What recent assessment he has made of the take-up of attendance allowance. [36324]

There has been an increase of 21 per cent. in the number of people aged over 65 receiving the extra cost benefits since 1996.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will know that this is a most important benefit, and that although there is much concentration on the take-up of the minimum income guarantee the take-up of attendance allowance is often not discussed so much. Will she consider whether the new pension service can signpost older people towards ensuring that they claim attendance allowance? In particular, will it focus on the fact that attendance allowance has not only a lower rate but a higher rate, on which significant numbers of people may miss out unless they are properly informed and advised?

My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. The number of people who claim successfully is increasing. In fact, there is evidence to show an upward drift from the lower to the higher rate. In 2001, 47 per cent. of those on attendance allowance received the higher rate, whereas in 1996 the figure had been only 42 per cent. We are always trying to make it easier to claim and to encourage take-up. Our Bristol office is today beginning a three-month trial of a shorter form—16 pages, instead of the current 34—for over-75-year-olds.

I am very relieved to hear that, because I spent the weekend before last filling in two of the forms—one was 12 pages long and the other was 18 pages long—for a 91-year-old constituent. I went to four universities and found them hard enough to fill in—and I am under 65. I do not know how the Minister expects someone over 65 or 75, let alone a 91-year-old, to fill in the forms. Has she ever tried?

I could have saved the hon. Gentleman the trouble, because he would be eligible only if he was over 65—he clearly is not, so he will be turned down. There is always a difficult balance to strike with the size of the form. The important thing to remember is that we are not testing whether people have a certain condition or impairment; we ask them what effect the impairment has on their care needs. [Interruption.] I must speak up—I am sorry to be so short. The form must give our customers the opportunity to let us know the effect of the impairment on their care needs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are trying to get that difficult balance right. The general trend recently has been to decrease the size of the forms, which we hope will continue.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why people, especially elderly people, do not take up attendance allowance is probably that many of them think that it is income related and therefore worry about it affecting their minimum income guarantee, income support or other benefits? Perhaps we ought to try harder to make it clear to them that it is not income related.

I hope that everyone can hear me now. My hon. Friend makes another important point, related to the point made by hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the pension service. We hope that the pension service will be able to signpost elderly people more coherently towards their eligibility for this benefit. Some 20 per cent. of new claims are unsuccessful, so an awful lot of 75 and 85-year-olds—

And 91-year-olds.

Yes— and 91-year-olds fill in long forms but end up not getting the benefit. We hope that the personal and tailored service that the pension service is designed to give elderly people will enable us to be much clearer in advance about those who are likely to be eligible for the benefit and to ensure that people do not fill in the long form to no purpose.

Does the Minister accept that the take-up of attendance allowance in Scotland will be substantially reduced shortly, as a result of the United Kingdom Government's shameful decision to withdraw some £23 million of attendance allowance from those who will qualify for free personal care? Are the Minister and her colleagues prepared, even at the eleventh hour, to reconsider that unjust decision?

Unsurprisingly, the hon. Lady is wrong. We are not withdrawing any benefit from anybody in Scotland. What is happening there is a result of policy choices made by the Scottish Parliament and has nothing to do with eligibility. We have not changed eligibility for attendance allowance in any way whatsoever. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish policy makers need to take into account the effect of their policy on people's benefit entitlement.

What steps his Department is taking to improve work opportunities for carers. [36325]

Last April, we increased the earnings limits for invalid care allowance so that carers who combine some work with their caring responsibilities can keep more of their earnings. The earnings limit will now be increased regularly in line with changes to the lower earnings limit. However, ICA is not designed to be an in-work benefit. Carers are also benefiting from the introduction of our new Jobcentre Plus service. In pathfinder areas, a personal adviser will help carers who are making new or repeat benefit claims to look for employment or training that suits their circumstances and provide support to them.

I very much welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Does she agree that there is still a problem with income support and carers allowance, because, above a fairly low level, the benefit is withdrawn, pound for pound, if the carer takes paid work? Does she agree that a policy review would be in keeping with our policy of encouraging people to take at least part-time work where that is possible?

My hon. Friend refers to the interaction between different benefits. People on income support lose their eligibility if they work more than 16 hours a week. as such work is full-time. He should remember that the income support carers premium is payable only to people who are receiving ICA, which, as I said, is not an in-work benefit. Eligibility for ICA depends on spending at least 35 hours a week undertaking caring responsibilities. However, as the average length of time spent on ICA is, I am told, two to four years—I do not quite understand why it is not three years—we are keen to ensure that recipients can stay in touch with the labour market.

Last week, I was visited by a constituent who is looking after her daughter, who has ME, but is working and is obviously over any of the limits that my hon. Friend described. What help can she expect? She is clearly saving the taxpayer money by looking after her daughter at home, and it would cost the taxpayer a great deal more if her daughter moved out and lived independently. She is obviously looking for some help from the Government. Can they give her any help at all and reward her for looking after her daughter at home?

The assistance that we could give would depend very much on the individual circumstances of my hon. Friend's constituent. I would be perfectly happy to make some suggestions if my hon. Friend wants to write to me and we can get a full account of those circumstances. ICA is not primarily an in-work benefit and the rules on earnings are intended to allow people who have to undertake at least 35 hours a week of caring responsibilities to keep in touch with the labour market and gain some part-time earnings. There may be other benefits or tax credits from which her constituent could gain some advantage, so if she would care to write to me with the full details I shall look into the case.

What steps he is taking to reduce housing benefit fraud. [36326]

We are working with local authorities on many fronts to reduce fraud and error in housing benefit. Most significantly, in 1998 we introduced a framework for local authorities to make proper checks on claims. We have now made it easier for councils to adopt the framework; 77 per cent. of them are now operating it and that proportion will increase. So far, net savings from the verification framework are estimated at about £100 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very informative answer, but I am sure that he is aware that most of the problems with housing benefit fraud are caused by the administration of the scheme. What steps is he taking to ensure a higher standard of administration? How will he also ensure a spread of good practice across the country?

My hon.Friend takes a great deal of interest in this matter. He is right to emphasise the fact that better administration is the key to getting rid of fraud from the system. A performance standards framework, including standards to prevent, detect and punish fraud wherever it occurs, will be published in the spring. A help team is available to help local authorities with particular difficulties. The benefit fraud inspectorate has published the results of its inspections of 115 local authorities. I take this opportunity to thank Chris Bull, the head of the inspectorate, and his team for the important work that they are doing.

How many cases of housing benefit fraud were there last year?

Local authority prosecutions and sanctions against fraud have more than doubled during the past two years. The hon. Gentleman asks about the number of cases. For the first time in many years, we are carrying out research to verify the amount of housing benefit fraud in the system, and we will publish the results when we can. We are not complacent about fraud. We have already saved the £100 million that I mentioned and we are working in many ways to get fraud out of the system—an objective that can be shared by the whole House.

Are not many people losing their homes because of the incompetence of private companies that administer housing benefit for and on behalf of local authorities? My local authority, Camden, has received two chartermarks for the efficacy of its housing benefit system. Is it not time for the Government to insist that those at Camden should assist their local authority colleagues, many of whose residents are losing their homes?

I pay tribute to the good system of housing benefit administration in my hon. Friend's borough of Camden, which I twice visited to listen and to learn. One of its key officials has been transferred to Hackney, which has had particular difficulties, and is doing good work in tackling housing benefit fraud. Standards in Camden are being maintained. A local authority must decide whether to administer housing benefit in-house or to contract it out. Either way, it must insist on the highest standards.

What does the Minister have to say to the couple I met in Birmingham on Thursday—[Interruption.] Labour Members would benefit from doing the same. The couple had been to their local council office to say that they believed that their neighbours were working while fraudulently claiming housing benefit and income support. They were overheard giving their suspicions and the information got back to their neighbours. A gang came round, beat them up and sprayed CS gas at the guy. They were driven out of their house, taking as many possessions as they could manage to take in two taxis; what was left behind was subsequently stolen. They virtually became homeless as a result of telling their local council office that they suspected someone of welfare fraud.

The number of the fraud benefit hotline is widely published.

Surely the problem lies in the complexity of the benefits system introduced by the Conservatives. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to simplify its administration and the complexity of its rules?

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is easy for the Opposition to huff and puff about fraud, as they now do, but it blows away no fraudsters. They did very little in government over 18 years; we are doing many things to detect and rid the system of fraud.

It is getting worse.

It is not worse. We are taking action, and we have already reduced housing benefit fraud by £100 million. We have a performance framework, the benefit fraud inspectorate is doing its work, and we are taking a number of steps. Are we winning the war against fraud? Yes, we are. Are we complacent? No; there is much more to be done.

How many people with annuities are claiming benefits. [36327]

Approximately 200,000 households receive income from pension annuities and are entitled to the minimum income guarantee, housing benefit or council tax benefit. Nearly all those households will, of course, gain from the pension credit, which is designed to reward their saving.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but nobody wants anyone with an annuity to have to fall back on income-related benefits. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the review of annuities that the Government recently carried out only scratched the surface of the problem? At a time when final salary pension schemes are going down like ninepins, there is real fear abroad that hard-saving people will not get enough money from their current annuity to enable them to maintain a decent standard of living in their retirement. Will the Secretary of State work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on the Bill he has introduced, and will he try to be more constructive in addressing the problem?

The Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon would do nothing to improve the incomes of the vast majority of people in this country. It is designed to help a minority of people who have retired; the vast majority would not benefit from its provisions.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the consultation paper, which will, I hope, promote wider debate on flexibility and choice in annuities. Does he agree that the issue is how to convert pension savings into retirement incomes? Will not the CAT standards introduced in April 1999—reasonable charges, easy access and decent terms—be as important for the new annuities as they are for ISAs and mortgages?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the objectives of our policy has been to ensure that as much money as possible that people have saved goes into their pension. We found in the past that too many pension contributions were being eroded by high charges, which is one of the reasons that stakeholder pensions introduced a 1 per cent. cap on charging. I am glad to tell the House that the latest figures show that just under 700,000 stakeholder pensions were sold in the first nine months of this year. There is no doubt that the reduced charges introduced by stakeholder pensions are having an effect right across the pensions industry, resulting in more people seeing more of their money going into their savings rather than being eaten up by red tape.

Given that annuities are becoming more important, with the closure of final salary pension schemes and what the Government hope will be the growth in stakeholder pensions, will there not be a problem for women because annuity rates are lower for them than for men? Will it not put women at a disadvantage if the Government rely more on private provision? What are the Government going to do for women, specifically with regard to private provision?

The hon. Gentleman, being a professor and a clever man, will know that one of the reasons why annuity rates for women are different from those for men is that women live longer, and annuity rates are calculated, among other things, by reference to the likely age to which someone will live. The state second pension, which will be introduced from April, will benefit a further 18 million people, many of whom will be women. Indeed, half the beneficiaries of the pension credit, when it is introduced, will be women, too. The pension credit benefits people who have annuities, precisely because it is designed to reward saving. I should have thought that, when he has thought a little further on these matters, he will welcome the pension credit and the state second pension, which probably do more than any other reform of the pension system for man) years to help women.

May I, too, welcome the consultation document on reforming annuities, which is a useful contribution to the debate? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when considering changes to the rules and increasing flexibility, we should do nothing to undermine the tax terms under which contributions are made, and nothing to undermine fairness to other taxpayers?

My hon. Friend is right that one of the problems with the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is that it is primarily designed to help those who have very large pension savings. It would do nothing to help the vast majority of people. I am concerned that if that measure were to be passed, it might have an adverse effect on annuity rates for most people, which would not be desirable. We have therefore made it clear that, in our reforms, we want to make sure that we do the best that we can to improve annuity rates, to prevent abuse of the system—which would always be a risk of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals—and to do more to encourage people to save more so that they have more money when they retire.

First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the criticism that a Bill might help minorities is relevant to most of the legislation that the House passes? Secondly, is he aware that the Government have approved a scheme for which the entry fee is £250,000 and which is based offshore in Gibraltar? Will he therefore not persist in saying that there is something wrong with helping only people who are rich, as that will be precisely the effect of the Government's proposals? Furthermore, will he agree that the minority to whom he refers will get bigger as companies cease to provide pension schemes and people have to make private provision? A much larger number of people will therefore be funnelled into the straitjacket of annuities. Does it therefore make sense not only to improve the existing rules but to look for a way of breaking out of the straitjacket of annuities and amending the structures more imaginatively?

I agree that the annuity rules need to be improved, and the Government are consulting on precisely that. However, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman admits that his proposals are designed to look after the interests of a minority of people. The main thrust of this Government's policy has been to make sure that all pensioners gain, that we tackle pensioner poverty and that the vast majority of pensioners, who have modest means and savings, are helped. The pension credit enables us to achieve that.

Reform of annuities is an important measure to encourage people to contribute more to their pensions, and we need reliable figures on how much people are contributing to their pensions in total. Does the Secretary of State endorse the figures given to the House by the Minister for Pensions last week when he claimed that contributions to non-state pensions had gone up by £19 billion—from £50 billion to £69 billion a year? Does the Secretary of State accept those figures, or does he think that they should be reviewed by the Office for National Statistics alongside the reviews of its appalling mistakes on the assets of pension funds?

My right hon. Friend gave the latest figures that the Government have, which was the right thing to do. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that savings have increased since 1997. It is also worth bearing in mind the fact that pension sales increased by about 50 per cent. last year. Almost 700,000 stakeholder pensions have now been sold, which represents £1 billion of new savings. There is evidence across the piece that many people are saving more, but the problem that we face is ensuring that people save more generally and that we build on our reforms to strip away some of the unnecessary regulatory burdens on companies and individuals. We must also ensure that we and companies do more to support people who save and that incentives in the system are working as intended, because they are all designed to increase people's incomes.

I have to tell the Secretary of State that I do not believe that the figure for the supposed increase from £50 billion to £69 billion is any more reliable than the figures he quoted on the value of pension fund assets that got him into such trouble the other week. I suggest that he is so complacent about the state of our funded pensions because he believes his propaganda that pension contributions have increased from £50 billion to £69 billion, when they have not. The figures are wrong, the Government's policies are wrong and the first thing he needs to do is to review the figures so that he has an accurate sense of the scale of the crisis facing our funded pensions industry.

It was not me who used those figures in the debate two or three weeks ago: the hon. Gentleman issued a press release, but the figures on which it was based turned out to be utterly wrong, so he had to shift his ground. It is no wonder that he spoke in the debate for only about seven minutes, as his entire argument had been shot away.

How many pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee are not claiming it. [36328]

As at November 2001, 1,200 pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency were receiving minimum income guarantee, and 16,000 were receiving winter fuel payments. The latest estimate of the number of pensioners who fail to claim the minimum income guarantee is reported to be upwards of 390,000 nationally.

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, which revealed that up to a third of all pensioners who are eligible for MIG are not currently taking it up. Does he acknowledge that his colleague in the other place recently revealed that a third of pensioners who will be eligible for the pension credit will not take it up? Does he accept that, in spite of the efforts that he and the Government have been making to increase benefit take-up by pensioners, they are not working if a third will not take up pension credit?

That is a misrepresentation of what my right hon. Friend Baroness Hollis said in the other place. She made it clear that, at the commencement of the new benefits system, we expect more than two thirds to take it up, and we will build up that figure. That is in line with what has happened when new arrangements have been introduced previously, such as tax credits. The main point is that we are the first Government in the last three generations of Governments to do something about pensioner poverty. The Liberal Democrats whinge to deceive. They whinge, whinge, whinge. The Government have made an effort to eradicate pensioner poverty, but the Liberal Democrats have opposed every measure that we have taken, whether it be winter fuel payments or the minimum income guarantee. The truth is that they talk a good game, but it is the Government who do something about it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although take-up is not perfect, measures such as that introduced in October last year under which every fresh pension application is automatically assessed for the minimum income guarantee will help to ensure that it improves?

The Government have never concealed the fact that the minimum income guarantee is a rough and ready measure, but it needed to be taken and 2 million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty as a consequence. I am not going to apologise for that. Why should a Government who are taking 2 million people out of poverty apologise for it?

As the minimum income guarantee, like so many Government credits, depends on means-testing, by what date will the Government achieve the aspiration set out by the Chancellor when he said:

"I want to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people"?

By October 2003, the introduction of the pension credit will mean that new pensioners coming up to claiming their—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. Unlike Opposition Members, I do not have to spin. I tell it as it is.

Despite all the success of the Government's measures in recent years in trying to tackle pensioner poverty, I know from the former mining communities in my constituency that many pensioners still feel reluctant to claim the minimum income guarantee because they worry about the stigma attached to it. What further practical measures can we take, especially in former mining communities, to ensure that every pensioner is lifted out of poverty by claiming the minimum income guarantee?

I also represent a mining constituency. The winter fuel payment and the creation of the new pension service and the pension credit are designed to assist retirement pensioners, including those abandoned by the last Conservative Government in the coalfield communities. In addition, we are working with the National Union of Mineworkers pension trustees to improve basic pensions from the mining fund. It is important that all those building blocks are put in place and we must also improve investment in services in local mining communities, which older people use more than others. Pensioners' income, environment and social and health care are all getting big investments under this Government, and they will continue to get big investments.

Will the research to which the Minister referred look at take-up in areas such as Wales, the north of England, Scotland, Cornwall and Northern Ireland? If, as I suspect, it shows that the deficiencies of the minimum income guarantee are more apparent in those regions, what steps will the Government take regionally and nationally to increase take-up?

The research covers the whole country. This Government are concerned about and interested in pensioners wherever they live in Britain. The purpose of the new pension service is to maximise Government involvement with pensioners and their organisations, so the research will inform us on how best we can work more closely with those organisations and on take-up campaigns over the next few years. That is the focus of the new pension service.

What recent studies he has undertaken to identify the obstacles facing women returning to work. [36330]

Research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions has identified four main constraints that affect women who want to return to work: child care; ill health and disability; a lack of relevant skills and work experience; and housing costs. The Government have several measures in place to alleviate those problems, including the national child care strategy, and the introduction of more than 1,000 lone parent advisers in our jobcentres.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on Opposition Members' assertions that the Government's plans to increase maternity pay and leave will make it even more difficult for women to continue in work?

I do not think that that is right. Indeed, employers themselves stand to benefit: if only 10 per cent. of those who currently do not return to work stayed in work, the savings to employers on recruitment costs would be about £39 million. We have also extended relief for small employers. About 10,000 firms are now entitled to recover 100 per cent. of the payments, and they also get an extended contribution to cover the costs.

Is the Minister aware that the vast majority of workless lone parent households are women-led and that his new deal for lone parents has proved an abject failure, making it more difficult for women to return to work? That, plus the obstacles that the Government are putting in the path of women claiming pensions, is making it more and more difficult for women in the workplace.

The first part of the hon. Lady's assertion is of course correct—the majority of lone parent households are headed by women—but I do not accept that the new deal for them is a failure. In fact, it has had substantial successes. Moreover, there is no alternative—a phrase that will no doubt echo with her. The fact is that, if we want to abolish child poverty and enhance the income of lone parent households, by far and away the best way of doing it is to get them an income from work rather than leaving them dependent on benefits.

A major obstacle to moving from benefit to work, especially for single parents, is the loss of the free school meal entitlement. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any moves to extend that entitlement to recipients of working families tax credit?

I cannot make an announcement now, but I am aware of the issue. The most commonly asked questions are about the effect of returning to work on people's housing benefit and on council tax rebate, and for single parent households with a substantial number of children, school meals are clearly an important factor. We are considering what more can be done, but I cannot make an announcement yet.

Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the list that he enunciated, which is clearly right, many women of a certain age would like to go back to work but cannot do so because employers discriminate against them because of their age? I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to do anything about that, but will he assure us that he takes the matter seriously and tell us what steps he has taken to alleviate the situation?

The hon. Gentleman is right: there are still discriminatory practices, often based on subjective perception and not rationally founded, against older people, including those who seek to return to work. Older people have a great deal to contribute. I often discuss the matter with private sector employers. The many services provided by Jobcentre Plus are, at least in part, available to older people who want to return to the labour market.

If he will make a statement on the work of the rapid response service for people made redundant. [36332]

The rapid response service works closely with Jobcentre Plus helping people who are affected by redundancy: 56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices have already opened and are working well. Later this week, I will announce that a further 225 offices will open in the coming year, 2002–03. I shall arrange to place a list of the areas where the offices will be in the Library, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work will write to all hon. Members with offices in their constituencies setting out the details.

I thank the many people from the rapid response service who assisted my constituents last year, when Plaxton's bus factory faced closure. Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the service will link up with agencies such as citizens advice bureaux to give debt counselling to those who face redundancy, and to help them manage associated domestic finance problems?

My hon. Friend's point about the rapid response service is important. It is sometimes overlooked that, after redundancies are announced—last autumn, a number were indeed announced—the Employment Service and its specialist services work closely with employers to help get people back into work as quickly as possible. The Employment Service was very active when Plaxton's faced closure in his constituency.

Given that the number of notified compulsory redundancies is increasing quite rapidly in some parts of the country, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rapid response service is welcome and necessary? Does he also recognise the need to do something specific about the imbalance between manufacturing and the service sector, and what has he urged the Chancellor to do in the Budget to correct the exchange rate problems and to increase industrial regional aid budgets?

The exchange rate issue is probably beyond the scope of this question. As I said, redundancies were announced, particularly last autumn, but the number who went back into work was encouraging. Indeed, a record number of people are in employment. That is due primarily to a strong and robust economy and to the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but also to the supply-side measures that we have taken. We have improved people's skills and training, reformed the Employment Service, established the new Jobcentre Plus regime and the rapid response service, and implemented a raft of measures designed to ensure that we get people who lose their jobs back into work as quickly as possible.

I know that my right hon. Friend understands the trauma that affects an individual who is made redundant, especially if he or she—Ido not want to exclude women from this ball game by any means—is in his or her 40s. Can he reassure me that the job transition service, which is currently in project form, will be universally available by April 2002, and that it will build confidence in such people so that they can face new jobs and training for new skills? That confidence is invariably missing in families who face redundancy.

It is important to do everything that we can to help people in their 40s or 50s who face losing their jobs. At the moment, nearly a third of people aged over 50 are out of work, and most of them depend on benefits for the majority of their income. There is no doubt that that situation is far from satisfactory. It is a legacy of the events of the 1980s, when people who lost their jobs were written off.

What recent discussions he has had with disability organisations about the implementation of the new deal for disabled people. [36333]

We consulted widely with organisations of and for disabled people, and with disabled people themselves, during the development of the new deal for disabled people. Some 88 organisations contributed to the consultation on the national extension of the new deal. We continue to meet organisations of and for disabled people to discuss its implementation, and to design improvements.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply, which will be of particular benefit to those of my constituents who are disabled. I have more than the national average, as do many other seaside towns where disabled people are now looking for work.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to work with employers as well as with disabled people. Part of the job brokers' role—this is one reason why the scheme is so innovative—is to liaise with local businesses and build up a relationship with them, as well as getting to know local disabled people who want to work and who participate in the scheme. That enables the brokers to convince local businesses of the advantages of employing certain disabled people.

We all share the objective of helping disabled people into work, but should not the new deal take on board the lessons of last week's National Audit Office report on the new deal for young people? It showed that far from reducing youth unemployment by 250,000 as Ministers have claimed, the new deal achieved a reduction of at best no more than 45,000, and possibly as little as 25,000. May we have a proper, objective evaluation of the new deal for disabled people and of the other new deal programmes to see what difference they are really making? And can Ministers remove the need for us to divide by 10 when we hear the claims that they make?

The hon. Gentleman is being churlish. Of course there are always proper evaluations of our schemes. That is particularly important in the case of schemes such as the new deal for disabled people, which is highly innovative. It is developing new ways of delivering services to a group that was completely ignored by the last Tory Government. People who were disabled were dumped on to benefits and given no help whatever to obtain work.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that although we have moved a long way towards helping people with a disability to get back into work, there needs to be a fast track to enable employers to carry out the adaptations and get into place the extra equipment that is needed so that people can begin a job as speedily as possible?

When employers consider taking on disabled staff, it is important that they do not feel that they will be disadvantaged by doing so. It is therefore important that the necessary help be provided as soon as possible. Disabled people face not only multiple disadvantages but often discrimination. Our agenda on civil rights—to get rid finally of disability discrimination in the work force and the work place—is going ahead. It is vital that we take forward those two strands so that we help disabled people into work, overcoming the disadvantage under which they find themselves, and overcome the discrimination that is sometimes directed at them. One way in which we do that is by having programmes such as access to work that assist in overcoming those problems.

What targets his Department has for getting people who claim incapacity benefit into work. [36334]

We have no targets for getting people who claim incapacity benefit into work. Where people are capable of returning to work, the Department will give them every assistance to do so.

I suppose that it is no surprise that the Government have no targets for getting people on incapacity benefit back into work. More than 50 per cent. of those claiming incapacity benefit have been doing so for more than four years. In addition, the ONE interviews for sick and disabled people have been shown by the Department's own research to be failures. When will the Government come forward with effective measures to increase the number of people in work and decrease the number of those claiming benefits?

I strongly disagree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. Incapacity benefit is there for a purpose, because the people claiming it are ill and not able to work. We should not have targets for forcing people to work if they are sick and cannot do so. That would be completely unfair. However, when people can work, the services of the Employment Service, such as Jobcentre Plus, are there to help them back into work. Moreover, when they are capable of doing some work, the new discretionary sums of money are available for them if they are capable of doing only a small amount of work or if it is of therapeutic value. That seems to be the right approach. To suggest that people should be compelled to work, in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman advocates, is very wrong, and would not, I am sure, be endorsed by his Front-Bench colleagues.

I wish to refer to those who are disabled and cannot work. I have a constituent who suffers from a form of heart disease for which only a transplant will lead to any recovery. He had his disability living allowance reduced from the higher to the lower rate and when he lodged an appeal, it was taken away altogether. Why should my constituent be treated in such a shabby manner? Obviously I have written to the Secretary of State. The Benefits Agency and the hospital that is treating him. Surely this is an illustration of the Benefits Agency making decisions that are impossible to understand.

I am reluctant to discuss individual constituents' cases on the Floor of the House, and even more reluctant to do so without having the full details of the case. However, I give my hon. Friend this assurance—I will look at the case that he raises and write to him about it.

Is not the Minister concerned, as I hope we all are, that about 3,000 people leave the labour force each week for incapacity benefit and only a very small proportion return to work? Was it not entirely predictable that numbers on incapacity benefit are rising again?

Although we have to be adversarial at Question Time, the hon. Gentleman makes two fair points. First, we need to do more on rehabilitation, and he is right that responsibilities are split between the two Departments. That is why Ministers are talking together to see what more can be done, and we ought to explore that. Secondly, he noted the rising number of people coming on to the benefit. I say to him gently that it is possible to overstate the problem because there are demographic factors at work. Nevertheless, I accept that if one wants to try to intervene, by far and away the best thing is to intervene early with a programme of rehabilitation, where that is appropriate.