How many incapacity benefit claimants there were on average in (a) 1997 and (b) 2004.

In 1997 2.54 million people of working age were receiving incapacity benefit. At the end of 2004 there were 2.64 million. The substantial growth of that number during the 1980s and 1990s has been brought under control with the inflow reduced by one third. The latest statistics show a small but significant fall of 22,000 in the total number of people on incapacity benefit over the past year.

But is the number of working-age claimants higher or lower than in 1997?

I believe that the number of working-age claimants is marginally higher, but I will check that statistic. The point is that if the trend in the growth of the number of people going on to incapacity benefit had continued, more than 4 million people would now be on that benefit. The fact that we have reduced the inflow by one third and reached that significant figure—the total figure—with a small but significant improvement must be a cause for celebration on both sides of the House.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information on the trend of incapacity benefit claims and the welcome news that it has fallen, but should we not be doing more by ensuring that people who need benefit in the long term are properly supported with incentives and supporting those who may, in the short term, be able to work again and return to the productive life that they should be used to?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We must not be complacent. I am not complacent about simply reducing the inflow by one third or about the small but significant fall. That is why pathways to work is so important. When it is rolled out throughout the whole country we can build on that with radical reform of the incapacity benefit system so that future generations never get into the same position of being written off for the whole of their lives as passive recipients of benefits. We can do more and we have set out radical proposals in our five-year strategy to meet those objectives.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the success or otherwise of pathways to work rests on the effectiveness of personal advisers or disability advisers, particularly in areas with more incapacity benefit recipients, as there are regional disparities in some parts of the country? Is he satisfied that enough support and personal and disability advisers are available to do the job properly, even if the policy is right?

No, the number is not adequate and we need another 10,000 people in front-line personal adviser roles. We are learning lessons all the time from pathways to work—it covers only 10 per cent. of the country at the moment but is being extended to one third of the country—about the package of support we need to provide for personal advisers. It would be disastrous to reduce the number of personal advisers and go backwards.

The hon. Gentleman may be attending his last Department for Work and Pensions questions. May I pay tribute to him for his work with the Work and Pensions Committee on this subject?

May I welcome the imminent arrival of pathways to work on Merseyside? One of the more interesting aspects of our experience of the pathways programme to date is that many people who have been on incapacity benefit are volunteering to join the programme because they want the chance to get back into meaningful work. Does he agree that that is one of the most interesting and significant aspects of what we have learnt from the process?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Ten per cent. of those coming on to the pathways to work scheme are not supposed to be covered by it because they have been on incapacity benefit for long time, but are asking to take part. When we look at the success of placing in work those who are on the scheme—the number is double that in non-pathways areas—we see that a large proportion of them are volunteers who have been out of the work force for a long time.

Just last month we introduced that part of pathways that brings in those people who have been on incapacity benefit for three years, having initially started with those in their first 12 months. Although it is early days, we are already, and once again, seeing that people with genuine medical problems want to work. Given help and encouragement and the brilliant work of our personal advisers and the national health service condition management advisers, we can really crack the problem and transform those people's lives.

We have announced that our opportunity first scheme will get 400,000 people off incapacity benefit and back into work over the course of a Parliament. Will the reforms that the Secretary of State has announced get more people or less people off incapacity benefit and back into work?

Hon. Members:

Fewer people.

We are reminded to use the correct grammatical term.

The hon. Gentleman asked that very question at the last Department for Work and Pensions questions. I do not doubt for a minute that Conservative Members really want to take 400,000 people off incapacity benefit and put them into work. However, the problem is that it is difficult to take their proposal seriously, and I am sorry about that. It is not just their record in government that was appalling—from 700,000 to 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit—but also the fact that one struggles to think how one could get 400,000 people off incapacity benefit and into work while simultaneously cutting the number of staff by 50 per cent., closing 600 jobcentres, cancelling the whole new deal and privatising Jobcentre Plus. I would like to have a modicum of faith in what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not believe it and I am pretty sure that the British public will not believe it.

I can tell the House that I have not had to claim incapacity benefit in the past two and a half months while I have been away from this place.

In my constituency, as in many others, there are people on incapacity benefit who definitely want to get back into work. There are also constituents of mine who tell me about people who are on incapacity benefit and who, judged by the activities that they are seen performing, are perfectly capable of going back to work. However, they stay on incapacity benefit. What will my right hon. Friend do to tackle both types of people so that we get both back to work?

There are two issues. First, we independently measured the amount of fraud with incapacity benefit in about 1998–99. It was tiny; it was infinitesimal. However, there is no doubt that in the 1980s and early 1990s—we all know this from experience in our constituencies—many people who should have had an active working life in front of them were encouraged to move on to incapacity benefit. That group presents the greatest challenge because, in a sense, those people—and sometimes it is whole generations of the same family—have got used to being out of work. That is why the success of pathways in dealing with the most difficult-to-reach people is so encouraging.

The lessons for both groups are the same: to offer personal assistance; to offer them help and support to get into work, including the £40 a week in-work credit; to offer NHS condition management; and to give these people the confidence and dignity that they often lack and to help them in the process. The message for both groups is the same, but the challenge of one group will be much harder than that of the other.