1. How many recipients of inactive benefits moved back to work in the last year for which figures are available. [40157]

In the year to May 2005, the number of people receiving inactive benefits has fallen by 76,000. The number of incapacity benefits recipients has fallen by 41,000 and the number of lone parents receiving benefits by 34,000.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the best route out of poverty is a decently paid job for those who can work. In that context, will he share with us his latest thinking on what will happen to those on incapacity benefit who can work, as well as on safeguards for those who will not be able to work?

My hon. Friend is right and I am sure that he speaks for the majority of Members when he says that, ultimately, that is the best type of welfare-to-work reform on which we can agree. I suspect that there will be a disagreement between us on the means to that end, but we remain convinced, building on the experience of the new deals—actively opposed by Opposition Members—that if we work with benefit recipients, develop their skills, capacities and capabilities and provide them with the appropriate level of support, that will be the best way of getting people out of benefits and into well-paid jobs. The proof of the pudding comes from the pathways to work pilot schemes that we have been testing up and down the country since 2003, which have produced positive results.

In an area such as mine, most jobs require high skills. Those who have been out of work due to incapacity often require new skills, but the learning and skills councils and colleges of further education now seem to be focusing more and more on the 16 to 19 age group and less and less on providing skills and qualification training for adults. I do not believe that the learning and skills councils have got a grip on this. If people are to get the skills they need to get back into work, they will need some encouragement to acquire them, and the routing is not there.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I agree that, wherever possible, we should make sure that there is proper co-ordination between Government Departments that share a broadly similar agenda. Tackling worklessness is a shared responsibility between myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. When we publish our proposals in the welfare reform Green Paper, we will set out how we promote better co-ordination between various Government agencies to produce the results that the hon. Gentleman and I would welcome.

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that, contrary to common understanding, the majority of people in the north-east on incapacity benefits are women. Also, a large number of people on incapacity benefit have mental health problems. How will he address their needs and help them get back into work?

My hon. Friend is quite right to talk about some of the characteristics of incapacity benefit claimants. We shall soon be setting out a series of detailed proposals for reforming incapacity benefit and these will draw on our experiences to date from the pathways to work projects and take forward what we have learned from the new deals. I am sure that if we can provide the right help and support for people on incapacity benefit, we can make a significant contribution to tackling some of the levels of deprivation that can be seen in her constituency, in mine and in many others.

In terms of the proposals in the welfare reform Green Paper to be published later this month, the Secretary of State has talked about the experience from the pathways to work areas. Will he assure the House that when the Green Paper is published, there will be sufficient funding behind the roll-out of the pathways to work schemes across the country to ensure that incapacity benefit recipients all over the UK can benefit from the scheme?

Yes. We have £150 million of funding to facilitate the extension across the country of the pathways to work schemes, which have proved to be successful. The proposals that we shall bring forward in the Green Paper will of course be fully funded.

Are not the Secretary of State's constituency and mine similar to practically all constituencies represented in this House, in that for every one unemployed claimant, there are three incapacity benefit claimants? Most Jobcentre Pluses still spend most of their time helping the unemployed back into work. When he publishes the Green Paper, will he assure the House that all Jobcentre Pluses will give a disproportionate amount of time to those who form the largest part of the dole queues?

My right hon. Friend is right to describe as he does the scale and depth of the problem that we need to tackle. As part of the reforms, which will be set out later this month, it will be very important that Jobcentre Plus supports the voluntary sector and some commercial and private sector providers, in order to provide a stronger and better menu of support for those of his constituents—and mine—who are claiming incapacity benefit. When he sees the Green Paper, I hope that he will give it his very strong support.

I welcome the last part of the Secretary of State's answer, but does he accept that voluntary organisations such as the Shaw Trust have a much greater success rate than the statutory sector? Can he say now what steps he will take to ensure that jobcentres do not keep in-house work that could be farmed out to such very successful organisations?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the Shaw Trust, which is doing excellent work for us in a number of very important areas. Again, he will have to wait for the publication of the Green Paper, but a very important part of the reforms that we want to introduce is that we learn to draw on the expertise and skills of a wider variety of organisations that can help us to get people off benefit and back into work. The voluntary sector will have a very important role to play in helping us to do that.

On benefits and welfare to work, does my right hon. Friend agree that one thing that would have given my friend the former Member for West Ham the most satisfaction—he worked very hard for the people of the east end for more than 20 years—was the work that his Labour Government did in taking so many people in the east end out of poverty?

I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend and I am sure that I speak for every person in this House today when I say that we mourn the death of Tony Banks, who was an outstanding Member of Parliament. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] We will miss him very much.

First, I should like to associate myself and my colleagues with the Secretary of State's last remarks. We welcome his commitment to publishing the Green Paper on incapacity benefit reform before the end of this month, and provided that he stands firm in tackling the problems in the current system and does not allow himself to be deflected by potential rebels, we look forward to engaging in a constructive discussion with him on it. But why does he think that so many of his Labour colleagues appear to need so much convincing of the merits of a set of proposals designed to help people out of benefit dependency and into work?

I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities; it is a bit like old times for him and me. We spent many years—it felt like many years—debating care standards legislation in Standing Committee, so today brings back happy memories for me. [Hon. Members: "Give details."] I could—believe me, I could; it is tattooed on my brain. It is not at all a case of having to convince my right hon. and hon. Friends on this issue. We see in our constituencies the failures of the current system, which, to give the hon. Gentleman credit, he fairly said last week has led to a culture of benefit dependency. Of course, it is a system that his Government set up, and it has spectacularly failed millions of people throughout the country. I am sure that I will have support on the Labour Benches for my proposals, and I point out to the hon. Gentleman—as he probably expects me to—that I do not believe that he or his colleagues have anything to contribute to this debate, given their history in 18 years in government.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome and it is indeed like old times, but we will take no lectures from him. His Government have been in office for nearly eight years and have done, in the words of his own Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, sweet nothing to tackle this problem in that time. Given that the total number of incapacity benefit claimants is higher than in 1997, does he agree that the forthcoming Green Paper must address not only the flow of new claimants but the stock of existing ones, many of whom want to work and could do so if they were supported? Would it not be a betrayal of those currently trapped in dependency by this benefits system if he were to fail to address in the Green Paper the issue of current claimants?

I agree, and that is why the Green Paper will also address the issue of what extra help and support we can provide for existing incapacity benefit claimants. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we have done nothing to address the failures of the system that his party put in place, and the proof that we have done something is clear from the figures. For the first time for 25 years, the number claiming incapacity benefit has begun to fall, precisely because of the extra support and investment that we have made—all of which were opposed by him and his colleagues. He mentions the numbers, and it is true that since 1997 the total number claiming incapacity benefit has risen by 4 per cent., but last year saw the first fall. Between 1979 and 1997, the number claiming incapacity benefit rose by 232 per cent. That figure speaks volumes.

2. If he will make a statement on the Child Support Agency's policy towards those deemed to be the parent without care who claim they are not actually the parent. [40158]

Where the parentage of a child is disputed, the agency can, in appropriate cases, arrange DNA tests. In five out of six cases, these prove that the alleged non-resident parent is the father of the child. There are categories of case, for example where the father is named on the birth certificate, where the agency can presume parentage without a test, but that can be disputed in the courts. If the court finds, or the DNA test shows, that a man is not the father of the child, the agency refunds the cost of the DNA test, refunds any maintenance paid and ceases action.

It was recently revealed that more than 3,000 men or one in six of those who took the DNA test were not the father of the child. Will my hon. Friend give an absolute assurance that all those men will be fully refunded, any arrears written off and the cost of the test reimbursed? If it is deemed that a woman acted maliciously in naming a man who proved not to be the father, should not the cost of the DNA test be transferred to her?

My hon. Friend is correct to say that since the agency began to operate there have been 3,000 such cases. However, the number of tests commissioned each year is falling. In the first full year of the agency's operation there were more than 4,000 tests, but in the last complete year of operation there were fewer than 2,000. The percentage proving negative has been steady throughout, with just 300 such cases last year. I assure my hon. Friend that if a man is proved not to be the father, the cost of the DNA test is reimbursed as are any maintenance payments made. If a malicious claim is made by a mother, there are actions that the agency may take against her.

Does the Minister consider that there is sufficient incentive for the partner with care to identify the other parent?

In most cases in which that becomes a matter of dispute, it is resolved long before maintenance comes into place. Disputes about parentage occur in various circumstances. Sometimes the dispute emerges early, with the claim being made by either party, but sometimes a dispute only arises once a man has been assessed as liable for maintenance. Then, and only then, does he dispute parentage, usually for vexatious reasons. That results in an investigation to establish whether he is in fact the father.

3. What role his Department has played in negotiations on the reform of public sector pensions. [40159]

We have welcomed the savings to the Exchequer that will result from the negotiations. In April 2005, the Prime Minister asked the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to lead discussions with trade unions on the public sector schemes. My right hon. Friend took that responsibility with him to the Department of Trade and Industry. Ministers in this Department have not taken part in negotiations since then.

I thank the Minister for his answer, but what action will he take to address the £800 billion public sector pension liability, or does he simply expect the private sector to pick up the tab?

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman what his party said during the election—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question".] I can understand that he may not like to be reminded—

Order. There is no need to remind the hon. Gentleman; the Minister should just give the answer.

The Conservatives told us that they had no plans to alter civil service pensions—

Order. The Minister is out of order and he will resume his seat.

Rather surprisingly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Treasury Committee, on 8 December 2005, that in regard to last October's public sector pension agreement

"all things will be looked at in the sector by sector negotiations".

In the interests of clarity, can the Minister confirm that as a result of those negotiations nobody who is at present a teacher, a worker in the national health service or a worker in the civil service will have to retire over the age of 60? Yes or no?

That would depend on what happens in the meantime: for example, if somebody is under the agreement that has been reached—there are of course further discussions to be had—and leaves one of the occupations that the hon. Gentleman described and later rejoins the pension scheme, they would re-enter on the basis of the new agreement, so the answer to his question is no.

The Minister will be aware of the many attacks on pensions by companies throughout the country which are breaking their promises on almost a daily basis. Will he assure me that the promises we make to public sector workers will be kept and that he will ensure that they are kept?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the public sector should behave responsibly as an employer, as all employers should, and that major changes to pension schemes should be negotiated and properly consulted on. That will continue to be our practice.

Does the Minister have any plans to revisit—[Hon. Members: "Brutus!"] Does the Minister have any plans to revisit the sum of £800 billion in the light of revelations this morning that private sector auditors have underestimated private sector liabilities by a factor of 200 per cent., failing to take account of growing longevity?

I did not catch all of that, but I will not ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me—[Laughter.] What I can say is that the approach we have taken to reforming public sector pensions is not unusual; changes will apply to new members and not existing ones, and the agreement that has been made will deliver substantial expenditure savings, precisely as we always intended that it would.

4. What assessment he has made of the Pensions Commission's second report. [40160]

The Government welcome the broad framework of the Pensions Commission proposals and options. I am particularly pleased that the report has recognised and endorsed the Government's approach to tackling the legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited in 1997, through measures such as the pension credit. The Government will work towards the publication of a White Paper in the spring that will set out our full response.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the Turner report recommendations may not be affordable. Is that still the case given the £10 billion that will be raised by equalising women's state pension age?

We have always made it clear that the proposals have to be affordable. We will take no risks with public expenditure, or with the fiscal rules, and when we produce our White Paper we shall set out the proposals in detail, of course with the funding that is necessary to support them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that 70 per cent. of women do not receive the basic state pension, and that an even greater percentage are outside any private arrangement? Does he agree that to establish an effective pension system two characteristics must inform it? First, everyone must be included, carers as well as people earning an income, and secondly, the sums given must be adequate.

Yes. I agree absolutely with what my hon. Friend has said. It is generally recognised that women fare particularly badly under the current basic state pension rules. In making my statement to the House in November, when Lord Turner published his proposals, I tried to emphasise the importance that we attach to ensuring that any long-term reform proposals are fair to women and carers, and I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance once again today.

Does the Secretary of State agree that a study of an otherwise excellent report shows that it has only one deficiency: it does not seem to contain recommendations on incentives for existing employers to continue with final salary schemes? Does he not agree that it would be in the national interest to provide such incentives? Does he have any ideas on that subject?

Clearly, we need to consider a range of issues in relation to the proposals that we put forward in the spring, and I am sure that that will be one of them. Of equal significance, however, to whether there are final salary schemes, career-average schemes or defined contribution schemes is the fundamental problem that not enough people are saving to provide an adequate retirement income for themselves. Lord Turner has done us all a great service in the House by drawing attention to that weakness in the current arrangements. He has made a series of specific proposals for a new national pension saving scheme to which we will give careful consideration. Of course, one of those issues should be the tax incentive arrangements to encourage savings—but that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Secretary of State has mentioned a national pension savings scheme whereby workers who are not enrolled in a company pension scheme would be automatically enrolled in such a system. Does he agree that, at a stroke, that would help the low-paid workers who have been largely absent from the savings industry? Given that high costs have bedevilled the savings industry, does he not think that that pension scheme would be a catalyst to driving down provider charges?

I can agree with my right hon. Friend. That is precisely what drove Lord Turner to make the recommendations that he made. The key to Lord Turner's proposals is auto-enrolment, so that everyone has the opportunity to participate in one of the low-cost pension savings schemes. That has obvious attractions, but we must look very carefully at the detail of Lord Turner's recommendations before we make our own detailed proposals in the spring.

I should like to associate the Liberal Democrat party with the comments that the Secretary of State made earlier about former hon. Members who are respected and remembered on both sides of the House.

On pensions reform, has the Secretary of State made any progress in discussing the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer over Christmas? In addition, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer completed the Treasury inquiry into the leaking of his letter prior to the Turner report?

The Ides of March.

Indeed. I was not at all sure whether anyone would be sitting on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench to ask what we could call a series of questions today.

Leak inquiries are nothing whatever to do with the Department for Work and Pensions, and they are nothing to do with my responsibilities to the House as Secretary of State. On the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), of course I continue to have friendly discussions with the Chancellor about the pensions reform proposals, and I am very confident that we will introduce a series of radical and far-reaching reforms for the pension system in this country that, I hope, will command cross-party consensus.

5. What recent meetings he has had with the chief executive of the Child Support Agency. [40161]

I and ministerial colleagues regularly meet the agency's chief executive, Stephen Geraghty. Those meetings have mostly focused on the review of the agency that he has been carrying out, the findings of which we are now considering.

As every month more and more of my constituents come to me with legitimate complaints about the inefficiency and incompetence of the Child Support Agency, is it not strange that Ministers did not bring their reforms before the House before Christmas, as was promised? Why did they not do so? What is the problem?

We asked Stephen Geraghty to undertake a very thorough review of the agency's workings. The agency's problems are well known to all hon. Members from our constituency casework, if through no other route, and the problems are deep-seated in the agency. It was therefore sensible to give Mr. Geraghty and his staff enough time to conclude their review. It is also appropriate that we should think about and reflect carefully on what he said, because we intend to produce proposals in due course to put the agency on a decent footing.

As part of that review, will the Government consider the complete abolition of the Child Support Agency, given the amount of uncollected maintenance, the problems of transferring to the new system and the problems that my hon. Friend says are well documented?

As my hon. Friend suggests, we are all very familiar with the agency's problems. I understand the temptation for some people on both sides of the House to leap from that to the assumption that we should just scrap the agency. I point out to him, however, that although the agency has plenty of problems—that is precisely why the chief executive is now reviewing them—it has collected £4.5 billion of maintenance since it was established. Last year alone, it collected £600 million in maintenance, and it now collects more maintenance than it costs to run, which was not the case initially. Some 500,000 children are supported by child maintenance as a result of the agency's work. Simply scrapping it or closing it down might look attractive in terms of dealing with some of its problems, but it would only create another heap of problems that somebody else would have to pick up. It is, in fact, a simplistic solution to suggest that the only thing to do is shut it down.

Have the Government ruled out scrapping this extraordinary agency?

I think that I just covered that point in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). It is important for us to focus on the primary purpose for which the agency was established: to secure a flow of maintenance for children and to ensure that parents live up to their responsibilities. As I have just said, the agency actually does that to a considerable extent. It has collected £4.5 billion of maintenance since it was established. For some parents and for some children, it works quite successfully; for far too many, it does not. The focus of the chief executive's efforts and our reflections is on dealing with the problems in the agency so that we can get it on to a stable footing.

I am sure that the Minister shares my concern that there are men who will refuse to pay for their children after they are born. Because of my increasing postbag from people trapped between a failing computer system and an absolutely sluggish clerical method of payment, my Christmas message to my constituents covered this issue, and I hope that this year we will somehow find a way to get them out of the trap that they are caught in by the CSA. How long will we have to wait for the Secretary of State's new year message of hope for these people?

I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to come to the House shortly to make a statement that will indicate to him and to all other hon. Members the conclusions that we have reached on the basis of the chief executive's review.

Is it not the case that the agency has been very effective at chasing those absent parents who have not been paying but less effective at chasing those parents who have yet to make a payment? Can the Minister confirm that he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) that he has now received and is considering the findings of the review by the CSA's chief executive? Can the Minister give us a date when the House will have an opportunity to consider his reforms, and will the Secretary of State be minded to reform the agency—or does he share the Prime Minister's view that it is simply not fit for purpose?

I can confirm that we have received the report from the chief executive and I can confirm that we are considering its findings. I can also confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House shortly.

As the hon. Lady joins the Opposition's Front-Bench team, I remind her of what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who used to speak on this issue, said to The Guardian on 23 November. His conclusion was:

"There are no easy solutions for the CSA."

6. How many workers who were members of the failed pension scheme at ASW Sheerness have received compensation from the financial assistance scheme. [40162]

None as yet, although the first members of the ASW Cardiff scheme started to receive payments before Christmas. The ASW Sheerness scheme has not yet completed wind-up, and the scheme trustees have confirmed that they have no members aged 65 and over who would qualify for initial payments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend and former ASW employees later this week.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What will happen to the 80,000 or so people who are caught in this trap once the £400 million is spent? What is the Government's plan B on this issue?

We estimate that 15,000 will benefit from the financial assistance scheme as constructed. We have made it clear that we will review the scheme, including the amount of funding that is available for it, in the next spending review and, at that stage, decide whether it would be appropriate to change its details.

While it is good news for those at ASW Cardiff that they have finally received something, why has the process taken more than 18 months to achieve? When will the 249 other schemes that have already been notified to the FAS be likely to receive some compensation? Will the Minister urgently review the amounts payable, the conditions for eligibility and the patent inadequacy of the funds earmarked for the FAS?

Let me make it clear that payments to the first of the former ASW employees were indeed made on schedule—before Christmas. However, it will still take some time for all people in that and other schemes to receive the payments that are due to them. This has been a pretty major exercise. We are expecting some 15,000 people to benefit, and a lot of data must be assembled to make the payments. I pay tribute to the staff, who have worked extremely hard to get the scheme in place, for what they have achieved and for securing the timetable and deadline that we set for making the first payments before the end of 2005.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the ASW workers are part of a broader network of people, especially steelworkers, who find that after decades of service to our country, they are without properly protected pension funds because for 18 years the Conservative party did not stand up to business and insist that adequate laws existed to protect such people. Will he acknowledge the work of trade unions such as Amicus and Community, and if and when this is needed, will he receive a delegation from them, because they know the real problems of these great workers, who we need to support as much as we can?

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the difficulties that many people have faced. I join him in paying tribute to the trade unions that have done a lot of work to draw attention to the problem. A large group of people—we have been especially concerned about those closest to retirement—faced the prospect of receiving almost nothing from a pension to which they contributed for many years. People who were within three years of their scheme pension age in May 2004 will be receiving assistance, in many cases, from the financial assistance scheme. I have had the opportunity to meet individuals from several trade unions and others who have made representations on the matter. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will meet some people later this week, and I will certainly welcome the opportunity to talk to others in due course.

7. What estimate he has made of the average proportion of pensioners who will be eligible for means-tested benefits between 2005 and 2050. [40163]

Including housing benefit and council tax benefit, the proportion of UK pensioners entitled to means-tested benefits last year was around 50 per cent. The Pensions Commission has estimated that if basic state pension was uprated every year in line with prices and the pension credit guarantee level uprated in line with earnings, in 45 years' time, the proportion could be about three quarters.

I am grateful for that answer. The Pensions Commission also said that a significant growth in means-testing of the sort about which the Minister just talked would undermine voluntary pension saving, especially among those who are most vulnerable to retiring with an inadequate pension arrangement. Given that fact and the fact that, as the Minister said, one in three pensioners will be on means-tested benefits of one sort or another by 2050, is it not time to change the policy, so that we can ensure that everyone has a decent pension but is not reliant on means-testing?

Those were precisely the issues that were addressed in the Pensions Commission report that was published on 30 November. We are actively looking at its recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is right to make his point, but the Pensions Commission expressed concern about the large and rather unpredictable expansion of means-testing, rather than the current level of means-testing, which his question addressed. We want a system in which people can be confident that the decisions that they make now about saving for the future will still seem like the right decisions when they draw an income in retirement. I think that everyone in the House wants that, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman contributing to the consensus that we hope will be achieved on the White Paper that will be published in the spring.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the two greatest contributory factors to lifting pensioners in my constituency out of absolute poverty have been the pension credit and the winter fuel allowance? Will he thus ensure that in any reform of pensions for those poorest pensioners we do not—if this is not mixing metaphors when talking about pensioners—throw the baby out with the bathwater?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have achieved the almost unprecedented situation in which pensioners are no more likely to be poor than anyone else in the population. That has hardly ever been the case in the past, and it is a particularly remarkable achievement after the long period of steady economic growth that we have enjoyed over the past eight years and in which earnings have risen so sharply. Pensioners, particularly less well-off ones, have shared in rising prosperity over the past few years. My hon. Friend is right: we have to make sure that we do not throw away the benefits of that improvement.

Does not the Minister recognise that the level of savings in the population who have yet to become pensioners has halved under this Government as a direct result of the increase in means-testing? That complacency and the fact that the Government can accept a means-testing level of 40 per cent.—the proportion of pensioners receiving pension credit—is quite astonishing. Does not the Minister recognise that the Turner commission anticipates that the level will rise to 70 per cent. unless the pension credit system is changed?

The hon. Gentleman may be under a number of misapprehensions. I gave the current figure for the proportion of pensioners entitled to means-tested benefits in my earlier answer. The figure was about 40 per cent. in 1997, under the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a supporter. Because of pension credit we have been able to reduce pensioner poverty dramatically.

There is very little evidence that means-testing, under the previous Government or this Government, has reduced saving on the part of pensioners, but since 1997 there has been much greater confidence in the economy and in the future, which is largely what has led to the changes to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In 1992, when there was deep anxiety about the future of the economy, people saved more. Today they are more confident. [Interruption.] That is the reality. The greater prosperity and steady economic growth have been of immense benefit to everybody.

8. What steps he is taking to ensure pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [40164]

We undertake a wide range of activities to ensure that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. This is done through direct mailings, leaflets and mass communications, such as press and TV advertising, as well as local take-up activity. In addition, since December 2005 customers who contact the pension credit application line to make an application for pension credit have been able to claim housing benefit and council tax benefit during the same call.

That is a magnificent catalogue of things that we are doing, but I remind hon. Members that in 2003 the Public Accounts Committee told us that there was £2 billion in unclaimed pensioner benefits. I wonder whether the Minister, having reeled off that long list of achievements, can tell us what the figure is today.

I will give my hon. Friend the specific figures in writing later. Since the Public Accounts Committee's report, we have gone to great lengths to ensure that pensioners receive their entitlement, which I hope that people throughout the House accept they deserve. That includes making arrangements for filling in application forms and for turning round applications quickly so that the 4,638 householders in my hon. Friend's constituency who receive pension credit get it timeously and efficiently. The average award in the constituency is £42.93. We are making great efforts, and I hark back to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform: what we have done in the last eight years has lifted millions of pensioners out of poverty.

Can the Minister tell me whether there has been any audit of the effectiveness of press and TV advertising? Does she have any idea of the cost?

The advertising is geared specifically to the target group. The pension credit take-up rate that we have achieved meets our targets and we are heading towards almost 3 million pensioners claiming pension credit. I ask the hon. Lady to accept that the difference between the present Government and the Government whom she supported is that we tell people to what they are entitled, whereas for 18 years the Conservative Government kept those things hidden.

The debate on this question and the previous one helps to explain why pensioners are often reluctant to apply for the benefits to which they are entitled: it is because the words "means-testing" have become dirty words. I and many other hon. Members know that means-testing is the very mechanism that has brought 1.9 million pensioners out of absolute poverty. As long as Opposition Members and the media decry means-testing and say that it is wrong rather than a good thing, it will be more difficult for pensioners to apply and feel that they are doing the right thing.

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. Our aim in pensions and other benefits is to ensure that people know to what they are entitled. I, like many Labour Members, remember the days when people could not find out to what they were entitled from a social security system that was intended to disguise people's entitlement. The Conservatives made it very difficult for people to claim their entitlement. We have started to change that culture, and many pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency and across the country now know that they can go in with dignity to the DWP—

Order.

What is the increase in percentage terms in the take-up rate since the report of the Public Accounts Committee?

I will give the hon. Gentleman the details in writing after this Question Time.

My hon. Friend will be aware that many pensioners throughout the country are extremely concerned about the forthcoming industrial action by the Public and Commercial Services union and the information issued by that trade union that the time taken to deal with people's applications for their entitlement could become even longer than they are experiencing now. Are pensioners' concerns misplaced?

On the particular matter of the PCS action, discussions are ongoing, so I think that it would be helpful to leave the matter there.

9. What progress has been made in tackling child poverty since 1997. [40165]

Since 1997, the number of children living in relatively low income households, after housing costs, has fallen by 700,000. At the same time, the number of children living in workless households has fallen by 400,000. However, poverty is about more than low income—it is also about health, housing and the quality of the environment. The seventh annual "Opportunity for all" report, which we recently published, sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents information on the indicators used to measure progress against this strategy.

I thank my right hon. Friend that reply. I am sure that Opposition Members are as impressed as I am by her answer. Does she agree that such policies could not be pursued if there was a tax-cutting agenda?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's statement. If we are to deliver on child poverty, we have to ensure that the commitment is affordable and that we do not take risks with public finance. I suggest—reflecting on the future, not the past—that the Conservative party's honeymoon period will run out very quickly if it does not think about the public expenditure commitments in some of its promises.

The fall in child poverty in Wales is especially welcome, given that it has been the second or third highest in the UK for many years. At the same time, however, in-work poverty has increased from about 30 per cent. in the mid-1990s to 40 per cent. today. The fact that 40 per cent. of people in work are still living in poverty is entirely unacceptable. What will the Government do about that, given that their efforts since the mid-1990s have clearly not worked?

I am rather puzzled by the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given us and would be grateful if he would send them to me. I see that he is waving a piece of paper. Measures such as the introduction of the minimum wage are part of our strategy to ensure that work pays. Other measures such as the new deal, which the Conservative party attacked—I know that it was supported by the hon. Gentleman's party—are designed to ensure that not only the main earner in households but their partners work, so that families are lifted out of poverty through all those in the family contributing to family household incomes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that four out of every 10 children in south Tyneside have no parent in work? Does she agree that jobs are needed in the north-east and not back-to-work schemes?

Clearly, a back-to-work scheme would not work if we did not have jobs. I challenge my hon. Friend on his assumption that there are not job opportunities in the north-east. As for the Government's record on bringing people into work, it is those areas that suffered the most under the previous Government from closures and the loss of jobs that have benefited the most from this Government through the new deal and also the very good stewardship of the economy, which has created jobs.

Did the Minister hear the Prime Minister claim yesterday that the Government had tackled child poverty? Does she think that that is an inappropriate use of language, given that one in three children still lacks adequate clothing, especially shoes and winter coats, and that the gap in educational achievement between the different socio-economic groups has, if anything, widened?

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and for this reason. I think that the most dreadful legacy that we inherited from the previous Government was the growth in child poverty, together with the growth in division between the rich and the poor. The record of which I am proudest as a member of this Government is the measures that we have put in place that have lifted so many children and so many families out of poverty. We need to build on that record, but it is a record of which I am particularly proud.

10. What estimate he has made of the number of drug addicts receiving incapacity benefit. [40166]

As at May 2005, there were 48,300 incapacity benefit and severe disability allowance claimants whose primary diagnosis was recorded as drug abuse.

One question that my right hon. Friend might want to consider is the rather new tendency of those who are on incapacity benefit to be termed "depressed", and therefore to receive enhanced disability living allowance, for example, on the basis that they are depressed. Will my right hon. Friend take a specific look at this and consider whether it is a barrier to return to work for some individuals?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the extensive work that he has undertaken in the area of drug abuse. Having prepared for questions today and having seen his record, I know that he has added much to the information and knowledge that we have, and on which we can build our policies.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and the issue of mental illness and its link to incapacity benefit claimants is something that we are considering. The proportion of people who start an incapacity benefit claim because of mental illness has doubled in the past 10 years, and four out of 10 of those now coming on to incapacity benefit do so because of mental illness. It is my view that if we can get much stronger and earlier intervention and support through the health service so that people have access to appropriate counselling therapies, we could prevent many people from getting on to the route of being locked into benefit dependency. There is much sense in what my hon. Friend says, and we are exploring the issue in the development of our Green Paper proposals.

Does the Minister agree that to wean drug addicts off the benefit culture, it is vital to have the right treatment facilities in place? Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that we have the right number of facilities? Is she satisfied also that we have the right number of qualified doctors available to run those facilities?

As I am not a Health Minister, I do not have the figures for treatment centres and facilities before me, but we have greatly increased their number. I accept, however, that there is much more to do and further to go. Efforts to look at job opportunities for drug misusers and relinking them to the labour market are a difficult policy area, but we must ensure that we achieve the co-operation of people who are misusing drugs if we are to support them into a positive lifestyle in which they contribute to their local communities.

Does the Minister accept that many drug addicts follow a pattern of committing crime, going to prison, leaving prison and going on to benefit? While addicts are in prison and are a captive audience, we have an opportunity to give them proper education and support. Does she agree that much more needs to be spent in that area?

I agree entirely, and my hon. Friend may be aware that just before Christmas we published a report that was the result of work between our Department, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office, which looked precisely at the issue of how we can improve the quality of support that we give people in prison to prevent them from returning there. That includes looking at drug misusers who, because of their habit, end up committing crime and therefore spending time in jail.

11. If he will bring forward legislation to reform the pension system in the current Session of Parliament. [40167]

We are planning for a White Paper in the spring in response to the report of the Pensions Commission. It will set out what legislation will be needed and a planned timetable for reforms. We are not planning to introduce pensions reform legislation before the summer recess.

I continue to be concerned about more than 1 million pensioners who fail to receive pension credit or means-tested benefits, and I am sure that the Minister shares my concern. His Government, the Chancellor and his Department designed that complex tax and benefit system so, on their behalf, does he accept any responsibility whatsoever for the plight of the most needy and vulnerable in society because of the complexities of the pension system?

Let me start by agreeing with something that the hon. Gentleman said. I, too, think that it is important that people receive what they are entitled to, which is why we have been doing a great deal of work to increase the take-up of pension credit. A total of 2.7 million households now receive it, which is an increase of 900,000 over the minimum income guarantee and income support that preceded it. Between April and November, staff from the Pension Service carried out 600,000 home visits to help to make sure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled. We are using direct mail, and are also doing a great deal of work to make sure that people receive what they are entitled to. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support staff in the Pension Service in his constituency who are working to ensure that people receive what they are entitled to.

Before we move to the legislative phase, would my hon. Friend support a programme, which could take place around the country, to aid public education and discussion of the issues affecting pensions? It is vital that we help people approaching pension age to understand their options and, equally, that we encourage younger people to take pensions much more seriously.

My hon. Friend is right, and that will be an important part of a successful programme of pensions reform. It is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly announce details of an expanded national pensions debate in the next few months, to contribute toward reform proposals. It is important, too, that we do more about financial education to make people aware of the opportunities available to them.

12. What research he has conducted into the impact of negative stereotypes on people with disabilities. [40168]

The Prime Minister's strategy unit report, "Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People", published in January 2005, analysed the issues faced by disabled people in many areas of their lives, including prejudice and discrimination, and set all of us in Government the challenge of delivering substantive equality for disabled people within a generation.

Will the Minister therefore confirm that in the incapacity benefit Green Paper she and the Secretary of State will focus on the talents and potential of people with disabilities? To that end, can she confirm that in the Green Paper the level of benefit will not be cut, nor will a time limit be included, and nor will GPs who have written the largest number of sick notes be blacklisted—a very broad concern for the disability community?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Lady's question. I am sure that she would not expect me to go into any detail on the second part, as the Secretary of State has already made it clear that the Green Paper will be published shortly. On the general issue of images of disabled people, through my Department and across Government we have sought to ensure that looking at disabled people on the basis of what they cannot do is not acceptable. Indeed, we continually highlight the potential of disabled people and their skills and experience. That is the essence of our approach in our policies on disabled people.

13. What assessment he has made of the impact of the pathways to work pilots; and if he will make a statement. [40169]

The early evidence from our pathways pilots is very positive and has delivered the best results for long-term sick and disabled people of any intervention that has been tried and tested in any part of the world. Almost 150,000 people have started on a pilot, including more than 11,000 existing claimants, and 19,500 have secured a job. That represents an eight percentage point increase in people leaving incapacity benefit after six months, compared with the rest of the country.

Unemployment in my constituency is 2 per cent; 9,000 new jobs have been created since 1997; and employment is at a record level— but we have 6,500 people on incapacity benefit. What advice can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents about the extension of the pilot?

I confirm what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to him last week because his constituency is one of the 100 constituencies with the highest number of incapacity benefit claimants. I suggest that he tells his constituents that they should look forward to the publication of our proposals in the Green Paper and the consequent policy changes and legislation, because for the first time ever we will provide them with the support and opportunity to realise their potential and enjoy the security of having a job and playing a full part in their community.