Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the week after the House returns from the Christmas recess?

The business for the first week after the Christmas recess is as follows:

MONDAY 8 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Homes Bill.

Motion relating to the Electoral Commission.

TUESDAY 9 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.

WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill.

THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day—Half-Day—Second Part]. There will be a debate on the Sixth Report from the Science and Technology Committee on Cancer Research: A Fresh Look, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Details will be given in the Official Report.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration at 4 o'clock.

FRIDAY 12 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

MONDAY 15 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill.

The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 17 January, there will be a debate relating to sport in European Standing Committee C.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall during January 2001 will be as follows:

THURSDAY 11 JANUARY—Debate on energy and other non-food crops.

THURSDAY 18 JANUARY—Debate on the Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee on the Greening Government initiative.

THURSDAY 25 JANUARY—Debate on Meeting the Basic Skills Challenge.

[Thursday 11 January:Relevant documents: A Fresh Look (HC 332) and the Government's response thereto (Cmnd 4928]

I thank the Leader of the House. Following the Second Reading and programme motion on the Hunting Bill yesterday, there will be just one day of Committee on the Floor of the House for consideration of the Bill. Is she able to tell us the date on which that will take place? Many Members will want to clear their diaries so that they can participate in that important debate.

May we have a debate in Government time early in the new year on the intelligence services? That would be most welcome, not least to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Will the right hon. Lady request a statement in the new year from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the guidance given by the Government, which might have influenced the method of operation of the board of Equitable Life? Given that the Treasury's insurance directorate suspended that guidance two days after the House of Lords judgment on Equitable Life, the House will want to question the Chancellor, not least because there might have been a duty of care that could result in compensation to policyholders.

In conclusion, I wish the Leader of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. Members a happy Christmas and, I hope, an interesting new year.

I seem to remember that "may you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse. I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes, and return them to her, to all hon. Members from every party, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the staff of the House.

I cannot tell the hon. Lady when the day on the Floor of the House for consideration of the Hunting Bill is likely to be, but we shall try to give Members as much notice as we can. I take her point.

I also take note of her request for a debate on the intelligence services, and we shall undertake to discuss that through the usual channels.

Guidance that might have influenced Equitable Life is primarily a matter for the Financial Services Authority, particularly at this stage. It is my understanding that the authority has been asked to examine the matter and report. As that information comes together, the House will no doubt have opportunities to raise the matter in different ways.

Is it possible to have a debate on international affairs in the first or second week after the recess, especially about the serious situation in the middle east in its widest sense? That includes the Palestine-Israel conflict, the serious problems in Turkey and the problems between Turkey and its neighbours because of the damming of major rivers, which is resulting in water shortages in neighbouring countries? Does my, right hon. Friend accept that the problems in the middle east could lead to a wider escalation of the conflict, and that it would be useful if the House had an opportunity to discuss them?

As ever, pressure on time for debates on the Floor of the House will be fairly tight early in the new year, because the Government will want to make progress with legislation. Members have already expressed wishes to discuss matters with which it has not been possible to deal before the Christmas recess. However, I note my hon. Friend's request. As he probably knows, questions to the Foreign Secretary will take place on 23 January; and the subject that he has raised is also particularly suitable for debate in Westminster Hall.

Will the Leader of the House make time available at the earliest opportunity for debate on a subject that is of great concern to Londoners—the future of the Government's part-privatisation proposals for London Underground? If the public-private partnership is to be ditched, Parliament would like to discuss that.

Will the right hon. Lady also provide time for a debate on the fiasco that has been the selection process for the national lottery? Such a debate would give the Government an opportunity to explain why they have chosen to abandon their manifesto pledge of a not-for-profit lottery.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, negotiations and discussions on the future of London Underground are continuing, and the Government will be seeking the best-value approach. As far as I am aware there is nothing to report so far, but no doubt the matter will come to the House in a variety of ways in the future.

I do not immediately see a logical thread linking the national lottery with London Underground, but never mind. We said in our manifesto that the Government would seek to identify a not-for-profit provider, and it is clear that a study has been undertaken. It is equally clear that the not-for-profit bidder has not yet been able to satisfy those whose purpose is to judge the bidder's case.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deferred voting system that we have used for the past two weeks has been a great success? Its operation has been straightforward, and it has produced clear-cut results. It is a very simple system, which I am sure appeals to Members on both sides of the House. However, does not the fact that only a handful of Members have voted against some motions suggest that the House's time has been abused in the past by small numbers of mavericks who have forced unnecessary votes in the early hours?

I know that the deferred voting system is a source of disagreement in various parts of the House, but I agree that it has already proved its worth. On the second of the two occasions on which we have used it, voting could have taken three hours on the Floor of the House, without a minute of debate.

All Members are well aware that many issues on which votes could take place are not contentious across the House. As my hon. Friend says, on a number of such issues only a handful of Members wish to express a view. I think the House will, in time, accept that, while it is of course right for Members to have an opportunity to debate issues, it is not practical to keep tens, if not hundreds, of others hanging around just to exploit the use of time.

Last week, the Leader of the House said in answer to a question from me that there were no present ambiguities in the European defence imbroglio. Was that a subjective statement on her part, or an objective statement on behalf of the Government?

I think that most of my statements, and indeed most statements made in the House, are subjective. I am aware that there are those who claim to be objective human beings, but I cannot say I have ever met one.

Will there be a chance to debate today's award of a contract to BAE Systems to build type 45 destroyers? We need a debate because it seems that Vosper Thornycroft has been excluded from participating in the contract, which comes as serious news for Southampton and Portsmouth. We would like to be able to debate the matter sensibly in the House in the near future.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I am not aware of the particular arrangements that he is describing. I also understand his wish on behalf of his constituents—no doubt other hon. Members will join him—to have the issue aired, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate on the issue on the Floor of the House. However, the far greater opportunities available in Westminster Hall may be attractive to him. Furthermore—depending, of course, on Mr. Speaker's view—my hon. Friend might find an opportunity to raise the issue in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, on Tuesday.

May I introduce an unseasonal note? Could the Foreign Secretary be asked, over Christmas and new year, to prepare to come to the House to make a statement on the case of the British citizen, Krishna Maharaj, who was sentenced to death 13 years ago, on a seven to five verdict, and whose appeal has been turned down by the Florida supreme court? The Foreign Secretary will have received a letter from Clive Stafford-Smith, of the Justice Centre, who says that Krishna Maharaj is the most likely of the 300 cases taken up by the centre to be innocent. It is not an issue that can be debated now, as I cannot apply for an urgent debate. However, the work is urgent.

The alternatives are to ask the Florida supreme court to waive the death penalty, repatriation or to allow a 62-year-old man to go through another 13 years of appeals at the federal level. As the trial judge was taken away in shackles after being accused of taking bribes in another case, there is significant doubt not only about the process, but about Krishna Maharaj's guilt.

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, and it clearly is a case of some concern. I have no doubt that he has already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who, I am sure, will take the matter very seriously. However, I do not feel that it would be right, at this moment—when my right hon. Friend might only just have received the hon. Gentleman's letter—to suggest that he make a statement to the House on the case. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find other ways of raising the issue.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 61, which deals with working on Christmas day? It states:

[That this House cherishes Christmas Day as a special day, particularly for families and children, and welcomes the campaign by USDAW, the shopworkers' union, on behalf of the 2.6 million shopworkers of United Kingdom; regrets that many shops remain open on Christmas Day because employers put undue pressure on shop workers to abandon their family responsibilities on this important religious and public holiday; notes that the vast majority of shop workers are parents who should be able to spend Christmas with their children; notes that current law offers no protection to such workers when Christmas Day does not fall on a Sunday; further notes that Christmas is an extremely busy and stressful period for shop workersand believes that they deserve at least one day off; and calls on the Government to protect shopworkers on Christmas Day.]

May I also draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the petition introduced earlier this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), and the petition that I shall introduce later today? Is she aware that many people working in shops in Britain have no legal protection against having to work on Christmas day unless it falls on a Sunday? Is it not time that we had a debate in Government time on the issue? We have a whole year before next Christmas to ensure that people are not forced to work on Christmas day and that they can spend time with their families.

I understand, of course, the concerns expressed both by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who, as she said, has tabled the early-day motion. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand those concerns and might wish to air the issue. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in Government time. May I, once again, recommend to her the attractions of Westminster Hall?

The right hon. Lady will recall my raising, last week, the High Court decision on the planning powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I understand that the Government have appealed against the decision, so there the matter must rest for the time being. However, I believe that the issue is part of a wider problem. Will the Leader of the House find time reasonably quickly in the new year to have a debate in the House on the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998, which certainly seems to have the effect of requiring the courts to move in mysterious ways?

From memory—I hope that the House will bear with me, because I am speaking only from memory—I did not think that the decision had very much to do with the Human Rights Act. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: as I suspected last week, the Government have decided to appeal, which means that it is a matter for the courts. As things settle down and time passes, it is likely that fewer stories will be linked to the Human Rights Act when there is only a tenuous or disputed connection.

I well remember hearing a report the other day—I do not recall the precise case—in which it was claimed that there was a dispute with the Human Rights Act. I heard a very cross interviewer continuing to ask the interviewee, "Isn't this because it has fallen foul of the Human Rights Act", to which the answer was, "No." When things settle down and there is a little less hysteria about the Act, we will know better where we stand.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of Labour Members would like to debate the fact that the facilities of the House of Commons are being used to host gatherings of a right-wing grouping that publishes racist and anti-semitic material in its magazine, "Right Now"? Is she also aware that speakers at the meetings have included the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and that regular attenders include self-confessed racists and former National Front activists?

In the absence of any attempt to cleanse the Conservative party of racism, what procedural advice can my right hon. Friend offer hon. Members who do not believe that racism should be given house room in this, the mother of Parliaments?

I was not aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has identified, nor of the organisation to which he refers and which he describes. However, I can tell him that any hon. Member who comes across evidence indicating a misuse of the House's facilities should convey that information to the House authorities. They will then look into the matter.

The Leader of the House will know that fishing communities around the United Kingdom face a winter of crisis and a very depressing time following the recent Fisheries Council meeting. Pursuant to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which appears at column 809 of Hansard for 14 December, is she any closer to fixing a date for the promised fisheries debate? In particular, does she recognise that it is urgent that she find time for that debate, so that the House can have an input to Ministers before the cod recovery programme is debated in Europe on 18 January?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I had not forgotten what I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed from the business that I announced earlier, we have not yet identified a suitable opportunity for that debate, but I am mindful of the wish that it be held. Indeed, that was part of what I had in mind when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) a few moments ago that, for perfectly reasonable reasons, there is a good deal of pressure on Government time in the new year. I have not forgotten the commitment that was made, and we are looking for ways to honour it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 101, dealing with the payment of fees by volunteers to the Criminal Records Bureau? It states:

[That this House welcomes the decision of the Scottish Parliament that criminal record checks for volunteers working with children in Scotland will be free; notes with regret that volunteers in England and Wales will still be required to pay £10 for identical checks to be made with the Criminal Records Bureau in the coming year; and urges the Government to emulate the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament.]

Will she arrange for a debate on this issue in the Chamber? Many voluntary and children's organisations fully support measures to protect children, which require that adults with unsupervised access to children must undergo a criminal records check. However, that costs money, and organisations in the voluntary sector are concerned about the impact of those costs on the volunteers whom they deploy. We need a debate on this matter to see whether some flexibility can be found in the regime, so that voluntary organisations are not unduly disadvantaged and so that volunteers are not put off from taking part in work with children in this country?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these issues, and that he chairs the all-party group dealing with voluntary organisations. I am aware, too, of the great interest that exists across the House in the matter. My hon. Friend will know that no announcement has yet been made about the exact arrangements involved. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but many opportunities are open to hon. Members to keep up pressure on the Government until the relevant decisions are announced.

The Leader of the House has nominated the Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill for 15 January. Can she confirm that that is the first Bill to emerge from the tax law rewrite exercise? Will she ensure that, on Second Reading, Ministers couch their remarks in such a way that they touch on the more general work of the Joint Committee and on the wider question of tax simplification? Will she describe what further stages the Bill will go through after Second Reading?

First, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is right: the Bill is the first fruit of the tax law rewrite project, which I believe he was instrumental in initiating when he was a Treasury Minister. I am aware, too, that it is part of an on-going project of simplification, and that there has been pressure from hon. Members of all parties to make progress on these issues.

I cannot at the moment give the right hon. Gentleman any further information about how the Bill will proceed after Second Reading, or at what pace, but no doubt he will be able to seek that information through the usual channels.

With regard to future programming and votes on the Hunting Bill, did the right hon. Lady notice that something quite interesting happened last night? The West Lothian question was a dog that did not bark in the night—or rather, it just squeaked. Only six of her colleagues from Scotland voted on Second Reading last night. Therefore, most Scottish Members have taken the very correct attitude that they should not vote on matters that affect only England. To do so would be as insensitive as crashing around a neighbour's house and taking down the pictures without letting that person into one's own house.

The right hon. Lady knows how much I admire her. Will she now put her name into the history books and proclaim the Beckett convention—that Scottish Members should not generally vote on matters that solely concern England?

No, I am afraid that I will not. As for the West Lothian question not being a dog that barked, I should have thought that baying was a more appropriate term on this occasion.

I am aware of the argument put by Conservative Members, and have long believed that they have not fully thought it through. After all, it is not at all clear what their candidates in Scotland and Wales will say at the next election. Perhaps an appropriate slogan would be, "Vote for me and I will do half the job that everyone else at Westminster is doing."

As the hon. Gentleman will know, during the quite long periods in which the Conservative party was in favour of devolution, it took the view that there should not be two different classes of Member of Parliament at Westminster. That remains the view of this Government. He will also know that in the long periods in which there was devolved government at Stormont, the previous Government relied quite heavily on the votes of Northern Ireland Members.

The right hon. Lady will be aware, following press reports at the weekend, if not before, that a ministerial group has been set up informally to examine why 100,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in the past year and why the unemployment rate is rising in the north-east, the north-west and the east and west midlands. Clearly, the Government have some political concern because unemployment is going up in areas that are more heavily represented by Labour Members. As a ministerial group has been established, may we have a statement from a member of the group to explain which of the Government's policies the group believes is responsible for the increase in manufacturing unemployment?

I know that the whole House is concerned about unemployment, particularly in manufacturing. It is perfectly understandable. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman identifies only the concerns about unemployment; he does not mention that the group will look, I feel confident, at other issues, such as how we have managed to succeed in increasing investment in manufacturing for the first time in many years and to increase exports for the first time for some time. The group will consider a range of manufacturing issues.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government are concerned and wish to work with industry to see whether they can take any steps to deal with difficulties that the industry faces. He is also right that some jobs are being lost although not, of course, at anything like the rate at which they were lost under the previous Government, and it is true that many such jobs are in parts of the country represented by Labour Members. However, I am happy to say that as a result of the last election, there is Labour representation in all parts of the country.

I remind the right hon. Lady that I am joint chairman of the Middle Way Group, which supports a compromise solution on hunting with dogs and gained the support of the Home Secretary yesterday. Does she understand that there is genuine concern about whether it is possible to deal with the complexities of the three issues in a single day on the Floor of the House? Will she use her very best endeavours to ensure that no ministerial statements are made on that day?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that a day is insufficient. The House will make a broad judgment on the options. I think that most right hon. and hon. Members are already perfectly well aware to which option they incline. It will then be for the House to continue later with further and more detailed discussion. I believe that last night my right hon. Friend cited the precedent of the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which contained many more, and more complicated, options.

I was against that too.

If the hon. Gentleman was against that too, he has the merit of consistency. However, it does not alter the fact that that was thought sufficient time by the Government he supported to debate a number of options in exactly the way that this Government propose. However, I take his point. He will know that we are continually being pressed to make even more statements than we do, but we are mindful that there are particular days on which we seek to avoid cutting into debate time, and I will bear that in mind. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking, but I am conscious of his point.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Health, following the disturbing news from the authorities at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, which serves my constituency, that they contemplate requiring an additional consent form from patients about to undergo surgery so as to absolve the hospital of responsibility and blame for any problems that might arise due to inadequate facilities or hygiene? Is not that disturbing news that might have implications throughout the country?

The hon. Gentleman perfectly legitimately makes what he clearly feels is an important constituency point. I am not familiar with the details, as he will anticipate. Although I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the matter, he is in the Chamber and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries and, should they confirm the concern he has just expressed, he may find an opportunity to raise the matter on 10 January when we debate the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the planning system? In two villages in my constituency, large former mental institutions are currently being redeveloped—mainly for housing. One is in Calderstones, near Whalley, and the other is in Whittingham. If both developments take place, they will alter dramatically the character of the nearby villages; in Whittingham, 950 houses are being considered.

The Government have introduced PPG3; we want to test how effective that is in ensuring that residents and local and parish councils can defend the interests of villages against wholesale development. If the guidelines are not effective, perhaps further guidelines will be necessary to protect those villages. The best Christmas and new year present that we could receive from the Government would be for them to ensure that the PPGs are effectively tightened to give better protection to local people against the influx of extra housing.

Of course, I am aware of such developments—they take place in many constituencies, including mine, and sometimes cause concern. From what he says, the matter would appear to be rather more for the local authority than for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, if on mature consideration, the hon. Gentleman comes to the view that it raises issues about the nature of planning guidance, although I cannot promise him a debate I remind him that there will be questions to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 16 January.

Can the Leader of the House promise us a statement during the first week after the break on the continuing crisis of confidence in the sub-post office network? We were told that there was to be an announcement about the universal bank before Christmas—that does not seem to have occurred. The outcome of the lottery decision is unlikely to benefit the Post Office. The bottom has fallen out of the sub-post office market. What are the Government going to do about that? Does not this crisis demand a statement during the first week back?

Discussions are continuing about how best we can safeguard the rural post office network. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the matter as one of considerable difficulty—not least, of course, because of the way in which the Conservative Government, whom he supported, bled the Post Office white over so many years, ensuring that it had no resources for investment, which had a bad effect on the whole network. The Labour Government will certainly do their best to protect and to save the network. However, although the matter is of concern and Ministers continue to work with the relevant authorities to do what we can to assist, the hon. Gentleman says nothing that suggests to me the need for an urgent statement in the new year.

I want to raise a matter that there was no chance to highlight at Agriculture questions. Given that the pig industry has been losing up to £4 million a week and that, over the past two years alone, 25,000 people have left the sector altogether, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is important to have a statement from the Government, as a matter of urgency, to confirm that they intend to review the proposed operation of the integrated pollution prevention controls and to confirm that they will not be applied in a way that militates against the British sector relative to our continental counterparts? Finally, will the right hon. Lady take it from me that if such a statement is forthcoming, it will be received by my constituent, Mr. James King of Cowley farm, Preston Bissett in Buckingham, as an extremely welcome wedding present?

I am sure that that is a worthwhile reason for the Government to take such a major step. As the hon. Gentleman who is a regular attender at business questions, will recall, the matter has been raised frequently over recent months. We are conscious of the problems in the pig industry and the Government have provided special help to it.

The hon. Gentleman raises the particular issue of the IPPC. It is my recollection that the Prime Minister has been discussing the issues with the National Farmers Union. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman time for further discussions or statements on that matter, but I can and will undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

May I renew my request to the Leader of the House for a statement or debate on the folly of a European army, particularly as it has now been described by a likely future assistant to President-elect Bush as a dagger pointed at the heart of NATO? While we are on the subject of President-elect Bush, does the right hon. Lady agree that the result of the US presidential election shows that to achieve an electoral victory it is not enough for a party to have had at its head a sharp-suited but shallow individual?

I rather think that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question was a boomerang.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of defence and the conversations about the European rapid reaction force. I note that he moved from people in a previous American Administration to likely future assistants to the new Administration, which is a matter of concern. No doubt this Government and other European Governments will be anxious—as will the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson—to reassure the incoming American Administration about the facts of what is proposed in the European context, and that it is not in any way a risk to NATO. As for the lessons to be learned from the American election, they are many—not least that those who say that it makes no difference whether people vote have learned a sharp lesson.

Does the Leader of the House share my concern at the reported loss of 24,000 agricultural jobs per annum? Four hundred and fifty people are drifting from the land every week. Will the right hon. Lady arrange an early statement or debate to discuss employment and training opportunities and assess what special assistance can be given to people who have lost their jobs?

I am indeed aware of what the hon. Gentleman rightly identified as a drift from the land. He will know that, although I do not take it lightly, that trend has occurred over generations, not just recent years. I do understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and he knows that the Government have worked hard, and will continue to do so, with representatives of the farming community to assist with what is certainly—the Government do not seek to disguise it—a continuing and serious crisis in agriculture. We will continue to try to identify a way forward, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be part of those discussions, particularly in relation to the part of the Province that he represents.

rose—

Order. I note that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) is standing. I like to be generous, particularly at this time of year, but he must be able to hear what the Leader of the House has to say. I might have called the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot because he was not present to listen to the statement by the Leader of the House.

I was collecting information that has only just become available which was relevant to the request that I intended to make to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was therefore unavoidably absent from the Chamber.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's difficulty about that, but when one is a Back Bencher, one has to try to find other ways to make a point.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper, "Adoption: a new approach", which I am publishing today.

Every child should have the best possible start in life. As a country with one of the largest economies in the world, we should be aiming to provide opportunities for all children, whatever their backgrounds. The Government have a special responsibility to ensure that every child in our society has the opportunity to grow up in a stable and secure family. That is why we have taken action to lift more than a million children out of poverty, to raise child benefit by record levels and to increase support to families through the working families tax credit. In all, we are spending an extra £6 billion each year in real terms on financial support for children. It is also why we have taken action to strengthen safeguards for children, with new legislation, new resources and new programmes, such as the sure start and quality protects schemes. Together, those two programmes alone will provide investment of more than £1.8 billion over the next three years in services helping some of the most vulnerable children in the country.

Ultimately, stable families and strong communities provide the foundations for a fair society. Children do best when they grow up in a stable, loving family. When children cannot live with their birth parents, we have a shared responsibility to make sure that they can enjoy the loving family life that most of us take for granted.

As every hon. Member knows, the opportunity to grow up in a stable family environment has not been properly extended to looked-after children who, for one reason or another, cannot live with their birth families. It is not only the children who have lost out; society as a whole has paid a heavy price for that failure. At any one time, local councils look after 58,000 children. Seven in 10 of them leave care at 16 without a single qualification. Almost four in 10 male prisoners under 21 have been looked after at some stage in their lives; 25 per cent. of the people sleeping rough on the streets of London have been in care. That is not a failure of the child in care; it is a failure of the system of care.

Those children, perhaps above all others, need the safety, stability and loving care of a permanent new family, and they need that stability as quickly as humanly possible. That is not the case at present. Children stay in the care system far longer than they should. More than 28,000 children have been in care continuously for more than two years. Too often, despite the best intentions of all involved, they are passed from pillar to post inside that system. Nearly one in five looked-after children have three or more placements in a single year—some have six or more. For those children, the care system does not provide the stability that they need to overcome their troubled past and build a successful future. Those children need a better chance in life. They deserve a better deal.

Adoption can provide just such a new start in life for a looked-after child. Too often, adoption has been seen as a last resort when it should have been considered as a first resort. In some councils, 10 per cent. of looked-after children are adopted; in others, less than 1 per cent. are. As adoption services are run on a local basis, children and adoptive parents can miss the chance that adoption brings. Overall, the system, including the courts, can be slow, cumbersome and unfair. Of course, the safety of every child should be of paramount concern, but, on average, children are waiting almost a year and a half before it is decided that adoption is best for them. Even after a decision is taken that they can be adopted, they wait longer still. Overall, the average time taken to adopt a looked-after child is three years—an eternity in a child's eyes.

People who want to adopt children from the care system need a better deal as well. We are short of adoptive parents, but the system deters people from adopting; it is slow, intrusive and sometimes simply inappropriate. There have been cases, as all hon. Members know, of potential adopters who have been told that they cannot adopt simply because they are too old or too middle class. Such blanket bans can have only one effect—they fail to put the needs of children first. Families who adopt children overwhelmingly do a brilliant job for those children. It is not an easy job, because many of the children are not easy. They and their adoptive parents deserve more support. Adoption services and adoption laws are in need of reform. The Adoption Act 1976 is based on legislation that dates back to 1958, and is inconsistent with the Children Act 1989.

In February this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched a thorough review of adoption. He commissioned the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office to consider the evidence and make recommendations for action. The report was published for consultation on 7 July this year. It found that there was clear scope for many more looked-after children to be adopted. The Prime Minister made it clear in July that the Government accepted some of its key recommendations. In particular, he announced that new legislation would be introduced next year.

The White Paper that I am publishing today outlines the most radical overhaul of adoption law and practice in 25 years. New legislation will seek to place children's safety, welfare, and interests at the heart of the adoption process. It will link adoption more closely with the principles of the Children Act 1989, and extend the options that courts have to secure a permanent family life for looked-after children. A new special guardianship order will be created for those children who want a more legally secure permanent family than can be delivered through foster care or residence orders, but who do not want to sever all legal ties with their birth family.

A clearer legal duty will be placed on local councils to plan for and provide comprehensive support services for adoptive families. Families who adopt children will be entitled to have their needs for support services properly assessed. They will have access to a comprehensive package of post-adoption support, including adoption allowances, in a way that is more consistent across the country. We are already consulting on introducing paid leave for adoptive parents, and for potential adopters whose application is rejected we will introduce a new right to an independent review.

Local councils and voluntary adoption agencies will need to make substantial improvements to their adoption services. Some are already doing so. Last year, the number of adoptions rose from 2,200 to 2,700, but much more needs to be done. New resources will be made available to produce better results. The Government will provide £66 million of investment for local authorities over the next three years to help transform adoption services for children. In exchange for this investment, I will expect to see clear improvements in performance.

In future, we expect the majority of councils to do what the minority are already successfully doing: working collaboratively with other councils and voluntary adoption agencies. Council performance on adoption will be more rigorously monitored, not least through the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission. If a council is persistently failing to deliver, I will not hesitate to use my intervention powers to transfer its adoption services to another agency.

An adoption register for England and Wales will be established. It will match children with adoptive parents across the country when a local family cannot be found or when a child needs to move away from the local area. I am today issuing invitations to tender for the new register, with a view to its becoming operational next summer.

The courts, too, will need to improve their performance. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been looking carefully at the causes of delays in dealing with children's cases. The White Paper sets out how we will speed up adoption cases. In the coming year, the Lord Chancellor's Department will increase the number of judges specially trained to deal with family work, and make better use of the available expertise. It will set up pilots to evaluate the benefits of concentrating adoption work in specialist adoption courts with experienced judges and court staff. It will also work with the president of the family court division on guidance to courts on better case management and take further steps to improve the way in which the courts deal with adoption cases.

Next year, too, the new children and family court advisory and support service—CAFCASS—will be set up, bringing together services for children in one comprehensive agency, allowing them better to meet the needs of children.

However, these changes in local courts and in local councils will not, by themselves, be enough to bring about the step change in adoption services that children need. Today, therefore, I am also publishing for consultation the first ever set of national adoption standards. They will help to drive up the standards of service for children and adoptive parents in all parts of the country. The standards set challenging new targets to speed up adoption processes.

Six months after being looked after continuously, every looked-after child will have an agreed plan for permanence. That might cover efforts to rehabilitate a child with their birth family, but if adoption is the plan for permanence, suitable adoptive parents should be found within a further six months That will be a major improvement on the current position and will almost halve the average time that it takes to find an adoptive family for a child. For foster carers who want to adopt a child, and if it is in the child's best interest for that to happen, we will go further still. Applications by foster carers who want to adopt a child in their care will be processed in just three months.

The standards will also set out how prospective adopters will be welcomed and treated in an open and fair way. There will be no blanket bans on people because of their age, health or other factors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] For example, it is clear that the best family for a child is one who reflect their birth heritage—we certainly need to do much more to recruit adopters from diverse ethnic backgrounds—but no child should be denied loving adoptive parents solely on the grounds that the child and the parents have different racial or cultural backgrounds. The child's interest—their safety and well-being—will be the crucial factor in determining their adoptive parents. I hope that the measures will help us to treat and support adopters better so that we can attract more people successfully to adopt more children.

It is right that we are ambitious for looked-after children and for prospective families. There is no shortage of children who are looking for a stable and loving permanent family. A 1999 report for my Department found that 2,400 children were waiting to be adopted and 1,300 adopters were waiting for children. Adoption must become a first-choice option for looked-after children who cannot return home. Therefore, the White Paper sets a new national target to deliver a minimum 40 per cent. increase in lasting adoptions by 2005, although I hope that the measures that I have outlined today will help us to achieve a 50 per cent. increase over that period. Our aim must be to give many hundreds more looked-after children the chance to live as a permanent member of a stable, secure and, above all else, loving new family.

Children get only one chance to grow up. A looked-after child should have the same life chance as any other child. They should have an opportunity to belong, to have a stake and to get on in life. For too long, too many have been denied that and have been the innocent victims of a system that has failed to meet their needs to provide a permanent and secure loving family. It is a failure that we would not tolerate for ourselves; we would certainly not tolerate it for our own children, and we should not tolerate it for other children. The reforms to adoption that I have announced will transform the life chances of hundreds, hopefully thousands, of children. They deserve no less. I commend the proposals to the House.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that statement and, for the second time in two days, for making a copy of his statement available to the Opposition in advance.

Those of us who have worked professionally with the social services and have experience of the adoption process wholeheartedly welcome the announcement. We often say that children are the most vulnerable members of our society, but looked-after children are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. Therefore, as the Secretary of State said, it is extremely important that they are given the chance to experience a stable and loving environment out of what is too often a failure of the care environment.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will strongly welcome many of the proposals. It would be outwith the spirit of the season if I did not congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on his hard work. It happens in politics that the boss gets to steal the glory much of the time, but I am sure that the House will want to pay tribute to his contribution.

There is a general feeling among those involved in the adoption process that far too little importance is given to the child at the centre of the adoption, and far too much to the bureaucracy, the system and other people surrounding the child. That is the central thrust of today's statement, but I should like the Secretary of State to expand on one or two of the items that he mentioned.

I welcome the concept of the national register, especially if, as I hope, I am correct in assuming that national objective criteria will set out the qualifications for being an adoptive or fostering parent, that they will be the same throughout the whole United Kingdom, and that they will form the basis of any appeal that might arise. Standardisation is one of the most important factors in encouraging parents to come forward. Currently, because standards are so varied throughout the country, people fear that they will be subject to local prejudice and other factors, so many are dissuaded from coming forward to give children the chance of a stable home. Only this week, we had brought to our attention the case of a couple who, because they had applied for IVF, were told that they were unsuitable to adopt. That is a disgrace and something that the whole House would strongly deprecate.

I welcome the concept of permanence, as set out by the Secretary of State. As he knows, during discussions on the Care Standards Bill we urged that provision be made to ensure that, after a period in care, children would automatically go forward for adoption. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has set out a constructive version of that theme, which we welcome, but will he consider making another provision for which we asked when we considered that Bill? Will he provide access to some mechanism to ensure that children maintain contact with groups outside the care environment before they start out on the process of adoption? As the right hon. Gentleman says, the adoption process is difficult and time-consuming for the children involved; if they were enabled to maintain a link with a family, a church group, a charity, or some outside influence that could give them a cultural experience broader than the one that they find in the care environment, that would be a positive step forward, which we would welcome.

I think that the Secretary of State accidentally missed out one element when he talked about the monitoring of performance. He mentioned the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission, but am I not correct to assume that the National Care Standards Commission will be involved in monitoring adoption standards? That provision already exists in legislation, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman accidentally omitted to mention it. In addition, when he says that, if a council persistently fails to deliver, he will use his intervention powers to transfer its adoption services to a different agency, what sort of agency does he have in mind? Is he talking about the privatisation of adoption services? If so, we would not object.

I have three short and specific points. First, the Secretary of State mentioned the courts. How long does the average adoption process take in the courts? His statement was not clear about that element in delays, but it makes a difference to our approach to reform. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the culture and training of social workers. Given that they are the ones who will have to execute any big change in the process, any improvement in that respect would be most welcome.

Thirdly, of the measures that the Secretary of State has outlined today, which will require primary legislation and which secondary legislation? If there is a point of difference between us and the Government today, it is that we have to wait for legislation, given that we all agree on the need for reform and on many of the reforms themselves. The Secretary of State says that children need stability as quickly as humanly possible; well, we could provide it more quickly. The Prime Minister accepted the recommendations of his review in July and we could have implemented some of the measures in the Care Standards Act 2000. The Government have found time for legislation on other matters, but not for legislation on adoption. I ask them to think again and to get a move on.

The Secretary of State is right to say that children need action. We do not need to wait another year. We shall support the legislation if is introduced on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman has set out today, so let the Government put their legislation where their mouth is and get on with it. That is the best Christmas present that they could give to children in care.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm support for the measures that I have announced. I think that overwhelmingly they will command support throughout the House. I very much hope that they will.

I join the hon. Gentleman—I did not have the opportunity to do this earlier—in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and other members of the ministerial team. My hon. Friend has taken a lead on the issue and has done a first-class job. It is nice to be able to get that on the record.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in future we must do what seems to be a simple thing, but is pretty difficult to achieve. We must examine the entire adoption process through the eyes of the child rather than through the eyes of those who are administering the process. If we can do that and produce that culture change, we shall introduce major improvements in the system, particularly in making it quicker, more accessible and more appropriate.

The register will be separate from the national objective criteria that we are setting. I hope that the register will be up and running—invitations will be issued for tenders today—by about July next year. The hon. Gentleman is right about national standards. They will be enforced throughout the country, and that is the right thing to do. As a point of information for the hon. Gentleman and the House, a statutory code of practice will accompany the standards and the proposed legislation. I will be ensuring through section 7 statutory guidance that local authorities enforce the standards that we are setting at national level to ensure that children and potential adoptive parents throughout the country get a fairer deal than hitherto.

The hon. Gentleman said that children in care should be able to maintain contact with those outside the care system. That is absolutely right. As he is aware, the Children Act 1989 places a primary requirement on social services to provide such contact, especially in relation to a child's extended family. That should be the first point of contact that any child in care is given by the social services authority.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the National Care Standards Commission. It will have an important role when it comes on line in 2002, both in regulating adoption agencies and inspecting local social services departments and their adoption functions.

There are two possible routes for the transfer of adoption services from a local authority. The first is transfer to another local authority. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, many local authorities are voluntarily entering into consortiums arrangements with others. That provides a larger pool of children, a larger pool of parents and a larger pool of expertise. It is a good thing, and we want to see more of it. Secondly, it will be possible to transfer adoption services to a voluntary adoption agency where local authority services are failing. Many agencies do an extremely good job and we want to see their role enhanced.

At present, we do not have information about the time that is taken in the courts. We are seeking to elicit that information as an element in speeding up the court process. There are two separate delays. One is within social services departments and the second is when the case gets into a court, where further delays compound the problem for both the child and the adoptive parents. We shall be examining these matters closely.

The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that we need to make some major changes to social work culture and training. In the past few months, I have announced that an extra £41 million is going into social work training to ensure that we have more qualified social workers who are appropriately trained.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about primary legislation. I repeat for the benefit of the House what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said and the commitment that he has given. We shall be introducing legislation next year. The hon. Gentleman asked about the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I do not know as yet what it contains, but adoption legislation to carry forward our radical programme of reform will need a large piece of legislation—larger than would normally be possible through a private Member's Bill. Furthermore, the two measures that the hon. Lady has said will be included in her Bill—a national adoption register and consistent national eligibility criteria—do not require primary legislation. We shall be getting on with those things now.

As joint chair of the all-party Back-Bench group on adoption, I welcome this enormous step forward for children. I thank everyone at the Department for the hard work that has been done to produce such a good package. There are very few questions to ask—perhaps only how the commissioner for care will link into it. For those most deprived children, Father Christmas has come early.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the work that she and the all-party group have done. It is always useful for Ministers to have a bit of pressure—not too much. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been feeling the heat, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) feels that the pressure that she and others have been applying has achieved the right response.

The role of the commissioner or director will be extremely important in the future, and will involve taking a broad view of how well children's services are being delivered. That is right. We are setting in place various mechanisms to make sure that we get the right balance between speeding up the adoption process and ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. We will not compromise on quality in order to achieve the quantity targets that we have set. That is very important. We know that the best local authorities achieve both. They manage both to speed up the adoption process and to deliver a high quality service. I have a simple view on that: if one local authority can do it, every local authority can.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not become too bored by the fact that most of us welcome the White Paper. The only regret is that it is long overdue and no place was found for it in the Queen's Speech.

I particularly welcome the setting of national standards, which will end the heart-breaking experience of many prospective adoptive parents when they try to find a council whose criteria they fit. I also welcome the right of appeal to an independent body; the £66 million that local authorities will be given to invest in improving adoption services; and the recognition of the importance of after-care and support following adoption. However, I can find no mention of on-going funding for that process.

Social services around the country are hard-pressed for cash, so will there be an input of money from the Government to fund this worthwhile scheme? We need to make sure that adoptions last. Many of the children come from damaged backgrounds. Three years is a long time for a child to be in care before being adopted, and we must do everything possible to minimise the long-term effects of that. Can the Secretary of State confirm that funding to local authorities will be on-going throughout that process?

I have a couple more quick questions. What will the special guardianship order mean in practice? Finally, the PIU report in July showed that there was scope for a much higher proportion of looked-after children to be adopted. There was no mention of any measures proposed to attract a wider pool of potential adoptive parents. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on that?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the proposals. The special guardianship order will be particularly important for older children who want to maintain contact with their birth families—who do not want to sever their ties with them, but want more than all the benefits that long-term fostering can offer. That order will end councils' legal responsibility for looking after the children. That will become the responsibility of the family with the special guardianship order, which will be particularly attractive to the children themselves.

Incidentally, it is worth saying that in the course of preparing the White Paper, we consulted various agencies and so on, but we also took the trouble to consult some children in care, as well as children in the adoption system and some who have been adopted. I hope that their views have informed the final product.

The White Paper has been published on time. I do not know where the hon. Lady got the idea that it had not been.

On-going support is important. We know that about 18 per cent. of adoption placements—one in five—break down. It is therefore very important that, as we increase the number of adoptions, we increase the support that families get. Adopting a child is not an easy process for the child or the family, and we should not assume that it is straightforward: it is not. It requires help and, sometimes, cash, which is why I expect local authorities to spend a good proportion of the £66 million that we are providing on adoption allowances for families who do not always have great wherewithal.

As part of the on-going support, we have given local authorities three years of funding. This is the first time that they have ever had that, and the funding is part of the quality protects money. I know that we shall never satisfy Liberal Democrat Members on that point. Every time that we put money in, they always want more, but they never say where that should come from. The problem is that, in the end, I am afraid, one must take decisions about where the money is coming from. Two things are involved: the money to be spent and the money that one gets. One has to balance them both.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I am quite emotional about it because I have the privilege of being an adoptive parent. My right hon. Friend could not exaggerate the hideousness of the procedure that so many people go through, and could not exaggerate the awful trauma that so many children experience. I stand here as a privileged mum of a 20-year old who has been, and will remain, my two eyes. I am therefore grateful for the statement.

When my right hon. Friend mentioned the independent appeals procedure, I, for one, said, "Yes!" I was 32, had gone through awful episodes—as one could well imagine—and was told by social services that I was too old to adopt. That broke my heart, and my husband's heart. The fact that we were Christians and attended church gave us the opportunity to adopt Philippa. However, that should never ever be the case. I cannot say that I am a brilliant parent, but I think that I am two thirds a good parent. I would not like to exaggerate, but many people want to take part in bringing up children, and the proposal will give them the opportunity to do that, as the appeals procedure is vital.

Perhaps this is a personal beef, but was no consideration given to having a national bureau for adoption? I know that we have national standards, and I like that. However, having been the victim of a local authority decision and having had no recourse, may I ask whether any consideration was given to establishing a national body? Lastly, may I ask the Secretary of State, as a good friend of mine, what support will be given to the birth mother who, in making her decision, goes through an awfully traumatic time, both before and after adoption? Support is therefore crucial. As a mum—a privileged, adoptive mum—and on behalf of my partner, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for what she said and all that she has done. She is right that the current processes are horrendous. One would think that there were too many potential adoptive parents in this country and too few children in care. However, the position is quite the reverse. The way in which the system has operated has deterred adoptive parents and prevented children in care from getting the support and the loving permanent family that they need. The White Paper is important—as will be the legislation—as it will turn that situation around.

My hon. Friend raised two specific matters. On the creation of a bureau, we looked carefully at that in the course of our consultation, especially after the PIU report was published in July, but there were mixed views on it. The primary thing to keep in mind is the importance of maintaining the strong; linkage between local adoption services and local child protection services. That is why, in the end, we chose the model that we did. It will keep adoption services local, but at the same time, ensure that there is a national adoption register, which will provide a bigger pool of prospective parents and children and, we hope, get the match right.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about birth parents. Anybody who thinks that giving up a child is easy has got it wrong. The White Paper advocates some simple things that we can do in respect of birth parents. For example, we can change the form that birth families have to sign when they give up their child. It currently states that they give up their child freely and without regret, but such wording is not appropriate. In future, the form will make it clear that parents are signing because they believe that the adoption is in the child's best interests. I hope that that will be a small step towards making the process slightly easier.

As co-chairman with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) of the all-party group on adoption, I strongly welcome the statement and congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on a series of measures that will make a material difference to some desperately disadvantaged children whom Parliament has failed for far too long. I especially welcome the moves on post-adoption alliances, as well as the introduction of the national register and the fact that it is being put out to independent tender. I welcome also the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for parents who have been turned down and the time framework that is to be imposed on local authorities.

I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that, in delivering all those measures, the voluntary organisations and local authorities will be fishing in the same limited pool of social workers. His parallel consideration of social work training and of the culture of the social services departments—an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred—will be critical.

I leave the right hon. Gentleman with one more thought. Although I strongly endorse his remarks about changing the wording of the forms for birth parents who are genuinely agonising about what is best for their children, I ask him not always to be sympathetic to birth parents. He must bear in mind birth parents such as those of a little chap who was adopted recently in my constituency. They had kept him locked in a cellar for so many years that he could not speak. Another child was left outside for so long that doctors had to consider amputating his feet because of gangrene. There are some good birth parents, but also some bad ones; the balance is difficult to strike.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on a splendid package.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he said some very difficult balances must be struck. Anybody who thinks that there are simple solutions has got it remarkably wrong.

On social workers and social work training, we need two things. First, we need more staff. We are trying to tackle the current shortage of appropriately trained staff, not least by giving those who are already working in the social care world the opportunity to train in order to obtain a social work qualification. The £41 million that we have made available for the next three years specifically for that purpose will help us in achieving it. Secondly, we must ensure that the training is more appropriate. The White Paper and, previously, the PIU report, concluded that the training that is currently given and the product that we get are not appropriate. That must change. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman spoke about cultural changes. That is the correct term; some big cultural changes must be made, and they will take time to take effect.

As somebody who worked in adoption some years ago, I wholeheartedly welcome the review, which is long overdue. Everybody in the profession realises that it is about time that the fundamental changes that are proposed were made.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the quality of the vetting of adoptive parents is given a thorough overhaul? That should be done not only to remove some of the false barriers that good adoptive parents face with regard to age and all the rest of it, but to prevent the devastation that can affect some children, who, having spent some years in care, believe themselves to be going into a loving home, only to find that they have entered an abusive one. That has happened most often because the social workers have not kept their eye on the ball or managed to find the signals of abuse. Nothing could be more devastating for a child. Will my right hon. Friend reassure hon. Members that he will keep that at the forefront of his mind when the adoption process is speeded up?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that there will be no compromise on children's safety or children's protection. Two important points should be made. As she is aware, the Criminal Records Bureau will come on line next summer, and that will be a great help in pooling our knowledge about abuse and abusers. Voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities will be allowed direct access to that bureau, which will be helpful not only in finding information, but in finding it more quickly.

Assessment is crucial in ensuring that the child's safety and well-being are taken fully into account and that we achieve the right result for both the prospective parents and the child. As part of the White Paper proposals, we shall review how the assessment criteria are used. That review will begin next year, and will probably take some time to take effect, but I believe that the end product will be a better and more rigorous set of assessment criteria that will achieve the right result for more children and more prospective parents.

Does the Secretary of State agree that probably the biggest cheer that he received for his excellent statement was for the passage in which he condemned blanket bans resulting from a form of reverse racialism that holds that loving, white, potential adoptive parents should not be allowed to adopt black children? Can he throw some light on the puzzlement that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel about how such attitudes ever came to be prevalent? Can he reassure us that the sort of people who held such disgraceful attitudes will not be in a position to inject more poison into the system? I conclude as I began: I congratulate him on an excellent statement.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm words.

We must ensure that the child's safety, well-being and interests are at the centre of everything that we do. That is what counts: end of story, bottom line. The figures are appalling. One child in five with an adoption plan is from a black or minority ethnic background. Black children wait, on average, five months longer for placement than white children. Kids themselves lose out as a result of such nonsense. It is right that local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies alike take due note of the figures and of the clear guidance that my Department has issued: first, that the heritage of a child should of course be fully taken into account in making the assessment and the placement and, secondly, that there should be no racial barriers to ensuring that a child receives the loving, supportive and permanent family that he or she needs.

I, too, am a proud parent, with my wife Rosemary, of two grown-up adopted sons, Damien and Luke, who bring great joy. It is great that adoption is possible, but it should only ever be secondary to the possibility of children remaining with their birth parents.

I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that a definite, permanent solution will be found after six months, which is good. However, will every effort be made in those six months to give the right support to natural, or birth, parents to establish whether there is any possibility of the children remaining with them? One often hears complaints against social services, usually relating to lack of resources, that little effort is made in that period and that matters drift. Birth parents feel aggrieved, upset and distressed that they were perhaps not given the support that they needed to find out whether they could make it. Although I agree that there comes a point—perhaps in six months—when a decision must be made, it is important that birth parents are given every opportunity.

I agree. As we know from current practice, about half of all children who end up in local authority care are back with their birth families within two months. As my hon. Friend knows, under the Children Act 1989, social services departments' primary requirement is to ensure on-going contact and, if possible, re-placement with the birth family. When appropriate, that must be the right action to take. In addition, as he said, we must set a time limit that is fair for the child. Although six months might not sound long to us, it is a substantial proportion of the life of a child aged two, three, four or five. The truth is that the current system is far too slow and cumbersome, and it does not deliver the goods for the birth family, for the potential adoptive family and, most important of all, for the child.

I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that adoption should be the first resort rather than the last. Will he extend that principle to the advice given by the statutory agencies to people who are considering having an abortion? At the moment, there is a dearth of advice about the alternative to an abortion: that is, giving birth and giving the child for adoption. Does he think that many more children would be born rather than aborted if the system enabled the birth mother to identify prospective adoptive parents in advance, and to have a say in the decision on which family should be given the child on adoption?

That principle operates in the United States. I have a relative who has adopted two children at birth in the US having discussed adoption with the mother beforehand. Surely that system should be applied in this country. Unlike those on the "Today" programme, I have not seen the White Paper, but I hope that it contains such a proposal.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the "Today" programme team has seen the White Paper, he has another think coming. I shall let him into a little secret: I did not get the White Paper back from the printers until 10 o'clock, and the "Today" programme goes off the air at 8.59, but maybe he is right and I am wrong.

On the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, what counts is choice. He does not have the right to make the choice for others any more than I do. It is the woman's right to make the choice, and she should be free to do so.

Today's statement will be excellent news for my constituents who have adopted children recently or are going through the difficult process right now and have lobbied me about equal rights with birth parents, especially on adoption allowances and paid leave. Those announcements will be very welcome to my constituents. When all the excellent proposals are put in place, will future adoptive parents be on an equal footing with natural parents in terms of paid leave, allowances and benefits?

My hon. Friend is aware that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he announced his Green Paper proposals on parental and other leave, said that we will consult on precisely the issue that he has just raised. We are doing so, and there is undoubtedly a very strong case for that in many people's minds. That consultation is taking place, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will take part in it.

I welcome the statement. Clearly, a child is far happier with a loving mother and father than in an institution. Does the Secretary of State intend to facilitate or allow adoption by same-sex couples?

We have no plans to change the current law, which is clear. That law operated under the previous Government, and will continue to operate under this Government. I shall make one important point. This issue is not about the rights of any individual or any couple to have a child. It is about the rights of the child. It is the child's interests, the child's safety and the child's well-being that come first. With respect, neither the hon. Gentleman nor I can decide what is in the child's best interest. That is a matter for those who handle these difficult and sensitive issues, and in the end it is a matter for the courts.

I welcome the statement. I am sorry to pop the bubble of festive consensus, but although some Conservative Members clearly felt strongly about this issue, from 1979 to 1997 nothing was done by successive Tory Governments to address it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have done more to support family life in the past three years, whether for natural parents or adoptive parents, than any Government for many generations?

In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that a permanent placement would be sought after six months. Will he ensure that social services departments do not make unnecessary excuses for denying a child a permanent place? The problem is that there are too many children in the care system. They are damaged by their natural families, and then damaged by the system that they are put into. By the time they reach an age at which it is thought that they can go to an adoptive family, the damage has already been done.

On too many occasions, social services departments have not given enough support to adoptive parents. They have not informed adoptive parents of the background of the children—of their needs and, possibly, of the abuses that they have experienced. In such circumstances, it is important that discussion takes place—for the sake of those children, but also for the sake of those who will be adoptive siblings.

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. There are important lessons to be learned. To be fair, however, I must say that some local authorities—along with some voluntary adoption agencies—are doing a good job. We should not lose sight of that. The problem is that there are too few such organisations, which is why we must set national standards, establish a clear national adoption register and review the criteria for assessment, ensuring that they apply nationally as well as locally. Those are the things that we must do to eradicate what many would describe as one of the worst forms of the lottery of care that has been all too prevalent in the care system as a whole.

Yes: I think that, with the good will of voluntary adoption agencies, local authorities, the Government and, I hope, the House, it will be possible to bring about a fundamental transformation of the way in which the adoption system works

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2000

City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act 2000.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a written answer given to me yesterday—it can be found at column 228W of the Official Report— the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), confirmed that a 15-person delegation from Britain and British overseas territories had attended the November triennial conference of Education Ministers in Halifax, Canada. It was led by Mr. Jack McConnell. He is not a Member of either House of this Parliament; he is, of course, a member of the Scottish Executive, and a Minister in the Scottish Parliament. I note from an earlier parliamentary answer that on at least one occasion a Scottish Minister has led a British delegation to a European Council meeting.

As the House will know, I have an interest in Commonwealth education, and have served as an education Minister with responsibility for, among other matters, international affairs. I was used to leading—I hope, successfully and amicably—multi-territorial delegations to international meetings. While I do not criticise the individuals who made up the delegation to Canada, I regret that no Ministers in the House of Commons ordered their diaries in such a way that they could attend the meeting.

More seriously still, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider how we can achieve the accountability to the House of persons who speak in the name of the Government. This is not simply a matter involving unelected civil servants or officials, who can speak, or are responsible, through their Ministers; it is a question of a person, purporting to speak for the United Kingdom, who holds a partial mandate in one part of that kingdom.

Education is a sensitive cultural matter. Although I have not checked, I do not think that the delegation to Canada can possibly have been led by the Education Minister of the province of Newfoundland, let alone that of, for instance, Quebec.

My substantive point is this: whoever was selected, if that person was not a Member of Parliament here, we have no possibility of questioning him here. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the propriety and wisdom of the situation that Ministers have created.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am afraid that I cannot help him, as it is a matter for the Government as to who represents them at overseas conferences. However, the Government remain accountable to the House for the choice of the delegation and for the outcome of the conference as it affects United Kingdom interests. The hon. Gentleman can therefore pursue his interest in the conference by using the usual procedures of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on whether it is in order for Departments to refuse to supply information which is available to them by using the device of providing blocking answers to named-day written questions. I refer specifically to the announcements on type 45 destroyer procurement which were made this morning and to three named-day written questions that I had tabled for answer last Friday.

The answers or lack of answers from Ministers are not a responsibility of the occupant of the Chair. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. By raising his point of order, he has put the matter on the record, and I am sure that the appropriate Minister will note his concern.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You heard, as I did, the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and the Leader of the House about facilities of the House being used for apparently racist reasons. May I ask whether any checks are made on whether facilities of the House, such as meeting rooms, are used for purposes that could be considered to be, for example, racist? If so, can any action be taken to stop such use? Although I appreciate that meeting rooms are booked by hon. Members, I think that it is totally unacceptable that—if my hon. Friend is right—such facilities should be used to spread racist poison. Would it be at all possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to make inquiries into the matter?

Every hon. Member booking such facilities should always be careful about how the facilities are to be used and ensure that they are used only by reputable organisations. We have domestic Committees, and I am sure that they—particularly their Chairmen—will note the comments of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). I dare say that they will look into the matter. Certainly if it were ever proved that such an organisation was operating in the House, I would take a very serious view on it. I hope that that is of assistance.

I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.

I beg to move,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.

This order and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000 increase pensions, provide more help for families with children and do more for people with disabilities and carers than ever before. We are able to make the increases because we are now seeing the results of our reforms to the welfare state. Because we have more people off benefit and in jobs, we are spending £4 billion less this year and £4 billion less next year on the costs of unemployment.

At the previous general election, we promised that we would cut the bills of economic and social failure, and we have. As a result of that and other action, social security spending is now under control, for the first time in three decades. Consequently, we can spend more where it is needed, giving greater security to those who are retired or cannot work, just as we promised to do. Indeed, social security spending would be decreasing in real terms, for the first time since the second world war, had we not deliberately chosen to spend more on families with children, people with disabilities and pensioners.

All that stands in stark contrast to what happened in the 1980s, when, as we remember—in 1988, 1989 and 1990—Tory Secretaries of State came to the House to announce that they would freeze child benefit. By contrast, last year, we were able to announce a record increase in child benefit—which, this year, is being increased yet again.

Today's uprating order will increase most income-related benefits by the Rossi index, which is 1.6 per cent., in the usual way. However, there are a number of areas in which we want to do more than that.

First, we want to do more for children. We are determined to eradicate child poverty in this country, and to halve it in 10 years. When the Government came into office, one child in three was living below the bread line. That is unacceptable. It is economic madness, and it is also morally wrong to hold back a whole generation of children.

As a result of our Budget measures, a million children will be lifted out of poverty. That will deliver real opportunity for everyone, not just the privileged few.

However, from April next year we will go further. That is why we are increasing child benefit, and introducing the new children's tax credit. As a result of these measures, and of the working families tax credit, a single-earner family with two children, on half average earnings, will see its living standards rise by 20 per cent. this year—the biggest annual rise for a quarter of a century. By the end of this Parliament, we will be spending almost £6 billion extra a year on support for families with children, with most of the help going to the poorest families.

I rise to seek clarification about the children's tax credit. I understand that the Inland Revenue does not know who the children of tax payers are, as such information is not part of the tax system. As a result, it sent out 7 million forms, just over 2 million of which have been returned. Apart from those 2 million families, what will be the situation for all other families who pay tax? If they have not returned the form, do the Government have a plan to find them? How will they get their money? What is the latest date by which forms can be returned so that families can still get the money in April?

The hon. Gentleman knows that responsibility for the Inland Revenue rests with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will make a point of asking my right hon. Friend, or one of his Ministers, to write to the hon. Gentleman to outline the Inland Revenue's plans in that respect. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the tax authorities do not necessarily know who has children. That is why the Inland Revenue wrote to all those taxpayers who it thought might be eligible. From next year, the child tax credit will be worth £10 a week, and will be a valuable help to families on modest and low incomes. We are anxious to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from it, and I will certainly ask one of my colleagues to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of what we propose to do.

The important point to note is that the Government are not extending financial help alone. Other measures—such as the sure start initiative and our general objective of raising standards in education, which we are now achieving—are ensuring that millions of children get a far better opportunity and start in life than in the past.

In particular, we want to do more for families on low incomes who are bringing up children with disabilities, and to help with the extra costs that they face. That is why from April, for the first time, we will extend benefits to severely disabled three and four-year-olds. As a result, some 6,000 disabled children and their families will be better off by more than £38 a week.

We are also raising the disabled child premium by £7.40 a week, on top of the normal uprating. That means that around 80,000 children will see a rise in the premium, from £22.25 a week to £30 a week. That will be a real increase for some of the poorest families in the country who need that extra help.

Secondly, we want to do more for adults with severe disabilities. As I said in my statement to the House on 9 November, we have decided to introduce the disability income guarantee for people with severe disabilities from April next year at a far higher rate than originally intended. We had intended that it be introduced at the rate of £128 a week, but in fact the rate will be £142 a week—an extra £14 a week. For couples, the rate will be £186.80.

In addition, from April next year young adults disabled early in life will benefit from an extra £27.60 a week. Until the changes were introduced, those people got so little money that they depended on income support for most of their lives. I do not consider that to be acceptable in today's society, which is why we are increasing the amount that they get by £27 a week. All of the extra money has been made possible by the changes that we made two years ago.

Thirdly, we are doing more for carers. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have long recognised that the carer's contribution needs to be properly recognised. That is why we are increasing the carer's premium by £10 a week on top of the normal uprating. That means that the premium will rise in April from £14.15 to £24.40, helping more than 200,000 carers on low incomes. We are also increasing the earnings threshold for the invalid carer's allowance from £50 to £72—the rate of the lower earnings limit.

In total, we will be spending nearly £200 million more on supporting carers and people with disabilities next year, and every year thereafter. That is something that the Tories never did—what is more, they never could do it because of the cuts guarantee to which they are committed. It is interesting that so few of them have turned up for the debate. [Interruption.] I have found one. There is a Tory sitting at the back. I apologise to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)—he is lurking under the Gallery, and I did not see him in the gloom. He will no doubt tell his colleagues of all the good things that the Labour Government are able to do for people, thanks to our economic policies.

That will not take long.

In addition to the measures that I have outlined, we are also introducing measures to improve the vaccine damage regime. In case the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) raises the matter again, I would like to take the opportunity of saying that we will be introducing the necessary legislation to reduce the disability threshold from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent., and to increase the time limits for claiming for children to the age of 21. We propose that these changes be introduced in the regulatory reform order as part of the Regulatory Reform Bill, which is now before the House. I said in the summer that we would act, and we will. With regard to the main changes that I announced in the summer to increase the vaccine damage payment to £100,000 for claims made after 22 July, those payments are now being made. That is the main step that I announced and it is being implemented.

No doubt the Conservatives—or, at least, the two of them on the Front Bench and the one on the Back Bench—will criticise us for not doing more sooner. However, the previous Government had 18 years to sort this out and they did not. We have made the necessary changes, which will go some way towards helping the families affected. I hope that most people will accept that.

I now turn to pensions.

Before the Secretary of State talks about pensions, could he answer the question of a 24-year-old constituent of mine? Have the Government any plans to alter the housing benefit system, because my constituent does not understand why, at the age of 24, his housing need is considered to be less than his neighbour who is 26? In a constituency like mine, if young people are to stay and work in the community, we must tackle the cost of housing for them.

I do not know whet her the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to read the Government's response to the consultation exercise that we carried out after publishing the Green Paper on housing. We have said that we want to broaden the definition of the single room reference rent to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which will help those under 25 in many parts of the country.

If I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, he might have been referring to the fact that the applicable amounts for the under-25s are lower than for those over 25. For a person in a low-paid job, for example, the tapering away of the rent rebate starts at a lower level for a 24-year-old than for a 25-year-old. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to address that issue?

We have made it clear that we do not propose to change the general regime, which is different from that for the under-25s. As I said to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)—who is no doubt capable of asking his own question—we have broadened the definition, which will go some way to help. However, if the question is whether we propose to remove the distinction between those over 25 and those under, the answer is no.

I shall now deal with pensions. Most national insurance benefits will rise in line with the retail prices index, which is 3.3 per cent. However, as the House will know, we want to do more than that to help pensioners. First, we want to tackle the scandal of pensioner poverty. Secondly, we want to ensure that every pensioner shares in the rising prosperity of our country. Thirdly, we want to reward pensioners for their saving instead of penalising it, as was the case under the system that we inherited.

Our first priority was to get more help quickly to the poorest pensioners; that is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which is already helping almost 2 million of the poorest pensioners. It is worth remembering that when we came into office, just three years ago, a single pensioner, aged 70, on income support, would have received a weekly income of £68.80. As a result of the measures before the House, the minimum income guarantee will rise to £92.15 from April, so that same pensioner—who would have been living on £68.80 three years ago—will be nearly £18 a week better off, over and above inflation. That is an example of how Governments can make a real difference in the standard of living of some of the oldest and poorest people in the country.

As we move towards the pension credit from 2003, we are increasing the basic state pension, which we believe should be the foundation of pension provision. It is part of the partnership between state and funded pensions that is essential if people are to retire on a decent income in the future. We want to raise the basic state pension by £5 a week for single people and by £8 a week for married couples; the pension will rise again in the following year. As I told the House in November, I can also confirm that widow's and bereavement benefits will rise by the same amounts.

That is on top of the £200 winter fuel payment, worth nearly £4 a week. Eleven million pensioners have already been sent their winter fuel payment; many of them appreciate that it makes a major contribution towards meeting their fuel costs at what is, traditionally, a time of great worry for many pensioners.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Yes, why not? The hon. Gentleman is determined to make his speech through interventions, so as it is Christmas I shall help him out for once.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My question is straightforward and factual. Will he confirm that, next year, he plans to cut the winter fuel payment to £150?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Government make their proposals for pensions annually; we shall continue to do so as appropriate.

The hon. Gentleman might have been good enough to acknowledge the fact that the Government have gone a long way towards tackling the problem of fuel poverty—especially among older people—which he periodically raises in the House. We have cut VAT to the lowest permissible amount and we have also increased the winter fuel payment; that is making a real difference to many pensioners.

As for next year and the years after that, the hon. Gentleman will just have to wait. However, when people look back over the past three years at what the Government have done for pensioners, they will realise that we have done exactly what we promised—we have tackled pensioner poverty and ensured that all pensioners are able to share fairly in the rising prosperity of our country. In fact, we have done far more than the Liberals ever promised to do. The hon. Gentleman sometimes gives the impression that he has never read the manifesto on which he stood for election, but I remind him that the Liberals never promised to do even half of what we are doing.

As well as the changes to which I have referred, we have introduced free television licences for the over-75s; that is worth a further £2 a week.

Given the European judgment on the payment of the winter fuel allowance to 60-year-old men, will that payment be made regardless of whether such men are in full-time work? Will it continue without affecting their tax and benefit in any way? Will my right hon. Friend clarify those points?

My hon. Friend is right. Following the judgment in the Taylor case last year, the Government announced that they would make payments to men aged over 60 and who were under the age of 65. All those who applied before the beginning of November should have received their payment. It is open to them to apply whenever they want and they will receive their payment as soon as it can be processed.

The advantage of the winter fuel payment and the free television licence—to which I am about to return—is that they are tax free and benefit free; if they were consolidated into the basic state pension, that would not be so.

When we debate these matters, it never ceases to amaze me that the Conservatives now oppose winter fuel payments and free television licences. Someone kindly reminded me of a private Member's Bill that had escaped my attention. It was introduced at the beginning of this Parliament and would have given free television licences to the over-75s. I was surprised to find that its promoter was the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and that it its sponsors included the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley); the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury no less—the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin); the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who, I think, also holds a Front-Bench position; the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who was sitting on the Front Bench this morning before she left to pursue other activities; and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who, I think, has something to do with the Tory manifesto.

In 1997, all those Members were in favour of giving free television licences to the over-75s. Surprise, surprise: the bandwagon is now running in a different direction and they are all against it. I look forward to hearing, when the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security gets to his feet, how he squares what his colleagues, now on the Front Bench, said three years ago with what they say now. He will no doubt explain it to the additional Conservative Member who has now appeared in the Chamber since this debate began, bringing us to a grand total of four.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that before he became a Member of Parliament, virtually all his present Cabinet colleagues then in Parliament—including the Prime Minister—were good enough to vote for my private Member's Bill, the Free Television Licences for Pensioners Bill, on 16 January 1987? It was defeated on a Friday by strenuous Tory whipping. Have not our Cabinet colleagues honoured what they voted for then by starting the process of giving free television licences to the over-75s?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of that. It took a little longer than we hoped to deliver our promise. I Unfortunately, 10 further years were to elapse before we were elected to government.

The crucial point is to recognise the significant problem of pensioner poverty in this country. It is scandalous that in this country, the fourth largest economy in the world, there are pensioners living in poverty. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payments, and free television licences to help the oldest pensioners.

In total during this Parliament, we are spending £8.5 billion more on pensioners than the previous Government planned to do. We can do that only because we are delivering stable economic growth and reforming the welfare state, so we can make the necessary funds available to tackle these problems.

Earlier this year, I set out our plans to reward pensioners for saving and to take the next steps towards the integration of the tax and benefits system for pensioners. From 2003, the new pension credit will mean that, for the first time ever, pensioners will be rewarded for their thrift. That credit, which is opposed by the Conservatives, will help 5.5 million pensioners—half of all the pensioner households in this country. The message is clear: it will always pay to save.

As part of the transition to the pension credit, the order would double the lower capital limit for the minimum income guarantee from £3.000 to £6,000 and increase the higher limit from £8,000 to £12,000. As a result, half a million pensioners will gain.

We shall go on to abolish the capital limits completely when the pension credit is introduced from 2003. At that time we shall also abolish the tariff income, which assumes an extraordinarily high rate of return, which many pensioners find difficult to understand.

I believe that the pension credit, which is the third stage in our pension reforms, will mark a sea change in the way in which the social security system operates. For the first time, we will have removed the disincentive to save. That will ensure that, when pensioners do what successive Governments tell them to do, they will see the gain resulting from it. I find it extraordinary that the Conservatives should oppose, to coin a phrase, a common-sense measure.

We are able to spend more money on pensioners, families, people with disabilities and their carers only because of the measures that we have taken over the past three years. No doubt, in a few minutes' time, we shall hear the usual complaints from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who speaks for the Conservative party, but he must explain how he will be able to achieve anything like the measures that we have announced today, when his party is committed to £16 billion of spending cuts.

Regarding social security alone, we know that the Conservatives do not support the earnings-related minimum income guarantee. They are opposed to pension credit. They want to keep a system that penalises thrift. We know that they want to the process of privatising the basic state pension, scrap the new deal for lone parents and take £90 million out of the social fund, which will hit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country.

We also know that the Conservatives want to get rid of industrial injuries benefit, which will impose a jobs tax on employers. We also know the Conservatives would axe the winter fuel payment, the Christmas bonus and the free television licences for pensioners. That is some manifesto. The best that they can offer pensioners is a mere 42p a week instead, and that is before tax and benefits. Of course, 2.5 million pensioners do not get the full pension, or even any pension at all, and men aged 60 to 65 will all lose out completely under the Tory policy—all because there is no new money. It is almost tempting to go canvassing with a Conservative to find out how that goes down on the doorsteps.

We know that there is no new money because the shadow Chancellor has said so, and he should know. It is becoming increasingly obvious to those of us who attend Prime Minister's Question Time and note that the shadow Chancellor sits one step further away from the Leader of the Opposition each time, that he is becoming acutely aware of the problem that he faces: £16 billion-worth of cuts to find, and more and more spending commitments being made here, there and everywhere. He knows that his sums do not add up.

We know that the Conservatives are dedicated to cutting public expenditure because of the policies to which they have committed themselves. So there would be no extra money to look after pensioners, disabled people and carers, just as there was no money to do so during the 18 years in which the Tories were in power. We know what they would do—there would be no new money for pensioners, for children, for families and for people with disabilities or their carers.

There is a clear choice to be made between us and the Conservative party. That choice is becoming clearer day by day. Poverty, inequality and division do not happen by accident. They happened as a result of the deliberate decisions that the Tories took over 18 years, and if they got the chance, they would do exactly the same again.

We will tackle poverty and inequality because not doing so is indefensible in the 21st century. We believe in opportunity for everyone—a fair and more just society. The measures that I have announced today will help deliver that promise. I commend the proposals to the House.

I shall begin by reducing what might otherwise be the high drama of this occasion by saying that the Opposition will not vote against the uprating of benefits. We shall wait to see whether the Liberal Democrats repeat the mistake that they made last year, but this will not be a nail-biting debate because we do not want to stand in the way of pensioners receiving the uprating in their benefits. Perhaps we are enjoying the spirit of Christmas, as the debate on such measures is taking place a little earlier than usual.

I have some specific criticisms of the measures. We are worried about the position of people in care homes. In fact, we are worried about the Government's treatment of those people generally, because the Government do not seem to understand their interests or problems. We are concerned about the possible long-term implications of what the Secretary of State calls the simplification of rates in the minimum income guarantee.

I shall not go through all of our specific concerns, but I shall try to price out exactly the strategy that lies behind the various measures under debate. Our frustration is that, in debating with the Secretary of State, it is difficult to get a sense of exactly what the Government's social security strategy involves. I think that they thought that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had a welfare strategy. He did have a strategy, but I agree with the Secretary of State: the right hon. Gentleman's figures never added up, and the strategy was never what it was cracked up to be. However, following the right hon. Gentleman's sad disappearance from the Government, we now have the Secretary of State with his head down, reading out his briefs, rather than giving us any clear sense of the direction in which they want to take the social security system.

In what direction might the social security system go for pensioners? As Christmas is coming, perhaps an illuminating way to think about that is to tell the story of the Christmas bonus—one of the few payments not being uprated. That story reveals much about the long-term problems that the Secretary of State's approach will create for the social security system. Of course, the Christmas bonus was introduced by the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). It was their special payment to help pensioners at Christmas time.

A Labour Government came into power in 1974, found that they had inherited that special payment—they probably called it a gimmick—and wondered what to do with it. Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—sadly, he is not in his place—pressed the then Secretary of State for Social Services on what she was going to do about the payment. In a debate, she said:

there will not be a Christmas bonus. A bonus is bound to be somewhat arbitrary in coverage and excludes a number of people who benefit from a general uprating.—[Official Report, 22 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 1624.]

The Labour Government decided that they were not going to retain the special schemes introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Instead, they would put the money into a general increase in benefits.

The trouble with special schemes is that there is no provision for their annual uprating. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked, in an earlier debate, what the value of the Christmas bonus would be if it had been uprated from its original 1972 value of £10. The answer is that by April 2000, a prices uprating would have taken its value to £76.75.

The social security system contains a series of special payments that are left over as a kind of historical deposit from different Governments trying their own special wheezes to help pensioners. They include the over-80 payment—a very good concept, but it has never been increased from 25p. That has been a source of anger and irritation to pensioners. We also have the Christmas bonus, left over from the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. No one, apart from the previous Labour Secretary of State for Social Services, has ever abolished it, and since it was reintroduced it has not been uprated. No pledge has been made to uprate the winter fuel payment. That is a political decision taken every year; I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on that point. At present, the Government's official position seems to be that the payment will be cut next year from £200 to £150.

If we go on in this way, we shall have a social security system with a variety of special payments for pensioners, each with its own political or historical justification. It would be much better if all that money, and more, were put into the basic state pension. The Secretary of State fails to explain why he believes that a pension system that is growing all those extra payments for special circumstances will be superior to one in which a guaranteed amount of money is put into uprating the basic weekly state pension.

About 2.5 million people who do not receive the basic state pension receive the winter fuel payment. There are also people who do not receive the full pension. If the hon. Gentleman were to take away the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus, what would be the cost of ensuring that all those affected would have the same amount of money returned to them in full?

All the money saved would go to all pensioners in receipt of the basic state pension. That includes many pensioners who, for a variety of reasons, do not benefit from the Secretary of State's special schemes. Pensioners who are on income support, or who are having their costs met in residential accommodation or nursing homes, do not benefit from the winter fuel payment. Our payment would go to all pensioners in receipt of the contributory pension.

I heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about television licences, and I understand all the arguments pro and con. However, many pensioners over 75 live in a household with someone under 75, who would normally pay for the TV licence. Therefore, the chances of the free TV licence bringing an extra £104 to every pensioner over 75 are, sadly, limited. For example, many pensioners live with a son or daughter, who normally pays for a licence. Are those sons or daughters likely to say to their elderly parents, "Here's £104, because we now have the benefit of your free TV licence"? Our proposal is simpler and more straightforward, and will reach pensioners who do not enjoy the benefit of the winter fuel payment or the free TV licence.

I might have missed something, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answered my question. Some 2.5 million people who receive the winter fuel payment and the other payments do not have a full pension; some of them have no pension. Will the value of all the benefits—the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus—be restored to them in full?

I have made it clear that our policy is for all people in receipt of the basic pension. There would be a full uprating for pensioners who are not receiving the full value of the basic pension. The costing of our proposal includes giving the full increase to all pensioners who receive the partial or full value of the contributory pension. That is our policy. It has a much greater logic than the various special schemes—[Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) should remember that parliamentary private secretaries are meant to be silent, certainly when they are sitting down.

They should be seen and not heard.

We should compare the distributional consequences of our measure, which would go to all pensioners in receipt of the basic pension, including those who receive it at less than full value. It would help pensioners who, for various reasons, will not benefit in full, or even partially, from the Secretary of State's proposals. For example, pensioners in sheltered accommodation pay a reduced rate of £5 for a television licence, but the full value of the increase would be consolidated into their basic pension. Out package would also help pensioners in residential accommodation and nursing homes. It is better designed than the schemes that it would replace.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people who receive the full pension often pay tax, and will therefore have to pay tax on the additional sums, which are now tax free? What would a Tory Government's approach be to people who are not entitled to the state pension? Presumably, his package would mean that they would not receive a penny of what is being provided by the television licence scheme and the winter fuel allowance.

On the second point, I explained that our package is for people in receipt of the contributory pension. The hon. Gentleman has studied the subject for many years. If we compare the various groups who, for whatever reason, will not be able to participate fully in the Government's special schemes, but who would benefit from a substantial increase in the basic pension, we will find that overall, the distribution of that package would be more beneficial than the alternatives, because it would go to every pensioner.

As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear in his original statement that we recognise that, although the special payments are tax exempt, the basic pension is taxable. That is why we have said from day one that we would adjust tax allowances, which we could do by using the device of the age allowance for pensioners. Therefore, the package would not increase the tax taken from pensioners. I regret the fact that the Secretary of State goes on and on as if we had never said that. The costings of our proposal show that there is no special device to collect extra tax from pensioners to help finance it. It is straightforward and simple.

Has the hon. Gentleman agreed that policy with the shadow Chancellor? What is the estimated cost of the package?

I am pleased to say that the package was agreed with the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition before we launched it. The point is that it is tax neutral. No extra tax would be taken from pensioners, so no one would be worse off. That is what we announced on day one, and it remains our policy. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) seems to be baffled by that. I should be happy to take a further intervention, but ours is a straightforward position, and I am grateful to him for giving me yet another opportunity to make it clear.

The real task is not only to tackle pensioner poverty now but to try to ensure that the next generation of pensioners is not in poverty. Above all, we must encourage more funded pension provision. Perhaps the most worrying economic statistic under this Government is the savings ratio—the percentage of income that pensioners are saving. I am pleased to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) here because it gives me a chance to praise his record as Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he left office in the second quarter of 1997, households were saving 10.7 per cent. of their income. That figure has fallen to 3 per cent. That statistic is very worrying because it means that future generations of pensioners will retire with an income much lower than they expected. I support the Government's pension statements initiative. It is a useful measure to try to encourage people to understand what the value of their total pension package may be when they retire.

The evidence shows, however, that over the past few years there has been a significant decline in occupational pension provision. The average number of occupational pension schemes being set up each year has fallen from 9,000, when we were in office, to fewer than 5,000 since 1997. In 1999, only 3,000 schemes were set up. In addition, 14 per cent. of final salary schemes are closed to new members. The number of personal pensions being taken out is declining.

The combination of the extra tax that the Government have imposed on pensions, and planning blight as people wait for the arrival of stakeholder pensions, means that we face a significant decline in funded pensions. The danger is that although we in this country have been complacently patting ourselves on the back because our funded pension provision is way ahead of that on the continent, the boot may soon be on the other foot.

I will make a modest bet with the Secretary of State that if we carry on at this rate, within a few years the annual flow into funded pension savings in Germany will exceed that in Britain. The right hon. Gentleman, or any subsequent Secretary of State, will then be under understandable pressure to introduce yet more special schemes or other measures to increase state benefit income for pensioners, because they will not have enough pension savings of their own. That is the long-term problem that we face, and far from tackling it, the Government have, if anything, exacerbated it through regulatory complexity, planning blight and extra tax.

What is the Secretary of State's agenda? Whenever I refer to all the changes that are due in 2003, he looks rather baffled. I wonder how many Labour Members are fully aware of what is supposed to happen in 2003. It is frustrating that the only explanation the Government have given us of those proposed changes is Treasury working paper No. 5, from November 1999, "Supporting Children Through the Tax and Benefit System". There is a much consulted chart, which all the pundits love, on page 40, with graphs showing the current and new arrangements for financial support for children.

The Chairman of the Social Security Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is in his place, and I am pleased that the Committee is conducting a study of that important subject. We face turbulence in the benefits system because the Secretary of State hopes, within one year, not only to introduce a pensioner credit but to abolish the working families tax credit and introduce a new integrated child credit and an employment tax credit. There will be considerable confusion.

Those charts in the Treasury working paper show the point at which welfare reform disappears up its own rear because the second chart has exactly the same distributional effect as the first, but is achieved by a different means. The game of going through all those changes simply to deliver to every family exactly the same income as they get at the moment, but through a radically changed organisation, does not seem worth the candle. Coming up with a different way to deliver exactly the same distribution of benefits is a perverse and unnecessary exercise.

I presume that the Government are embarking on the exercise only because they want to change some of the ways in which people gain from taxation and benefits. I think that they will encounter a paradox. Their main additional proposal is the employment tax credit, which is received by people in work on low earnings, regardless of whether they have children. Therefore the main distributional impact of measures that are supposed to help children will be to extend a benefit to low earners without children.

The Secretary of State might disagree, but I think that he will find that the main impact of introducing the so-called family package in 2003 will be to help people without children—that is where the additional expenditure is likely to be made. I see him shake his head, but he intends to introduce an employment tax credit, and he will not be able to withhold it from people who do not have children, so they are likely to be the recipients of the extra expenditure in 2003.