1. What progress his Department has made in simplifying the application process for council tax benefit. [31681]

4. What progress his Department has made in simplifying the application process for council tax benefit. [31684]

I recently authorised the third annual publicity and marketing awareness campaign aimed at getting everyone who is entitled to council tax benefit to take it up. In a separate exercise, the Pension Service is already telephoning existing customers nationwide who do not appear to be getting council tax benefit and is filling in a simple three-page claim form on their behalf. In addition, from December, the Pension Service will take council tax benefit claims at the same time as new pension credit claims.

Will my hon. Friend expand on whether it may in future be possible to remove all form-filling from the council tax benefit process?

As my hon. Friend will see, we are making good progress towards that objective. There used to be a 26-page form, but now, for many claimants, that is reduced to a three-page form. Some of them do not even have to fill it in—they have only to sign it after the Pension Service has completed it for them. Ultimately, we would like to reach a point at which we can have automatic take-up of the benefit, based on data that already exist in the Department. We are having work done on that and I expect to receive a report on its feasibility next spring.

There are areas in my constituency of high deprivation and poor adult literacy, so I welcome the fact that we are making the process simpler, but will my hon. Friend assure me that, in doing so, we do not jeopardise the good work being done to tackle fraud and error in the system?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, as we move to greater automaticity in handing awards out to those who qualify for them, we will remove the opportunities for error that arise when forms have to be completed. I am happy to say that, in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit, the level of fraud and error is falling. It is down by 8 per cent. over the past 18 months. Fraud alone is down by 30 per cent. over that period.

One reason why there is so much concern about this issue is the massive increase in council tax that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put on to councils by stealth. Will the Minister tell us how many people were claiming council tax benefit in 1997 and what the latest figures are?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what is important is to ensure that pensioners who are having difficulty meeting their council tax bills get the council tax benefit that is rightly theirs. We estimate that as many as 1.5 million pensioners might not be receiving that help. They should be receiving £800 million-worth of benefit. It is incumbent on all of us in our constituencies to ensure that pensioners who would benefit from obtaining that help with their council tax bills get it. I hope, therefore, that he will support the take-up campaign.

The Secretary of State informed the House that forms were now simple for pensioners to fill out. However, that is not the experience of senior citizens in Shrewsbury, many of whom have come to see me to say that the forms continue to be difficult to fill out. Would he be prepared to see some of their letters in the coming weeks and then perhaps reassess what he said earlier?

I have studied the forms, so I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. As I said, there used to be a 26-page form, but that is now down to three pages. In many instances, pensioners do not have to fill in or even see the form. It can be filled in for them over the telephone. It is then sent to them for their signature and can be returned in a stamped addressed envelope. We have been piloting that scheme from the pension centre in Nottingham and, so far, 100,000 forms have been completed in that way, which has already resulted in 15,000 additional pensioners receiving council tax benefit. That is £10 million-worth of additional council tax benefit being handed out, without anyone having to complete complicated forms.

2. By how much the basic state pension will be up-rated in 2006–07; and if he will make a statement. [31682]

The general uprating statement will follow the pre-Budget report. The basic state pension will be uprated by at least 2.5 per cent. or in line with the retail prices index if that is higher.

As the Minister said, increases are generally in line with the RPI or 2.5 per cent. If the RPI for September of this year had been used, that would have resulted in an increase of £1.14 less per week than if an earnings link had been attached to it. Will he make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to restore the earnings link, or does he think that that would be a less than fruitful conversation?

The hon. Gentleman might find it instructive to check his own party's record in Government on this issue. The basic state pension was uprated 18 times between November 1980 and April 1997, and that was done strictly in line with prices every time, except on one occasion in 1994, when an extra 50p a week was added in a futile attempt to soften the blow of VAT on fuel. We shall not take any lessons from the Conservatives on the level of the basic state pension, which is 7 per cent. higher in real terms today than it was in 1997.

It has been widely leaked that the Turner report will recommend the reinstatement of the link between the basic state pension and earnings. If that recommendation is accepted, will the Government implement it in time for the 2006–07 uprating?

I can only advise my hon. Friend to wait for the Turner commission's report on Wednesday. I can assure him that it will be a substantial and important document, and I am sure that he, along with all other hon. Members, is looking forward to seeing it.

Was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions consulted by the Chancellor before the Chancellor wrote to Lord Turner?

I am not entirely sure which correspondence the hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he is referring to leaked correspondence, that is not a subject that I shall comment on, other than to say that the arrangements for the uprating of pension credit have been well established for a long time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any decent Government must ensure that a decent basic pension is paid to our poorest pensioners? May I counsel him against taking advice from those who believed that £67 a week was sufficient for a pensioner to live on, and who broke the earnings link in the first place?

My hon. Friend is right. In 1997, there was a large number of pensioners whose total income, through income support, was £69 a week. Every single person in that position now is entitled to an income, through pension credit, of at least £109 a week. There has been a dramatic transformation in the prospects of people who were abandoned on low incomes by the previous Tory Government, and we will not go back to those days.

Because the Government have managed to plunder people's pension funds, there are now far more pensioners dependent on either the basic state pension or means-tested benefits than there were before. Is not that a good argument for Lord Turner's recommendation that the basic state pension should rise in line not with prices but with earnings?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but I remind him of the scandal of mis-selling that took place under the previous Conservative Government, which left many people in extremely difficult circumstances. I hope that he will recognise from his experience among his own constituents on the Isle of Wight that the pension credit has been a means of raising a large number of people out of poverty—2 million people across the country as a whole. We must certainly not go back to the days when pensioners were left on an income of £69 a week.

3. If he will make a statement on the take-up of pension credit. [31683]

At the end of June, 2.7 million households in Great Britain were receiving pension credit.

The Minister will be aware that only 21,000 households took up pension credit in the last quarter for which figures are available, and that 1.7 million pensioners still do not take up pension credit. Does that not make it clear that the take-up of pension credit has stalled? What further measures will the Government take to help our poorest pensioners?

We are doing a great deal about this. It is not true that only the number of applications that the hon. Gentleman suggested were made during that quarter. It was a much larger number—about 80,000, I think. But of course there were other people who, perhaps through death, stopped claiming. Between April and October, Pension Service staff made 500,000 home visits to make it easier for people to claim their entitlements. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said, we have done a great deal to simplify the process, and we shall do more over the next few weeks. Indeed, in a new campaign, 500,000 people have been mailed on this issue since the middle of October, and another 800,000 will be mailed between now and March.

Does the Minister accept that the take-up of pension credit is probably far higher than the official figures show and that, in both Birkenhead and Wantage, Members of Parliament would have difficulty in finding a pensioner who had been eligible for pension credit for any length of time but was not claiming it? If it is true—as I believe it is—that this Government have redirected more money to poorer pensioners than any other Government since 1948, is it not important for us to recognise that, following the publication of the Turner report, we shall be able for the first time to concentrate on long-term reform rather than remaining bogged down in the reforms that will help the poorest pensioners now?

My right hon. Friend has made an important point. When the report is published on Wednesday, it will be clear that there is no crisis over pensioner incomes, for the reason that he gave. He also suggested that fewer people than we thought might be eligible for pension credit, and there is some evidence that that may be so.

Does the Minister agree that a central problem of pension credit is the disincentive caused by high marginal rates of withdrawal, amounting to 40 per cent. or more? What analysis has his Department conducted of the effects of change in the marginal rate of tax or benefit withdrawal on pension credit, in terms of people's willingness to save?

There is little evidence of any damage to saving incentives being caused by the current arrangements. There has been an element of means-testing of pensioner incomes since 1908, but the key point is that pension credit has lifted 2 million pensioners out of poverty, and abject pensioner poverty has been consigned to the history books. That is a huge achievement and we want to ensure that it is maintained.

Will the Minister bear in mind the outreach services offered by the Pension Service? The Pension Service has opportunities to work with local voluntary organisations and local authorities to contact pensioners who may be reluctant to telephone contact centres and who need to know about the benefits to which they are entitled.

My hon. Friend is right. There is much scope for the Pension Service to work creatively with the voluntary sector and local authorities. Joint teams involving the Pension Service and local authorities and, in some instances, voluntary agencies, are being established all over the country. I agree that that approach could be developed further, and that the service provided for elderly people could be significantly improved.

Does the Minister agree that, had proper reform been carried out eight years ago, fewer people would now need to rely on pension credit? In the light of the revelation from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the Prime Minister considered a proposal to build on my plans for basic pension-plus and was put off only when he was reminded that he had attacked it during the general election, will the Minister ensure that future reforms are not based on party-political considerations?

I do recall the debate about basic pension-plus, which I think contributed to the failure of the right hon. Gentleman's party in the 1997 election. I hope that the Turner report will provide the basis for national consensus on the way forward. There is wide agreement on the need for reform. I trust that, now that we have addressed the appalling problem of pensioner poverty with which we were left in 1997—as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—we can build wide agreement on what further steps are needed.

Is the Minister aware that in Hove and Portslade in my constituency, pensioners are unclear about, for instance, savings thresholds? Will he confirm that a particular target of his take-up campaign will be pensioners whose claims have been turned down in the past, and that the campaign will not be aimed only at new applicants?

My hon. Friend has made an important point, but as the credit is uprated in line with earnings, people who were not previously eligible may well find a couple of years later that they are. My hon. Friend may wish to advise her constituents to telephone the pension credit application line on 0800 991234.

Has the Minister seen a copy of the Chancellor's letter to Lord Turner, in which he stated:

"you should not assume that the current"

link of pension credit to earnings "will continue beyond 2008". With 1.7 million pensioners failing to claim pension credit, and 2 million pensioners still living in poverty, does the Minister accept that scrapping the link would condemn even more older people to poverty, and be, in the words of Help the Aged, "unforgivable"?

The commitment to uprate pension credit in line with earnings up to 2008 is long established, and has been set out time after time. The uprating that we have seen has made a big contribution to lifting large numbers of pensioners out of poverty, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that this Government's commitment to keep people out of poverty will endure.

5. If he will make a statement on the extent of pensioner poverty. [31685]

Tackling the legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited when we came into office has been one of our top priorities. The introduction of pension credit means that every pensioner is now guaranteed a weekly income of at least £109, compared with £69 in 1997. Those and other measures have helped nearly 2 million pensioners escape from absolute poverty.

Of the 2 million pensioners whom the Secretary of State mentioned, 5,600 in my constituency are receiving pension credit at an average rate of £45 a week, which makes a huge difference to their standard of living. Will he assure the House that, whatever the Government's response is to the Turner commission report, we will not return to the days before the pension credit, we will keep protecting the incomes of the poorest pensioners, and we will not see again the situation when the Conservatives were in power in which pensioners were expected to live on as little as £69 a week?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. We have no intention whatever of returning to the poverty pensions of the previous Conservative Government. His constituents and, I am sure, those of many Members on both sides of the House, will support what we have done. We have made significant progress in tackling pensioner poverty, and will continue to place a high premium on doing so.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that one way to tackle pensioner poverty would be to have a better state pension, and that one of the things that could help to pay for that in the long term would be reform of public sector pensions? Does he agree that, over the weekend, signals from the Government on the issue of public sector pensions have been difficult to read? Can he confirm today whether or not the deal on retiring at 60 until 2048 is unbreakable—yes or no?

On the basic state pension, we have seen significant improvements because of the measures that we have taken. I think that I am right in saying that most of those have been opposed by the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members. On Lord Turner's report, I think that I am also right that the only political party in the House that has so far pre-empted it is the Liberal Democrats, who have already announced what their policies are. On the public sector pension deal, we have no plans to revisit that.

With regard to pensioner poverty, my right hon. Friend will be aware that, at one time, pensioners who had savings had the income from those taken into consideration when their pensions were balanced out. The point was reached at which the Government of the day introduced a £3,000 limit, above which all savings were automatically chopped. That sent a message to many pensioners, which, I believe, is still in their mind, not to reveal to the state any amount of money that they had for fear of any entitlement being cut. They do not want to get embroiled in that system. What plans does he have in place to ensure that pensioners are not penalised for saving and that any income that they receive is not automatically deducted to a higher amount than that which they receive from their investments?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The introduction of the savings credit was the first time that any Government had provided an incentive for pensioners who have saved. It is an important precedent to have established that people do the right thing when they save for their retirement, and it is the Government's responsibility to support people when they do so. In relation to specific proposals, he and the House will need to wait until the publication of Lord Turner's report on Wednesday and the Government's response later in the new year.

I listened carefully to the Minister for Pensions Reform's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about pension credit uprating. He did not answer the question, so perhaps the Secretary of State can help us. Will the Government uprate pension credit in line with earnings from 2008?

Those are all matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, particularly in this very cold spell, poorer pensioners welcome the £200 winter fuel allowance? Will he promise that we will not return to a system under which help was provided only if the temperature fell below freezing on seven consecutive days and under which only those on income support received perhaps £7 or £8 a week? Is not our system superior, certainly for poorer pensioners, to what happened during the 18 years of Tory government?

The policy that relied on temperatures dropping below freezing for seven days before pensioners got any help was totally inadequate and we certainly will not return to that. Winter fuel payments have made a significant difference and, again, I think I am right in saying that they have been resisted by the Conservative party.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many future pensioners who will be dependent on the state pension to avoid poverty feel indignant that, while they may be expected to continue working until the age of 67, the Government's own existing employees will be allowed to continue retiring at 60 for up to the next 40 years? I listened carefully to what he said to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). He said that there were no existing plans to reopen the issue but did not rule it out completely. Given that the Prime Minister has said that he was very unhappy with that deal and that conflicting signals have come from Government Departments, will the Secretary of State be more explicit? Is he simply saying that there are no plans as of today to reopen that deal, or is he ruling it out completely?

We have no plans to revisit that deal. I am truly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to raise that issue in the House today. [Interruption.] I am very surprised, for one simple reason: I have had the opportunity to look at the guidance sent out to all Conservative parliamentary candidates at the last election, guidance that will have been read by some new Conservative Members. That guidance made it clear that his party not only had no plans to raise the pension age but would revisit any plans the Government made so to do. If he wishes to be treated seriously, he has to come here with serious proposals and, as on every other pensions issue, he has absolutely nothing to say.

May I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden)? I have similar numbers of pensioners in my constituency who benefit from pension credit and would live in poverty without it. When I have debated with people who have works pensions and wish to have a link to earnings, every one of them—honourable to their last breath—has said that they would wish that only if it did not mean that the most impoverished pensioners lost their pension credit. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the first priority is that we remain with the pension credit and deal with those of pension age in serious poverty?

Yes.

6. Why the incapacity benefit Green Paper was not published before the summer recess. [31686]

The welfare reform Green Paper will be published in January, taking forward our agenda to build a modern, active and inclusive welfare state, built on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in 1998, one of his many predecessors said that

"1 million disabled people say that they want to work but are not being given the chance."—[Official Report, 28 October 1998; Vol. 318, c. 340.]?

Why are 1 million people still waiting?

We have introduced a series of reforms that have seen the number of new claimants for incapacity benefit fall by a third and, for the first time since records began to be collected, there has been an overall fall in the total numbers claiming incapacity benefit. Our proposals will be announced in January and will extend new opportunities to people who have a sickness or a disability. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome them when he sees them.

The fact of the matter is that many people want to get back into work, but who is going to lead them back? Is it the responsibility of Jobcentre Plus or the Learning and Skills Council or some other body? People who may just have come out of prison or who have been out of work for a long time need someone to help them, if they are on incapacity benefit, back to work. Which Government agency is responsible for helping those people? We hear about so many statistics, but the reality is that these people need practical help, so which Government agency should provide it?

The lead responsibility clearly lies with Jobcentre Plus, but it needs to work in partnership with local organisations, including the voluntary sector and some private providers. That is necessary to provide a proper package of support to help people to get back into work quickly. That is what we want and the main responsibility clearly lies with Jobcentre Plus.

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in the forthcoming Green Paper, he will not overlook the needs of people whose disability is mental ill health? Too often we overlook such people and I believe that, in designing a new system of incapacity benefit, we must ensure that they are not neglected.

Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that something like four in 10 of new claimants for incapacity benefit are reporting a mental illness of some kind or other. It is important, if we are to make progress with the reforms, that we specifically address the needs of those people.

7. What his most recent estimate is of the level of pension fund deficits; and if he will make a statement. [31688]

There are different ways of estimating pension fund deficits. The pensions regulator estimated last month that the aggregate deficit measured on the FRS 17 accounting standards was £130 billion as of December 2004.

The Minister may be aware that many of my constituents have had their lives ruined as a result of company pension schemes being wound up. The firms include Motokov, Albert Fisher and Dalgety. Some of my constituents do not even qualify for help under the financial assistance scheme. Does he understand the anger and dismay that that causes and recognise that it is heightened by the way in which the Government are treating public sector pensions? Does he believe in a two-tier pensions system?

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the extent to which the financial assistance scheme is helping people who find themselves in the difficult circumstances that he described. In the case of Dalgety, of course, there has not been an insolvency, so in those circumstances, the employer has the responsibility of honouring the pension promises that it has made. As to public sector pensions, I advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the advice given to him and his fellow Conservative candidates by the Conservative party during the last election. It was made very clear that the Conservative party did not support changes to public sector pension arrangements. I admit that the position appears to have changed somewhat over the last couple of weeks, but simply jumping on a new bandwagon is not a very good way of tackling the problem.

About 2,000 current and former employees of Scarborough bus and coach builder Henlys stand to receive only a third of their expected pensions after the company ceased trading, with a pension deficit of £80 million. Workers within three years of retirement would normally have qualified for the Government's financial assistance scheme, but no insolvency event has occurred. Is the Minister aware of that case, as well as Dalgety, and what would he say to my constituents who may be deprived of financial assistance through what they see as a financial technicality?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing this case to my attention, but I can say to him only what I said to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham)—that in the case of Henlys, the company has not become insolvent. People therefore need to look to the employer to honour the pension promise that was made.

8. If he will make a statement on his plans to reform housing benefit. [31689]

Reform is already under way. In 2002, we put in place a comprehensive strategy for the reform of housing benefit, which is already delivering results. For example, the average processing times for new claims have been cut by two weeks. We are also testing a simpler system for paying housing support in the private sector—the local housing allowance. The findings of the 18 pathfinder authorities are being carefully evaluated and will inform our decisions on the next steps towards improving support for housing costs. Reform in this respect, of course, needs to complement our overall strategy on welfare reform.

I thank the Minister for his answer, but there rightly continues to be concern about the effect of the Government's housing policies. In particular, the pathfinder pilot appears to discriminate against those on the lowest incomes who are claiming housing benefit. Which of his Department's policies does he believe has been the least successful in this area?

I studied very carefully indeed the responses from all 18 pathfinder authorities and they do not confirm what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In fact, all have achieved considerable success and there certainly are useful and important aspects of this reform that we can build on. I ask him to bear in mind the other aspect of housing benefit reform—the current scheme's performance. I wonder whether he might give us a hand by having a word with his local Liberal Democrat-controlled council, whose performance on processing housing benefit has slipped from 28-day processing in 2002 to 52-day processing.

The Lord's prayer that we have just said in this Chamber consists of 66 words and there are 42 laws of cricket, but the housing benefit regulations consist of 967 pages, five parts, six schedules and 40 statutory instruments. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is no wonder that the local authorities charged with implementing housing benefit find those regulations too intricate, long-winded and expensive? Which of their reactions and comments is he taking on board in order to tackle this problem more effectively than in the past 20 years?

We have of course been assisting local authorities in handling this complicated benefit, and we have put in place the performance standards fund. Some £160 million has been allocated to 370 local authorities, many of which have been extremely successful in improving their performance in processing the benefit. My Department sets a 36-day standard for processing, and that standard is now being met by 222 local authorities; three years ago it was met by only 129. My hon. Friend is right to point to the benefit's complexities, and such complexities are the reason why we are starting to simplify it and reviewing more far-reaching reform.

According to the National Audit Office, £600 million a year is lost through housing benefit fraud. Although we Conservatives welcome the introduction of flatter, more standard-rate elements to housing benefit, which must be sensible, it is being restricted to the private sector. I learned that, according to the Minister's Department, such reform of the social rented sector will be achieved only toward the end of the decade. What on earth is he waiting for?

No, we have not said that. We have pointed out that there are very substantial differences between the structures of the housing markets in the private and social rented sectors, so any reform of the benefit must of course take that into account. On fraud and error, the £600 million figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred is correct, but I should point out that losses arising from housing benefit fraud have fallen by 30 per cent. in the past 18 months. My Department has set a target of reducing fraud and error jointly by 25 per cent. by 2006, and we are on course to meet it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the careful way in which the local housing allowances are being piloted. However, has he seen representations made by groups such as Shelter and Barnado's on the effect of the single room rent control on the under-25s? In some cases, considerable hardship has been caused to vulnerable young people. If he can identify some modest changes to the rules that will meet our concerns about those vulnerable people, will he do so?

I have studied the submissions to which my hon. Friend refers carefully and we do not believe that expecting young people to share accommodation is unreasonable. After all, 60 per cent. of single childless young people aged under 25 who are not in receipt of benefit rent shared accommodation. We must consider that abolishing the single room rent would result in single young people on benefit being able to afford a level of housing that many of their working peers cannot.

9. What assessment he has made of the performance of the new customer management system computer system. [31690]

The new customer management system is being introduced across the Jobcentre Plus service. Some difficult problems have been associated with its introduction and they have impacted on Jobcentre Plus's service to its clients. Improvements to the system and its associated processes are being made, and these changes are leading to much better standards in both service and performance.

I thank the Minister for that rather inadequate reply. Is she aware that customers are waiting three weeks for a call back, four further weeks for an interview and that customers who use Welsh wait twice that time, because the script—ludicrously—is not available in Welsh. Operators have to translate the English script into Welsh, talk to the customer in Welsh, translate the replies into English for the record and send them off to be translated back into Welsh to send to the customers. That is not providing Welsh-speaking customers, or customers in general, with a proper service. Does she agree that something needs to be done now?

Answer in Welsh.

I wish I could, but that is not one of my talents. I can tell the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) that, across the whole infrastructure in Wales, we have Welsh-speaking officials who can respond to Welsh-speaking clients. Indeed, he will know that the new system is not yet in place for his constituents. I know that the truth sometimes stands in the way of a good story, but the truth about the call-backs is that, yes, the situation was bad when the system was first introduced and the service was poor. However, the latest statistics for November show that call-backs take place, on average, in 1.6 days, which is within the standard we want and is achieved across the nation, including Wales.

Sadly, it is all too clear from the recent BBC survey, which showed that a third of calls went unanswered, that in the introduction of the system the Department has once again let down vulnerable people and, incidentally, increased staff stress. Will the Minister now give an assurance to the House that all those who call Jobcentre Plus before the end of this week—if they can get through—will be called in for an appointment and have benefit paid to them before Christmas?

It was not a BBC survey that was reported in the press last week: it was a survey that we did to ensure that performance and standards could be improved—

Was it an internal survey?

It was an internal survey that we undertook to see how the new system was bedding down and I agree with hon. Members that problems occurred with its introduction. I assure the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that the most recent statistics—for performance in the second week of November—show that nearly 90 per cent. of calls were answered, which reaches our standard. Claims for both income support and incapacity benefit are being processed above standard, but the processing of claims for jobseekers allowance is falling a little below standard, and we will seek to make improvements. I see no problems in the future like those we have seen in the past.

10. How many incapacity benefit claimants he estimates will return to some level of work following his reform of incapacity benefit. [31691]

Our welfare reforms will help us to reach our aspiration to increase further the number of people in work, so that we enjoy an 80 per cent. employment rate in the UK. Our incapacity benefit reforms will support that aim by opening up employment opportunities to many more people. Our broad estimate is that the reforms will help 1 million people into work who might otherwise be claiming incapacity benefits.

I thank the Minister for that clear answer. Will the time-limiting of incapacity be permitted? Her Department seems to be against it, the Prime Minister is for it and, when the Secretary of State was asked the other day, he was silent on the matter. Could the Minister give a hint about the way that issue is going?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we will abide entirely by what we have said in our manifesto and in the five-year plan. I suggest that he read both documents—[Interruption.] They are consistent with each other. He should then await the publication of the Green Paper, which is now promised in January.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that reforming benefits on its own may remove disincentives from the system, but not necessarily get people off incapacity benefit and into work? Extra help is needed, perhaps using the new deal for the unemployed and the new pathways-to-work programme. Indeed, it has been shown recently that rehabilitation is the key to getting more people off benefit and into work.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. If we simply consider the benefit, we will not provide the opportunity that we want to give to many people who have been locked into dependency on incapacity benefit for so long. We need not just to provide the support that has been demonstrated to work effectively in the pathways-to-work programme, but to consider intervening early to prevent people from even starting on that journey on incapacity benefit, by providing proper health service support in the early stages. We should also to consider the whole process through which people travel on their journey on to incapacity benefit to find out whether that cannot be more effectively administered and implemented.

At one of my surgeries recently, a gentleman staggered into the office, walked very slowly up to my desk, sat down and said, "I have been on incapacity benefit. I have doctors' and consultants' certificates saying that I cannot possibly work, yet I have now been put on to job seeker's allowance." When he asked why, he was told, "It's because the Government want to get people off incapacity benefit." Will the Minister comment on that case?

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman understood the processes by now. Existing claimants are regularly called in and reassessed to find out whether they remain eligible for benefit. Unless the hon. Gentleman provides me with details to the contrary, I am sure that the constituent to whom he refers was called in, probably examined by doctors who work with our system, and reassessed as being capable of work. May I make a final comment? The problem with the current system is that all we do is check people's eligibility for the benefit by assessing their incapacity. What we want to do is look at what people can do—their capabilities—so that they can contribute to the world of work and, of course, support their own families and feel the self-esteem that comes from being able to work.

The Minister has referred again to this 1 million figure for the number of people whom the Government want to take off incapacity benefit and get into work, but is she aware that the claimant count level of unemployment in the economy generally has been rising for the past nine months? The background is getting more difficult. Is that why the Prime Minister and his policy unit are reported as wanting to time-limit incapacity benefit and pay it by way of vouchers rather than cash, presumably to force people into work when his other policies have failed? Will the Minister now clarify that point because a great deal of confusion and concern has been caused by the row between her Department and No. 10? Otherwise, we must wait yet more months for the much-delayed discussion document or Green Paper.

May I say two things? First, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have been incredibly successful in growing the number of jobs in the economy, and that it is not a shortage of jobs that has led to the unfortunate and accepted slight increase in the claimant count for jobseeker's allowance in recent months. There are other factors at play and we are working to tackle them.

Secondly, our entire agenda is not driven by cutting benefits. That agenda was familiar to many Opposition Members for decade after decade. Our agenda is about ensuring that, in the same way that we have introduced a range of civil rights for people with disabilities and health problems that help them to gain access to goods and services, we now introduce the right and opportunity for individuals to enjoy the benefits of work.

11. What representations he has received about the difficulties that people who are prelingually profoundly deaf may experience while claiming benefits; and if he will make a statement. [31692]

Our aim is to provide an accessible service to all our customers. People who are prelingually profoundly deaf may claim benefit in a variety of ways, including by using a British sign language interpreter, or suitable communicator, to help in their own home if required.

Is the Minister aware that a recent survey of all customer service managers in the disability and carers service by the ombudsman's office revealed that only three requests for British sign language interpreters had been received in a whole year? From the ombudsman's report, which overwhelmingly supported my constituent, it appears that help is needed to access help. Will the Minister assure me that she will work with the voluntary sector and other bodies to improve accessibility to the benefits system—and, indeed, pathways to work—for anyone with a sensory disability?

I am aware of the case that the hon. Lady mentions, and I hope that I can give her some reassurance. Among other organisations, my officials are meeting Sign It!, which I understand was the group that supported her constituent. That group provides communication and interpreter support to the deaf community. We are working with it to explore the potential for improving arrangements for making claims. I reassure the House that the disability and carers service has produced a British sign language DVD version of its customer information leaflet, which will be available from 16 December 2005. We are examining further ways in which we can ensure that communication is extended.

What impact does my hon. Friend think the access-to-work scheme has had on people who become deaf over time, either while in employment or due to age-related nerve deafness or industrial deafness? Is she aware of a report by the Disability Employment Coalition that says that for every pound spent on the scheme, £1.48 is accrued in extra revenue to the Treasury? Does she agree that deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing people need help not only to enter employment, but to stay in employment and off the benefit system?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the access-to-work scheme. As she and many hon. Members will be aware, that successful scheme supports disabled people, many of whom become disabled of a result of illness or accidents during their working lives. The scheme helps them into employment and sustains them in employment. I am aware of the report that my hon. Friend mentions. Some of the figures in it are perhaps not universally accepted, but it highlights the importance of such support to disabled people to ensure that they can fulfil their potential in the workplace.

12. If he will take steps to increase the take-up of council tax benefit among pensioners. [31693]

We have already done so. Over the winter we will again, with local authorities' support, be running publicity and marketing awareness campaigns that are aimed at getting everybody who is entitled to council tax benefit to claim it. As I said in reply to an earlier question, the Pension Service has, by telephoning existing pension credit customers nationwide, already filled in and issued nearly 15,000 of the new, simplified three-page claim forms. Those are real improvements to help pensioners to get the support that is theirs by right.

I thank my hon. Friend for that and for his earlier answers. He will know that the issue is important because, according to the excellent House of Commons Library, the take-up of council tax benefit appears to be lowest among pensioners, when analysed by either case load, or expenditure. Pensioners who are already claiming benefit sometimes face a long delay before the outcome of their cases. What steps is he taking to shorten that delay for those who are already in the system?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the over-65s is the group with the lowest take-up—it is probably about 63 per cent. We thus think that about 1.5 million pensioners who are entitled to council tax benefit are not in receipt of it. We are moving towards a point at which those who are on guaranteed pension credit can be automatically signed up for council tax benefit. As we have the information, we now know who to telephone, which is what the Pension Service is doing. All that speeds up and simplifies the process. As I said earlier, steps are being taken to make the process automatic, ideally.

Is not a system whereby the basic state pension goes up by only the comparatively small level of prices, even though the council tax has been consistently going up by at least double that level of inflation—if not more—over recent years, inevitably going to cause extreme hardship to some of our poorest pensioners? Is that not inevitably going to drive them on to benefits, especially council tax benefit? Is not the real answer to keep council tax increases at or around the level of inflation? What representations has the Minister made to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep council tax increases down towards the level of inflation so that the poorest pensioners in our country are not caused such hardship?

First, it simply is not the case that more and more pensioners are being driven on to council tax benefit. In fact, back in 1997, 3.2 million pensioners were picking up council benefit; it is now 2.5 million. It is a smaller absolute number because of increases in pensioner income, thanks to the introduction of the pension credit and other measures taken by the Government that have gone a long way towards eradicating pensioner poverty. That is why the actual take-up of council tax benefit by pensioners has fallen in absolute numbers.

However, we still need the campaign to encourage take-up because many pensioners, having successfully received pension credit—which is a large additional amount for them in terms of their income—think that that is as far as it goes and are surprised to find that there is additional help. We also find that owner-occupiers mistakenly believe that they are not entitled to help with their council tax bill when they may well be. That, too, is part of the take-up campaign.

As for the size of the increases in council tax, the hon. Gentleman should consider which side of the House has political control of the councils with the largest increases.

13. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new deal; and if he will make a statement. [31694]

The new deal has so far helped nearly 1.5 million people into work. The lone parent employment rate has risen by more than 11 percentage points since 1997 and studies have shown that about half of that increase can be directly attributable to the Government's welfare-to-work policies, in which the new deal has played a major part. Also, research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that the new deal for young people now saves the economy £500 million every year.

On the new deal, it is noticeable how selective Ministers are in finding support for it. The Secretary of State mentioned young people specifically. The director of the Centre for Economic Performance suggests that the new deal has had a very small effect on them. In fact, he says:

"The level of employment of young people is about 17,000 higher per year . . . as a result of the New Deal."

How many people have gone through the new deal twice, three times or four times?

It is the hon. Gentleman who chooses to be selective. He asked for evidence of the success of the new deal and I presented it to him. He chooses to ignore it. In his constituency, more than 2,000 young people have been through the new deal. If he wants confirmation of whether it has been a success, I suggest he has a chat with some of them.

Will the Secretary of State answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) about how many people have been through the new deal twice, three times, four times or more? If he cannot tell us, will he undertake to write a letter and place it in the Library?

Of course I will be happy to do that.

15. If he will make a statement on the performance of the Child Support Agency. [31696]

Clearly, it is not as good as it should be. I think every hon. Member will agree with that. That is why the chief executive, working closely with Ministers, is drawing up a strategy to tackle the root causes of the agency's difficulties and to get it into decent shape so that its performance can begin to meet the standards we expect of it.

The Minister knows perfectly well that there is not a Member of the House who has not got a file of letters from parents with children who cannot access the money to which they are entitled, and an equivalent file of letters from absent parents who cannot afford the demands that are made on them. While both those sequences of cases are causing misery, the information technology is failing and the people working it are failing. Has not the time come to draw this whole sorry episode to a close and replace it with something that works?

When did this sorry episode start? Back when the hon. Gentleman was in government and voted for it—[Interruption.] Oh yes. It is worth reminding him and all Conservative Members of that. He will know that we inherited a mess in the CSA in 1997—[Interruption.] I am happy to remind hon. Members of the work that we have done. I am sure that they will remember that we introduced reforms in 2000–01 which established a new method of calculating the maintenance assessment.

As we analyse the problems, we find more and more that many of them date back to mistakes in the setting up of the agency—[Interruption.] No, that is where most of the debt comes from. The original formula for assessing maintenance was excessively complicated, with 90 different variables. The hon. Gentleman voted for that and it led to many of the complexities in the system. He and his party set it up with second-hand, second-rate IT. We have begun the reform process. I agree with him—every Member in this House has a thick file of cases of constituents who are having difficulties with the CSA. I have spoken about such cases just as often as he has. We are just as keen to get on with reforming the agency. As I have said, we are working with the chief executive to bring forward a reform programme.

The Government have been in power for eight years and it is time that they took responsibility for the state of the CSA. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the CSA has basic design problems. Only a fortnight ago in this House, he said that the CSA is not suited to its job. With the CSA, as with incapacity benefit, the running seems to be being made by Downing street and not by the Department. Can the Minister guarantee that we will get a statement on the future of the CSA before the Christmas recess, or has he no more knowledge of the Prime Minister's plans than the rest of us?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right when he said that the agency has basic design problems. When was it designed? It was back when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were in office. Let me remind him of what he said in The Guardian only last week:

"There are no easy solutions for the CSA."

He wants to know when our reform proposals will come forward. We still hope to bring them to the House before the end of the year.

Is not the time for action from this Government long overdue? The agency has at least 400,000 cases where no payments are going to children, and it has a backlog of 350,000 cases that have not even been assessed. In respect of action that the Government are thinking of taking, will the Minister confirm that his Department is considering privatising this dog's breakfast?

The hon. Lady has been reading the press speculation and I suggest that she treats it as exactly that. Her party's position on the agency is getting more and more confusing. I am used to hearing some of her Front Benchers suggest that we hand things over to the Inland Revenue, but the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked in the House last week whether it was sensible to transfer the administration of mean-tested benefits for children to the Treasury. But that was last week.