If he will make a statement on the future of the new deal programme. [146781]

The new deals have helped cut long-term unemployment by three quarters and guided nearly 1 million people into work, including 1,180 in my hon. Friend's constituency. We will build on the success of the new deals so that those who are unemployed or economically inactive receive the help that they need to get into a job, which will help Britain to achieve full employment in every region.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to develop the new deal programme, especially for lone parents and older people? In North Yorkshire, it has become the mark of a civilised society, helping to find jobs for almost all the county's long-term unemployed youth, many of whom previously thought that they had few prospects and little contribution to make.

Indeed we shall develop the new deal. As my hon. Friend says, it is the mark of a civilised society, not only in North Yorkshire, where it has helped nearly 9,000 people into work, but throughout Great Britain. For the future, we need to ensure that it works even more effectively. We are therefore examining how we can introduce more consistent criteria for entry across different groups, more flexibility and responsiveness to the varying needs of individuals, and even closer partnership with the private and voluntary sectors locally, as well as introducing a new deal for skills by investing in employability and working closely with Business Link and the Learning and Skills Council.

If the Secretary of State is right when he says that the new deal for young people has been such a success, why has the number of economically inactive young people—those who are neither working nor studying—risen in the five years since it was introduced?

Our contention is that all the new deals have been a success. All those young people helped into jobs had wasted lives under the disastrous policies of the Conservatives, and to abandon the new deal would damage the lives of people who need help, harm the economy and bring back all the social ills of mass unemployment that the new deals and this Government's policies for economic stability have put behind us. The Conservatives should support those measures, including those to help inactive younger—and older—people.

I warmly welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend. He will no doubt be aware that 920 people in my constituency would be unemployed without the new deal. Is not the Tories' suggestion of scrapping the new deal a kick in the teeth for young people, lone parents and disabled people, and should not that policy be given that verdict in the strongest possible terms at every opportunity?

Any proposal to abandon the new deal would be disastrous, not only for my hon. Friend's constituents but for the whole of our society. The programme has brought real benefits to individuals and to whole communities, so that we can put behind us the culture of hopelessness and welfare dependency that the Conservatives did so much to deepen—and as they would do again.

I tabled a question on this issue last month and was told that the figures were available from the Library. I now have the figures and, from the inception of the new deal to September 2003, start-ups numbered 926,190. Of those, only 328,140 ended up in unsubsidised, sustained employment. How can the Secretary of State justify the new deal on those figures?

The hon. Lady belittles the considerable success that the figures that she quoted reveal. Of course, the programme has a wider and more enduring impact, including on those people who start a job and then leave it. The evidence shows that they are subsequently more likely to take another job. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research showed that the new deal saves the country £500 million a year in benefits to the economy and that the new deal for young people saves the Exchequer £40 million a year. As well as the human costs that the hon. Lady and her party would impose, their policies would have an economic cost for the country.

If he will establish a public inquiry to assess the overall debts in occupational pension schemes; and if he will make a statement. [146782]

I am, of course, listening to the case made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are campaigning energetically on behalf of their constituents. At present, however, I am not persuaded that a public inquiry would add to the extensive consultation on occupational pensions that has already been undertaken, including meeting those people affected by insolvent wind-up. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are carefully considering the plight of those affected, while taking care not to raise false hope. We are taking action for the future by introducing new measures, such as the pension protection fund, to ensure that a pension promise made is a pension promise honoured.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I must tell him that more than 120 Members have between 60,000 and 80,000 constituents whose occupational pensions are currently in deficit or in administration and, if we are not to have a public inquiry to find out the exact debt, how else are we to proceed? That is how we proceeded with the miners and the asbestos workers; that is how we do these things. Please, will my right hon. Friend think again?

As I said, I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend and others campaigning on the issue are saying. We are dealing with formidable and complex issues: how to differentiate those who might be eligible for help and those who are not; whether it is right to use the money of taxpayers, many of whom are not in occupational pension schemes, to help some who have lost out due to savings and occupational pension failures, but not others; the risk of raising expectations that the taxpayer is the ultimate guarantor of private pension and savings arrangements; and prejudging the outcome of legal action that has already been taken by some of those affected. Notwithstanding all that, we are looking at the issue carefully and I believe that to continue meeting those who are affected, including hon. Members, is the best way to proceed and, of course, the pensions Bill will be introduced.

Is not the reality that the pensions industry is so finely balanced financially, despite the welcome recovery in the stock market, that there is a danger that the pension protection that the Government have in mind will take away assets from existing viable schemes and damage their viability without meeting the obligations of schemes that are, sadly, already insolvent?

No, I do not accept that. By setting up arrangements that are a building block for greater security for the future, we are taking one step to rebuild confidence in pensions; there are a number of others that we need to take, and are taking. Without the same basis of insurance that operates everywhere else, we should be condemned—more important, workers in this country would be condemned—to repeat the awful experience at Allied Steel and Wire and of the other workers who have seen their schemes go under, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) was talking about.

I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning ASW. Is he aware that early-day motion 200, in my name, has already attracted 180—as they say in darts—signatures? I am sure that, as more and more Members become aware of the motion, more and more of them will sign it, so is not it time for him to consider freezing all pension scheme wind-ups and requiring that those funds are used to pay pensions as they fall due, prior to the institution of a compensation scheme?

I am not convinced that the course of action that my hon. Friend recommends is the right one. There is extensive concern, not merely in the House but throughout the country, especially among those suffering the awful anxiety of not knowing how they are to obtain their pension. My Department, my ministerial colleagues and I realise that there is an important responsibility, which is why we are looking at the matter very carefully indeed. However, it is only right that on each occasion that it is raised I point out that until or unless we can see a solution it would be wrong to raise false hope. We must all be able to look those workers in the eye so that they know that we have been honest with them all the way through.

The Secretary of State says that he is not raising false hope, but he is raising no hope at all for anyone. Those people have lost all their savings; their pensions have been lost, as companies have had to wind up insolvent schemes. Does he accept that he has made the problems worse through his policies of taxing pensions, cutting the value of the minimum funding requirement twice and providing no legislation for compensation? Does he understand that that is why so many people who have lost everything in this crisis are so angry with him? Why will he not at least do as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) requested and hold an inquiry so that we can establish the scale of the crisis and the cost of any measures necessary to tackle it?

If I had proposed an inquiry today, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would attack me for kicking the issue into the long grass rather than taking action. I do not accept his assertion that the tax changes or the other steps that the Government have taken have made the situation worse. Responsibility for any failure in the legal or regulatory environment affecting such schemes lies with those who drafted and produced the Pensions Act 1995, and he should own up to that. Moreover, he attacked the abolition of the dividend tax credit. The Conservative party do not propose to reinstate it. Although he has indicated—I am grateful to him for this—that there could be a basis for all-party support for taking action, as have the Liberal Democrats, we have seen no specific proposals from him that would present an alternative to the course that the Government are pursuing.

The Government have cut the value of the minimum funding requirement twice, first by 10 per cent. and then by 8 per cent. The Secretary of State talked about kicking the ball into the long grass. Is he aware that the Government produced "Strengthening the Pensions Framework: a Consultation Document" in December 1998, since when nothing has been done? Can he think of any other example, even under this Government, of a policy area where, five years after the consultation exercise was launched, still absolutely nothing has been done?

It simply is not true to say that nothing has been done.

What have the Government done?

Let me give a clear example. We have legislated so that there is a full buy-out requirement on those solvent companies who abandon their schemes. Not only have we undertaken the consultation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but, as the Gracious Speech said, we will introduce legislation in this Session. I look forward to him and those in other parties supporting us constructively so that we build an enduring consensus for a new partnership, strongly supporting occupational pension provision and saving.

When the Ravenhead glass company went into liquidation, not only did people lose their jobs, they lost most of their pensions. That employer took a contribution holiday for three years. As part of any review, will my right hon. Friend look at the practice of companies taking contribution holidays to ensure that there are sufficient funds in pension schemes to deal with any downturn in the market?

Yes indeed. I acknowledge the strength with which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have represented their constituents on these important matters, and we are examining all the issues. Moreover, we are working closely with the employer task force on pensions that we established—which includes not only employer but trade union and academic representation—and, of course, work is being undertaken by the independent Pension Commission as well.

The Secretary of State and his Ministers have told us for month after month that they do not want to raise false hope among workers who have lost out. Is that not precisely what they are doing? In fact, is it not true that the Government will do precisely nothing, and take many months to do it? Those workers are hoping for a last-minute announcement that the Government will come up with something for them. Would it not have been more honest and generated less false hope to have told them that at the start?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks amount to an accusation that we should not take serious time and trouble to engage with the representations that are being made to us and to examine these issues very carefully. I have been absolutely honest in what the Government have done about this and will continue so to be, and he should be more responsible if he really wants cross-party agreement on how to move forward.

May I confirm that the Secretary of State and, particularly, the Minister for Pensions have been very sympathetic in listening to my constituents from Stoddard's Carpets and United Engineering Forgings who are affected? But sympathy does not pay the bills or solve the problems. Labour Members are interested in a solution, not in making political capital out of people's hardship. May I suggest a solution that, with respect, does not involve a public inquiry? Could the Secretary of State have a word with his very good Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I know that they are very good friends—and say that, if we can afford billions of pounds to compensate the farmers, we can find £100 million for those pensioners?

I keep closely in touch with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on these and other matters, and I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that I appreciate the point that he makes. It is not sympathy that people want, but practical action. However, it would be folly to raise the expectation that we will be able to take that action until I am in a position to announce what it will be.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, before the House can decide what, if any, assistance can be given, we need to know the extent of the problem and its likely cost? That requires an urgent inquiry into these matters, not least because we will address the issue in a few weeks when the pension Bill is discussed.

Those are precisely the issues that the Government have been looking into. When I am in a position to report to the House on the outcome of those inquiries and deliberations, I shall of course do so. However, I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if we came here to put forward some sort of public inquiry, he, or at least some of his colleagues, would certainly be on their feet saying that it was a device to delay and not to address the problems.

When my right hon. Friend considers the important question of contribution holidays, will he also look into those firms that have been increasing their prices beyond inflation and check how much of those increases was required to try to sustain the pension funds that those firms are committed to operating? That point applies to the electricity and gas industries as well as to local government.

Yes, we can of course look at all these matters. However, those companies—whether they are utilities or firms operating in other sectors of the economy—that are taking action, and often difficult action involving difficult choices, to ensure that their occupational pension funds are properly provided for are taking action on behalf of the business community that we ought to commend. That is all the more the case when it is so often undertaken in consultation with the trade unions.

How many pensioners currently use a pension book. [146785]

The number of pensioners using an order book is 5.3 million, about 500,000 fewer than the number receiving benefits and pensions direct into an account.

That is 5.3 million pensioners who have chosen to use the order book and, if my constituency is anything to go by, many of them would like to continue to use their order books either for their own convenience or to support their local post offices. At the moment, when the Government contact them to ask them to change, they are given three options, but they are not told about the fourth option—the fourth way—which is the exceptions service. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why that is and whether those who do not sign up for the alternatives before April 2005 will automatically be entered into the exceptions service so that they can continue to use their post office?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that people are choosing direct payment of their own volition. Nine out of 10 pensioners already have an account into which their pensions or benefits could be paid, and the numbers moving to direct payment have been moving in that direction for some time. We are fully committed to the Post Office network, which is why we have invested £2 billion in it. We are also fully committed to saying to people that they can continue to receive their benefits and pensions on a weekly basis at the post office and to supporting the Post Office in extending the range of banking services available in its outlets. We are developing an exceptions service for the small minority of people whom we expect not be able to open or operate a bank account, and I am talking to the bodies that represent those groups to see how best we can design that service to ensure that everybody receives pensions and benefits when they are entitled to receive the payments.

Will my hon. Friend elaborate on his plans for delivering that service via his partner, the Post Office, when in my constituency and other urban areas, the Post Office proposes to close local outlets and make it impossible for anyone to get to them to claim their entitlement except by using a taxi? Does he intend to deliver it house to house as I suggest?

I repeat to my hon. Friend that we are fully committed to making sure that there is a full and comprehensive network of Post Office outlets, and that is why we are making the investment—the £2 billion overall and the £450 million to ensure that we do not have unnecessary closures in rural areas. However, I have to say to him that requiring all our customers to continue, often against their own choice, to be paid by giro or by order book is the not the solution for the future of the Post Office network. We need to make sure that we can support the Post Office in its attempts to build links with financial services industries to ensure that a wide range of financial services are available in post offices. That will be the future of the post office network, not the order book or giro.

I think that I heard the Minister say that just over 5 million pensioners receive their pensions by going to the post office whereas slightly more than that—I think that he said 6 million—do not. I do not understand how he can therefore say that 90 per cent. receive their pensions in the other way.

indicated dissent.

I am sorry, I have misunderstood the Minister. The Government are currently writing to people. Although I realise that they have probably written to only about 1.5 million pensioners, have not almost a third of them not replied? Is he taking it that those who have not replied are registering acquiescence or an objection? I mention that only because although I do not want to be patronising, elderly people sometimes get confused and fixed in their ways and thus need special consideration—and I declare an interest.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his humility in saying that some people can get confused and fixed in their ways. I shall clarify the situation for him. I said that 90 per cent. of pensioners already have a bank account that would be suitable for the receipt of pensions or benefits. In countries such as Holland and Australia, 99 per cent. of pensioners and others receive their payments directly into a bank account. I will not join him—if this is what he is suggesting—in saying that our pensioners are more likely to be confused or less able to operate a bank account than those in other countries. We recognise that a small proportion of pensioners and others will not be able to open or operate a bank account and we are ensuring that they will have an alternative service so that they can get their money on time with dignity and independence. I hope that he will join me in overcoming confusion among some pensioners and others about the idea that the only way to get their money at a post office is through the Post Office card account or an order book. A range of bank accounts is available at post offices, and the future of the Post Office partly depends on us getting that message across to people.

How many pensioners in the Watford constituency are receiving pension credit. [146786]

As at 31 December 2003, there were 2,364 households in the Watford constituency, comprising 2,735 individuals, receiving pension credit. That is a 31 per cent. increase over the number of recipients of minimum income guarantee in Watford, and the average payment is £48.65 per week, which is more than £7 more than that from minimum income guarantee claimed.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased to hear that there has been an increase in take-up, but does she agree that it is likely that a number of pensioners in my constituency are still not accessing pension credit? What can she and her Department do to encourage pensioners in Watford and throughout the country to take up the pension credit?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have undertaken a range of activities to encourage people to take up their entitlement. The latest customer satisfaction survey on our pension credit application line shows that 90 per cent. of those who contact us are satisfied with the application process and that 80 per cent. find the application form clear to understand. The key thing is to get those who might be eligible to pick up the phone and make contact with us. I know that my hon. Friend is active in that respect, which is shown by figures illustrating the increasing numbers of people taking up pension credit in her constituency. All that I can do is urge her constituents—and anyone's constituents—who think that they might be eligible to pick up the phone and call us. We have already received 1.84 million calls to the application line and there is a high level of satisfaction with the service that it offers. I urge anyone who might be eligible to pick up the phone and apply for pension credit because the money to which they are entitled is theirs.

Whether all pensioners who request a home visit from the Pension Service will receive one. [146787]

Where someone requires a home visit, we aim to provide one. Pensioners will have that option, but in reality the vast majority of queries will be dealt with swiftly and effectively without the need for a home visit, usually on the telephone. I am pleased to report that latest figures show that in Hereford, which of course covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency, 2,621 visits were made to elderly people in the period January to October last year and an impressive total of 270,000 visits have been made nation wide by our local pension services.

That does not cover my constituents who live in Worcestershire. Why did the head of the Pension Service say:

"We are not building a model which is actually showing that anyone can just choose to have a home visit"?

If the hon. Gentleman has evidence—not conjecture—that people are not getting a home visit, he should write to me and I will ensure that elderly people get such a visit. As I said, the principle is clear: if people want a home visit, they will get one. The fact that 270,000 home visits have been made—I think that that figure will surprise hon. Members on both sides of the House—shows that the arrangement is working and is an important part of the Pension Service.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Pension Service in Northampton on its outstanding work, not just on home visits, but with voluntary organisations, including Age Concern, to target the small groups in need and to ensure that pensioners receive their pension credit? I know that he is aware of the particular problem in Northampton with the interpretation of the housing benefit rule and its impact on those in receipt of pension credit. What is he doing to clarify that specific issue?

I much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency the other day, including talking to the local Pension Service and elderly people. The principle for those on pension credit with a guaranteed element is that they have full access to housing benefit and council tax benefit. The fact that some receive just the savings credit element is taken into account with regard to pension credit. Overall, however, people are gainers as a result of pension credit.

What plans his Department has to increase the take-up of pension credit. [146788]

What estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) percentage of people who will be claiming pension credit by 2006. [146790]

We have a take-up target for at least 3 million households to be in receipt of pension credit by 2006. This corresponds to around 3.7 million individuals, but we want all eligible pensioners to take up their entitlement.

My hon. Friend is well aware that the two main barriers to claiming pension credit are stigma and an over-complicated claims procedure. What further steps is he planning to ensure that every last penny of pension credit is fighting pensioner poverty?

We are aware of the traditional barriers to means-tested benefits. That is why we made the application process for pension credit easy and focused on the needs of the citizen. We monitor progress carefully and published results of our customer service inquiry today. It finds that 80 per cent. of respondents were satisfied with the pension credit application line and 90 per cent. were satisfied with the overall process. I am pleased to report that 96 per cent. of telephone calls from members of the public are answered within 30 seconds. We analyse the barriers and seek to overcome them through a pension credit that is a million miles away from the old style means-testing.

I notice that the Minister did not answer my question and give the figures for 2006. Is not it the case that by subjecting more than half of pensioners, which is what the figure is likely to be, to means-tested state dependency, the Government will destroy the incentive for working people to save?

Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's analysis, the pension credit rewards savings for the first time while targeting extra resources on the poorest pensioners and the hard-pressed, two thirds of whom are women, and many of whom are the older elderly. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that now, in the early days of pension credit, 1.7 million people are gaining financially from the measure, including a significant number in his constituency.

When disabled pensioners have a problem with pension credit or any other aspect of their dealings with the Pension Service, they sometimes go to DIAL, the disability information and advice line, for help. Whereas Age Concern and citizens advice bureaux have dedicated hotline arrangements with the Pension Service, my understanding is that DIAL does not. Will the Minister look into that and try to arrange a hotline service for DIAL? That would help disabled pensioners and might even cut the number of home visits that are necessary.

I shall certainly consider that suggestion. Our aim is to provide a number of ways for elderly people or their carers to access pension credit. They usually use the telephone, but if they prefer, they can fill in the application form, with which they can get help, visit an advice surgery or have a home visit.

Is it not true that, according to the research published by the Department, only 22 per cent. of the higher income group who were asked, and 12 per cent. of the lower income group, had even heard of the pension credit? Is it any wonder then that, even on the Minister's projections, 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners will never be helped by pension credit because they will be deterred from claiming by the complexity or the intrusive means-testing, or both?

I reject those figures. We have takeup targets for 2006, and yet I have said that our aim is to ensure that every elderly person entitled to the credit should receive it. We are rolling out pension credit over a period, which is sensible administratively, and we still have not written to some people; we will not write to some of them until June. However, anyone applying up to autumn this year will be able to get pension credit from last October.

I recognise that the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that people eligible for pension credit get it, but I am sure that the Minister will recognise that almost half a million people were not receiving the minimum income guarantee despite being entitled to it. I realise that correspondence is scanned at Pension Service centres, but does the Minister accept that many pensioners—one came to me last week—find it confusing to receive letters from different officers in the service, because they do not understand who is dealing with their case?

If my hon. Friend writes to me with details, I will look at any difficulties. The fact that, in the early days of pension credit, so many people are already gaining is a remarkable testament to our Pension Service. When we enable people, some of whom never applied for the old minimum income guarantee, to apply for pension credit, we often find that we can also access their claims to housing benefit or council tax benefit, and as a result, although the average weekly gain might be £7 or £8, we find many cases of people getting £30, £40 or £60 extra as a result of the human touch used by our local Pension Service.

The Minister mentioned his written statement to be published today which gives a breakdown of take-up by constituency, but what is missing is a breakdown of the targets for each constituency or, indeed, for Scotland as a whole. Will he publish those figures? Given the fact that most hon. Members are already urging all pensioners to take up their entitlement, does he feel that the Government need to be more proactive in encouraging those to whom we are not getting through, rather than simply calling on them to pick up the phone? A large number of pensioners will never apply for the credit by telephone.

We published estimates of entitlement for Scotland, Wales and the regions of England. Methodologically and statistically, it would not be easy to do the same, with precision, for constituencies, but I will look into that.

What progress has been made in reforming housing benefit. [146789]

Our major structural reform, the local housing allowance, has been introduced today in the private rented sector in Coventry and Teignbridge, having already started in Blackpool and Lewisham. In the remaining five pathfinder areas—including Conwy, which covers part of my hon. Friend's constituency—it will begin in the next few weeks. The aim of the reforms is to create a simpler, fairer system that puts real choice and responsibility in tenants' hands—one that supports work and cuts the risk of fraud.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the reforms will be introduced in my constituency, where it is believed that they will enable claims to be dealt with rather more speedily and fairly, as well as bear down on exploitation by some landlords. When do the Government intend to introduce the reforms in the social housing sector?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Already in Conwy and other areas, considerable progress has been made in administering housing benefit, in part as a result of the extra investment that we are putting in to help local authorities to administer the system as it currently operates. We wish to extend the reforms to the social rented sector, because we believe that people in that sector should benefit in the same way from the choice and extra flexibility that the reforms can give, but we have to be mindful of the need to wait for further rent restructuring and increased choice in that sector before doing so. We are seriously considering the design of a scheme for the social rented sector, and we shall consult in the not-too-distant future on how to move ahead.

That was an interesting answer about the social rented sector, given that in their response to a Social Security Advisory Committee report the Government appeared to suggest that they were seeking a pilot or pathfinder project to test the idea. Is that the case? If so, how close are the Government to establishing a test? How on earth can the Department expect the market to be injected into the social rented sector when there is no ability to shop around?

We certainly want to pilot the scheme first—we would not move ahead in the social sector without first making sure that the design is appropriate and that people are getting extra choice and are not worse off as a result. We are carefully considering how to move ahead in the social sector, because we recognise that circumstances in that sector are very different from those in the private rented sector. The reforms must go hand in hand with increasing choice in rents in the social sector and with conditions in which rents reflect much more closely the quality, standard and size of accommodation available.

Part of the Government's reforms on housing benefit is to consider taking housing benefit away from neighbours from hell. Will the Minister confirm that in the responses to the consultation, the people who write about the issue are against the reform, whereas the people who are on the receiving end of the behaviour of neighbours from hell have all submitted evidence asking for sanctions to be imposed? When the Government make up their mind on the matter, will he weight the evidence in favour of those who are on the receiving end, not of those who merely write about the issue?

My right hon. Friend has been a vigorous campaigner, not only on the use of housing benefit sanctions, but on the full range of other measures that are necessary to deal with loutish and antisocial behaviour. He knows that the consultation ended in August. We are still considering the responses to it, but it is fair to confirm that those who are directly affected by antisocial behaviour want us to use every weapon that is practically available to us. We are considering whether removal of housing benefit is a weapon that we could give to local authorities to use in appropriate circumstances.

Following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in May 2002, the Prime Minister told the House that housing benefit should be withdrawn from people whose antisocial behaviour is persistent. More than one and a half years later, however, all those people are still drawing housing benefit. Does the Minister not concede that on housing benefit withdrawal, spinning tough measures but not delivering them accurately describes the "totality" of the Prime Minister's intentions?

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been paying attention to what is happening in the Chamber. We have both discussed at length and implemented a full range of measures on antisocial behaviour, showing the Government's commitment to dealing with a problem that affects almost every constituency. We are consulting—if we were not consulting properly on such a measure, the hon. Gentleman would be at the Dispatch Box criticising us for not having thought carefully about whether it was a practical measure that could work and make a genuine contribution along with our other measures on antisocial behaviour. If we are convinced that it can do so, we shall go ahead with it.

Given the Government's aim of reducing housing benefit fraud significantly by 2006, can the Minister tell us how well the partnerships are working with local authorities to reduce housing benefit fraud to £250 million a year?

We have tough targets on dealing with housing benefit fraud, as my hon. Friend knows, and aim to reduce it by a quarter by 2006. Our partnerships with local authorities are working very effectively indeed. Both local government and central Government, as represented by the Department for Work and Pensions, are determined to do everything possible to stamp out housing benefit fraud, mindful of the fact that taxpayers' money is involved, and the taxpayer requires that benefit is paid to people who are entitled to it and not others. I am not suggesting that there is not more to do—there is clearly a lot more that we can, should and will do to tackle housing benefit fraud.

What assessment his Department has made of work opportunities for the long-term unemployed in the private sector in 2004. [146791]

The Government's active labour market policies continue to ensure that people can take advantage of the many new job opportunities that are coming up all the time. That is especially true of the most disadvantaged, such as the long-term unemployed. Since 1997, employment has grown to record levels, and by well over a million in the private sector. Since 1997, long-term unemployment has fallen by about 75 per cent, to its lowest level since the 1970s. Indeed, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it has fallen by 79 per cent.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, the CBI has said that two out of three jobs created this year will be in the public sector, and that that trend is unsustainable. Does he agree?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know of the longstanding convention under which the Department does not forecast levels of employment or unemployment. Indeed, that convention was observed by previous Governments too. Most outside forecasters, however, including the OECD, expect a pick-up in economic growth in 2004, with the labour market remaining strong in all sectors.

While I recognise that the long-term unemployed should certainly be encouraged into jobs, will my hon. Friend give a firm pledge on an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I raised two years ago with the Prime Minister, and assure us that the severely disabled will not be subject to frequent testing when it is clear that they are not in position to take jobs?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure that he knows, because he has long taken a keen interest in the development of Government policy on inactive benefits, that they are received by a wide range of people. He will know of the development of our pathways to work policy and that even in the pilots for that scheme engagement is voluntary. That policy clearly demonstrates that the Government's policy is entirely consistent with his expectations.

What measures will be taken to address the problems surrounding the closure of final salary pension schemes. [146792]

What plans he has to protect the pensions of past and present members of final salary pension schemes. [146795]

Improving protection for members of final salary pension schemes is a Government priority. Through new legislation and, in particular, the pension protection fund, we are taking action to ensure that a pension promise made is a pension promise honoured. The pension protection fund will be introduced in the forthcoming pensions Bill.

I thank the Minister for that response. What specific hope can he give to my constituent, Mr. Clothier, a former employee of Bradstock? Bradstock's pension scheme was terminated by a commutation prior to insolvency and was extremely underfunded, and Mr. Clothier finds that the product of 19 years of contributions will barely cover his council tax.

Having met many workers in that kind of situation, I have a clear understanding of the heartbreak and impact on health and family life that can be occasioned by that kind of disaster for individuals. We had a full airing of this issue when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took not dissimilar questions on the matter, and I cannot add to what he said on that occasion. While there is an issue about the present, at least we now have a Government who, by legislating for a protection fund, will ensure that that kind of scandal never occurs again in Great Britain.

May I take the Minister on to another aspect of final salary insolvencies and the future in such cases? Does he agree—perhaps he will do so in the light of the experience that he has just described—that one of the most distressing features of such insolvencies is that workers who have lost all their pension rights were in many cases very close to retirement age and had accumulated substantial pension rights? I know that the Government have been consulting on the question of the priority order in winding-ups. When will some action be taken on the matter?

We have been consulting on the important issue, which the hon. Gentleman brings to the House's attention, of the priority order. We think that the existing priority order is unfair, not least to that group of workers whom he mentioned, some of whom I have met, who are just about to approach retirement age and who lose out under the current scheme. That is why we will take action. When we have formulated proposals, we will bring them to the House.

While I welcome the pension protection fund, my hon. Friend the Minister has indicated that the Government are currently considering proposals. Will he bring those proposals to the Floor of the House as soon as possible, because the pension protection fund will do nothing for the individuals in my constituency who have lost their occupational pension scheme? Will he also accept that the Conservative party has selective amnesia when it talks about the—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into that.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will try to forget the remarks that my hon. Friend has just made. As I said, our proposals on the priority order will come to the House. As we discussed earlier, however, in the questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we are listening to all suggestions about how we can tackle immediate problems. It must be repeated again, however, that it would be wrong to offer false hope in what is a complex situation at which we are looking carefully.

When he next expects to meet representatives of staff in his Department's East Anglia offices to discuss restructuring plans. [146793]

Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service are modernising the services that we provide to our customers, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. They are providing improved customer access through telephone centres, the internet and new, dedicated caller offices—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) should not be reading a book in the Chamber.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ministerial colleagues and I meet the Department's trade union representatives from time to time. Managers and union representatives at all levels meet routinely to discuss the development of the new services.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but it was a slightly complacent one. Is he aware that the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus in my constituency has led to many changes, with the co-location of the social security and jobcentre functions at Lovell House? Furthermore, many staff have been relocated to jobcentres elsewhere, which has led to a great deal of disruption and stress to individuals. Morale is proving difficult to manage, yet local management are doing their level best to keep up morale. What will he do to try to help with that process?

The development of Jobcentre Plus in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is, of course, part of a significant investment in that service. He is right that in King's Lynn the customer-facing services, as they are known, are being brought to one site—Lovell House—which is just round the corner from the Priory House social security office, which will continue to employ a significant number of people processing benefit applications. Of course, there will be no redundancies in his constituency as a consequence of that.

What assessment he has made of how progress in tackling child poverty in the UK compares with developments in other European Union member states. [146794]

In 1997, the UK had a higher proportion of children living in low-income households than any other EU member state. Since then the UK has made substantial progress, narrowing the gap between the UK and EU averages from 8 percentage points in 1997 to 5 percentage points in 2001, and moving up the EU league table. The extra spending announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report will enable us to achieve still more as we tackle child poverty.

As my right hon. Friend will know, everyone is delighted that we have stopped languishing at the bottom of the league, but we are still only 11th: we are still falling behind the whole of Scandinavia, France, Germany and Greece. There is much on the agenda that will change that, but do we still need to learn lessons from our European Union colleagues?

As I have said, we had already made good progress by 2001, and I am confident that the other steps we have taken—not least the increase of £3.50 a week in the child element of the tax credit, benefiting more than 7 million poor children—will enable us to make further progress.

What assessment he has made of progress in reducing child poverty. [146797]

What progress the Government has made in reducing the number of children living in poverty; and what measures it will take to reduce it further. [146799]

As a result of our policies, there are now half a million fewer children living on relatively low incomes than in 1997. Had we done nothing, a million and a half more children would have been in poverty. We are on course to meet our target to reduce the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004–05.

Can the Minister give us some idea of how many parents with care will benefit from the child maintenance premium?

As my hon. Friend knows, our child support reforms have led to a considerable increase in the number of parents with care who receive the premium. The figures are available in the Library—[Interruption]—but no, not in my briefing.

When does the Department intend to spend the extra £1 billion announced in the pre-Budget report on measures to reduce child poverty? What impact does he think those extra measures will have in reducing the number of children living in poverty?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already mentioned the £3.50 increase in the child element of the tax credit, which will benefit more than 7 million children. That means that total spending on financial support for children will have increased by £10 billion in real terms since 1997, which we expect to help us achieve our public service agreement target of reducing the number of children in low-income households by a quarter by 2004–05.

What plans he has to provide child care in schools to help people to move from welfare into work. [146800]

The extended schools programme is putting schools at the heart of their communities. Schools are taking the opportunity to provide a range of services and activities, such as child care, to help meet the needs of pupils, their families and local people.

Is the Minister aware that last Friday I attended the opening of The Willows, the new neighbourhood nursery unit attached to Willowgarth high school in Grimethorpe in my constituency, which is providing not only a full range of day care services to the local community but child care opportunities for year 10 and year 11 students at the school? Does he agree that such facilities and initiatives can make a real difference to disadvantaged communities such as Grimethorpe?

I was not aware that my hon. Friend had visited that facility, but I am pleased that he and other hon. Members on both sides of the House support the significant development of child care across the country. He is right to identify the importance of child care to our aspirations in terms of employment. That is why, in addition to the existing and planned investment to expand child care, which since 1997 has created over 800,000 new child care places, helping over 1.4 million children to access child care, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced three pilots in Bradford, Lewisham and Haringey for further child care places specifically to help lone parents back into work.