What plans he has to prevent the closure of local libraries.[83407]

On 19 February, I wrote to all library authorities to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to libraries, and to underline the point that unjustified closures risk placing authorities in breach of their statutory duties. I have subsequently initiated inquiries of a number of authorities, and shall continue to do so as necessary.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. However, does he not recognise that the Minister for the Arts recently said that he saw no justification for cuts in library services in the present financial climate? Yet in my county of Oxfordshire, over the past two years, more than £400,000 has been slashed from the budget for local libraries, resulting in cuts in the number of hours that libraries are open to those who wish to use them, cuts in book-buying ability, to the point that some libraries cannot buy books at all, and cuts recently in mobile library services—two mobile libraries have been removed. Mobile libraries provide a crucial service in a rural area and a crucial service for the elderly. Given the Minister's statement, does not the background that I have described make a complete mockery of the Secretary of State's belief that, somehow, the Government have a positive libraries policy?

All library authorities have a duty under statute to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. It is precisely because we had concerns about whether 10 authorities were fulfilling their obligations under statute that we have taken action. I am pleased to say that, following the inquiries that we have made of those authorities, many of them have already withdrawn proposals for closure or scaling down of their library services. I very much hope that others will follow.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, which I am proud to say was introduced by a Labour Government, is strong with respect to libraries? If libraries are closed, will he look to amend that Act?

I believe that the statute as it stands is strong enough, but that it has not been clearly enough defined. Nowhere is the definition of a comprehensive and efficient public library service spelled out. That is why I have initiated discussions with the Local Government Association and the Library Association. I wish to ascertain whether we can arrive at a consensus throughout the country on precisely what the interpretation of the statute should be.

Is it not the case that increasing demands for all library services, particularly IT, are being met with diminishing budgets because of pressure from other service areas? Is it not also the case that book funds throughout the country are being raided to maintain libraries and keep them open? Is there not a case for the right hon. Gentleman to look to match the statutory duty with a specific standard spending assessment element for libraries which is directly related to the level of service provided?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the development of IT services in libraries and the extra burden that that is undeniably placing on some library authorities. That is precisely why we have ensured that through the development of the new opportunities fund, which is funded by the lottery, we are making available not only £20 million for the training of librarians and £50 million for the development of digitised content, but £200 million for the development of IT services in libraries themselves. We have recognised that as additional expenditure that libraries will face and we are doing something about it. As for standard spending assessments, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that this year's revenue support grant settlement is the best for years.

What representations he has received about the democratic accountability of governing bodies within sport. [83408]

I receive representations on a wide range of issues from, and about, many of the 414 governing bodies of sport in the UK which are, of course, independent and autonomous bodies and are accountable to their members. However, where governing bodies are in receipt of Exchequer funding, they are required to address issues of equity and representation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, I was thinking more about the democratic accountability of international sporting bodies. Given the corruption that has been proved in the International Olympic Committee and the corruption that has been alleged against members of FIFA, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the public money that is going into supporting England's bid to host the 2006 world cup will not be wasted by corrupt practices in FIFA?

I am not responsible for international governing bodies, but I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks with regard to the 2006 bid. Our bid is based on openness, honesty and merit. We expect all bids to be put forward on those same bases. We would not tolerate anyone putting his case forward on anything other than those bases.

With regard to the allegations and innuendo that I have been reading in relation to FIFA and President Sepp Blatter, we have no evidence. I would prefer to react when or if we have evidence. I can assure my hon. Friend that were evidence to be put before us, there would be an appropriate response from the Government.

On the subject of accountability, will the Minister tell the House what consultation with the governing bodies took place prior to last week's announcement that team sport would be downgraded in schools?

Of course team sport will not be downgraded in schools. The hon. Gentleman should stop believing the stuff that he reads in newspapers. As he knows, there is a recommendation from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority with regard to key stage 4. The idea is that team sport will be compulsory from key stage 1 to key stage 3. At key stage 4, where there is a clear indication that team sport lacks popularity among many children, particularly young women—

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he is not a young woman, so he would not know that fact. [Interruption.] I hope the operation is entirely successful.

We want to make sure that the broadest choice of sport is given to youngsters. Let me make it clear that the Government, the Secretary of State and I are irrevocably committed to the promotion of competitive team sports in schools. If I thought that the Government were going to retreat from the promotion of competitive team sports, I would tender my resignation to the Prime Minister.

The hon. Gentleman had better get on with it. He spins one thing to the teachers, and another to people in sport, but he failed to answer my question. I asked what consultation took place with the governing bodies. I can help him, as we have spoken to the governing bodies. The Football Association, the All England Netball Association, the Rugby Football Union and the England and Wales Cricket Board all say that the news came as a complete shock.

On the subject of reading newspapers, those bodies, like everyone else, had to find out the information through press reports of a leaked parliamentary answer in advance of that answer being given. Is that a responsible way for the Government to proceed? Before the Minister goes on to comment on the accountability of the sporting bodies, he might like to examine the Government's accountability in this regard.

The recommendation is from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and it is now out for consultation. For the first time, the Government have set an aspiration that all children should do two hours of sport every week. It is interesting that David Moorcroft, the chief executive of UK Athletics, said how much he welcomed that.

I have had discussions about the erroneous and misleading caricature of our policy in the press, and I have had personal discussions with the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Football Association. They know that we are totally committed to team sports. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman can say will stop me making that clear. There is no question of the Government doing anything other than encouraging competitive team sports in our schools and outside them.

Is it not a strange anomaly that when the sports councils give lottery money to golf clubs, they insist that the clubs practise gender equality, yet the Royal and Ancient golf club, which controls all golf in this country and much golf throughout the world, discriminates against women in terms of its membership and in terms of entrance into its clubhouse in St. Andrews? What pressure will my hon. Friend apply to ensure that the club obeys the same rules as golf clubs in the rest of the country?

I have to be a little careful when I start treading into Scotland, as hon. Members know. We utterly condemn any discrimination by any governing bodies against women and ethnic minorities. The pressure that we can apply is to withhold funding from governing bodies that do not follow policies of equity. We were able to help to influence the progressive forces in the MCC to admit women to membership.

In the final analysis, policy is a matter for members of governing bodies, and I am pleased to say that we have a very good working relationship with most governing bodies. Where there are any clear examples or evidence of discriminatory practices by governing bodies, if they are in receipt of Government and Exchequer funding, they will find that withdrawn. However, I am pleased to say how encouraging the attitudes of governing bodies now are. They recognise the need for equity and full representation, and they know that the Government will support them in their advances.

Why does not the Minister give up the unequal struggle, abandon his bluster and admit that there is no significant problem whatever of governing bodies not being accountable to sportsmen? The problem is that the Government are not accountable to the governing bodies or to those whose interests those bodies seek to promote. Given that, in the past week alone, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the National Playing Fields Association, Sir Bobby Charlton and Darren Gough have all publicly expressed their support for the continuation of compulsory team games, why cannot the Minister bring himself to admit that the decision to abolish that requirement post-14 is crass, insensitive and should be reversed?

Because that is not true—it is as simple and as straightforward as that. At key stage 4, young people aged from 14 to 16 will be given a wide range of sports that they can pursue, including competitive team sports. The hon. Gentleman continues to propagate the lies and misleading propaganda that were in the newspapers, which other people tend to follow, but he will find that the governing bodies and the people he has mentioned trust me far more than they trust him.

What steps he is taking to encourage national theatre, opera and ballet companies to put on more touring productions. [83410]

We continually make it clear that improving access to the arts is among our highest priorities, and the Arts Council of England shares our commitment. Many of the national companies, including the royal ballet, the Birmingham royal ballet, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the royal national theatre, already tour extensively across the country. Further touring has been supported by the Arts Council through the new audiences programme, which covers the whole of England.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware of the increasing disquiet in areas such as mine about the absence of many touring companies and the feeling that the regions are paying for companies that they never see? Is not it time that some of those companies became truly national rather than London companies and were made to tour as a condition of their grants? Will he put pressure on the Arts Council to bring that about?

We have increased the budget of the Arts Council touring department by nearly 6 per cent. and my hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the budget for North West Arts is up 12.8 per cent. this year. She is right to say that increased public funding should bear with it an entitlement to increased access to the arts by all those who contribute funding.

Among the major companies that have visited the north-west in the past year are the Royal Shakespeare Company, which has been to Ellesmere Port and to Morecambe; the royal national theatre, which has also been to Morecambe; the English national ballet, which has been to the Liverpool Empire and is returning for another week and for two weeks at the Palace theatre in Manchester; and the Birmingham royal ballet, which has also been to Liverpool and is going to Salford.

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that Manchester and Salford are not a million miles from Warrington. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that her constituents have the cultural opportunities that they ought to have.

The Minister should ignore the dismal whingeing from behind him and we should all rejoice in the scale and breadth of touring that companies undertake across the country, but will he see what he can do to encourage some of the great picture galleries of this country to lend more pictures to other institutions—perhaps to town halls and other places—so that people have the chance to see more of the regional aspect of some of the remarkable national picture collections in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He may be aware of the heritage lottery fund's £7 million allocation for ensuring that there is access to such opportunities, which it will use at its discretion. He will also have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the 24-hour museum last week. This new national museum will, using new technology, provide remarkable opportunities for people to see great works of art in amazingly vivid imagery.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his reply on production companies, but what strategy do the Government have for making theatre, opera and ballet available to and appreciated by working-class children? There needs to be a strategy and there is not one, and I hope that this radical Government see it as their duty to make theatre, opera and ballet available to kids in the most deprived parts of the United Kingdom. What does he say about that?

I assure my hon. Friend that that point is absolutely central to our strategy. We have made a commitment to ensuring that the arts play the wonderful part that they can play in education, and we insist on that in all the funding agreements that we have negotiated with the bodies that we fund. We find that those bodies readily welcome that, and share our strategy of ensuring that the arts play a far fuller part in education than they have hitherto.

Given that the Minister represents Newport, he will be well aware of the considerable contribution made by the Welsh national opera, not only by way of touring in Wales, but in a number of centres in England. Can he say whether a draft concordat has been developed with the Executive of the National Assembly for Wales with regard to the future of the funding and organisation of that sort of activity, which clearly is of benefit both sides of the border?

I join the right hon. Gentleman in his praise for the Welsh national opera. I am pleased that it is jointly funded by the Arts Council of Wales and the Arts Council of England. Yes, my officials are working on the preparation of a draft concordat to take account of the new circumstances in Wales and we look forward to publishing it for consultation.

How many schools he estimates will benefit in the first year of the national lottery-funded out of school hours activities. [83411]

The number of schools that will benefit in the first year of the programme of out of school hours activities under the new opportunities fund will depend on the number of successful applications initially submitted. I hope, however, that many schools and local communities will want to take early advantage of the programme. It provides a good opportunity for the development of activities for pupils in homework, extra learning, arts, music and, I am very pleased to say, sport, including competitive team games.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, will he assure the House that the development of the new opportunities fund and the initiatives that it provides will not have an adverse impact on the work of the other lottery distributors?

I can, indeed, give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The number of people playing the lottery has been such that the expectations of the original lottery distributors have not only been met, but are already well on course to be exceeded. I can tell the House today that the money that good causes will receive from the national lottery is, according to the latest estimates, likely to be at least £250 million more than had previously been expected. Those new figures should mean at least £40 million extra each for the arts, heritage, sport and charities—and it could be considerably more.

Does not the Secretary of State find it odd to be answering questions that should much more properly be answered by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment? Is he doing so because the so-called new opportunities fund removes £3.7 billion from the good causes that should be funded from the lottery, and even if the money from the lottery goes up, it will do so by £3.7 billion less than it would otherwise have gone up? Is he not ashamed of that, and would not he prefer to answer questions on culture, media and sport rather than on education, the environment and health?

We spelled out clearly during the election what we intended to do in terms of the creation of the new opportunities fund, and we have proceeded to do precisely that. We are a Government who believe in fulfilling the promises that we make to the electorate.

What support his Department is providing for children's and youth theatre. [83412]

Drama for and by children and young people receives funding provided by my Department through allocations of grant in aid to the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Royal, the Derngate and the Masque theatre groups in Northampton, which provide exceptional services in getting young people in my constituency involved in the theatre? Would he consider putting a requirement on the regional arts boards to provide, as part of their three-year deal, financing for new theatre groups, both those that involve young people and those that put on performances for children and young people?

I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for youth theatre. The funding agreement between the Arts Council and the regional arts boards will reflect our commitment to excellence, access and education. The Arts Council and the RABs will want to give the best support they can to youth theatre. I heard about "The Great Angels Bazaar", the Masque's successful production by children about the suffragettes. I am glad that Arts for Everyone is supporting New Perspectives' work with Masque, and that the Derngate has been involved in a new audiences fund project to help young people in Northamptonshire to come to the theatre. I know that my right hon. Friend is looking forward to seeing some of the good things that are happening in the arts in Northamptonshire and in her area on his forthcoming visit to my hon. Friend's constituency.

What plans he has to extend the provision of free entry for children to those national museums and galleries outside London. [83413]

Since 1 April, entry for schoolchildren to all national museums and their branches has been free. I am delighted to say that that includes Duxford airfield in Cambridgeshire, the eight national museums and galleries on Merseyside, the zoological museum at Tring, the national railway museum at York, the Tate gallery in St. Ives, Fort Nelson in Portsmouth, and the museum of science and industry in Manchester.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. First, what action is his Department taking to encourage non-national museums to give children free entrance? Secondly, will he accept an invitation from me to visit the excellent Alfred East art gallery and the wonderful award-winning museum in Kettering, neither of which will charge him an entrance fee?

I thank my hon. Friend for that generous invitation. When I have the opportunity to visit Kettering, I shall undoubtedly take him up on that offer. We have put in place a new fund for the designated museums—the 43 pre-eminent regional museums. That is a £15 million fund over the next three years. We have also supported the heritage lottery fund's ambitions by establishing a £7 million access fund. I hope that that will enable museums around the country to follow our example and ensure that children have the best possible access to our great collections.

I welcome the fact that the museums outside London that the Secretary of State has listed give free entry to school children. Will he widen that list to include the heritage area in Portsmouth, which contains HMS Victory, Warrior and Mary Rose, and the Royal Naval museum? It would benefit enormously from an influx of schoolchildren. More importantly, schoolchildren would learn a great deal about our history, especially our maritime history, if it were included on the list.

The Mary Rose, with its associated exhibitions, is a designated collection. I am sure that the trustees of the Mary Rose collection are making a good application to the Museums and Galleries Commission for the use of some of the funds for designated museums. I am also sure that the hon. Gentleman will exercise his powers of persuasion over his colleagues about precisely what they should bid for.

In a parliamentary written answer after the comprehensive spending review, the Secretary of State announced free access for children this year, for pensioners next year, and for everyone in 2001. Will he confirm that sufficient sums are available to carry out his pledge?

We have provided sufficient funds for the current year to meet the free access for children pledge, which has now been fulfilled, and sufficient funds for next year to ensure that the pledge on pensioners can be carried out, and we have allocated £30 million in the budget for the third year. As we made clear at the time, it is up to the trustees of each national collection to decide whether they want to take up that offer.

What is his assessment of the working time directive's impact on the tourism industry in Dorset. [83414]

The Government believe that the working time regulations are business friendly for all parts of the United Kingdom. They strike a balance between the need for effective legislation, providing fair minimum standards for workers, and ensuring that businesses are not subject to unnecessary burdens.

The businesses involved in the tourism industry in my constituency will be disappointed by that reply. In North Dorset, tourism is conducted by small commercial businesses and voluntary organisations, which are having imposed on them more and more regulations—of which the working time directive is but one. Will the Minister tell us in a simple, factual way what is the Government's estimate of the extra cost to those businesses of the working time directive and the other Government regulations that have been introduced in the past two years? She has so far failed to answer that question.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is difficult to estimate the typical costs, and many businesses have been completely unaffected; but we are aware of the concern that has been expressed in some quarters about possible burdens placed on employers in the maintaining of records for the purpose of the regulations. The record-keeping requirements were, however, designed to be implemented flexibly, and in many cases, existing records can be used. The Government propose shortly to provide supplementary guidance, which will aim to give businesses practical advice.

Is my hon. Friend aware that during most of the period when the Conservatives were in control, Britain's share of the world tourism industry fell—from 6.7 per cent. in 1980 to 5 per cent. in 1997—and that they did nothing to combat that?

My hon. Friend is right. That is why we produced our strategy for tourism in February this year.

I remind my hon. Friend that, for the first time in many years, the Secretary of State announced an increase in funds for the British Tourist Authority of £5 million over the next three years, and an extra £2.8 million for the new English Tourism Council over the next two years. That compares very favourably with cuts imposed by the last Government, who reduced the funding of the English tourist board from £25 million to less than £10 million.

What progress he has made on preparing a draft concordat with the Scottish Executive on the funding of the arts in Scotland. [83416]

My officials have been working closely with officials at the Scottish Office in drafting a concordat covering all my Department's areas of responsibility. Good progress has been made, and a final draft will be published shortly. The funding of the arts in Scotland will, however, be a responsibility of the Scottish Executive, and is not therefore an issue for the concordat, other than for joint and cross-border activities.

Do not the director of the National Gallery of Scotland and others expect some charity, given their rather immediate funding problems?

That must be a matter for my ministerial friends in Scotland; but, as I have said, we will as soon as possible present a draft of the new concordat for consideration by all parties.

How the lifelong learning initiative announced by the new opportunities fund will benefit local libraries. [83418]

The £200 million new opportunities fund stream for community access to lifelong learning will make a substantial contribution to developing the infrastructure for a public libraries information technology network, linking local libraries to each other and to the national grid for learning by 2002.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as providing a vital educational resource, local libraries provide local communities with a key civic amenity, and a focus for civic engagement and local civic pride? Will he join me in calling on local authorities across Britain£including my local authority, Merton, which is considering the closure of Wimbledon Park library£to take full account both of the educational resource provided by local libraries and their civic importance when undertaking their local library reviews?

I have made precisely that point to library authorities and library professionals on a number of occasions. I would add that the development of information technology resources in public libraries is a vital way of ensuring that we do not develop an underclass of people who have no access to information technology, and to the wealth of new information and resources of knowledge that it makes available. We are determined to ensure, by means of the money that we are putting in, that that does not happen.

What steps he is taking to encourage the greater distribution of national lottery money to sporting projects in Barnsley. [83420]

Following the coalfields lottery conference, we are conducting a special investigation into how extra help can be given to lottery applicants in coalfield and former coalfield areas, including Barnsley. More generally, measures introduced in the National Lottery Act 1998 will ensure that lottery funding is distributed more equitably across the country. Barnsley is one of Sport England's priority areas, and is able to apply for extra funding for sporting projects in the area.

My hon. Friend will be aware that applications from Barnsley, or from the Barnsley area, have been few and far between. In the case of the Dodworth miners' welfare, following the submission of an application, the sponsors were advised to revise the application and increase the amount claimed from the lottery, only for the application to be rejected. Can my hon. Friend give me some idea of when he hopes to publish the findings of the special investigation?

I understand the point. That is precisely why we are conducting special investigations into areas such as Barnsley. The findings are due to be published very shortly. We are critically aware of the fact that areas such as Barnsley have suffered from the lottery in not having a fair distribution of resources. That is something that we are determined to deal with.

What role the Archbishop of Canterbury will have in the events in the Dome on 31 December. [83437]

The New Millennium Experience Company is discussing the arrangements for the opening celebrations at the dome with a number of interested parties, including the royal household, the Government and Lambeth palace. The nature and scope of the celebrations will be announced in due course.

Having ducked my question on two previous occasions, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to inform the House whether he agrees that, whatever else it may be, the millennium is the celebration of the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ; that, at the very least, the Archbishop should be invited to attend the ceremony and, as we do in the House at the beginning of proceedings, to say a prayer; and that the same duty should be asked of the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to be undertaken in Scotland?

If the right hon. Gentleman will not acknowledge that fact, will he tell us what his input is in those discussions with Lambeth palace and what the Archbishop has said, so far, about what he would like to do at midnight on 31 December?

As I have said consistently, the millennium is an important Christian anniversary and our celebrations should reflect that fact, but it is also important that those celebrations should be inclusive and accessible to people of all faiths and none. That is the spirit in which we have always approached the matter; the same was true of the previous Government. Clearly, it is important that the spiritual significance of the millennium is reflected in the celebrations both during the first weekend of 2000 and throughout the year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of Christians, including me, are somewhat puzzled by the apparent attempts of the Archbishop of Canterbury to dictate the conditions of his presence at the millennium party, because we were under the impression that Christmas is the Christian festival and that new year's eve is a secular one?

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the leading figures of other branches of the Christian family are closely involved in discussions about preparations for the millennium celebrations, and that is right. Indeed, on the afternoon of 2 January, the first Sunday of 2000, at our proposal, national church services will be held in each of the home countries.

The Secretary of State has to admit that he has a problem on his hands. Is a minute of Christian contemplation too much to ask? If it is, what steps will be taken to avoid an embarrassing boycott by Church leaders? I presume that Ministers wish to avoid the scenario of reluctant Church leaders being prised from their churches and congregations and shunted along the Jubilee line on new year's eve to a secular knees up.

The hon. Gentleman is premature in jumping to conclusions about what will happen on the night of 31 December/1 January. He should wait until the discussions that are under way in a warm and co-operative spirit between all the Churches, leaders of other faiths, the Government, the royal household and the New Millennium Experience Company have reached some conclusions. Then, perhaps, we can have a sensible discussion.

If he will make a statement on the provision of medical facilities at the millennium experience. [83438]

A fully equipped medical centre will be established at the dome. It will be managed and staffed by the local national health service, and wholly funded by the New Millennium Experience Company. The centre will be operational from October 1999, and staffed both during the celebrations on new year's eve and throughout 2000. Plans for the medical centre were agreed following detailed discussions between NMEC, Bexley and Greenwich health authority, Greenwich Healthcare NHS trust, Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS trust, Lewisham Hospital NHS trust, local general practitioners, the London ambulance service and Greenwich council.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What will be the ratio of medical staff to visitors? Does she share my concern that, because of the number of people attending the dome, there may be serious medical problems if many of them require medical assistance? Will she assure the House that she will be keeping the facilities under careful check?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall, of course, be monitoring the situation. As Jennie Page—the NMEC chief executive—said:

"With more than 12 million people expected to visit the Dome during 2000 and 5,000 staff, we have sought to establish on-site medical care of the highest possible standard. The health and safety of our visitors—including children and senior citizens—is paramount".

What progress is being made with plans to market the millennium experience across the country. [83439]

The New Millennium Experience Company's marketing strategy incorporates a number of means of promoting the millennium experience, and its associated national programme, across the United Kingdom and worldwide. Among the initiatives currently being undertaken are the development of the "Our Town" story programme, to enable towns across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom to tell their story in the millennium dome; proposals to ensure that 1 million school children will be able to visit the dome for free; and the negotiation of special packages of travel combined with entry tickets, to ensure that people are able, at the cheapest possible price, to get to the dome and the millennium experience.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and particularly for its focus on children. I do not know whether he has seen a copy of the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, but I hope that he has, as it states that although children are very enthusiastic about the millennium experience, their parents and grandparents are less so. Will he ensure that the millennium experience marketing strategy will examine the effects of that varying enthusiasm, and perhaps focus more attention on encouraging parents and grandparents to help those enthusiastic youngsters to attend?

It just so happens that I have, indeed, seen the Huddersfield Daily Examiner report to which my hon. Friend refers. I was extremely interested to see that pupils at Spring Grove Junior, Infant and Nursery school, in Springwood,

"all agreed it would be a wonderful experience."

The article also helpfully points out that the £57 pound charge for five people on a family ticket—including at least one adult and four children—is less than the £59 that it costs for four people to go to Alton Towers, in Staffordshire.

We shall be ensuring that the new millennium experience puts specific emphasis on the marketing strategy to attract families. The millennium experience will be a major opportunity for families to have an enjoyable and challenging day out in 2000.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important for the Government to show some restraint in marketing the millennium experience, and that, by launching the contents at The Peoples Palace—where the Labour party celebrated its general election victory—they have caused great concern to the many people who believe that the millennium celebration should not be party political and that it certainly should not be regarded as the launch pad for the Labour party's next election campaign?

On our part, there is no intention or wish at all to make the celebration party political—which is precisely why the former Deputy Prime Minister sits on the Millennium Commission and is intimately involved in the development and detailed proposals for the dome itself.

If he will make a statement on progress made on the children's promise initiative as part of the millennium experience's national programme. [83442]

Children's promise is one of the exciting and innovative projects within the millennium experience's national programme of events and activities, many of which are already under way across the UK. Children's promise is supported by Marks and Spencer and aims to encourage as many people as possible to donate the value of their final hour's earnings of 1999 for the benefit of the children of the next millennium. The money raised will be distributed by seven of the UK's major charities that work with children.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that children's promise is further proof of how wrong the doom and gloom merchants were when they predicted that the millennium experience would not be enjoyed by everyone around the country, but just by those in London? What action is my right hon. Friend taking to promote that excellent initiative?

I am delighted to say that the take-up of children's promise has already far exceeded expectations. Many companies and individuals have signed up to ensure that we give some of our income from the final hours of 1999 to help children in the next millennium. We are also writing to all Members of Parliament to encourage them to set an example by signing up to the idea. I hope that it will be widely taken up on both sides of the House.

If she will make a statement on what representations she has received on progress made in modernising the House since May 1997.[83447]

If she will make a statement on the steps taken to modernise the working of the House since May 1997. [83452]

Setting up the Modernisation Committee was a manifesto commitment from the Government. The Committee has reported nine times. The procedure for the scrutiny of EU legislation has been overhauled, new mechanisms for pre-legislative scrutiny are in operation and certain old-fashioned aspects of conduct in the Chamber have been updated. The House will have an opportunity next week to consider the proposal for an experiment involving sittings in Westminster Hall.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that there is some disquiet about the minimal increase in this year's office costs allowance? Does she agree that, given the solid progress that has been made on the modernisation of the House, it is time to extend that agenda to look at issues connected with the sufficiency and appropriateness of the office costs allowance, to ensure that Members of Parliament are able to deliver a comprehensive and modern service to their constituents?

I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend and of all hon. Members to deliver the right service to constituents. However, I am not sure that that is a matter for the Modernisation Committee. The recommendation is made by the Senior Salaries Review Body. The recent uprating is a consequence of the implementation of a resolution of the House, carried some time ago, to uprate the office costs allowance by the all items retail prices index. I suspect that the SSRB is the right avenue for anyone wishing to reopen the issue.

I am particularly pleased that our modernisation programme is improving the quality of our legislation, particularly through pre-legislative scrutiny.

On an entirely different matter, last week I had the pleasure of meeting the victorious Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament. They have some radical ideas about how their Parliament will function, particularly in relation to the sitting hours, which I understand may be from 10 am until 6 pm. That is an excellent way of conducting business. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall learn from the Scottish experience to inform our House and take our modernisation prospects even further?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for pre-legislative scrutiny. I share her view that it will be to everyone's benefit for us to have sounder legislation that should need less amendment as it goes through this place than has become the custom over the past 10 years.

I note what my hon. Friend says about the new Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I am sure that we shall study the experience of those bodies with great interest and we shall no doubt seek to learn what we can from them. However, I fear that the extent to which that experience translates here may be another matter.

One of the features of the newly modernised House of Commons is the number of times that the Prime Minister is absent from it. In view of the recent revelation that the Prime Minister has attended just one 30-minute meeting of his own Cabinet in the whole of the past month, why does the Modernisation Committee apparently have no plans to hand that part of the Prime Minister's duties permanently to the Deputy Prime Minister?

None of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises is for the Modernisation Committee. It is a matter of fact that of the past few meetings of the Cabinet, one was postponed because of the recess and another because many Cabinet members were away from London for the local elections. The contention is frequently, and wrongly, put by Opposition Members that, in some way, the Prime Minister is neglectful of his duties. I remind the hon. Gentleman that on one of the occasions to which he referred, the Prime Minister was engaged in negotiations in Ireland—something that most hon. Members would think was quite important. The hon. Gentleman's underlying contention is that the Prime Minister does not attend the House regularly. In fact, one aspect of the Government's modernisation is that this Prime Minister attends Prime Minister's Question Time much more regularly than his predecessors.

In the Modernisation Committee, will the right hon. Lady look again at the procedure for private Members' Bills? If we are to consider antique areas of procedure, that must be one to look at. Can it be right that a Bill, such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) last week, can be frustrated by the actions of two—or, at most, three—hon. Members when the vast majority of Members on both sides of the Chamber wish it to proceed? Should not we properly scrutinise private Members' Bills in the expectation that if they receive the approval of the majority of the House, they will reach the statute book?

I understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I have sympathy with his remarks about that Bill. However, it has always been difficult for private Members' Bills to reach the statute book if they are in some way contentious across the House, or if they raise issues of difficulty. That has been the case under Governments of all colours, and that is why we have procedures that do not make it easy for private Members' Bills to reach the statute book unless there is general consent. It is open to the Modernisation Committee to look at the procedures—as others have done—but that has always been the attitude and expectation with regard to private Members' Bills.

Normally in the past, whatever the colour of the Government or the Opposition, Members have not objected frivolously to private Members' Bills. One of my anxieties is that if we continue to have objections which appear to be for the sake of objecting, it will call into question the way in which the private Member's Bill system operates, which might be unfortunate.

Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the modernisation plans, as it is now clear that the lengthening of the hours on the first three days of the week is not only having an effect upon the efforts of individual Members of Parliament, but—since large numbers of Select Committees are losing their members either to Standing Committees or to other parliamentary business that normally has not been held at the same time—is having a deleterious effect upon the work of the House? Any further attempt to shorten the hours artificially, while extending them in reality, would be counterproductive.

I am not aware of any proposal to shorten the hours of the House. There is a proposal to offer extra debating time, with which my hon. Friend may or may not be happy, but that will be a matter for the House as a whole to decide. Since hon. Members on both sides ask continually for more opportunities for scrutiny, they will bear that matter in mind.

The right hon. Lady has commented on the office costs allowance and the Scottish Parliament. Does she plan to recommend a change to the office costs allowance to recognise not only the smaller constituencies of Scottish Members of Parliament, but the fact that they now have more limited responsibilities than those in England?

No. It is patently not the case that Scottish Members have less responsibility; there are no two-tier memberships of the House. I am surprised that the right hon. Lady should suggest that that would be desirable.

What representations she has received on progress made by the royal commission on reform of the House of Lords. [83448]

I have had no representations on progress, but I understand that the royal commission has received more than 500 written submissions concerning the long-term reform of the House of Lords, from members of the public, Members of Parliament, peers, academics and a range of organisations.

The second Chamber plays an important role in scrutiny, and I hope that it will continue to do so, but not in opposition to this House. I notice that the Conservative party has made a submission containing two contradictory options. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the royal commission will ensure that narrow party interests are not uppermost in its mind, and that an in-built majority will not be maintained in that Chamber in opposition to this one?

I share my hon. Friend's view that this House should be the prime House in the legislature. That is clearly the steer that the royal commission has been given. I am aware that the Conservative party has made two different, and to some extent contradictory, proposals, but that is becoming so much par for the course that I am not entirely surprised by it. I certainly strongly share the view that the matter should not be governed by narrow party interests. That is why the Government have said consistently that we do not believe that any one party should have an in-built majority in the House of Lords. To the best of my recollection, I have yet to hear that view echoed by Conservative Members.

In view of the ill-judged and unsatisfactory manner in which the Government are conducting their programme of reform of the upper House, does the President of the Council agree that the work with which the royal commission has been charged is extremely onerous and may well lead to its requiring longer to come to a proper, sensible and detailed conclusion, especially as it has received so many important and weighty submissions? Will she assure me that, if the royal commission requires more time to do its work, that time will be forthcoming?

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the proposal for reform of the House of Lords is either ill-judged or unsatisfactory. As there is every chance that it will reach the statute book, it seems to me that it will have appeared satisfactory to most people in the country. I share the view that the royal commission's work is important and, in its way, onerous. Should it come to the view that it needs a little more time than the Government originally allotted, it will no doubt make that known. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that when the royal commission was set up, Conservative Members were desperately anxious that it should report as speedily as possible, so that the proposals could be considered as soon as possible.

What plans she has to introduce a three-month notice period of the dates of the summer recess. [83449]

The approximate dates of the summer recess are generally well known and do not vary much over the years. The uncertainties that affect parliamentary business make it very difficult for the precise dates to be announced as early as the end of April.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in addition to Members of Parliament, there are thousands of staff here—especially those with young children—who would benefit greatly from being able to plan and book holidays some time in advance, when it is more convenient, and perhaps cheaper? Is he also aware that the families of many Members of Parliament live in other parts of the United Kingdom, where the school holidays vary, and that there is a trend towards four-term school holidays in some parts of the country? Can further consideration please be given to giving at least a reasonable period of notice for those with families, to allow them to book their holidays in the summer recess?

It is of course important to give reasonable notice of the holiday period, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in the matter, will welcome the extra notice that was given for the Easter and Whitsuntide holidays. I join him in thanking the staff of the House and commending their efforts. It is important to treat them and hon. Members properly. We are aware of the issue, but he will be aware that a week is a long time in politics, never mind 12 weeks.

Would the Minister confirm that even if three months' notice of the dates of the summer recess were introduced, the Government have no intention whatever of allowing a situation in which the Cabinet decides not to sit during the summer recess? Will he confirm that the Government recognise that Parliament being in recess does not justify the Government abandoning their responsibility to the people who put them there?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a modernising and progressive Government who work not only when Parliament is open, but all the year round. People across the country are feeling the benefits of the hard work of the Cabinet.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 9 to 11.

When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security explained that it is an essential step in our modernisation of the welfare state, and that it takes forward our reforms in four key areas.

First, the Bill contains a package of measures to keep people in touch with the labour market, including new employment zones and the single gateway. Secondly, it brings disability benefits up to date, to give new opportunities to disabled people who want to work and to provide extra help for those in greatest need. Thirdly, it modernises the system of bereavement benefits to bring fairness and equality to the system. Finally, the Bill is a starting point for our pension reform. It introduces pension sharing on divorce and paves the way for future pensioners to have a more secure retirement.

Since Second Reading, the Bill has been thoroughly discussed in Committee. In fact, I believe that it has been scrutinised at greater length than any social security Bill in recent history. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who served on the Committee—indeed, to all hon. Members who were involved with the Committee—for their hard work. Thanks to that, I am confident that the Bill that I am presenting to the House today is an even better piece of legislation.

In particular, we have improved the Bill by including new reforms to the structure of national insurance, to ensure that work pays and that people keep more of what they earn. We have made a new provision to prevent disabled people from being treated unfairly by the way in which overpaid benefits are recovered.

We are not stopping there, as we are proposing more improvements today. The first is a reform of maternity benefits that further develops our principle of work for those who can and security for those who cannot. New clause 5 will extend entitlement to maternity allowance to pregnant women on low earnings and increase the basic rate of maternity allowance for self-employed women.

That is not an isolated reform. We made a manifesto commitment to help families balance work and family life. Since coming to power, we have put in place a range of policies across Government to support families and children. We are providing better financial support for families, including the biggest ever increase in child benefits, a working families tax credit that will guarantee a minimum income for working families earning the national minimum wage of £200 a week and a child care tax credit to help make child care more affordable. From 2001, children's tax credit will be worth £416 a year.

Today, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General has further improved the working families tax credit and our disabled person's tax credit proposals. She has offered new help to enable disabled people, whose health is deteriorating while they remain at work, to retain their jobs and the provision of increased support for parents of disabled children who seek to work and to benefit from the working families tax credit. Our new Employment Relations Bill sets out a basic framework of family friendly employee rights. We are investing £450 million in our sure start project in England over the next three years to improve the life chances of children in disadvantaged areas. We are delivering our commitment to a national child care strategy that provides families with genuine choices so that they can balance the combination of paid work, education or training and parenting. All that is in stark contrast to the policies of the Conservative Government before the 1997 general election.

Our reforms to maternity allowance are yet another step forward. At the moment, maternity benefits are focused on pregnant working women who pay national insurance contributions or who earn enough to do so. Statutory maternity pay is paid by employers for up to 18 weeks to women who have worked for them for six months or more, and who earn at least £66 a week—the lower limit for paying national insurance contributions. Maternity allowance is paid by the Benefits Agency for up to 18 weeks to women who cannot get statutory maternity pay. It also supports self-employed women who have worked and paid contributions.

All working pregnant women are entitled to 14 weeks maternity leave. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is taking forward measures in his Employment Relations Bill to increase this period to 18 weeks to bring it in line with maternity benefits. That has been widely welcomed, both by employers and other interest groups. However, we believe that the current maternity leave and pay arrangements have a number of serious flaws. To start with, low-paid pregnant working women—those who earn less than £66 a week—have the right to take time off work to have their baby, but receive no financial help to do so. Secondly, around 20 per cent. of working women are potentially excluded from maternity benefits because they do not earn enough to qualify. Thirdly, women whose earnings are more than £66 a week but who do not pay national insurance contributions because they earn small amounts from more than one employer are also excluded. Finally, self-employed women currently receive less maternity allowance than employed women—£51.70 instead of £59.55. That is also unfair.

The reforms in new clause 5 address all those issues. Under the revised arrangements, women will still need to satisfy an employment test and an earnings test to qualify for maternity allowance.

We are not changing the employment test, but the earnings test for employed earners will now be based on actual earnings rather than payment of national insurance contributions. In future, all mothers-to-be who earn at least £30 a week on average will be entitled to help from maternity allowance. Earnings from all sources, including self-employment, will count towards average weekly earnings.

Fourteen thousand low-paid women will gain from that improvement. Women whose average weekly earnings are at least equal to the lower earnings limit will receive the standard weekly flat rate of maternity allowance—£59.55 a week. Women who earn between £30 and the lower earnings limit will receive a weekly maternity allowance of 90 per cent. of those earnings.

Before the Minister continues, will he clarify what will be the basis of the calculation of earnings for self-employed women in the year that they claim the benefit? I ask that question because when self-employed people file their accounts with the Inland Revenue, the last set of accounts may be for the previous financial year. Will the accounts for the previous financial year be taken to establish earnings, or will, for example, the previous three years be averaged out, which is not unprecedented for self-employed people in our tax system? What about the woman who becomes pregnant in her first year of self-employment? On what basis will her earnings be calculated?

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I regret to say that I cannot respond immediately, but I will do so before the debate concludes as it is important for the House to be absolutely clear about how the earnings are to be calculated. Of course, we will retain the existing rules for calculating the earnings of self-employed people. The change is that in the past the self-employed have been unfairly treated because they have received a lower rate of maternity allowance. As a result of our change, self-employed women will now receive the full rate of benefit—£59.55 instead of £51.70, which is an increase of £7.85 a week.

Also, we are helping self-employed women with low earnings. If they hold a certificate to exempt them from national insurance contributions, they will be treated as having notional earnings of £30 a week and will receive maternity allowance of £27 a week—90 per cent. of £30.

To summarise, as a result of the changes, low-paid women who earn below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions and at least £30 a week will receive maternity allowance of 90 per cent. of their average earnings. Women with more than one low-paying job will be able to add together their earnings to reach the level needed to qualify for maternity allowance.

The Minister mentioned the category of women whose wages are between £30 and the lower earnings limit and we support the extension of the allowance to them. Clearly, that group do not pay income tax or national insurance and, therefore, are largely unknown to the authorities. What will be the Government's take-up strategy to ensure that people claim that new entitlement?

We will be using similar means to those that we use to ensure take-up at the moment to inform the self-employed of their rights.

What about employers?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the self-employed. Clearly, employers will have a responsibility to pass on information to employees, as they do with existing employees.

I was intrigued by the Minister's answer. He seemed rather hesitant. Is there some mechanism whereby employers will know clearly that they will have to pass on that information and has he costed the changes that that would entail?

The basic mechanism for establishing entitlement to maternity allowance is to show a wage slip. Every employer, however large or small, has a legal obligation to provide a wage slip for employees. It will be the passport to maternity allowance for those on low wages, as it has been for those on higher wages.

To summarise, low-paid women who earn below the lower earnings limit, provided that they earn at least £30 a week, will receive maternity allowance worth 90 per cent. of their average earnings. Women with more than one low-paid job will be able to add together their earnings to reach the level necessary to qualify for maternity allowance. Self-employed women will receive the same basic rate of maternity allowance as employees. Low-earning, self-employed women who are exempted from paying national insurance contributions will qualify for maternity allowance of £27 a week.

The Labour party has long campaigned for these reforms. Now that we are putting them into practice, they have been warmly welcomed by many voluntary bodies including the Maternity Alliance and the Low Pay Unit. These important changes will enable more women to strike a balance between paid work and parenting. They are fully in line with our strategy on family friendly employment. They will give low-paid mothers-to-be the financial help that they need to take their full entitlement of maternity leave. They will be good for the health and welfare of low-paid mothers and their children. I commend them to the House.

It is a pleasure to join the debate, but I am sorry to have to speak to new clause 5 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, it adds to an already extensive Bill. The Minister listed the Bill's contents, which were sufficient to keep the Standing Committee going for 25 sittings. This is only the first of at least three more significant additions.

New clause 5 is an unnecessarily hurried addition to our debate. We have complained that the Bill is already far too long but, now, new clause 5 has been tabled at the last moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out the difficulties that self-employed women will have. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Surbiton—

Northavon.

My apologies; there are so many experts on the subject in the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made a point to which answer came there none. We all know that the consultation has not finished, so why the rush to discuss new clause 5? We are happy to debate it, but cannot help wondering why we must do it today. We had no hint of it in Committee and, my goodness, it was a long Committee. We even sat on Budget day without any such hint. The Chancellor mentioned the proposal, en passant, in the Budget debate, as did the Secretary of State for Social Security, who also mentioned this Bill in that debate, but without putting the two together. No connection between them was made.

I am not naturally of a conspiratorial turn of mind. I prefer the more random view of life, but I wonder why new clause 5 has suddenly emerged. It is 15 months before its provisions come into effect.

It is a sop.

Looking around the Government Benches, I can only agree, that it may be a sop. One or two may just fall for it. I am more inclined to believe that, while it has something to do with the later amendments, it is more likely that the Government desperately hope that any vote on the later amendments takes place at the dead of night.

The new clause was tabled last thing on Thursday because the Government took one look at the list of amendments that had already been tabled, noticed that the Opposition had not tabled their amendments and panicked. The Secretary of State sent out his messengers like Lars Porsena of Clusium. They went out north and south, east and west. The Chancellor of the Exchequer obliged and decided to let the Secretary of State for Social Services have the honour of proposing the amendment set out in the Budget. The Government are trying desperately to hold off a debate and vote on benefit cuts. However, the debate is taking place before any consultation has finished. I am surprised that the Government should do such a thing. There is much in the Bill to discuss, and we shall make sure that it is discussed.

Last week, we had a debate, introduced by the Liberal Democrats, on the abuse of Parliament. Those who were present will remember that they were not even effective enough to be able to vote on the motion. However, during the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) made an excellent point about the abuses that the House is facing.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Does the point of order concern relevance?

It does.

I think that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) is coming to her point.

I am indeed, Madam Speaker. However, one of the factors in this debate is the speed with which the new clause was tabled and the lack of consultation.

We have before us another example of the abuse that the House is suffering. We could easily have discussed the new clause in Committee. It could easily have been laid before the Committee. Once the split among those on the Government Benches became clear, we had to discuss the new clause.

Part of the abuse of the House is the volume of legislation that is being brought forward by regulation, and the new clause introduces further regulations on maternity allowance. The Minister has denied that the clause would have much impact on business, notwithstanding the fact that all the women involved will need their wage slips. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has already pointed out how difficult it will be for self-employed women to produce the information that the Benefits Agency will need to enable it to pay the maternity allowance.

No Opposition Member suggests that employers should not produce wage slips, but we are wary of the Government's tendency to introduce creeping regulations. It is easy to say that the Benefits Agency will pay out on the basis of wage slips only. However, when there is the slightest opportunity for anybody to query a wage slip, there will be a call to the employer. Suddenly, a case will be built up for the employer to justify. He will be called upon to fill in forms, to verify and to check. There has not been any reaction from employers so far because of the speed with which the new clause was tabled.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because she highlights an important consideration, which is the exponential rise in regulation that this country has had to contend with since 1 May 1997. Has she made any assessment of the likely increase in the net number of regulations that we face as a result of the new clause? Does she think that that is important, given that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already said that the Government have not got it right on regulations?

I assure my hon. Friend that we would be happy to work that out, but, because of the speed with which the new clause was tabled, it has been impossible to do so yet.

I am sure that employers' organisations will rapidly make their views clear. No regulatory impact assessment has yet been produced. I hope that the Government will give us an assurance that they intend to produce one, because otherwise we shall oppose the Bill on the basis of the costs to business.

Many hon. Members have been lobbied by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which held a reception in our Dining Room last week. I have visited many playgroups in my constituency. Every single one of them has pointed out to me the difficulties that it is experiencing with Government regulations. Playgroups are paying the minimum wage, but their objection is that the people who run them are turning from good-hearted volunteers who want to help children into unpaid form-filling slaves. They must deal with the working time directive, they will potentially have to deal with the stakeholder pension, as laid out in the Bill, and now they are likely to have to deal with the maternity allowance forms.

The maternity allowance will affect primarily women who have been out of work, who are desperate to get back into work and who can work only part-time, either because they are not qualified or because they have children. Those are the very women who are likely to find employers less willing to employ them. As the Minister said, about 14,000 women are excluded—14,000 women who could potentially get further jobs, but whom employers are likely to find it difficult to employ. We are speaking of a relatively small sum in the overall total of social security spending.

I am trying desperately to follow the argument, now that we have finally got on to the clause. Is the hon. Lady telling the House that the Conservative party is opposed to extending maternity allowance on the basis of filling in forms?

If the hon. Lady listened to my earlier points, she would realise that the crucial point is that there is no time for us to consider the proposal, and there has been no consultation. Our concern is that, with the best will in the world, employers will be unable to employ precisely the sort of women whom the hon. Lady is trying to help. The inability to balance the two interests is the focus of our discussion and, probably, our opposition.

Some 14,000 women are excluded because they have been earning too little. The sum involved is relatively small compared to the overall total of social security spending, but weekend figures from the Library show that the Government's social security control total is spinning out of control. They promised to reduce social security spending, but it is increasing at a rate of 3.2 per cent. a year, which is more than inflation. Hence, the relatively small sum will add to social security control problems.

I asked the Library to find out why it would take 16 months to introduce the changes. The answer was illuminating. Let us count back from 20 August 2000. Women are eligible for the allowance from the 11th week before the baby is due. It is also payable if the baby is born prematurely. That can be as early as 19 weeks before the expected week of birth. That takes the date back to April 2000. However, if the rules were to come into force in April 2000 to cover women who give birth to premature babies, women could claim from November this year.

The interesting comment was that November this year is too early for the necessary legislative and administrative arrangements to be put in place. It cannot be too difficult or time consuming for the Benefits Agency to extend a known benefit. Do I detect a concern that the Bill will be delayed either here or in the other place? With the Government's majority, I can hardly believe that, but perhaps that it what they fear.

As the Minister said, changes to maternity leave are going through the House, so it is not clear what the final pattern will be, but we must look at the interaction of this extended benefit with maternity leave. I should like the vulnerable women who would need to get back into the workplace to be encouraged to do so. We need to ensure that low-paid, self-employed women have the opportunity to have children, if that is what they want.

The effect of the national minimum wage is that women who work for between eight and three-quarter and 18 and a third hours a week will receive this allowance, which is the point of the figure of £30 to £66 a week.

Can the hon. Lady make the position absolutely clear? Is she for or against the extension of the maternity allowance?

As I have said time and again, the Bill is the wrong place in which to put that allowance without full consultation.

We want the single mums who need to get back into the workplace, or those who have few qualifications, to be working, and they are the ones who will be working part-time. Even if, as the Government have said, the initial regulation is minimal—because the Benefits Agency carries out the work on the basis of wage slips—and if maternity leave is extended, it will, over time and taking those two together, be much less attractive for employers and charities to employ women who could bear children. [Interruption.]

The Minister may disagree—he looks at though he does—but small employers have to ask themselves whether they need this hassle. There will be no clear decision, but it will gently emerge that employers will choose to employ mature women or young men, who also need jobs. That could be damaging to the sort of women who everyone in the House would like to get back into the workplace.

The Government say that they want a flexible, modern work force. The measure will make it much harder for women to get back into that flexible, modern work force. We cannot see the need for the new clause to be rushed through the House. There has not been proper time to consider it and to get the views of interested bodies. Tabling it at the very last moment was not the best way to help women; it is a shoddy attempt to cover up the splits between Labour Members, which shows their contempt for the House. We will oppose the new clause.

The Minister was kind enough to take an intervention from me specifically on the tax position and the claims of self-employed women. I should like to expand a little on my intervention.

The Minister will be aware of the position under self-assessment for self-employed people—men and women. For example, a self-employed woman who needed to make a claim for the new benefit during this year would have to rely on her income from her filed accounts for the 1997-98 tax year. People will be looking to file their returns for the present tax year with the Inland Revenue at the end of September, if they want it to calculate the tax liability, or by 31 January next year, if they are doing that themselves. There will also be a period in which the Inland Revenue will examine and agree those returns.

For self-employed women, we are therefore looking at a time scale in which income would not be immediately available, even to themselves, because it would have to be confirmed by the Inland Revenue. One factor differentiates self-employed women from self-employed men when they first set up a business: the income from the new business is often the second income in the household. Thus, many women start up a business in a modest way, perhaps working from home, so the income that they draw from the business in the first year or two is minimal because they want the business to grow before deriving a bigger income from it. The Minister's colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will confirm that pattern.

Earlier, I asked the Minister about how such women would make a claim under this new provision. I am also concerned that, in the first or second year of a new business, it might be extremely difficult for some women to qualify for the benefit because of the way in which self-employed accounts are prepared. I do not imply that there is any irregularity in their preparation, but the owner of the business will have forgone earnings. To compare the earnings of such a person with those of someone under the PAYE system would be complex.

When the Minister replies, as he promised that he would, to my specific questions about the tax point and the data that would be taken into account in determining those women's earnings, I hope that he will look carefully at the new way in which tax, particularly under self-assessment, is worked out for new businesses and people setting up as self-employed. He will be aware, that under his party's new deal, many people are being encouraged to become self-employed, and they will be particularly vulnerable to how their first and second-year accounts are treated in terms of their qualifying for the benefit.

It is a matter of great disappointment that the Government have brought this proposal to the Floor of the House without even thinking through how it will be put into practice for self-employed women. The Labour party is good at launching new measures, but not very good at thinking them through.

May I make just a few points on behalf of the Liberal Democrats? We accept the Conservatives' point that the proposal is being rushed through with minimum consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) succeeded in pointing out in an intervention, little thought seems to have been given to how the measure will be put into practice. The Minister might do well to think again about his response to my hon. Friend and come up with some clearer plans on how he will ensure that those concerned realise that they may be eligible for new benefits. Simply telling them to look at their pay slips—if they have a pay slip at all—is not good enough.

None the less, we welcome the new clause. We have been pressing for some time for better and wider maternity benefits, and this is an attempt to provide them. The Government continually tell us that the Bill's aim is to provide more benefits to those who need them most, and we seem to be proceeding a little way down that path. However, as is so often the case with this Bill, it is not the very poorest who will be helped because they earn below the limits covered by the new clause—or perhaps earn nothing at all. A number of mothers will therefore not be affected by the provision, which will give a little more to those who are not quite the very poorest, but who are poorer than those who have been receiving the benefit until now. That is at least a step in the right direction.

One of the most important things that any child can have is a good start in life, and we can help babies in that respect by reducing the stress on their mothers. Reducing financial stress, both before and immediately after birth, must therefore be of benefit not just to mother, baby and the bonding process, but to the whole of society. The Liberal Democrats welcome the new clause in so far as the Government are at least making a move towards providing those advantages by the extension of this benefit.

I shall begin by responding to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I welcomed her intervention because she made an important point. Having listened to her speech, I am now clear that she misunderstands the basis on which maternity allowance is currently paid to self-employed people. The benefit is based not on income, but on national insurance contributions. The national insurance contribution records will permit or deny access to maternity allowance.

The contributory conditions for self-employed women are unchanged by the new clause. A woman will have had to have paid 26 contributions in the 66 weeks leading up to the birth. What is new is that maternity allowance at the reduced rate will now, for the first time, be available to self-employed women on low earnings who have small earnings exemptions from national insurance contributions for at least 26 weeks before the birth, so they will not have to file accounts to prove earnings. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is suffering from a misapprehension.

I am familiar with the contributions aspect, but my understanding is that there will in addition be an earnings threshold at which the benefit would apply. If there is to be an earnings threshold, there will clearly have to be some proof of earnings.

Hitherto, a self-employed woman has been able to obtain the maternity allowance on the basis of having paid 26 national insurance contributions in the 66 weeks before the birth. Some self-employed women, such as those who are setting up a business for the first time—precisely the women to whom the hon. Lady referred—will not have paid national insurance contributions because their earnings from their business will be too low to require them to pay contributions. If they have applied and qualified for the small earnings exemption for at least 26 weeks in the period leading up to the birth, they will qualify for the £27 rate of maternity allowance that we propose, which is 90 per cent. of the £30 bottom earnings limit that we are introducing for employed people.

In addition to their national insurance contributions exemption, a mechanism will have to be agreed in advance to establish the exact tax point in the earnings of those women at which the threshold will make them eligible. As I said, often their drawings from their business accounts may be minimal in order to enable their business to grow, and the accounts may show that they plough more back into the business. Will that be taken into account?

The hon. Lady has raised an important point, but she is making the matter more complicated that it needs to be. We do not need new regulations. People who run their own businesses do not need to submit accounts to qualify for maternity allowance. It will depend on their national insurance record. If people apply for the small earnings exemption from national insurance contributions for 26 weeks before the birth, that would passport them on to a maternity allowance. We do not need a new test of earnings: women who have established their entitlement through the existing national insurance system will now, for the first time, receive maternity allowance.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) asked how we will get the word out. Self-employed people, particularly those who have started up businesses through the new deal, will get support from their mentor. Under the new deal, someone setting up a new business gets a mentor for two years. If the new entrepreneur is a woman who becomes pregnant during those two years, it will be the responsibility of the mentor to explain her rights.

As for other women who are employed, at present a woman who is earning £66 a week knows how to claim. Now a woman earning £65 a week, who has hitherto been unable to claim, will submit her claim in exactly the same way. The only difference is that now, when women earning £65, £45 or £30 a week claim maternity allowance, they will be told that they qualify rather than that they do not, and will receive benefit.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that if the Conservatives oppose the new clause, they will perpetuate a two-tier system—indeed, two-tier systems. They will be saying that it is right for the law to provide maternity allowance for women on higher incomes, but wrong for it to provide the allowance for those on lower incomes. That is an absurd attitude. Moreover, the hon. Lady will be saying that it is right for a woman who is employed to receive maternity allowance at a rate of nearly £60 a week, but that those who are self-employed should be paid a lower rate.

We are correcting those two wrongs. We are enabling all women earning £30 a week or more to receive maternity allowance, which must be a good thing. It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady should suggest that members of her party will vote against the new clause.

The question that the hon. Lady must answer is the question that some of my hon. Friends posed to her during her speech: is her party in favour of extending maternity allowance to low-paid women or not? Low-paid women already have a right to maternity leave, but those who are so low paid that they are below the lower earnings limit do not receive maternity allowance, and therefore cannot afford to take the leave. Women on higher incomes receive maternity leave, and the allowance enabling them to afford to take it. That is good for their health and the health of the child; but women below the lower earnings limit are denied the same opportunity.

If Conservative Members shoot through the Lobby to vote against the new clause, they will be condemning women on lower earnings to a denial of their right to maternity allowance. I should find it extraordinary were that to happen.

The hon. Lady complained that the Government had tabled the new clause only on Thursday of last week. I can only assume that she has been asleep, not just over the weekend but since 6 May, when the new clause was actually tabled. Moreover, although 11 days' notice may not have been enough for her, the issue was flagged up for her two months ago in the Chancellor's Budget speech. The proposal has not been sprung on the House without warning or prior consideration. In the case of every Bill, new measures are presented as the Bill proceeds; and that is exactly what is happening now.

The new provision will not impose a burden on business. Under existing provisions, the Benefits Agency checks a percentage of claims with employers to confirm employment, and to confirm that the appropriate national insurance contributions have been paid. We believe that the new scheme will reduce the need for the agency to check claims, because wage slips will constitute an additional verification of employment. The extra burdens on business will therefore be negligible.

The Minister said, to a fanfare of trumpets, that the new clause would not be burdensome on business. Does he seek to distinguish it from, for example, another measure to which he referred in his opening remarks£the working families tax credit, whose implementation has already been denounced by employers' representatives as distinctly burdensome?

The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying. Under the new clause, there is no requirement for businesses to file additional returns or answer additional questions. In fact, we believe that the use of wage slips as passports to maternity allowance will somewhat reduce the need for the Benefits Agency to carry out checks. The hon. Gentleman's fears are therefore groundless.

The argument of the hon. Member for Beckenham that the new provision might deter employers from employing women of child-bearing age is a crassly stupid point. It is a point that her party made when the Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced—that equal pay should not be introduced for women because employers would not employ women if it were. We know what has happened since the Act has come in. Even though pay may not quite have equalised, the relative earnings of women have increased dramatically, and the number of women in the labour market has continued to grow. The hon. Lady's fear is absolutely groundless.

The hon. Member for Beckenham said that the provision would affect just 14,000 people. She may have misunderstood something that I said earlier. There are 14,000 employed women on wages that have hitherto been judged to be too low to qualify for maternity allowance. In future, they will qualify; they will get the allowance. That is at the core of what the new clause is about. In addition, however, there are the 13,000 self-employed people who either have never qualified because their earnings were too low, or who have qualified for some allowance; in future, they will qualify to a greater extent because of our decision to pay the self-employed woman who has a baby the same rate of maternity allowance as the employed woman.

The hon. Member for Beckenham complains on two fronts. She complains that we will not put the measure into effect until 2000 and that we are dragging our feet, yet at the same time, she says that we are abusing our role by introducing the measure so quickly. She cannot have it both ways.

The Conservative party does not have long to make up its mind. It will have to decide one way or the other how to vote on the measure. It has to decide whether women on low earnings should get the same right to paid time off when they have a baby as women who are on higher earnings. If it believes that they should, it will vote with the Government. If it believes that one should discriminate against women on low pay and against the self-employed, it will vote against. That is the simple question that it has to consider. I hope that it will support the Government's proposal.

I will not detain the House long because the Government have already done that. I want to make just a few points to the Minister about some of his assertions and allegations.

Two or three interesting things arise from the debate. First, the Government have presented the proposal not at the start of proceedings on the Bill, but on Report, which means that there is no possibility of understanding from business, or from anyone else who is involved in the matter, what the balance of cost is.

The Government have produced no cost assessment. We are meant to take the Minister's word for it. It is yet again a great Government trick. It may work with their Back Benchers, who seem to take their word for everything, but the fact is that we cannot possibly accept their word when they say, "Don't worry. We know that the measure will cost no money."

The question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who said that we do not know what effect the measure will have on people employing the very women whom the measure is aimed at, given that the Government have produced no assessment of the extra cost or burden that may come through on the back of it. We have no idea, so the first point is that the Government want everyone simply to take their word for it.

This is the same Government who have produced a raft of extra costs on business: the national minimum wage, the working time directive, the European works councils and parental leave. When each of those initially came through, the Government said, "Don't worry. There is no extra cost. There will be no problems." On each one, business said, "Rubbish."

The Government said that there would be no cost at all in relation to the working families tax credit. They even voted down amendments that were tabled by the Conservative party and by the Liberal Democrats. Now we find that those in the other place are up in arms because they realise how much it will.

The second point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning); it is a powerful one, although I do not think that the Minister finally answered it. She was talking about the profits level of £3,770 a year. The point that she was making was that there is a grey area about exactly where the earnings threshold£the earnings assessment£would be. Because money may have been ploughed back into the business, profits may not be high enough to break through, so there is a grey area.

The Minister did not deal with that point. Certainly I do not feel that the point was clarified in his reply, and certainly the people about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke would not have understood what he meant in trying to deal with it. Although the Minister may be right in his answers to our questions, at this point, it is simply too early to know the right answers. The Government want to rush through the provision even though they have 15 months before it is implemented.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for again raising the issue with the Minister. The Minister seemed to be under the impression that, once self-employed people opt—based on expectations of their business's profitability—to make national insurance contributions as self-employed people at a certain level, that level will be set in tablets of stone. As we know, once a financial year has ended and a self-employed person's accounts have been approved by the Inland Revenue, and if there has been an NI contribution underpayment, the Inland Revenue will come back to that self-employed person for any shortfall.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the point very well—I hope that my hon. Friends have understood it. She was making the point that we are not questioning whether the Minister was right or wrong in his reply, but saying that, ultimately, he does not yet know the answer to our questions.

It is incredible that, on Report, a very important provision is being included in the Bill, but Ministers cannot answer our questions. As I said, although Labour Members may accept anything that the Minister says—such as "This is night, not day", or "Tomorrow will be not tomorrow, but the day after"—the Opposition's job is to ask questions. I ask: on balance, will the new clause make it more or less likely that those whom the Government intend to benefit will so benefit? Unless our questions are answered, there is no way in which we can possibly support the new clause.

The Government talk endlessly about benefiting a specific group of women, but for one year, Ministers will be taking away from those same women £1.6 billion in married couples allowance. Those women will receive not one penny of that money; it will go straight into the Treasury's back pocket.

Ministers ask us to believe that they are showing a bit of largesse and are really very decent, giving a hard-pressed group of women some extra money—but I do not believe a word of it. The public will not trust the Government on the issue. The Government should not be trusted on it.

Ministers have 15 months—plenty of time—before implementing the proposals. Why do they not make proper proposals and give us time to consider them? The new clause is simply a sop to their own Back Benchers, to try to buy them off. What a joke.

With the permission of the House, I should like to answer the additional question asked by the hon. Gentleman and deal with the point, which he reiterated, made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton.

First, the hon. Gentleman asked what the cost of implementing the measure will be. The cost to the Government will be £15 million. The cost to employers—for reasons that we have already discussed—will be nothing.

Secondly, on the point originally made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I shall repeat my earlier reply. This time, however, I hope that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green might listen to it and understand it. Entitlement to maternity allowance is based not on earnings but on national insurance contributions. The NI contributions that are taken into account are those on an individual's record at the time that person applies for maternity allowance. That is how the system has operated in the past, and how it will operate in the future. The rule is simple, understandable and easy to operate.

In future, however, self-employed women on lower earnings will benefit from an allowance; previously, they have not so benefited. Self-employed women, regardless of earnings level, will benefit from the same rate of allowance as employed women. That must be a good thing. Employed women on low earnings, who have previously been denied maternity allowance, will be entitled to the allowance and will receive it, so that they are able to take and use their maternity leave. That must be good for the women concerned, for their health and for the health of the children. It is a sensible measure from a Government who want family-friendly employment policies. Labour Members will vote for it. I shall be astonished if Conservative Members vote against it, but that is in their hands.