What estimate he has made of the number of retirement pensioners in the forthcoming year; and how many there were five years ago.

It is fitting that the hon. Gentleman is No. 1 in questions today, as I understand that last week he announced his prospective retirement from the House. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in paying tribute to his years of distinguished service and in wishing him all the very best for the future.

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words, which I genuinely very much appreciate, but is he aware of the concern and alarm among 10 million pensioners about the pressure being put on them to give up their pension book and to use bank accounts instead, in anticipation of the abolition of pension books in 2005? Would he be willing to discuss with his Cabinet colleagues the fact that many pensioners enjoy having a pension book and are concerned about the linked effect, which will result in the closure of a huge number of post offices on which pensioners depend greatly for many services? I thank the Secretary of State for all that he has done, but will he discuss the issue with colleagues as it is genuinely serious and will affect a lot of elderly people—like me?

I certainly recognise the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and of those who have raised the matter with him. We should remember that the majority of pensioners choose to have their payments made directly. Moreover, the order book is vulnerable to fraud and theft; many pensioners are attacked and their order book stolen from them. We are honouring our pledge that pensioners will be able to continue to receive their pension in cash at the post office. An exceptions service will be in place for those for whom the Post Office card account is not suitable, to ensure that their needs are met.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growth in the number not only of pensioners but also of people who are penalised by the transport lottery—the postcode lottery whereby some pensioners have free off-peak travel while others do not? What can be done to ensure that all pensioners are treated the same? Can they have better help through the pension system?

To the best of my knowledge, there is a national commitment to a concessionary scheme. I admit that that will mean that some local authorities will provide help over and above the national minimum, but there is always tension between the responsiveness and democratic accountability that we want in localities and the avoidance of a postcode lottery. However, the enormous investment that we are making in our public transport system is a certain factor in ensuring that transport is available in rural as well as in urban areas to meet the needs of pensioners as well as others.

May I press the Secretary of State further on the question about pension books asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor)? Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the concerns of pensioners who have several carers? When their pension books go, there may be problems with the PINs if several carers are involved.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have ensured that pensioners can nominate somebody to use a card on their behalf to collect their pension. Where they need to make arrangements involving a number of people, they can do so at present through the order book, but we shall have to ensure that the exceptions service also enables them to meet that need.

My right hon. Friend is perfectly aware of the fact that to use a book in a post office requires a post office, and that plans for the urban reconstruction—or destruction—of post offices in my part of the world mean that no post offices or cash outlets will be available. Pensioners could use a free bus pass if the proposed buses were actually on a bus route, but they are not even on a bus route. How will he get the money to those people?

As I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, we have put £2 billion into supporting the post office network, including more than £400 million in rural areas. It makes sense to plan locally to ensure better co-ordination between accessibility, which includes his point about public transport routes, and the availability of points where pensioners can collect their cash, whether at the post office or through alternative facilities.

What estimate he has made of the number of wind-ups of defined benefit pension schemes in solvent companies in 2003.

The pension schemes registry holds information on the number of final salary schemes that are currently winding up, or which have entered into and completed the winding-up process. It is not, however, designed or intended to provide a comprehensive or continuous statistical record of the status of schemes, and it does not provide information on the solvency position of companies whose schemes are winding up.

I thank the Minister for that informative reply. Is he aware of the recent warning from the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service that a massive loophole is opening up in the Government's pension protection plans, inasmuch as solvent companies with large deficits in their pension schemes on a minimum funding requirement basis can capitalise on those deficits, and then renege on their debts at the expense of their pensioners? Does he recognise OPAS's warning that there could be what it calls

"a flood of solvent wind-ups before April 2005 at members' expense",

All our endeavours—including the pensions Bill, which will be published soon—are intended to get security back into social security in old age. We will listen very carefully to any concerns about loopholes, including those expressed by OPAS, in order to ensure that there are not ways in which people can avoid their responsibilities

In the past four months, when asked when the House will see the pensions Bill, the Minister for Pensions has said—as he said this afternoon—that it will appear "soon". How soon is "soon", and when "soon" arrives will the Bill contain a clause that puts a levy on unclaimed assets, so that people who have already lost most of, if not all, their pension will be compensated at least to some extent?

I like to be consistent, but may I now revise "soon" to "very soon"? My right hon. Friend, who is occasionally a patient man, will not have to wait very much longer. The pensions Bill will be concerned with establishing a new pension protection fund and a new regulator with real teeth, to ensure that when pension promises are made, they are kept.

Is the Minister aware of the research of Dr. Ros Altmann, who calculates that some 40,000 members of pension schemes are affected by these wind-ups, and that some £93 million will be needed to compensate them over many years? If he is not, will he look at that research and think again about compensation for those who have already lost out, because as I understand it the forthcoming Bill will not deal with retrospective claims?

Various matters are on the agenda. We are concerned that solvent companies that seek to wind up their schemes must now guarantee the full buyout of pension rights for members. Secondly, the "pensions (very soon) Bill" will legislate for a pension protection fund to bring future security. Meanwhile, we are looking at the very serious circumstances that existing pensioners and members face in respect of schemes that have gone bankrupt, but it is important to repeat that we cannot provide any false hope in what is a very complex situation.

The Minister will know that some companies are using the flight from such schemes to reduce their contributions to employees, and that there is a long-term saving problem in this country. What are the Government doing to ensure that these employers face up to their responsibilities to employees in future?

It is very important that employers are able to offer proper company pension schemes. We have created an employers taskforce to look at this issue. and its purpose is to establish good practice. We are very conscious of the need for many people to save more than they are saving at the moment. Our recent strategy paper on informed choice is designed to introduce measures that will enable people to make better choices. In other ways, too, we are concerned to enable people to save more and to have decent pension schemes.

Has the Minister seen last week's calculation by Mercer that the total deficit in UK occupational pensions is now £330 billion? Does he agree that EU rules requiring companies to make up that deficit may render irrelevant much of the pensions Bill, even before it is published?

I certainly do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's last point. We have consulted on the EU directive, which is very much in line with our own ideas. The pensions Bill will promote the concept of scheme-specific funding, which the industry has widely welcomed. Estimates of pension liabilities vary a great deal. Other estimates suggest that recent increases in world share prices have made the deficit less than it was, but none of us is complacent about the issue.

If he will make a statement on the impact of the new deal for lone parents.

The new deal for lone parents is just one of a raft of measures that we have introduced to help lone parents gain independence through work. Other measures include our national child care strategy; the lone parent's benefit run-on; and the working tax credit, including the child tax credit. By the end of September 2003, more than 430,000 lone parents had participated in the new deal for lone parents and more than 220,000 had been helped into work. There is still more to do, but we have made major progress towards meeting our target of getting 70 per cent. of lone parents into work.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for the impact that the new deal has made on lone parents. Has he seen recent research showing that the costs of child care are rising rapidly in the private sector and making it increasingly difficult for lone parents as well as two-parent families to secure work or be able to return to work and pay for child care provision? What discussions has my hon. Friend had with colleagues in other Departments about making child care affordable for lone parents as well as for two-parent families?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of good-quality, affordable child care in helping to secure a route out of poverty for families. Constant discussion takes place between officials and Ministers in my Department and those in the Department for Education and Skills and the Treasury. My hon. Friend will be aware of the announcements in the pre-Budget statement on making child care affordable, and she should be reassured that the Government are on track to meet their target on the roll-out of the national child care strategy. Indeed, there are currently more than 800,000 new child care places in the UK, from which 1.4 million children benefit.

Will the Minister confirm whether, when a lone parent leaves—or is sacked from—a job after 14 weeks, the Government chalk it up as a success for the new deal in getting people into sustained employment?

The measures in place for measuring whether jobs are retained are fully in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman gleans his information in that way, but I have to say that it would be a sad day when the Government took advice from a party that, when in government, as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) admitted, waged war on lone parents. We will take no advice from such a party on how we should conduct our policy on lone parents. The fact remains that, although the measurement is in the public domain, there is clear evidence to suggest that significant numbers of people who benefit from the new deal or the new deal for lone parents move on later into long-term and sustained work. That is why we can now celebrate the fact that about 500,000 children have been taken out of poverty in the UK.

What improvements does my hon. Friend intend to make to the new deal for lone parents, and what assessment has he made of the impact of abandoning the programme?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that not all parties in the House support the measures in place in labour market programmes, which have resulted in 1.7 million more people across the board in work today than in 1997, and 500,000 fewer people on unemployment benefit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my other ministerial colleagues and I are hell-bent on improving the labour market programmes and building further on them. My hon. Friend will be aware of the roll-out of work-focused interviews for lone parents, which provides them with an opportunity to find out what employment can do for them and their families to lift their children out of poverty. We move forward with that programme.

What plans he has to permit employers to compel employees to join final salary occupational pension schemes.

The Government have no such plans. The independent Pensions Commission is examining whether greater compulsion is advisable. As we set out last week, we are looking at whether it makes sense to promote more general use of schemes that automatically enrol employees unless they chose to opt out and at how we can best ensure that an individual's decision to join or not to join an occupational pension is based on good information.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. When my father joined the steel industry, he was compelled to join a final salary occupational scheme and, fortunately, that has seen him well in retirement. The Allied Steel and Wire workers were similarly compelled to join an occupational pension scheme. When people ask me, "Would you let what has happened to the ASW workers happen to your own father?" my answer is an unequivocal no. What would the Secretary of State's answer be to the same question?

I would share my hon. Friend's concern for the plight of those affected, as the Minister for Pensions, other ministerial colleagues and I have made clear on many occasions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's energy and commitment in campaigning on behalf of those who have lost out because of company insolvency. As he knows, we have been examining whether anything might be done, without wanting to raise false hope, and as soon as I am able to report further to the House I will do so.

As the Secretary of State knows, I am interested in ASW—ASW Sheerness is in my constituency—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who asked a question that was similar to questions that we have been asking in the House for the past couple of months: how do we get to the bottom of how many people's pension schemes are in deficit? If my right hon. Friend introduces a retrospective measure—we hope that he will—how will he know that it will cover everyone if there are differences of opinion between the Treasury, the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and other groups?

As my hon. Friend suggests, identifying precisely who has lost out in that way is one of the many dimensions of difficulty to this very challenging issue. As I said when he last raised this, other issues include how to differentiate between some who have lost out and others who have lost out in respect of eligibility; whether it is right to use taxpayers' money—let us remember that half of taxpayers are not members of occupational pensions schemes—to give extra help to that group; the risk of raising expectations that taxpayers stand behind private savings and pensions as a whole; and, not least, the risk of prejudicing the legal action that has been taken already. I mention hose matters to show that we are carefully looking at the issue—including, as my hon. Friend points out, at the numbers affected—but I am not able today to say what the conclusion of that examination is.

What his policy is on the use of access to means-tested benefits as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour.

As a matter of principle, we do not believe that the community has an unconditional responsibility to support those who do not fulfil their responsibilities to the community. We have introduced a range of tough penalties to deal with antisocial behaviour, which blights people's daily lives, including measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which came into force that month. Following consultation, I recently announced that we will not go ahead with a housing benefit sanction at this stage, but we do not rule out introducing further measures when we have seen how effective the range of measures already in place has been.

That was most disappointing. The painfully slow pace at which the Government have been tiptoeing in the right direct ion has been frustrating. The Prime Minister pledged himself to that policy on 1 May last year, and the Government are now backing off. May we have an explanation?

We will take every practical measure necessary to deal with antisocial behaviour. [Interruption]. I wish that we could count on the support of the Opposition in that determination to deal with antisocial and loutish behaviour. I have reminded the House that in recent weeks we have introduced a number of new measures that are intended to deal with antisocial behaviour. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are extending the pilot schemes to sanction offenders who breach their community sentences. We will watch closely to see what effect those measures have, but if they do not have the effect of dealing significantly with antisocial behaviour we will not hesitate to look again at sanctions on housing benefit.

The problem with benefit sanctions is that they can punish entire families when only one member may not be acting responsibly. Antisocial behaviour is a dreadful problem, not least in Redcar where almost every surgery I hold brings a new complaint. Will the Minister look with great care at schemes run and supported by organisations such as Shelter in Rochdale and Bolton, among other places, that aim to change the behaviour of problem members of families? They are not at all softie stuff, so will he examine those schemes with care before he looks again at benefit sanctions?

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those comments. We must, of course, use the full range of measures. Some of them will be positive; some of them will be negative such as sanctions. For example, in community sentences, we are balancing both the piloting of the sanctions with incentives for those who do not breach their community service orders. However, we must be aware that the community and all our constituents want to see us acting decisively using every practical measure that is available. Sanctions have been built into the social security system since 1911, when unemployment benefit was first introduced, for reasons that are still relevant today.

Will the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister was informed and consulted before last week's announcement to abandon housing benefit sanctions?

I think that you, Mr. Speaker, can be sure that the Prime Minister was fully aware of the decision. From the answer that he gave at Prime Minister's Question Time, it was very clear that he was aware of the decision.

I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister was consulted, but when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him about the subject last Wednesday I did not gain the impression that the Prime Minister was fully aware of it. Therefore, I am very pleased to hear that he was consulted. It was put to him that he had specifically made a pledge in his 2002 conference speech that he would implement the measure, so what was his reaction when the Minister told him that he was abandoning the idea?

If I remember rightly, the Prime Minister was very grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for reminding him of his conference speeches. The Prime Minister also reminded the Leader of the Opposition, who had forgotten within a matter of days, that only very recently we introduced a full range of measures and brought them into force to deal with antisocial behaviour. We have made it absolutely clear that we will see how effective those measures are. If we need to use other measures, we will not hesitate to do so.

What assessment he has made of the effect of Government policy on the incomes of (a) the poorest pensioners and (b) all pensioners.

As a result of Government measures since 1997, including the introduction of pension credit, pensioner households are now, on average, £24 a week better off in real terms. The poorest third of pensioner households are —30 a week better off. I have today placed in the Library the latest figures for take-up of pension credit at a national and constituency level. They show that 2.18 million households, and 2.62 million individuals, are now in receipt of pension credit.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Does he agree that, after many years of missed opportunities to redress the imbalance in terms of pensioners and their requirements, the introduction of the pension credit scheme is very welcome? For example, in my constituency of Central Fife, 3,091 pensioner households benefit on average by £39.36 a week, and I am sure that they appreciate that. The policy must be very welcome.

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the progress that we are making on pension credit in his constituency and throughout the country. Much hard work is going in not only on the telephone lines, but on the 302,000 home visits that the Pension Service has made across the country. That reflects great credit on all the staff who are working to make a success of this important policy of countering pensioner poverty and rewarding pensioners with modest savings.

The Secretary of State knows that on average the oldest pensioners tend to be the poorest pensioners. He also knows that his Department's statistics show that older pensioners are the least likely to claim his pension credit. The Government are right to target the winter fuel payment by giving extra money to older pensioners, and they are right to target free TV licences by giving them only to older pensioners. Why will he not be right again by targeting the basic state pension in the same way?

The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that a lot more is right with our policies than is wrong. I remember his conceding in a previous exchange that if we were to follow his advice it would mean giving less to poorer, younger pensioners in order to give more to better-off, older pensioners. It makes sense to combine universal entitlements with help especially targeted at the poorest in the pensions system. Thanks to those policies, we have helped 1.6 million pensioners out of absolute poverty and 400,000 pensioners out of relative poverty. We shall keep driving those policies forward to make a success of the war against poverty.

Can the Secretary of State explain why only half of the 5 million pensioners who are eligible for pension credit claim it? What is he going to do about that?

We are, of course, only part of the way through the campaign period to ensure maximum take-up of pension credit. We said that we would write to every pensioner household in the country by June. I am confident that we will achieve that target, and I hope that we will write to every pensioner household before then. I have already referred to the extensive outreach work, which includes more than 300,000 home visits, and there is also TV advertising, press advertising and word of mouth among pensioners, which is increasingly important. Pensioners commend the friendliness and responsiveness of the service, which is a point borne out by independent research.

Since 1997, has the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits gone up or down?

Conservative Members keep dragging out the question of means-tested benefits. I am proud that so many more pensioners benefit from the pension credit than gained from the minimum income arrangements under the previous Government. Let us remember that poorer pensioners are getting substantially more than they were in 1997. The —30 more a week enables this Government to make progress in combating pensioner poverty that could only have been dreamt about when the Conservative party froze the real value of the pension year in, year out. The Conservative Government increased it only when they introduced VAT on fuel, which placed so many pensioners in poverty.

May I add my welcome for the pension credit's impact on both poorer pensioners and those with small occupational pensions? Does the Secretary of State agree that pensions policies must mesh with our policies on occupational pensions if we are to get them right? Although the pensions Bill will certainly help, may I again draw his attention to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) about the need to tackle those pensioners who have lost through the failure of occupational pensions, which include not only ASW but firms such as Kalamazoo in my constituency?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's important points about his constituents at Kalamazoo and the success of pension credit. The imminent pensions Bill—we are that much closer to it now my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has spoken—will set up a pension protection fund, which will ensure that in future a pensions promise made will be a pensions promise honoured.

How many pensioner households in Scotland are in receipt of pension credit.

I am pleased to report that so far, as at 31 January, there were 229,000 households in Scotland, comprising approximately 271,000 individuals, receiving pension credit. We have today published the latest monthly pension credit progress report, including numbers of recipient households in each parliamentary constituency in Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that more than 2,000 households now receive pension credit in his constituency, 73 per cent. of which are financial gainers as a result.

Still only some 50 per cent. of those who are entitled to pension credit have taken it up. What consideration has been given to whether the application process puts people off applying for the pension credit? One constituent wrote to me saying that after answering the questions on the form they felt stripped of all dignity and decided not to bother in the end. What can be done to ensure that those who need and deserve the credit can get through the application system?

I am sorry about the tone that the hon. Gentleman has adopted. It would have been foolish to try to write to 7 million or more pensioner households across Britain in one week or one month. That is why we have a phased take-up programme. In that way, we can answer the phone calls—we answer 96 per cent. within 30 seconds—and anyone who applies up to October this year will have any credit entitlement backdated to October last year. I am pleased to note that one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), said:

"I am delighted to see Aberdeenshire pensioners gaining significantly by the introduction of the new Pension Credit."

The 3,000-plus pensioner households in Hamilton, South are obviously delighted with the average payment of £45 that they are getting through pension credit. Phasing in was vital, and should continue, but does my hon. Friend accept that overpayment because of miscalculation could be a problem in some instances? Will he consider such problems sympathetically, if they occur?

I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about any particular problems in his constituency. I doubt that overpayment would occur in many circumstances. While some people bandy around the words "means test", let us remember that under the previous Government there was a weekly means test. Pension credit is a million miles away from that, because we do not seek information about people's finances once a credit has been made.

What steps he is taking to encourage pension credit take-up.

We are currently in the main phase of our marketing campaign for pension credit and have carried out TV and press advertising as well as writing directly to pensioner households. We are working in partnership with organisations such as Help the Aged, Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux at a national and local level to ensure that as many pensioners as possible take up their entitlement.

I thank the Minister for that answer. However, in my constituency, fewer people receive money through the pension credit than under the minimum income guarantee. As for the letter-writing campaign, is the Minister aware that some 72,000 pensioners entitled to pension credit will die before the Government get round to telling them about it? Those figures are from the Library. How bad do things have to be before the Government admit that their scheme is failing?

I am surprised to hear the tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, given that he has assisted us greatly in his constituency with enabling his constituents to claim. I take issue with his first point: my figures indicate that the number of people claiming pension credit in his constituency has increased by 25 per cent. over the number claiming the minimum income guarantee. Perhaps I could sit down with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber to try to work out how he has received that impression. I do not think that what he said is correct. He has a large rural constituency and that poses particular problems in ensuring that everybody gets their entitlements. However, he and others have helped us to increase the number of people claiming. For example, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service in Shetland contacted us about one lady. As a result of a home visit, she ended up with an extra £124 a week, in attendance allowance and pension credit. That has got to be worth the effort that he and our local staff are putting in.

Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the research produced by the Fawcett Society last week, which shows that one in four single women pensioners are still living in poverty? What steps will she take to use the pension credit system to address that problem? It stems partly from the broken working periods that make up most women's working lives, meaning that they enter the pensioner stage at a huge disadvantage to men.

I acknowledge that issue, but I can tell my hon. Friend that pension credit is a way of targeting money at those at the poorest end. Almost 60 per cent. of the extra £2 billion spend on pension credit each year goes to the poorest third of pensioners, most of whom are women. She should do what I am urging others to do: get pensioners to claim. I know that there are 4,310 households in her constituency now claiming pension credit, with an average weekly award of £37.68, which is well worth it for those individuals.

The Government want at least 3 million pensioner households to take up pension credit by 2006, but on the Government's figures, even if that target is reached, 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners will not be taking up the pension credit. Is it not therefore evident that the Government's obsession with means-testing will leave almost 1.5 million of our most vulnerable pensioners with nothing at all from the pension credit?

I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman mistakes a target for a ceiling. We want everyone who is entitled to pension credit to take up their entitlement, and in constituencies where there is a proactive approach from local agencies in connection with local services, we can make a big difference. There is no reason why that target should be the end of take-up, and we want everyone to take up their entitlement. However, the Conservative party's pension plans would pay three fifths of their proposed spend to the richest pensioners and only one fifth to the poorest. That is a typical Tory policy.

What has been the take-up of pension credit in Morley and Rothwell.

As at 31 January, 3,609 pensioner households in Morley and Rothwell, comprising 4,343 individuals, were in receipt of pension credit. That is a 24 per cent. increase on take-up of the minimum income guarantee.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, which shows that nearly 1,200 pensioner households are now receiving extra money from the Government and are therefore better off than they were four or five months ago. I should like to take the opportunity to thank the Pension Service and its staff in Leeds for helping me to run several pensioner advice sessions last year to try to help pensioners to claim their due. I am slightly concerned, however, that the level of award in my constituency is 14 per cent. lower than the national average. I do not believe, at first sight, that the demographic make-up of my constituency merits that lower award. Will my hon. Friend meet me to study an intensive analysis of why that is the case and to consider ways of improving take-up?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to improve take-up in his constituency. He has not only helped the local Pension Service to hold surgeries, but been active in other ways to try to increase the level of take-up. My hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) to discuss the points that he has raised. However, the average award made to his constituents who were claiming the minimum income guarantee and are now claiming pension credit is £37.62 a week. Although that is slightly below the Great Britain average, that money will none the less be very welcome to those pensioners, and I am sure that they are very pleased to receive it.

What the take-up of pension credit in London has been since its introduction; and if he will make a statement.

I am pleased to report that as at 31 January, there were 239,000 pensioner households in London, comprising approximately 284,000 Londoners, receiving pension credit.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I tie it in with an answer that he gave me in writing last week, which showed that about 220,000 people across Greater London are as yet not claiming pension credit. Whatever our difference of view on the issue, will he accept that if so many people in need of that money are still not claiming it, one way of immediately giving them the necessary information would be to send out with their council tax bills—which they do not like—some information that might help them to pay those bills? That information could be sent to all the households in Greater London if the Minister's Department could get it organised in the next few weeks.

As I explained earlier in the Scottish context, it is sensible for us to have a planned and phased take-on. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would be the first to complain—they are often the first to complain anyway—if we had written to everyone so quickly that we could not answer the phones or deal with the resulting applications. We are doing this in the proper way, which makes sense for Londoners and others. Although there has already been great progress—involving more than 4,000 households in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example—we are continuing to write to Londoners, and we are determined to increase take-up through different methods, including home visits, which are proving very successful.

I accept what my hon. Friend says, but does he recognise that in some constituencies there are many pensioners who do not have a great deal of money coming in on a weekly or monthly basis, but who have savings that they have built up over the years? The savings threshold means that those people are excluded from the pension credit. Is there any possibility of raising that threshold, so that pensioners such as those who recently came to my advice surgery to tell me that they were not entitled to pension credit could be allowed into the system?

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that more than 2,000 people in his constituency are benefiting from pension credit so far. Under the old system of income support or the minimum income guarantee, any pound of extra savings from a work pension or money in the Post Office was knocked off pound for pound. One of the key factors about the pension credit is that, for the first time, we are rewarding those who have done the right thing, as it were, by saving.

Has it worked?

Yes, it has worked. The savings credit is rewarding people, which is why we now have so many gainers from pension credit. There will always be a cut-off point, and there will always be some who apply and who are disappointed, but that is the logic of a scheme that seeks to target the poorest and most hard-pressed pensioners, including many of the very elderly and the roughly two thirds of recipients who are women and who are now gaining from pension credit.

If he will make a statement on his proposed pension protection fund.

The pension protection fund will play a key role in the Government's plan of action significantly to improve protection for pension scheme members and to create greater confidence in pensions in general. For the first time ever, members of defined-benefit pension schemes based in the UK can rest assured that they will always receive a pension, even if their company goes bankrupt leaving the pension scheme underfunded.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he tell the House how many people have had their pension affected by company insolvency since 1997, and when these plans are actually going to be put in place? Will he also undertake to look into the case of Ballast Wiltshier—a company owned by the Dutch company Ballast Nedem—which was acquired and subsequently liquidated? As a result, a constituent of mine can now expect only a fraction of the pension that he was formerly entitled to, although the parent company is still operating profitably in the Netherlands.

I shall be happy to consider the details of that case and to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for raising that important matter. The Bill will be published, as we know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Soon?"] Very soon. Depending on the will of Parliament, we are working towards implementation of the fund and other key aspects of the provisions in the spring of next year.

The new pension protection fund proposed in the "soon to come along very imminently" Bill will obviously not be retrospective. May I add my voice to those who have already asked the Government seriously to consider giving some kind of compensation to pensioners who have lost their pension entitlement as a result of the collapse of their occupational pension scheme? I have a number of such constituents who were involved in the Richards scheme, which is one of the schemes having difficulties at the moment.

I hear my hon. Friend's statement, but cannot add anything to what the Secretary of State and I have said. However, the Secretary of State, other colleagues and I have met some of the workers who are affected, and we have a clear understanding of the reality facing them.

When the pension protection fund is introduced, hopefully in 2005, it will be welcome, but it would have been more welcome if it had been introduced as long ago as 2000, when Ros Altmann, a former Government adviser, warned of the coming crisis and urged the adoption of such a scheme. However, as we have heard, the fund offers nothing to people who lost their pension between 1997 and 2000, such as constituents of mine who worked for Chesterfield Cylinders, Dema Glass and Coalite Products Ltd. Can the Minister not offer any hope of compensation to such people, especially those who worked in the steel industry and were compelled by the Government to make payments into their pension?

The Secretary of State and I have already answered those questions, and I did so again just now. We are listening to sensible suggestions, and have met concerned MPs, their constituents and affected workers. We cannot say anything at this stage because we do not want to offer false hope, but we are listening very carefully.

What measures through the social security system are being taken to help mothers who want to return to work. [153181]

We want to give parents real choices about whether to work, and we will continue to take measures to support mothers who want to return to work. Our new deal for lone parents has already helped more than 200,000 mothers into work. We are making child care affordable and accessible through the child care component of the new tax credits and the extra places created through our national child care strategy, including Sure Start and a network of children's centres, including one in my hon. Friend's constituency, offering early learning alongside child care.

I certainly welcome the measures set out by my hon. Friend, but does he accept that many single mothers with young children want to be able to get back to nursing and teaching? University College Northampton, which is in my patch, provides extremely good courses, but I receive quite a lot of complaints, because single parents cannot make the benefits from the social security and child care systems work with the student finance system. Would my hon. Friend look into that with colleagues from other Departments, to make it possible for lone parents with children to get training, particularly in nursing and teaching, so that they can get those valuable jobs?

My hon. Friend will be aware that student nurses can claim child tax credit. However, as the skills White Paper highlighted, we need to make sure that there is better co-ordination between the support provided for students and support generally for people on benefits. About 400,000 people who are receiving support through the benefits system are pursuing further education, but we recognise the need to work with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to make sure that we fit the various pieces of the jigsaw together.

If he will make a statement on private pension provision.

The Government are committed to encouraging private funded provision by people who can afford to save. As set out in the document that we published last week, we want to empower individuals to take control of their retirement planning with the information that they need to make informed choices about working and saving. That is complemented by the Government's legislative programme of member protection and simplification. The Government are also committed to action, including legislation, to combat age discrimination and give people more choice about the timing and pace of their retirement.

The Secretary of State said that the Government are encouraging private pension provision, but he will not be unaware of the decline in the value of pension funds over the past couple of years, largely due to the stock market decline. At the same time, however, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, does he acknowledge that the Government played a role, because after the abolition of advance corporation tax in 1997 there was a pension fund raid, which took —35 billion out of pension funds? How will that encourage people to make private pension provision?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. He omitted to mention that the dividend tax credit—I believe that that is what he was referring to—was part of a thoroughgoing reform of corporate taxation, which included 3p in the pound off the rate of corporation tax. Moreover, while his colleagues on the Front Bench shed many crocodile tears about this, they have made no commitment to reverse the policy.

When he last met representatives of trade unions to discuss the future of occupational pension schemes.

We have frequent contacts with trade unions and other partners concerning pensions. For example, 1 met the general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, shortly before Christmas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met members of the TUC last week to discuss issues concerning women and pensions.

I am glad to hear that the Government are talking to representatives of workers, such as workers affected by the collapse of company pension schemes. In those discussions with trade unions and victims of collapsed schemes such as Kalamazoo, which affected many of my constituents, would it not help us if we knew the exact cost of retrospective compensation? At Question Time a month ago, the Secretary of State said in answer to a question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg):

"These 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 these inquiries and deliberations, I shall of course do so."—[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol.416, c. 514.]

In terms of listening to sensible suggestions and reflecting on these matters, the issue of cost is obviously vital. That is why it is a complex issue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that cost issues must be considered in this context. Sadly, I cannot add to what has been said by me and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon on this important issue.

Why did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he is reluctant to compensate occupational pensioners retrospectively because a substantial proportion of the public are not occupational pensioners, when 100 per cent. of average families are paying £16 a week in compensation and subsidies to farmers even though 99 per cent. of them are not farmers?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that that issue—that most taxpayers are probably not members of final salary schemes—is one that we must take into account in assessing the proposals that are put to us.

What measures he is taking to help those on incapacity benefit to get back to work.

We are committed to ensuring that people on sickness and incapacity benefits get support to return to work. The new deal for disabled people has already helped more than 25,000 placements of people into work. But we recognise that we need to do more. That is why we are piloting the measures in "pathways to work", giving people on incapacity benefits early and continuing support from specialist advisers, access to a range of condition management programmes, and improved financial incentives for returning to work.

May I inform my hon. Friend that unemployment in my constituency is now down to 3 per cent? However, there are still 13,000 people on incapacity benefit in St. Helens. The local authority and the chamber of commerce are putting together a plan to try to deal with this important matter. Will my hon. Friend assure me that her Department will do all that it can to support this important initiative?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am glad to hear him say that there are some locally devised programmes that are being considered in addition to what we are trying to do nationally. We are talking of one of the great remaining challenges in respect of employment. We know that there are many people on sickness and incapacity benefit—up to 1 million—who say, according to surveys, that they would like to work. Until recently there has not been enough help in place to ensure that they can meet that ambition. We are determined to ensure that we find the best way of putting support into place, and that is what we are trying to do.

What plans he has to publicise the introduction of changes in 2004 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

In October, those providing goods, services and facilities, whether for payment or not, will have to make reasonable adjustments to physical barriers that prevent access for disabled people. At the same time, the obligation not to discriminate against disabled people in employment will be extended to employers of fewer than 15 staff. These are welcome improvements for disabled people. We are undertaking information work to advertise these new requirements in conjunction with the Disability Rights Commission. This includes direct mail, advertising, website and media activity in addition to recognising those who do well through initiatives such as "access all areas" awards.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I congratulate her and the Government on doing more for disabled people than any other Government in the past 25 years. With the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government will extend the definition of disability to certain groups, including those with HIV infection, cancer and multiple sclerosis. I ask the Minister also to consider those people who suffer from ME, which has now again been recognised by the Government and by the chief medical officer as a debilitating illness and one that should be recognised as falling within the Disability Discrimination Act.

I know that my hon. Friend is the chair of the all-party group on ME, and I congratulate him on his interest in the subject, which has not always been top of the popularity lists, so I am grateful to him for taking such an interest. I am not aware of any difficulties encountered by those with ME that relate to the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act. Unlike cancer and HIV, where people can suffer discrimination in advance of having any symptoms, it would be unusual for anyone to be diagnosed with ME before they had had symptoms. However, if he is aware of any specific problems in his capacity as a Member of Parliament or as chairman of the all-party group, I would be more than happy to listen to what he has to say on the subject.