If he will make a statement on the consequences for his Department of recent trends in unemployment in Nottingham, North. [181887]

The UK has one of the best labour markets in the world. We now have just over 28 million people in employment, which is more than ever before. We also have the best combination of employment and unemployment figures of the major industrialised countries and, as a result, my hon. Friend's constituency has experienced a 44 per cent. fall in unemployment since 1997.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those statistics, and urge her to keep unemployment on the agenda. The Government's success in tackling unemployment is in danger of knocking it off the agenda, when we should be celebrating that success. Does she accept, however, that there is a law of diminishing returns: the more we conquer unemployment, the harder it is to get those who remain unemployed back into work? Will she therefore look at the action teams for jobs and at the possibility of devolving authority from employment centres right down to our estates by deploying individuals to those estates who know the people and who can tailor the service to get the people who find it hardest to get jobs back into employment?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, and for the close interest that he takes in this subject. Despite the success of our labour market policies, we are not complacent and we know that there is more to be done to help those groups of people—and the areas that he has rightly identified—who need extra support. He rightly draws attention to the work of the action team for jobs in Nottingham, which, with the employment zone, has helped more than 1,700 people into work.

What recent progress has been made in tackling economic inactivity. [181888]

What progress has been made in tackling economic inactivity in the last six years. [181896]

Thanks to sound economic management and the new deal, Britain has record employment and the lowest unemployment for nearly 30 years. The number of economically inactive people claiming benefits has fallen over the past seven years, with, for example, nearly 200,000 fewer lone parents on income support. While we have achieved a great deal, there is still more to do. We are tackling economic inactivity by requiring everyone applying for benefits to have an interview about work, and by providing effective help so that more lone parents and people on incapacity benefits move off welfare and into jobs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. St. Helens has set up a local partnership, but it has found five major problems: a lack of long-term funding; a lack of joined-up government; a lack of training; discrimination by employers; and a low earnings threshold. Will he assure me that all those issues will be addressed in his review?

Yes, indeed, and I commend my hon. Friend for the support that he gives to the active partnership in his constituency, which plays such an important part in tackling these challenges successfully. With regard to joined-up government, we are doing pioneering work with the Department of Health on the pathways to work initiative, to bring together at local level primary care providers, rehabilitation services and the Jobcentre Plus effort. This is a clear pointer to the way forward. We are tackling discrimination through the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and through the draft Bill that is currently before Parliament, both of which will provide huge moves forward on that agenda.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to tackle the problem of economic inactivity is to deal with health-related problems before a pattern of inactivity traps an individual? What is his Department doing to realise the potential role of rehabilitative and occupational therapies in tackling this problem?

As I have just been saying, the link with primary care, rehabilitation and condition management services is absolutely crucial. We are running pilots on the role of better occupational health, and on tackling ailments such as back pain and stress. As my hon. Friend says, if we can work with employers to tackle these problems before people leave work in the first place, we will face less of a problem with people moving on to incapacity benefit long-term. Mounting evidence, including an important report published last month by Professors Gordon Waddell and Kim Burton, points to the clear medical benefits of therapeutic and rehabilitation activity in the workplace, and shows how, in most cases, people's medical condition is helped by getting them back to work as soon as is sensible.

The Secretary of State will understand that this is one of the most important areas for Government action in the coming months and years, and there is mounting evidence to show that the stock of people on long-term disability benefits is not diminishing at all. How soon will it be before we can evaluate the pathways to work pilots? It would be interesting to know. I am particularly concerned about the case-loading that some personal advisers to jobseekers and disability employment advisers have to cope with. The case load is so great that they cannot give the individual attention that those clients need.

Further evidence on the performance of the pathways to work pilot and early indications of the difference it is making will be published over the summer. The information that I have received anecdotally is very encouraging. The first step in full evaluation will not be published until next spring, and we all look forward to that.

The Secretary of State referred to 200,000 lone parents no longer on income support, but a written answer that I received last week from his Department made it clear that 106,570 lone parents have been through the new deal at least twice. Does he accept, therefore, that a large number of people are coming off benefits not because they are moving towards work but because they are trapped in a revolving door that takes them back to the new deal for lone parents, back to benefits and back to the new deal again?

I find it difficult to accept that those people would be better off if there were no new deal programme to help them, which, of course, is the policy of the Conservative party. I accept—I am sure everybody would; it is common sense—that we must continue to work to improve those programmes so that a still-higher proportion of those who go through them stay in jobs. As I reported in a previous, similar exchange, the record for parents staying in work who have been through the new deal is considerably stronger than that for those who have moved into work without going through the new deal—so it is definitely adding value in terms of people moving into jobs and staying in them. We need to build on the new deal, not scrap it.

I seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend. Recently, I visited Jobcentre Plus, which, with a private trainer called NETA—the north-east training association—is delivering effective, excellent skill training. It is doing so, however, in response to an employer's demand, so employment is absolutely assured. The work force are in their late 30s or early 40s, and none of them thought that they would get skilled training ever again. Will he reassure me that the Ambition programme will be financed in future? It is excellent, and my people thoroughly approve of it.

My hon. Friend, rightly, is enthusiastic about what the Ambition programme is achieving, both in Ambition: Energy and across a number of other sectors. As she says, a distinctive strength of the programme is that it involves not simply programme-push on people being put into the labour market, but employer-pull in ensuring that they have the skills that employers require.

Economic inactivity is a serious problem in many areas, but the Secretary of State will also be aware that a report last week disclosed that Glasgow is the poorest city in the UK, with 41 per cent. of households in poverty. What good will the measures that he talks about do unless he acts to tackle the low-wage economy that keeps people in poverty, even if they are able to get work?

Glasgow is also an employment zone, and as such has seen good achievements in helping the long-term unemployed back into work. Much pioneering work has been done through community-based initiatives in Glasgow to help the economically inactive into jobs. As far as low wages are concerned, this Government have introduced not only a national minimum wage but tax credits that make sure that work pays. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) said a moment or two ago, the better we equip people with skills, the more we can help them to progress in a job and towards a career: it is not simply welfare to work but welfare to a career. That is the direction in which our policies are moving, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will support us.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the latest figures, 1,023,000 people aged between 10 and 24 are not working, not studying and not training? Will he confirm that, despite all the initiatives, programmes and schemes that he has mentioned, the number is virtually unchanged compared with the number in 1997? Why is it unchanged?

Thanks to the new deal—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to hear it because it is so important and because it is true. The employment rate is crucial, and the employment rate of the group to which the hon. Gentleman refers is up. As the report of the independent National Institute for Economic and Social Affairs showed, the unemployment rate would be twice as high were it not for the new deal. In making claims about the figure mentioned, the hon. Gentleman ignores the increase in the numbers of students and in the number of people on shorter training courses, who may be classed as inactive but who are moving closer to work, gaining precisely the skills that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) mentioned a moment ago. In proposing to abolish the new deal, the hon. Gentleman would not only deny those young people the help that they need but go back to the bad old days of the stay-in-bed culture, which inflicted so much damage the last time the Tories were responsible for employment policy

What his most recent assessment is of the level of benefit fraud. [181889]

We are winning the war against benefit fraud. Since 1997, we have reduced fraud in the two main working age benefits by 38 per cent., which is equivalent to £280 million. We are now in the middle of our latest "Targeting Fraud" advertising campaign, and we have just launched a new series of hard-hitting radio adverts. I am confident that that will help us to meet our challenging target of a reduction in fraud and error of 50 per cent. by 2006.

I am glad that the Government think that they are winning their war on benefit fraud—we all want them to do so—but at what cost is that war being won? May I read to the Secretary of State the comments of my constituent, Max Harper, about whom I wrote to the Minister for disabled people on 16 June? He says:

"I live in fear now that if I lift a camera I will be reported to the DWP and will lose benefit or worse."

We are reviewing those rules. The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not seek to target individuals in those circumstances through our antifraud campaigns and new investigative measures. I am sure that he would agree, as do nine out of 10 of the British public, that tackling benefit fraud—I am talking about fraud is extremely important. That is why so many of them are joining us in fighting fraud, and using the fraud hotline—0845 854440. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman has any information about true fraudsters, he will give us a call.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a universal ID card could assist in the battle against benefit fraud? It might also help those with proper and legitimate claims to access services and benefits.

Yes, the Department supports the identity card proposals. We believe that it would help not only to root out identity fraud, for which we already have successful measures in place, but to make sure that in the longer term people who are entitled to benefits receive them. It might also improve take-up.

What progress has been made in enabling disabled people to play a full and active role in society. [181890]

Good progress is being made. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will have achieved the biggest improvement in civil rights for disabled people in the history of this country. We established the Disability Rights Commission to act as the official champion of disabled people. From 1 October, we will extend employment rights to 7 million additional jobs, in which 600,000 disabled people already work. The draft Disability Discrimination Bill will further improve the position.

Outside the world of work, what impact does my hon. Friend imagine those changes, and the establishment of a commission for equality and human rights, are likely to have on the social lives of people such as my constituent, Jamie Hood, a tetraplegic young man who has had some difficulty in gaining access to a wide enough range of social facilities to suit his young age of 32? From time to time, he has become depressed because of that. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that it is essential for disabled people to have lives as full as all the rest of us, in every way.

I strongly agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who works very hard on this issue, particularly in her new role as chairman of the all-party group on equalities.

I have several disabled friends, including two former members of the Army who are wheelchair-borne, and I strongly endorse work on behalf of the disabled. Is it not a fact, however, that disability benefits have become a dumping ground for people who would otherwise be unemployed? Does the Minister accept claims by charities such as the Shaw Trust, which does excellent work placing disabled people, that approximately a third of those currently claiming disability benefits could be in the work force if they were given proper encouragement?

I believe that many people on incapacity benefit who in the past have been written off and deemed incapable of work can work, with the right support and help. That is why we are developing our pathways to work programme, which will help them in that way. It is also why we can say that 6 per cent. more disabled people are now in work—the greatest number ever. The Conservatives put 1.9 million extra people on to sickness and incapacity benefit; we have created 1.9 million extra jobs, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

One way in which disabled people can get involved in society is by getting involved in voluntary work. A few years ago, Aberdeen Action on Disability was given a lottery grant to encourage voluntary work among disabled people. Will the Government consider piloting a similar arrangement to encourage disabled people to enter the volunteer work force, which might eventually lead them into full-time work?

My hon. Friend is right: volunteering can make an important difference to individuals who are trying to become more active in all kinds of ways. The Joint Committee considering the draft Disability Discrimination Bill has made recommendations in that regard, and we will respond to them within the time scale that the Committee has set.

The Minister has now mentioned the draft Disability Discrimination Bill three times, I think. As she will know, disabled people are seriously concerned about its future. Many of them believe that if it is not introduced in the current Session, it will not reach the statute book. The Joint Committee's report, signed by six of the Minister's colleagues, states:

"We believe that the full Bill should be introduced this Session."

We will respond to the Committee's report within the time scale set by the Committee. We will also ensure that we fulfil our manifesto commitment to see the Bill on to the statute book during the current Parliament. The hon. Gentleman should not make the mistake of assuming that we are like his party, which spent 16 years trying to stop disability civil rights. We will fulfil our commitment, and we will do so during this Parliament.

What plans he has to protect the pension rights of workers transferred from one employer to another. [1818931

Measures in the Pensions Bill will protect the pension rights of employees where there is a TUPE transfer. No longer will employees who have access to an occupational pension scheme with employer contributions risk losing their benefit when a transfer occurs. Our Bill will ensure a decent level of pension provision by their new employer.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. During consideration of the Pensions Bill, he expressed concern that obliging transferee employers to provide pension schemes broadly comparable to existing ones could encourage such employers to pull out of pension provision altogether. On the basis of what advice and evidence does he make that assessment, and does he believe that it constitutes the right balance between giving flexibility to business and providing genuine and worthwhile protection to employees on the transfer of an undertaking?

We wanted to get the balance right because often it is in the interests of a company and its work force that the work force be transferred to another company. We require the new employer to provide transferred employees with a defined benefit occupational pension, or a defined contribution pension with a matched employee-employer contribution of up to 6 per cent., or a stakeholder pension with a matched contribution of up to 6 per cent. That provides a decent minimum standard for such employees.

My hon. Friend will recognise that sometimes employees transfer to inferior schemes. Will he support re-examining compulsion—whereby the employer has to put in 10 per cent. and the employee 5 per cent., for example—to ensure that we create an occupational pension scheme that is fair to all in the event of a transfer?

We will look at the more general question of a voluntary-versus-compulsory approach when we receive the advice of Adair Turner's Pensions Commission. The Government are committed to a voluntary approach, which has many advantages. However, it is right and proper that the Government—a Labour Government—have for the first time legislated to give private-to-private transferred employees a decent minimum pension standard. As my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) know, in the light of the good service that they have provided on the Pensions Bill Standing Committee, that is what we intend to do.

Last week, my hon. Friend publishcd some details on those who have lost their pensions rights through insolvency and who may be entitled to make use of the financial assistance scheme. He said that the scheme's generosity will be affected by a number of factors, including whether there is funding from industry. What progress has been made in persuading industry to contribute to the scheme?

As the House knows, we have decided that £400 million of public money should be provided for the assistance scheme. That was the right thing for the Government to do because, apart from the justice of the case, we have an interest in restoring confidence in pensions, as does the pensions industry. We have written to a number of organisations and we will soon have meetings. I very much hope that the industry will make its contribution to the assistance scheme.

If he will make a statement on how the new appraisal scheme is intended to help motivate staff, improve efficiency and improve performance in the Department. [181894]

The new scheme has a number of features to motivate staff, including clear work objectives, regular feedback on performance and a strong focus on personal development. It will help to improve efficiency and performance by more rigorously identifying and rewarding different levels of contribution by staff, which has been shown to work successfully in the public and private sectors.

The Secretary of State will be aware that 50 per cent. of staff at the Department who are at a predetermined level will be rated "poor", and that only 10 per cent. can be rated "excellent". Under the previous scheme, 30 per cent. of staff were rated "excellent". As 97 per cent. of staff voted against the proposal, does he agree that it is unhelpful for the public to have to deal with demotivated staff, and will he think again about this proposal?

I do not accept the hon. Lady's categorisation of the proportion of staff who would be rated "poor", or the other figure that she mentions. However, we do recognise the concerns expressed by our staff, and we will undertake a continuous improvement review of the new system over the summer, following the end of the appraisal round. We have invited our trade unions to contribute and I hope that they will do so, so that together we can continue to drive up performance, staff have a more rewarding job, our customers get a better service and we give the taxpayer better value for money.

Let me take up the concerns of staff and my right hon. Friend's concern for them. According to figures issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister two weeks ago, the Breckfield ward in my constituency is the most deprived area in the country and the epicentre of what the Treasury describes as the biggest poverty cluster in the country. However, last week I was given to understand that there was a strong probability that the pension centre, which is the single employer of note in the area, will be closed—scrapped and gone—in the name of efficiency. Some 316 people face the prospect of the scrapheap unless alternatives are found for them. I have spoken briefly to my right hon. Friend about the matter, but what guarantees can he give loyal staff in an area of high unemployment and high need? Under the aegis of the Government's stated intention to relocate jobs from Whitehall to the regions, and bearing in mind the fact that his is the Department of Work and Pensions, what does he intend to do to ensure that those people do not lose their livelihoods?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's dedication to the needs of his constituents and I appreciate how difficult this news was. As he said, we spoke at the time of the announcement. When the number of centres has to be reduced—as it must—it is never easy for management to decide where it is to happen. The decision was the product of a careful review, although that will come as little consolation to those who face the possibility of losing their jobs. I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend further to discuss how we can move forward, but, as I said to him before, no effort will be spared to try to find those members of staff alternative jobs, whether by way of redeployment in the DWP or elsewhere. With the movement of jobs out of the south-east, following the work of the Lyons review, we are considering destinations for those jobs in areas such as the ward he describes. I shall work closely with him, other local Members of Parliament and the local authorities to do everything we can to ensure that the closure of the pension centre does not mean that those people face a life without work.

I have been looking at the Department's annual report on its performance, and I draw the Secretary of State's attention to page 133—"Managing Attendance". Will he confirm that his Department had a target for sickness absenteeism in 2003 of eight working days lost per person per year? Will he further confirm that in reality 12.7 days were lost per person in 2003? Why was the performance so far below the target, and why should we believe anything that the Government say about efficiency savings when they cannot deliver such an elementary objective?

As the hon. Gentleman will know from previous exchanges, we recognise that the sickness absence rate is not good enough and that further progress must be made to hit the target. None of us expects taxpayers to subsidise a higher rate of sickness absence in the public sector. We have taken several steps, including making it clear to managers that sickness absence must be managed downwards, both by tackling its causes by improving occupational health in the workplace and by taking tough action against those who abuse the system. We have introduced mandatory return-to-work interviews and tighter disciplinary procedures and we are looking further at evidence of best practice and what works effectively in other businesses.

How many of the families who have qualified for child tax credits have as a consequence been removed from access to the qualifying benefits which would make them eligible for consideration for discretionary grants or loans under the social fund. [181895]

We estimate that fewer than 50,000 families will be moved off benefits that would have qualified them for consideration for a social fund budgeting loan or community care grant. The vast majority of those families stand to gain substantially from that change, many by more than £20 a week, and will continue to have access to crisis loans and elements of the regulated social fund.

To be considered for a discretionary grant or loan under the social fund, families have to be in receipt of a qualifying benefit, such as income support, but have not child tax credit payments moved some needy families out of that qualifying regime? Will that not get worse when the child benefit element is migrated into child tax credit later this year? Can we not get round the problem by making maximum child tax credit payments a qualifying benefit as well?

My hon. Friend will understand that we want the discretionary social fund to be focused on those who need it most, which normally means those on income support, but we shall continue to look at ways of improving the social fund and access to it, in the context of wider changes in its operation.

How many people were receiving disability living allowance in (a) the east midlands and (b) England and Wales in (i) 1990, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2004; and how many of them were registered as unemployed in each year. [181897]

The requested information for 1990 is not available because disability living allowance was not introduced until 1992. As at 28 February 2004, the latest date for which information is available, about 2.2 million severely disabled adults and children in England and Wales were receiving disability living allowance, 10,400 of whom were also receiving a jobseeker's allowance. In the east midlands, about 185,000 severely disabled adults and children were receiving disability living allowance, 900 of whom were also receiving a jobseeker's allowance.

When last in power, the Conservatives were shameless in manipulating unemployment figures by shunting the jobless on to other benefits. Now their media acolytes and indeed, earlier, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is no longer in the Chamber, level the same charge against the Government. Can the Minister comprehensively strangle that canard and summarise any policy changes since 1997, either in he way that unemployment figures are calculated or in eligibility for DLA or incapacity benefit?

I am not sure that I know how to strangle a canard, never mind comprehensively, but perhaps I can attempt to explode a myth. Indeed, the figures from the constituency of my hon. Friend actually do that. In North-West Leicestershire, JSA unemployment is down by 55 per cent., employment in that region of the east midlands is up by 104,000 and about 84 per cent. of his working-age constituents are in work. We have seen a fall in the number of people on JSA and an increase in the number in work, and a small increase in his constituency in the number of people on incapacity benefit. That explodes the myth—I am not sure what to do about strangling canards.

What percentage of eligible pensioners are claiming pension credit in (a) Bridgend, (b) Wales and (c) the UK. [181900]

We cannot estimate eligibility with precision at the regional or constituency level. Up to 31 May, 2.5 million pensioner households, including more than 3 million individuals, were receiving pension credit in Great Britain. Of those, nearly 180,000 people are in Wales. I am also pleased to inform my hon. Friend that 4,405 individuals in Bridgend now receive pension credit, with an average award of £42.62 a week.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I am sure that the statisticians scattered about the United Kingdom could put together a programme to enable us to make the estimates, but can he tell me what further steps the Department will take to encourage more people to apply for the credit? From my experience, I know that a number of pensioners who have applied lately were amazed at how easy it was and at how helpful the phone line was in enabling them to get their forms filled in and benefit received.

We are increasingly going local with the take-up campaign's local advice surgeries and the excellent work of our local Pension Service, and people are pleasantly surprised when they realise that they can apply for pension credit over the telephone. Indeed, I read of a case study in The Daily Telegraph—so it must be true—where a man who had applied on behalf of his elderly mother-in-law said:

"I found the phone form-filling service to be first class, sent all the information requested, and my mother-in-law quickly received her extra per sion … Again, everybody was most helpful."

"To say we are pleased would be an understatement."

Can the Minister confirm that the figures that his Department produced only today show that, between now and 2014, the projection of individuals eligible for pension credit will rise from 4,850,000 to 6,550,000—an increase of 35 per cent.? Should his own assumption that 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners never claim pension credit be increased proportionally to show an extra 500,000 people by 2014 not claiming what they are entitled to?

The crucial thing is that the pension credit has been a success. More than 3 million individuals now receive it and the older elderly particularly benefit—the very group who were neglected by the last Tory Administration. In terms of gender, it is important to note that, of those 3 million individuals, 2 million are women, who often have the poorest pension record and whom we are now targeting. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman, instead of being cynical about the pension credit, would get out into the community and help to make it an even greater success.

Do not those figures show the inexorable rise in means-testing projected under this Government? Is it any wonder that a recent survey conducted for Age Concern England showed that nine out of 10 pensioners receiving pension credit were not happy with the pension credit process and that they wanted the Government to provide a higher basic state pension? Will the Minister now look seriously at the Conservative policy of restoring the link with average earnings?

I will look seriously at Conservative policy when I see a serious policy, rather than the absurd apocalyptic vision that the hon. Gentleman is presenting, according to the national prints today: a ridiculous idea that what he calls a pension crisis—we call it a pension challenge—can be equated with the threat to this country from international terrorism. I think that he should grow up in his analysis.

If he will make a statement on the level of error in Child Support Agency decisions. [181901]

Last year, 85.7 per cent. of decisions on old scheme cases were correct to the nearest penny—the best ever level of accuracy, against the target of 82 per cent.—and 14.3 per cent. contained errors. From a sample of new scheme cases taken in February and March this year, 82 per cent. of decisions were correct to the nearest penny, against an agency target of 90 per cent. We will not be satisfied until we get accuracy to the highest levels that we target.

Will the Minister undertake to take a personal interest in the individual cases of error found among constituents who live in the Vale of York? Such errors are deeply distressing and stressful for the individuals involved and cause a great deal of upset. Will he also look into a case that has just to come my attention where a father who is in receipt of incapacity benefit is, in fact, working for a family firm and not making any payment? That is clearly an error that has not yet been identified. Will he take a personal interest in that case?

We understand the hardship and heartache that can be caused when errors occur, both for parents with care and non-resident parents, which is why we are doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that there is as much accuracy as possible. I, or my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, would be happy to talk to the hon. Lady about specific cases to find whether there is anything further that we can do to help to resolve them.

We all know of individual case examiners who have found CSA error, after which they often recommend a consolatory payment. I have a constituent whose life was put on hold for more than two years, during which he lost his driving licence, who was offered a consolatory payment of £250. What is the average amount paid to people who have suffered at the hands of an incompetent CSA, and what are the Government going to do about the problem?

My hon. Friend will understand that averages are not always terribly helpful in such circumstances because payments relate to the details of each individual case. He will not expect me to comment on those cases. However, we want to ensure that people who have suffered due to errors that the agency should not have made are properly compensated. I extend the offer that I made to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). If my hon. Friend would like to discuss individual cases, I am sure that my noble Friend Baroness Hollis or I would be happy to do so.

The Minister will know that the independent case examiner deals with the most difficult cases from constituents who have had no satisfaction from the CSA. Last week, she produced her annual report, which showed a 50 per cent. increase in complaints during the first year of the Government's shiny new CSA system. I think that the Minister admitted to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that the new, simple "really-easy-to-do" system had more errors in it than the old system. When will he admit that the new system has failed?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the report carefully, as have I. He will be aware that only 0.15 per cent. of CSA clients complained last year and that more than half the increased number of cases were not accepted for consideration by the independent case examiner. However, she pointed out:

"As the year started, the Child Support Reforms had just come into effect. It is not surprising that the major legislative, system and organisational changes faced by the Agency in implementing the Reforms have engendered a variety of problems and resulting complaints."

Given the welcome news about the improvement in the accuracy of CSA cases, will my hon. Friend tell me when we will complete the transfer to the new scheme? People are getting agitated while waiting to move from the old system to the new one.

We understand the impatience of some clients of the CSA, although there is often a difference of opinion between parents with care and non-resident parents. I understand the impatience of hon. Members for the transfer to a system that we all think will be simpler and more effective. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on several occasions that we will not transfer old cases to the new system until we are absolutely certain that the technology is working effectively. It would be irresponsible to do so before that time, so I cannot give my hon. Friend a date on which it will happen. We will make the transfer as soon as it is responsible to do so.

What measures he has taken to eradicate pensioner poverty. [181902]

We have taken many steps to tackle pensioner poverty, including the introduction of pension credit and winter fuel payments and a 7 per cent. real rise in the level of the state pension. As a result, we will be spending nearly £10 billion more a year on pensioners, including £5 billion more on the poorest third. That means that the poorest pensioners are on average £33 a week better off than they would have been under the 1997 system. Relative pensioner poverty is down by 500,000, with absolute poverty down by 1.8 million.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to organisations such as the Crawley pensioners action group that continually draw attention to issues relating to our poorest pensioners. Does he agree that those community groups help to raise such issues and ensure that pensioners know about all the new benefits available to them through their campaigning activities and that they play an essential part in improving pensioner incomes?

Yes. I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in praising the work of the Crawley pensioners action group, with which I know she works closely. Such groups—in Crawley and up and down the country—not only make an invaluable contribution to the debate about pensions and future pensions policy, but enrich our democracy in many other ways. The active engagement of senior citizens in assessing and working with services locally, and in helping us to formulate policy, is invaluable. We are developing closer partnership working between the Pension Service and such groups and there is funding available through the new partnerships fund, of which I will send her details.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom he worked for many years, to see whether, to reduce pensioner poverty rather than increase bureaucracy, the Chancellor will entirely exempt from taxation the state retirement pension for all, and reduce the rate of taxation on all pensions and annuities for those who are responsible enough to save for their retirement years? Is that not the way to encourage a reduction in pensioner poverty without increasing bureaucracy?

It is not increasing bureaucracy to operate the pension credit in the effective way that we are, given the example cited in Saturday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions referred. More than 3 million individuals are getting that money, and it is much needed by them. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the progress that we are making on that and join us in pressing for higher take-up.

If he will permit unclaimed assets to be used to offer further assistance to those occupational pension scheme members who will riot be covered by the pension protection fund. [181905]

The Government laid a report on 30 June on their research into the numbers affected where pension schemes wind up underfunded with insolvent employers. That suggests that some 65,000 people face significant losses of more than 20 per cent. of their expected pensions, of whom around 35,000 face losses of over 50 per cent. That confirms that our commitment of £400 million of public money over 20 years provides a sound basis for a worthwhile assistance scheme. We hope that industry will add to that.

That is a very disappointing answer. The Minister knows that £20 million a year is just a small proportion of the less that has been suffered by those pensioners. First, does he accept that that is the case? Secondly, as the Chancellor has already taken his cut of the unclaimed assets, would it not be much better to assist pensioners who face real hardship by allocating that money when it is clearly proved to be unclaimed?

I do not accept that the money that the Exchequer has made available—£400 million—is a small proportion. It will enable the restoration of a significant proportion of people's pension rights, and that is important. The assistance scheme is a major move in the right direction. What was disappointing was the Conservative Opposition asking the House to decline to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading.

Will my hon. Friend look seriously at the claim by Anglo United, which used to be Coalite Products Ltd., because a number of people are affected as a result of changes that took place in the company some time ago? Will he tell me in writing whether they are included in the scheme that he announced a few weeks ago? It would be helpful to know that they are, and I am expecting good results.

Of course, we are looking at the details of all schemes to see whether their members are eligible for the assistance package. We now have research evidence on the numbers affected and are in consultation with trade unions and others to get the details right with a view to laying regulations later this calendar year and putting a scheme in place by spring next year so that benefits can be paid soon after. I will, however, write to my hon. Friend about the case that he raised.

How many carers in (a) England and (b) Wales are in receipt of carer's allowance. [181908]

On 28 February 2004, the latest date for which information is available, some 351,000 carers in England and over 29,000 carers in Wales were receiving carer's allowance.

I acknowledge till improvements that the Government have made to carer's allowance, but does my hon. Friend accept that it is the lowest income replacement benefit of all at £44.35? Will she acknowledge the campaign to try to increase it to the level of the state pension, which would be a significant improvement in the provision for 400,000 carers and one more measure to add to the many that the Government have introduced to increase provision for carers?

I am glad that we have reached a question about carer's allowance, which is something that I can talk about at length, if you would allow me, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-known efforts on behalf of carers. He is recognised in the House as a persistent and effective advocate for their rights and opportunities, not just in his own constituency but throughout Britain. I am aware of the campaign highlighted by Carers UK in the recent carers week to increase carer's allowance.

Order. The Deputy Speaker will be on duty by the time that the hon. Lady finishes.

Does the Minister acknowledge the tremendous work and contribution of carers throughout the country? The figures that she gave the House suggest that a significant number of people are not benefiting from the allowance and I suspect that a number of my constituents who do a fantastic job, day in, day out, caring for others may be ignorant of their entitlement. What assurances can she give my constituents and those of other hon. Members that the Department will draw attention, through advertising and other targeted means, to the fact that they might benefit from the allowance?

The hon. Gentleman is right that many carers eligible for carer's allowance do not claim it, but 420,000 do so. We make every effort to make clear to people who interact with the benefits system what benefits are available and many local carers' groups also undertake such work. I am sure that, as a result of efforts by the Department, hon. Members and carers' organisations, carers who may benefit from those payments will find out about them and apply for them. They can now do so via the internet, as the allowance is one of the first Government benefits that can be e-claimed and 3,400 people have already made such a claim.

I thank the hon. Lady for her brief reply.