May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business the following week.

The right hon. Lady referred to Northern Ireland. As she knows, the situation there continues to cause concern on both sides of the House. We support the Good Friday agreement, and we all hope that the talks will have a successful conclusion. Although we have Northern Ireland questions on Wednesday and the possibility of a debate on a draft order, I wonder whether that affords the House sufficient opportunity to express its views on a serious matter that has not been debated in the House for some time. Will she, after discussions through the usual channels, consider a statement or debate on Northern Ireland?

The House would still like to debate the report of the royal commission on long-term care, which was published some time ago and is of interest to many of our constituents. Can the right hon. Lady shed any light on that? When might we have such a debate?

When can we have our usual debate on policing in London, in the light of the serious and deplorable riots in the City of London last week?

May I press the right hon. Lady on time for debates on public expenditure and the economy? I have raised the matter on many occasions, and over several months. It is not right for the House of Commons to have no framework for discussion of key issues of this kind. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that we will debate the economy before the House rises for the recess, and that she will then set out how and when the House will debate the economy, and public expenditure, during the course of a parliamentary year?

I see from the Order Paper that the Secretary of State for Health is to answer a written parliamentary question on medical cloning. In view of the interest and controversy surrounding the issue, would it not have been better for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House?

There is mounting interest in the dates relating to the summer recess. We all understand the difficulties involved, but could the right hon. Lady shed some light on the matter, so that the many people who work here can begin to make realistic plans?

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the whole House wants the discussions in Northern Ireland to have a successful outcome. I shall ensure that the issue is raised through the usual channels—although, as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, there are Northern Ireland questions, and there may also be potential for a debate. The matter will have to be kept under review.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of long-term care—a matter that he has raised on a number of occasions. Discussions are continuing but, as will be clear to him, the Government have a heavy programme of legislation and, because of events in Kosovo, have also had a heavy programme of debates. Although I am conscious of the fact that the House wants to discuss issues such as long-term care, I am not sure that it will be able to do so at an early date, although I do not rule that out in the slightly longer term.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on policing in London. I agree that the events of recent days make the issue even more pertinent, and I hope to find time for such a debate in the near future.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked for a debate on economic matters. Of course, we have just had Treasury questions. Discussions have been taking place about the pattern of future debates, and I have proposals which I hope can be discussed and agreed through the usual channels—perhaps, if we are lucky, as early as next week. The right hon. Gentleman pressed me to arrange a debate before the summer recess. I expect there to be a public expenditure debate before then and, as I said, I hope to be able to make proposals for the pattern of such debates over the year.

The right hon. Gentleman pressed for a statement on medical claims.

Cloning, not claims.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

I understand why the right hon. Gentleman pressed for such a statement, but I think that he will understand that a good many statements have been made. The Government have undertaken to try to avoid statements on Opposition days, which compresses the time available. It is a difficult situation. As you have pointed out in the past, Madam Speaker, there is nothing improper about Ministers' making policy decisions known by means of written answers on occasion, although obviously we try to arrange for statements to be made when that is possible.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about recess dates. I am well aware that both Members and staff are anxious to make their arrangements. Uncertainties remain about possible future business, but I hope to be able to give the House more information in next week's business statement.

At a time when we are learning of terrible atrocities in Kosovo, can we be reassured that, if and when the guilty are brought before the International War Crimes Tribunal, Lord Bingham will have no input whatever in the sentencing or appeal procedure? In view of his latest outburst, would it not be appropriate for the Lord Chief Justice to consider his own position?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern that those who are responsible for events in Kosovo should be brought to justice. I rather suspect, however, that I might fall foul of your strictures, Madam Speaker, were I to be drawn further down the path that my hon. Friend has identified.

Will the Leader of the House make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Health for an immediate—early, at least—statement on new-variant CJD? Has she seen this morning's press report to the effect that an instruction has been issued by the Department of Health that there may be a risk of contamination from the use of trial contact lenses? The Association of British Dispensing Opticians apparently had no advance notification of the instruction. There has certainly been no notice of it to the House, and no explanation of what is happening.

The Leader of the House will recognise that there is very real concern about new-variant CJD, and that it has been a long time since the Department of Health, or any other Department, gave any indication of the Government's current thinking on it. This latest announcement has all the hallmarks of a knee-jerk reaction such as the House suffered on 20 March 1996, when the previous Government made their bombshell announcement.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I am sure is felt on both sides of the House. I cannot undertake to find time for an urgent debate on the matter, although I shall certainly draw his anxieties to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is my understanding that the precise terms of advice and guidance to opticians are being worked on in consultation with the professional bodies. However, I think that both sides of the House will understand that my right hon. Friend wished to alert people, at the earliest possible date, to a possible risk identified to him by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on the Government's policy on reducing the licence fee for small cars? Many constituents are now finding that, although vehicles are registered as 1100 cc, technical details and obstacles are preventing many elderly people and people on low incomes from benefiting from the Government's policy, thereby creating great unrest and unfairness in many areas. The House should have an opportunity to resolve that problem and to try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be a margin of tolerance, between 1100 cc and 1200 cc. Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the matter?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must admit that the problem that he describes had not previously come to my attention, although I can well understand why it would cause anxiety and discontent. Although I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we shall have two days' debate-5 and 6 July—on the Finance Bill. He may find an opportunity to raise the issue then.

Although I appreciatively reinforce the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a debate on policing in London, I understand that, next week, because of the creation of the Welsh Assembly, the Standing Order underpinning the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs may fall. When might the Leader of the House contemplate having a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Procedure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the issue, as I had not been aware that the Standing Order might fall. Also, I certainly take his point about the interest in the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, and am mindful that such reports are important and should be considered by the House. Equally, he will understand that there is great time pressure, particularly at the end of the Session. I therefore cannot give him the undertaking he seeks, but undertake to bear the matter in mind.

Before the end of the Session, will my right hon. Friend take back to the relevant Committee the whole question of Members of Parliament not having the right to speak in the House about their visit to an overseas territory if that visit was not made with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union? It is slightly absurd that, although the House of Commons will know who is paying for a particular trip—it will be recorded—the hon. Members involved cannot raise any issue about that particular country. As, presumably, the whole point of hon. Members travelling the globe is to get a mild inkling of what is going on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—would it not be sensible at least to look at the rule again?

I am mindful of the great anxiety in the House that there should be absolute probity and transparency. I am not sure whether I ought to say this, but I have considerable sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend has raised. It is not entirely clear to me what would be the mechanism or how easy it would be to trigger re-examination of these matters. However, some hon. Members are involved in discussing them and they may like to take her observations on board, as well as the clear welcome that her words received across the House and in all parties. It is important for us to have the highest possible standards but, equally, as my hon. Friend said, if hon. Members have a valuable contribution to make and the position is clear and known, I understand her observations and her concern.

You will know, Madam Speaker, that I have been pressing for a debate on Northern Ireland for quite some time as Question Time does not allow us to examine certain issues. The Leader of the House may be aware that police salaries have been increased by 4.5 per cent. and that 80 per cent. of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's expenditure goes on personnel; yet, as a result of budgetary pressure, the police are not now able to do neighbourhood patrols. That is because the House is not aware that the RUC is still focused primarily on dealing with those who are disturbing the peace and on terrorism. May I press the Leader of the House for a debate and express the desire that, in the coming days, the Government do not travel down the road of "hope so" rather than that of reality?

I shall certainly add the hon. Gentleman's representations to those that I have already received requesting a debate. I understand his point about the work of the RUC. With regard to his final words, almost everyone in the House hopes that there can be agreement in Northern Ireland because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in Kashmir, there are still incursions and problems between India and Pakistan. There is grave concern as both countries now have nuclear power and ballistic missiles. Is there any possibility of a debate on that critical situation before the recess?

I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, although my hon. Friend's concern about the problems and the fighting in Kashmir is shared across the House. Everyone hopes that the talks that have been taking place will ease some of the difficulties. However, although I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, no doubt we will have a pre-recess debate and my hon. Friend may have the opportunity to raise the matter then.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to Ministers to have a debate in the House about the way in which they announce new business, new proposals and new policies outside the House? She must be aware that there is increasing concern about the propensity of Ministers to make announcements outside the House. Not only does that allow them to avoid questioning by right hon. and hon. Members, but, inevitably, it diminishes the standing of the House of Commons with regard to the Government and enhances the role of the media and the areas where the announcements are made.

I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees that this is becoming an urgent and important matter. It need not be a long debate; a fairly short one would suffice, but it would help to clarify in the minds of Ministers what their responsibilities are and what their relationship with the House of Commons should be, and stop this distressing trend that seems to be going unnoticed and unchecked.

It was always the same.

I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate. I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it was ever thus. The statistics show that Ministers in this Government have made far more statements to the House than their predecessors did.

My right hon. Friend will know that the export of arms to countries with bad human rights records is an important issue for many of us. Preventing such exports was also an important plank in the Labour Government's ethical foreign policy. Does she have any information on when the report on strategic arms exports for 1998 will be published and whether we shall have a debate in the House on it? The report for 1997 appeared two years late. One reason given was a problem with the computers. Is there still a problem with the computers, or can we expect the 1998 report to be published before the recess?

I am not aware of the likely publication date. Happily, I am also not aware of whether there is still a problem with the computers. The delay to which my hon. Friend referred arose because of problems not only with the computers but with the records, which were time-consuming to resolve. I do not know whether the problems have been resolved sufficiently to enable a date to be set for the publication of the next report, but I shall draw her request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

I am sure that hon. Members know that, this week, we suffered our first losses of service men in Kosovo—Sergeant Balaram Rai and Lieutenant Gareth Evans of 69 Gurkha Squadron. I am sure that the whole House joins me in expressing condolences to the families. Lieutenant Evans came from my constituency—in fact, he was from Congresbury, the village in which I live. I hope that his family will gain some consolation from the selflessness and bravery that he showed during the action. There will be a debate on Thursday of next week on armed service personnel. Will the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Defence ensure that that opportunity is taken to address the grave concerns about the safety of personnel in the difficult circumstances in Kosovo? I look forward to hearing some words to that effect.

The whole House will wish to express its sympathy and to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about recognising the bravery of those who have suffered and about sending condolences to the families concerned. I shall draw his wish for those concerns to be reflected in next week's debate to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Three hours ago, I received a faxed letter from the military aircraft division of British Aerospace, telling me that 880 jobs will be lost at Warton in Lancashire and a total of 2,200 jobs will go across the division. A decision has been made to build Eurofighter—more than 230 planes are going to the RAF at a cost of £40 million each, and more than £10,000 million of public money is being spent, most of which is going to British Aerospace. It is incomprehensible that there should be such major restructuring at the same time, with lots of jobs being lost. Aerospace is the life-blood of Lancashire. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate to discuss the important matter of aerospace and restructuring in detail?

I am sorry to learn of the matters raised by my hon. Friend. As he knows from experience, I well understand the importance of the aerospace industry in his part of the country. Restructuring in the aerospace industry is a matter of interest to many across the House. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate. My hon. Friend will be aware of the process by which hon. Members seek to raise issues of wider concern for which a longer debate might be appropriate. Knowing his assiduity on behalf of his constituents, I am sure that he will pursue that avenue.

The Leader of the House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is in the mood to name and shame. You, Madam Speaker, will be as delighted as I am that my county of Lincolnshire, under the enlightened control of Councillor Speechley and his team, does rather well in the right hon. Gentleman's list. Given that naming and shaming, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the steps that the Government are taking to reduce bureaucracy and red tape in our schools? I do not say that the problem started in 1997 but, as I go round schools, teachers tell me that it is getting worse. They are suffering from initiative fatigue. Heads want to be left to lead and teachers want to be left to teach. In the context of that debate, may we have a list of shame of those Ministers who have not only increased their personal bureaucracy with extra special advisers and lackeys, but imposed extra bureaucracy and red tape on the public and private sectors?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend has done a great deal to reduce the amount that the Government spend on bureaucracy and red tape. I know that he will be pleased that his authority comes out of the tables well, but he will also know that they show 31 authorities delegating less than 80 per cent., with Tory Westminster the worst at 75 per cent. As to the hon. Gentleman's further remarks, I simply say that the Government seek to run an efficient and tight ship, and do so.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the energy industry, especially on mis-selling by domestic gas suppliers? Many problems in my constituency arise from the unscrupulous tactics used by companies to trick people into changing their supplier. Those companies then make it extremely difficult for the customer to return to the original supplier. I am sure that many other hon. Members know of such problems and I hope that, following such a debate, the Government might feel it necessary to take some action to curb such rogue companies.

I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point and her pressure for a debate to focus attention on such matters. However, the matter lies very much within the responsibility of the regulator who, I know, has expressed concern about it in the past. I shall draw my hon. Friend's concern to the attention of the relevant Minister, but I am sure that she has also taken action to draw it to the regulator's attention.

Will the Leader of the House consider finding time for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House about the lack of variety in artificial limbs supplied by the NHS, particularly for children? I have in mind the case of my eight-year-old constituent, Laura Giddings, who, the right hon. Lady may be aware, lost her leg in the blast in the Planet Hollywood explosion in South Africa. Limbs have to be replaced frequently as a child grows but, because nothing available on the NHS looks realistic, the child's psychological trauma is greatly increased. In such a statement, the Secretary of State could explain why, if money is the problem, parents who decide to pay privately for a better-quality limb should not be given at least an amount equivalent to the cost of an NHS limb, which they would have had free. That arrangement applies to wheelchairs, so why cannot it apply to artificial limbs for children?

I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement or to raise a debate on the matter in the near future because there is so much pressure on the House's time. However, the whole House will sympathise with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I imagine that he has drawn it to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I will add to that the sympathy that is felt across the House.

Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on Europe? It is extremely important that we have such a debate at an early stage because of the extremism of the Conservative party on Europe, as it seeks to abandon the right-wing European People's party in search of more extreme friends elsewhere. It is important that all our MEPs can represent the best interests of the British people, taking the lead from the Labour Government. I fail to see how any Conservative MEP—given the position of the parliamentary Conservative party—can represent the best interests of the British people in Europe.

I understand my hon. Friend's desire for such a debate, and it would be attractive to spend time focusing on both the extremism and the division within the parliamentary Conservative party, whether here or in the European Parliament. However, tempting such a thought may be, I fear that it is a luxury for which I cannot, at present, offer to find time.

Given that the Government have clearly made contingency plans to change the business next week should there be agreement in Northern Ireland, and in the light of the serious threat of violence from Mr. Adams, which was published in The Times yesterday, have the Government made contingency plans to ensure that any violence perpetrated by the IRA or other terrorist organisations, if there is no agreement and if they do not get their own way, can be contained to ensure that the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland enjoy peace and quiet over the next few weeks?

Government plans for eventualities in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—they do not fall at my door. The announcement that I made was for the business of the House to accommodate the eventuality of an order needing to be laid because agreement had been reached. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the hope of all in the House that agreement will be reached.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the launch of the rural audit last week. This publication was commissioned by the many Labour Members who now represent rural or semi-rural constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it would be timely for the House to have a proper debate, ahead of the autumn publication of the expected White Paper on rural affairs? The Government have committed themselves to addressing the many problems in rural Britain that we inherited from the previous Government. Would it not be helpful for the House to debate this matter before the summer, so as to inform the decisions to be made in the production of the White Paper?

I am aware of the launch of that document, which was an excellent piece of work and a credit to my hon. Friends who represent rural areas and who are doing so much to bring their concerns to the attention of the House. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that it would be timely for him and his colleagues to have a debate on those matters before the autumn. I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate, but my hon. Friend may like to bear in mind that, at some point in the autumn, an alternative forum will open in Westminster Hall. He may like to put in an early bid for it.

The Government promised an integrated transport policy, but this last week has been awful for Britain's travelling public. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister is losing out at every turn to the Treasury. More than £30 billion is taken from the transport industry, and less than £6 billion is put back. There have been ghastly problems on the tube and we have had the embarrassment of the Prime Minister zooming down a bus lane to avoid queues. In Shropshire, I continue to receive desperate representations from the haulage industry, and there is a £94 million backlog on Shropshire's rural roads. Could we have an urgent debate on the disintegrating transport policy of the Deputy Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman seems not to have noticed that I have announced a debate—next week, I think—on transport, in Opposition time. No doubt he will seek to catch your eye then, Madam Speaker.

I doubt that the £94 million backlog on Shropshire's roads arose since the general election. Before the general election, as we travelled around the countryside meeting people in the business community, we found that among their most pressing concerns was the desperate need for long-term investment in the transport infrastructure, which they had despaired of ever getting from the previous Government. It takes time to turn these things around.

Albeit that, in Treasury questions, the Chief Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that he had to wait for the answer to my question, Question 29,

"What (a) has been and (b) he estimates will be the effect on the Contingency Fund of (i) the conflict in Kosovo and (ii) the measures to be taken following the peace agreement relating to Kosovo",

that question, alas, was, astonishingly, not reached. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Defence Secretary to give a proper answer next Thursday on what are the costs so far and the likely costs not only of Kosovo, but of obligations that this country seems to be accruing towards the former Yugoslavia?

My hon. Friend identifies a genuine difficulty for Ministers, in that it would not always be right to pre-empt an answer due to be given on a later question in response to a supplementary question from someone else, as that can cause resentment. I know, however, that he was making a different point of substance about information that he seeks from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that he is almost certain to be asked that question next Thursday.

Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the new meat hygiene charges? The fact that a fully qualified veterinary surgeon must be present when animals are slaughtered has had the most devastating effect in the Vale of York, and the few remaining small abattoirs are likely to close soon if the charges remain. The cost of slaughtering animals has more than doubled since 1 April, even though the charges should not have been introduced until next year. That is making our producers much less competitive, as the Charges do not apply to the producers of imported meat.

I am aware of those concerns. The Government are reviewing the charges and an announcement is expected shortly. Agriculture questions are on 1 July and a further opportunity to press my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may arise then.

I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and the response of my right hon. Friend.

Can we have a debate on prescription charges? After consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Employment, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the way in which prescription charges affect those in receipt of a student loan? I want to raise the case of my constituent, Lucy Little of Nailsworth, who, because she is from a single-parent family and has to pay her way through university partly by working, now has to pay prescription charges, whereas better-off students who receive money from their parents get free prescriptions.

I hear and understand my hon. Friend's identification with the rural audit report. I agree that it was excellent.

I am aware that difficulties often arise with prescription charges, although I am obviously not familiar with my hon. Friend's specific constituency case. I fear that I am unlikely to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but I am sure that he will look for other opportunities to raise it.

May we have an urgent debate on education, following the astonishing press release by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which states:

"Blunkett challenges LEAs on red tape spending"?

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State has managed a double whammy of outrageous proportions? He has upset all the local education authorities by his inconsistent and spurious definition of central expenditure and he also continues to alienate teachers, who do not see any extra money trickling down to the classrooms and are suffocating under the daily notes that come from the DfEE instructing them what to do next.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made clear, local authorities were invited to supply the information that has been published and it was repeatedly cross-checked with them. He has also made it plain that, if there is some concern about the accuracy of that information, he will be more than happy for local authorities to publish what they believe to be the accurate figures so that people can examine the two cases side by side. That is a sensible approach. As for teachers not seeing money flowing to schools, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the dramatic decline in class sizes for the youngest children, which was the key pledge made by the Government at the election. The hon. Gentleman mentioned teachers suffering under central control, but we all know who started that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that nothing is more important for next Thursday than the special debate on providing devolved powers to the settlement in Northern Ireland? Nobody, certainly on this side of the House, would argue with that. However, in the event of that not happening—I hope that it does—what will be the position of all those people in the Assembly in Northern Ireland who will continue to be paid for producing what appears to be, for the past 12 months, nothing less than gridlock?

I am not entirely sure of the answer to that question. Everybody shares the view that few things could be more important within the United Kingdom than to see a settlement in Northern Ireland. I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of people would wish not to see that settlement endorsed, and the vast majority of people, wherever they live in these isles, wish to see a settlement that puts behind us the pain, violence and brutality that has disfigured that province for so long.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement on the National Air Traffic Service? Last summer, an announcement was made that the service would be sold off. Since then, the proposal has received major criticism from the unions and many Labour Back Benchers. When will the Labour party's disagreements on the issue be resolved so that we can have either a decision to proceed or another Government U-turn, because the lack of progress is causing a loss of confidence in that important service?

I cannot undertake to provide an early announcement on that matter, but I will undertake to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure which side he is on, as—if I recall correctly—the proposal was originally made by the Conservative Government. For the Conservatives to reverse their position would be not unusual, but commonplace.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the report by the urban task force chaired by Lord Rogers will be issued on Tuesday? Will she find time for an urgent debate on that report, on where we are to put the 3.8 million houses that we are told we will need in the next 20 years, and on whether ways can be found to encourage people to build them in the north-east and north-west of England which are economically so demanding of them? In that debate, would it also be possible to examine the scarcely credible claims of the Deputy Prime Minister to be the guardian of the countryside?

I am not aware of the timetable suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the House shares his concern about the issues of planning and housing, but I reject any suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is a less than worthy guardian of the countryside. He is a worthy guardian of all our interests.

May we have an early opportunity to debate the high price that is being paid for the Prime Minister's gimmicks? Would that give us an opportunity to discuss the revelation today by leading general practitioners that it costs as much for one patient to contact NHS Direct as a general practitioner receives for serving that patient for a whole year? That is a misdirection of resources which has been condemned by GPs, who say that the money would be better spent by them on behalf of their patients instead of in pursuit of a gimmick by the Government.

Will the Leader of the House also update us on the progress of the electronic commerce Bill? Has control of the Bill been transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the spooks at the Home Office?

The hon. Gentleman has submitted two separate requests for a debate. I can assure him that, when the Government have something to announce about e-commerce, we will announce it.

I was surprised and disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman describe NHS Direct as a gimmick when it is an extremely worthwhile and potentially very valuable initiative. I am not aware that many general practitioners condemn it. With regard to the general tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I thought it wrong and odd for him to talk about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as someone for ever churning out gimmicks, given his recent record in handling very serious international events in Yugoslavia and Ireland.

Will the Leader of the House arrange an early statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the failure of the Government's so-called new deal? A person who completes its training and education option is twice as likely not to find a job as to find one. Youth unemployment has risen in every quarter since the national introduction of the new deal. Moreover, almost half of those who participate in the new deal receive absolutely no benefit whatsoever from it. Is it not time that the Secretary of State made a statement accepting the verdict of the Business Services Association, which represents companies with an annual turnover of £8 billion? That organisation's verdict was that the new deal "is not working". Is it not time that the Secretary of State owned up to the fact that his flagship has sunk?

That is a long and elaborate request for what I assume is an urgent debate. I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, so I do not accept that there is a need for an urgent debate. The desperate wish of Conservative Members that the new deal should be a failure is a little sad. They want young people who languished in unemployment without hope for many years under a Conservative Government to remain without hope. The Government are not prepared to give up on them. We have put substantial resources into a scheme that is better and more successful than any in this country for many a long year—better, in fact, than any scheme ever before. It is disappointing that Conservative Members would rather gloat over the supposed failure of a scheme than welcome the success of the young people involved in it.

Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the worrying contrast between statistics developed by the House of Commons Library and the Government's statistical analyses? As was evident in the response by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) during Treasury questions, those two sets of statistics are wholly in conflict. Will the right hon. Lady find time for the House to determine whether the statistics department of the Library is in urgent need of repair, or whether it is the statistics departments of Government services—or the recollections of Ministers—that are in urgent need of repair?

When we are talking about accuracy in the handling of financial matters, my own recollection is clear. The hon. Gentleman may recall that members of the Conservative Government—they are now on the Opposition Benches—could not be trusted to give reliable statistics and information. One of the tasks willingly undertaken by the Government was to clean up and restore to independence the Government statistical service.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman's premise—that there is a conflict between statistics produced by the Library and the underlying case presented by the Government's Treasury team—is contested.

I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the long-overdue extension of widow's benefits to widowers, and the doubling of Bereavement Payments; but notes that this costs only £100 million annually in the long term, compared with the £600 million cut the Government will make through the replacement of widows' pensions by a Bereavement Tax Allowance, the abolition of Dividend Tax Credits and the restriction of Council Tax Benefit on higher-value properties; regrets the Government's woefully inadequate response to next year's halving of widows' entitlement to additional pension; welcomes the fact that this is now under investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman; and calls on the Government to cease their attacks on the living standards of widows.

Before I begin, may I point out to the House an unfortunate transcription mistake? The motion printed in the Order Paper is not that which we had intended. I understand that the original motion was correctly transmitted to the Government and the official Opposition yesterday.

Order. The motion that stands on the Order Paper is the one that was given to the House. It was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, it was checked by an officer of the party, and it has been presented to the House. Whatever dealings the Liberal Democrat party has had with the other main parties to try to amend the motion is a matter for that party. The motion on the Order Paper is the motion that the House will debate.

I entirely accept that, Madam Speaker, and I am sorry if I seemed to imply anything else. I merely meant to inform the House of the words that were not properly transcribed. I entirely accept that an error was made, and I apologise to the House for it.

The motion originally transmitted to the official Opposition and the Government last night contained, after the words "by a" and before the words "Bereavement Tax Allowance", the words:

"Bereavement Allowance; deplores the loss of widows".

I apologise for that unfortunate error. It is one of those things that occasionally happens, but we must take the blame as it happened in our Whips Office last night.

At least two aspects of changes in legislation relating to widows and benefits are welcome. The first is the extension of widows benefits to widowers. For the first time, the benefits are gender neutral, and that is absolutely right. There is no reason to suppose that men who have been bereaved of their spouses need any less protection than women similarly bereaved. It is unfortunate that change has taken so long to occur. The Government waited until the pressure from a European court case forced them to make a change that should have happened long before.

Secondly, the Government were correct to double the bereavement payment from £1,000 to £2,000. The original payment was introduced long ago, and the costs of bereavement have considerably increased since then. Most of us have probably been involved in arrangements for a funeral, and we all know that costs have been escalating for some time. The £1,000 payment should have been increased before now, and the extent of the increase is evidence of that. Such a big jump should not have been necessary.

Rather less welcome is the fact that bereavement payment is still extended only to those below pension age. It would have been better to extend it to all. At the very least, if that was all that the Government could afford following their massive cuts in widows benefits, the payment should have been extended to the very poorest pensioners. It is odd that those below pension age should receive extra help with paying for funeral and other costs, while those above that age, who are often the poorest, should not receive equivalent help.

There are of course ways in which the allowance could be set up so that only the poorest pensioners received the payment. As we suggested in the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, it may be possible to make the bereavement payment only to pensioners already on income support who had therefore proved that their means were very small. The Liberal Democrats would prefer to go beyond that because, as we have often said in the House, some of the poorest pensioners are for one reason or another not in receipt of income support. A case can easily be made for extending the payment to those of pension age, especially the poorest.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in the Budget press releases issued by the Inland Revenue, the Chancellor promised that these very people would be taken care of? It subsequently emerged that they would not be taken care of and the promise had to be retracted in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am delighted to have it added to my argument. It is a worthwhile point to include.

One further point that must be made on this subject takes up something that the Government said in the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. They claimed that there was no need to hand a bereavement payment to pensioners because the equivalent sums were included in the benefits paid to pensioners. We pointed out that, if that were true, it was surely illogical. One assumes that the payment will in most cases be applicable only once in someone's retirement. It is illogical that the one-off payment should be spread over all the pensions and benefits given to pensioners. It is as if the Government were forcing people to start saving something out of their pensions and benefits from the moment that they retired for the day their spouse died. The sensible way is for the Government to make a one-off benefit.

I have pointed out one or two things that are right about the Government's benefit changes. What is wrong about them?

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have also introduced a carers pension, which will apply particularly to women and help women who have stayed at home to look after children or people with disabilities? It is a big support for family life and for women, especially widows.

We are debating widows in this case. Some widows and some widowers are carers, but that is a different aspect of the changes. We will no doubt welcome many other aspects of the benefit changes that the Government have promised but that perhaps have not yet been introduced. We are talking specifically about widows on this occasion.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should talk only about matters that relate to widows, why has he included higher-value properties in the motion? What does that have to do specifically with widows?

I assure the hon. Lady that there is a specific reason for including higher-value properties. It is largely widows who live in such properties. As I was about to explain to the House, I intend to leave that aspect of the motion to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who will talk about that and two other aspects in a moment.

The aspects on which I will not take the time of the House at this stage are the abolition of the bereavement tax allowance, the abolition of dividend tax credits and the restriction of council tax benefit on higher-value properties. As the hon. Lady has referred to it, I shall explain further. It is often people who are left living alone in large properties when their families have moved out who are hit by that cut. That is sadly often widows.

What else is wrong with the Government's policies? The two aspects of our motion on which I intend to concentrate are the replacement of widows pensions by a bereavement allowance and the state earnings-related pension scheme. Government figures in answer to written questions show that the first will mean a long-term cut of £600 million to widows, compared with the £100 million cost of all the things that we have supported and welcomed. The long-term net saving to the Government—the net cut in benefits to widows—from all the changes amounts to £500 million. That is what the Government are taking from widows in the long term.

The Government have told us all along that they intend to cut the welfare bill but, instead of going for the areas where we would expect them to make savings, such as fraud, they are targeting some of the most vulnerable groups, including widows. All those who were expecting to get widows pensions believe that they have been paid for out of national insurance contributions; they are a contributory benefit. The spouses of people whose widows pensions are being removed have paid contributions to them and have expected during all their working lives that their widows would receive the pensions.

The wives of some people who are at the end of their working lives, or who are approaching that point, are much younger than they are. I have a constituent of 65 whose wife is only 50. If he dies before she reaches retirement age, she will get not the widows pension but only the small bereavement allowance, which lasts for only six months. Because he has already reached retirement age, he has no means of setting aside extra savings to make up for what he had expected her to get. As with the SERPS change, there is a strong case for saying that, were the Government to play fair with such people, they would at least delay the introduction of the new scheme to allow those who could still make up the difference to put aside extra savings. That would reduce the risk of there being people who cannot make it up because they have already reached retirement age.

A more important argument against targeting widows by removing their pensions is that the bereavement allowance that will replace them is available for far too short a time. The Government propose that it should last only six months. Most hon. Members will have had people write to them to say that six months is far too short a time to expect a widow to get back on her feet after bereavement. Bereavement is traumatic and takes time to get over. Many widows may have been out of work for some time if they have been staying at home looking after families or ailing spouses before their deaths. If they are not well trained in modern skills for modern jobs, things may be difficult for them. They may need time to retrain before they can get back into work. As we all know, it takes some time to find a job.

To suggest that one should be able to go straight back to work within a month or two is absurd in the modern age. Even if one has completed a period of training, it may still take some time to get back into employment. In effect, the Government are telling people, who may have been out of work for some years, that, the day after their husbands die, they should walk into the nearest jobcentre and say, "I want a job. I am available, I am trained and I can work within a few months." That is absurd.

Some cases of bereavement are even more traumatic; many Members will have heard of such cases. I quote from the response of the National Association of Widows and the Widows Advisory Trust to the document, "A New Contract for Welfare: Support in Bereavement", in which those proposals were originally outlined. The response states:

"To pay this benefit for 6 months makes a mockery of the title, 'Support in Bereavement'."

I also quote the words of Patricia Thomas of Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide—I am sure that we can all understand that to lose a spouse through suicide is an even more traumatic event, and one that it is likely to take even longer to overcome. Patricia Thomas writes:

"Unfortunately I am well qualified to comment, having been widowed when my husband committed suicide 5 years ago. I was 45 and left not only with the responsibility of supporting two teenage sons and an eight year old daughter, but also having to face the fact that I had to make provision for my old age, as my husband's private pension could not be inherited by myself."

She makes the same point that I made about getting back into full-time work. She writes:

"I discovered how difficult it is to find full-time work. Both ageism and employers' worries about the conflicting demands on mothers with school age children appear to be significant factors … I have had poorly paid posts of 20 and 24 hours per week, both of which have ended in redundancy."

That is the real situation for widows in our society today; it is not one that is met at all by the Government's proposals.

Given those difficulties, the Government should consider at least two new measures. First, there should, at the very least, be a longer lead time before the introduction of those proposals. Secondly, the bereavement allowance should be paid for much longer than the six months that the Government propose. It could be paid for up to five years and the Government would still achieve a net saving on their proposals. To pay the allowance for six months would give them £500 million net savings; they could easily afford to pay it for up to five years and there would still be a net saving.

The second part of our motion relates to the SERPS changes. That problem originated with the previous Conservative Government; no one should blame the current Labour Government for the fiasco of the initial failure to warn people about the change initiated by the Conservative Government in 1986. That Government introduced a policy of halving the additional pension, based on SERPS, paid to women after their husbands die. That halving is due to take place from 5 April next year. In one sense, people were given considerable warning—unlike the changes to which I referred earlier, for which we ask for a longer lead time—because the previous Government allowed a long lead time from 1986. However, although there was a long lead time, no one knew about it, because the previous Government failed to tell people what they were doing. It was worse than that; they continued to send out leaflets and letters from the Department of Social Security making it clear that the full SERPS entitlement would transfer. They made no mention whatever of the fact that it would make a difference when the male partner died.

Unfortunately, the present Government cannot be absolved of all blame. Having come to power in 1997, they continued to issue wrong information through the Department. The leaflets, which had been corrected by then, made some mention of the change, but people who wrote to the Department were often given the wrong information. We have considerable evidence to the effect that letters were sent out late last year giving people the wrong information.

I apologise for stopping the hon. Gentleman in mid flow, but I must point out that letters giving the wrong information were sent out this year.

The hon. Gentleman just got in before me; I was about to come to that point. There is evidence that, as recently as April this year, one or two inaccurate letters crept through the system and were sent out—even after the Government had explicitly told the Benefits Agency to clarify the position.

I asked the Minister by way of an oral question whether he planned to introduce some sort of compensation for people who had been misled by his Department. He promised me on 8 March this year that there would he a compensation scheme: he did not say what it would be, but he said that he would at least consider it. That is welcome news so far as it goes. However, more than three months later, we have been given no details of what compensation scheme is expected. People are worried about what will happen. They took the wrong decision, based on false information from the Government, and they do not know what will happen to their wives when they die. Some such people may be aware that they are nearing the ends of their lives and they do not know in what state their widows will be left.

I am happy to say that, as a result of efforts by me, my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, the parliamentary ombudsman has decided to examine the issue. I hope that he will advise the Government not only that they should introduce some sort of compensatory scheme for those who can prove that they were misled and that their financial situation has been damaged as a result, but that the whole scheme should be delayed. The introduction of the scheme should be put off until beyond next year. The ombudsman has promised that he will inform us of his advice to the Government well in advance of the provisional implementation date of 5 April next year. I hope that we will get his advice soon. I hope also that the Government will not wait for the ombudsman's advice before making up their own mind as to what sort of compensation scheme should be introduced. The Government must move ahead: three months is quite long enough to work up a decent scheme.

There is widespread fury about what has happened among those who have been misled. I am sure that all hon. Members have received letters from all over the country from people who are angry about what has occurred. Mr. W. K. Bennett wrote to say:

"I could not believe that such an important change to the income of so many people had not received more publicity (from either the Government, politicians or the media)."

Mrs. Betty Tilford wrote:

"perhaps we should all kill off our husbands before the 6th April deadline".

In saying that, she picked up on the comments of the present Leader of the House when she spoke to the original legislation in 1986. She said:

"I advise anyone who is married to a man who is lingering on 5 April quickly to shove a pillow over his face, because it will halve the pension entitlement if the husband dies on the following day. It is extraordinary that the Government should place people in such a position … They will be taking away rights that have been earned."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 470.]

There is a further aspect to the campaign to get the Government to change their mind—

I trust that my hon. Friend is not proposing such draconian ways of dealing with the situation. Does he not find it bizarre that, a few months ago, the House debated the mis-selling of private pensions in the second-tier phase, and that the Government ran television advertisements alerting people to the fact that they may have been mis-sold second-tier pensions, yet there has not been a single television advertisement or press release and no campaign to alert people to a measure that could have an immense effect on their lives?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It seems unbelievably hypocritical that the Government should force the private pension industry to do what they are unwilling to do themselves. It is disgraceful. If the private section of the insurance industry is to be forced to write to people to ask whether they feel that they may have been given bad information, surely the Government should do likewise with regard to SERPS.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not want him to give the House the wrong impression. Can he confirm that he strongly supports, as I hope that he does, the action that the Government have taken to deal with the mis-selling scandal that we inherited from the previous Government?

I certainly support that. The very fact that I support it means that I would support the Government acting in the same way about their own mis-selling scandal. If the Minister is so keen for us to support his action in relation to the private pension industry, that implies that he should be doing exactly the same with regard to the mis-selling of SERPS. Perhaps he will intervene again and tell me now whether he is keen to take the same sort of action in the public case as he has demanded that the private sector should take. It seems that the Minister is unwilling to intervene again.

There is a further aspect that proves how widespread is the public's fury. Hon. Members may have noticed that one of the rare occasions on which I obtained a full-page spread in The Sun came a few days ago, as a result of my presentation to the Prime Minister of the petition run by that newspaper, asking for the Government to reconsider what they had done and to introduce proper compensation. The petition was widely supported and demonstrates the importance of the issue and the widespread anger aroused by it.

What should be done? I admit that the Government are in an extremely difficult position. I have made it known to the Minister that he has my sympathy for that. It is difficult to see how to overcome the problem. There is only one fair way for the Government to do so. From the time when the information begins to flow, the introduction of the change should be put off for at least the length of time that people were originally given by way of warning. That means, in effect, that the change should not be fully implemented for another 10 years or so.

That will be expensive, but it is the only fair way of dealing with the problem, and I emphasise again to the Minister that that is what the Government have demanded of the private sector. If the private sector must provide compensation, the Government should do the same.

Compensation should be paid to those who can show that they were misled. The difficulty with the compensation scheme arises because the Government are demanding full evidence not only that people have been misled, but that, as a result of being misled, they changed the decisions that they otherwise would have taken. The House can see how difficult that will be.

People must be able to show that they have been misled. What if, 10 years ago, they telephoned the Department or their local Benefits Agency office and received the wrong advice? How can they now prove that, 10 years ago, they had a telephone conversation in which they were given the wrong advice? They may have something in writing from 10 years ago, but how many of us have kept all the paperwork for the past 10 years, which we may at some point need, if it gave advice that we followed? To prove that a person has been misled is difficult.

The Government are asking people to prove not only that they have been misled, but that they have changed their decision as a result of that false information. They may have decided to do nothing, because they thought that the full additional widows pension that the Government were offering was sufficient. If they left it at that and did not change their mind, how could they prove that they would have changed their mind had they been given the correct information? I suggest that that is almost impossible.

If we are to have a compensation scheme, there must be no quibbling about the evidence, and it must be full and fair to people who claim that they would have made a decision even though they cannot prove it.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the beginning of his speech. What would the compensation scheme cost the Exchequer based on what he has told us?

I would love to be able to ask the Government what it would cost, but it is impossible to cost a compensation scheme because we have no idea how many cases are involved as the Government have failed to find that out. We cannot possibly cost such a scheme until the Government have done their job properly.

If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question, can he tell us what it would cost if the measure were postponed for 10 years, which was his other proposal?

I do not have the figures with me, but they were given in a written answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, so they are available to the hon. Gentleman. It would be expensive: it would cost billions of pounds. It would cost more depending on how long it were delayed. The cost would reduce over the years, because the man and the widow would eventually die. If I remember correctly—perhaps the Minister has the figures—it would be about £10 billion over the next 10 years. I have admitted that it would be expensive, but it is the only completely fair way of going about it.

I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman by giving the figures. It would cost about £5.5 billion cumulatively over the first 10 years, and £1 billion a year thereafter, although that figure would diminish. It is a substantial sum.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving that information. I had already elicited it from him in a written answer. It is slightly less than I said, so that is good.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the scale of the loss to the Government if the deferral took place shows the loss to those who would benefit if his compensation scheme were implemented? Does not that strongly underline the sleight of hand that has been performed on widows, the impact of which will last for decades?

My hon. Friend is right. Any money paid out by the Government is money that they have saved by failing to give the correct information in the past. It is fair to those concerned to pay out this money. I have said all along that the only way in which the Government can make the situation fair once again is by putting off the introduction of this halving of the addition pension for another 10 years or so.

Where would this money come from? Would it be from 3p on income tax or from cuts in education or the health service?

I am happy to say that it would be up to the Government to find the money, not up to me. The point is that it is money that was, in effect, taken from these widows as a result of the false information that was given. If society as a whole is to play fair by those people, society as a whole must pay its dues. It is unfair to expect widows to pay to reduce taxation for the mass of taxpayers.

Let me say a bit more about the cost to the individual. Mr. Michael Davies of Kidderminster has written a letter saying that an annuity to compensate for the amount that would be lost as a result of the change would cost £47,000. That is the amount that he has been quoted. It is relevant to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and gives some idea of the real cost to people who have lost out as a result of the change.

It is hardly surprising that the overall cost to the Government of providing proper compensation for the misinformation that has been handed out will be considerable, but they must answer this question: is it fair for the individuals concerned to have to pay the whole cost, rather than its being paid by society as a whole? I suggest that it is not fair.

If the Government were to prejudge such cases, it is possible that people would not be adequately compensated. The ombudsman's inquiry will facilitate a proper investigation.

I hope that, if the ombudsman comes up with a solution similar to mine, the Government will accept it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the ombudsman's inquiry will provide a good indication of what an objective observer might consider a fair response to the Government's difficulty—a difficulty which, as I have said, originates from what was done by the last Government. But, whatever the ombudsman comes up with, if the Government can guarantee us now that they will follow his recommendations, many people will be much happier.

What have the Government done to widows? In effect, they have dealt widows a quintuple whammy. They have changed the widows' bereavement allowance, abolished dividend tax credits, restricted council tax benefit for higher-value properties, removed widows' pensions, and refused to give proper compensation to those who have been damaged by the change to SERPS.

A great many people who voted for a Labour Government in 1997 have become disillusioned. Those people had great hopes of this Labour Government, and believed that, for once, the poorest and most vulnerable would be supported. Harold Wilson once said, "The Labour party is a crusade, or it is nothing." What crusade have we seen? During the past two years, we have seen a crusade against lone parents, and a crusade against those on incapacity benefit; now we are seeing a crusade against widows.

This is not the sort of Government people hoped that they were electing in 1997. This is a Government who did not deserve to give the people of this country the hope that they had when the Government were elected. This is a Government who have failed those who deserve most.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

'supports the Government's proposals to reform bereavement benefits, including the Bereavement Payment, which will provide a tax-free lump sum of £2,000—double the value of the current Widow's Payment; welcomes the additional help given to the children of widowers, who will qualify for the new Widowed Parent's Allowance, which will replace the Widowed Mother's Allowance; welcomes the protection given to widows over 55, who might otherwise have no practical alternative to relying on Income Support; and welcomes the wide range of policies which are designed to assist women to play a full and active part in the community.'.

I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate the Government's policy on bereavement benefits. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for pointing out an error in the drafting of the motion, which is indeed incomprehensible in the form in which it appears on the Order Paper. I must say, having seen his correction to it, it is still a pretty ill-focused, ramshackle and loosely connected collection of topics—but at least now it makes grammatical sense. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said that it was the fault of the Liberal Democrats Whips that the motion appeared in that form initially—[Interruption.]

Order. There have been far too many sedentary interventions throughout the debate. If hon. Members wish to speak, they must wait and do so in the appropriate way.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The speech by the hon. Member for Newbury was one with which, at least in outline, we had already become familiar in the Committee's proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Essentially, he welcomes the Government's measures that involve spending more money; objects to measures that involve spending less; and then goes on to call for a very long list of even more spending measures. His speech bore absolutely no relation to reality. One should expect from someone aspiring to leadership of his party a greater sense of the real choices facing a party in government.

The central feature of our changes to bereavement benefits is their extension to men. It is the first time that men will receive the benefit, which is a very big step forward. Our action has been widely welcomed, even—albeit in passing—by the hon. Member for Newbury. The change was long campaigned for, but bitterly resisted by Conservative Members when they were in government. At long last, the current Government are putting the matter right.

The current system—the one that we inherited—is based on the view that each married couple comprises one independent man, who is the breadwinner, and a woman who depends on him. Over 50 years ago, in his report, Beveridge simply assumed that married women would stay at home. That view, which underlies the current system, simply does not reflect the real position in which we now find ourselves. Like so many other parts of the benefits system, that part needs to be modernised.

It is right that the benefits system should reflect the changes that have occurred in society. I understand the attractions of arguments that we should leave things as they are, and appreciate that some people believe that that would be in the best interests of those who depend on the benefits system. However, if we continue paying benefits when real needs have moved elsewhere, it will sap confidence in the system and undermine it. In the long run, those who depend on the system are those who will lose from such an approach.

Thus, for those who believe in the benefits system—as the Government do—modernisation is so important.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned those who are dependent on the system. In the debate on the Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, he said that those who were on contributory benefits were part of dependency. Does he stand by that statement?

I recall making no such statement, but if the hon. Gentleman will remind me of the context in which he thinks I made it, I shall most emphatically stand by it. If he will give me the reference, I shall be glad to do just that.

For those who believe in the benefits system, as we do, and in the potential of publicly delivered welfare to improve people's circumstances in a decent and dignified manner, modernisation is vital. Things do not stand still, and it does absolutely no favours to those who depend on the benefits system to behave as if nothing had changed. If we are spending benefits cash to meet yesterday's needs rather than today's, we are weakening the system and damaging the interests of those who look to the system for support. If we insisted on dealing only with yesterday's needs, we would be unable to meet today's needs, let alone tomorrow's.

Is the Minister telling us that no one today is widowed, not in a job and unlikely to find one for some time, or traumatically affected by bereavement?

I am saying that the circumstances in our society are radically different from those that prevailed when the existing system was introduced. We need to bring the system up to date to reflect the huge changes that have occurred over the past 50 years.

There are big new demands on the welfare system that must be addressed, such as the needs of bereaved fathers who were dependent on the income of their partners. We shall make sure that the necessary capacity is available so that we do not let people down.

I thank the Minister for giving way again so quickly. Is he seriously saying that he needs to make £600 million worth of cuts in order to pay for £100 million worth of enhancement?

I shall come in a moment to the financial consequences of the changes that we are making, but it is a feature of the changes to bereavement benefits that there will be additional spending in the early years to meet the new needs that we are addressing. The savings to which the hon. Gentleman referred will take a long time to materialise, so, on that front, his point is misleading. There will be an additional £140 million in the first year and about £100 million extra in the following year. So there will be substantial extra spending in the early years to meet the new additional needs that will be picked up.

The benefits system needs to reflect the changes in our society. If it does not, the system will be weakened and people who depend on it to provide security will be the losers. We will not allow that to happen. We are absolutely determined to rebuild our welfare system, and to restore public confidence in it and public support for it. That is our goal and we will achieve it.

Society has changed but the system has not. It ignores the fact that married women are far more likely to be financially independent and that flourishing public-private partnerships have developed in this area of welfare provision. Two thirds of working-age women are in work, as are seven out of 10 married women. That is nearly as large a proportion as the proportion of married men in work. The picture is therefore completely different from when the existing system was originally designed. Today, 47 per cent. of widows have occupational pension income. It is a condition of contracting out from SERPS that the SERPS element of an occupational pension offers a 50 per cent. survivor's pension. The system needs to be modernised accordingly.

The current scheme fails on a range of fronts. First, and above all, it gives no help to bereaved husbands, even when they have children to care for. That is a scandal and we are putting it right. Secondly, it no longer provides enough help with the immediate costs of bereavement. It continues to provide most help to those least likely to be in need of it. Currently, 75 per cent. of expenditure on widows benefit goes to the more numerous widows without dependants, while 35,000 widows receive nothing at all because their income support is reduced, pound for pound, by the amount of widows benefit that they receive.

The system does not recognise the enormous changes that have taken place in welfare provision. Many families now make their own provision for bereavement through occupational pension schemes and life insurance policies.

Our reformed system will for the first time treat men and women equally and will focus resources where they are needed most. We are not simply extending the old system of widows benefits to widowers. We have re-examined it in the light of our principles for reform and made improvements to bring it up to date.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that things have changed, but widowhood is still a dreadful experience and the time that it takes to recover from it has not changed in the past 50 years. The six-month limit is crucial. The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who is Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee, challenged the Minister on that limit in the early hours of the morning during Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Is the Minister saying that widows can now cope better with bereavement? Surely the situation has not changed and widows should not be forced back into the labour market so soon.

I shall come to that point in a moment. It is a question of balance and we believe that we have made the right judgment. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be cautious, because the bereavement benefit system is not to do with the scale of someone's shock and their difficulty in coming to terms with bereavement or the undoubtedly enormous trauma involved. It is about giving people a breathing space after they lose income from someone on whom they were dependent. We have decided that six months is the right period to give that opportunity.

We will give immediate support on bereavement by introducing the bereavement payment—a tax-free lump sum of £2,000. That is double the value of the current widows payment. Some 15,000 men widowed every year will benefit from that for the first time and 40,000 new widows every year will get £1,000 more than they receive under the existing system.

We also intend to introduce two new contributory, non-means-tested benefits: widowed parents allowance and bereavement allowance. They will also be available to both widowers and widows. Widowed parents allowance will follow the rules that currently apply to widowed mothers allowance and will be calculated in the same way, but it will also be paid to widowed fathers, who are unfairly excluded at present. The new benefit will apply not only to new widows and widowers, but also to fathers who have already been widowed, if they meet the qualifying conditions. In total, around 25,000 widowers will benefit in the first year. That is a substantial improvement that has been widely welcomed. Bereavement allowance will be paid for six months following a bereavement, at the rate of the current widows pension.

I stress again that the benefits are contributory, not means-tested—there has been some mischief and misinformation about that—but they are time-limited. It would not be right to go on paying a widows pension for life to those who could be earning a decent living or who have large alternative forms of income. I shall deal in a moment with the period for which they will last.

Financial support is important in the period immediately after the loss of a husband or wife.

I am curious about what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He said that widows benefits should not be paid for life. Can he tell me a time in our history when they were paid for life, assuming the beneficiary did not die suddenly and tragically before retirement age?

It has always been paid up to retirement. We are saying that that is no longer appropriate and does not reflect the reality of people's circumstances now.

Financial support is important in the period immediately after bereavement. Bereavement allowance will provide support in those vital six months. It will give people the breathing space that they need before they are in a position to support themselves by returning to work or through other income. That important breathing space allows people to come to terms with the emotional and practical financial upheaval caused by the loss of a spouse. However, we do not think that it would be right for younger widows and widowers, many of whom will already have regular employment, to assume a lifetime of dependency.

Another aspect of the current situation that I have not mentioned is that 98 per cent. of married women have had a job. Even if they are not currently employed, they have a history of work. Our comprehensive welfare-to-work programme offers a range of support, including advice on employment, training and benefits, to aid a person's return to work. It must be right and beneficial to ensure that a person can be put in touch with that support at the earlier stage of six months rather than delaying it for a year or more.

It is often in people's interests to get back into the labour market as soon as possible. We want men and women to be financially independent while they are of working age and in retirement. We are committed to removing the barriers to work and ensuring that work pays. Our reforms will refocus expenditure, concentrating the help that is available where and when it is most needed. That means meeting immediate needs at the point of bereavement and focusing on children and families. We want to balance sensitivity to the needs of people who have been recently bereaved with a recognition that, after a period of readjustment, those who are able to support themselves should do so.

It has been suggested that bereavement allowance should be paid for a significantly longer period, with the cost offset against the expected savings. However, the savings of £500 million that we have published are for the long term—they are expected in 2020. We shall be spending around £100 million extra in each of the first couple of years following the introduction of the new scheme. Paying bereavement allowance for a longer period would add substantially to those costs. It would not be a responsible use of resources to pay a long-term benefit to widows and widowers—without dependent children—who could be earning a decent living or who may well have a substantial income from an occupational pension.

I want to underline again the fact that, as we have always said, existing widows will not be affected by the new arrangements. We shall ensure that the existing arrangements continue to apply to all who are currently entitled to widows benefits. The new scheme will ensure that help is focused on those with the greatest need at the time of that need, with a weekly benefit for widowed fathers and widowed mothers giving long-term help with the extra costs of bringing up children, and a transitional benefit for widowed people over 45 and without dependent children, to permit a breathing space to help them to adjust to their new circumstances.

The hon. Member for Newbury spent a considerable amount of his speech expressing concerns about the change to the amount of SERPS that can be inherited from a spouse. That change was brought in by the previous Government in 1986. The change was designed to bring SERPS into line with occupational pension schemes, in which it has been the norm to pay a widow only half the spouse's pension rights.

That change was not published before 1996. A great deal of concern has been expressed to me here and in letters by hon. Members on both sides who want to know why. I wish I knew. The then Minister told the Standing Committee in 1986 that there would be a major publicity campaign about the changes. Not only was there no publicity campaign; the Benefits Agency leaflets did not refer to the changes for 10 years, until 1996. That should clearly not have happened. As in so many other areas, we are having to clear up the mess that we have inherited.

What was the position of the then official Opposition on the measure when it was introduced?

The measure was opposed in 1986, 14 years ago. We are now considering how to deal with the enormous difficulties that we have picked up as a result of those changes not being publicised at the time they should have been. As the then Minister said, there should have been a major publicity campaign at the time to make people aware of them. That was not done, and it led to the problems that we now face.

I have said that anyone who can show that they have been mis-advised and, as a consequence, have taken action to their own financial detriment, will be entitled to compensation. A large number of people may be affected and we are considering carefully how best to resolve the matter. The ombudsman is also considering a sample of cases. We will make an announcement in due course, in good time for April next year when the change is due to take effect.

The Minister said that, where it could be shown that someone had taken action, he would be entitled to compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) pointed out that it is people who have not taken action who have been lulled into a false sense of security. Can the Minister give some assurance that those people, the real victims, will be compensated?

If, for example, people have received advice by telephone, we shall take that into account. If what the hon. Gentleman is putting to me is that people may have received advice—for example, over the telephone—on the basis of which they decided not to do something that they would otherwise have done, then they, too, will have a case for compensation. However, this is an exceedingly complex and large issue which requires careful consideration by the Government. That consideration is currently being given and we shall make an announcement in due course.

I am reassured by what my hon. Friend says. I, like other hon. Members, have received letters from constituents on the subject. It is obviously a serious issue. However, are not the Government dealing with the matter in a more responsible way than the Liberal Democrats? When I asked how they would pay for a 10-year delay, they said that it was up to the Government to sort that out. But this is the same party that wants to put 1p on income tax to fund its education priorities. That seems like double standards to me.

My hon. Friend is being kind. I do not know about double standards—I would say treble or quadruple standards.

Quintuple standards.

Indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) is right to say that the Liberal Democrats' proposals are entirely free of any sense of responsibility.

In view of the Liberal Democrats' interest today in the fact that the matter has not been mentioned since 1986, does my hon. Friend know whether the Liberal Democrats have mentioned it since 1986?

No, my impression is that they have not mentioned it until these last few months. My hon. Friend makes a telling point.

The hon. Gentleman has been his customary courteous self today. One has become accustomed in debates such as this for Ministers to read their brief, not make important announcements. Today, however, the Minister has made an important announcement about telephone claims. How much proof will be required? Will an applicant's word that he telephoned in 1987 or 1988 be sufficient, or will a telephone bill have to be produced?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to be patient. As I have said, we shall make a fuller announcement on these matters in due course and as soon as we can.

The hon. Gentleman seemed to make a double announcement, one of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), concerning the proof that would be needed that a telephone call had been made. That is an interesting concept. I imagine that almost everyone involved could say that they had made a telephone call and it would be difficult to prove otherwise. But what happens if people say that they did not take any action? Most people, if they were reassured, will not have taken any action. Will they all receive compensation?

My advice to the hon. Gentleman is the same as to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar—to wait for the announcement that we will make as soon as we are in a position to do so. The hon. Gentleman's point may well provide him with an explanation of why it is necessary to take some time over the details of the matter to ensure, as we will, that we get it right.

It is right, in meeting the needs of bereaved men for the first time, and in making a priority, as we are doing right across government, of the needs of children—in this case through the widowed parents allowance—that we should also take the opportunity to bring bereavement benefits up to date and modernise the circumstances in which they are paid. That is what we are doing, and I urge the House to support the proposals that are in the Bill.

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I commiserate with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on the mistake in the drafting of the motion. He blamed the Whips Office, but if any trade union operates in this building it is that of the Whips. I shall watch for the number of times that the hon. Gentleman is slipped over the next few months.

It is also a great pleasure to follow the Minister. He spoke fluently and, in commemoration of the day and in honour of the Liberal Democrats, he is wearing a yellow tie. I also commend him on his bravery. His announcement concerning telephone calls is important. For him to say that, if people did nothing, they may well have a claim is an important announcement.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

In a moment.

Not many hon. Members, save the Chancellor, have the opportunity to commit the Government to a potential £5 billion of expenditure. I congratulate the Minister on doing so. That shows real courage. I hope that he has a peaceful weekend in consequence, particularly as the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), who is seeking to intervene, criticised the Liberal Democrats for suggesting such a thing. I trust that he will now apologise to the hon. Member for Newbury.