivering on the Freud report, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Prime Minister and of course the Chancellor, because it is that sort of teamwork that has, over time, enabled us to deliver the most successful economy and the highest rates of employment that the country has ever known, as well as a fall in the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance, incapacity benefit and income support. We are determined to continue that record of success.

One of the biggest concerns for any lone parent accessing work is access to affordable child care. Workers at the Sure Start in St. Swithun’s in Eastmoor in my constituency of Wakefield have told me that they have noticed a trend, in which people access work just before Christmas, so that they can save up money to buy Christmas presents and get through the festive season, and then take their children out of child care and go back on benefits afterwards. Is that a trend that the Department has noticed, and if so, how can we better help those parents to stay in work?

I have not noticed or had any reports of situations along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests, but I am of course happy to listen to the specifics of her experience in her constituency or elsewhere. She is right to identify the need to provide more support for lone parents to be in sustained employment, because across the welfare system many people who wish for the chance to work and are determined to do so go into part-time or temporary work and go through a revolving door in the welfare system. The Freud report and a series of other reports put a firm emphasis on ensuring that work is sustained and well paid.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the further away somebody is from the labour market, the more difficult it is to get back into it? In order to gain skills, it is important that people keep in touch with the labour market. Has he thought about how the Leitch report can benefit lone parents and help them to get back into work?

My hon. Friend is right. The evidence is that for many lone parents, regular contact with the labour market through Jobcentre Plus or a private or voluntary sector provider, getting closer to the labour market and keeping close to it, and going into part-time work that must sometimes be flexible by its nature, are all involved in the journey back to work. The continued investment in getting people back into work to achieve that full employment is a price well worth paying.

Notwithstanding the figures that the Minister gave as regards the numbers of lone parents now in work, we still fall pitifully far down the league compared with the Scandinavian countries, for example. There are still 1,420 lone parents in the Rhondda who are not in work, and that is one of the major causes of child poverty. Will the Minister consider ways of ensuring that lone parents become part of the solution to this problem, for instance by gathering together lone parents so that they can provide flexible child care to other lone parents who want to get into work, thereby getting two parents into work rather than just one?

In a devolved sense, some of the detail of that is part of the approach of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive. However, given the increased role in welfare for the private and voluntary sectors, it is also about the involvement of community groups, faith organisations and trade unions at a local level to support people in giving them the chance to get back into work. My hon. Friend is right about our different profile compared with Scandinavia. There are two differences between our country and those countries. First, as regards the availability of child care, they have had decades of investment, whereas we are catching up after decades of under-investment. Secondly, we have the most liberal—if my hon. Friend will pardon my using that word—approach to job search for lone parents of any major European nation.

3. What assessment he has made of trends noted in the latest “Households Below Average Income” statistics; and if he will make a statement. (132664)

The “Households Below Average Income” statistics continue to demonstrate an overall improvement to child and pensioner poverty since 1997. The Government have achieved this through their welfare to work policies—in particular, the new deal for lone parents—and increased financial support for children and pensioners through the introduction of pension credit and the child and working tax credits, in addition to substantially increased levels of benefits for children.

Is the Secretary of State concerned that under our system the poorest effectively pay the highest tax? According to the Office for National Statistics, the poorest fifth of households pay 36.4 per cent. of their gross income in direct and indirect tax, compared with 35.6 per cent. for the richest fifth and 35.3 per cent. for households on average incomes. Instead of forcing poor people through an impenetrable maze of means-tested benefits and overpaid tax credits that have to be paid back, is not the more moral and economically efficient way to use the proceeds of growth to raise tax thresholds so that increasing numbers of poor people do not pay tax at all?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For us, the issue is very clear. We want to provide further support for low-income households, and that is precisely what we are doing. In relation to tax credits, my understanding is that his Front Benchers support the tax credit system. He may not, but then there is now probably very little that his Front Benchers propose that he feels in any way comfortable with. I am relieved to be able to say to him that matters of taxation are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

A large swathe of households below average income has significant difficulty in accessing welfare benefits and entitlement. To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that the Freud report has addressed those specific problems? Will he encourage hon. Members to attend a valuable Public and Commercial Services Union seminar on Wednesday at 5 pm in Committee Room 16, where all will be revealed?

I do not know what will be revealed in the meeting. However, I am convinced that David Freud’s report has identified some important issues for the Department and for the way in which Jobcentre Plus should increasingly individualise and tailor the support that it provides for people who are out of work, through a range of new services to help them get back into work. I suspect that my hon. Friend is worried about the role of the voluntary and private sectors. To put the record straight, it is worth reminding ourselves that those sectors deliver virtually all the flagship success policies that we have pursued through the new deals for lone parents and for disabled people. They do an outstanding job.

Does the Secretary of State accept the Government’s figures, which show that, according to the overall measure of inequality in the UK—the so-called Gini coefficient—the position has deteriorated since 1997?

It is usually a good idea for Secretaries of State to accept Government figures—

But.

No buts. Through our reforms, such as the national minimum wage, and the tax credits which the hon. Gentleman opposed, we have been able to provide significant additional financial help, which has increased the income of the poorest in our society. The hon. Gentleman might also like to consider the fact that the income of the poorest two fifths has increased in the past 10 years at a faster rate than that of the top two fifths.

The Secretary of State knows that the revised figures that he announced in his written statement this morning show that poverty among adults of working age has increased by 100,000. Does he have any explanation of that?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, he refers to a relative poverty measure. Some people suggest that the overall income of poor households is falling—it is not; it is rising significantly. Obviously, we need to reflect on and tackle some matters and we will do that.

Fighting poverty is a priority for all politicians but in March, the Government’s figures showed that the number of our fellow citizens in severe poverty had increased by 600,000 in the past 10 years. It is said that, in the past year, the total number of individuals in poverty—with less than 60 per cent. of median income before housing costs—rose from 10 million to 10.4 million, and that poverty among working age adults rose from 5 million to 5.4 million. The Secretary of State’s figures show that poverty is getting worse. Why?

I wish it were true that tackling poverty was an issue for all politicians. That is not what the history books tell us about the Conservative Government’s record. Child poverty doubled under the Conservative Government and it is now falling significantly for the first time in a generation because of our measures. If the hon. Gentleman had a record about which he could boast, I would seriously take something from it. He has no such record.

4. What plans his Department has to strengthen its mechanisms for tackling income support fraud. (132665)

In October 2005, we published new proposals for reducing benefit fraud. Fraud in income support is now at the lowest level since figures were recorded: down from an estimated £550 million in 1997-98 to around £200 million in 2005-06. That equates to a drop from 6.7 per cent of income support expenditure to 2.1 per cent.

We are determined to make further reductions in fraud, for example, by trying new data-matching initiatives with credit reference agencies.

Everybody living in Hammersmith and Fulham—except, it seems, the Secretary of State—is baffled by the unwillingness of the Department to investigate past and present claims for income support and other benefits by former local resident, Abu Hamza, and his family. Despite owning various properties, receiving rental income and buying a flat in Hammersmith with £75,000 in cash, there has never been a DWP investigation. Will the Secretary of State tell us why?

My understanding is that inquiries have been made into whether fraud or criminal activity has taken place. We have not found any evidence yet.

Does the Minister agree that if he wants to find examples of fraud or criminal activity, he could try to ensure that the DWP runs proper checks to ensure that those claiming income support are not among the thousands who have disappeared from open prisons over the last few years and are not living out in the wild somewhere like Australian bushmen, but are back at their home addresses, no doubt living off the benefits that they received before they were convicted of breaking laws in the first place?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), but fraud in respect of income support is falling sharply and we are determined to make further progress. In that regard, I am happy to say that this Administration has a far better record of dealing with these problems than the Administration to which the hon. Gentleman lent his support.

5. If he will make a statement on the impact of the 2007 Budget on the financial assistance scheme. (132666)

As a result of the Budget statement and the amendment tabled to the Pensions Bill, all the estimated 125,000 people with losses will be helped, receiving 80 per cent of the core pension rights accrued in their scheme. In addition, we have started a review of non-public sources of funding to top up the financial assistance scheme. I have today placed a note in the Library with details of the review and an indicative list of 17 schemes where we understand a compromise agreement is in place. We are asking for any similar schemes not on this list to come forward. The review will look at the definition of solvent employers, provide an initial view in the summer and make a final report by the end of 2007.

I thank the Minister for that answer and look forward to reading his statement. Last week, facing a Back-Bench revolt, the Chancellor was forced to expand his Budget measures to cover solvent schemes. He seems able to commit funds for pensioners when it suits him, but when a cross-party agreement for a solution is put forward, he rejects it out of hand. Surely what pensioners need now is not just another review, but action and payment in respect of pensions that many people saved a long time for, but may not live to receive.

I have looked at the proposed amendment and have found that it promises to pay 90 per cent., without saying how it can be funded. There is a word in the pensions sphere for guaranteeing pensioners a certain level of income with no guarantee to fund it—and the word is mis-selling. That is exactly what the Opposition are doing.

On behalf of the pensioners of HH Robertson’s, may I say how grateful they are for the work done by the Minister and the Secretary of State in developing the financial assistance scheme as they did? However, may I ask the Minister to look carefully into some of the smaller technical issues, such as bridging pensions, that remain as obstacles? Some of the rules of schemes such as HH Robertson’s are still presenting tiny problems for a small number of members, but they are entitled to benefits from the scheme. It is often a case of working out precisely what they are. Will the Minister meet me to discuss those issues?

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss them. He may well have been the first Member to raise this issue in the House, so his constituents and others owe him a real debt of gratitude. He may want to make a submission to the review so that those issues can be looked into by the external panel.

As one trade unionist to another—[Interruption.] For those in doubt, I used to be a member of the Fire Brigades Union. In respect of this cobbled-together agreement that took place on Thursday evening between the trade unions, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, can I ask whether any people who were not members of trade unions were present? Many of the people who have lost their pensions, including the Dexion workers in my constituency, are not trade union members and were not invited to this little gathering.

To be honest, I am not quite sure what meeting the hon. Gentleman is referring to. The important thing is to provide 80 per cent. to those affected and look further into how to top it up. It would be mistake to go for the sort of dodgy small print that the hon. Gentleman’s scheme has. The shadow Chancellor guaranteed on Wednesday morning that no extra public money was available, but that afternoon he was contradicted by his shadow Secretary of State who said that it was. We are opting not for that sort of dodgy small print, but for a proper review, which will look at the available money and make recommendations in due course.

May I ask my hon. Friend about the timetable for the unclaimed pension assets—he said that a statement was due some time before the recess—and whether the measures will need primary legislation? Are any pension funds, such as Legal and General or Prudential, not co-operating with this process and, if so, how are we going to get them to co-operate?

One of the things that the review needs to look at is whether legislation will be needed, as well as considering any technical, financial and legal issues. That is why we believe that the right way to proceed is to hold the review and to make recommendations in the light of its findings, rather than guaranteeing levels of payments that cannot be guaranteed. It is important that the financial services industry co-operate with the review; we will need its help and support. It is in the interest of everyone involved to come up with as good a settlement as we can, and I would urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, as well as those on the Front Bench, to put in a submission to the review.

The Budget changes to the financial assistance scheme and the additional change that the Minister announced last Wednesday are welcome. They will improve the position of those who are some way away from retirement, and of those on higher incomes. They will do nothing, however, for those at or near retirement who are on low wages, including shop floor workers and trade unionists. Such people are increasingly having to look to the Conservative party to defend their interests and fight their case, because the Labour Members who have taken up their case let them down last week. Will the Minister tell the House why he rejected a perfectly sensible proposal, supported on both sides of the House, that would have delivered an immediate solution at no cost to the public purse, save that of providing a short-term loan?

The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated why the proposal needed to be rejected; he contradicted himself in the space of one sentence. Either there is a taxpayer guarantee, in which case his shadow Chancellor was wrong last week to say that there was no public spending commitment involved, or this is mis-selling the Conservatives’ policy. Which is it?

The Minister might want to be a little bit careful about what he says about the package of policies that we announced last week. On Tuesday, shortly after my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) announced the package, the Chancellor accused him of having announced a reheat of his own policy. The Minister should therefore be a bit careful before he rubbishes it. This is about people. Let me give him two examples: Peter Humphrey, a former Dexion worker, and John Brooks, a former Early’s of Witney worker, are both now seriously ill. The Minister will know about their cases. They are receiving precisely nothing from the financial assistance scheme, and the announcement that he has made will deliver nothing extra to them. Is he not sending a message to them today that people will have to wait still longer, and that, in their cases, they might never receive the benefits for which they have been saving for many years?

That is not the message at all. We made it clear that we were increasing the level of initial payments from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that he does not know how to fund it. The House will notice that he absolutely refused to say which of the two options was correct. We still do not know who is right. Is it the shadow Chancellor, who said that no public spending commitment was involved, or is it the hon. Gentleman? There is a contradiction at the heart of their policy. What I was saying was exactly what the Chancellor said, namely that we should have a review and make decisions in the light of its findings and of proper technical advice, rather than adopting cooked-up amendments from the Conservative Front Bench.

6. How many more women will receive entitlements to the state second pension as a result of Government pension proposals. (132667)

As a result of reform, around 1 million more people will build up entitlement to the state second pension from 2010, 90 per cent. of whom will be women.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. As a Member of Parliament whose constituency has one of the highest percentages of women, I am naturally concerned about the treatment of women. Does my hon. Friend agree that the low take-up of the state second pension among women might be due to the fact that they are still being paid less than men? Of course, it could be that they are going for other pensions that are more favourable, but what are the Government doing to investigate why there is such a low take-up of the state second pension?

My hon. Friend is correct that for many years the number of women who build up a full state pension has been significantly lower than the number of their male counterparts who do so, which is why in our reforms, including the reform of the second state pension, we seek to equalise the take-up of the basic state pension and the building-up of that entitlement. He is correct, too, that there are other issues to do with the advice given to women workers and whether or not they think it worth their while to join in a private pension scheme. That is something that the Department for Work and Pensions must look at, along with employers and with the sponsorship of other Government Departments, to make sure that the right information is given to women. For too long, women have been second-class citizens with regard to pensions, whether it is the payment of the small stamp or the fact that they have never been given the opportunity to build up an entitlement, and we seek to rectify that.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities which, last Thursday, with the help of Age Concern and Bolton council launched a new mobile advice centre that has three interview rooms and a large satellite dish on the roof, and allows professional staff from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pension Service to give all the citizens of Greater Manchester who receive pensions or are about to receive them proper advice?

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in offering my congratulations. He has illustrated the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions, through the Pension Service, goes out to people and ensures that information is taken to the community. It works closely with voluntary organisations and local authorities to ensure that there are no barriers to information among the local population, and I should be interested to learn from the Pension Service the improved take-up in the Greater Manchester area.

7. If he will make a statement on progress in reducing the number of people on inactive benefits. (132668)

There are more people in work than ever before in the UK. There are also 900,000 fewer people on out-of-work benefits compared with a decade ago. There is a real contrast with the decade before that, in which the number of people on incapacity benefit trebled.

May I ask my hon. Friend to look at the position of people with mental health problems, particularly given the scheme that operates in Hull through the local branch of Mind? It is called Mindful Employer, and it offers support and encouragement to local employers to employ people with mental health problems, so will he look at whether it can be rolled out across the country to support employers?

I know how carefully my hon. Friend looks at all those issues, and she has spoken to me before about the Mindful Employer experience in her constituency. She is absolutely right, and there are some extremely enlightened attitudes among employers small and large across the United Kingdom who are doing an awful lot to support people with a mental illness as well as people with a learning disability, who have traditionally been excluded from the labour market. I am happy to listen further to my hon. Friend’s experiences to see what more we can do to embed those reforms so that they genuinely support those with a fluctuating mental health condition.

The Minister will be aware that there is a record number of 16 to 18-year-olds among the number of people not in education, employment or training. Does he accept that the path through university to work is very much embedded in young people’s minds but that the Government need to do more to encourage them to go on and secure vocational training, which does not necessarily involve university but will give them a job for life?

I am not sure that there is a job for life for many people in today’s labour market in a world of globalisation. Nevertheless, there is a significant task ahead concerning the skills and aspirations of many young people. Of course there has been progress in recent years on the number of young people not in employment, education or training, but we have to go further. One way of doing so is perhaps raising the school leaving age; another is continuing to make a success of the new deal, which has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people and is a policy that was, and still is, opposed by the Opposition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that getting people who have been on an inactive benefit for many years into work is one of the most challenging jobs for us? Will he give me an assurance that Jobcentre Plus has sufficient resources to meet that challenge?

My hon. Friend is right, and that is why 250 people have come off an inactive benefit, with the chance to go into work in many cases, every day over the past 10 years. My hon. Friend is right to allude to the remarkable work done by Jobcentre Plus in supporting people to get into work in many communities and towns across the country. But clearly, Jobcentre Plus cannot, and should not, be asked to do that job on its own. Increased involvement by the private and voluntary sector, community organisations, and—as I have alluded to—faith groups and trade unions in communities is also important in supporting more people into sustained employment.

The latest edition of “Labour Market Statistics”, published on 18 April, showed that the number of economically inactive people of working age rose by 76,000 in the past quarter to 7.93 million. Is the Chancellor to blame?

The figures released will also show, of course, that the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance fell last month—the seventh fall over the past eight months—that the number of people on incapacity benefit is the lowest that it has been for six years, and that the number of lone parents on income support has decreased. Alongside the fall in the number of people claiming each and every one of those benefits, a record number of people are in work—a record of which the Government are rightly proud.

8. What estimate his Department has made of the number of people aged 40 years or under who do not make any contributions to either occupational or private pensions; and if he will make a statement. (132669)

In 2005-06, 6.2 million employees, 0.9 million self-employed people and 3.6 million economically inactive people aged 20 to 40 in the UK were not contributing to a non-state pension.

I am grateful to the Minister for those statistics. If he has looked at the general household survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics, he will know that since 1995 the number of men and women in full-time employment who have occupational or private pensions—in the age bracket about which I asked—has fallen. Many of my constituents in Putney see getting a pension as a luxury to come after having paid off student debt and perhaps having bought their own home. Given that we know from Barclays that the average starting salary fell last year to £13,800, does the Minister agree that it was particularly unhelpful and counter-productive for the Chancellor to increase income tax on low earners when his Department seeks to introduce personal accounts in which those people are expected to save money?

Obviously, taxation policy is a matter for Treasury questions. I believe, however, that the hon. Lady shares in the consensus that personal accounts should be introduced. I have read with interest the helpful and serious report on that by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which she is a member, and we shall examine that in detail. The right response to the issue of pension saving is automatic enrolment and a matching employer contribution—both of which I think that she agrees with—and the introduction of the national pensions saving scheme, which is the right model to deliver low charges and good returns for those saving in it.

I was visited recently by a constituent who has lost not one, but two, pensions, and who falls outside the FAS. He complained to me that when he chided his daughters for not contributing to a pension scheme, they replied that he was a mug for having done so. Until Ministers are prepared to grasp the nettle, which our amendments last week offered them the opportunity to do, there is every likelihood that people who save for a pension will simply be told that it is a mug’s game.

We have grasped the nettle. We have introduced an amendment that guarantees at least 80 per cent. of what people have lost. We are examining how that can be supplemented. We are not prepared to make empty promises, which have been described by the Association of British Insurers as robbing Peter to pay Paul, or as yet another raid on pensions, which should not be done. We are saying that we should have a proper review. I would say to his constituent’s daughters that we now have the Pension Protection Fund, which does provide a safety net for people in the future. The Labour party tabled proposals for that in the 1995 Pensions Bill. If the hon. Gentleman’s party had supported them, we would be in a very different situation now.

Does not the Minister realise the terrible damage done to long-term confidence in pensions by this Government’s failure to ensure prompt and adequate compensation for people who have lost pensions? Does he think that the under-40s in particular will be encouraged to participate in personal accounts by the sad spectacle of some pensions victims dying before help reaches them, while the Government conduct yet another review?

It is not right to promise people money that we do not know how to deliver. That is not the right type of politics. The shadow Chancellor said that a test of the Opposition’s credibility as a Government was whether they were going to come up with more unfunded promises on pensions. That is exactly what they have done. Voters will draw their own conclusions on the credibility of the Opposition party to be in government.

9. What recent progress has been made in implementing city strategies on welfare to work. (132670)

We announced on 2 April that city strategy pathfinders have now succeeded in bringing together new partnerships capable of planning and driving through real change to local employment and skills services. We are now working with them to agree ambitious targets to tackle worklessness and expect to finalise these targets by the end of May.

I thank the Minister for that answer and congratulate him again on the work that he has done in getting the city strategies under way—certainly in my city of Nottingham, with 31,000 incapacity claimants and those on related benefits, we need it. However, does he share with me a small degree of impatience that in setting up the city strategies over many months, we have yet to begin the delivery? What does he expect in terms of targets and outcomes, not least in respect of my city?

My hon. Friend has championed the city strategy approach for some months now, not least because Nottingham is, uniquely, the sixth richest city in the country and the seventh poorest. He also chairs the consortium in Nottingham. Let me say to him and, through him, to the partnership in Nottingham that we are looking for a real change in outcomes. Of course we have to get the processes right, but it is the transformation of people’s lives that is important. In that sense, we have set aside additional money to incentivise further success so that the consortiums can share in the success of getting people off benefit and into work. That announcement was made to the 15 city consortium pathfinders when we set out the details of the flexibilities to them recently.

10. How many pensioners in Waveney constituency are in receipt of pension credit. (132671)

Our latest estimates show that in November 2006 there were 6,130 households—7,810 individuals—in the parliamentary constituency of Waveney receiving pension credit. Across Great Britain, there were 2.7 million households—3.3 million individuals—receiving pension credit. This is nearly 1 million more than received the minimum income guarantee that preceded it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he estimated how much extra money per annum those figures amount to in terms of what comes into the Waveney constituency? It strikes me that it is not just good news for pensioners, but good news for the local economy in which my constituents spend their money. They remember the time when there was no such thing as pension credit.

The average amount that people get from pension credit is just under £50 a week. A quick off-the-top-of-the-head calculation would suggest that about £13 million a year goes into the Waveney constituency from pension credit—a measure that was opposed by the Conservatives and was described last week by their Front Bench as a cancer.

11. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of Child Support Agency cases waiting to be processed. (132672)

The main steps are increased staffing levels and improvements in the agency’s IT, and those steps are working.

At the commencement of the improvement plan, there were some 220,000 new scheme cases uncleared. By last December, that was down to 186,000. The immediate target is to get it down to 160,000 by the end of the first full year of the plan—and given that clearances have exceeded intake for nine consecutive months, I am confident that the target will be met and that there will be continued improvement thereafter.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s response. He will recall that earlier today his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that there was a backlog of 200,000 cases with the CSA. What assessment does the hon. Gentleman make of the work of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which indicates a far higher level of problems and backlog? Does he accept that the backlog is causing real problems for vulnerable people in all our constituencies? What further will he do to clear that backlog quickly?

As I told the hon. Gentleman, the backlog is now being reduced. It was reduced by 13 per cent. in just the first year of our operational improvement plan, and the targets that we have set for the agency include the clearing of 80 per cent. of cases within 12 weeks by 2009. The substantial improvement achieved in the first year will continue. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what more is being done to support that improvement, I suggest that he read the detailed information that we have made available about reforms to the agency’s information technology system. When we examined it at the start of the operational improvement plan, it contained 500 defects. More than half those defects have now been fixed, including all the important ones. Additional investment, new processes and new ways of working for staff are helping us to make rapid progress in reducing the backlog.

19. What assessment he has made of the merits of establishing an online system for tabling and signing early-day motions. (132696)

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—who, unfortunately, is abroad today—is aware of both possible advantages and possible problems associated with e-tabling of and signatures to early-day motions. The Procedure Committee is examining the matter, and I understand that it is due to consider a report in the near future. The Government will pay close attention to any recommendations that the Committee makes, and will respond in the normal way.

Does the Minister accept that the currency of the early-day motion is now considerably devalued? It is now little more than parliamentary graffiti, and is used as the equivalent of parliamentary snout in this place. Could it not be returned to a central position in our deliberations? Perhaps the early-day motion that has the most cross-party signatures each week could be debated without a vote on a Friday.

My hon. Friend is right to stress the value of the currency of both early-day motions and questions. There is concern in the House about the number of questions tabled. Another Committee of the House, the Modernisation Committee, is examining the use of non-legislative time, and among the issues that it is considering are early-day motions and the number of signatures to them. I understand that its report may be available before the summer recess, and will provide an opportunity for discussion of my hon. Friend’s point.

The Deputy Leader of the House will know that, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), many Members on both sides of the House do not sign early-day motions at all. Before we adopt the proposal in the question and make it even easier to table and sign early-day motions, does it not make sense to wait for the more substantive review to which the Deputy Leader of the House has referred?

I agree. That is precisely why the Procedure Committee is examining the matter, and I understand that its report is fairly imminent. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is important for early-day motions not to be abused and to have significance, and I hope that we shall be in a position to reinforce that in the future.

In echoing the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), may I reinforce the argument by suggesting that the problem with the current system—and it would also be a problem with a system allowing early-day motions to be tabled online—is that it appears to many people to be profoundly ritualistic and to have no end result? Will the Deputy Leader of the House consider again the idea that if a decent number of signatures is achieved, that should be the threshold for a substantive debate, as suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—but preferably not on a Friday? Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday would do.

The hon. Gentleman can name the day, as long as it happens. He will not mind my saying that he gave evidence to the Modernisation Committee fairly recently, and one of the issues discussed in the session that he attended was giving effect to early-day motions. I am not sure what the Committee will recommend, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman, fairly forcefully, that we will look carefully at any recommendation that the Committee makes.

20. If he will instigate discussions with all political parties represented in the House about the establishment of a business Committee. (132697)

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend has received regular representations about the case for a business Committee. The proposal has been raised in evidence to the Modernisation Committee’s current inquiries into the role of Back Benchers and the use of non-legislative time. I think it best to let the Committee make its recommendations on the matter.

I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House back to the Front Bench. He is a thoughtful and kindly man who is deeply committed to the procedures of this House. Does he not accept that people are increasingly concerned that what takes place in this House is not topical, and does he not agree that if Back Benchers were represented on a business Committee of this House not only would more topical debate be part of debate during the week—not only on a Friday, although I support the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) in his question—but that would be more relevant and topical for the people of this country? That is one of the objectives of the current Modernisation Committee inquiry.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about me, and let me reciprocate by saying that he is a long-standing and influential member of the Modernisation Committee and that I am sure that he will use all his powers to ensure that the report that comes forward addresses the case he makes that the Chamber should be more relevant and that there must be greater involvement of all the political parties in a more structured way. Because of his background, he will also understand that it is important, too, to persuade people that there should be an appropriate and agreed time for Government legislation and for their programme in general.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if such a business Committee were already in existence it might well have come to the conclusion, and have made recommendations to the House, that to exempt the House of Commons from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would be totally against the interests of the House of Commons, and that therefore circumstances would not arise such as those that arose last Friday where Whips on both political sides were trying to bring about a situation whereby the Freedom of Information Act applies to everybody else but not to Parliament—

Order. I call Mr. Heath.

The former Leader of the House, the late Robin Cook, was a strong supporter of introducing a business Committee. Indeed, he said that

“one of the ways in which the executive retains its control over the Commons is to make sure that only it can propose the business before the House”.

Given that a business Committee is normal for most democracies and legislatures, and that there is a business Committee in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, why is it taking so long for this Government to consider properly the merits of having a business Committee for this House?

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the late Leader of the House, my friend Robin Cook, was a great advocate of that. The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that there are different voices and views in Government. That is why I believe that the Modernisation Committee report is important. I speculate that it will say something about a business Committee although, clearly, I cannot make commitments; the only commitment that I can give is that the matter will be explored carefully and thoughtfully.

This House gave up without a whimper various very important powers that would have enabled us to vote, as we originally did, on resolutions of the House and Back-Bench motions. My hon. Friend will accept that we are one of the last legislatures not to have control of its own business programme, which is unacceptable, pointless and damaging—and may I add that I, too, think that he is lovely?

Well, let me agree with that last point, and say to my hon. Friend that she has been a strong supporter over many years of more motions coming before the House and of the debates being on substantive motions, not motions for the Adjournment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is committed to trying to ensure that that happens further.

Under this Government, there has been an ever-increasing amount of legislation. Since 1997, the number of pages of secondary legislation has increased by almost 20 per cent. and the number of pages of primary legislation has increased by 125 per cent. What measures do the Government intend to introduce to ensure that there can be proper and effective scrutiny of all those laws?

This is a matter not just for the Government, but for the whole House. The whole process of timetabling of motions and business—I know that it has been controversial—gives the opportunity to the Opposition to highlight the important areas of concern. This is a two-way street, and I am clear that we could use the way in which we timetable our business in a more effective and efficient way than we do at present.

21. What recent submissions he has received on the performance of the parliamentary ICT network. (132698)

Hon. Members raise their concerns with me from time to time, but the Administration Committee has been carrying out an inquiry into the provision for and by the House of ICT services and equipment. That has of course covered matters relating to the performance of the network managed by PICT. A report is expected from the Committee shortly.

Having working in IT for three decades before I became an MP, I have to say that the service that we get from the blend of hardware, software and staff, in support and technical design and development, is excellent, but the remote service in the constituencies is a different picture. The performance and stability of the remote network is as lethargic and unpredictable as a teenager on a hot day. May we please have some focus on, and investment in, that particular area, for the benefit of all 646 of us when we are not here between Monday and Thursday?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive remarks about the network in general. It is recognised that there are problems with the remote access to the network and a programme of work is under way to improve the way in which that operates. I hope that as time goes on that will prove to be successful and that external users will get the same satisfaction as internal users generally report.

May I dissent, because I think that the network is the most unbelievably incompetent bureaucracy? We had a much better service from individual suppliers before, and we should think again and return to that system rather than the network.

The taxpayer would pay considerably more if 646 Members each procured their own IT arrangements rather than it being done collectively. Overall, the performance of the network is extremely reliable. It is recognised that there are problems with some of the other services, but the right hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the scale of the task that PICT faces. These are early days. The joint department for the two Houses has only just been formed, and time will tell in the next few months as to whether it is able to improve the service. Generally, Members seem fairly satisfied with it.