With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the annual social security uprating statement and a broader statement on pensions. I will place full details of the uprating in the Vote Office and arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report.

As in previous years, most national insurance benefits will rise by September’s retail price index, which is up by 3.9 per cent. Most income-related benefits will rise by September’s Rossi index, which is RPI less housing costs, and is up by 2.3 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, from April 2008 the basic state pension will increase to £90.70, which is up by £3.40. For couples, the standard rate will rise to £145.05, which is up by £5.45. That is a real-terms rise of 10 per cent., or more than £47.30, since 1997.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced that the standard minimum guarantee part for pension credit, which has risen with earnings since 2003, will from next April rise by £5 a week for single pensioners and £7.65 for couples. That means that from April next year, no single pensioner should live on less than £124.05 a week, and no couple on less than £189.35 a week. That is an increase of £57 for a single pensioner and £85 for couples since 1997.

Since 1997, pensioner poverty has reduced by more than a third as a result of targeted support from pension credit and £11 billion of extra funding. That has lifted more than 1 million pensioners out of relative poverty. As a result, pensioner households are on average £1,500 a year, or £29 a week, better off in real terms. The poorest pensioner households are around £2,200 a year, or £42 a week, better off. That underlines our commitment to target resources where the need is greatest.

That is a commitment that I can reinforce today. I can announce a package of changes for introduction in October 2008 to simplify further the state pension system. The package is cost-neutral over the long term and will be paid for by reducing the backdating of pension credit from 12 months to three months, as from next October. Twelve-month backdating was introduced in 2003 to ease the introduction of pension credit. The new changes will make better use of these resources and, I understand, will be broadly welcomed by Help the Aged and Age Concern. The changes that we intend to introduce will make the system less confusing, less intrusive and more transparent. We want the customer to be able to get their state pension entitlements with the minimum fuss, bureaucracy and form filling.

In 2005, we made some improvements. Those applying for pension credit by telephone have been able to get council tax benefit and housing benefit together, using a shortened claim form completed by the Pension Service. The form is then sent out to the customer to sign and send to their local council. Many pensioners do not send the form on, however, and so lose out. We aim to improve on that by being more efficient and more joined up. We intend for council tax benefit and housing benefit claims to be made over the telephone in exactly the same way as those for state pension and pension credit. The claim will be taken by the Pension Service and automatically passed to the local council for assessment. No more action will be needed by the pensioner. They can access up to four benefits in one telephone call: pension credit, state pension, housing benefit and council tax benefit. About 50,000 pensioners will gain from the measure by 2010. We also plan to align the rules on backdating of pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit with those on the working age benefits. That will reduce complexity and make the application process less intrusive.

These days, some pensioners spend longer periods abroad in warmer countries. They currently lose their pension credit after only four weeks. We intend to change the pension credit rules that relate to the length of time that pensioners can spend abroad before their benefit is affected. We will align pension credit with the rules on housing benefit and council tax benefit, so that benefit will continue for up to 13 weeks. That will mean that almost 90 per cent. of the pensioners who would currently have their pension credit stopped will in future retain their entitlement.

Those changes will be taken with two further measures in the pensions Bill that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I hope to put before the House today. Those measures will simplify the rules relating to the additional state pension and remove the need for most pension credit customers aged 75 and over to tell us about changes in their retirement income. More than 1 million pensioners will benefit through not having to complete a review of their income and capital, because we believe that income and capital do not increase much for most people after 75.

We will also uprate benefits and allowances for the working population. Child allowances linked to the income-related benefits will be increased in parallel with the child tax credits. This is intended to ensure that families receiving those benefits see the full value of increases in child tax credits. In particular, the allowance paid for a child dependant will increase by £5.14 a week from next April to £52.59, which is a rise of almost 11 per cent.

As in previous years, the uprating provides an opportunity to deal with anomalies and make the system simpler. So from next April, the single person rate for income support and jobseeker’s allowance will be the same for all 16 to 24-year-olds. For the small number of 16 and 17-year-olds who claim, this amounts to an increase of £12.30, uplifting their weekly benefit from £35.65 to £47.95. That will tackle a perverse incentive that exists in the current system to leave home to receive more benefits. The change will also provide extra help to some vulnerable teenagers, as well as simplifying the benefit structure.

To return to pensions, our first priority was to tackle pensioner poverty and ensure that everyone shared in rising prosperity. Our next priority is to put in place a pensions system for the future. The good news is that on average we can expect to live longer, but that has consequences. Measures in the Pensions Act 2007, passed earlier in the year, will tackle gender inequality in the state system, providing a more generous basic state pension, restoring the earnings link and giving people a clear picture of what the state will provide and what they need to do for themselves. Measures to be introduced in Parliament later today will take the next step in the reforms by encouraging saving and extending for the first time the benefits of pension saving with minimum mandatory contributions from an employer across the working age population, and by giving everyone the opportunity to create a retirement income that helps them to meet their aspirations. In bringing forward these measures, we will continue to support existing final salary pension provision.

I am pleased to announce that we are today publishing the Government’s response to the deregulatory review consultation. The response summarises the comments that we received and outlines the further action that will be taken. We are grateful for all the responses received and for the detailed consideration that many have already given to the issues involved. We want to reduce burdens on employers who provide good workplace pension schemes, but we need to balance that against maintaining adequate protection for pension scheme members. That is not easy to achieve, but without action, the slide away from final salary schemes could turn into a rush.

We intend to reduce the statutory cap on the revaluation of deferred pensions from 5 to 2.5 per cent. for pension rights that will build up from a future date. That change will not affect pension rights that are already earned. We will include the changes needed to achieve that in the pensions Bill that I hope to introduce this afternoon. In addition, we will take forward some issues through secondary legislation or guidance, and work with stakeholders to explore the scope to address concerns that have been raised in other areas. This includes a statutory override to enable employers and trustees to agree changes to pension schemes, which will enable them to benefit from statutory and regulatory changes. That has proved difficult for some schemes in the past. Copies of the detailed response will be placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

The cost of uprating benefits for next year is nearly £4 billion, with more than £2.75 billion of that going to pensioners. The further simplification measures that I have announced today, together with those that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am bringing forward in the pensions Bill, represent a substantial further investment in social justice, reducing poverty and helping those in need. I commend the statement to the House.

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in letting me have a copy of his statement in advance.

We on the Conservative Benches of course do not oppose the uprating of benefits, although we have issues with the administration and complexity of the system, as well as with the disincentives to both work and saving that are inherent in it. Can the Minister update the House on the Department’s efforts to tackle fraud and error in the system? It is bad enough that the Government are so inept at dealing with people’s confidential records, but why are they still paying out more than £5 billion through fraud and error in the benefits system? Can he confirm that benefit payments have been going to prisoners, students and those who are already in work? Can he also confirm that, at the same time as that largesse at the taxpayer’s expense is going on, up to £2.5 billion of pension credit went unclaimed last year—a rise of £500 million on 2004-05?

May I welcome the proposal for 1 million pensioners not to have to review their income and capital? However, can the Minister confirm that there will be losers from reducing the backdating for pension credit from 12 to three months? How many does he estimate there will be? What steps will he take to ensure that pensioners are aware of this change in the rules? Is it not the case that the saving made by the change is simply being transferred to, I hope, an increased take-up of means-tested benefits?

Is it not simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Can he confirm that almost 40 per cent. of those entitled to council tax benefit do not claim it, and that pensioners are the worst category in that regard? Is it true that the take-up of the benefit has fallen—fallen—by 12 per cent. since 1997? I therefore welcome the proposals in the statement to increase take-up, but why has it taken so long to produce them? Have the Government not tested to destruction the system of means-tested benefits to the extent that the poorest pensioners are becoming poorer in real terms? Will he explain the Government’s failure yet again to provide help to pensioners with their council tax bills?

The Minister made much in his statement of what the Government are allegedly doing for pensioners. While he mentioned the restoration of the link between the state pension and average earnings, he gave no clue whatever as to when that might happen. Previously, it has been said that it would happen in 2012 or 2015, or not even then if it was unaffordable. When will it happen?

As the Minister pointed out, there is a broad measure of consensus over long-term pensions reform. My party supports the overall pensions settlement emerging from the Turner commission. In our last election manifesto, we embraced auto-enrolment and the need to boost pension savings. But does he accept that we have legitimate concerns about the design of personal accounts? In recent weeks, Ministers and others have tried to shut down debate on those important issues by suggesting that the official Opposition were in some way undermining the consensus. I wholly reject that argument. Does he not accept that it is the job of the official Opposition to question? We have serious questions about the effects of means-testing on pensions saving.

The Pensions Policy Institute has identified at-risk groups who will be no better or worse off as a result of being auto-enrolled into personal accounts. Can the Minister confirm that he takes the issue seriously? Does he appreciate that whatever politicians might say, commentators and journalists are bound to write the story that some people will not be better off? It is fundamentally an issue of confidence, which has been badly shaken by the pensions crisis. Will he make a statement in the near future on proposals to deal with the problem?

While we are on the subject of confidence, will the Minister confirm that he will shortly receive and publish the Young report, and bring forward proposals for compensation in response to pension victims’ legitimate claims?

We broadly support the measures mentioned by the Minister in response to the deregulatory review. I assure him of our broad support on the revaluation of deferred pensions and on the statutory override. If we are to stem the disastrous decline in defined benefit schemes, however, Ministers must be more radical and courageous. I assure him that he will have our encouragement and support in looking at radical options such as risk-sharing.

On personal accounts, is it not most unfortunate that the new chairman of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, Paul Myners, has rendered his position wholly untenable, given his intemperate attack on the official Opposition from his civil service position and his record as a Labour donor?

Finally, does the Minister accept that with nearly 2 million pensioners living in poverty, 125,000 pension victims, nearly 5 million people claiming out-of-work benefits, and the highest proportion of children living in workless households in the whole of the European Union, the complacency that peppers his statement today is grossly misplaced?

It is interesting to read what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said last year and compare it with what he says today. In the past, he said that the Government would do nothing about the Turner report, but we passed one Bill in July and are about to introduce a further Bill. He claimed that nothing would be done about the Child Support Agency, but we have just taken through legislation in relation to it.

We made it absolutely clear that we would reduce pensioner poverty, and the whole statement is about ensuring that. We are putting an extra £11 billion into helping pensioners. That money would not have been in the system had the Conservatives maintained office in 1997. Two million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty, and 1 million out of relative poverty. Those are enormously good figures. Had the Conservatives stayed in power, pensioners would be on £69 a week. Instead, no pensioner need be on less than £119 a week, and that figure will rise next April to £124 for a single pensioner.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about a number of issues, including those in relation to fraud. We are committed to protecting the integrity of the benefits system and ensuring that we pay our customers the right benefits at the right time. May I make it clear that fraud in income support and jobseeker’s allowance has been reduced by about two thirds since we took over from the Conservatives? It is down from 7.2 per cent. to 2.1 per cent., and is now the lowest ever recorded. Since 1997, our Department has put enormous effort into reducing fraud in the benefits system, with great success. Fraud now stands at its lowest level—down from an estimated £2 billion in 2001. As well as changing the way in which fraud is dealt with, we are addressing error in the system through benefit simplification. Today’s announcements will help in that process.

The hon. Gentleman also asked how we would ensure that people were able to claim pension credit. Our officials are ready today to accept telephone calls from pensioners who wish to claim pension credit. I know that the changes announced today will be welcomed by some of the pensioners’ organisations, as they have asked for them in their conversations with me for some time. The whole basis of those changes is to ensure that take-up of pension credit increases and that people get help with their council tax. Those who are on low incomes and struggling with council tax, many of whom did not fill in the form that they got from the Pension Service, and did not send it on to their local authority and get the benefit to which they were entitled, will no longer have to sign that form. Many of them thought that the form was confusing and did not want to sign it. In future, that form will be dealt with automatically by the Pension Service, and pensioners will not have to worry about it, sign it or pass it on to local councils. That will not only be a saving for local councils; I hope that it will ensure that more people who are entitled to help with their council tax get it.

The hon. Gentleman asked about losers in relation to the backdating. There will be no actual losers, as we are redistributing the money within the budget—[Interruption.] I see that Opposition Front-Bench Members are chortling. Overall, there will not be losers, as the money will be redistributed within the budget. During the next nine months, we will encourage some people to make the application before the change is introduced. There need be no losers in the long term either. We want those who are entitled to claim the backdating for 12 months to make that claim before next October. We will therefore work with some of the pensioners’ organisations to ensure that we support their campaign to get more people to apply.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Young report in relation to the financial assistance scheme. We hope to receive the Young report shortly—I have not yet seen a copy of it, but I hope to get it within days. We will then consider it, and I hope to announce in due course our response to that report.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned proposals in relation to risk-sharing, which he said that he supported. We have looked into that and we could look at it more broadly, but I am not anxious to rewrite the whole of pensions and trust law in order to bring it in. That would not be helpful. The hon. Gentleman might find it worth talking to some leading figures in the CBI, as some are a little concerned that it might lead to a movement from defined benefit schemes into the new system, as some companies are not prepared to go straight from such defined benefit schemes into defined contribution schemes. The issues around this subject should be examined with great care, but I do not want to rush into this just yet.

The hon. Gentleman said that his party supported Turner and automatic enrolment and, indeed, wanted to ensure that it was a success. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s good faith in saying that, because I think he has been broadly supportive. I have to say, however, that his colleague, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has not filled me with any confidence that he takes that view; nor is it the case, I also have to say, that he has adopted the same role as his predecessor in supporting personal accounts. I have seen the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell take every opportunity to run down the whole idea of personal accounts. I think he needs to be really careful, as we have built a consensus on it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne for contributing to it, but I warn him that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell takes every opportunity, as I said, to undermine it.

We are now looking at another example, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has raised questions about the chairman of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, Mr. Paul Myners. He has a record for dealing with issues in the City, which meant that when he was appointed by a perfectly proper procedure, he was been broadly welcomed by stakeholders as a serious figure with a strong record. He has a world-class business record and extensive knowledge of financial services. Judged in a fair and open competition as the best man to lead PADA, his appointment has been widely welcomed by the industry, yet the hon. Gentleman has now attacked him. I ask myself whether this is yet another example of that hon. Member taking the opportunity to have a go—[Interruption.]

Order. Some hon. Members still wish to question the Minister, so perhaps he could draw his remarks to a close.

I know that Paul Myners has written to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, pointing out that while that hon. Member may not find his company of the sort that he would want, it appears that the Opposition spokesman on trade and industry matters invited Mr. Myners to dinner after “Question Time”. We seem to have a slight split on the Tory Front Bench there. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will continue to support personal accounts and perhaps put the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell back in his box.

I am grateful to the Minister for advance notice of his statement. The uprating announced today will be welcomed by many, but tackling poverty must be the key test against which such statements are judged. On that basis, some serious questions need to be answered. Even with today’s rise, the state pension is still worth less than it was in 1950. Is it not simply unjustifiable that the uprating in line with earnings is to be delayed until 2012 at the earliest?

Can the Minister confirm that, yet again, there is no uprating of the winter fuel payment? Is he not aware that due to rising fuel prices, that payment is now worth roughly half its value when introduced, leading many to slide back into fuel poverty? The Minister has talked about backdating the pension credit, but is he not aware that with between 1.2 million and 1.7 million people not claiming it, there will inevitably be some individual losers, notwithstanding the fact that money is being redistributed, as he rightly said, within the pension pot?

While the steps the Minister is taking to simplify the application process for pensioners are welcome, is he not accepting by doing so that complexity is a major barrier to benefit take-up? Does he not agree that with 51 different benefits and 250 different rates, Britain’s benefit system is the most complex in the world? Does he not further agree that that complexity makes the system a nightmare for many who will wish to claim today’s uprated benefits such as pension credit? Is it not time to seek much greater simplification—through the introduction of a single working age benefit, for example? Does the Minister also agree that deep public anxiety about data security within the Department for Work and Pensions and about tax credits could also undermine benefit take-up? What reassurance can he offer to give claimants confidence in how their data will be handled by his Department?

The Minister mentions the pensions Bill, and we will carefully study the proposals on deregulation. The personal accounts scheme is welcome, but does the Minister share my concern that the mass means-testing of pensioners continued by today’s statement could muddy the waters for many people about whether saving is worthwhile? What steps is he taking to ensure that those people, and those with huge personal debts, will have access to appropriate advice to ensure that they are able to take the right decision?

One group of pensioners—the 125,000 whose pension schemes have collapsed—will have heard nothing of comfort in today’s statement. Will the Minister tell us when he expects to publish the results of the Young review? Is it his intention, as was reported in the press at the weekend, that the assets within the unclaimed scheme should be privatised? Would it not make more sense to hand those assets over to the management of the Pension Protection Fund, which has shown considerable expertise? That matter cannot wait much longer and I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurances on that. [Interruption.]

Order. There are far too many individual conversations going on in the Chamber, which is making it very difficult to hear what is going on.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the earnings link, and we have already legislated to ensure that it will be brought in after 2012 during the course of that Parliament.

As to winter fuel payments, we never intended them to cover all the costs of heating, lighting and so forth for pensioners. It has rather been a contribution towards those costs. We know—and I know from my time as Energy Minister—that fuel prices dipped, but they have now come back up, which has meant significant changes in the cost of fuel on the market. However, as a result of our uprating of various benefits, particularly pension credit, for the poorest pensioners and the more general improvement in benefits and pensions for retired people, we also know that their income has steadily risen. They should be able to deal with issues around fuel poverty; indeed, we have been able to improve their position with respect to it. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about winter fuel payments, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as I can see, however, the record on winter fuel payments from 1997 to now is an extremely good one.

The take-up of pension credit has been a long-term issue. It is the case that we have written as many as four or five times to some of the people who we think should be claiming pension credit. For various reasons—they may not want to fill in the forms, or they may feel that they would not get very much—they decide not to. Some of them are surprised when they make a claim, as they receive far more than they expected. We are still working to encourage people to take up pension credit. Indeed, we hope to visit as many as 600,000 pensioners during the coming year to see if we can encourage better take-up. The changes that will come into force in October 2008 will provide quite an incentive for people to move forward and take up pension credit between now and then.

The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to complexity, which has been a long-term problem for the pensions sector. Through the Pensions Act 2007, and indeed the new pensions Bill, we aim to simplify and clarify a very complex system indeed. The changes I have announced today, particularly the automaticity of benefit application, will help ensure that some of that complexity is dealt with.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about data security. Personal accounts will require the transfer of some data between HMRC and the pensions regulator. We want to ensure that it is transferred in an appropriate and proper way and that proper controls are undertaken in respect of it.

As for means-testing, we have sought to use it to ensure that we tackle the key issue of pensioner poverty. We have had considerable success in doing that, and the proposals that I have announced will help us to build on our record, but there is still much more that we can do. Changes that we are making in the way in which benefits are available will, over time, start to reduce some of the means-testing. We have never been in favour of it, but it is one of the best ways of targeting help on the poorest people.

I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman a publication date for the Young review. I want to be able to look at it and consider it, and I know that it is likely to be quite a complex report. I hope to receive it in the next few days, and although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a commitment, I hope to be able to say something about it before Christmas.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned some report in the weekend press. Let me say to him that obtaining information from the press is never wise.

We all welcome upratings, but does my good friend the Minister intend to write to all the people in our community who attain the age of 80 this year, and along with it entitlement to the old age allowance, and inform them of what they should do with their new-found wealth when the allowance rises from 25p to 26p? Might it include buying a second-class postage stamp, or saving up for a first-class postage stamp? Is it not about time that this award, which is neither use nor ornament, was laid to rest?

I have to say that my hon. Friend sounds a bit like my mum. My mum has just turned 80, and she said, “That 25p was a bit of an insult”—and a good friend of mine, Gwen Johnson, who runs the Atherstone pensioners convention, said, “You need to get rid of that 25p, Mike.” I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and I hope that we will be able to take some steps. I want to deal with what many pensioners regard as an insult, but if we do that, there must be a compensation measure. I hope that in due course we will be able to ensure not only that pensioners do not receive just 25p, but that they do not lose out as a result of any change.

What is the official estimate of the rate of inflation as it applies to pensioners, and how does it compare with the proposed increase in the state pension next year? Of the alleged £1,500 real increase in the state pension in the past 10 years, what percentage, on average, has been taken up by council tax rises?

This year the retail prices index is above earnings levels, and we have therefore increased the pension by the higher rate to ensure that people do not lose out. As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about council tax, the answer is that—as with many things—it depends. It depends on whether someone is able to access the various benefits that are available to help people on the lowest incomes with their council tax. Numerous people across the country will benefit from some of the proposals that I have announced: we estimate that by 2010 up to 50,000 pensioners will be helped, many of them as a result of claiming benefits relating to council tax.

As was mentioned earlier, we have had problems in getting people to claim their pension credit, so we are making changes in relation to take-up. We are launching a campaign to inform people that they need not pay so much council tax, and that if they telephone the Pension Service it will not only ensure that they pay less, but perhaps enable them to claim pension credit at the same time. Reducing council tax would provide quite an incentive. People do not like paying taxes but they may also object to claiming benefits, and I hope that the council tax incentive can be used to get people on to benefits and lift them out of poverty.

The Minister’s statement has been rightly welcomed in all parts of the House, but may I press him on the proposal—itself very welcome—to ensure that information is sent automatically to councils, especially when it concerns council tax and housing benefits? Will the Department encourage local authorities to make that facility widely known to council tax payers in particular? Given that administration can vary slightly between authorities, will the Minister monitor them to ensure that the system is implemented fairly and quickly? Many people are a little confused by all the form-filling and demands, and it is important for them to interpret his initiatives positively.

Yes, that is important. I hesitate to tell local authorities what to do, because they always object to it and then demand money. We will work with Age Concern and Help the Aged during the coming year to encourage take-up of pension credit. We hope and intend to introduce the changes that will establish automaticity—as the jargon has it—by October next year. People will then be able to claim a number of benefits with just one telephone call.

I believe that working with voluntary organisations on a national basis to mount our campaign will give us a considerable voice out there, but I hope that we can persuade local authorities to join in. Telling pensioners about, for example, the extra help with free transport that we will be giving them next year might provide authorities with a good opportunity to say to them, “Actually, you can claim backdated pension credit until October, and after that a telephone call might well result in your paying less council tax and receiving more help in the form of pension credit.” The hon. Gentleman is right: the opportunities are significant.

Fuel poverty is the big issue for pensioners. In Stornoway, diesel costs £1.19 a litre. How does the Minister propose to help pensioners in rural and island communities who must pay more tax on fuel than people anywhere else in the United Kingdom and thus, probably, in the world? Ironically, pensioners incur those costs when they collect their pensions, and when they go shopping. On large islands such as Lewis and Uist, 50-mile return journeys are not unknown. Just what can the Minister do?

The hon. Gentleman rightly talks of his island communities, but rural communities throughout the United Kingdom are affected by problems relating to distance. That is why we have a strategy to help rural areas, which has been announced by my colleagues in other Departments.

There are higher costs associated with living in beautiful areas. Such areas often require a degree of hardiness, given the problems that exist in them. We want to find ways of providing further assistance, particularly for pensioners, some of whom may be infirm and may experience difficulties with travel arrangements.

The Minister has rightly recognised that failure to take up pension credit means that some of the poorest pensioners are missing out on something to which they are entitled. The view of those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is that we should deal with the problem by reducing the need for means-testing. The Minister is trying to simplify the process and I wish him success with that, but to help us to judge his success in a year’s time, will he give us estimates of the number of people who he thinks are currently missing out on pension credit and the figure to which he expects that number to fall if his campaign has been a success?

It will not all have been done in a year’s time. A year from now the system will have been in place for only a couple of months, and I think it ambitious to try to tie me down to a figure representing a change over a couple of months. It is ambitious on the hon. Gentleman’s part, and giving such a figure would certainly be ambitious on mine. What we have said is that we expect the introduction of the automatic entitlement as a result of a single telephone call to lift about 50,000 pensioners out of poverty by 2010.