:If he will make a statement on the Child Support Agency reforms. [123519]

What plans he has to improve Child Support Agency procedures to recover arrears of maintenance owed by self-employed absent parents. [123525]

The new formula is clear, and has been well received by parents and staff. Performance on the new scheme is improving, with progress made in sorting out serious defects in its information technology, for which its suppliers are being penalised under the contract. We remain committed to getting average clearance by next April to six weeks, compared with more than 20 weeks under the old system. I am grateful for the efforts of CSA staff, including on enforcement, with compliance last year reaching 76 per cent. overall and 65 per cent. for the self-employed.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Any improvement is obviously to be welcomed, but does he accept that there is a fundamental flaw in the whole concept of the Child Support Agency? It was set up with the best of intentions, with all-party support, but surely the time has come to accept that the best reform would be the abolition of the CSA and the restoration of a family court system of payment.

I believe that there is a growing consensus on both sides of the House that we need a Child Support Agency—one that is able to do its job properly so that children and parents with care who need the money actually get it. That was not happening under the family court system, which is why the CSA was introduced in the first place. Everyone accepts that the old system was much too complicated, with more than 100 factors having to be taken into account in the assessment. The new system is simpler and will work better. We will raise the rates of compliance on cash and cases.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many absent parents who are self-employed are evading their responsibilities to the parent with care and to the Inland Revenue? I should like to draw attention to the case of Deirdre Hilder, one of my constituents, whose former partner was, according to the Inland Revenue, apparently earning only £2.40 a week. The chief executive of the CSA has told me that he intends to ask the Revenue to investigate the case more thoroughly.

I commend my hon. Friend's industry and energy on behalf of his constituents, but obviously I cannot comment on individual cases here. However, my right hon. and noble Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibility for the CSA and I will be pleased to discuss individual cases further, where appropriate. I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says about the importance of improving compliance and enforcement, especially in relation to the self-employed. As I said in my initial answer, we have raised compliance for the self-employed to 65 per cent., and more resources are being put into enforcement. In the past couple of years, collection went up by £19 million and £44 million respectively. Stronger guidance has been given to staff, extensive use is made of Inland Revenue and other records, and arrears cases are being referred to specialist enforcement teams more quickly. I hope that that will help to address the performance issues that my hon. Friend has raised.

:I have corresponded about a constituent, a postman on a modest income. Under the old system, he pays about 50 per cent. of his disposable income in CSA payments for his responsibility in respect of one child. The response from the Department is that he will not be reassessed under the new system for at least two years. This man is in danger of losing his home because of accumulated debts. Could the Secretary of State arrange for people making payments under the existing system to be fast tracked in cases of hardship and debt?

I cannot give that assurance and I do not believe that it would be fair to pick out cases for changing over to the new system on a faster track. We have made it clear that we cannot move over to the new system for existing cases until we are absolutely sure that it is working properly, and that remains the case. I extend to the hon. Lady the same offer that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards)—for the Under-Secretary and I to meet to discuss individual cases. However, it seems that the individual case that she raises has already been thoroughly gone into. The hon. Lady is right that the new system, with its simpler formula, will be more readily accepted by parents who have to meet their payment responsibilities as well as by parents with care.

I hope my right hon. Friend will not take the advice of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) to scrap the CSA, because the new system will be much simpler, fairer and quicker. However, I was dismayed to discover, when the CSA gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee last week, that the new IT system still faces major delays and problems. That inevitably means that existing cases will take longer to move to the new system, as my right hon. Friend has already said. I am looking for his assurance that he will do everything in his power to improve matters, including ensuring that EDS—Electronic Data Systems—which is responsible for the IT failures, is surcharged or otherwise held to account for its failure to have the system up and running as quickly as it should have been.

I welcome my hon. Friend's positive remarks and share her commitment to ensuring that the new system works as effectively as it should as quickly as possible. I confirm that under the terms of the contract, EDS is penalised for non-delivery and poor service performance. I cannot go into the figures, but I assure my hon. Friend that the penalties involved are significant, both in absolute financial terms and in percentage terms. EDS has changed its senior management with responsibility for the project, and that has resulted in a better working relationship. Our senior officials are doing everything that they can, with EDS, to get the system working properly, and I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the system will be managed closely.

I am sure that we all agree that we would like to see the CSA working effectively. Last week, its chief executive said that the situation with the new computer system was only slightly better than the worst-case position. A range of technical problems in the past few weeks have reduced productivity by up to 30 per cent. and the Public and Commercial Services Union has said that the system is so bad that it prevents CSA staff from performing their jobs properly. What are the implications of all those problems for CSA customers? Will the existing cases be put off even further into the future? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance about when the information technology at the CSA will be working satisfactorily?

Like the whole House, I want to see the system working properly as soon as possible. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), every step—including improving the management and invoking the penalty clauses—is being taken to lever up performance. Notwithstanding the shortfalls in performance, which are acknowledged and for which EDS accepts it has technical responsibility, the system is improving. More than 1,000 cases a week are being cleared and I shall shortly report further performance details to the House, from which the hon. Gentleman will be able to draw further conclusions.

The question that my right hon. Friend has just answered is very similar to the one that I was about to ask, so I shall just ask him whether he is aware of the extra stress that the system's failure to comply with contract is placing on the work force?

Yes, I am. The technical defects, including the system going down or disappearing for periods, introduce into day-to-day working elements of unpredictability that have been difficult for staff to cope with. As I said earlier, I am grateful for the efforts made by the staff, but progress is being made and improvements in operations are being achieved notwithstanding the technical defects in the system. Further training is being provided to assist the staff in coping with the challenges.

How many pensioners will be in receipt of means-tested benefits as a result of the introduction of the pension credit by 2004–05. [123520]

The planning assumption is that around 3 million pensioner households will be receiving pension credit by 2006. Pensioners who qualify will be on average £400 a year better off, without the need for a weekly means test. We also expect an additional 250,000 pensioners to become newly entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit from October as a result of the improved income and savings rules in pension credit.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the means-testing strategy on which the Government have embarked, with the best of intentions, is not sustainable?

No, because we are replacing a regime where savings were penalised by pound-for-pound withdrawal with one where savings and modest occupational pensions are rewarded.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the pension credit will in fact help many people with modest savings or a modest second income who were barred from additional help in the past? It will be a welcome boost to that group. Will he also confirm that publicity and preparations for the scheme are well under way and that people who do not receive the credit until October 2004 will have it backdated to the start date? I understand that that is one of the provisions of the scheme.

My hon. Friend is right on all counts. There is, as he says, a big improvement, in that the £12,000 ceiling on savings is being removed and savings below £6,000 are being disregarded. That gives much greater reward to people with modest levels of saving and occupational pension income, and is an incentive to save in the future.

The Secretary of State has just said that he expects 3 million pensioners to be receiving the pension credit in 2006. Will he confirm that 5.1 million pensioners will be eligible in 2006? If so, he will have just admitted that 2 million pensioners will not be receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Will he admit that take-up of means-tested benefits is low and that one reason for that is the stigma still attached to them?

I think that, in his question, the hon. Gentleman may be confusing pensioners and pensioner households, but I shall examine the figures that he mentioned. If he wants to know the equivalent take-up rate for the 3 million planning assumption, it is 73 per cent. However, I stress that we want pension credit to go to all those who are entitled to it, which is why we are writing to all pensioners and why we shall be mounting an extensive publicity campaign later this year.

Does the Secretary of State agree with a report that states

"take up of some means tested fiscal measures remains low …partly due to the stigma still attached"

No, I think that if anything promotes and entrenches wholly outdated and wrong concepts of stigma it is the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party, who keep talking about the take-up of these entitlements as though they were a stigma. Those people were awfully stigmatised by the previous Conservative Government. The introduction of the Pension Service and the fact that pensioners will receive their money from the Pension Service and not from social security is a big step forward in tackling stigma. Making it easy for people to receive their entitlement, as we are doing, removes barriers and reminds people that it is their right and not something that they are being given as a favour—the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that it is.

The Government have made much of the fact that under the pension credit a pensioner has to contact the Pension Service only once every five years. Can the Secretary of State clarify the position of a typical pensioner with a basic pension and a company pension who receives the pension credit in year one? In year two, what does the scheme assume has happened to the company pension? If it assumes that the pension has risen when it has not, there is risk of an error, and if it is assumes that it has not risen when it has, there is risk of an error—or does the person have to phone and report the change in circumstances?

People can take advice from the Pension Service on those matters at any time, if they want to do so. The way the system operates means that they do not have to be reassessed for five years unless there has been a significant and material change. It does not sound as though the hon. Gentleman was putting to me a significant or material change.

In the light of recently highlighted problems about the take-up of means-tested benefits by pensioners in Scotland, and as many pensioners unfortunately do not receive their entitlements, can the Secretary of State tell us whether a specific take-up target will be set for Scotland for the new pension credit?

All regions and Scotland and Wales will be trying to get as many people as possible to take up pension credit. Of course, there will be extensive publicity in Scotland and through the Scottish media, as well as the work being undertaken by the Pension Service, including the local pension service. I went out with the local pension service in Scotland, visiting pensioners in a sheltered housing scheme, so I could see just how much help those people gave pensioners and how readily it was received. I am confident that such efforts from our first-rate staff will increase take-up in Scotland, as elsewhere.

What the current level of the basic state pension would be for a couple if the system used for uprating from 1980 to 1997 had been continued. [123521]

The basic state pension for a couple would have been £440 less this year if we had stuck to the pre-1997 formula—£115.30 a week, rather than £123.80. We have guaranteed that, for the remainder of this Parliament, we will increase the basic state pension by 2.5 per cent. or the September retail prices index, whichever is higher. So pensioners will continue to do better under our Government that they did under the Conservative party.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does it not prove that the various non-means-tested increases that the Government have introduced since 1997 have given pensioners a fair deal—the increases have been at least equivalent to the level that would have existed had the link between pensions and earnings been restored. Is not that a wonderful example? Are not the Government entitled to give themselves a slap on the back for being far fairer with pensioners than what happened during the 17 years of effective cuts, every year, by the mean-spirited, tight-fisted Tories?

Yes, and the lesson that the public must learn is: never let them take it away.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recent Government response to the Green Paper is the Government's last word on uprating and other matters for the foreseeable future? Does he acknowledge the continuing concern about the relationship between the current architecture of state pensions provision and the private sector, particularly in regard to the possible disincentives to save? Will he consider extending Mr. Adair Turner's remit in the pension commission, so that he may continue to study that important problem?

Of course I studied carefully and responded to the very helpful report of the hon. Gentleman's Select Committee on those matters, including the suggestion that there ought to be more research about the interaction between the structure of the state system and levels of private and occupational pension saving, which, as he will know, is by no means a simple and straightforward matter. The terms of reference of Adair Turner's commission are very clear; they have been reported to Parliament, and I do not intend to change them, but they include provision for the commission to examine the effects of the state structure on private and occupational pension saving, so far as they are relevant.

What action he is taking to ensure that jobcentres advise customers that benefits can still be collected in cash at their local post office. [123523]

The Department is writing to most Jobcentre Plus customers affected by the changes in the way that state and war pensions and benefits are paid. A personal letter and leaflet will let them know about the change to direct payment and will give them the facts that they need to make an informed choice about which account option is most appropriate for them. New customers will have the options explained at the point of claim and, as jobseekers regularly contact our Jobcentre Plus offices as part of normal business, those occasions will be used as an opportunity to discuss direct payments.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Wrexham jobcentre has issued local information to customers, stating that they can have their benefits paid directly into private bank accounts but not saying that those benefits could be paid into Post Office card accounts? Will the Department please institute an instruction that jobcentres should advise all customers that they can have their benefits paid into Post Office card accounts?

I was aware of the historical position that my hon. Friend reminds the House of—indeed, I am as pleased as he is that the position has now been resolved—as he wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions some months ago, can assure my hon. Friend that all Department for Work and Pensions staff who deal with customers have received appropriate training about direct payments that highlights to staff the options available, including that of making payments into Post Office card accounts, which can be collected from their Post Office branch.

The Minister will know that about one in four of the 2.8 million people who have been contacted so far about transferring to direct payment have failed to respond— almost 750,000, according to the Department's figures. Problems with changes in the benefits system are not unusual, but the question arises: what happens in 2005 if there are still hundreds of thousands of customers who have simply not told the Government whether they want their pensions and benefits paid into a bank account or a Post Office card account because they have simply not responded? At questions last month, the Secretary of State pledged that all those who wanted to access their cash at the post office could do so. Will the Minister therefore tell the House exactly what failsafe system will be in place to ensure that this pledge is met in all such cases?

The hon. Gentleman is turning scaremongering into an art form in relation to the payment of benefits and pensions. He is well aware, as he points out in the preamble to his question, that changes of this nature take some time to follow through. In our view, there is sufficient time to achieve the objectives that have been set. For those who are unable to collect their benefits in the fashion offered by direct payment, an exceptions system will be available, as he is aware.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment and wish him well with his new responsibilities. He will find in the modernisation of the working-age services provided by the Department great opportunities to help those who need our help the most. He will also find that there are great opportunities merely to deliver the services that we provide more efficiently. Can he tell us something about the impact of modernisation on the Department's fraud targets?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his characteristically generous remarks in welcoming me to my new position. He has served this Government and the people of the United Kingdom with great distinction in a number of key posts in Government and has considerably more to offer. I thank him for the inheritance that I received from him—not only the work that he did in relation to the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus but the significant work that he did in the creation and maintaining of the best labour force market statistics that this country has ever had.

If he will make a statement on the performance of the Pension Service, with special reference to the speed of dealing with cases. [123526]

The new Pension Service is committed to providing the best possible service to its customers. However, I am of course aware of particular difficulties relating to staffing in the Norwich pension centre, and that pensioners in the east of England are not receiving an acceptable level of service. That is not good enough, and I apologise to those affected. The regional team has developed a recovery plan, which I have discussed with the Pension Service chief executive. This plan will improve processes and increase the number of trained staff to deal with the work load over the coming weeks.

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what the situation is like at the Norwich regional office. Many pensioners are becoming desperate while they wait weeks on end for their claims to be processed. What confidence can we have about the introduction of the pension credit later this year, given the current debacle in local pensions offices, and given what happened with the introduction of the child tax credit earlier this year?

We have special centres dealing with pension credit applications. With regard to the Norwich pension centre, which I visited in the early days of my career as a Pensions Minister a week or so ago, more staff are being recruited. A further 11 front-line telephone agents joined the centre this week, and last week a further 80 were recruited and are now undergoing training. I am keeping under close attention the situation in Norwich and have apologised to constituents for the poor service. I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit the centre and see for himself what improvements are taking place.

I, too, have received a number of complaints from pensioners in my constituency about the length of time taken and the process involved when applying for several of the benefits. However, they are vastly outnumbered by the pensioners in my constituency who are materially better off thanks to some of the benefits introduced by the Government, notably the minimum income guarantee. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that criticism of the process will not divert the Government from their main task of materially improving the quality of life of the vast majority of pensioners in the United Kingdom?

I thank my hon. Friend, not least for acknowledging the hard work of the very good staff in the Pension Service. When there are problems, we will acknowledge them, but we are moving in the right direction. The service is new and there are many new buildings, as is the case in Norwich, and new staff have been trained. The objective is clear: we want to offer more support for many of the poorest pensioners in our community. That is why pension credit is so important, not least to elderly women, who tend to be poorer than men. Indeed, two thirds of those benefiting from pension credit are women.

The Minister will know that the script used by members of the Pension Service mentions the Post Office card account very much as the last option available. Will he reassure the House that when Pension Service members talk to the public, they will mention the Post Office card account on an equal basis with other means available? If he does not do that, suspicions will persist that the Government do not favour that type of account.

In all our literature—I am happy to look it at with the hon. Gentleman because I take the matter seriously—and the script used by our colleagues in the centres, the Post Office card account is given prominence alongside other options. Significant numbers of people, not least pensioners, are asking for the Post Office card account—about half those pensioners are asking for that account. That is fine because it meets the pledge that those who want to continue to go to the post office to get their pension will be able to do so, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case.

Does the Minister accept that on Friday, a post office in Nottingham, North received the first ever urban post office grant in order to keep it open? The subsidy is worth about £50,000 and we are very grateful. However, the postmaster told me that he needed the subsidy because when pensioners in the area phone the Minister's Department, the Pension Service or the Inland Revenue, they are often told that they should open a bank account but not told to use their local post office. Will he ensure that there is joined-up thinking so that some Departments do not encourage people to withdraw from post offices while others subsidise post offices so that they may be kept open?

We have to lay out the options to people honestly and fairly. If anything ever goes wrong with that, we will investigate it seriously because that is important. Large numbers of people are asking for the Post Office card account, which is important for the Post Office because if we are to save our post office networks—both rural and urban—post offices must become modern banking centres for the Post Office card account and, increasingly, a place where customers of other banks and building societies may get their money out. That will add to the economic value of post offices in the future.

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his recent promotion to Minister of State? Given the Secretary of State's description of the Department's computer systems as "very decrepit", what steps is he taking to ensure that the introduction of pension credit does not degenerate into the sort of fiasco that we are witnessing on tax credits and the Child Support Agency?

I thank the hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his post. I look forward to his recovery—although we might have verbal brawls, we have not been involved in anything more serious.

What plans he has to change the medical criteria used to decide disablement awards for (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and if he will make a statement. [123527]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's great expertise in this field and compliment him on his continuing efforts on behalf of his constituents who have acquired industrial disease and injury while in the mining industry.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and am encouraged by the referral of vibration white finger to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. However, I encourage her to refer COPD—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—to the council, too. She will be aware that both diseases are prescribed diseases and that there are two systems of examination—one for compensation and one for state benefit. People become confused when they are awarded compensation but denied state benefit. If she were prepared to make the change, it would set the basis for persuading the Department of Trade and Industry to introduce a no-fault liability scheme at the end of the tort scheme for COPD, which concludes on 31 March next year.

I always take a great deal of notice of what my hon. Friend says on the subject, because his interest in it and expertise are well known. He will know that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council reconsidered the lung function test in 1999. He will also know that the social security lung function test is, in many ways, more generous than the test operated by the DTI. I understand where he is coming from, but he must be aware that the two schemes—the DTI tort scheme and the scheme that we run—are different. One is based on an individual personal injury claim going through the court. The other is a much more general collectivist scheme that is based on simpler and different tests, with different hurdles. Although I will consider what my hon. Friend suggests, I cannot promise to do as he says.

Do the Government have any intention of extending disablement awards to former slate quarry workers? The Minister will know that slate quarrymen are already covered by the 1979 Act as far as dust is concerned, but surely there is a very strong case for extending those benefits to the few elderly men and widows who are left after the closure of the north Wales slate industry.

I am happy to consider that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirement that one has to work for 20 years underground to obtain the benefit, but I will be happy to consider any evidence that he brings to me to convince me otherwise. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), I will listen, but I do not undertake to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

While it is right that the medical criteria for compensation and disablement benefits are constantly reviewed, can the Minister assure the House that those who do not meet the medical criteria do not receive a double whammy in the sense that they are then discriminated against when seeking work? What role does she see for the Disability Rights Commission? Is there a need to enhance that role?

My hon. Friend will be well aware that my Department has just undertaken a major push to assist more disabled to get back into work. We hope that that will involve all kinds of people, whether they have had disabilities from an early age or have become disabled because of industrial injuries or disease, for example. We aim to ensure that we reduce the number of people on sickness and incapacity benefit by ending discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that we help those people overcome the barriers that they face in returning to the workplace?

What responses he has received to the pathways to work consultation. [123528]

The Green Paper "Pathways to Work" set out a strategy for enabling people on incapacity benefits to move into work. Our response to the consultation, published on 10 June, gives details of the responses that we received, together with our plans for implementing the pilots.

I thank the Minister for that answer. She is no doubt encouraged, as I am, by the excellent work that Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff have already done in piloting many of the new initiatives designed to assist people back into work. Will she assure me that that will benefit those who have been struggling to get back to work for many years, because that is what We should focus on? I am sure that she will have read the report of the recent Adjournment debate on economic inactivity in Westminster Hall.

My hon. Friend can be assured that I read his remarks in his debate, and naturally I agreed with all of them. I make it clear that anybody in his constituency, whether they have just come on to incapacity benefit or have been claiming it for many years, will be able to take advantage of the pilot scheme. Although it is aimed at those who are just coming on to incapacity benefit, any existing claimant who wants to take part can volunteer and will be welcome.

As I pass from the not inconsiderable pleasure of shadowing the hon. Lady into the shadows, on this subject at least, may I ask her to fight firmly to root out any dualism in the system? The disability employment service is on target to place people, so it tends to place the easier cases and offload some of the harder ones on to the not-for-profit sector. In particular, will she remember that the situation of anybody who is incapacitated is by definition unique, in terms of both their disability and their economic situation and motivation? Will she ensure that the pilot scheme and, as she introduces it, the national scheme, are genuinely sensitive to the needs of the individual and their wish, and obligation, to get back to work if possible?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has shadowed me. He has graduated to higher education, and its gain will be our loss, although I am sure that his replacement will make every effort to follow in his footsteps.

What steps he is taking to publicise the pension credit. [123529]

We began writing to pensioner households in April to explain the pension credit and invite advance applications. In addition, the 1.8 million people who receive the minimum income guarantee have been advised that they will be transferred automatically to the pension credit. Regional and national television and press advertising begins in September. We are also working at national and local level with organisations such as Age Concern to spread the good news about the pension credit.

Given that the figures apparently show that nearly 3 million people will not have an automatic entitlement but will have to ask for their pension credit from October, why is it that many people will be written to after October and, indeed, up to next summer? Is it not the case that up to 70,000 people may die before they claim their entitlement? Will Ministers review the timetable and make sure that everybody is written to before the date on which they become entitled to the money?

I hope that the House will appreciate that it is logistically impossible to write to the whole pensioner population within a few weeks or even months. We are staffing up the centres and the telephone service as best we can, and we must perform the task in the right way. The pension credit comes into force in October, and people can apply then, but we will steadily write to people. The Liberal Democrats' cynicism about what happens when people die is not worthy of the party. I wish that Liberal Democrat Members would start to be positive in debates and not always be thinking of next weekend's press release.

Does my hon. Friend agree that welfare rights organisations such as citizens advice bureaux and local authority advice services have an important role to play in drawing pensioners' attention to their rights to benefits and in ensuring that they are calculated correctly? Will he ensure that such organisations are adequately funded? If one of his pensioner constituents came to his surgery with details of their income, would he be able to calculate for them exactly what pension credit they are entitled to?

As a former Minister for Lifelong Learning, I would certainly have a go. Despite being typecast as old-fashioned, stigmatising means-testing, the pension credit can be applied for over the telephone. One of our staff fills in the application, simply asking the pensioner to verify it. Minor changes of circumstances over a five-year period do not have to be reported. This is a new approach to targeting help on some of those who need it most. I hope that all Members of Parliament, who have thousands of people in their constituencies who can apply, will get behind it. We must make sure that we push take-up to as close as possible to 100 per cent. in due course.

The Minister talks about targeting, but does he accept that the combination of the minimum income guarantee and pension credit will increase the number of people on means-testing and reduce the number who are encouraged to save over the years? Does he accept that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows a great deal about the matter and has made that point?

As I am trying to argue, pension credit is not the old weekly means test. The problem with the system that we inherited from the Conservative Government was that it penalised savings. People with a small occupational pension and savings in the Post Office had money knocked off, pound for pound, from their minimum income guarantee on income support. That was wrong. We want to encourage savings, and pension credit will do so.

I congratulate the Minister on his well-deserved promotion to his new role. Does he agree that the mind-boggling complexity of pension credit makes it difficult to publicise and undermines the savings culture? If he disagrees with me, could he explain, in the brief time that Mr. Speaker will allow, how to calculate the entitlement to pension credit for someone on low earnings?

We are already receiving a number of good reports from pensioners whom the Pension Service has written to and who have understood the leaflet and are applying for pension credit. The idea of being able to apply for it over the phone, when not the pensioner herself, but one of our staff expert in the matter calculates the entitlement, is a major advance. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and ask him to concede that the new system is an advance on the position under a previous Secretary of State.

What representations he has received in the past month on the arrangements under which jobseeker's allowance payments can be suspended. [123530]

The Department receives regular representations from members of the public and Members of the House on individual cases where jobseeker's allowance has been suspended or, more often, sanctioned. Those cases are dealt with on an individual basis, having regard to the circumstances of each case.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. He did a fine job in the Northern Ireland Office and I sure that that work will continue in his present post. Is he aware that the labour market statistics on adjudication officers' decisions on jobseeker's allowance for 2002 show that there were 670,000 cases, in 49 per cent. of which benefits were reduced for different ranges and varying periods? Is that not an excessive number of cases, extremely time-consuming and of concern to everybody involved in the procedures? Would it not be better to tackle unemployment by creating fresh job opportunities, rather than pressurising those in vulnerable circumstances to ensure that they take every last opportunity available?

I am aware of particular statistics, as my hon. Friend knows, having brought them to my attention a short time after I became a Minister in the Department. I thank him for his kind remarks. May I reciprocate by reminding the House of his enviable reputation, particularly on campaigning for the unemployed and those who live in poverty? Consequently, I am sure that he is pleased about another statistic—a 46 per cent. reduction in the unemployment claimant count in his constituency since this Government came to power. The fact is that that did not happen on its own. It happened partly because of the target regime of jobcentres and Jobcentre Plus. There are no staff targets about increasing the number of people who are sanctioned or suspended. The only targets that those who work in Jobcentre Plus have in this area are those based on success in finding work. I am sure that he shares that aim.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reaching his new position. He and his Department are aware of the fact that Brandon's turkey factory in Dalton industrial estate in Vale of York has closed, with the loss of some 300 jobs. A large proportion of those jobs were held by agency workers. In what circumstances are those people eligible for jobseeker's allowance? Can he try to ensure that Jobcentre Plus is engaged at an earlier stage, before receivership is announced in a factory?

As I pointed out, Jobcentre Plus and jobcentres deal with individuals as individuals. Of course, there are benefits and support that all workers who are made redundant and lose their jobs, whether they were held with agencies or directly with the employer, can, do and have received from Jobcentre Plus. Indeed, a fine example is what happened at MG Rover, which I recently visited with Jobcentre Plus staff from Birmingham. There are no more experienced people for helping just the sort of constituents to whom the hon. Lady refers. If I can be of any direct assistance to those constituents, I shall be happy to oblige.

If he will take steps to compensate deferred pensioners in final salary occupational pension schemes that are in the process of being wound up where the fund will not meet its obligations. [123532]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to my hon. Friend when they met last week, we are very sympathetic to the plight of his constituents and others in a similar position. Indeed, it is because of such cases that we are strengthening member protection and introducing a pensions protection fund. However, as we have made clear, while we will listen to constructive proposals, we do not want to give false hope.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome him to his post and pay tribute to his predecessor, who also listened carefully to concerns about the issue that I have raised. Does he understand how ex-workers of Allied Steel and Wire feel, especially those who entered the steel industry when it was a nationalised industry and, as part of their conditions of employment, joined an occupational final salary pension scheme, paid into it for 40 years and found, months short of retirement, that it would be worth a fraction of what they had reasonably anticipated? Does he understand that those pensioners look to a Labour Government and the Minister for Pensions in that Government to turn the slogan of fairness and security in retirement into a reality?

I can understand that situation. These are groups of workers who have done absolutely the right and responsible thing in being part of the schemes, but who have suddenly been affected by a catastrophe. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and others in the House who are campaigning on the issue. I am afraid that I must repeat, however, that it would be wrong for Ministers to raise false hopes about a solution. We are clear that, for the future, we can legislate with the protection fund to insure against the occurrence of such a serious social accident. We are listening to ideas, but that is all I can say. It would be very wrong if Ministers made comments in the House that raised hopes that may not be realised

The Minister will have realised from the question asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that the pensions crisis is biting deep for many hundreds of thousands of people. There is particular disappointment about the ministerial announcement on the crisis last month, about which the victims of funded pensions were very concerned. While I perfectly understand that it is right not to hold out false hope, surely the question of compensation must be seriously addressed in respect of this very serious matter.

I share that concern, which I suspect is widespread in this House, but who would pay for that compensation; and if it is retrospective, how far back does one go? Those are difficult issues. The main task of Government is to ensure that such situations do not occur in future. I mentioned the pension protection fund. We are also going to require solvent employers who choose to wind up their pension schemes to meet their pension promise in full through a full buy-out. That is important. I can only repeat that whenever the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raise the issue, we will listen to any constructive proposals.

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new brief and look forward to seeing how he develops it. He rightly said that the Government are much concerned about the hundreds of thousands of our constituents who have lost all or part of their pensions. As part of that urgency to find the right solution, will the Government back the Pensions (Winding Up) Bill on Friday, or will they block it again?

It is important that we legislate where we can. I have referred to two major items among our own future pension legislation. Most of the key ideas in my right hon. Friend's Bill will be covered in the Government strategy; that is the best way to take the matter forward.

I find myself in alarming agreement with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) in underlining the simple fact that there is a great difference between an inability to meet a commitment and a patent unwillingness to do so. Can I implore the Minister, in a cross-party spirit, to underline at every turn the Government's intention to compel those who can pay to do so? It is unacceptable that large companies should deprive people of legitimate entitlements that were built up over a long period, and on the strength of which their expectations for their retirement are based.

Where there are existing laws and regulations, that is absolutely right, and our officials in the Department give that kind of advice in such circumstances. However, existing law does not cover every circumstance. That is why it is important that we legislate for the future.

Returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), I have in my constituency ASW Sheerness, from which people were made redundant a year ago. What investigations is the Department undertaking as to whether orphan funds are an appropriate way to satisfy the current deficits? Has the Minister considered an insurance that is retrospective? What would be the costs of an insurance that was taken forward, while the backward part was in deficit? I hope that I made that clear.

I repeat that we will seriously consider any proposals and are talking to hon. Members and other representatives. As regards orphan funds, that suggestion has been made, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—

Unclaimed assets.

Order.

Another issue is that of unclaimed assets. However, there is no automatic connection between some of those funds and the pension crisis that we face. Many others who are facing past injustice could make legitimate claims. I have to repeat—we mean it seriously—that we will look at constructive proposals. It would be very wrong, however, if we made commitments in this House that we could not fulfil.

How many benefit recipients have applied for (a) a Post Office card account and (b) a basic bank account. [123539]

As of 27 June 2003, 450,000 customers have requested a Post Office card account. Almost 2 million customers have provided their bank account details. We do not differentiate between basic and current accounts when collecting account details from customers. I am today placing in the Library the latest key figures on progress towards conversion to direct payment.

I think that it was before the hon. Gentleman took up his post that we had a debate on this issue during which the Minister for Pensions specifically stated that people were not being harassed into taking a basic bank account or having their payments made into their current card account. The very next day, I got a letter from a constituent who said, "I am 83 years old and I am being harassed not to take a Post Office card account." Will the Under-Secretary ensure that people have genuine choice, are allowed to have a Post Office card account if they wish, and are not compelled to have some other form of automated credit transfer payment?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, 450,000 people have taken Post Office card accounts up. Half of all pensioners have already applied for one, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions said a few moments ago. We are giving people genuine choices between a Post Office card account and a clearing bank account or a basic bank account. I shall be happy to consider the case that he suggests, but we want to ensure that people receive payment at the post office and on a weekly basis, if they wish. We are giving people genuine choices.