How many employees pay into a final salary pension scheme. [81269]

It is estimated that 9.6 million employees pay into final salary schemes. They will, therefore, continue to play a significant role in people's pensions savings. A Green Paper on pensions, to be published shortly, will set out our proposals, which are designed to increase the flexibility and security of final salary schemes and other types of pension provision.

What protection can the Minister offer to my constituents who are so close to retirement that it is too late for them to make alternative pension arrangements? They have contributed to final salary pension schemes all their working lives and now find that those schemes are in severe financial difficulties or are heading for wind-up. Those constituents are suffering severe stress at the prospect of a pension that falls way short of what they formerly expected.

If the hon. Lady could be a bit more specific, I could deal with her point, because there is no point in giving a general answer about the Department's line. If there is a genuine problem, the hon. Lady should write to me and I will offer her a meeting

That is a change of approach.

No, it is not a change of approach—I am just that kind of a Minister.

Does the Minister think that there is any connection between the £25 billion that the Chancellor took out of pension funds and the decision of four out of 10 final salary schemes to close to new members? If he does and presumably he does because he lives on the same planet as the rest of us—what will he tell the hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country, many of whom are in my constituency, whose final salary schemes have been cut and whose income in retirement will be reduced?

I think that I live on the planet more than most Conservative Members of Parliament. It is interesting to note that when the same question was put to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) about the removal of the then tax credit on pension funds, the hon. Gentleman said:

"Actually, I don't think we'll be doing that. Helping pension funds doesn't mean going back to the same system as we had before, you know."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the major and recent reason for the decline in final salary schemes—although they have been declining since the 1960s—has been employers' inability to take advantage of pensions contributions holidays, which they enjoyed for so many years? Does he also agree that the only way to reverse the decline permanently is to introduce an element of compulsion for employers and pensioners?

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the very inappropriate pensions holidays that have sometimes been taken. The purpose of the Green Paper is to address that and other issues. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait to see its contents, as it will deal with all issues connected with fairness and security in retirement.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that although some employers use the current circumstances to close their final salary schemes, others wish to keep such schemes open? However, under the existing law and the power of trustees, they know that to do so might at some stage bankrupt their company. They would keep those schemes open, with some relation to salary, if there were greater flexibility in the law. Will the Minister look at this issue in this Green Paper or, as we heard at the weekend, in another one six months later?

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that those are among the issues that will be examined in the Green Paper.

Does the Minister accept that one of the big problems associated with the closure of final salary schemes is that employers use the opportunity to reduce the amount of their contribution into those schemes? Does he accept that the Government have no power to stop that process and that if they merely produce a Green Paper and more consultation follows, we will have to watch the process continue? Why, then, has the right hon. Gentleman rejected the idea of putting a mandatory floor below employer contributions?

The hon. Gentleman makes that comment before he has even read the Green Paper. The purpose of the Green Paper is to have a long-term agreement to provide security in retirement. That includes responsibilities on the part of the state, the employer and the employee and an effort to refashion, remodel and modernise the pension promise. I hope that at the end of the Green Paper process not only will we have a national debate but there will be a national consensus on where we need to go.

One of the additional benefits of these schemes is the generous provision of widows' and survivors' benefits. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the proposal in the Pickering review to end compulsory provision of such benefits? Does he agree that in this area of pensions, as in so many others, where there is no compulsion there is no provision?

That was among several issues in the report, and we indicated that at this stage it was not a route that we wanted to take. All those issues will have to be considered in the Green Paper. One thing is certain, however: survivors' benefits are extremely important, overwhelmingly for women. It is no intention of this Government, when reviewing the pensions system, to undermine its capacity properly to look after women in retirement.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to the promise in their last pensions Green Paper that the proportion of pensioners' income from private savings should rise from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.?

That is all part of the Green Paper—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question so he might like to listen to what I have to say. Since the last Green Paper, we have taken steps in respect of the basic state pension and in relation to poverty. The third step—in this Green Paper—is about how we modernise the arrangements so that the basic state pension and the second-tier pension meet people's needs. That, of course, includes a mixed economy, as was set out in the previous Green Paper. The current Green Paper follows that, and at the end of the debate on it I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with the Government's proposals.

I have in my hand the previous Green Paper. It contains a personal foreword by the Prime Minister, which states that the Government are committed to increasing the percentage of pensioners' income that comes from private savings from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. All I am asking is whether the Minister of State is still committed to that objective of the last Green Paper. It is very simple.

Of course that remains our objective. That is why the Green Paper that will be published soon examines arrangements to secure the continuation of funding by employers and deals with inadequate relationships as regards the costs to employers that run counter to their retaining pensions schemes. We want to give real choice to people who are saving for retirement so that there are secure pension schemes both in the public and private sectors.

What steps he is taking to improve the service of the telephone complaint lines for social security clients. [81270]

First, may I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the extremely poor service that one of his constituents received earlier this year? The hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with the Department about that.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that clients of Jobcentre Plus, the Pension Service and the former Department of Social Security are among the most vulnerable and that, owing to the work load of the hard-pressed staff, the changes to which he has referred may create more problems than heretofore, so the provision of adequate telephone lines and the means for those clients to complain is very important? I was especially disappointed to find that t he number of the Banbury incapacity benefit manager, which I was given to ring to follow up my complaints, was engaged all morning, as I found out when I tested it before I came to the Chamber. Will the Minister ensure that there is adequate telephone capacity so that vulnerable people can make inquiries and complaints?

Of course I shall check on that and I apologise again to the hon. Gentleman and especially to his constituent. From time to time, we all experience I he frustration of not being able to get through on the telephone. However, overall national performance on all aspects of customer service is currently about 84 per cent. against a target of 79 per cent. That measures speed of response, accuracy and so on. However, when individuals are not getting that service in response from the Banbury office, I realise that ministerial statistics butter no parsnips—they certainly butter no Banburys.

Will the Minister tell us about the availability of telephone help through the medium of Welsh and other languages? I made a test of that this morning and contacted a Benefits Agency office only to be told that there was no such service because the person concerned was away on a Welsh course. The service seems rather fragile. Would the Minister care to comment?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the high training standards in our Department as evidenced by the colleague who was taking the Welsh course. May I write to the hon. Gentleman about the services that we offer through the medium of the Welsh language? As a former external examiner for the University of Wales, I appreciate the importance of that.

What representations he has received regarding incapacity benefit assessments carried out by SchlumbergerSema. [81271]

We have received a number of representations from my hon. Friend, other hon. Members and members of the public about personal capability assessments carried out by SchlumbergerSema. A small proportion of medical assessments—about 0.5 per cent.—result in complaints about the doctor.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for seeing me last week in the case of Mrs. Gray. In the light of her case and continuing concerns expressed by disabled constituents about the quality of service provided, will he assure me that the assessments will be closely monitored, especially when the contract comes up for renewal?

We closely monitor the work of SchlumbergerSema, so 1 know that the number of complaints is going down. A set of standards has to be met and, so far, all the targets are being met.

Although I acknowledge that there has been progress in achieving a smoother and less judgmental assessment system, would the Minister not be prepared, in turn, to acknowledge that many claimants still resent intrusion, particularly in recurrent cases and those where perhaps the matter could have been resolved on evidence from the patient's own GP? But is he not even more concerned that, for all the Government's talk of welfare reform, there are almost as many claimants for incapacity benefit as five years ago, while there are no fewer than 250,000 extra disabled claimants for income support? Is that not a rather shameful failure to deliver?

If the previous Government had undertaken more pilot schemes on rehabilitation and other pathways to work, this Government would not have to undertake the necessary studies to try to achieve—I do not mean to make this a partisan point, tempting though that is—what I know we both believe in, as we have had exchanges about this before: helping those who can work into some form of work that they can comfortably undertake.

What assessment he has made of the most recent employment statistics. [81272]

The employment level is holding up well, given the world economic slowdown. We have record numbers of people in jobs thanks to economic policies for stability and labour market policies that keep people engaged with the job market, whatever the stage of the economic cycle.

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating those at the jobcentre in my constituency who in the past five years have seen unemployment drop dramatically, especially youth unemployment, which has dropped by more than 40 per cent.? But does he acknowledge that, at present, many people—not just in Carlisle, but throughout the country—who wish to work are on incapacity benefit? Will he outline the Government's proposals to help those people and support them back into work?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Jobcentre Plus staff and all the associated partners on the good work that they are doing in Carlisle. The number of young people unemployed for more than six months has fallen by 70 per cent. or more—a great tribute to the efforts of all concerned. In relation to incapacity benefit, I announced the consultation document last week, which will suggest a more intensive programme of interviews and other support for people going on to the benefit in the proposed pilot areas. We will introduce groundbreaking rehabilitation collaborative work with the national health service and a new £40 a week back-to-work credit in those pilot areas for the first year of employment. My hon. Friend is right: 90 per cent. of those coming on to incapacity benefit expect to get back into jobs. Those proposals will help them to do just that.

Is the Minister aware of the growing number of white-collared unemployed who do not show in the statistics because they do not as yet qualify for benefits? What assessment has his Department made of that problem?

White-collar employees qualify for benefit on the same basis as anyone else, and the full array of programmes to help them—the new deals and Jobcentre Plus—are at their disposal, as well as the action teams for jobs. We also offer extra help through the new deal ambition initiatives, one of which includes collaboration with the IT industry, which would help precisely the sort of unemployed people to whom the hon. Lady has referred.

I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for the low unemployment rate in this country, which is lower than that in most other comparable European countries. There is, however, a small number of long-term unemployed. What steps will be taken to change the new deal 25 plus to help those people into work?

We are refining and improving the new deals and our wider array of Jobcentre Plus programmes all the time. As work-focused interviews are rolled out with Jobcentre Plus, they are making a big difference, and the extra discretionary help that we are now able to put in the hands of the front-line advisers is producing good results in helping sometimes very long-term unemployed people who face considerable barriers to employment back in to jobs. As my hon. and learned Friend says, we are making good progress: thanks to initiatives of that sort, 100,000 more people are in jobs than were at the beginning of this year.

In the last quarter, what percentage of new jobs were created in the public sector?

A significant proportion, as we fulfil our promises to invest in the national health service, education and rebuilding the nation's transport infrastructure. We make no apologies for keeping our promises to invest in public services and public infrastructure—if the Conservatives had done some of that when they were in office, we would not have had the mess that we have had to deal with.

What action he plans to take to assist older people living below the official poverty line. [81274]

We have brought in the minimum income guarantee, winter fuel payments and free television licences for the over-75s, so that single pensioners are at least £18 a week better off and couples have gained by more than £27. Of the £6 billion extra that we are spending on pensioners compared with 1997, £2.5 billion is being spent on the poorest third of pensioners.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want to know that most people appreciate the fact that 650,000 pensioners in the west midlands have gained from the fuel poverty allowance. However, when he considers proposals on old-age pension increases in April, is he satisfied that when those increases are implemented, they will be a step in the direction of eliminating pensioner poverty?

Yes indeed. The increases will help us further to address pensioner poverty, and taken together with the introduction of the pension credit next October, all the measures that we have introduced mean that the average pensioner household will be £1,150 a year better off, and the poorest third of pensioner households will be £1,500 a year better off. Of course there is more to do, but that represents substantial progress in helping the poorest pensioners in our country.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right that we have to fight pensioner poverty, but does he accept that the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit make it rather difficult to achieve the target to which the Minister for Pensions committed himself today, that in future pensioners should receive approximately 60 per cent. of their income from private sources?

As I just said, we can always do more. We take seriously the recommendations of the National Audit Office's excellent recent report, which pointed to the need to build on local strategies targeted on those who are not getting everything to which they are entitled; to reduce duplication in the information that we request from people; to measure non-take-up better; and to spread information about pensions and benefits as widely as possible. We are doing that by sending out 2 million copies of the pension guide and by creating the Pension Service, a dedicated service for pensioners which will provide a more sensitive and user-friendly source of information and advice.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit are welcome, a great number of pensioners will not receive those benefits? Despite the current take-up proposals, does he accept that further work is needed, and will he set out what measures are being taken to increase take-up?

I accept that we need to build on the substantial progress that has already been made by intensifying take-up activity in precisely the way that I just outlined. My hon. Friend will have noted that in its report the NAO states that it was

"very pleased that the Department accepts all our recommendations".

"were better informed, and were generally satisfied with the help they received".

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that

"a sustained fall in the numbers of poor pensioners is unlikely until and unless the Government's policies aimed at encouraging greater use of private pensions start having an effect".

Those remarks would have a lot more credibility if the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman had a single positive alternative to any of our policies. They do not.

What plans he has to improve health and safety in the workplace. [81276]

The joint Government and Health and Safety Commission strategy set out in the document "Revitalising Health and Safety" aims to achieve significant reductions in the incidence of injury and ill health in the workplace. There are specific targets and delivery plans in place for 2004 and for 2010.

Bearing in mind the fact that it is more than seven years since the Law Commission first proposed an offence of corporate manslaughter and that more than 200 people are killed every year as they simply go about their normal business at work, will my right hon. Friend discuss with his colleagues in the Home Office what can be done urgently to implement this extremely important manifesto commitment and to introduce vital legislation to protect people from death at work?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the representations that my hon. Friend makes. The policy lead is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I will do as my hon. Friend asks and raise the matter with my right hon. Friend to see whether we can make progress.

Will the Minister look carefully at the rising trends in the costs of insurance claims as a result of accidents at work? They are feeding into worrying increases in employers' liability insurance premiums, and many small businesses are finding it very difficult to obtain cover. I understand that, in the summer, the Health and Safety Executive were engaged in considering the prospect of having discussions that would lead to lower premiums for firms that had good safety records. Will the Government support such a move?

There is a lot of sense in relating premiums to the risk and in rewarding the good and discouraging undesirable practices. Discussions are taking place across Government on this very important issue, and they include discussions with outside bodies such as the CBI, the TUC and the Association of British Insurers.

Although I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), does my right hon. Friend not agree that the best way of improving health and safety in the workplace is to ensure that firms are subject to rigorous and regular inspections? Is he confident that the Health and Safety Executive currently has the resources that it needs to ensure that firms are investigated properly and efficiently?

I am absolutely confident that the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission are able to prioritise their work and, with the resources allocated to them, carry out a good job. There will always be a discussion about priorities and, in the next few weeks, I shall meet representatives of the commission and the executive to consider targets and priorities.

Will the Minister attend the Amicus meeting this evening in Portcullis House on bullying in the workplace? Is he proud of his Department's record on health and safety, because on his own figures there are nearly 100 assaults and attempted assaults each month on members of his staff in Jobcentre Plus offices alone?

It is quite wrong to give the impression that the new Jobcentre Plus offices are a dangerous place because they are open plan. The Government are committed to providing the new-style services—integrated benefits and labour-market advice—to people who seek our help in modern, workable circumstances instead of conducting interviews from behind a glass screen. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to take that approach.

If he will help unemployed people with their travel-to-work costs when they first obtain a job. [81277]

Yes. We recognise that the lack of affordable transport can be a significant barrier to work for jobless people, and have a number of measures in place to help them overcome these difficulties, including the extension of half-price rail fares to 125,000 more people on the new deal programmes and the £10 million transport project fund to be used with action teams.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Such measures will help many people who seek employment. What steps is he taking to engage other transport service providers, such as London Transport, in discussions to encourage them to provide cheaper fares to people who seek employment?

We are working not only with the rail companies through the Association of Train Operating Companies, but with a number of bus operators including, I understand, some that cover my hon. Friend's constituency. The action team funding works out on average at more than £150,000 for each action team area over two years. We will be pleased to consider further proposals from jobseekers, those who help them into work or employers in his constituency.

rose—

I call the hon. Gentleman.

Hi. [Interruption.] A little bit of informality does us no harm.

That is why the hon. Gentleman has been called.

Absolutely right. I will have words with the hon. Gentleman later on.

I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity of working congestion charges into the question. Frontline advisers on the use of the discretionary funds at disposal, which are up to £300, are encouraged to include any action that can remove barriers standing in the way of jobseekers accessing work. I am sure they will do just that.

If he will make a statement on the take-up of stakeholders pensions since their inception. [81279]

Figures from the Association of British Insurers show that up to the end of September 2002, 1,151,371 stakeholder pensions had been sold. A detailed breakdown of sales will be available around the middle of next year. Sales of more than 1 million in their first 18 months on the market represents a very encouraging start.

I thank the Minister for that response. How many of those are people who have transferred their pensions to stakeholder schemes from other schemes? If they have, the figure does not reflect a net increase in the number of people who hold pensions. How does he intend to address the crisis in the industry given the catalogue of errors, outlined by my Front-Bench colleagues, that the Government have introduced?

The hon. Gentleman has not changed since he stood against me in 1987, when he was shown the door.

He has: he has got a seat.

Nice one, but I was talking about the attitude of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) rather than his seat.

In April this year, the Government introduced the earnings-related state second pension, the best pension deal for low-paid workers that has ever been on offer in the history of British pensions. The Government promised that it would remain in force until there was a take-up of millions of stakeholder pensions in the target group of low to middling incomes. That target is not being achieved. Will that promise be kept? Can we look forward to the continuation of the earnings-related state second pension?

I am surprised that my hon. Friend should say that the Government are not pursuing with vigour the issues around stakeholders and the second state pension. He is absolutely right—the state second pension has been a tremendous fillip for 14 million low-paid workers, 2 million people with disabilities who have work records that kept them out of the basic state pension previously, and 2 million carers. Most of the recipients are women, which is a major step forward. We have not gone to the trouble of taking such step only to reduce later our capacity to make it one of the most effective measures introduced by any Government.

I note that the Minister did not quite answer my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who asked how many people who had signed up for stakeholders had transferred out of another scheme. Perhaps he would like to have another go. I know how interested he is in hearing how things are at the grass roots. Certainly, lower-paid workers in my constituency are not signing up because they do not want to commit their savings to the final compulsory annuity. Will the Minister take a look at the difference between the state of the pensions market now and in 1997? One of the great destructive things the Government have done is to take away the incentive for people to invest. The compulsory annuity scheme is part of the problem. Will the Minister take a second look at that?

Order. The hon. Lady should perhaps try for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

I hope that it is not me who has to reply—[Laughter.] I like the hon. Lady really.

If he will make a statement on housing benefit reform. [81280]

On 17 October, the Secretary of State announced the next steps of our reform of housing benefit. Our aim is to provide a better, quicker service based on simpler and clearer rules. For the first time, we will give tenants real choice over their housing decisions.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. If that private scheme is to be successful, it is vital that claimants are aware of the changes in the scheme well before their introduction. Will my hon. Friend therefore tell me his proposals to inform claimants of such changes?

I myself am visiting all the 10 pathfinder areas before Christmas to discuss those issues—[Interruption.] At least I get out a bit. I am discussing with local authorities plans for communication, which are vital. The pathfinders will not be introduced until the autumn of next year, and my Department will provide communications to all tenants. The reform is about providing choice and empowering people in the privately rented sector to make decisions that the rest of us tend to take for granted.

The Government's changes to housing benefit regulations have been legion—so legion, in fact, that they amount to one change every fortnight for which the Labour Government have been in power. Can the Minister give an assurance to the people struggling to administer housing benefit that the number of changes will be considerably reduced, if not completely eliminated, in future?

I have a group, including local authority experts, to advise me on the timing of regulations. We try to introduce them at two stages in the year, rather than throughout the year. Much of what we are doing is aimed at simplification. At present, everyone has to reapply for housing benefit every year or so, filling in the forms and providing the information. We are scrapping that. That is the right way to do it—not to talk about it, but to do it.

Has my hon. Friend made any estimate of the impact of stock transfer, reform of the housing revenue account and equalisation of rents on the housing benefit bill?

Of course, but I think I will send my hon. Friend the details. The numbers claiming housing benefit have fallen somewhat recently, which is a testimony to our employment strategies. As with all benefits, the best social security policy of all is having a job.

What plans he has to improve the take-up of benefits for pensioners. [81281]

We have made good progress in our efforts to ensure that pensioners take up their entitlements, including the national advertising campaign for the minimum income guarantee, the shortened claim form and working closely with partner organisations that represent older people. We are equally committed to ensuring maximum take-up of pension credit.

Given the lack of information about the cost-effectiveness of different methods of encouraging take-up, how can the Minister be sure that her plans are the best use of resources? What plans does she have to make sure that in future we get better information about how cost-effective take-up campaigns are?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, will have studied carefully the recently published National Audit Office report. We welcome the report's findings, which include comments on better information and evaluation, but the important thing for us is to make sure that elderly people who have entitlements to additional benefits such as pension credit take them up. We have reorganised the Pension Service to be much more effective at ensuring that people take up their benefits and entitlements, so I am confident that there will be an improvement in the current level of take-up. The first test, of course, will be pension credit.

How long does my hon. Friend believe it will be before we have a system whereby, when pensioners make their claims through the Pension Service, they get their housing benefit and council tax benefit calculated at the same time? We want one-stop benefits for pensioners, so that they get all the benefits to which they are entitled.

My hon. Friend is right. It is often difficult and confusing for people to have to claim their entitlements from different bits of central and local government and to fill in different forms. The major IT infrastructure programmes that we have in the Department for Work and Pensions should enable us to join up a lot more of our own claims processes. Some of the improvements that we are making by cutting the size of claim forms and introducing trigger points to indicate entitlement are already coming through, but with housing benefit being administered by local authorities, it is difficult to ensure such joined-up local and central Government administration. We are doing our best to make progress as speedily as we can.

The Secretary of State said a moment ago that the Government had more to do to tackle pensioner poverty, and presumably that includes Scotland, where one in four of our pensioners still live in poverty. Is not the problem of take-up exacerbated by the massive extension of means-testing of benefits introduced by the new Labour Government?

The pension credit abolishes the weekly means test and targets money on those at the lower end of the income bracket by using a simplified five-yearly assessment process. I hope that the hon. Lady, along with other hon. Members, will encourage pensioners in her constituency to take that up, as it is an entitlement. We in the Department will do all that we can to ensure that, when pension credit comes in October 2003, there is maximum take-up.

What steps his Department is taking to support employment opportunities for adults with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [81286]

We are committed to improving employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities and set out our strategy for achieving that in the White Paper "Valuing People", which was published in March 2001. We are now working closely with key stakeholders to ensure that our active labour market programmes and policies reach as many people with learning disabilities as possible, and that they are delivered in ways that are responsive to their needs.

The Minister will be aware of the excellent work being done by the Shaw trust in supporting people with learning disabilities in getting into employment. Does she agree that constituencies such as mine, which has almost full employment, present a further opportunity? Will the work of her Department therefore be targeted on high-employment areas such as Reading?

We are just as keen to ensure that people with learning disabilities have employment opportunities in Reading as we are elsewhere. I congratulate the Shaw trust, whose work in that regard I know very well. We are keen to ensure that our specialist disability employment programmes, such as Workstep and the new deal for disabled people, also help people with learning difficulties. Such people experience some of the lowest levels of labour market participation. It is obvious that in Reading, where employers are looking for good employees, they should be looking to disabled people and those with learning difficulties, as they can make excellent employees.

What is the incidence of current employer non-compliance with the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Will the hon. Lady say something about the respects in which arid the degree to which the work of the Disability Rights Commission has improved the situation? Does she have any plans further to progress policy in advance of implementation of the terms of the antidiscrimination directive in 2006?

The hon. Gentleman asks three questions to which it would take me all day to reply. Given your strictures, Mr. Speaker, I shall be more brief. We know something about the number of inquiries that are made to the DRC about allegations of non-compliance. We do not collect information about the number of people who do not comply with the DDA, but we know that the problem is still widespread. The DRC offers advice and a helpline, and guidance is available. The Department undertakes awareness-raising to try to ensure that employers recognise their obligations and the business case and advantages in respect of employing disabled people. We hope that a combination of those policies will ensure that we can increase the participation of disabled people in the labour market. By October 2004, the small firms exemption to the DDA employment requirements will no longer apply, so we have big job to do to ensure that employers are aware of their obligations and to enable them to take advantage of the skills that disabled people have to offer.

What his targets are for the reduction of household poverty. [81287]

We recently published our fourth annual report on poverty, "Opportunity for All", which provides a detailed account of our strategy, measurement indicators and what more we need to do. The report shows that we have achieved a great deal and that our approach is working, and we will continue to deliver on this challenge over the years to come.

But has it yet dawned on the Government that if they continue to measure relative poverty and use a percentage of median wage as the poverty level, we will never be able to eliminate poverty? Yet as wages increase at a much greater rate than inflation, everyone is getting wealthier. Surely, there must be some more sensible way of measuring genuine poverty, so we will achieve our aims and not hear the sort of nonsense that was spouted earlier by the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing).

We want to consult on this matter, because the Government have a bold target of eradicating child poverty. Even on the difficult relative measure—it is difficult because we are trying to hit a moving target as a result of economic prosperity—500,000 fewer children are now in relative low-income households than in 1997. [Interruption.] Opposition Members would do well to listen. They increased child poverty, while this Government have reduced it.

There al e record numbers of homeless people in this country today. Would Ministers care to comment on the fact that homeless families with children have increased by 11 per cent. in the past four years? What are the Government doing about that shocking situation?

I do not accept that there are record numbers of homeless people, but I acknowledge that there is a housing problem, not least in the south-east. We are enabling more of those parents to get into jobs. That means that 250,000 fewer children are in workless households than when we took over from the Conservative Government. That is a double victory: an attack on child poverty and more of our children growing up with experience of an adult in work in their families.

Is my hon. Friend in consultation with the Chancellor to ensure that continuing reform of the benefits and taxation system means that people in employment gain significantly from their efforts?

It is absolutely vital when people take the difficult step from welfare dependency into work that we demonstrate that work pays financially. That is why the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit are so important. They have made work pay and meant an average weekly gain of £35. Our strategy is to make skilled work possible and to make it pay.

What assessment he has made of the most recent unemployment figures. [81288]

Economic stability and active labour market programmes have helped people move from welfare to work in all parts of the country. Consequently, unemployment has fallen to levels not experienced since the 1970s and has remained at those low levels for more than a year.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows about the dramatic fall in unemployment in constituencies such as the Rhondda since 1997. However, has he had an opportunity to consider the new survey that MORI conducted on behalf of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust into the attitudes of young people in former mining constituencies to employment? Has he noted that fewer than 1 per cent. of young people in such constituencies believed it likely that they would become company directors? What are the Government doing to ensure that young people in former mining constituencies increase their aspirations?

We need to increase and broaden people's aspirations. Proactive management of the labour market is therefore important. A first job is a stepping stone to a whole career. There is no reason why people from constituencies that traditionally relied on a single employment base such as mining and shipbuilding should not share in the rest of the country's aspirations.

The Minister will agree that unemployment, especially youth unemployment, was already falling before the Labour party came to power. Does he also agree that skills shortages are the problem in areas such as Vale of York? Who will conduct a skills audit to marry the skills that employers require to places that currently lack them?

The regional development agencies are considering skills needs region by region. I take the opportunity to praise Yorkshire Forward, which covers the hon. Lady's constituency. The RDAs have recently produced studies that cover the ground that she rightly mentioned.

What progress has the Jobcentre Plus initiative made?

How long have we got?

Exactly. The reply could keep us here until 3.30 pm. Jobcentre Plus is a flagship programme for the Department which has been established throughout the country. Its purpose is to bring together benefits advice and proactive labour market advice, and to help people to achieve the most that they can by getting them into work.

Does the Minister agree that it would be better for the Government to spend more time and resources in encouraging more young people to become apprentices in sonic of the trades that are suffering skills shortages instead of staying on at school to study inappropriate A-levels or even going on to university? Where are we going to get our future carpenters, plumbers, bricklayers and welders?

It is right to look at modern apprenticeships, and to make sure that we are addressing skills shortages in the economy. That is a matter that should be discussed on a regular basis between my Department and the Department for Education and Skills.

Over the last five years, unemployment in my constituency has fallen to below 2 per cent., but individual wards still have high levels of unemployment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still a need for programmes to promote employment and enterprise in such wards, even though they are within constituencies with low overall levels of unemployment?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have programmes in place to target specific pockets of high unemployment. There is a range of reasons for that high unemployment, which is why the schemes to tackle it are varied.

My right hon. Friend will be pleased, as I was, to know that the Whitby Gazette recently reported that unemployment in that fishing port is at an all-time low. Given the debate that we had last week on fisheries, what work will his Department do in the event of fisheries employment opportunities failing—we hope that that will not happen—because of the forthcoming threat being brought in by Europe?

Where there have been large numbers of redundancies in the fishing sector—and in other sectors—local jobcentres and Jobcentre Plus, where it is rolled out, stand ready to help. If a rapid response is required, it will be there.

If he will make a statement concerning the work of his Department in assisting the Selby coalfield taskforce. [81289]

Jobcentre Plus is a member of the Selby coalfield taskforce, and it is involved both on the ground and in the development of the taskforce action plan. An application for rapid response service help has been approved, and resources have been deployed at each of the four sites affected. Jobcentre Plus is working alongside other partners to provide information, advice and guidance to workers. Because of the special circumstances, workers in the Selby coalfield can benefit from early access to training and other support from the rapid response service.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given the anticipated scale of the redundancies in the Selby coalfield in late 2003 and early 2004–2,000 jobs lost from the mines directly, and 3,000 indirectly—will he confirm that he is prepared to waive the so-called 90-day rule, which limits the assistance given by the rapid response unit to those applying within 90 days of being made redundant?

My hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate of his constituents' interests. I can confirm that, given the very special circumstances in the area, I have acceded to Lord Haskins's request for the 90-day rule to be waived in respect of access to Government schemes.

If he will bring forward proposals to extend child care provision for those in work. [81294]

The Government's vision is for every parent to be able to access affordable, good-quality childcare, where they wish to have it.

One of the most difficult aspects of child care is the preferential provision that is given to in-place nurseries, rather than to people who work for smaller businesses, who want child care to improve their work capabilities. Is any action to be taken to assist those smaller businesses with financial support for the provision of child care?

The Government already have a good record of creating new child care places, having done so for an extra 1.6 million children. Along with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills, we are currently examining the best way of ensuring that both public and private sector provision is improved still further, to ensure that parents have the opportunity to get their children into nursery and pre-school places.

What discussions has the hon. Lady had with her colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about one of the principal impediments to the better supply of decent child care, namely the rigidity and inflexibility of our current planning procedures?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that Department is now two Departments. I cannot tell whether he wants me to talk to the Department for Transport or ask about local government. We are working across government to ensure that improvements are made in the availability of child care for all our children.