What progress the Government are making in tackling poverty among pensioners. [115863]

As a result of Government policy, all pensioners will be £3 a week better off, and those aged over 75 will be £5 a week better off. On top of that, many will benefit from our tax changes. Because we are committed to tackling pensioner poverty, the poorest pensioners on the minimum income guarantee are £14 a week better off than they were under the previous Government, and those aged over 75 who are on the minimum income guarantee are £16 better off.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many retired people do not qualify for the full basic state pension—for example, people who were self-employed or many married women—and who therefore do not benefit from any increase? Does he understand how necessary it is that such people take up benefits and the minimum income guarantee?

My hon. Friend is quite right. It is frequently overlooked in discussions of pensions that many people—more than half a million—receive no basic pension because they do not have the required contributions. On top of that, some of the 2.7 million married women have full contributions, but many do not. The point of the minimum income guarantee is to address the problem that we inherited. Far too many pensioners—nearly 1 million single pensioners and 1 million pensioner couples—did not receive enough money to make ends meet. The minimum income guarantee is important to them, and some pensioners will be £16 a week better off because of it. During the final three days of last week, following the announcement of the minimum income guarantee freephone number, more than 11,500 pensioners called to ask for help.

What message does the Secretary of State believe that he is sending to the next generation of pensioners—those people on modest incomes who are scrimping and saving for their retirement? The minimum income guarantee will be available to those who, for whatever reason, do not provide for themselves, but those who do provide for themselves, and achieve small pensions or savings, will find that they have no advantage.

I can say two things to such pensioners. First, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced a doubling of capital limits that enable people to qualify for the minimum income guarantee, about which the hon. Gentleman has asked many questions. The capital limits were last raised in 1988—nothing was done about them during the last 10 years of the previous Government. We have doubled the limits, which will help.

Does the Minister recall that the previous Labour Government linked pensions to earnings on the basis that the wealth we enjoyed had been built up by people who had retired? Does he recall that the Conservative Government abolished that link, costing pensioners more than £20 a week? Is he aware that millions of pensioners are frustrated, angry and—some of them—bitter that our moral obligation to them has not been met. Means-tested benefits are not the same as benefits as of right.

May I take this opportunity to wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) many happy returns of the day? He will look forward to receiving his free television licence in November.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that divorced women form one of the groups of women who could fall into poverty? What has happened to the regulations on pension sharing on divorce—all 122 pages of them—which were due to be laid by 30 March? We were promised that they would be passed by Easter, but so far nothing has happened. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he needs to get on with that, so that that group of women are lifted out of poverty as soon as possible?

I would have more sympathy with the hon. Lady if her party had not opposed pension sharing on divorce when it was in government.

indicated dissent.

Well, the hon. Lady did, for the sake of the record. However, I can tell her that the regulations in relation to pension sharing and divorce will come into force in December of this year, as we promised.

If he will make a statement on the number of pensioners awaiting computation of their full pension entitlement. [115865]

As I said on 7 February, there were then about 83,000 people still to have their benefits reviewed following the NIRS2 problems. Some 17,000 of these have now been cleared, but the total number outstanding has increased to 88,000 as a result of further reviews produced from NIRS2 for existing awards to be revised and the continuing need to carry out clerical calculations for some new awards. So far, 48,000 claims have been cleared clerically and there are about 13,000 currently awaiting action. However, as I said in February, we still anticipate that all payments will be fully brought up to date before the end of the year.

We are all holding our breath to see whether the Minister can deliver on that commitment, given that it is now 18 months since the Secretary of State told us that the matter would be cleared up within a matter of weeks. I have a constituent, who wrote to me only this week, who retired as head teacher of a special school last summer and, nine months later, is still waiting to have her pension entitlement sorted out.

Hear, hear.

Conservative Members can say all the hear, hears they like. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter several times, as have other hon. Members, and he is quite right to do so, but the answer is the same. We are reliant upon a computerised system. That new product was purchased on the cheap by the previous Government. It does not do the job that it was intended to do—hence the delay, and hence so far we have paid out £2.5 million in compensation for late payment of people's pensions.

How much was spent on benefits for asylum seekers in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 to date. [115867]

The estimated annual expenditure for asylum seekers was approximately £400 million in 1996–97, falling to £305 million in 1997–98 and falling again to £285 million in 1998–99.

But we know that the figure will be higher. Is it not true that the measures that the Government are taking today, with the launch of a voucher scheme, are just a knee-jerk panic reaction to a situation that has gone completely out of control under the present Government? Is it not true that there has been an influx of bogus asylum seekers into this country, leeching off the British taxpayer and genuine claimants? Is it not true that Britain is now seen as a soft-touch magnet for economic migrants throughout the world, and that the Government need to get a grip on the situation?

Those who listen to today's events on "Yesterday in Parliament" will miss the look of shock and surprise on the hon. Gentleman's face when he learned that social security expenditure on asylum seekers has fallen year on year under this Government.

What about the council tax?

The hon. Gentleman's complaints about the council tax would have more credibility if his party had not opposed every one of the measures that our party has introduced that have had that effect on social security spending.

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was totally surprised by the answer that he received. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there is no doubt that bogus asylum seekers should be dealt with quickly, the hon. Gentleman expressed quite clearly the racism and xenophobia of many Tory Members who are deliberately whipping up feelings about asylum seekers? The very same Tory Members have never shown the slightest interest in working and retired people in this country.

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The nub of the problem is that the number of asylum seekers banked up waiting for decisions to be taken on their cases increased under the Conservatives and the time that it took to resolve their cases and to decide whether asylum should be granted lengthened. Our policies are reducing the time that it takes for such decisions to be made. In the latest figures for February this year, there were 6,110 new applications for asylum, but 7,840 decisions. We are reducing the total, which is something the Conservatives did not manage to do.

Can the Minister confirm that the figures for expenditure that he has just given do not include support provided by local authorities? Will he also confirm that the majority of those claiming benefit as asylum seekers entered this country claiming to have come here on business, for tourism or to stay with relatives? To do that, they had to convince the visa and immigration authorities that they had the means to support themselves and to return home. What will the Minister do to hold them to their word rather than allow them to be supported by the taxpayer?

I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Conservative party opposed the £2,000 fine on lorry drivers bringing people into this country. If he is serious about reducing the number of economic migrants coming into the country—

Answer the question.

In answer to the question, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he will recall from his time as Secretary of State for Social Security that decisions taken by the Home Office on the administration of immigration and asylum matters meant that people were banked up for months and years while decisions were taken and expenditure was offloaded from the Home Office on to his Department. We are ensuring that expenditure takes place under the control of the Home Office, so that it has incentives for, and gains the benefits of, speeding up the decision-making process.

What arrangements will be made for the establishment of bank or building society accounts under the automatic credit transfer system for those who wish to continue to cash their benefits at post offices. [115869]

We want banks and the Post Office to offer banking services to people currently without bank accounts. We have already begun discussions with the banking industry on issues surrounding benefit recipients, charges and others matters, and discussions with the industry will continue. We have also made it clear in the past—I do so again—that people will still be able to collect their cash at post offices, both before and after the move to paying benefits by ACT begins in 2003.

I realise that if pensioners take out accounts with certain building societies and banks, they will still be allowed to cash their benefits directly at post offices. The problem, however, is how they will be able to register. To establish accounts, will they have to search out a bank, turn up and take a great deal of paraphernalia with them to show who they are, or will there be provisions through the Post Office itself to make it automatic and easy for them to set up accounts? If it is easy for them to set up accounts, they will continue to use the Post Office and it will remain the only organisation that they use.

My hon. Friend may be aware that almost half the new pensioners receiving their pensions now choose to have their money paid directly into their bank accounts. I do not think that there is an overwhelming obstacle against that. However, regardless of whether people receive their money from a bank account or from a post office, some formalities have to be followed because we need to be sure that the money is paid to the right person. As I said, we are in discussions with the Post Office and the Post Office will, in turn, discuss with the banks the formalities that are necessary. We want to make it as easy for people to be able to receive their pensions and other benefits provided that that is consistent with ensuring that the system is secure. That benefits individuals as well as the system as a whole.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that since his Government came to office, the rate of post office closures has accelerated and that this year looks to be the worst ever? Will he confirm that the move to ACT will undermine post offices? What steps is he planning to take to enable those pensioners who want to exercise the choice of going to the post office to do so? They will be unable to do so if post offices are closing all around them.

The hon. Gentleman has to accept that if we do nothing, as the Liberal Democrats advocate, more and more post offices will close because almost half the people coming into the system are opting to have their money paid into a bank or building society account. We are ensuring that the Post Office has the investment to set up banking facilities, which did not happen when the Conservatives were in power, to ensure that post offices can compete with banks and building societies.

May I assure the Secretary of State that the concerns to which he refers are genuine concerns in a constituency such as mine? Will he consider another type of bank account, which could prove to be a valuable way to deliver not only ACT but the Government's social exclusion strategies? I refer to the credit union method—a third way, if he likes. Will he ensure that, in his discussions with the Post Office and the banks, credit unions are not closed out? If he has any doubts about the ability of the credit union movement to deliver a highly secure system, he can look to Ireland, where millions of pounds are held in credit unions. Will he consider that as an alternative way of building communities and delivering social security payments?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and credit unions are popular. They are not as well developed in this country as they are in others, but some are successful and well supported. He latches on to the important point that it must be in the whole country's interests to ensure that as many people as possible are included in the banking system, rather than having a section of society that is completely excluded from that system.

In my constituency, 80 per cent. of post offices depend on the Benefits Agency for over 50 per cent. of their business. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when ACT is introduced those who receive their money through the bank will be able to go to a post office to collect their money? People who do not use a post office at present may therefore start to use it, which would help post offices.

The object is to make sure that people have a choice as to where they receive their money. I repeat that it behaves all those who oppose the Government's proposal to come up with an alternative that will work. The Liberals and Conservatives are now saying, opportunistically, that they would do absolutely nothing, which would mean that more and more people would ask to have their money paid into their bank account, and more and more post offices would close. We are ensuring that people have a choice, because we believe that people should be allowed to choose where they receive their pension or their benefit, and at the same time we are giving the Post Office the additional investment that it needs to ensure that there will be a viable network in future.

Pensioners account for a significant number of the 8 million disabled people in this country, and many of them suffer from mobility problems while others find administrative procedures increasingly perplexing. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State give the House an absolute and unequivocal assurance that those who want to receive their pension in cash at the post office will be able to do so? Furthermore, and in the spirit of that pledge, will he assure the House that there will be a network of post offices that are reasonably convenient for those people, where they will be able to draw that pension?

I remember that, during the previous Parliament, the Conservatives tried to sell off the entire postal network, which would not have enabled such guarantees to be given. My colleagues and I have made it clear that people will have a choice as to whether they receive their benefits and pensions at a post office or in a bank account. I should have thought that those who are disabled and unable to go out would quite like their money to be paid into a bank account, instead of their having to queue up at a post office to get it.

What steps he is taking to help low-paid people to provide for their retirement. [115870]

The state second pension will help low and moderate earners to build up increased pension entitlement. Low earners—by which we generally mean those earning less than £9,500 this year—will receive a dramatic boost to their additional pension entitlement; under the state second pension, that will be more than double their entitlement under the current system. In addition, carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records will, for the first time, be able to build up a second pension.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that one of the problems with SERPS is that it provides least to those who earn least? Is he aware that many of those low-paid people are women in low-paid, part-time jobs? Will he assure me that the Government's proposed state second pension will ensure that such women will have access to a decent state pension in their retirement?

Yes. Most part-time workers and low-paid workers are women. To someone earning £9,500 this year—the upper limit of the low-earners category—the state second pension will be worth double the sum that SERPS currently pays. SERPS was and is good: it delivers excellent pensions to those retiring today, despite the fact that in 1986 and 1995, the Conservative Government cut into it. However, because SERPS is earnings related, it gives least to low earners; the state second pension will correct that.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the document on which he fought the last election—the Labour manifesto? It states:

Labour will retain Serps as an option for those who wish to remain within it.

I note that the hon. Gentleman does not deny the fact that there will be 18 million gainers under the state second pension. Nobody earning up to £20,000 a year will lose—that cannot be contradicted. He claims that we are abolishing SERPS, but we are not; we are reforming it, and using SERPS legislation to introduce the state second pension—[Interruption.] If the Liberal Democrats had deigned to attend the Standing Committee on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill instead of holding themselves remote from it, they would know that SERPS legislation is being amended and reformed to introduce the state second pension.

In 1980, the basic state pension was worth 23 per cent. of average earnings. According to Government figures, by 2051 the combination of what is left of the basic state pension and the new state second pension will be about 21 per cent. of average earnings. It will be set by the Government at about £85 a week at 1999 figures. The figures suggest that there will be more pensioners reliant on means-tested benefits. Does my right hon. Friend consider that that is a satisfactory aim for pension reform by the middle of the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world?

If we do nothing and abandon the pensions reform package, one in three pensioners will retire straight on to the means test in the middle of the century. With the package of reforms of the stakeholder pension, the state second pension and other changes, we can reduce that ratio to one in five. I know that the number of pensioners will increase from nearly 11 million to nearer 15 million, but we want to keep pensioners off the means test. We do not want a system that automatically puts millions of people on to it. We have not quite reached the stage where we can say that our package will eradicate the means test, but we shall be on our way in that direction.

What plans he has to adjust capital thresholds for social security benefits. [115871]

We have delivered on the pledge in our pensions Green Paper better to reward savers with low incomes. From next April we will increase the capital limits for pensioners to £6,000 and £12,000.

I welcome the Budget announcement, but is there not a case in logic and in justice for automatic uprating across all benefits where a capital limit applies? If it were necessary to disparage the actions of the previous Government—a view which I share—in not increasing limits for the poorest pensioners, why was it necessary to wait for this Budget for an increase to be put in place, and why will that increase not apply for yet another year?

I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that this year his party voted against all the social security up ratings, including those for pensioners. In answer to his specific question, I do not think that automatic up ratings would be a good idea. I welcome strongly the fact that half a million pensioners who missed out in the past on the minimum income guarantee will become eligible for it as a result of our decision to raise capital limits.

I welcome the Government's announcement to raise capital limits. It is welcomed on both sides of the House and by the country as a whole. However, does my hon. Friend accept that even with the changes that have been announced there will be many pensioners who have saved and other pensioners who have small occupational pensions who will not be eligible for the minimum income guarantee? Would it not be possible to change the rules for qualifying for MIG so that the criterion is not whether an individual qualifies for income support but whether his pensionable income is below the minimum income guarantee, when it would be brought up to that level?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the longer term, through the pension credit, we shall be considering this issue.

What about now?

Now, or in April next year, we shall be dramatically improving the situation for half a million pensioners. That is something for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have called. It is something that we said we would consider in our pensions Green Paper, and we have done so, and it is something which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted on in his Budget.

May I ask a supplementary question to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? I remind the Minister that recently the right hon. Gentleman said:

As more and more people in work on low wages realise the futility of saving when every penny is taken from the Minimum Income Guarantee which is gained by people with little or no savings, fewer and fewer people on low income will save.

I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman that his party left the capital limits unaltered for a 10-year period, and we are doubling them. The Government's approach is to target additional resources on those pensioners who need help most—the poorest pensioners. That is what we are doing through the minimum income guarantee. We realised that there was a problem for pensioners with small savings, and that problem has been addressed by the change announced by the Chancellor.

May I tell my hon. Friend how welcome the increase has been to some of my constituents in Hastings and Rye? However, a problem has arisen. A lady who wrote in last week, and who qualifies, received a form headed "income support". She said that that was nothing to do with her. May I ask my hon. Friend to change the name to supplementary pension or something other than income support? His campaign to change the system is great, but there must be a change of terminology.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are, of course, bound by statute, which refers to income support, but it is important to get the message across to pensioners that the minimum income guarantee is an entitlement. It is not charity; it has been paid for by their own and their spouses' national insurance contributions throughout their life. We will, as my hon. Friend knows, shortly be taking forward the take-up campaign with television advertising. I can assure him that the minimum income guarantee will get a plug in that advertising; we want to get it into everyday currency. We want to get pensioners talking about the minimum income guarantee, and claiming it as well.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 regarding surveillance on his measures to combat benefit fraud. [115872]

The Department is working with the Home Office on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently before the House. That will give greater assurance that my Department's surveillance activities comply with the Act.

We hear a lot about joined-up government, but the Human Rights Act 1998 is another classic example of disjointed government. Two weeks ago, my office was told by a Benefits Agency official that the agency could no longer keep people under surveillance without their permission. I have checked the Benefits Agency's code of practice. The official was not quite right; I do not blame her—she was confused, as are many people. The code of practice states that officers must get written authorisation for surveillance operations, even in public places. Does the Minister agree that that is hampering the fraud investigations of the Benefits Agency? It is creating more paperwork, hampering the police and Customs too, and wasting their time. Does he further agree that the Human Rights Act will help only the criminals, whom we all want to see unable to defraud the Benefits Agency or rob the taxpayer?

I have not heard it argued by the Opposition that we should unincorporate the European convention on human rights from our legislation.

We voted against it.

We have not heard an argument for a repeal—[Interruption.] That is a fair point. The legislation will be important. If the Opposition are intent on committing themselves to repealing it, they should say so.

If my right hon. Friend is experiencing difficulty with the Human Rights Act, may I urge him to ensure that instead of investigations being suspended, they are channelled into other areas? In particular, forensic accountants should be employed to look into landlord fraud. The Human Rights Act would have no impact on that activity, and the Department could continue the pursuit of fraud, bringing many of the big criminals to justice instead of chasing small fry.

We are chasing small fry and big fry, including collusive employers and collusive landlords.

Let us see whether the Minister of State can defend his manifesto a little better this time. It states:

We will start with a clampdown on Housing Benefit fraud, estimated to cost £2 billion a year.

The benefits fraud inspectorate will inspect the 30 authorities that spend most on housing benefit in this country. The top 30 authorities in this country spend 30 per cent. of the £12 billion of housing benefit on checking their systems and finding out whether they are secure. Another 40 authorities will subsequently be inspected. The reports are published so that we can learn from good practice.

If he will make a statement on the uprating of the state pension. [115874]

We are supporting all pensioners by uprating the state pension; we are giving free television licences to those aged 75 and over from November, and we are increasing the winter fuel payments again, to £150. To tackle pensioner poverty, we are increasing the minimum income guarantee, and doubling the lower capital limit to £6,000 and the upper capital limit to £12,000, to ensure that those with modest savings do not lose out. That measure alone means that the poorest pensioners are some £5 a week better off.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I am sure that all Labour Members welcome the Government's good work, especially the commitment to raising the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings next year.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that in many parts of the country—sadly, especially in her constituency—many pensioners were not able to accumulate enough money for a pension during their working lives. As a result of the Government's measures, all pensioners will gain about £3 a week and the over-75s some £5 a week. Unfortunately, Tower Hamlets has many of the poorest pensioners. They will be £14 a week better off through the measures that we have introduced.

If he will make a statement on the reform of the Child Support Agency. [R][115875]

If he will set out a timetable for implementing the reforms of the Child Support Agency currently before the House. [115881]

If he will make a statement about the timetable for the implementation of his proposed changes to the Child Support Agency. [115883]

We are on course to introduce the new system for new cases by April 2002.

Does the Minister realise that the possible attractions of a simplified child support system will be undermined by the creation of a new injustice, owing to the system's potential rigidity? Does she accept that, in places such as Chelmsford, the home counties and London, the costs of travelling to work and housing are significantly higher than in other parts of the country? Will the Minister consider changing the variations to take into account housing and travel-to-work costs, so as not to undermine the improvement of the system through simplified methodology?

No; we believe that one has to choose between the complex system, which includes the departure scheme and the hundred bits of information that have to be gathered before an assessment can be made, and a simple system which can be easily administered and whereby an assessment can be made in weeks instead of the months that it currently takes. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would risk a reintroduction of all the complications of the current system and of making child support reform ineffective.

Because there is no means of delivering payments directly to the child, an impression may grow that the absent parent is subsidising the life style of the parent with care. If the absent parent's income is modest and that of the parent with care relatively high, that may give rise to a burning sense of grievance which will undermine compliance. What plans has the Minister to address that problem?

Fewer than 200 parents with care in the current child support case load earn more than £500 a week so the hon. Gentleman is worried about something that will affect almost nobody. Nearly 700,000 parents with care have no income at all, although they look after the children. We have to put the system right so that we can help to end child poverty; and we know that up to 1 million children will gain from the reforms.

How can the Minister guarantee that she will not be blown off course? She well knows that there have been continual computer problems in her Department. Indeed, the Minister of State blamed not only the previous Government, as this Government always seem to do, but the computers. Is she not aware that there have been problems with the NIRS2 programme? Is she not aware, either, that there have been problems with making winter fuel payments? Those are all computer problems. When will she accept that bad workmen always blame their tools—or computers in this case—and when will the Government accept the computer maxim "garbage in, garbage out"?

That was the biggest pile of garbage that I have heard for a long time, and the hon. Gentleman should consider the legacy that his Government left us. When the Child Support Agency was introduced, they were to have a bespoke, specially designed computer system, but they decided it was too expensive. They bought a cheap, off-the-shelf system from Florida that cannot even recognise national insurance numbers. It cannot do a whole load of other things—I shall not bore the House with them—and it is a miracle that any child support has been collected with the pile of rubbish bought by the Conservative party.

I welcome the reform of the CSA, which we all know is much needed, but how will the Minister ensure that parents with care can opt out of child support action when there is a risk of domestic violence?

The "good cause" parts of the new Bill will ensure that child support does not have to be pursued if a parent with care has any worries that she will be subject to violent threat by a violent partner. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that 70 per cent. of parents with care were trying to opt out of pursuing the non-resident parent for maintenance when we inherited the CSA from the Conservative party. We have got that down to 15 per cent. by better working with the Benefits Agency and the CSA to reassure women that they will get the money.

My hon. Friend will know that there are a wide variety of problems with the CSA. Can she give some idea of when those who are already in the CSA system will have their assessments re-examined and brought into line with the new system?

The transition is one of the most difficult parts of the reform for everybody to organise. We estimate that there will be 1 million cases to transfer by the time the new system is introduced, in 2002. That will be done in a timely fashion, but people will have to bear with us. It cannot be done in a great big bang, but we shall ensure that the transition is as brief as possible.

Will my hon. Friend resist the temptation to introduce any more complexity? Many hundreds of thousands of women out there are being defeated in their child maintenance claims by men—absent parents—who have reconstructed their financial circumstances to suit the departures and complications that the previous Government put into the system.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I resisted the suggestions of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

With respect, surely that answer is wrong. The Minister has repeated four times that the simplified system will make matters better. Does she not understand that there will be a great deal of argument over the income of the non-resident parent, especially the calculation of his net income? Will she answer the question that hon. Members from both sides of the House posed to her last Wednesday, but which she refused to answer? Will she give an undertaking that if, in making those calculations, the Child Support Agency makes a mistake—through no fault of the non-resident parent—the CSA will not look to the non-resident parent for backdated payments?

We hope that the new system will make maintenance calculations in four to six weeks, rather than the six months that it currently takes, so there will be a lot fewer problems with arrears. The problem that the hon. Gentleman fears should not arise. We have a clear formula for establishing net income, and it should be much simpler to work with.

What recent representations he has received about the level of the state pension. [115877]

Since January, we have received about 2,000 further letters that mention the level of the state pension, some of which raise other issues as well. We record only the subject of the letter. In addition to letters, we receive representations in this place. Two weeks ago the Government organised a three-hour debate on pensions reform in Westminster Hall, which was attended by one Back Bencher, who happened to be a Labour Member.

Is the Minister aware that he is about to receive thousands of letters from senior citizens who regard the 75p increase as an absolute disgrace? Does he remember sitting on the Labour Opposition Benches and castigating the Conservative Government on their treatment of senior citizens? Will he now admit that the Labour Government have misled senior citizens about the state pension? What does he intend to do about giving them back a decent standard of living?

We will tell the truth, for a start. We shall reply to all the letters that we receive, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents, as other hon. Members do, that in the first three years of this Parliament pensioners as a whole will have received £800 million more, through the winter fuel payments and the minimum income guarantee, than they would have received through the earnings up rating of the basic pension. The policy we are operating is the policy that we were elected on, which was to raise the basic state pension at least in line with earnings—the same policy as the one on which the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats were elected.

Prices?

Obviously we welcome what the Government have done for pensioners to ease their plight following 18 years of neglect. I have talked to many pensioners in my constituency, and their need is for an increase in the basic state pension. Through my right hon. Friend's discussions at No. 11, will he ensure that there is a substantial increase in the state pension in the future?

When I answered the previous question, my mind was concentrating on the minimum income guarantee, which increases in line with earnings. I referred to the basic state pension rising in line with earnings, but I meant prices, as everyone in the House understood—except me. I was carried away with the success of our minimum income guarantee take-up campaign.

When he will publish further details of the inherited SERPS scheme announced on 15 March. [115879]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House on 15 March, once we have developed the details of the scheme for inherited SERPS we shall put them to the House. The National Audit Office and the parliamentary ombudsman will be fully involved in developing the procedures. We want to ensure that we get the scheme right, so that we can deal with the problem we inherited. Later today, the Public Accounts Committee will begin its inquiry into the report.

In his original statement, the Secretary of State said:

We want to ensure that everyone who has been misled and has lost out gets redress.— [Official Report, 15 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 308.]

There will be a scheme, which will have to be submitted to the House for approval. I cannot say when that will happen: I cannot be certain whether it will be before the summer recess, or in the autumn.

Ah!

I must make that clear: the scheme cannot run for ever. I do not know when and for how long it will run. Subsequently, we shall put to the House regulations that will be properly debated in both Houses. We simply do not have detailed answers to the legitimate questions asked by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to give him the impression that the inherited SERPS scheme will be open for the next 30 years, because it will not be.

What his Department has done to help reduce the barriers to work faced by lone parents. [115880]

We are tackling the barriers to work for lone parents with a raft of measures, including the new deal for lone parents and the working families tax credit. The Budget announced still more help for lone parents. For example, from April 2001 all lone parents working 16 hours a week or more will receive at least £155. They will receive £214 if they work more than 35 hours.

I welcome the opportunity for lone parents to keep their benefits for four weeks during their transition to work. Will my hon. Friend explain how changes in housing benefit will assist lone parents in that transition? Will she also look into the ending of the top-up allowance pilot? It affects a number of my constituents, some of whom are lone parents. When it ends, they may be back on benefit, especially if they have taken up part-time work.

The housing benefit run-on announced, and made automatic, in the Budget statement will guarantee that anyone who ceases to depend on benefits and takes up work can receive housing benefit for the month in question before receiving his or her first wage. We know that the transition from benefits to work, and the gaps that must be filled, lead many people to believe that they cannot make such a transition. It is therefore important for us to produce welfare-to-work measures to reassure those people that it is possible for them to return to work, and that we will remove the barriers so that they can become independent again.

Does the Minister accept that, according to figures from her own Department, fewer than 6 per cent. of lone parents invited to join the scheme have secured employment as a result? Does she regard that as a success or a failure?

We consider the new deal for lone parents a success. Some 41,000 lone parents are now in work who would not have been if it had not existed.

What estimate he has made of the numbers of people entitled to social security benefits who are not claiming them. [115884]

Estimates on take-up of benefits are published annually. While take-up of benefits among some client groups is high, there is a particular and long-standing problem of relatively low take-up of income support among pensioners. We have therefore decided to focus on that group, and, last week, announced details of a take-up campaign which will identify pensioners who may be entitled and encourage them to claim their minimum income guarantee.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to voluntary organisations such as Age Concern in the Cynon Valley, whose advice surgery I visited last week? That organisation has enabled thousands of people in my constituency to take advantage of the benefits to which they are entitled. Will he ensure that, in the Government's advertising campaign to start in May, it is made clear that claiming benefits to which one is entitled has no stigma at all attached to it?

Yes, we will do that. We will encourage people to claim, because it is their entitlement and their right to do so. We shall have an extremely vigorous campaign, and welcome any support that we receive from voluntary bodies in pursuing that take-up campaign, and in making it more successful than it has been hitherto.