How many people were registered as recipients of either disability, incapacity or sickness benefits (a) on the most recent date for which figures are available, (b) in 1999 and (c) in 1994. [177310]

In 1979 there were 690,000 people of working age claiming incapacity benefits. By 1994 there were 2.23 million and by 1997, 2.56 million. In 2003 there were 2.68 million. I have placed information on all the benefits about which the hon. Member asks in the Library.

The Department's statistics, confirmed by the Library, show that, over the last five years, there has been an increase of 531,000 in the number of people securing disability living allowance or incapacity benefit. As that figure involves a 20 per cent. increase in DLA, does the Secretary of State feel that there is a case for an inquiry to find out why there has been such a huge increase, particularly as there can be implications for other statistics? When we see such a huge increase, it is important to find out why it has happened. I should greatly appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's help in establishing exactly why there has been an increase of 531,000 in this short period.

The on-flows on to incapacity benefit are down sharply over the last seven years, by some 260,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman should draw a distinction between incapacity benefit and DLA, which is non-means-tested and paid to people in work, as well as to those out of work, to meet the extra costs of their disability. I would have thought that he would join me in celebrating the fact that people who need that help because they are disabled are receiving it. Sometimes the Conservative party is quick to criticise us for the lower take-up of benefits. Perhaps, on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman will think again about criticising us for the higher take-up of a much needed benefit.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that one third of my constituents of working age are on incapacity benefit, a phenomenally high figure. Does he believe that the role of GPs in, effectively, giving people a passport to benefits for life is in serious need of review?

We are reviewing these matters and learning from the pathways to work pilots, which also operate in my hon. Friend's constituency. We have established much closer partnership working with GPs, primary care trusts and those involved in training and voluntary service support for sick and disabled people. The early evidence from the pilots is that a lot of people are being helped into training and work rather than incapacity benefit, including in my hon. Friend's constituency.

The emphasis from the Government on pathways to work and on the pilots is welcome, but will the Secretary of State acknowledge the regional dimension? Is he aware of the recent work by Steve Fothergill—an academic at Sheffield university—and others, which shows clearly that if the economies were stronger in south Wales, the north-east and Clydeside, up to 1.2 million claimants could be taken off incapacity benefit? What are the Government doing to address the regional dimension of the problem, in addition to the individual attention that, rightly, is being given to people in the pathways to work pilots?

I am aware not only of regional disparities but of the progress that is being made in the different regions. When one looks at the labour market statistics as a whole over the past seven years—during which we have put 1.9 million extra people into jobs—it is striking that unemployment has fallen furthest in the areas where it was highest. That does not mean that there is not more to do, and through the pathways to work pilots—which are in some of the very areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred—we will be making inroads into what has become a culture of incapacity in those areas. That must change, and I believe positively that it will.

I hope that we have not spotted another Tory leak—about plans to take benefits away from the legitimately ill. Surely the test here is what would have happened in the past to people with such difficulties and how many of them now are being helped by programmes such as the new deal to get back into work when they are capable of it.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. People were left to languish on incapacity and other benefits for years, with no one paying them any attention or giving them any help whatever. What Conservative Members leave out of their analysis of the new deal is the number of people suffering ill health and disability—barriers to work—who have been helped by the other new deals. Some 57,000 disabled people have been helped by the new deal for young people, and 41,000 disabled people over the age of 25 have been helped by that new deal. A further 33,000 people have been helped by the new deal 50-plus and 9,000 by the new deal for lone parents. All those are programmes that would be scrapped by the Conservative party.

Further to the Secretary of State's remark about a culture of incapacity benefit, he will be aware, although he did not give these figures to the House, that since 1997 the number of people claiming incapacity benefit for such conditions as stress, anxiety and depression has risen to 718,000, that that is a rise of 39 per cent. and that such conditions now represent 26 per cent. of all claims. That rise is continuing, and it is clearly out of control. Can the Minister guarantee that it will be reduced by the end of this Parliament, or is his Department too stressed and anxious to do that?

There are a number of reasons underlying the increase in sickness and ill health—and, in particular, mental ill health—take-up of incapacity benefit. Greater awareness and an increase in people's readiness to acknowledge mental health conditions are certainly part of the picture, but if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would be wise to examine the gateway through which people get on to those benefits, and offer them support to enable them to get back into work rather than have a life on benefits, I agree with him. I hope that he agrees with us that the pathways to work approach, which combines rehabilitation, mandatory work-focused interviews, and incentives and help with training for those who move into jobs, is the right way forward. It is cutting-edge stuff as far as international experience is concerned, and the Conservative party ought to support it.

How many pensioners he estimates have gained financially as a result of the introduction of pension credit. [177312]

How many pensioners he estimates have gained as a result of pension credit. [177317]

What discussions he has had with Age Concern relating to the take-up of pension credit. [177319]

How many pensioners he estimates have gained financially as a result of the introduction of pension credit. [177323]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent answer. In my constituency, many pensioners are now benefiting from that additional help—considerably so, in fact. However, there are still some pensioners who would argue that they are not getting their full entitlement because of their struggle in filling out the paperwork and so on. What can the Minister do to increase the number of pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere who fully understand what they are entitled to and should be receiving?

I thank my hon. Friend for the lead that he is giving on pensions rights in Scarborough and Whitby. He has a firm reputation in that regard. More than 5,000 households in his constituency are receiving pension credit, the great majority of them—more than 4,000—being financial gainers. But do we need to do more to increase take-up? Yes we do, and I am particularly pleased to report to the House that somewhere in the region of 500,000 home visits have now taken place through our new Pension Service. It is by that exercise of choice over how to apply for benefits that we will push up the numbers even further.

I thank the Minister for his earlier response. Many people in my constituency are indeed benefiting from the pension credit, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), I have many constituents who are not. Does the Minister agree that Members of Parliament can play an important role in raising awareness of the pension credit? Will he instruct his Department to dispatch information to individual Members across the House so that we can help our vulnerable constituents by raising awareness and making sure that they receive their full entitlement?

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for the lead that he is giving on these matters on the island. The local pension service has been in touch with all Members of Parliament, but I will review the arrangements to ensure that that is taking place. There are 2,730 people who are on the credit, financially better off, in his constituency, and I know that there are many advice surgeries, one of which, I note, takes place in the marriage waiting room at the registry office—I did not know that we were into that form of joined-up government, but no doubt it will be welcomed.

I understand that about £1 billion goes unclaimed in pension credit. Oxfordshire Age Concern, which covers both the Secretary of State's constituency and mine, tells me that much of its work is now in helping pensioners to claim the credit and fill in the paperwork. Will the Minister consider further ways of helping pensioners to access the benefits to which they are entitled? Age Concern and other charities have been very good at reaching pensioners whom even home visits have not reached, so will he consider giving them a grant-in-aid, so that they can be more active in ensuring that pensioners get all the benefits to which they are entitled?

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work with the local pension service. I know that Age Concern is an active constituent, as it were, in that area. We have a small partnership fund, a sum set aside for the very purpose that he suggested, to ensure that local voluntary organisations can work with us on common objectives, but I thank him for the suggestion.

Pension credit is certainly benefiting many pensioners in my constituency, too, and I congratulate the Government on that, but there are many who believe that if they have any extra income on top of their basic state pension, that makes them automatically ineligible. Can the Government do more to change that perception?

That is an important question, and I am not complacent about our need to communicate very effectively. We are doing so, but there is still much to do. The point of pension credit, in large part, is that for the first time, unlike the old minimum income guarantee, it recognises and rewards those with savings, which is one reason why far more people are now benefiting than under the old income support system.

Is not the Minister a touch embarrassed to know that, in my constituency, there are many more pensioners who, thanks to his Government's policies, feel fleeced by unnecessarily high council tax bills than are eligible for pension credit?

I hesitated because I was waiting for the punch line, Mr. Speaker. I hoped for more from a former social security Minister. We are concerned about levels of council tax in many areas, which is why we are reviewing the best methods of funding local governance, and it is one reason why an extra £100 will go to all households with someone aged 70 or over—indeed, we have Report and Third Reading of that Bill tomorrow.

My hon. Friend will know that I am a strong supporter of pension credit and of what the Government have done for pensioners. Will he acknowledge that the pension centres have done a really good job in ensuring that people who would not have got the benefit are getting it, and recognise that there are concerns about what will happen to those centres? In particular, there are rumours that Simonstone pension centre will close in a major reorganisation, and fears about what will happen and how we will ensure that pensioners get what the Government want them to get in the future.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the important work that pension centres and the service as a whole are doing. Despite the inevitable scare stories that we get from time to time from Opposition parties, the fact that, for example, 94 per cent. of calls are answered within 30 seconds shows what an excellent service we now have.

Does not the Minister recognise the widespread concern that has just been expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the problem of low take-up of pension credit because many pensioners simply do not want to claim a complicated, means-tested benefit? Did he have the good fortune to hear the Deputy Prime Minister on the "Today" programme the other week, when he said that 1.5 million pensioners were not claiming council tax benefit

"because they don't like to use the means-tested approach that is entailed in that."?

I hear the Tory plates crashing all over the place. Of course I listened to what the Deputy Prime Minister said, and we do recognise that some people will fear that this policy constitutes old-fashioned means-testing—not least because of the campaign of fear that some are waging. But when, on phoning our Pension Service, elderly people are able to discover within a short time whether they are eligible for the pension credit, they know that this is a 21st century service. Two out of three people claiming pension credit are women—2 million women are claiming, compared with 1 million men, and the policy is helping elderly women in particular—and that is a very strong feature of this Government's social policy.

What the rate of take-up of pension credits is in Newcastle-under-Lyme. [177313]

As at 31 May, 3,905 pensioner households in Newcastle-under-Lyme, comprising some 4,700 individuals, were in receipt of pension credit. That is a 50 per cent. increase in take-up of the minimum income guarantee.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she recognise that despite Opposition carping, thousands of pensioners in Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire have benefited under Labour from pension increases, guaranteed minimum incomes and the pension credit? That is real progress, which would be reversed if the Tories took office again. Does she also recognise that despite the flimsy promise that the Liberal Democrats made last year to knock £100 off council tax, but which they have now dropped—

Order. I think that the Minister can answer the question.

Anybody would think that some elections were going on. I did hope to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps we can do so on another occasion. None the less, he is absolutely right to point out that the Opposition's policy would leave poorer pensioners on a—

Order. Even the Minister is not allowed to talk about the Opposition's policies.

What criteria he uses to assess the effectiveness of the Health and Safety Executive. [177314]

Notwithstanding the fact that the United Kingdom has one of the best health and safety records in Europe, in 2000 the Government set targets further to reduce accidents and ill health caused by work. The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive have developed a new strategy to help to deliver these targets, and I hold quarterly performance reviews with the HSE, at which key indicators on performance are discussed, among other matters.

My right hon. Friend will agree that for any Labour Government, health and safety are at the highest point on the political agenda, but does she accept that the strategy agreed by this Government and the Health and Safety Commission is not being adhered to and that we are not seeing the reductions in deaths, serious injuries and workplace-related illness that we anticipated? Will the Government therefore give a clear commitment to that strategy and will they ensure that the Health and Safety Executive has the necessary funding to enforce and prosecute, which it is currently failing to do? Will they also introduce the promised legislation, in order to provide real power to crack down on rogue employers who kill and injure our fellow countrymen and women in the workplace?

I do acknowledge the importance that many Members in all parts of the House attach to health and safety, but I do not accept my hon. Friend's observation that the Health and Safety Executive has failed to progress towards achieving these targets. Delivering on the targets is not just about more cash or more inspectors. All organisations such as the HSE can always use more funding, but effective regulation of health and safety at work is about more than that: it is about providing the right information and advice; training; working with and through others; and changing workplace culture. The threat of enforcement is an important element in that regard, and in the light of my increasingly close work with the HSE, I am satisfied that, although there are areas in which we need to make more progress, on the whole the HSE and the Health and Safety Coin mission are keeping these targets in focus and are working towards achieving them.

A fortnight ago, as the Minister will be aware, the Health and Safety Executive's Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 came into force. In those regulations, the agency makes no distinction between the deadly blue and brown forms of asbestos, which have caused such suffering, and the far less risky white asbestos. Is the Minister aware of reports that unscrupulous contractors are using that confusion to rip off home owners, small businesses, farmers and others? What is she doing to ensure that a well meant attempt to protect public health does not become a regulatory nightmare?

I will look closely into those allegations and if there is any truth in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I shall certainly look into the matter further. I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time the Health and Safety Executive ceased to be a sort of back office of a Government Department? Is it not time we gave it some real independence? I understand that the HSE would dearly like to campaign and to push the Government into doing something about protecting workers from passive smoking at work, but that the Government are leaning on it to be quiet. If that is true, it is a disgrace. Is it not about time the Government grasped the nettle and protected workers?

The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are independent organisations and they are not coming under pressure from the Government not to pursue a campaign on smoking at work, so I am afraid that I cannot accept the basis of my hon. Friend's question.

The Health and Safety Executive is an excellent and important organisation that does good work. Will the Minister congratulate it on its targeting of major causes of accidents, particularly falls from height on building sites? Does she agree that it is important to provide safer methods of forming barriers across openings at height on building sites—for instance, where lift shafts are being provided for—and is she aware that the Fullgate system, which does just that, is manufactured on Canvey Island?

I was not aware of that last fact, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to it. He is right to congratulate the Health and Safety Executive on its good and effective work on the incidence of injuries caused by workers falling from height. Indeed, the rate of reported major injury to employees is now about 3 per cent. lower than it was in 2000, the base year for the targets that I spoke about earlier. However, the balance of evidence suggests that the overall incidence of work-related ill health is likely to have risen, so we are not complacent. We accept that there is a lot more to do and we keep all such matters under constant review.

How many women in Warrington, North have benefited from the new deal for lone parents since its introduction. [177315]

In my hon. Friend's constituency, 390 women have taken part in the new deal for lone parents and 220 have so far been helped into work. That is part of the progress across the country that has resulted, for the first time, in more than half of lone parents being in jobs, that has lifted children out of poverty and saved the taxpayer £40 million a year.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Many of the women whom I have met who have taken part in the new deal for lone parents are grateful for the work that they have obtained as a result, but I ask my right hon. Friend now to examine the needs of women after they have got jobs under the scheme, because they may need help to develop their careers. They may need information about their rights at work, about courses that they could take and so on, so that not only are they in jobs but they have careers. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look into what can be done to assist lone parents once they have gone back to work?

I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the progress that the new deal is making in her constituency and for her advocacy of it. The new deal for lone parents is already making a difference on the issues connected with progress at work that she is concerned about: those who get jobs through the new deal are 15 per cent. more likely to stay in work than those who get jobs in similar circumstances in other ways. The preparation, the training and support and the personal advice are already making a difference. The further expansion of child care, with places for an additional 2 million children by 2006, and the work of the new child care partnerships, coupled with skills and training advice and workplace rights, are, I believe, the building blocks of the sort of flexible and responsive system that my hon. Friend and I both want to see, and towards which we are making progress.

The Secretary of State will know that one of the main causes for concern about the new deal is that so many people, tens of thousands, have been through it twice, three times or more. How many of the women in Warrington, North who have been helped by the new deal for lone parents have been through the scheme more than once?

I would have to check that statistic, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said, the 220 women who have gained jobs—a significant proportion of those who took part in the programme—welcome those jobs and are more likely to stay in them because they have had the help given by the new deal. Their biggest anxiety would be the Conservative party's plans to scrap it.

If he will make a statement on the decision to offer compensation to those members of occupational pension schemes who will not be covered by the proposed pension protection fund. [177316]

I dare say that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have amended the Pensions Bill to introduce a financial assistance scheme for those workers who lost out on their defined-benefit occupational pensions prior to the introduction of the pension protection fund. Further details of the scheme, including who will be eligible and the level of assistance to be provided, will be developed through consultation with stakeholders such as pension scheme trustees, trades unions and business representatives

Is not the Secretary of State disappointed by the reaction to his announcement in Southend, West and throughout the country? Does he recognise that his announcement does not address the serious scale of the problem? Will he use the unclaimed assets in banks and building societies so that the general public, who have been so badly affected, can receive a decent amount of money?

In terms of reaction, Derek Simpson of Amicus said:

"This is great news for our members whose pensions were cruelly snatched away when their companies went bust."

"We are delighted that government has responded to calls for action … The amounts the government is suggesting are not enormous but the impact on the lives of those individuals affected will be huge."

May I welcome the Government's announcement of a lifeboat operation? May I press the Secretary of State further, however, on the distinction that some Ministers are making between those who have lost their pensions because of an involuntary wind-up through bankruptcy and those who have lost all or part of their pensions because their firm has voluntarily wound up a pension scheme? For those involved, the loss of a pension, for whatever cause, has exactly the same effect. What is the Secretary of State's thinking on whether those who have lost all or part of their pensions because a scheme has been voluntarily wound up will be treated equally to the others?

I accept the force of my right hon. Friend's concern, but he will be aware, as others are, that as we have considered these important issues in recent months, I have been careful on each and every occasion to say that where a boundary is drawn around those eligible for assistance, that boundary is bound to be difficult and some people are bound to fall on the wrong side of it. The thrust of the campaign expressing concerns was about insolvent wind-ups, as has been reflected in the statements made by me and my ministerial colleagues. We have made it clear that as we bring the scheme forward and engage with stakeholders and expert groups in defining eligibility conditions, we shall listen to everyone who has representations to make.

I welcome the Government's movement on this issue, but does the Secretary of State accept that a hardship fund is not enough? Many workers were not warned that their pensions would be at risk if their employer became insolvent. Indeed, it is worse than that: Government literature from the Financial Services Authority and from the Minister's Department said that pensions from companies were guaranteed. If workers had known that their pensions would be at risk if their employer became insolvent, they could, close to retirement, have got the money out to save their pensions, especially if their employer looked risky. But no one told them so.

Again, I accept the strong feelings of injustice and anger that members of these schemes will have expressed, and which the hon. Gentleman's remarks partly reflect. However, I have to say that there is not a legal liability here, so talk of compensation in the terms expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not appropriate. I felt—as did hon. Members on both sides of the House—that, because of these workers' plight, it was right to do something about it. That is why we announced the scheme and why we pledged £400 million, plus such help as could be obtained from the industry. It is not an insignificant sum and it will make a real difference to those affected. The hon. Gentleman should be warmer in his welcome for it.

My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on the work that he did with the PPF and on supplying the £400 million. However, the criteria governing who does and who does not receive the money have to be simple and clear. Does he agree with that?

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome and kind remarks. Yes, I agree that we must make it as simple and clear as possible, though bitter experience teaches us that little in the field of occupational pensions is quite as simple or straightforward as we would like. In terms of the way forward, we have clearly set out how we intend to proceed. We are already engaging key partners—both stakeholders and expert groups—in consultation on the scheme's development. By the end of this month we will lay a report on the scope of the problem before the House. By the end of November, we will start consulting on regulations. We are working towards the legislation being in place for spring next year, so we are moving as quickly as we can.

Can the Secretary of State assure the House that any payments that victims of pension wind-ups receive from the Government's compensation scheme will not lead to a reduction in means-tested benefits?

I am not going to give a blanket assurance on that, but our aim is certainly to try to ensure that people will not be worse off as a consequence of having received this help than they would otherwise have been.

May I press the Secretary of State a little more on that? As we know from a figure that he gave to the House when answering one of my questions in a debate, 60,000 people are affected. We have heard about a scheme that provides £20 million a year—about £400 million in total. That amounts to about £7,000 per person affected, which might be worth £350 a year—a very small sum compared with the size of the losses that many constituents of Members on both sides of the House are facing. It would add insult to injury if those people were then told that they would have reductions in their means-tested benefits because of the Government's assistance. I very much hope that. the Secretary of State will consider the matter further and give the House an assurance that there will not be a loss of means-tested benefits.

Of course we will be looking very carefully into all those aspects and their impact on individuals. I would not want to accept—and I would not want the record to show that I had implicitly accepted—the basis of the hon. Gentleman's calculations, by which I mean neither the average amount nor the means by which he arrived at it. The precise means by which help will be provided—and, indeed, any additional contributions—will depend on the definition of eligibility for the scheme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am astonished at the churlishness of the Tories, and especially the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in his attack on my right hon. Friend? My constituents believe that he and the Minister of State did an excellent job arguing for the scheme, obtaining the £400 million and getting the Prime Minister to intervene. Can my right hon. Friend give us the further assurance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was seeking—that in implementing the scheme, he w ill be as flexible as possible and will ensure that no one is excluded on a technicality?

As I said, we will certainly be looking very carefully at the views that have been expressed. There is no point in misleading people on that. However a scheme is defined, and whatever the eligibility conditions, there are bound to be some people who will be disappointed. That has been in the nature of things since the beginning. It is important, as I have said all along, that we can look people straight in the eye and that they know that we have been straight with them. As to the churlishness of the Conservatives, I am never surprised at how churlish they are, any more than I am surprised by the loyalty and enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend, which is greatly appreciated.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the unclaimed assets fund? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that people will receive only between £350 and £500 a year. Why cannot a claim be made on the unclaimed assets fund to help those 60,000 people?

There is no unclaimed assets fund on which to make a claim. If there were, and if funds were available to help with the scheme, it would be very welcome.

What assessment he has made of the contribution of Work Link in Stockport to supporting people with mental health problems to move back into work. [177318]

Stockport council's Work Link initiative has been providing a well regarded, work-focused service to people with mental health impairments since 1998. I am pleased that Work Link is working closely with Jobcentre Plus and I am confident that their partnership will continue to deliver the intense one-to-one support that has been successful in helping 68 people with mental health impairments into work since 1999.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Work Link has been providing employment services to people with severe learning disabilities and mental health problems for several years and has had a remarkable success rate in placing people in work. However, because of changes in the structure of bidding for the European social fund, the long-term financial support for the project is now in doubt. Will my hon. Friend visit Work Link in my constituency, see for herself the excellent services that are being provided, and discuss the possibilities for sustainable, long-term funding to assure the future of the project?

I am keen to continue successful partnerships with organisations such as Work Link, which has developed specialist expertise to help many people who have traditionally been ignored by society and written off as incapable of work. I am more than happy to visit Stockport and Work Link as soon as I have the opportunity to do so to discuss those issues with the project's staff.

Pursuant to his oral answer of 26 April 2004, Official Report, columns 631–32W, on Jobcentre Plus (Scotland), how much has been invested in Jobcentre Plus in Scotland in the most recent convenient period. [177320]

In Scotland in the last financial year, £48.8 million was invested in welfare-to-work programmes and more than £31 million in the roll-out of new Jobcentre Plus offices and new contact centres. Forty-five of the new Jobcentre Plus offices are now open in Scotland, including the Bathgate office in my hon. Friend's constituency.

How successful has Jobcentre Plus been in bringing the hitherto economically inactive back into productive work?

Nationally, more than 276,000 people have been helped into work through the new deals for lone parents and disabled people, who are some of our hardest to help customers. In Scotland, the new deal for lone parents has assisted 26,780 people back into work since its introduction in 1998.

The question for my right hon. Friend the Minister is whether that investment has been worth while. In the review of district structure, the new Highlands. Islands and Clyde coast district includes Dumbarton. The new headquarters for that district is 182 miles away in Inverness. Kevin Doran, the director for Scotland, has confirmed in a letter to me that the new structure is about economies of scale, but I would like reassurance from my right hon. Friend that it is also about efficiency, convenient access and customer care. Can I have such guarantees on behalf of my constituents?

The development of Jobcentre Plus is about building on the high quality service already provided by social security offices and jobcentres by delivering a single integrated service to all people of working age, with a clear focus on work. It is about delivering more flexibility to the staff who are in the closest contact with my hon. Friend's constituents. I undertake to ensure that we continue to work with Jobcentre Plus to keep assistance to customers and customer service at the forefront of our targets.

How many people he estimates are not claiming the income support to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement. [177321]

We want all people who are eligible for benefits to take up their entitlement. Our most recent estimate is that between 86 and 95 per cent of people who are entitled to income support are receiving it, leaving between 110,000 and 350,000 working-age adults not receiving it. Among claimants with children, take-up is higher at between 93 and 99 per cent.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell us whether the number of people claiming housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support is going up or down overall? If the overall number is going up, does not that show the Government elected in 1997 as a dismal failure?

No, it shows considerable success across the board. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions talking about what we are doing and about our great success in extending access to the pension credit. He will know that we have launched a campaign on council tax benefit. Because the eligibility limits for many of those benefits have been increased generously, it is true that more people have become entitled and we are working hard to ensure that those newly entitled people get the benefits to which they are entitled and make claims as appropriate.

Are some people who are in receipt of child support allowance missing out on income support? I have a letter sent on behalf of the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus. It shows that the change that came in on 12 April means that:

"As the children will not be included in the calculation for Income Support, any income they receive, including maintenance payments, will not be taken into consideration".

As my non. Friend will know, we have made an important change in saying that maintenance payments will not be taken into account in the child tax credit, but I shall look into the specific issue he raised and the confusion that has arisen as a result of the fact that support for children has moved from income support across to a seamless system of child tax credits.

On the operation of the benefits system generally, with particular reference to income-related benefits, has the Minister had a chance to read the annual report of the Daventry welfare rights group for the last fiscal year? It reports a staggering 50 per cent. increase in the work load and comments simply that new benefits are introduced and the common factor is chaos. Would not Ministers be better advised to stop tinkering with the system and to make a real effort to reduce its complexity and its over-dependence on means-testing?

I have to say that that particular publication did not form part of my weekend's reading, but I shall make sure that it is part of my next weekend's reading. However, I am absolutely sure that the publication will have included reference to the fact that we are the first Government ever to have set ourselves a target of, first, halving and then eliminating child poverty and that we are determined to deal with pensioner poverty. That is why we have had to sort out much of the benefits mess left to us by the previous Government and why we have had to introduce benefits such as the pension credit, which assists many thousands of pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as it does elsewhere in the country.

What progress has been made in piloting the standard local housing allowance in the private rented sector. [177322]

We are making excellent progress on the local housing allowance pathfinders. All nine pathfinder local authorities have implemented the reforms smoothly and we have put in place a comprehensive and independent evaluation. Although these are early days, the indications are that the local housing allowance is working well.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. With specific reference to London, what are the early findings? Although the pilot on the standard local housing allowance is welcome, I foresee problems in London where demand for accommodation of all sorts is huge.

In choosing the pathfinders, we wanted to ensure that we were able to cover high demand areas as well as low demand areas. That is why one of the nine pathfinders is based in London, and we shall look carefully at the implications of that for the working of the scheme. In Lewisham, 2,000 people are already in receipt of the local housing allowance, and it is working well at present. As I said, these are early days and we have announced that a further wave of local authorities will be included in a local housing allowance scheme to see operationally how it will work in practice. We have received a tremendous response from local authorities that would like to be involved and we shall announce which of them will be included in the near future. We hope that one of them, too, will be in London.

Is this the best time to be transferring the new scheme to the private rented sector, bearing in mind the tremendous pressure that that sector of the housing market is coming under, particularly in north Yorkshire, and the lack of affordable homes in that area? What discussions has the Minister or his Department had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to try to alleviate the situation by getting more homes from the private rented sector on to the market and by providing more affordable homes?

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I can tell her that we have had extensive discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We need to tackle the issue from both ends. We need to make sure that more affordable housing becomes available and, at the same time, that tenants have more choice and more ability to make decisions about how they spend their incomes. That means ensuring that they make the decisions about quality in terms of the housing available.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House how the local housing allowance pilots—which, on the face of it, should permit people to make choices about the type and quality of their accommodation—are working and whether, in particular, in poorer areas such as mine there is evidence that people are exercising their power of choice to trade up or to trade down?

Yes, I can say that, in the pathfinders, the overall effect—whether it be in the high demand or low demand areas—seems to be generally very positive. We are not seeing great problems in terms of the extension of choice to tenants. In areas such as that of my hon. and learned Friend, the available evidence seems to suggest that when people have the choices and the income to make those choices a reality, they tend to trade up in the quality of their accommodation. That would be our expectation.

If he will make a statement on the operation of the Child Support Agency. [177324]

The new scheme of child support was introduced for new cases and for those connected to the new scheme in March last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made regular progress reports to the House. Following his last report on 21 April, I can tell the House that more than 180,000 cases have now been cleared and more than 22,000 of the poorest families are already benefiting from the new child maintenance premium.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but the stream of complaints made in my surgeries by constituents who continue to have their liability for child support assessed according to the old rules continues unabated. Have the Government set a date for the complete migration of all cases in the CSA from the old system to the new? What is that date?

No, we have not set a date. Overall, the number of complaints is falling and those that are made are being resolved more quickly by the agency. We have been straightforward with the House in saying that we cannot and will not transfer cases to the new system until we are absolutely sure that the new system and the IT are working properly. We cannot give a date on that, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that, in his view—and, I am sure, in the view of the House as a whole—it would be irresponsible to make that transition until we are sure that the IT is working properly.

Has my hon. Friend looked at the proportion of the old case load that will be affected by the 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. change and considered what the number of winners and losers might be? There is a great deal of anxiety out there and much pressure for the rollback to take place as early as possible. In particular, in the case of CSA clients in North-West Leicestershire, who are largely dealt with by staff in either Dudley or Belfast, the number of caseworkers that individual resident parents have to deal with over quite a short time is excessive. Will he look at the stability and training of staff there?

Certainly, that is an issue that we are looking at to make sure that staff have the right and adequate amount of training. We understand the anxieties that people feel in waiting for the new system to come fully into operation. Everybody will accept that it is a much better system than the one set up by the Conservative party: it is simpler, fairer and more straightforward. However, as I have said, it would be irresponsible of us to try to make that transition until we know that the IT is working smoothly to ensure that payments go to the children who need the support.

How many pensioners are receiving payment of their pensions at post offices in the Bolton, South-East constituency. [177327]

As at 17 April 2004, 6,000 pensioners in Bolton, South-East received their payments by order book, which they cash at the Post Office. Almost 5,500 pensioners have had their money paid directly into an account. Many of those pensioners can access their payments in cash at the post office through the wider range of banking services now available at post office branches.

All of us are being asked to remember more and more personal identification numbers and passwords, the latest example being the Fees Office, but at least it gives Members of Parliament clues to help us out. Is my hon. Friend aware that some pensioners find it extremely difficult to remember their PINs for the post office and that as a consequence some post offices are keeping lists of those PINs behind the counter? Will he discuss that problem with Post Office Counters Ltd. the next time he meets its representatives?

I certainly will. We understand that some people may have difficulty remembering their PINs, and my hon. Friend suggests that he might be one of them. I do not know whether he has taken out a Post Office card account, but I can tell him that he will not be entitled to it. It is not good banking practice for anyone, including sub-postmasters, to keep PINs behind the counter. I am not sure that that is good for the system's overall security. Of course, customers have the opportunity to change the PIN originally allocated to a number that they can more easily remember—perhaps their date of birth—and it is the job of staff and sub-postmasters to remind them of that. However, we have always recognised that a small number of people will not be able to operate the PIN system effectively, which is why we have announced a cheque-based system of payment, to begin from October this year.

I congratulate the pensioners of Bolton, South-East on getting a PIN because that means they have managed to open a Post Office card account, which is still proving very difficult and a bureaucratic nightmare. Will the Minister consider the various stages that a pensioner has to go through to open a Post Office card account to ensure that the system is much easier to use and that some of the silly rules, which act as a barrier to people opening such accounts, are removed?

Already, 3 million customers have said that they want to open a Post Office card account and 2 million have done so. We recognise that some customers may find the process difficult, but we have made it as simple as we can. We are considering ways to make the process more customer friendly and simpler to operate. We are in discussions with the Post Office on how best to do that.

If he will make a statement on the take-up of pension credit. [177328]

As the progress report published today shows, 2.5 million households—including 3 million individuals—are now receiving the pension credit. This includes just short of 4,000 pensioner households in my hon. Friend's constituency.

That Is a very good story, but there is one curious aspect to it, as reflected in the answer that my hon. Friend gave to me a few months ago—and that is the percentage take-up between urban and rural areas. In the prosperous rural areas, the increase in the take-up this year was 43 per cent., but in the poorer rural areas it was a mere 31 per cent. and just 19 per cent. in London. Has the Minister given some thought to that and to how he will conduct future campaigns to concentrate on the urban areas, where the need is almost certainly greater?

We are studying reasons for variations of the sort illustrated by my hon. Friend and I shall report back when we have some firm conclusions. However, a local pension service allows us to tailor the campaigns to local circumstances. I am happy to talk to him about how we might better do that, although the local pension service is doing an excellent job in his constituency.

If he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive investigation into the Stockline Plastics factory explosion in Glasgow. [177330]

The Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, and the chair of the Health and Safety Commission Bill Callaghan, agreed that there should be a joint investigation into the factory explosion in Glasgow on 11 May 2004, involving the Health and Safety Executive, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and Strathclyde police. That joint investigation is now proceeding in a co-ordinated and co-operative manner, but it is too early to speculate on the cause of the explosion.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. I take this opportunity to give credit to the emergency workers, the voluntary sector and the local community in Maryhill for their marvellous response to this tragedy. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend stated, we need to wait until tile full evidence is available before making any judgment as to the cause of the tragedy, but will she assure the House that if the inquiry should show evidence of a health and safety failure, there will be a full, independent investigation of the role of the Health and Safety Executive in its earlier visits to the factory?

I, too, want to add my words of congratulation not only to the members of the emergency services, but to the staff of the Health and Safety Executive who were on site very quickly after the incident. The HSE has visited the site of a number of occasions in the past 30 years; indeed, it has done so twice in the past four years. Following standard procedure, it will be conducting a prior role inquiry to determine whether there are lessons to be learned, both for the employer and for the HSE.