What plans he has to improve the support his Department is giving to help people with disabilities into work. [63384]

What support his Department is giving to help those with disabilities to get back into work. [63388]

For the first time in the history of the welfare state, we are actively seeking to assist disabled people to work where they are ready and able to do so. We have introduced a range of measures and are making work pay for people with disabilities through the disabled person's tax credit and the national minimum wage. We are making work possible through the new deal for disabled people and a range of specialist employment programmes, and by removing benefit barriers. In addition, Jobcentre Plus offers all disabled people who are making new or repeat claims to benefit interviews with a personal adviser to ensure that they are aware of the help and opportunities that are available to them. We are continuing the extension of Jobcentre Plus nationwide with about 225 integrated offices opening by April 2003.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging answer. Is she aware that, while the established new deal programmes have already had a dramatic impact on unemployment in places such as Dover and Deal, and in east Kent generally, the new deal for disabled people is reaching out and helping people who want to work or are willing to do so, but need a helping hand—the sort of people whom we meet in our surgeries week in, week out? Will she assure me that we will now build on the success of the current scheme and seek other, more imaginative and progressive ways of helping disabled people—especially young people—back into work?

My hon. Friend is right to say that disabled people are one of the hardest-to-help groups in terms of entering employment. For many years, disabled people were told on visiting the Benefits Agency or contacting Departments that they were incapable of work. We often need longer and more tailored interventions to assist them in getting into work. The new deal for disabled people is starting to find out the best ways of doing that and we hope to build on the lessons that we are learning as the programme continues. It has not yet been a nationwide programme for a year, so it is early days, but we are encouraged by the attitude of the disabled people who contact job brokers, as well as by the way in which job brokers can match disabled people, with all their needs and requirements, to local employers who are looking for good staff.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and offer my congratulations in so far as I and many people in this country believe that she and her Department are at long last recognising that we cannot afford to marginalise this part of our society. Will she thank all the people who are involved in the scheme, and especially the job mentors or personal mentors? We recognise how difficult the situation is, especially for those with hidden disabilities, who are not perceived by society to have a disability, but what is she doing to tackle the residual problem of employers who fail to understand how effective some disabled people can be in the economic work force?

My hon. Friend makes another very important point. Employers, whether small or large, reflect the attitude and awareness issues of the rest of society. Many employers will make assumptions about what disabled people can or cannot do that are based on nothing more than old-fashioned stereotypes. It is important that the Government, and all those who work with and for disabled people, assist in getting across the fact that disabled people have a lot to offer to employers of all sizes. For example, he may know—other hon. Members may not—that disabled people are less likely to take time off work than non-disabled people. They can be valuable and long-standing members of a work force, who show loyalty and provide excellent services to their employers. It is about time that employers realised that.

What assessment has been, or is to be, made of the effectiveness of the actions of the Minister's Department in seeking to help people with disabilities to access employment, taking into account its truly abysmal record in helping people with disabilities to access the benefits to which they should be entitled?

The hon. Lady never disappoints in terms of being churlish, as she manages to be so whenever she stands up in the House. All our employment programmes and new deals are properly evaluated. The new deal for disabled people will be properly evaluated and lessons that need to be learned from its operation and success or lack of success will be learned in order to inform changes to the programme to make it better. We have every expectation that this programme and the other specialist disability employment programmes can make a real difference in helping disabled people to access the work force. If that is not a key part of civil rights for disabled people in this country, I do not know what is.

Anything that the Minister can do to advance and join up the various components of vocational rehabilitation will generally be welcome to Members on these Benches. Nevertheless, does she accept that there is little room for complacency, given that in this country only 20 per cent. of people with an acquired brain injury return to employment, whereas in the United States 50 per cent. do so? In the light of that and other information, will she concede that in this context joined-up government requires the active co-operation of the Department of Health, local social services and other agencies? In particular, will she look favourably on experimenting with integrating budgets to ensure the early and smooth delivery of the whole range of essential rehabilitation services?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, in that a disabled person out there in the community does not care whether it is Department of Health money or DWP money that can assist them. They want a point of contact for assistance. I agree that job rehabilitation is a tremendously important part of what we are hoping to do, and we will need to get it right if we are to make a big impact on getting disabled people back to work. Governments have not been particularly good at that in the past, so we are starting with a blank sheet.

I acknowledge the good work that the Government are doing in helping disabled people back to work, but has the Minister considered introducing a grant to cover the period from the time when the person starts work until they get paid? That is a source of fear for people who may have to live in poverty during that time, which could be a major discouragement.

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that disincentives in the benefits system and fear of what taking the step of going back to work will mean for available money can be a big disincentive to anybody contemplating going back into the labour market after an extended period out of it. That is why we changed the therapeutic earnings rules.

The hon. Lady is right about the reliability of disabled workers. The same goes for older people in their 50s and 60s, and we should try to do away with prejudice in that respect, too. Does she agree that there is a real problem in getting physically disabled people to work in smaller businesses, which often provide exactly the right environment for them to work, owing to the cost of providing ramps and other equipment to enable them to work there? Many small firms do not have the spare cash to invest in that equipment. What assistance are the Government giving to enable them to invest in that type of physical equipment?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about access. One of our specialist disability employment programmes, access to work, provides for just that kind of help. It enables individuals who have access problems to solve them in respect of the employer whom they are going to work for and solves newly emerging problems whereby employees fall into ill health while at work. Job retention is just as important as getting people into work once they have fallen out of the labour market due to ill health.

If he will take steps to support final salary linked pension schemes. [63385]

What measures he is taking to persuade companies and concerns to continue to provide final salary pension schemes. [63393]

We have set up wide-ranging reviews of pensions regulation and retail saving, which are to report this month, and the Inland Revenue review on tax simplification, which is to report later in the year. I believe that it is right to consider concerted and radical action to sustain schemes and raise the level of pensions saving.

I am grateful for that thorough reply. Constituents who are employed by Iceland Frozen Foods and by the Caparo group have received notification that their final salary pension schemes have been terminated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such unilateral action by employers, without discussion or consultation, is reprehensible? If so, what will he do about it?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is a serious matter when such schemes are closed and I sympathise with him and his constituents. As I said earlier, that is precisely why we need to consider radical and concerted action to sustain schemes, and, as the Government have consistently said, to raise the level of pensions saving. That is why we have established the Pickering review and the Sandler review and why we are considering tax simplification. I shall consider carefully the representations that the TUC, the CBI, pension providers, and the general public make on those important matters.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an increasing tendency for directors to keep their final salary schemes while removing them from their employees? Is not the greatest scandal of all that employers' contributions are being slashed? While they claim simply to be changing the sort of scheme that they are producing, they are also significantly reducing the available resources. Is not it time for compulsion?

My hon. Friend characteristically makes a pertinent, forceful and timely point. All of us can understand the position of people whose contributions and prospects have been weakened while those who are responsible for their employment are in a more secure position. As part of the review that we are undertaking, it is important to examine ways in which we can secure fairness of treatment so that employees can have the same sort of security that bosses secure for themselves.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment, and look forward to a brave new era of constructive dialogue on pensions across the House.

The advice that we were given by the Office for National Statistics was—as I have described—that the figures relating to pension contributions previously given in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions on 16 May included transfers. A footnote pointed out at the time that those transfers existed, but it also said that they were not derivable. The correction that we are making is to say that we are now advised that they could be derived, and also that they may be significant. I am not aware of any other corrections that need to be made. However, the House will be aware of the previous difficulties with pension statistics, and, in light of this experience with the ONS, I think that it would be wise to treat any figures with caution until we see the outcome of the review.

May I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Question Time in his new post? It is a pity that, at his first such appearance at the Dispatch Box, he should have to admit that a serious error has been made by his predecessor. I have to tell him that this might not be the only time that he comes to the House to admit mistakes made by his predecessor. Let me explain to the House what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. Ministers have been boasting that we have been saving £86 billion a year in our pensions; they are now admitting that that included transfers from one form of assets to another, and that it was not new flows. That is a significant mistake in the figures that they have been boasting about in the past months and years.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, to the Liberal spokesperson—for his welcome. I want to take issue straight away with what the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said about my predecessor. My predecessor and other Ministers gave those figures in good faith on the basis of advice that they were given, and, indeed, having checked that they were being given the right advice. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were rather a low blow, especially as my predecessor has such a good record on sorting out the basis of pension provision, bringing help to millions of pensioners who were denied it by the Conservatives, and introducing the pension credit, which will ensure for the first time that people who save are rewarded rather than being penalised for their savings as they were under the Conservatives. I believe that we have done the right thing in announcing the correction to these figures, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it in that spirit.

The blow is to the expectations of millions of pensioners. Months ago, the Government had to withdraw their figures for the assets in our pension funds; today they are withdrawing their figures for the flows into those funds. I accept that those errors were made in good faith, and that the Secretary of State, his predecessor and the Minister of State were certainly not deliberately trying to mislead the House. The fact is, however, that the figures were seriously wrong, and that Ministers regularly claimed, on the basis of them, that they showed that the basic structure—

Order. During Question Time, I expect questions.

Given that the Secretary of State used these false figures to reach the conclusion that the basic structure of pensions was right, will he accept that the conclusion that he drew was wrong, now that the figures have proved to be wrong?

The conclusions that we drew were, first, that the basic state pension should remain the foundation in retirement and, secondly, that we needed to bring in the minimum income guarantee—now amended in the pension credit—to give extra help to the poorer pensioners. As I have, said, we needed to bring in the pension credit to ensure that savings and modest occupational pensions were rewarded rather than penalised. So far as occupational and personal pensions are concerned, we have initiated reviews to examine the simplification and reform that is needed. We need a national consensus on the way forward on pensions; that will not be helped by the Conservatives proposing the abolition of the basic state pension.

In welcoming the Secretary of State to his post, may I draw his attention to the Order Paper, which carries more questions on pensions than at any time since Maxwell stole pension funds from his workers? May I suggest to the Secretary of State that if the population of this country is not to look forward to a leaner, meaner retirement, we need to ensure that more is saved towards our retirement income? Does he accept, therefore, that the Government must introduce radical reforms, perhaps in the autumn, if they wish to reverse the fall of new pension savings to a fifth of what they were five years ago?

The short answer to both those questions is yes: of course I take note of the number of questions on the Order Paper and of course that quite properly reflects concern in the country at what is happening to some company and occupational pension schemes. We need to consider concerted and radical action to address that situation, and my right hon. Friend is also right—as my predecessor said and as the Government have consistently said—that we need to raise savings in this country and to make building up a savings pot that genuinely provides people with security in retirement easy and accessible.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking this difficult question himself, because what he has said today about statistics is significant. Does he accept that the amount of money being paid into pension funds is significantly lower than his Ministers said previously, and given the Government's raid on advance corporation tax— £5 billion every year—is that a surprise?

It is difficult reliably to estimate the scale of the correction that will need to be made until we see the outcome of the review, but clearly it could have a significant impact. As to the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to the changes in tax dividends and ACT, I have to say, and it bears repeating time and again, that the reason for making that change was to remove the perverse incentive in the system to distribute dividends rather than to reinvest. What is more, in increasing investment in this country to a level that had not been seen for years, it is having an impact.

What help he will give to the long-term unemployed in deprived areas. [63386]

Our policies, built on a foundation of a strong and stable economy, are helping people into work in all parts of the country.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and say clearly that the difference is that under the Conservative Administration there was 20 per cent. unemployment in my constituency as opposed to 6.5 per cent. now. I concur that that is due to the new deal and the other schemes, so I welcome the new initiative, but we are faced with the dilemma that those who are left unemployed are largely those who are unskilled. What other initiatives can he introduce and what can we do to try to involve other employers in my constituency and encourage them to make a greater input to the new deal and other schemes?

I am pleased that our schemes are having the impact on unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency that he describes, although I believe that more needs to be done, particularly in terms of the Department's relations with employers. Specialist advisers are being appointed to a number of jobcentres to liaise directly with employers on the services that the Department provides—enhanced services through the new Jobcentre Plus arrangements, which are coming soon to my hon. Friend's constituency.

Was the Prime Minister right when he said in the House on 12 June that the number of unemployed young people is 4,500, or is the Minister's Department right when it says that the number of unemployed young people is 244,000?

I understand that the statistics have been correctly stated to the House.

May I confirm that the Government are making a real difference to unemployed people in my constituency, not least the 219 long-term sick and unemployed who have been found work in the past few months by the Wythenshawe action team? When the new Jobcentre Plus offices are opened in my constituency next year, will the Minister ensure that they are located close to Wythenshawe town centre, not in the peripheral, out-of-the-way place where the Tories put the jobcentre in the 1980s?

The success of action teams is primarily due to the flexibility in the schemes and the outreach work that they can undertake. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me, I shall consider the location of the new Jobcentre Plus office and see what can be done to ensure that it is appropriately sited.

The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) is right to concentrate on working with employers to ensure that there are opportunities for people to take up at the end of these valuable schemes. The Minister rightly said that personal advisers are assisting in that direction, but is he satisfied that enough is being done with account holders—the liaison people between Jobcentre Plus and the employers—to ensure that there is a transition process and that there are real jobs for the hardest to help to go to at the end of the scheme?

The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point. We need to do more to build links between the service and the employers. After all, a substantial sum of public money has been invested in improving the service, and we need to explain ourselves not just to large companies, but to small and medium employers. We are appointing these new officials at a local level so that they can have that interface with the local labour market.

When he expects to publish the Pickering report; and if he will make a statement. [63387]

Last September, my predecessor asked Alan Pickering, former chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds, to carry out an independent review of private pensions legislation. His report will be published in the next few weeks.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest barriers to pension provision is the sheer complexity of the products on offer? Does he agree that that often makes it difficult for employees properly to assess and compare the products that are available? Does he also agree that, no matter what else Pickering may bring, one of the most vital things that should come from the report is simplification of the whole system?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Without wanting to anticipate Alan Pickering's report, I think that it is crucial that employees are in a much better position to make informed choices. That requires a simpler range of products and the roll-out of comprehensive pension forecasts. That is why Alan Pickering was asked to report to Ministers with proposals for simplifying pensions regulation while ensuring that pension scheme members are properly protected. That is the crucial balance to get right.

The Pickering report has been wildly trailed in the press, especially in the Financial Times. Mr. Pickering addressed the all-party group on occupational pensions only a few days age. He confirmed that one idea is to give employers the right to make membership of employer schemes mandatory. How would that sit with those employees who already have substantial personal pensions?

The hon. Gentleman's expertise in this matter is greatly and widely respected in the House. I hope that he will understand when I say that I will not be drawn into speculation about Alan Pickering's report. We will give careful consideration to all his recommendations, and we will listen carefully to the response from the public, the pensions industry, employers and trade unions.

What plans he has to offer a one stop service for those people who are out of work. [63389]

In April this year, we created Jobcentre Plus to bring together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working age. Jobcentre Plus provides an integrated, work-focused service to people who are out of work.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which I welcome. Does he agree with my constituent, Charlene Kuye, who is a single parent engaged on a teacher training course, and with organisations such as Gingerbread, which speaks for lone parent families, that the complexity of the benefits system can be one of the major barriers to helping young people return to work? Will he continue to listen to benefit recipients and their representatives as we continue to improve the benefit system so that it is possible for people to make a seamless transition from taking maternity or paternity leave to going back to work or from training back to work?

Yes, we must learn from our constituents. Our advice surgeries are our most important seminars in this respect. Although large numbers of lone parents are being enabled to get back into work, a significant proportion are still not in work. The interface with skills and education is critical. From local office level through to ministerial level at Whitehall, we have good connections with those in the world of education and skills.

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the enigmatic answer given by the Minister for Work a few minutes ago and say which of the statistics regarding young people is correct? Are 4,500 young people out of work or 244,000? Which is right?

Because of the need to be absolutely accurate about these statistics, I think it best to write to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who raised the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The crucial thing, which the Opposition often do not want to hear, is that the new deal for young people has been a great success. With just a few exceptions, we have virtually eradicated the problem of long-term youth unemployment. People should celebrate that, because it involves a lot of work from young people, my colleagues in the Department and employers. It is a cause for celebration, not cynicism and sarcasm.

One frustration for some of my long-term unemployed constituents is that they seem to be precluded from entering courses to reskill and retrain them that are for longer than one day a week. Will my hon. Friend examine the situation, and will people who have been put on a course that they discover is not meeting their needs be able to change easily to another, more suitable, course?

Yes. As I have indicated, we need to learn from our constituents. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me with individual experiences. In all sorts of ways, not least with our basic skills initiative, which deals with the fact that too many adults struggle with literacy and numeracy, we have a very joined-up approach with the Department for Education and Skills. We are screening people in jobcentres to test their literacy and numeracy. We are trying in all sorts of other ways to put the rhetoric of lifelong learning into practice. I repeat that we need to learn, and I am happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

The Minister will recall from earlier exchanges that not only do we not have a jobcentre in the Vale of York, there is no prospect of a Jobcentre Plus. Will he take up the case of Mr. Potter, who has been sent from pillar to post through a variety of offices? He lost his job in the farming industry in the autumn of last year and it has taken two months for a letter to be transferred to the Minister's Department from another. Will he try to help Mr. Potter to obtain unemployment benefit from the day that he lost his job?

I apologise for any delay. I will take up the case of the hon. Lady's constituent. We have not yet announced all our plans, but in those rural areas that may not have a Jobcentre Plus, we need to think hard about how to provide an adequate service. We can do that through the telephone and through the Internet for some. We need to join up with other local agencies to provide the service and must be sensitive to the needs of rural areas. Although there will be a large number of Jobcentre Plus offices throughout the country, some areas will not have that facility as such, and we are thinking hard about how to ensure that the hon. Lady's constituents and those in similar areas receive the service that they deserve. Meanwhile, I will take up her constituent's case.

What recent discussions he has had with the CBI and employer organisations on final salary pensions. [63391]

What response he has made to representations from the TUC and others to encourage the continued provision of final salary pensions. [63392]

We have frequent contact with both the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress to discuss a range of pensions issues, including final salary pension schemes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made clear in his recent speech to the TUC conference, it has to be worth while for employees to save, confident in what they will get in return, and easy for employers to contribute. We need a framework that builds partnership in pension provision not mutual aversion to responsibility.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the so-called employers pensions holiday, when they ceased to make contributions to pension schemes? It was actually more like a pensions strike. Is he aware that one strong motivation for getting rid of final salary pension schemes is that, even on the better alternatives, employers save up to a third of their costs? That means that employees receive a final pension much worse than they had anticipated. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that employers recognise that they must make a contribution?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Like him and all my ministerial colleagues, I want a maximisation of employer contributions as an investment in their work force. The whole point of the simplification review and the discussions is to develop a partnership between the Government, employers and trade unions so that each of us takes responsibility for every aspect of developing a pensions policy for the future that will guarantee investment and a secure pension. During the next few weeks, when the reviews are published, I hope that there will be productive discussions with the CBI, the TUC and others to ensure that when the Government set out their radical approach to those matters there will be a common, binding agreement on the way forward.

When my right hon. Friend reviews pensions facilities and the partnership for the provision of pensions to which he referred, will he examine the fundamental relationship between employer contributions, employee contributions and state contributions? In doing so, will he consider the Australian model, which requires a certain level of employer compulsion in respect of any named pension fund in exchange for tax relief and productivity deals, in the knowledge that the only certain way of obtaining long-term pension contributions is by getting more jobs? That is something that we are doing and that the Opposition never did.

I am absolutely certain that, with those involved in the simplification review and in preparing the reports, the Government will consider a range of issues, including international comparisons, to try to encourage investment by employers. When the review is published we can join in a debate, after which I hope that we shall see the way forward to ensure a secure future both for deferred pensioners—those who are currently investing but who are not yet pensioners—and for those who are pensioners already.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Robert Maxwell-style pension raid is costing the average contributing member of a pension scheme £400 a year. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say sorry to those pension holders?

The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck asking that question, when there was a £34 billion mis-selling of pension funds under a Tory Government. It took the Labour Government to make sure that money was put back. A Conservative Government halved the value of SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—took it off widows and forgot to tell them about it. This Government put that money back. A Conservative Government put 3 million people on the dole and those people lost pension rights because of it. Grow up.

Surely the Minister understands that everyone knows that the Government's response to the crisis in the pensions industry has been woefully inadequate. Will he admit that the £5 billion a year raid on pension funds was a dreadful error of judgment? As the Secretary of State is in the mood to apologise today, will he also apologise on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the millions of people who face a lower income in their retirement?

The hon. Gentleman is another man with a record as long as his arm. He was a pensions Minister who made such a botched job of it that his constituents rightly got rid of him. Perhaps he would like to tell us about the letter that he received from the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question—Opposition Members may not like the answer—[Interruption.]

Order. We must have some calm in the Chamber.

I am not sure why it is, but every time that I stand at the Dispatch Box, the Conservatives get excited.

Should we not make it absolutely clear that the full responsibility for ending such schemes lies with employers, and that they must be held accountable? Going back to what was said earlier, is it not sickening that while so many employees could well be driven into acute financial hardship, if not poverty, in their retirement, those who make the decisions—the directors—are rewarding themselves with fat cat pension schemes, option schemes, bonuses and the rest to ensure that, when they retire, they can live the lives of millionaires and multi-millionaires? The contrast between the two is obscene.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been greed and greed with great excess. There is no doubt about that, but in simply saying that fat cats are wrong, we have got to do something about long-term stability and arrangements for the basic state pension, the state contribution and the private sector contribution to the future of pensions. That is what the Pickering review is about. At least the Government are prepared to advocate proposals on behalf of pensioners and to introduce schemes to eradicate the poverty that exists, a new pension scheme to prevent it in future and a new partnership between the Government on one hand and employers and trade unions on the other to ensure investment by employers in pension schemes and the certainty that when people retire they get a fair pension for the contribution that has been made.

May I tell the Minister that the CBI and the TUC were represented at our pensions summit last week? He might try getting them together as well. Does he agree with the TUC that the United Kingdom pensions system is in crisis? What does he think of the latest evidence of that crisis? The Caparo steel group, which is headed by a Labour peer, Lord Paul, is trying to close down its final salary pension scheme. Lord Paul is trying to get his workers into the Government's pet stakeholder scheme instead. So a Labour peer is trying to impose a Labour policy on members of a trade union affiliated to the Labour party, and what is the reaction? They take industrial action in protest. Something is seriously wrong with the Government's pensions policies if members of a Labour-affiliated trade union are taking industrial action against the policies that the Government are pursuing.

My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman's summit was more of a molehill than a summit and that he made virtually no contribution to the debate on pensions. It was nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt.

What recent assessment he has made of the viability of funded pension schemes. [63394]

Funded provision is crucial to overall pension provision in the United Kingdom. If it is to remain viable, we need to ensure that we have an appropriate level of regulation and the right incentives to encourage employers and employees to contribute to pensions. That is why we have commissioned the Pickering and Sandler reviews, which will be published in the next few weeks.

Now that the Government have admitted that, like Enron, they gave false figures, will they admit two specific points: first, that the number of people benefiting from occupational pensions is now 10 per cent. lower than when they took office in 1997 and, secondly, that the proportion of money saved by British households last year fell to the lowest level since records began? Will the Government try to correct that situation and help those on funded pension schemes by now withdrawing the £5 billion pensions tax that they imposed?

The hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze us. I and my colleagues gave information to the House on the basis of an independent analysis. When challenged about that analysis, we rightly said that, the analysis being independent, Ministers had given the House the information that was available. As the hon. Gentleman can confirm, when it became clear that there was a need for a review and as soon as Ministers knew that the answer that I had given in good faith to the House could be questioned, we informed the hon. Member concerned, and spoke to him personally. At 3.30 pm, we will put forward proposals to ensure that an effective response is made in respect of my answer.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best incentives that could be given for pensions would be to establish a minimum amount of money that employers must contribute—9 per cent., for example—to ensure that workers would also put in their money?

My hon. Friend is right that employers need to make contributions to pension schemes. In general, we would agree with that. I would like to wait, however, to see whether the Pickering review recommends further action on compulsion. I want to make it absolutely clear that Ministers want to ensure that the review gives an incentive to employers to contribute, and to continue to contribute, to the pensions of their employees. It is in everybody's interests, including employers, that they invest in their employees' future through pensions.

What proportion of crisis loan payments were made in response to alignment claims in the last 12 months. [63395]

Social fund alignment payments provide valuable help to people awaiting their first payment of wages on taking up work. They also help people with essential day-to-day living expenses in advance of their first payment of benefit. During 2001–02, just under half of crisis loans were made through alignment payments.

Is not it extraordinary that the crisis loan fund, which is cash-limited and which is there to help the poorest of our constituents in the most extreme circumstances, is largely pre-empted by payments that, effectively, are made as a result of administrative delay? I am not denying that payments must be made in that instance, but I am not sure that they should be made from that fund. When the Minister wrote to me on 14 May, he said that he was considering this matter, and that new guidelines would be issued. He said that a review would be done on a region-by-region basis. Have those things yet been accomplished?

I do not accept that alignment payments are made predominantly because of delays. It may interest the House to know that. during 2001–02, income support claims were cleared, on average, within 9.7 days of all relevant information being received, which is less than our target of 12 days. Similarly, we are performing well in terms of incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance. Alignment payments are becoming better known by our claimants, which may be a factor, but there may be an issue in relation to our procedures. I can therefore confirm that we are currently considering the detailed guidance that we offer to our staff on this aspect of crisis loans. The guidance is expected to be with staff by mid-July.

Is not the fact of the matter that alignment payments are made to compensate for other payments that recipients should have received from the Government, and that, in a way, part of the crisis fund is being spent on crises created by the Government? Has not the proportion of the crisis fund so allocated substantially increased since 1997, and does not it now stand at 40 per cent. of the crisis fund, as the Minister had to admit in a written answer that he gave to me correcting, properly, incorrect information—more incorrect information—that he had given in a previous written answer? Will the Government now take urgent action to ensure that funds are not diverted from vulnerable people in that way and that the Government act promptly and efficiently in their benefit payments?

I think that there is some misunderstanding about this issue. When people first apply for benefit, they may have to wait some days before they receive it. If they are in urgent need, they will receive an alignment payment. Similarly—although in a smaller percentage of cases—if people have a job and are waiting for their first wage packet, one of the alignment payments may be made. I suspect that there is some confusion because the payments are paid through crisis loans. However, as I have said, although there are a number of factors behind the trend, we are looking at the matter carefully. We will issue the new guidance later this month.

What plans he has to publish a pensions White Paper on the state of the private pensions industry. [63396]

The Sandler review into long-term savings and the Pickering simplification review are due to report shortly. The Government will then consult on proposals in the autumn.

In thanking the Minister for that answer, may I say that his combative approach to previous questions and his attacks on the previous Conservative Government are no way to respond to the real fears of people about whether they will have anything like a long-term income from their pensions? On the very day that The Times carries articles questioning the strength of our insurance companies, may I ask the Minister to bring together all the arguments about employees and employers in a White Paper that will review the whole desperate pension situation?

This Government have acted already. We have introduced the state second pension, which means that 14 million low-paid workers will for the first time receive an additional pension as well as the basic state pension. We have made advances in that 2 million carers and 2 million people with disabilities who were outside the system will receive an additional pension in the form of the stakeholder pension. We have sorted out the Tory Government's mis-selling of pensions, we have sorted out SERPS and we have introduced the simplification review.

When the Minister looks further at private pension schemes, will he agree to consider the case of Parsons Energy and Engineering in south-west London? That American company has not merely closed its final salary scheme to existing as well as new employees, but has halved the pension entitlement arbitrarily. Does he not agree that the trusteeship arrangements are far too weak to prevent cowboy capitalists of that kind from stealing from their own pensions funds?

I do not have all the details of that case but, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be more than willing to meet him and his colleagues to discuss this matter. I will then subsequently give or not give advice as appropriate to the circumstances.

What action he is taking to promote pension take-up among voluntary sector workers. [63397]

The Government are committed to ensuring that everybody gets a decent income in retirement and to promoting pension provision among all groups of workers, including those in the voluntary sector

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that, when groups in the voluntary sector bid for extra funds for local campaigns, as is the case in my constituency of Gloucester, they sometimes find that, although the money can be used to help to employ extra staff, local campaigners or case workers, it is difficult to make up the employers contribution? However, if such groups put in an extra bid in the first instance to make up that money, the Government can help them. Therefore, will her Department do more to emphasise the fact that such groups can be supported if they make it clear that they wish money for such contributions to be part of their bid?

Good employers who want to get good staff will make proper pension provision a part of the package that they offer. Following the introduction of stakeholder pensions, many voluntary sector employers will have to designate stakeholders and therefore offer their employees a low-cost excellent new vehicle to ensure that they can save for their retirement.