With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on our reforms of the Child Support Agency—a key part of our strategy for supporting families and children.

Last year, we published a Green Paper setting out our proposals, and there was overwhelming support for change. I am placing in the Library a summary of 1,500 responses to the Green Paper, along with a list of those who contributed. I am also publishing our White Paper on child support, setting out reforms that will get money to 1 million children who currently miss out. I have written to all hon. Members enclosing a summary of the White Paper, and I have placed copies in the Vote Office.

The reforms that I will set out today are driven by principle. We are putting children first, and we are making sure that the new system is fair on fathers who want to support their children, and tough on those who will not. Our reforms mark a new contract for child support, based on the right of a child to the care and support of its parents, and on the responsibility of parents to provide it.

The responsibility for bringing up children lies squarely with both parents, and that responsibility endures whether they live together or apart. All children have the right to a decent start in life. The Government are already doing a great deal to help. We are increasing child benefit by a record amount and providing more help for low-paid families through the new working families tax credit, tax changes and the national minimum wage. Taken together all that means that a family on £13,000 a year will be better off by up to £2,500 a year.

We are investing £540 million in the sure start programme for very young, disadvantaged children. We are committed to ending the scandal of child poverty in a generation. We are determined to make sure that children receive all the help that they need, which is why we are introducing a new system of child support that is simple, effective and fair.

Today, many children miss out on the support that they should receive from both parents. Under the present system, only 250,000 children receive maintenance, and only 100,000 children get all that they should. Some 30 per cent. of parents using the CSA pay nothing towards the care of their children. That cannot be right. The child support system should help parents to meet their responsibilities, and, where necessary, it should take action when parents will not do so.

The system that we inherited has failed. It does not help parents who want to pay, and it is not tough enough on those who will not pay. The previous Government set up the Child Support Agency in 1993 to replace a court system that could not cope. Going back to the courts is not the answer. In 1979, 52 per cent. of lone parents on income support received maintenance, but by 1990, the courts were getting money to only 20 per cent. On top of that, decisions were often unpredictable, unreliable and unfair. The CSA was meant to sort that situation out, but it did not. The percentage of lone parents on income support getting child maintenance is the same today as it was when the agency was set up.

The CSA became a bureaucratic nightmare for parents and staff alike. The reason for that is clear. Under the current system the CSA can require more than 100 different pieces of information to make a single decision, meaning that a third of all child support cases wait at least six months for a decision. The CSA spends 90 per cent. of its time chasing information, and only 10 per cent. chasing parents who will not pay. The result is that many responsible parents who genuinely want to support their children often find themselves facing a mountain of debt through no fault of their own, while irresponsible parents can play the system to their advantage and end up paying nothing for their children. We must always remember that it is children who lose out.

These failures have their roots in the complexity of the current system, and the result is an administration so burdened that only root-and-branch reform will turn things round. We are tackling that inheritance by introducing a simple, new and effective system of child support to deliver for children by reforming the policy and rebuilding the agency.

We will put the confidence back into child support by introducing radical reforms in four key areas. First, we are abolishing the current system for calculating child support, replacing unworkable policy with a workable new system that is based on a simple way of deciding how much parents should pay. Secondly, we are turning the agency round so that it provides a decent and effective service to all parents to make sure that children actually get the money from their parents, and quickly.

Thirdly, we are introducing tough new measures to deal with parents who try to run away from their responsibilities. Fourthly, we are helping the fight against child poverty by introducing new help for children in the poorest families.

I now wish to refer to the detail of our proposals. I want to set out our plans to reform the formula that is currently used to calculate how much parents pay towards the care of their children. That is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the system. It was designed to take account of any—in fact every—detail that might affect how much a father could pay. The result is a calculation so complex, it is barely workable; so complex, it is often difficult for parents to know whether a decision is right or not; so complex, it takes months to get a decision.

Today, I can announce that we are abolishing the complex formula and replacing it with a system of simple rates that is so easy to understand that parents can work out for themselves how much they should pay. We will publish these rates—indeed, they are in the White Paper—by putting leaflets in post offices, libraries and elsewhere.

The new rates are reasonable because they reflect the amount a parent would pay if he were still living with his children. Under the new system, a father will pay a flat-rate percentage of his take-home pay. The amount will be 15 per cent. if he has one child to support., 20 per cent. if he has two and a maximum of 25 per cent. where he has three or more children. For fathers on less than £100 a week, there will be a flat-rate payment of £5 a week.

Every parent knows that one cannot calculate the cost of bringing up a child down to the last penny. However, our proposals are fair and reasonable. The changes are fairer to fathers, because they are more reasonable and realistic. They are fairer to mothers, who will get money much more quickly. They are fairer to children, who will actually get the money they need. As the system is so simple, it will take the agency only a few days to confirm what should be paid, rather than the six months it takes now. It is fast and simple for parents and fast and simple for the agency—but, above all, it is right for children.

To do this, we need also to reform the way in which the CSA operates and to improve significantly the service that it provides. This is not going to be easy. The CSA will never be popular—it will always be doing a difficult job at a difficult and emotional time. However, by replacing the complex formula with new, simple rates, we are laying the foundations for a far better service than would ever be possible under the current system.

These reforms mark a new contract for the CSA, too—a new system in return for a radical change in culture, service and approach. The shake-up has already started. We are strengthening the agency's management and we are importing private sector know-how to work together with public sector experience to sort things out.

From next week, we are bringing in the private sector to help the agency to collect more money from more parents and get it to children. I can announce today that we will invest an extra £28 million over the next three years, but, in return, the CSA must deliver clear and tangible improvements—a better service, quicker decisions and more money getting to children than ever before.

The CSA will get new information technology, and will make more use of the phone to sort out queries quickly. It will be there at times that suit parents, so that they can call in the evenings or at weekends from the privacy of their own homes, and not in the daytime while they are at work.

The CSA will introduce also a more effective complaints system to ensure swift and effective action if things go wrong. Parents will get a clear statement setting out what they have paid and what is due. They will receive a clear picture of where they stand, just as one would get from a bank statement. In short, the CSA will move from an organisation that is bogged down in paper to an organisation that will focus on the needs of parents, and, above all, on the need to get money to children, fast. Our new contract for child support is good news for responsible parents, who will get a better service that helps them to do what they want to do. However, it is bad news for the minority—the hard core who persistently let their children down. We will make sure they are brought to book.

I can announce that, for the first time ever, we are making it a criminal offence to fail to provide, or to misrepresent, information to the agency. If parents lie to the agency, if they try to dodge their duty or persistently pay late, they will face a fine or even time in jail. Although most self-employed parents are highly responsible, there are some who are not, so we are introducing new measures allowing us to access tax records to get a true picture of their income. That will ensure that fathers who run around in the company Porsche, but plead poverty to their children, cannot get away with it.

We are also closing a loophole that allows fathers to string out a decision by denying that they are the father of their child. In future, if a child was born while the father was married to the mother, the burden will be on him to prove that he is not the father. We shall also make sure that teenage boys who become fathers face their responsibilities. They must realise that bringing a child into the world is a lifelong responsibility; it is not something that they can ever walk away from. We shall make sure that once they can pay towards the care of their child, they do pay.

Furthermore, because we are determined to make sure that all parents meet their responsibilities, we are looking at further measures to achieve that—including taking away driving licences from fathers who persistently shirk their responsibilities. The message is simple: there is no hiding place, no excuse and no easy way out. They must realise that their child is their responsibility. Every parent has to face up to that; they owe it to their children to do so. This is our new contract for child support. We will deliver a new, fair and simple system that will help responsible parents to support their children, but, in turn, we will take tough action to ensure that the rest deliver for their children.

We are also reforming the system to make sure that it does more for children in the poorest families. Under the current system, mothers lose their income support, pound for pound, whenever any maintenance is paid; because mothers lose out, their children lose out too. So, today, I can announce significant new help for children in the poorest families, worth up to £10 a week. More than 250,000 children will gain from that change alone. That is real help from the Government for children in the poorest families. For the first time ever, we are making sure that money goes to the poorest children, not to the Treasury.

I can announce today that, to make work pay, from October, low-paid families in work and receiving the working families tax credit will keep every pound and every penny of child maintenance paid. All those measures are delivering on our commitment to do more for those who need it most, to end child poverty and to make sure that the Government, parents and the Child Support Agency together deliver for children.

Of course, we need to make sure that those changes are introduced smoothly and successfully. We want to introduce the new scheme as soon as possible, but it is vital to get it right. The present system collapsed under its own weight because the previous Government tried to introduce reforms too quickly, and with too little thought. It is a massive task. Within a year of the millennium, the Child Support Agency will be dealing with more than 1 million cases—that is more than 2 million parents. Radical change on that scale will take time. The new system needs legislation and new computer systems, as well as a radical change of culture and working practices in the CSA itself.

We plan to introduce the new system for new cases towards the end of 2001, with existing cases coming on to the new system later, once it is up and running. However, we want to introduce some measures earlier, such as making it a criminal offence to lie to the agency, closing the loophole that allows fathers falsely to deny their paternity, and improving the administration of the CSA itself.

The future of child support lies in our new contract, which puts the rights of children first, and puts the unshakeable duty of parents at centre stage. The new system will be simpler and fairer for those fathers who want to support their children, but it will be tougher on those who will not. The agency will be turned around, so that it provides the standard of service that we all expect. We are putting the confidence back into child support, replacing complexity with simplicity, replacing delay with quick and accurate decisions, and replacing bureaucracy with a high-quality customer service. Together, our reforms will help I million children who, today, are let down by the current system. We are delivering for children and putting their needs first.

I commend these proposals to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement and the White Paper. Both sides of the House agree that the CSA needs reform, just as both sides of the House supported the creation of the CSA in 1993, and the reforms that we introduced in 1995. The system that Ministers inherited is one that we all supported—including those who are sitting on the Treasury Bench. The trouble is that the problems in the CSA have continued—if anything, they have become worse.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the latest annual report from the chief child support officer shows a further decline in the number of correct maintenance assessments? Will he now give a cast-iron promise to the House that that trend of deteriorating performance will be reversed, and tell the House when that will happen? It has taken Ministers more than two years to reach this statement, and it is eight months since the deadline for consultation on their previous Green Paper. It has taken Ministers longer to reach a decision than it takes the Child Support Agency they criticise.

The Opposition accept the need for a simpler system, with better enforcement and less fancy arithmetic to calculate liability. We accept that that approach is the right one. However, we have three areas of concern about today's proposals. First, rough justice is the new buzz phrase, but how rough is the rough justice to be? How many liable parents will have their obligations reduced, and by how much? How many of the parents with care will have their entitlement to maintenance reduced, and by how much?

Specifically, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will no longer take account of the income of the parent with care? Does he not recognise that one of the most important grievances arising from the current arrangements is felt by those absent parents who have a lower income than the family with care? Is not one of the effects of his proposals to redistribute dramatically toward the more affluent families with care?

Instead of addressing that point about liabilities, I fear that the Secretary of State will change the subject and talk about enforcement. His spinners have been making a lot of the new criminal penalties for absent parents who do not pay maintenance. That is a snappy soundbite, but a stupid policy. Putting absent parents in prison makes it less likely that they will be able to earn any income, less likely that they will ever pay any maintenance, and less likely that they will have any access to their children.

The Government should make existing civil remedies work. After all, the Minister's colleagues in the legal Departments are boasting about their reforms of civil justice and new fast-track procedures, so why does he not practise some joined-up government, trust his Government's reforms of civil justice and use those remedies effectively and energetically? Even if he does not trust his own colleagues, why does he not agree with the response to the consultation exercise of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? It said:

"We are not convinced that it is the powers themselves that are deficient, but rather the way in which they are being exercised".

The Minister thrashes about with any old wheeze to give the impression of action. We are told that absent parents might lose their driving licence—presumably as part of the Deputy Prime Minister's attack on the motorist. Today, we read that they will lose their passport—presumably that is a desperate attempt to get them out of those queues at the passport offices. Such gimmicks are not the answer.

Our third area of concern is Inland Revenue access to information. Let me quote to the right hon. Gentleman an assurance from his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), given when a clause of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that is designed to give the Revenue access to information was debated in Standing Committee. The Under-Secretary said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles):

"the clause will be used as a last resort, after all attempts to get information from other sources have failed, to enable the CSA to check tax records in the interests of the children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27 April 1999; c. 1000.]

When did a last resort become a first resort? How is the Secretary of State's announcement today compatible with the assurance given by his colleague to the Standing Committee only a few months ago?

Yes, the CSA needs reform. Yes, more money needs to go to children. Yes, we accept that the current arrangements are not working. However, we need to know more about who gains and who loses. We need to know why Ministers will not use civil remedies more effectively. We need assurances about Inland Revenue access to information. The principle of the CSA is absolutely right; what has gone wrong is the practice, and that is where further reform is needed. It is pity that it will take Ministers four years to do anything about it.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State. I believe that this is his first time out. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that I let him read the White Paper, although that is perfectly normal practice.

The hon. Gentleman expressed three concerns, but what struck me was that only towards the end of his remarks did he mention children. If there is rough justice in the present system, it is that 66 per cent. of children do not get everything that is due to them. The reforms that we are introducing today are designed to ensure that an assessment is not theoretical but realistic, and that the child sees the money to which he or she is entitled.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that we are not taking into account the income of the parent with care. I point out that 96 per cent. of parents with care have an income of less than £100 a week, so that will not be a widespread problem. We are ensuring that the formula, which takes into account the children in first and second families, is simple and fair. The more complex the system becomes—as more and more disregards and other considerations are brought in—the further we shall slip back into the mire that bogs down the CSA at present. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we ought to have more exceptions to the general simple formula, he must accept that every added complexity will mean that it will take more time and be more difficult to get money to the children.

The hon. Gentleman also complained about penalties. There is nothing wrong in saying that there ought to be a criminal sanction for people who lie to the CSA, misrepresent their circumstances and give the agency the run-around. Those people are not cheating the Government or the agency—they are cheating their children. In any decent, civilised society, people recognise that there ought to be a deterrent and, if necessary, punishment for those who have obligations to society or to their children but who, at the end of the day, after every stone has been turned and every difficulty has been addressed, still insist on trying to avoid their responsibilities.

Most of those who have to deal with CSA cases know that there are mothers who are trying to bring up their children and, in the same town, the father is driving around in his Porsche, living the high life while his children are not being properly looked after. I make no apology whatsoever for taking the necessary action against the minority—I stress that they are a minority—of parents who insist on ducking their responsibilities.

I find it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's complaint about us allowing access to the Inland Revenue in cases where people will not tell us how much they earn, or where we have good reason to believe that they are not telling us the truth. If we do not take action, the state will have to support the children of people who are perfectly capable of doing that themselves. The Conservatives used to believe that that was wrong, but they are more concerned about protecting the interests of people who want to hide their affairs from their own children than they are about the children themselves. I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's complaint. Using the access to the Inland Revenue is, of course, an action that we shall take when every other option has been exhausted, but I disagree with the Conservatives' proposition that we should not allow access to the Inland Revenue so that we can find out the truth about those matters.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman complained about the time that the reforms will take. The Conservatives had six years to sort out the CSA, and they did not do so. We have tackled the problems and we are making improvements. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the CSA's performance is improving. If he reads the departmental report, which will be published later this month, he will find that the CSA has improved in a number of respects, although it has a long way to go before it provides an acceptable service. As I said in my statement, I do not believe it will be fully acceptable until we get rid of the complex formula that it must operate at present. However, the agency is making improvements and things are getting better.

These reforms will be introduced in a way that is manageable. The hon. Gentleman was trying to urge us to repeat the same mistakes that his Government made in 1993. We shall not do that. I want the agency to work because, above all, I want children to get the money and support to which they are entitled.

I want to give the warmest welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement and I hazard a guess that 1 million or so children may well, in time, also thank him. More immediately, taxpayers, who have to foot a bill of 5p on the standard rate of tax to pay for the shambles that the Government inherited from the Conservatives, will also thank my right hon. Friend for his statement.

Will my right hon. Friend consider two modest reforms? Because the Government are rightly taking their time and not rushing, and thereby risking getting things wrong, and because the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is due to return to the House, will he consider taking powers to intervene and stop the clock in exceptional cases when the rules are operating in a weird and mad fashion that will lead to the destruction of the second family? Secondly, given that it is so crucial that the reforms succeed, as if they do not we shall have to give up thinking about child support, will he consider asking the Revenue to collect the money? It is after all its culture to do so, and not that of the Department of Social Security, which is good at paying out money.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his general welcome for our proposals. He raised two specific points. Although this is the first time that he has raised the point, I can see some difficulty in giving the Secretary of State power to intervene when something is wrong. Unless that is a general power to allow me or my successors to intervene in every case—which would mean that I would have to look at every case, which I will not volunteer to do—it might be difficult to operate the system satisfactorily. However, I will reflect on what he says.

Although the Inland Revenue has its problems like any other organisation, it works well. It certainly would not welcome—we should not consider it lightly—the requirement to collect information on 1 million quite difficult cases. At the moment, we have one organisation that works well and one that does not. There is a risk that we would end up with one organisation that does not work at all. I would be reluctant to go down such a route, which is why we excluded using the Inland Revenue. It is working well; we should let it get on with what it does. The key to success is to ensure that we reform the CSA so that it does a far better job collecting money on the one hand and paying it out to parents with care on the other.

The Secretary of State will not be surprised to learn that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are disappointed that he has not introduced a system that can deal with each case individually. Only such a system can be seen to be entirely fair. Only when one has an entirely fair system will judgments be accepted and people be free to pay up quite generously.

We welcome several things in the White Paper, including giving access to tax records, which was a sensible move to make. I am surprised that the Conservatives object to it. The better shared care arrangements are also welcome, as is the fact that people will be allowed to keep maintenance if they receive the working families tax credit. That and the £10 disregard on income support must be good for children—and we welcome anything that is good for children. We also welcome the fact that he has not changed or narrowed the definition of good cause, which we were slightly concerned he might.

However, several things are not welcome, about which I should like to ask the Secretary of State. He surely must agree that imprisoning or confiscating the driving licences of non-resident parents can only hinder their opportunities to provide an income for their children, or share in their care, which is also very important. Will he reconsider that move?

Secondly, does he agree that the fines for late payment, which I understand go purely to the Treasury, should at least partly be offered to the family with care, who will have also suffered from the non-resident parent's late payments? Thirdly, will he tell us a little more about the powers and the tasks that he will ask the private sector to introduce? What accountability will there be? He did not say very much about that in his statement.

Fourthly, what assurance will he give that the information technology that he will introduce will work any better than that surrounding the fiascos of the new passport system, the new national insurance system and the system in post offices? Fifthly, what will the ombudsman be able to do about cases that are dealt with over the phone? It is my understanding that, at present, the ombudsman cannot consider phone calls as part of the evidence that he is prepared to take into account. If so much more is to be done by the CSA over the phone, the Secretary of State will have to address such a problem.

It is rumoured in the press that travel-to-work costs will now be properly taken into account. It is important that we should know a bit more about that.

Finally, why has the Secretary of State decided to shorten the time before the benefit penalties kick in? There are some very good cases where time is needed for the women concerned to come up with the relevant evidence. I should like to know a little bit more about that.

I shall deal with all the points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, although when he refers to "we on the Liberal Benches" I think that he uses the word "we" rather loosely. The others, presumably, are away on the leadership campaign. He has been left a somewhat lonely figure on the Benches. [Interruption.] Well, his seconder is there, so he is all right; his deposit is safe if nothing else.

Let me deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I know that it is his view, if not necessarily that of the entire Liberal Democrat party, that the CSA should be wound up and that we should return to the court system—because that is the only way, I suppose, that every case can be considered individually. Under the new system, the people who are required to use the Child Support Agency are those on income support and those on income-related jobseeker's allowance. Others will be able to use the courts; they will be able to opt into the CSA if they want to, but in many cases the courts will reach settlements that determine how much maintenance is paid.

However, it would not be possible to burden the courts with about 1 million cases without severe consequences to the entire justice system. Many of the children would be pensioners by the time that their maintenance was calculated. The court system could not cope 20 years ago and it would not be able to cope now. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is the only one who is actively advocating that course; I do not accept that argument.

The hon. Gentleman raised several detailed points. I believe that he opposes the stiffer penalties—including, possibly, imprisonment or fines—for people who persistently refuse to co-operate. That is not a new prospect. Such penalties are imposed in many cases in the criminal law. Of course, in such criminal cases one does not imprison or fine people at once, but when someone persistently refuses to co-operate, or lies to the Child Support Agency with a view to preventing money going to their children, there comes a point when we must say, "Enough is enough. The sanction will be visited upon you." Whether it is a fine or imprisonment is a matter for the courts. There is nothing new in that. Most people find it extraordinary that those powers do not already exist.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the private sector. As far as accountability is concerned, the chief executive of the CSA is responsible to me for everything that happens in the CSA, including anything that may be done on our behalf by private sector partners. We want to improve the way in which the CSA operates. Let me take an example. At the moment, the agency's record of collecting maintenance that is due is not very good. Instead of going to someone who owes tens of pounds, we wait until they owe us thousands of pounds, when it is much more difficult to get the money from them. Banks in this country and elsewhere have experience of far more effective collection of sums due. We should use that expertise.

The hon. Gentleman asked about IT. I readily agree that the Government's record on IT—I do not wish to make a political point, as we have as many problems as the previous Government had—has led us to believe that one should be very cautious before saying that a new computer system will work from day one. I am determined to ensure that before we start the new system, we know that the IT systems work, because much depends on that. I will ensure that that happens, but we now have funding to replace the IT system in the CSA and elsewhere in the DSS, and we intend to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from it.

I shall look at the powers that the hon. Gentleman mentions in relation to the ombudsman.

More and more work throughout the DSS, not just the CSA, will be done by phone in future. It is far more effective, far more accurate and far better for customers.

The costs of travel to work will not be taken into account. Under the new system, the absent father will pay 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of his take-home pay, depending on the number of children. We are moving away from all the exceptions and disregards in the previous system, because they were what bogged it down.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the cooling off period in relation to a good cause. We are not changing the definition of good cause. Parents will still be able to show that there are reasons why a father should not be pursued. The cooling off period has been shortened to four weeks, but it can be extended if there is good reason for doing so.

rose—

Order. I hope that we can now step up the pace, otherwise many right hon. and hon. Members will be disappointed. Let us have brief questions, please.

In terms of responsibility for this mess, the figure of the absent parent has now been joined by the absent-minded shadow Minister, given his version of history. However, this is a serious matter. Hundreds of thousands of children in Britain will spend all or some of their childhood away from one parent. It is my guess that family insecurity is now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get to the question."] I will get to the question. Family insecurity is probably as much a cause of poverty as economic insecurity.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that however we reform the process—I warmly welcome what he is saying today, not least about maintenance disregard for lone mothers—we need to win the public debate? We need to convince our people, including children at school, that if someone has a child, the child is for life, and that the financial maintenance of that child is the parent's responsibility. Will my right hon. Friend put some effort into winning the public debate as well as reforming the system?

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the culture is changed throughout the country. People, especially young people, must realise that if they help bring a child into this world, they are responsible for that child's well-being for the rest of that child's life. People must realise that that is a very important principle, and that is why we are introducing reforms. It would not be right to take the place of absent parents, but we can make sure that they fulfil their entire responsibilities.

The Secretary of State has set out many interesting changes but has put very little flesh on the bones in terms of who will be affected by these changes. Will he tell us how many parents with care responsibilities—they are mainly women—will receive less money every week as a result of the absent parent's having a reduced maintenance liability? Will he tell us also how many in the present case list he thinks might qualify to be the errant fathers whom he has described, who may find themselves criminals as a result of the proposed changes?

As I understood it, the shadow spokesman said that he welcomed the principle of what we are doing. Clearly he does not carry the whole of the Opposition with him on that.

The point of the reforms is to ensure that children benefit. The difficulty now is that many assessments are made but the money is not paid. About 40 per cent. of assessments are not paid in full. We are making changes to ensure that although in some instances the notional assessment is reduced, the amount of money that a mother receives is increased.

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Many of my constituents, whose lives have been destroyed by the inadequacies and inefficiencies of the current system, will also welcome what he has to say. They will certainly welcome the disregard on the working families tax credit. It is important that we ensure that those parents on low incomes receive help.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in promoting his proposals he will propose others to encourage parenthood and family life? I have in mind particularly the Government's policy on parental leave, which many of us would like to see paid. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to deal with shared care between the parents? I know that this is something that the Government wish to promote.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. He is right to say that the changes that I have announced today are not the only matters that we should consider. The directive on parental leave is also an important part of ensuring that parents can spend more time with their children.

My hon. Friend asked about shared care, which we want to encourage. We are making arrangements to ensure that if a child stays with another parent for one night a week, the amount of maintenance payable will be abated by one seventh—by two sevenths for two nights, and so on. That will avoid getting into ridiculous arguments with the agency about who was where on a Saturday night. We are banding days. Maintenance will be reduced by one seventh if a child stayed with the non-resident parent for between 52 and 103 nights, and so on further up the scale.

Secondly, we are ensuring that where there is equality of care, maintenance is still payable so that there is not a disincentive to enter into that arrangement. At the same time, there will be a reduction in the amount of maintenance paid by the absent parent, which is roughly equivalent to about half child benefit.

How many cases of access to the Inland Revenue as a last resort is the Secretary of State expecting?

That depends on how difficult people are. In an ideal world, there would be none. Unfortunately, some people are so determined not to pay what is due to their children—sometimes for wholly extraneous reasons and as part of another battle that they are fighting—that they will not co-operate. I find it extraordinary that Conservatives seem to be united in the belief that it is important to keep a person's affairs with the Inland Revenue away from another part of government that is simply trying to help that person's children and to avoid a situation in which the taxpayer, instead of the individual who has that responsibility, is paying to support the children.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. Many people have long wanted a straightforward formula. Given the time that it will take to implement the proposals, what attention will my right hon. Friend give to transitional arrangements? As part of the changes to the CSA, will he make it possible for fathers to have a named child support officer to help them sort out what they must pay, so that they can do what is right by their children?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a matter of regret that it will take time to make the changes. Unfortunately, we could do nothing without changing the legislation, and there will have to be changes to the IT and so on. We are making changes in the meantime, and some of them will start next week.

We are bringing in more staff. Some 600 staff will be allocated to face-to-face interviews, which I think is what my hon. Friend has in mind. I have constituency cases in which a parent cannot make head or tail of what has happened. Such parents will be able to sit down with a member of the agency's staff, go through the documents line by line and try to reach a resolution. We are also bringing some of the best people from the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency into the Child Support Agency, because the middle management of that agency needs to be tightened up. It is a relatively new agency and it lacks expertise in several areas. Those are some of the improvements that will be made. We also want people to make better use of the telephone.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it should be possible to ensure that an individual deals with one member of staff. It is entirely consistent with our philosophy for the ONE service agency that we launched this week that someone has a named member of staff to whom to go, to avoid the situation that is common in various organisations, where members of the public speak to someone on the telephone who has no recollection of ever having spoken to them previously. That must stop.

I welcome the changes. Many of us have sympathy with office staff who have been engaged hitherto, and we welcome the additional funding and support that will be given to the CSA. I welcome the fact that children are being put first; that abandoned mothers will be supported; and that fathers, especially those from Northern Ireland who skip over to Great Britain and sometimes to the continent to avoid all responsibility, will be pursued.

Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that when fraud is identified in the father's case from false returns—or in the case of the caring mother who is exploiting the situation—no expense will be spared, and the matter will not be pushed aside and written off because a prosecution would involve court costs? It is important to give confidence and to insist that the whole truth is presented by both parties to such disputes.

The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that where there is fraud, the agency will take prompt action. One of our problems is that more than 90 per cent. of the agency's time and effort goes into calculating liability, and only 10 per cent. into enforcement. Because the new formula will be simpler, more staff will be available to deal with cases such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We will take powers to ensure that where someone has, for example, deliberately diverted his income to avoid his liabilities, that can be looked into, and if necessary referred to a tribunal to determine the matter. We want to ensure that every single child gets what he or she is entitled to—the right amount from his or her parent who, after all, has not just a moral but a legal obligation to look after his or her children.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he accept that threatening criminal charges and defining a criminal offence will make it less likely that men will want to cheat the system? Only a small number want to do so, but even that can cause serious problems. So that I can be comfortable with his remarks about a simple formula for identifying commitment, will he outline that formula once again? I am concerned about wives in second families. Will their income, which is often—although not always—included in assessments, be included in the new assessments and the new formula defining commitment from fathers?

No, that income will not be taken into account, as I told the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts); he was not paying attention, which is why he was uncertain about it. The object of the exercise is to make the formula as simple as possible. The net income—the take-home pay—of the absent parent will be taken into account. We want to keep the departures and the exceptions to the absolute minimum, otherwise we will be back in the trouble that we were in in the first place.

We will take children in a second family into account. Relationships may end, perhaps leaving a couple of children, and the father or the mother may go into a new relationship and have another child. It is right to take all those children into account, and we will do that, but I repeat that we want to keep the system as simple as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend's point about deterrence. I find it quite extraordinary that Conservative Members do not understand that, throughout the criminal system, the principle of deterrence is very important and actually works.

Although many parents want to evade their responsibilities, many others want only to find out where they stand within a reasonable time. My constituents have to deal with Belfast. It is difficult to get through on the phone and difficult to find the same person answering successive queries. Callers often get different stories from different people and years can elapse before matters are settled. Circumstances can change, which is not taken into account. If more reliance is to be placed on the telephone, will the Secretary of State ensure that people are able to gain rapid access to a known person who will always be at the end of the phone when necessary so that matters can be settled within a reasonable time?

I agree with almost everything the right hon. Gentleman has said, which is why we are changing the system. The problem just now is that the calculation is so complex that it is difficult for parents to understand how on earth the end result was reached. We all have constituents who have come to us with problems and we cannot work out what on earth the agency has done. That is why we are simplifying the whole process.

An advantage of the new system is that parents will be able to get a statement similar to a bank statement so that they can see what they have paid and what they are due. That is important. What is more, by being able to do those things quickly, we will avoid the build-up of huge levels of arrears, which lead to all sorts of difficulties.

We are investing £28 million more to improve the staff and staff retention. The CSA loses far too many staff and the result is that it is not common for the same person to deal with a case. The new money will help to address that problem. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to make far more use of the phone. With new technology, which banks now use, it is quite easy to ensure that calls coming in through a call centre are referred to the person dealing with a case. We are making those improvements. They will take time, but I hope that, by the time that we introduce the new system, the CSA will be well on th way to becoming the sort of organisation that is taken for granted in almost every other sector.

I welcome the emphasis placed by my right hon. Friend on tackling child poverty. What estimate has he made of the number of children and families who will be better off as a result of the introduction of the disregards on income support and the working families tax credit?

We estimate that, overall, about 1 million children will be better off. We think that about 250,000 will be better off as a result of the disregard. Others will be better off as a result of the working families tax credit. Overall, the effect of everything we are doing will mean that more and more children gain. About 120,000 will gain through the working families tax credit. Others will gain because the current cash compliance is some 60 per cent.; we think that we can raise it to 80 per cent., which will mean that 300,000 children will get what they are due.

The theory of the right hon. Gentleman's statement will be welcomed, but is not one of the pitfalls for the CSA the huge backlog of cases in which arrears are in dispute? How will that backlog be cleared, and will the new formula apply retrospectively to cases in that backlog?

No, the new formula will apply to new cases. It would be very difficult to apply it retrospectively, because all sorts of repayments would have to be made to people and that would almost guarantee that the new system collapsed within a few days of opening. Thus the new system applies to new cases. We shall then transfer existing cases to the new system in phases, once we are satisfied that the system is fully operational.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's general point about the backlog, we shall continue to pursue cases where maintenance is due, because it would be wrong to write off payments that people should have made to their children.

Is it not important to recognise that there will be losers as well as gainers as a result of my right hon. Friend's proposal? The message that we must spell out is that the new system will be fairer, more workable and more acceptable. May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possibilities of carry-over legislation? Might not this be an appropriate Bill to introduce sooner, so that the proposals can be implemented a few months earlier than if we had to wait for the new parliamentary Session?

On the latter point, my hon. Friend will be aware that virtually all my colleagues have a long list of Bills that they would like introduced under the new carry-over system. I hope that we can do more through that system because we could get a lot more legislation through the House, especially where there is broad agreement.

On the other point that my hon. Friend makes, it is important to bear it in mind that when a system is introduced that has a simpler formula, there will inevitably be cases where the amount to be paid, which may be a theoretical amount, is less than at present. However, because of the changes, more cash will flow through the system and into the hands of the children. That is the advantage of the new system, which is why most people welcome what we are trying to do.

I certainly want the children to be the winners when it comes to maintenance, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that given that there will be winners and losers among those who pay, under the new system cases that are currently settled would need to be backdated to the date at which the new cases are being settled? Will not there be a delay between new cases coming on board under the new system and old cases being referred? Can he assure the House that the old cases will pay from the date of introduction of the new legislation and that the amount to be paid will be recalculated?

If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is asking whether somebody who transfers two years after the new system comes in will have his assessment backdated. I do not think that that would be possible. What I am desperate to avoid—I think that there is sympathy from some Conservative Members on this—is burdening the system as the CSA was burdened in 1993, with the result that it stopped working almost before it got going. I understand that many people who are currently toiling with the CSA, who want the system to work better, cannot wait for the new system to come in. We all share that sentiment, but if we try to rush it before the CSA is operating properly and without the new IT, and if we burden the CSA unduly, the system will collapse again. That would be good for nobody. The hon. Lady and I share the same view: we must be concerned about the children. If the CSA collapses, the losers will be the children, not us. That is why I want to phase in the new system and to make sure that it works.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he as astonished as I have been to hear not a hint of apology from the Opposition for the shambles that was left behind and the thousands of lives that have been ruined by the legislation as they left it?

In the case of an absent parent who has abandoned more than one family, how will the available finance be shared between those families?

If an absent parent had two separate children in different family units his liability would be 20 per cent., and it would divided between the two children. On my hon. Friend's first point, she may be astonished, but I am not.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if there is a large second family, there will be flexibility in respect of what the father pays? If MPs have reason to believe that the CSA is acting carelessly or unreasonably, we should have the power to tell it to put a stop on the deduction of earnings order while the matter is carefully investigated. I am not asking for widespread cancellations: merely for a pause while the work is thoroughly and carefully carried out. I have just stopped the CSA demanding £10,000 from a constituent. He had already paid £8,500, but it took God knows what to get that across to the agency.

That case shows why we need to improve the administration of the CSA. No one should be allowed to run up such debts before anything happens. I have also come across such cases. I am not sure that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that MPs should be given statutory powers to stop administrative action. That would have ramifications for other parts of government. It is tempting, but I am not sure that we would want such powers, because it would lay us open to a great deal of pressure.

I am determined to ensure that such problems are less likely to arise under the new system. The CSA has been told to develop a close working relationship with Members of Parliament—as the Benefits Agency does—so that if such problems arise they can be dealt with quickly. That is what MPs are there to do: if there is an injustice because of something that the Government are doing, MPs should be able to speak to the local agency to try to resolve matters. If an MP remains dissatisfied, he has every right to take the matter up with the appropriate Minister in my Department or with me.

We inherited a dreadful mess, and I understand why my right hon. Friend wants to proceed slowly. Will he tell us when all existing cases will transfer to the new system? I suspect that many people who read the newspapers tomorrow will think that these changes, of which I approve, will affect their lives sooner rather than later, whereas they will happen four, five or perhaps six years down the line.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. To be blunt about it, these changes will not happen until towards the end of 2001 at the earliest. It is not possible to get the legislation through the House: even if there were all-party agreement, it would take some time. We must install the computer equipment, and we must make a number of changes within the CSA. I do not want to raise people's expectations falsely.

I have made it clear that the first people to be transferred will be the new cases. I then want, as quickly as is prudent, to transfer the existing case load on to the new CSA. As some people will see a difference in their assessment, we will allow their payments to be phased in. If someone's assessment has changed dramatically, it would be wrong to make him pay a massively increased amount the following day. Steps set out in the White Paper will allow those payments to be phased.

I want the changeover to be as smooth as possible, and to move at whatever speed is consistent with that. Despite people's frustrations about the system, they would not forgive us if we rushed it as happened in 1993, and to a certain extent in 1995, with the inevitable result that the whole system fell apart.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the difficulties has been the inadequacy of civil court recovery procedures to get hold of the money that the agency has been seeking? Does he have any specific proposals to strengthen or alter the recovery procedures of the civil courts, so that the agency will find it easier in the future to get hold of that money on behalf of children?

The agency has numerous remedies. The difficulty is that it does not always exercise them.

Oh, absolutely.

The hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position says, "Oh, absolutely". What on earth was he doing during the last six years of the Conservative Government? They had six years to sort this problem out, and it has yet again fallen to us to do so. We are sorting it out by diverting more staff to enforcing payments, so that we avoid the problem of money that we know is due not being collected.

We are not waiting for new legislation in order to do that. As I told the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), we are bringing in private sector expertise next week to ensure that we are as efficient as, for instance, banks in identifying customers who owe us tens of pounds rather than thousands of pounds. If we cannot persuade people to pay what is due voluntarily, we shall then be able to enforce the remedies that we have at our disposal.

I, too, welcome these much-needed reforms. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as part of his proposed reform of the culture of the CSA, staff will be trained—or retrained—in effective communication skills? There is a danger that these good reforms will be weakened if staff cannot communicate properly with the public.

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I also want to try to slow down the rather large turnover. Many of our best people, having been trained, then leave—to the benefit of, usually, the financial services industry. We want to try to keep our good-quality staff.

I believe that, if we achieve the change in culture, the CSA will be a much more attractive place in which to work. Many of our staff have to put up with quite difficult people, and, through no fault of their own, have to operate systems that do not work. I agree, however, that it is important for us to employ good-quality staff who can communicate with the public.

The Green Paper rightly emphasised the need to protect the children of second families. There is no point in impoverishing one set of children at the expense of another. The paper set out two methods of calculation. One method involved the netting of income according to the number of children in the second family, while the other involved the netting of income according to the combined number of the two sets of children. Did the Government finally decide which calculation was the more reasonable?

Yes, we did. Our conclusion is set out in the White Paper. We decided on the first option. When a person has a second family, we take the children of the second family into account. We deduct the same percentage as we would for the other set of children. For example, if someone has two children in the first family and three in the second, we take 20 per cent. of that person's net income for the first family and then, off the balance, 25 per cent., which is then given in respect of the other three children.

The tables in the annexe to the White Paper make it very easy to calculate exactly how much people will have to pay, and how much the deductions are for first and second families. The White Paper is well worth a read.

rose—

Order. We must move on. I suspect that hon. Members will have other opportunities to pursue this matter.

I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 5 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

TUESDAY 6 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY 7 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day].

Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate described by the Opposition as "Crisis in the dairy industry", followed by a debate entitled "Choice and diversity in education". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

THURSDAY 8 JULY—Remaining stages of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY 9 JULY—The House will not be sitting.

As I am sure the House will understand, some uncertainty remains about the business for the week commencing 12 July. The business will, however, include:

MONDAY 12 JULY—Estimates day [2nd Allotted Day].

There will be a debate on the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of schools in England, followed by a debate on transport policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.

At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

FRIDAY 16 JULY—There will be a debate on the policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 7 July, there will be a debate on the 2000 Preliminary Draft Budget Overview and the Agenda 2000 inter-institutional agreement. That debate will be in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 7 July 1999:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: SEC(99) 600: 2000 Preliminary Draft Budget; COM(99) 200: 2000 Preliminary Draft Budget; 7698/99: Agenda 2000: Institutional Agreement. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 34-xxi and xxiv (1998-99).]

The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business—which is clearly an important factor at this time—it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Tuesday 27 July, and return on Tuesday 19 October.

I thank the right hon. Lady for next week's business and a framework for business for the following week.

The right hon. Lady will have heard of the sad death of one of her predecessors as Leader of the House: Lord Whitelaw. We all send our sympathy to Lady Whitelaw and the family. Willie Whitelaw was a brave, loyal, decent, wise and honourable man. His popularity and the respect in which he was held went way beyond my party: it extended to all parts of the House and, indeed, to the wider public, who liked and trusted him and who will miss him, as we do.

We understand all the difficulties about Northern Ireland. I assume that that is the uncertainty to which the right hon. Lady referred in relation to the week after next, but what arrangements has she in mind to keep the House informed about the important discussions that have been and, indeed, still are taking place?

The right hon. Lady announced a debate on the dairy industry. Would not that debate be informed by the publication of the Milk Marque report, which has been available for some time? As she will have heard, there is growing frustration at its non-publication. Will she seek to make it available before that debate?

The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges reported on the premature disclosure of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report and recommended that an hon. Member should be suspended. When will the House debate that report and recommendation? Will the Foreign Secretary, whose arguments were rejected by the Committee, take part in that debate to address what was said about him, his advisers and civil servants?

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, before the House rises, we shall have a debate on economic matters, and that the much postponed debate on the royal commission on long-term care will also take place before then?

We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for the dates of the summer recess, but when will she be able to announce the date of the state opening?

I join the right hon. Gentleman and Members on both sides of the House in asking for our sympathy to be conveyed to Lady Whitelaw. Lord Whitelaw was liked, respected and admired in all quarters of the House. He was a most distinguished Leader of the House—that was only part of a distinguished career. I am certain that he will be widely missed throughout the House.

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: the uncertainty to which I referred is events in Ireland, where we cannot clearly anticipate what the needs of the House may be. I am not able to give him any more firm information at present. The Government are, of course, mindful of the need to keep the House informed and we will do our utmost to do so. Any arrangements involved will be discussed through the usual channels.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to ensure the release of the former Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on milk marketing. He will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday. He has already drawn the interest in the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I will also do so. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that these matters are complex and difficult, and that it is only right that the report should be published when proper consideration of its recommendations has been undertaken.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me when the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges would be discussed. A motion will be tabled at the appropriate time, in accordance with the terms of the Committee's recommendations. I cannot give him a time for that at this moment, but I assure him that we are looking for such a time.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that there would be a debate on economic matters. I certainly hope to be able to secure one before the recess. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on long-term care before the summer recess, but I do not rule it out later in the Session.

I associate myself fully with the remarks about Willie Whitelaw. He was a great parliamentarian and a great believer in this place above all.

I remind my right hon. Friend that today is the day of the transfer of functions to both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. We have not had an opportunity to debate how we will handle business in the House of Commons relating to Wales and Scotland. There is an interim report by the Select Committee on Procedure. It is urgent that we debate it, so that the House can clarify hon. Members' position in relation to Welsh and Scottish business. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make time available as soon as possible, so that we may debate and come to a decision on those matters?

I am very aware of the interest that my right hon. Friend has long taken in these matters. We are, of course, aware of the Procedure Committee's report, but I cannot undertake to find time for a very early debate on it. As he will be aware, the situation is developing—the Scottish Parliament, for example, is being opened only today. The Government will respond to the Procedure Committee's report in due course, but I cannot find time in the immediate future for a debate on it.

On behalf of my colleagues, I endorse what has been said about Willie Whitelaw—with whom, as a very new Member, 1 had the pleasure of working in the 1974 Parliament. I had the greatest respect for his talents in this place.

I also endorse the statement that we should have early information on the outcome of the MMC report on the milk retailing industry. May we have an undertaking that a Department of Trade and Industry Minister will participate in Wednesday's debate—so that, even if we do not have the Government's final determination, the Minister might at least hear the very real concerns of all hon. Members representing dairy farmers about the very long delay in reaching a decision?

I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to this morning's judgment in the case of the Department of Health v. Aldridge, concerning specialist cheese production. It raises some very important issues. Will the Secretary of State for Health come before the House to make an early statement on the role of the Food Safety Act 1990, and the emergency control orders deriving from it, in driving out—I do not exaggerate; that will happen if the situation is allowed to get out of control—some of the United Kingdom's most important specialist food producers?

Reports today state that the chaos in the passport office may have been caused partly by preparations to ensure 2000 compliance. If it is true that the millennium bug is part of the cause of the chaos, which is causing so much misery to our constituents, will the right hon. Lady and her team please consider the matter urgently and make it the subject of an early report to the House?

I should first like to use this opportunity to reply to the final question asked by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), on the date of the state opening. I cannot do so now, but hope to do so in the not too distant future. I shall do so as soon as I can.

I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) confirm what has been said on both sides of the House about the late Lord Whitelaw.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether a DTI Minister would participate in next Wednesday's debate. I cannot give him that undertaking. Although the report is a very important matter, the aspects of it that are for the DTI are on competition policy, not on other policy. However, as I told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I undertake to draw the concerns expressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to ask him whether it would be possible for a DTI Minister to attend the debate. I cannot say now whether it will be possible to arrange that, as Ministers have many commitments.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about cheese production. Although I am aware of the concern, as he rightly said the judgment has only just been given. I cannot anticipate whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will wish to make a statement on the matter, but I shall certainly draw the request to his attention.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me—very understandably, after the press reports—whether there is any truth in suggestions that the problems in the passport office have some relationship with the millennium bug. I am assured that the millennium bug has no relationship to the problems at all. The new system was developed to introduce a more secure digital passport, and has no connection in any way, shape or form with the millennium bug. Indeed, the passport office has been processing dates beyond 2000 for many years—as hon. Members will readily appreciate when they realise that passports have a 10-year validity. Such reports are, therefore, yet another piece of scaremongering by people who should know better.

I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing the annual debate on policing in London, which is to take place on 16 July. Although I know that she cannot control events, will she at least try to ensure that that Adjournment debate is not interrupted by a statement at 11 am, as such statements tend to get in the way of things on Fridays? Will she find out through the usual channels who will be speaking for the Conservatives, given that the shadow Home Secretary is from Kent and their London spokesperson is apparently from Oxfordshire?

I am happy to say that I have no responsibility for what the Conservatives choose to do about these matters, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's remarks will have been taken on board. I shall certainly bear in mind what he said about the need to avoid a statement during the debate on policing in London. I am well aware that hon. Members consider it to be an important debate for which they have long sought a suitable day. We are trying to avoid statements on Fridays, but my hon. Friend and the House will understand that it is not always possible. Indeed, sometimes it is for the convenience of the House.

The right hon. Lady will know of my interest in the DTI response to the Milk Marque report. I do not apologise for returning to the issue as it is so vital to the dairy industry and agriculture in general. The right hon. Lady said that it was necessary for the Government to consider fully the MMC report. The normal process is that the Government are given 10 weeks to reach a decision and to report to the House. The report has been with the DTI for 18 weeks, and I believe that the House and the industry have the right to expect the report to be published before the debate next week. Will the right hon. Lady press that forward?

As I have said, I will draw the concern that has been expressed in the House to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has given a commitment that he will seek to publish the report before the summer recess. Whether he can publish it before next week, however, is another matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is normal process that such reports are published after 10 weeks. Having been the relevant Secretary of State, I am not aware of any such rule. Indeed, I inherited a substantial number of reports that had been around for a lot longer than that. Just before the general election, my predecessor informed me that a number of extraordinarily difficult and sensitive issues had been lying on his desk for a number of weeks, and that he proposed to leave them to his successor.

Does not today's news that the majority of the drugs that were donated to Kosovo refugees were either useless or lethal mean that we need an urgent debate on the subject? It follows the case of 11 pregnant Lithuanian women who were temporarily blinded by a drug that had been donated to their country. The instructions were in English only and the drug was intended for animals. Two hundred children in Haiti and Nigeria died after taking donated paracetamol which had been mixed with a toxic substance in the donor country. Should we not investigate the reasons why so many companies gain tax advantages by donating to charities overseas, and avoid the cost of disposing of useless and unwanted drugs in tips at home? Such companies are cynically dumping their problems on people in Kosovo and other third world areas in order to increase their profits.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest and concern in these matters. The whole House will share his anxiety about the reports that we have heard today. He has rightly identified the fact that the problem is widespread and complex, and does not necessarily involve the United Kingdom. Of course, that does not mean that it is not a matter than hon. Members might want to discuss and pursue, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate.

Recalling the late Lord Whitelaw's legendary charge about some politicians going around whipping up apathy, is it really in the Government's interest that their inactivity on long-term care should begin to seem like indecision?

Of course we are not inactive. My right hon. Friends are giving the most careful and thorough consideration to the far-reaching proposals from the royal commission. The right hon. Gentleman and the whole House would wish the Government to undertake such consideration before producing proposals and ideas for discussion. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right. The remark about stirring up apathy is only one of many memorable observations which we all recall with affection from Lord Whitelaw.

Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the Home Office's disgraceful decision to grant draconian new powers to the police to levy spot fines on cyclists, a decision taken without proper consultation and with no debate in the House? Is she aware that Home Office figures show cyclists to be a negligible risk to pedestrians in comparison with the risks posed to pedestrians and cyclists by illegal parking and bad driving? Does she agree that it would be quite unacceptable if the police were to spend valuable time and resources chasing children on bicycles while illegal parking and driving were widely ignored?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern for cyclists, and I appreciate that responsible cyclists have a right to proper treatment by the police and by everyone else. However, my hon. Friend, as a keen defender of cyclists, will condemn those cyclists who are irresponsible and inconsiderate and who are a danger to others, including pedestrians. A public consultation exercise was held before the order was introduced, and a notice cannot be issued to anyone under 16. We hope that the provisions will improve public safety without causing greater disadvantage to cyclists.

I, too, pay tribute to Lord Whitelaw. He was a genial man, and one of the few Cabinet Ministers prepared to apologise publicly for his mistakes, as we heard some time ago during a debate at a Conservative party conference.

Can the Leader of the House assure us that General John de Chastelain's reports will be published, and that hon. Members may have copies before any further debate is held on Northern Ireland? I ask for the reports in the light of an article in today's Evening Standard, which states that Sinead O'Connor, from whom I differ politically and theologically, has refused to appear at the West Belfast festival. She had intended to speak against victimisation and beatings, but her life has been threatened by the IRA. She has pulled out of the festival because she does not want to be a propagandist.

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about Lord Whitelaw.

I take heed of the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland his request for publication of General de Chastelain's report. We all hope that the difficult and delicate issues to which he has referred may be resolved later today.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on institutional reform in the European Union, in which we might highlight links between the British Conservative party and the Italian neo-fascists? We could also raise the fact that a Conservative Commissioner has taken a post with a Spanish telecommunications company while still serving as a Commissioner. May we have an opportunity to impress on the institutions of the EU the need for integrity in public life?

I recognise my hon. Friend's long interest and expertise in European matters. I am aware of the embarrassing discussions held by the Conservatives in their attempts to find—somewhere in the European Parliament—a comfortable home that will satisfy the different wings of their party. They appear to have settled for being half in and half out of the European People's party, but I suspect that they will find that as uncomfortable as sitting on the fence usually is.

Whatever the origins or political party of the retiring Commissioner, the matter raised by my hon. Friend is a matter for the European authorities. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and it may well be felt that there should be rules, such as those that apply here, about how such matters should be handled. If such steps are allowed by the contracts under which European Commissioners serve, as appears to be the case, my hon. Friend will be aware that those contracts were not negotiated by us.

When will the concordats between this place and the National Assembly for Wales be produced? The right hon. Lady referred to the opening of the Scottish Parliament today. The vesting powers have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, but they will be hampered because the concordats have not been produced. Nobody in this place or in the National Assembly for Wales has seen any of them. Without them, the place cannot function. When can we reasonably expect to debate this issue?

I cannot offer time for a debate on the issue in the near future. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is intended to produce concordats, and I will draw his wish for them to be produced speedily to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Welsh questions will be held on Wednesday, and the hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to raise the matter then.

Many of us welcomed the Government's announcement yesterday that they would provide more than £6 million to campaign against domestic violence and to tackle violence against women. However, may I press my right hon. Friend for an early debate on the issue of domestic violence? Throughout the country, a number of organisations that already provide services to women are facing financial difficulties, largely as a result of the withdrawal of funds by health authorities. Can we discuss this matter in the House to look at how we can mesh together the new initiative "Living Without Fear" with the real problems that are facing our constituents and those organisations?

I am aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend, and the welcome that she has given for the document and for the proposals to support the helpline will be shared across the House. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, but my hon. Friend will know that there will be opportunities in various pre-recess debates where she may seek to raise the matter.

The right hon. Lady will know that, earlier this week, an important and thought-provoking report was published—namely, the final report of the urban task force, chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside, entitled "Towards an Urban Renaissance." As these issues raise vital matters of concern not only for people who live in cities and towns, but for those who live in the countryside, will the right hon. Lady look favourably upon an early opportunity—even if it is not before the summer recess—for a full-scale debate on this important issue?

It is one of the issues that I will bear in mind when I look at requests for future debates. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a full-scale debate on the matter in the near future. In fact, we had such a debate fairly recently, although I recognise that it perhaps preceded the publication of the report. The hon. Gentleman might consider talking to his right hon. Friends, who get Opposition time.

Will my right hon. Friend make time for an early debate on our progress in reforming the national lottery so that we can consider the launch today of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—the excellent national fund for talent? Such a debate would allow the House to congratulate a three-way partnership of Harrow council, Harrow arts council and Harrow heritage trust on successfully completing phase 1 of a £1.75 million lottery bid to refurbish Headstone manor, a quite delightful 13th century moated manor house in my constituency.

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the launch of NESTA, and I am delighted to hear of the successful moves in the Harrow partnership. It sounds like a delightful project, and I get the impression that my hon. Friend is extending a welcome to Members of Parliament to go and see what is being done. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, but I am confident that my hon. Friend will continue to use his ingenuity to raise the matter.

On behalf of all my constituents and all the people of Cumbria, may I take this early opportunity to pay a tribute to my predecessor, Willie Whitelaw? I followed in his footsteps, but I do not think that any man could ever aspire to fill his shoes. Today, not only has his family lost a devoted family man, Cumbria its finest ambassador and the Conservative party a true and loyal friend, but the nation has lost a great statesman.

On a business point, will the right hon. Lady please consider holding a debate, at an early opportunity, on how we handle Scottish and Welsh matters?

No doubt, there will a number of opportunities to consider how we handle Scottish and Welsh matters. There is, of course, a report from the Procedure Committee, to which the Government are considering their response. I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter, but I shall lodge the right hon. Gentleman's request with others on the same issue.

The right hon. Lady will remember that, during Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, her right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister responded to questions on the passport office from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House. The Deputy Prime Minister said:

"Today's figures show that the queues are getting shorter."

He said later:

"I am assured that, by 11.30 this morning, the queues had been completely cleared."—[Official Report, 30 June 1999; Vol. 334, c. 341–42.]

Those two statements are demonstrably incorrect. Home Office officials advise that the number queueing has now reached a record high of 565,536 and rising. On television last night, the Home Secretary was shown touring the queues that, only a few hours earlier, his right hon. Friend said had completely disappeared.

In accordance with the code of practice for Ministers, has the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Leader of the House for time to make a personal statement apologising to the House and to the nation for those substantially misleading remarks?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is simply making a point; I cannot believe that he is making a serious request. There may well be a simple, practical reason why queues have reappeared today: on hearing that the queues had substantially diminished, people may have been encouraged to come along to the passport office.

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady's deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, for telling me on Monday that he and the right hon. Lady carefully consider all early-day motions tabled during the week before delivering the business statement. Does the right hon. Lady recall having looked at early-day motion 455, on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque, which I tabled on 19 March?

[That this House notes the extreme difficulties experienced by many in the dairy sector; further notes that these difficulties are being exacerbated by the delay in publication and failure to reach a decision on the outcome of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the milk industry; believes that further indecision on the part of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is damaging the industry; regrets the entirely inadequate reply given by the Leader of the House on this subject to the honourable Member for North Cornwall on 18th March, Official Report, column 1264; andaccordingly calls upon the Secretary of State to publish the report and to make a statement to the House forthwith.]

Did the right hon. Lady bring that early-day motion to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is quite extraordinary that, four months later, we are still awaiting a response. It is not simply a dry matter of competition; it is a matter that affects all the dairy farmers in my constituency and all those working in milk-processing plants in my constituency, of which there are a great number. Will she give us an assurance that the report will be published before the summer recess, and that we will have a chance to discuss it on the Floor of the House?

No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman either of those assurances. As I have already made plain, we have drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the concerns that have been expressed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not saying that it is merely a matter of dry competition. Competition responsibilities are serious ones. The Secretary of State is required to act in a quasi judicial role; that means taking those responsibilities with extreme care and seriousness.

I do, of course, understand the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that they want the report to be published as soon as possible. However, the hon. Gentleman will realise that my right hon. Friend has statutory responsibilities in those matters.

Before the next Government reshuffle, may we have a debate on the processes of government? Has the right hon. Lady had the chance to read the excellent article in today's Evening Standard entitled, "How Prescott and his team took transport for a spin"? Is she aware—or does she deny—that the advisers to the Deputy Prime Minister brief against the Prime Minister? Is she aware that the advisers to the Deputy Prime Minister refer to the Prime Minister's advisers as teenyboppers? Does she not think that, far from being joined-up Government, that is interdepartmental warfare of the worst and most destructive kind?

I am pleased to say that I have not seen the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As for the notion that we should base a Commons debate on it, given the title cited by the hon. Gentleman, it sounds as though it is a less than impartial piece of reporting. Having had some recent experience myself of press reporting that was literally a piece of fiction from start to finish, I do not take it very seriously.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Welsh Assembly plans to report on a proposed lifting of the beef on the bone ban before it rises for its recess? As the majority of Members elected to that Assembly promised in their election manifesto to vote for the lifting of the ban, will the right hon. Lady give me some advice? What is the position of my constituents living right on the Welsh border if they go over the border, buy beef on the bone in Wales and bring it back? The question also applies to innocent travellers from the south of England, who might pass through in their caravans. May we have a clear statement on the position of those living in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom if they commit an act that is legal in one part of the United Kingdom, but prohibited in the three remaining parts?

The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, but it is based on a decision that has yet to be made by the Welsh Assembly, and I do not propose to anticipate that decision.

May we have an early statement from the Home Secretary to clarify Government proposals to resolve the escalating passport crisis? Is the right hon. Lady aware that my constituent Sarah Crisp currently intends to go on honeymoon with her husband-to-be Jonathan Breaks on 7 August; that she applied for her passport in May; that the cheque has been banked; but that she has received no communication to reassure her that her application will soon be processed? Is she aware that, in responding to the debate the other night, Ministers said only that they would move heaven and earth to ensure that people received their passports in time, but that they did not give a categoric pledge that people would receive their passports in time? May we have a statement to enable such a pledge to be made?

Secondly, will the right hon. Lady take account of the genuine and widespread concern that, although Ministers are saying that the passport in person charge will be waived—[Interruption.] No, I do not need to hesitate when asking my questions, unlike the Under-Secretary of State for Defence when he responds to debates.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking rather a long time. Will he put his question now, briefly?

I am grateful for your guidance Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Can the Leader of the House guarantee that, if people have to make an application in person and incur travelling costs in the process, they will be reimbursed for those costs?

All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear in the House, Ministers are doing everything possible to make sure that the problems experienced in the Passport Agency are resolved, and they are extremely mindful of the difficulties that people are experiencing. Any Minister who gave a guarantee that there would never be a mistake in his Department's handling of any issue would be a less than wise Minister, but Ministers are doing all they can to resolve the difficulties.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House to resolve an apparent contradiction between two answers he gave to questions about whether the Security Service is or is not continuing to monitor subversion? On 21 June at column 783, the right hon. Gentleman cast doubt on my assertion that the Security Service was no longer monitoring subversion, but in a written answer yesterday, he asserted that what was said in his Department's booklet about MI5 was still valid— namely, that the Security Service is currently undertaking no investigations into subversion. In view of the failure of intelligence about the riot in the City, which the Home Secretary acknowledged was thought out in advance in a conspiratorial way, is it not important that the House knows whether MI5 is still doing its job in that vital respect?

I have not studied closely the two answers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it seems possible to me that there is no contradiction between them. If I heard him correctly, one answer is that there are no current operations, which is not the same as saying that the Department has given up the role entirely. Although I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate to clarify the matter, if the hon. Gentleman feels that there is confusion, he may find that dropping a line to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a fruitful way of proceeding.

The right hon. Lady will be aware of the long-standing and continued hostility of the Spanish Government towards Gibraltar, and of the way in which the Government steadfastly refused to accept amendments to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 to give Gibraltarians the right to vote in the recent European elections. She is, perhaps, not aware that her Government are now stalling on the issue of a banking passport to Gibraltar, which will, of course, seriously affect the colony's economy. Will she, therefore, grant the House the early opportunity of a debate on Gibraltar so that we can discuss all those matters and more besides, which are published in the excellent report of the Foreign Affairs Committee?

I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future. I am aware of the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, and I know that the report is being studied carefully and there will be a Government response in due course. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that Foreign Office questions will be tabled on Tuesday, and he might seek to get the matter on to the Order Paper by that means.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred to a Commissioner as being a Conservative. I should like the House to know, for the record, that Commissioner Bangemann is a Liberal.

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak to the motion. I can understand one reason why it was tabled. However, in business questions, in response to a question about beef on the bone, the Leader of the House suggested that, because no decision had been made about that, she would make no assumptions. I was taught always to be very careful about conditional sentences, and the motion is conditional. Many years ago, a professor told me that, if a cow had a long enough tail, it would reach the moon. He stressed the word, "if".

I have had no instructions from Belfast, but I am mindful of a report on Sky Television on Tuesday evening, when Adam Boulton said that Northern Ireland questions would be asked in the House the next day, and English, Scottish and Welsh Members would participate but all the Northern Ireland Members were in the Castle buildings in Belfast. You and the House will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that five Northern Ireland Members were present yesterday, seeking to handle that business. However, if a statutory instrument on a Northern Ireland matter were to come before the House today, it is doubtful, because of the events in Belfast, that anyone from Northern Ireland would be present in the Chamber. In the light of the continuing discussions, I should have thought that it would be wiser to leave such business until another day.

I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I simply say to him that this is a classic example of an enabling motion. By moving it, the Government do not commit ourselves or the House to further action but, if we do not move it, we will be unable to take action if it is requested. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that, if an agreement were to be reached, the House would want to proceed in that manner, and unless we move the motion, we will not be in a position to do so.

I am very pleased to open this debate about people in defence. At Defence questions last week, I did not have the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to the Opposition Front Bench. I take this opportunity to do so. I hope that he has an enjoyable time as an Opposition spokesman and that he enjoys longevity in opposition, so that he can be completely fulfilled in his role.

I am sure that the House will agree that the men and women of our armed forces, and those who support them, are a tremendous national asset. The people who make up our armed forces make an enormous contribution to Britain's place in the world. I want this afternoon to pay tribute to the dedication, professionalism and commitment of all who serve in our armed forces. We have long known about those qualities. In the past 14 weeks in the Balkans, our forces have demonstrated them to people not only in this country but worldwide. I have every confidence that our forces will continue to display those qualities in any task that we set them in future.

We all know the danger that is involved in the tasks that our forces are currently carrying out in the Balkans. I know that the whole House will want to join me in sending condolences to the loved ones of Lieutenant Evans and Sergeant Balaram, the two Gurkhas who were killed—helping others—in the tragic accident in Kosovo last week.

When we announced the results of our strategic defence review last year, we stated our belief that, as a leading member of the international community and a trading nation, we have a responsibility to be involved on the world stage. That is why we continue to have worldwide interests, worldwide responsibilities and worldwide influence. The British people want our diplomatic and military activities on the world stage to pursue not only what is in our direct interest but what is right. Those are the objectives of this Government.

Recently, of course, the focus has been on Kosovo. The air campaign there was an outstanding success for the alliance as a whole and for the UK. Credit is due to all those involved, but particularly to the RAF pilots who put their lives at risk day and night in the cause of humanity and who flew some 10 per cent. of the total strike sorties flown by NATO. The focus has now turned to operations on the ground in Kosovo. We have some 8,500 troops in Kosovo, with a further 2,200 in Macedonia. The speed at which they were deployed will stand as a lasting tribute to the efficiency and professionalism of all those involved. The fact that our armed forces were the first into Kosovo in significant numbers demonstrates that, if there is a job to be done, they will not shy away from doing it.

The Minister has just commented on the remarkable achievement of our forces in moving so quickly into Kosovo. Will he therefore tell the House why he is breaking up Fifth Airborne Brigade—the only brigade headquarters capable of mounting an operation at seven days' notice—and merging it with a lower-readiness formation?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the changes that we are making aim to modernise our armed forces and to put them in a position where they can deploy in a ready and usable manner. That is why that change has been made. We have had exchanges on the details of that change on many occasions in Committee and in the House.

Our troops in Kosovo are involved in a variety of tasks, but the dangers have not deterred the colleagues of Lieutenant Evans and Sergeant Balaram in any way. Indeed, for many, it has made them even more determined, and I have no doubt that their tasks will be carried out with the same level of commitment and the skill that their Air Force colleagues demonstrated. Our troops are helping, in very difficult conditions, to create an environment where all people, whatever their ethnic background, can live together in safety and peace. That is a task for which the abilities of the UK's armed forces are second to none.

Our forces are engaged in many other places across the globe. At the last count, there were almost 30 separate deployments of British forces. More than 63,000 men and women are undertaking tasks in locations ranging from Latvia to South Africa, and from Sierra Leone to Singapore.

Examples of those tasks include the five military personnel in Romania who are helping the country to draw up its new defence strategy and run training courses, and the eight-person military advisory training team in Sierra Leone. I can announce today that we are sending two military liaison officers to the United Nations mission in East Timor. They will form part of the continued deployment of civilian police officers and military personnel who are being sent to East Timor to assist the ballot on the future of the island in August that is being organised by the UN. Such deployments show the breadth and width of the tasks that are carried out by our armed forces in their numerous postings all over the world.

Having read out the list of countries, does the Minister accept that the British Army is suffering severe overstretch?