Object.

If he will make a statement on the number of final salary pension schemes that have closed in the last year. [73059]

If he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Pickering report. [73061]

If he will make a statement on the powers of employers to reduce employees' final salary pension scheme. [73063]

Final salary schemes remain the most widespread form of pension provision. Where there is a shift to money purchase, the key thing is the level of contributions rather than the nature of the scheme as such. It is clearly crucial that we have proper partnership between employers, employees, the financial services industry and Government, with each meeting their responsibilities.

A simpler regulatory framework, as both Sandler and Pickering emphasised, would make it easier for companies and workers to save through good schemes. As the Green Paper will be consultative, hon. Members and the public will have every opportunity to influence policy before decisions are taken.

I note that the Secretary of State did not answer my question at all. May I ask him this supplementary question? Confidence in personal and occupational schemes will have been severely damaged this weekend by news that the Government are considering abolishing higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear some cheering on the Labour Benches. The Government have tried to distance themselves from the story by saying that the adviser to Downing street is independent. To my mind, that reinforces the story. Will the Secretary of State give a simple yes or no answer: are the Government considering, at official or ministerial level, plans to abolish higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions? Yes or no?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as hon. Members know, the review of statistics from the Office for National Statistics recently made a number of recommendations as to how the collection of statistics might be improved. If the recommendation that more information should be collected through the employers and families surveys can be taken forward as we would like, it would give us better data.

On the question about tax relief, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, questions concerning taxation are matters for Budgets. We have no such plans; if we had such plans we would come to the House of Commons and say so. As hon. Members will understand, ahead of an important document such as the pensions Green Paper, Ministers receive all sorts of representations. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Ministers have taken no decisions of the sort suggested—it is all fevered speculation. It would be best to wait and see what is in the pre-Budget report and the Green Paper itself.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the abolition of higher-rate tax relief on pensions contributions would make it less and not more likely that people would save towards their retirement? Will that not lead to a deepening of the crisis in funded pension provision?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the reply that I have just given. He will not tempt me to engage in hypothetical speculation on this important matter.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns, following the actions of Scottish Widows and British Airways—to name but two—on final salary pension schemes? Will he consider a change in the law to ensure that employers hold full consultations so that those practices do not continue at the expense of people who work for such companies?

As I said in my opening response, it is very important that all parties in pension provision—employers included—meet their responsibilities. I have discussed the issues with the CBI and we are encouraging the partnership discussions that are under way between the CBI and the TUC. It should be stressed hat good pension arrangements are crucial to business in recruiting and retaining a good work force. We shall address those issues further in the Green Paper.

But is my right hon. Friend aware that management and ownership changes in companies can sometimes create problems? For example, management buy-outs sometimes give new managements the opportunity to tear up existing schemes. Does my right hon. Friend think that some additional measures to safeguard existing schemes should be provided in future to deal with such circumstances?

Among the provisions that would address my hon. Friend's concern—which has been drawn to our attention—are the 401k arrangements that operate in the United States. As with other aspects of this matter, we shall be considering those as part of the Green Paper. As I pointed out earlier, hon. Members and the general public, including trade unions and employers, will have full opportunity to make comments on the proposals in the Green Paper.

In my usual generous way, I fully accept that the Secretary of State inherited a complete mess in relation to pensions, for which he is not personally responsible, but does he accept that the situation now is urgent and that each day we have more bad news on final salary schemes and private sector pensions? Is he not concerned that, if we have a Green Paper in response to consultation papers, then consult on it, then legislate, it may be several years before workable legislation is in place, and that by then there may not be much of a pensions sector left? Does he not think that more urgent action is needed?

This is an extremely important policy area to address, and to address properly. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand, pensions policy is, by definition, for the long term, and I believe that we will get the best policy on the basis of calm reflection. Yes, of course these are matters of urgency but with calm and proper consideration and consultation we can put something in place that is durable, and rebuild confidence in the pension promise. We would not do that through knee-jerk reaction to fevered press speculation.

Will the Secretary of State consider the position of workers such as those at United Engineering Forgings in Sheffield, which has gone into administration, putting their pension scheme at risk, and those whose employers decide to terminate a scheme against their wishes? In both cases, because the schemes are not fully funded and because of the prior claims of existing pensioners, additional voluntary contributions and so on, such workers find their expected future pensions cut in half or worse overnight. That is bad enough for any worker, but it is devastating for workers in their 40s and 50s, who have no chance of making up the loss. Will the Secretary of State take action to right what is a very obvious wrong in those cases?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the understandable anxiety—and in many cases anger—that workers feel having been put in that position. I have seen the reports of the comments of the independent Occupational Pension Advisory Service on the situation at Maersk, which is precisely such an instance. I have already asked that that sort of situation and the appropriate action that we can take be covered in the Green Paper.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many homeowners rely on a tax-free lump sum to help to pay off their mortgages and that, if that were to he abolished, it would compound the difficulty that exists with endowment policies at the moment? Does he agree that the position is anomalous because, although many people would be better off putting all their lump sum into their pension rather than taking the tax-free amount, there is no parallel incentive for them to do so? Would they not be better getting a proportion of tax relief by putting that sum into an annuity, as happens in other European countries?

I am of course fully aware of the importance of the tax-free lump sum. As I made very clear in my statement to the House on 11 July, the effectiveness of incentives and how well they are understood must be one of the criteria against which we judge the Green Paper. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have already said that we will say more about annuities when we produce the Green Paper.

As pensions involve long-term financial arrangements, does the Secretary of State agree that any employer who is considering ending a final salary scheme should not only consult their work force but ensure that they consider the very substantial savings they have made when not contributing to pensions during a pension holiday in the past?

Yes, indeed, and we have urged all employers who are contemplating changes to their schemes to consult the workers effectively.

I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to leave millions of savers in any doubt about his intentions with regard to their pension contributions, so to ensure that there is absolutely no wriggle room—no room for evasion and no room for ambiguity—may I ask him to make it absolutely clear to the House that he agrees with the National Association of Pension Funds that abolishing tax reliefs

"for higher-rate tax payers is a very bad idea at a time when the government is supposed to be encouraging people to save for their retirement."?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that?

I have already made it abundantly clear—I cannot make this clearer—that we have no such plans. Before accusing us of wanting to increase taxes, the Opposition spokesman ought to explain why his own shadow Chief Secretary has his name on the pension reform pamphlet that urges us to put up national insurance contributions by 2 per cent. He might also do well to remember that the last party to come before the House proposing the abolition of tax relief on pensions contributions was not us but the Conservatives, in the form of the then Secretary of State for Social Security, on 11 March 1997.

Order. The Secretary of State should remember that it is his policies that we want to hear about.

I am afraid that we know how skilful the Government are at inventing new stealth taxes. That is why we want to read the Secretary of State's lips. All he has to say is, "We will not remove the tax reliefs currently enjoyed by people saving for their pensions." That is what we want him to say; that is what millions of people saving for their pensions want him say; that is what we want to hear him say now.

We will take every action that is necessary to safeguard the future of security in retirement in this country. The hon. Gentleman tempts me to make commitments that must be brought forward in the proper way through the pre-Budget report and the Green Paper. He is not going to get me to engage in hypothetical speculation on an issue on which I have made it clear that the Government have no plans.

I know that we are not allowed the full Jeremy Paxman 14 questions, but let me try just one more time. I am not trying to tempt the Secretary of State. I am trying on behalf of millions of people saving for their pensions to request him to give them an assurance—plain and simple, with no delay, prevarication or weeks of uncertainty—that he will not remove the tax incentives that people currently have to save for their pensions. That is the assurance that we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to give the House. Why will he not do so?

Because—I could not have been clearer—we have no plans, and these are properly matters for the pre-Budget report and the Budget.

Should not the whole emphasis be on protecting the future pension plans of those on modest incomes? There is tremendous disappointment that so many people now find that the best provision—the final salary scheme—will not be awarded to them. Is it not interesting that a number of companies that have discontinued such schemes have made sure that their chief executives, chairmen and so on get the most generous pension schemes possible, involving £50,000, £100,000 and £150,000 or more in pension, while their employers are denied a decent pension when they retire?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is crucial that the conclusions that we reach on pensions policy are guided by equity, consultation and fairness to the workers concerned. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), we are looking at the 401k proposals in the United States, which seek to establish that sort of equivalence.

If he will make a statement on the benefit entitlement of student nurses. [73060]

Full-time students, including student nurses, are not generally entitled to receive income-related benefits while studying unless they are in a vulnerable group, such as people with disabilities or lone parents. Student nurses receive a non-repayable bursary which in many cases is more generous than the help available to full-time students in mainstream higher education. All students may claim other social security benefits, subject to their satisfying the normal conditions of entitlement for the benefits concerned.

I thank the Minister for his response. I understand that next year there will be changes to child care benefits for student nurses, and I welcome that. However, I press the Minister to tell us the advice that he would give today to a constituent of mine who is studying but who cannot afford to pay for her child care costs and whose housing association property is at risk of repossession. Should she abandon her course or risk the financial consequences of pursuing it?

I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about that case, about which we have corresponded. I think that there has been a recent development whereby Sutton council, I assume, has been rather more helpful with housing benefit.

In the national health service, we are now spending more than £300 million a year on NHS bursaries, and the first three rates increased by 10 per cent. last year. The NHS has its own child care strategy on which it will spend £100 million by 2004. As part of that strategy, there will be 150 on-site nurseries, which means that about a further 7,500 subsidised places will be available by 2004. However, I repeat that I am happy to talk about the particular case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is anomalous, not to say unjust, that in many cases the loan that students receive is treated as income for the purposes of deciding whether they are eligible for benefit? Does he not want to take steps to rectify that injustice in view of the fact that it has some of the consequences mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)?

It is appropriate that the help provided through loans and the non-payment of university tuition fees for low-income families is regarded as separate from the help we give people through the provision of income support and jobseeker's allowance when they are out of work. As I said, however, vulnerable groups have access to income-related benefits. It has always been the case that, subject to certain disregards, income sources are subtracted from income support entitlement. That is the case with student loans and it remains the policy.

Is the Minister aware of the serious problem of the number of student nurses who are abandoning the profession simply because of the high cost of rentals in London? Is he aware in particular of the big problem at Barts, which many nurses are leaving because of the closure of the residential unit at Mile End? If he is interested in holding on to nurses, would it not be helpful to find a way in which the hospitals can assist with the provision of accommodation for student nurses at reasonable rents?

We are certainly interested in retaining nurses and are sensitive to the issue of housing, not least in my city of London. Housing developments are proceeding for key workers, who include nurses. Both housing policy and national health service policy are sensitive to that important issue.

How many complaints were recorded against doctors carrying out home visits to assess people receiving disability benefits in (a) 1981, (b) 1991 and (c) 2001. [73062]

No data are held about complaints for the period before the contract for medical services was let in September 1998. However, in 2001 there were 1,665 complaints out of a total of 236,028 home visits carried out by medical services doctors.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider how complaints against doctors who visit people on disability benefits are dealt with, given that at the moment it is the doctor's word against the word of the person who has been interviewed? When, as often happens, the two stories do not coincide, the doctor's word is taken against that of the person on benefit. How many of those complaints were found to be justified?

I am afraid that I do not have an immediate figure for how many complaints were justified. It will not always be the case that the complainant is right and the doctor is wrong, or the other way around. The fact is that two people may see such exchanges from different points of view. If my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind that he wants to draw to my attention, I shall be happy to consider it. However, people approach those vexed questions on the basis of different circumstances and have different views accordingly.

Does the Minister not think that it would be appropriate for doctors to examine people physically rather than simply discussing how far they can walk and how much weight they can lift? That would ensure that there was objective information on which a decision to remove benefit could be based before such terrible decisions were imposed on vulnerable people who have no defence against a doctor's word.

The doctor's assessment informs the decision maker. It is a medical gateway, but doctors do not make the decisions themselves. I have no reason to believe that there is a case for making the changes that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of our constituents unfairly have their disability benefit removed? Do doctors follow a quota that is recommended by the Government? If not, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should examine the system as it is at present?

If people believe that the system has treated them unfairly, there is an appeals mechanism that they can use. Indeed, many cases succeed on appeal.

Does the Minister know that constituents of mine who receive incapacity benefit had to go all the way from King's Lynn to Norwich to undergo a fitness-for-work test? Would it not be easier if the test took place in King's Lynn? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the journey time from King's Lynn to Norwich by public transport is longer than the recommended 90 minutes? Will he please examine that matter?

I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's specific point. However, many assessments are carried out through home visits; not everybody has to travel.

What plans he has to increase winter fuel payments to over-60s. [73064]

We have increased the level of winter fuel payments considerably since we introduced them in 1997. Most people aged 60 or over receive a payment of up to £200, which is a significant contribution towards their winter fuel bill. That means that almost 1 million pensioners in Scotland—more than 13,000 in my hon. Friend's constituency—will continue to benefit. We are committed to helping pensioners and we have given an undertaking that that level of payment will continue for the rest of the Parliament.

I wholeheartedly welcome the winter fuel allowance and the increases in it. However, does my hon. Friend realise that although the death rate has decreased, more people die of cold in Britain than in the rest of Europe? That costs the national health service more than £1 billion a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that a winter fuel allowance increase of £50 to £250 would help to reduce fuel poverty in this country and help to alleviate the costs on the NHS? If so, when will the 13,000 households in Anniesland receive it?

My hon. Friend is well known for his assiduity in pursuing the interests of his pensioner constituents. However, he seems to believe that I have a little more power than I do.

The winter fuel payment is not the Government's only policy to tackle fuel poverty. Of course, it is an important policy that helps pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere, but we have other policies. For example, the old home energy efficiency scheme, which is now known as warm front, gives grants of up to £2,500 for over-60s to improve the heating and insulation of their properties.

Between 1997 and 2002, gas prices have decreased by almost 12 per cent. in real terms and electricity prices by more than 21 per cent. So there are other factors that mean that people should find it easier to pay their winter fuel bills.

Will the Minister give us the figures for the decrease in older people's deaths in the winter months? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) described such deaths as a British phenomenon. Will the hon. Lady further emphasise that it is not only the winter fuel payment but tackling the substandard housing and lack of insulation in many older people's households that makes a difference?

I cannot provide the exact figures governing the decrease in deaths because I do not have them with me. Of course, they vary from year to year. The 2000 spending review provided an extra £2.5 billion to renovate social housing. That will do much to improve insulation and heating. I have already referred to warm front, the home energy efficiency scheme, which the Government have greatly extended.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman supported the policy because I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but the Conservative Government introduced VAT on fuel, which we cut from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. We have therefore taken several measures to ensure that people who have difficulty paying their fuel bills can do so. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman wants to join us in that aim. I hope that he will dissent from any Conservative party policies that are not excellent on cutting winter fuel prices.

What plans he has to increase the flexibility of delivery of the new deal for clients and providers. [73066]

The new deals have already proved a success, helping nearly three quarters of a million people move into work. We are now building on that success. We have already introduced a range of further initiatives, including the tailored pathway pilots and the adviser discretion fund. Both of those give personal advisers, working with providers, more flexibility to tailor services to address the particular needs of individuals and the local labour market.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. His Department's response to the Select Committee's report on the new deal says that it will consider more moves towards making this area more flexible. Will he look particularly at streamlining the new deal so that there is one overall scheme, which would provide more flexibility for advisers to give an individual package of help to claimants, designed around their needs rather than around the needs of large categories of claimants?

We are looking at what greater flexibility can be given to advisers in particular circumstances. Initiatives to increase flexibility in the new deal include the adviser discretion fund, which gives the personal advisers flexibility in the way they help people to overcome barriers to work. The tailored pathway pilots give advisers flexibility to combine new deal options to suit the needs of individual clients. There are also the ambition programmes, and employers have been given more flexibility in the way in which training is provided on the employment option. We have introduced short work-focused courses in the education and training option to meet the needs of local employers more flexibly, and, later this year, we will introduce more payment flexibility for small employers on the employment option.

Would the Minister be prepared to look at the current spending profile of the new deal for disabled people? Many of the job brokers involved are small specialist concerns—some are charities and agencies—that find it difficult to survive given that they are sometimes getting less than 10 per cent. of their fee up front. Sometimes it takes many months to get the rest of their fee for the scheme. The scheme is very welcome in concept, but some important aspects need to be considered carefully if we are to make it a realistic prospect for some of the agencies and job brokers who are anxious to help.

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point. There is clearly an issue in relation to the way in which providers are paid, and strong representations have been made to us about the balance between outcome payments and payments made earlier in the programme. The matter is being given careful consideration in the Department now, and I hope that we shall have something further to say shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the effectiveness of the new deal depends partly on the professionalism of the staff delivering it? In that regard, will he send his congratulations to Mr. Kevin Adderley and all the staff at the Wallasey Jobcentre Plus, whose latest results have just shown that, since it was set up as a pathfinder office, it has found work for 2,700 people, including 700 from the hardest to help groups? That makes it the top-performing pathfinder office in the country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for standing up for the hard-working staff in Jobcentre Plus. I have been impressed by the levels of commitment and standards of service of our staff in Jobcentre Plus, and by their sheer enthusiasm for the ideas that underpin the Government's approach. I know that, when other Members have visited their Jobcentre Plus, they have received a similar impression. I am happy to extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend's constituents.

Given that the recent report of the Labour-dominated Public Accounts Committee found that 30 per cent. of leavers from the new deal for young people went to unknown destinations, will the right hon. Gentleman accept the report's recommendation that his Department and Jobcentre Plus conduct further research into why people leave the scheme, in order better to identify those participants who need additional help and support?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I also welcome the constructive line of questioning that he is adopting. The Public Accounts Committee reports are, of course, delivered in a bipartisan setting. Indeed, it is one of the strengths of that Committee that it can arrive at its conclusions unanimously and strive to get recommendations to the Government that transcend traditional party lines. We will of course look at the PAC's recommendations, but I must say that I thought the report constituted an endorsement of what we were doing rather than the full-blooded criticism for which the hon. Gentleman may have been looking.

My right hon. Friend will know. because I have discussed the issue with him, that in my constituency, although long-term unemployment is four times lower than it was in the 1980s, we still have a residual problem because of the large number of workers on short-term and fixed-term contracts. Would not a bolder and more radical solution be to make the expertise gained by new deal advisers accessible to people who are in work but who, owing to the nature of their contracts, know that in four to six weeks they will be out of a job for an unspecified period before obtaining another short-term contract? Can we help that group of workers to escape from the perpetual cycle of short-term and fixed-term contracts and into full-time work by applying such expertise?

That is a good point, which we have discussed before. The labour market in my hon. Friend's constituency is slightly anomalous because of the impact and prevalence of the short-term contracts to which he has referred. I am not sure how much the Employment Service and Jobcentre Plus can do to deal with the core problem—the short-term nature of the contracts themselves—but I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend and see what more can be done.

In relation to the hardest to help, can the Minister undertake to look carefully at the conclusions of the Select Committee report regarding the involvement of the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors in finding jobs for people who are dependent on alcohol or drugs?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have programmes targeted at those recovering from drug addiction, and also at ex-offenders. Of course the voluntary sector has an important part to play in that work, as it already plays an important part in the provision of, for example, intermediate labour market schemes, which can provide a pathway to permanent employment. I take the recommendations very seriously indeed.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the new deal for disabled people. [73068]

The new deal for disabled people is the first national employment programme specifically designed to help people with disabilities move into and keep jobs. Since the national extension of the programme began, it has helped over 4,000 people into jobs and more than 20,000 have registered with job brokers to actively pursue employment. We are working closely with job brokers, and are keen to make improvements to the new deal for disabled people as we proceed. As the NDDP progresses, a comprehensive programme of evaluation will measure the impact, and a report of that evaluation will be published.

The new deal for disabled people started in Bolton as a pilot scheme in 1998, and has now been rolled out to include Bury and Salford. I am pleased to say that last month was the most successful ever, with 45 people entering employment. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that many people with disabilities, especially those on incapacity benefit, are not engaging with the NDDP because they fear losing their benefits? Will he make it clear to those people that they can work therapeutically, without loss of benefits, and that in-work benefits are also available to people with disabilities?

The combination of tax credits and the new earnings rules amounts to an attractive package. I do not think that the situation is well enough understood—we need to do more to explain the current circumstances—and I agree that people fear loss of benefits. They also fear that if they take on a job, perhaps part time, it may be difficult for them to return to benefits. In particular, people worry about housing benefit and council tax rebates, and if they have children, they worry about losing free school dinners.

These are important issues. We want those who have tried work and been unable to sustain it to be able to return to benefits, and not to be disadvantaged by having tried work; but of course we still have some way to go to ensure that we can actually deliver that.

If he will make a statement on progress towards payment of pensions and benefits through the universal bank and post office card accounts. [73069]

The Post Office assures us that it is on schedule for the start of universal banking services in April next year, including the post office card account. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the banks have now signed detailed contracts with the Post Office to make their basic accounts available at Post Office branches.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the universal banking proposals have been widely welcomed, but there is still much doubt and concern about whether the post office card account will be up and running in time. Why have his and other Departments done nothing to persuade or even advise people of the existence of the post office card account? Why do the application forms for the new child tax credit ask for people's bank account details, and explain to them how to get a bank account, but do not tell them that they can still receive their benefit in cash at post offices through the post office card account?

We have consulted widely on all the materials and on all the letters that we are sending on this matter. I would rebut any suggestion—some have been made—that we are trying to put barriers in the way of people accessing post office card accounts. We certainly are not. In our communications strategy, we are writing to different categories of benefit and pension recipients. The Veterans Agency started writing to its clients earlier this month, and our Department will write to pensioners and to recipients of child benefit, income support, jobseeker's allowance and disability benefit over a two-year period, because the introduction will be phased. The first invitation letters asking for account details will be sent to child benefit recipients from next week. We shall also mount a major advertising campaign at the beginning of the new year to ensure that people are fully informed of their rights in this matter.

Many pensioners welcome the fact that they will still be able to get their pensions in cash at post office counters. However, I am concerned that the high-tech nature of the new system that will come into operation next April will pose extreme difficulties for some pensioners. It will be stressful for some pensioners to collect their pension. I have seen the demonstration in the post office in Central Lobby, which involves small machines with PIN pads for pensioners to use to get their cash. Will the Minister consider providing a more user-friendly system for pensioners? Will he consult pensioner organisations before the new system comes about next April?

There have been extensive consultations with organisations representing pensioners and post office users more generally, and they are continuing. I would not describe the new system as a high-tech solution to the challenge. Yes, people will have to remember a PIN number, but they will be able to change the number to one that is easier for them to remember. We appreciate that some people will not be able to use a PIN number, and alternative arrangements will be put in place for them.

Are the UK Government prepared to make grants available to sub-postmasters to ensure that people with disabilities have ready access to post office card accounts, and that the equipment is user friendly for our pensioners?

We have already committed huge sums of money to the changeover—£500 million has gone into the Horizon provision in post offices, the DTI will shortly announce further resources to assist rural post offices, and £270 million of investment is committed to carrying into effect the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit report to safeguard the future of the post office network. I can tell the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) that, as this system is developed, if sensible improvements can be made in the light of experience, I should be pleased to consider them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite all his Department's efforts to make the system seem simple and user-friendly, many elderly people are worried about it? Is it not important that, as well as providing the literature from his Department, we ensure that the national media put the change forward positively, so that people get the message on how simple it is? The media sometimes carry an even greater impact than official notices from his Department.

Tempting though it is to imagine that I could take responsibility for how such things are portrayed in the media, I cannot do so. We shall make efforts not only through letters to clients, but through advertising, leafleting and other ways of communicating the message that the system is straightforward and simple. However, I also stress that where people have difficulties, of course special arrangements have to be made for them.

The Secretary of State sounds confident at a time when two fifths of households receiving disability benefits have no bank account, a third of those receiving jobseeker's allowance have no bank account and, as he confirmed in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 19 July, there are 250,000 more benefit recipients without bank accounts than at the time of the previous survey.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House, first, that the proposal will not be driven through before the necessary systems are in place and the households have the appropriate accounts, and secondly, that no more post offices will close because of the loss of business caused by the introduction of the system?

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman and his party accepted that, through the great investment that we are making in the Post Office, including its modernisation and getting in proper IT, and by extending financial services through basic bank accounts as well as post office card accounts to people who do not have them, we will be tackling financial exclusion and opening up new and positive opportunities for post offices the better to serve not simply their traditional client group, important though that is, but also to win new business. This is a process of modernisation, which is the only way forward to safeguard the post office network in the way everyone in the House wants.

If he will extend the categories of those people with disabilities who may undertake supported permitted work. [73070]

The new permitted work rules give everyone claiming benefit because of a health condition or disability the opportunity to try out work without fear of losing their benefit. That is designed to be a stepping stone to full-time work—that is, work of more than 16 hours a week.

We responded to concerns raised during the consultation on the change by widening the rules to maintain the position of people with special needs who are supported in work by professional health or care workers. We will evaluate the permitted work rules over the next 18 months to see whether further improvements are required.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and her indication that she will evaluate the way the rules work. In that evaluation, will she consider the cases of claimants who, under the old rules, could have undertaken paid therapeutic work while receiving incapacity benefit, but are unable to do so under the new rules, because they do not fall within the new definition of supported permitted work? That is because the work that they do does not easily fall into the categories of support that are normally given by local authorities. The same applies to voluntary organisations. She is aware of a case in my constituency, on which I have corresponded with her and her colleagues. Will she re-examine it, and also consider in the evaluation the detail of the wider issues raised by my constituent's case?

I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have a great deal of sympathy for his constituent and the position in which she finds herself. I hope that he will come to see me about the case, so that I can see what we can do to help his constituent. I am also happy to tell him that I will consider the issue that he raises to see how widespread it is in the new scheme and what, if anything, ought to be done about it in the evaluation.

What his targets are for the reduction of benefit fraud. [73071]

We have announced firm targets for reducing fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance for working-age customers. We are aiming for a 33 per cent. reduction by 2004 and a 50 per cent. reduction by 2006. We have also announced a new target aiming for a 25 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in housing benefit by 2006. Latest figures show that we have already achieved a 24 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance for all customers—more than double our target of 10 per cent. To spell that out, it means a saving of some £240 million.

Perhaps as part of the plan to meet that new target, and given that many instances of benefit fraud involve the fraudster using an identity other than their own, what further measures will my hon. Friend's officials be developing, perhaps in partnership with organisations such as the Council of Mortgage Lenders or the UK fraud prevention service, to tackle the specific problem of identity fraud within the benefit system?

Identity fraud is a very sophisticated form of fraud. A special unit in the Department for Work and Pensions looks at that particular area. We work with partners both within and outside Government on that issue. It calls for a very sophisticated response from Government. I think that we have that response.

Is the Minister aware that one of the main reasons for so many errors and so much fraud is the incredible complexity of the system? Would it not be helpful if the Minister tried to simplify it so that my constituents who really needed the support knew they could get it and knew how to get it, but those who were trying to work the system found it more difficult because it was much more transparent? Would he not then be able to set a proper target of getting rid of fraud almost completely, instead of living with the unacceptable, high levels that he is forecasting well into the future?

What we are also forecasting is a determination to reduce fraud. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that this Government—I cannot speak for other Governments—are succeeding in reducing fraud. All of us want more simplicity. There is a balance to he struck: how to simplify the system when meeting the specific needs of specific members of the community. These are difficult issues, but only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced pilots/pathfinders on housing benefit, which will produce much greater simplicity in that complex area of social security policy.

No one in the House would condone and all would condemn any form of benefit fraud, but where there are tighter targets how will changes be introduced with sense and sensitivity? Surveys have often shown that savings from the failure to take up benefits have been greater than the cost of the fraud associated with them. Is there not a risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water if the targets are too tight and the framework too inflexible?

We have to be tough minded about rooting out fraud. To put this in context, the £240 million that we have saved by tackling fraud on two benefits, income support and jobseeker's allowance, means that the Exchequer has more money available for police forces, for schools and for hospitals. They are the people's priorities. I often find in my constituency that the people who are most angry about fraud in their communities are hard-working families, often on low incomes, who want taxpayers' money to be spent properly.

What procedures are undertaken by the Child Support Agency to check the accuracy of declarations of income by absentee fathers who employ accountants or other financial advisers. [73072]

All declarations of income are checked to verify their accuracy before child maintenance is calculated, where possible. The procedure does not differ if a non-resident parent employs an accountant or financial adviser. An accountant or financial adviser may be one of the third parties with whom information is verified.

It does not take Sherlock Holmes to work out that if a rich father employs accountants or financial advisers to produce figures that indicate that he does not have the financial wherewithal to pay maintenance to his children, there is a possibility that some fiddles will be going on. Where financial advisers and accountants are employed to suggest that a father cannot afford to pay maintenance for his children, surely there should be another system to check whether something may be wrong?

All of us in our constituencies have come across cases of that kind, which have raised our suspicions. I recognise the importance of the question, but since 1999 the Child Support Agency has had powers that align with those of the Inland Revenue. That means that an inspector may call at any premises where he or she believes relevant information is held. The CSA and Inland Revenue can share information such as self-assessment returns. We may interview other people, such as accountants. We are determined that where someone parents a child, either as a mother or father, they support that child financially. We have new powers to do that and we are determined to implement those powers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that only two thirds of the families who apply for maintenance through the Child Support Agency receive such benefit? Clearly, the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) can be a factor in that. What is his Department doing to ensure that the Child Support Agency meets its commitments? The aim is to keep children out of poverty, but clearly, with a third of families not receiving maintenance, more children are forced into poverty.

Family insecurity is now as important as economic insecurity as a force for poverty and disadvantage. We have new policies on child support, which we aim to implement as soon as possible. We are driving up the rate of payment—in terms of the cash that is now due, some 70 per cent. or more of maintenance is now paid. There remain some non-resident parents or absent fathers, however—perhaps 30 per cent.—who are not paying maintenance. The purpose of our new reforms is to spend less time on complicated assessment, in a move towards simplicity, and more time on enforcement. It is crucial that we undertake that as soon as possible.

Is not the reality that, although the CSA is relatively good at recovering maintenance from PAYE people, as soon as a father submits any other kind of accounts or any other information that is in any way out of the ordinary, the CSA takes one look at it, gives up and goes home? If it cannot enforce payment in unusual circumstances, will the Minister consider subcontracting such work to professionals who might take a more determined, robust and forensic approach? At the moment, many women are being failed by the bureaucratic, inexperienced and toothless way in which the CSA operates.

I do not think that that is an appropriate comment on our hard-working officials who do a very difficult job in sometimes very difficult circumstances in the Child Support Agency. If I may say so, it was not a nice comment. Under the new reforms, which we hope to implement as soon as possible, we will put much more emphasis on enforcement, as I indicated. It is right and proper that everyone who fathers a child should maintain that child financially, regardless of their social position and of what sophisticated employees, including accountants, are working for them.

What assessment she has made of the role of the new pension centres in increasing benefit take-up. [73073]

We are leading a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a mainly passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty. The pension service will encourage people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled, create opportunity and help people to be self-sufficient and independent. To assist in that process, we have established three pension centres in Scotland, located in Motherwell, Dundee and Glasgow. As a result, approximately 800 new jobs are being created in Scotland.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. I recently visited Burnley pension centre, and was very impressed by the quality of the staff and the effectiveness of the service. Surely, however, the acid test is how effective the centres will be in maximising take-up by pensioners, particularly of the minimum income guarantee.

Unlike the previous Government, we are committed to ensuring that those who are entitled to benefit and pensions receive them in full rather than putting them off. Three quarters of retirement pension claims are already made on the telephone, and the fact that our services will be much more accessible will help enormously. In addition, our people are better trained, our systems will enable us to have trigger questions to identify possible entitlement, and we will be out there searching to ensure that people who contact us receive their full entitlement. It will be easier to contact us, and we will therefore make sure that more people receive their proper entitlement.

Since phone calls from the south-east will often be answered in Scotland, as the Under-Secretary said, what assurance can she give my ethnic minority constituents—those born in Pakistan or Kashmir or their descendants—that their calls will be understood?

Generally, it is perfectly possible for members of the public to understand our Scottish staff. The hon. Gentleman has a particular concern about ethnic minority constituents, but a translation service is offered and his constituents will be able to access our services in the language in which they are happiest. He should not have any concerns that his constituents will be unable to contact the service or to get advice in the language in which they are happiest. Our Scottish staff are perfectly capable of communicating with anybody in this country.

Hear, hear.

Perhaps I can now communicate; I call the Foreign Secretary.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the terrorist attack in Bali on Saturday 12 October.

In his statement to the House on Tuesday last, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the circumstances as we knew them about the attack and its consequences. The most up-to-date information is this. In total, more than 180 people of many nationalities are thought to have died in the attack. Of these, at least half were Australian. Many Indonesians died. Of the British citizens caught up in the blast, 11 are now confirmed as dead, and a further 22 are missing; sadly, presumed to be dead. At least 27 British citizens were injured, a number of whom have been medevaced to Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. There may be other British injured among the unidentified in intensive care in Australia.

The House joined the Prime Minister last week in sending its deepest sympathies to the relatives of the victims. It is every parent's worst nightmare to hear that their sons and daughters have been swept up in a tragedy. But when bereavement is compounded by having to travel halfway across the world to identify loved ones, the experience must be truly unimaginable.

Yesterday we joined with the people of Australia, who held a day of national mourning for this, the worst terrorist outrage in that country's history. Flags were flown at half-mast at Buckingham palace and at our embassies and high commissions around the world. The Australian high commission is arranging a memorial service in St Paul's cathedral here in the city of London on 25 October. Tomorrow, the Indonesian embassy will be holding a multi-faith commemorative ceremony in London, which I shall be attending. The British Government will organise a British memorial service. We shall be consulting the families about what they think would be most appropriate.

Let me now update the House on the action that we have taken to assist those injured and the relatives and close friends of all who were victims in this atrocity. The British honorary consulate in Bali provided the initial assistance to survivors of the attacks and to victims' relatives. This was reinforced early on Sunday 13 October by the British consul and then by the ambassador, Richard Gozney, other staff and volunteers from the British community in Bali. These staff and volunteers have worked tirelessly and I pay my tribute to them.

However, on Thursday last, I learned of complaints by some families that they had not received the service that we should have provided. I asked the Foreign Office Minister, my noble Friend Baroness Amos, who was already travelling to Bali, to talk to all the families concerned and to make her own assessment about the complaints. In the light of this, my noble Friend apologised directly to the families concerned. I reinforced that apology on Friday last and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat it in the House. I am very sorry that shortcomings in getting sufficient extra staff on the ground in Bali early enough last week exacerbated the terrible burden that the families were under in any event.

As of today, there are 15 British officials in Bali, and 30 British police officers, including experienced family liaison officers and anti-terrorist experts working with the Indonesian and Australian police on the investigation into the attack itself. In London, the emergency consular unit was established overnight on Saturday 12 October and, working with New Scotland Yard, has continued in operation.

Last Wednesday, I announced a package of measures designed to help relatives to travel to where their loved ones were being treated, or to where victims had died. The scheme—similar to that put in place after 11 September last year—covers the repatriation of the remains of those who died, and the medical evacuation of the injured. The FCO will pay the costs concerned wherever an insurance policy does not already cover them. I decided on these exceptional measures because of the exceptional nature of terrorism, in which individuals are random victims of attacks directed at society as a whole. As for the future, we shall work urgently with the insurance industry and others to see how between us we can ensure that the pain of victims of terrorism is not made worse by financial hardship.

Immediately after the Bali attack, we advised against all travel to Bali and all non-essential travel elsewhere in Indonesia. On 17 October I announced a further strengthening of our travel advice, warning against any travel to Indonesia as a whole. I also advised UK citizens in Indonesia to consider leaving if their presence was not essential, and authorised the withdrawal of some dependants and non-essential staff from our embassy in Jakarta. On 18 October, we amended our travel advice to other countries in south-east Asia, urging UK nationals to exercise extreme caution. Unfortunately, further attacks cannot be ruled out. In the light of additional intelligence assessed this morning, I am strengthening the travel advice still further by giving additional warnings about threats to UK nationals at specific locations in Indonesia. That travel advice is being issued now and is available on the Foreign Office's website.

I am placing in the Library of the House the travel advice issued by the FCO and the British embassy in Jakarta in respect of Indonesia before 12 October, and the equivalent advice issued by the United States and Australian Governments. Many of the relevant judgments in travel advice of this kind are based on intelligence. In the light of the atrocity on 12 October, the families and others have asked whether there was any intelligence that could have led us to issue specific warnings against travel to, or staying in, Bali. If I had lost a member of my family, I would be asking such questions. Indeed as Foreign Secretary, it is my responsibility to ask such questions.

Like everyone else, I dearly wish that there had been intelligence, which could have prevented this atrocity and its appalling consequences. But the answer, sadly, is that there was none. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday,

"We had no specific intelligence relating to the attack in Bali."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 177.]

As is now well known, it is the case that there was received in late September a generic threat to a number of cities and provinces in Indonesia, including Bali but covering 55 per cent. of the land mass of Indonesia and 100 million of its population. As my Australian counterpart Alexander Downer told the Australian Parliament on 17 October, these threats

"were non-specific and broad based across Indonesia".

There has also been a question raised about the travel advisory issued by the United States Department of State on 10 October. Let me explain to the House what this was. That advisory was a "world-wide caution" of a kind first issued by the US after 11 September last year. It alerted US citizens to the need to remain vigilant in the face of terrorist threats. It was revised on 10 October following an audio tape broadcast attributed to Osama Bin Laden. Issued only two days before the attack in Bali, it contained no reference to Bali, Indonesia or even south-east Asia. We also received a classified warning from the United States on the same day. It too had no reference to Bali, Indonesia or south-east Asia. As our travel advice to Indonesia, last updated on 27 August 2002, already contained a clear warning to travellers to Indonesia about terrorist threats, we judged that there was no case for amending it further in the light of the United States' travel advisory.

The United States, Australia and the United Kingdom all received similar intelligence in respect of Indonesia, but making their own independent judgments, all came to similar conclusions about travel to Indonesia. None of us had concluded that it was unsafe to travel to or remain in Bali. Both as Home Secretary and now as Foreign Secretary I have worked closely over the last five and a half years with all three of our intelligence services. Their standard of professionalism and competence is second to none. Each year they pick up literally thousands of pieces of intelligence. These vary between material provided by human sources, material provided by secret technical means, material openly available to the public, and sometimes just gossip.

Terrorist groups operate in secret. They are often skilled in counter-intelligence techniques, and may be feeding false intelligence to compromise an intelligence source or to direct law enforcement resources to the wrong place, so the raw intelligence has to be skilfully and carefully assessed before judgments can be made upon it. I believe, on the basis of what I have seen, that correct judgments were made about the available streams of intelligence before 12 October. There were generic threats, but there was no information that could have enabled us to warn in advance of this atrocity.

I do not want the relatives of those who died in this atrocity, nor those injured, to have nagging anxieties about whether different judgments should have been made. The Intelligence and Security Committee was established by Act of this Parliament to scrutinise the work of our intelligence agencies. Through the Prime Minister, it reports regularly to Parliament. It is made up of senior and respected Members of both Houses. It happens that the Intelligence and Security Committee is at present in Australia on a long-planned trip, and this morning I spoke to the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor),who had just arrived in Canberra. I told her that I had asked the intelligence co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office to ensure that all intelligence was made available to her Committee. The ISC will of course consider that and then reach its own conclusions on it.

The atrocity in Bali was a brutal reminder that the campaign against terrorism did not end with the removal of the Taliban. The reality is that our campaign will take years, perhaps even decades. In Indonesia, our immediate aim is to help the Indonesian Government act quickly to deal with the terrorist threat. We are already discussing how we can help through an intensified programme of counter-terrorist assistance. My noble Friend Baroness Amos and the British ambassador met President Megawati this morning in Jakarta. My noble Friend was assured by the President that the Indonesian Government were determined to take swift and decisive action against those responsible for the attacks. President Megawati has already signed an emergency decree strengthening police powers to detain suspects and to enable the courts to make use of intelligence. The Indonesian authorities have also taken action against known extremist groups. On 19 October they arrested the founder of Jemaah Islamiyah, Abubakar Bashir.

The terrorists' aim is to defeat the universal values of the United Nations, of tolerance, freedom and respect for human life, and replace them with brutality, fear and ethnic and religious hatred. I believe that the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, captured the international mood when he called on the world to pursue the campaign against terrorism with "unrelenting vigour". Today our grief at what happened is enormous, but our determination is unwavering.

The Foreign Secretary, even if initially reluctant, was, I am sure, right to come to the House today to make a statement, and I am grateful to him for allowing me advance sight of it. He has reported on the latest situation, and I join him in his words of condolence to the suffering in Australia and Indonesia, and also here at home. They must be foremost in all our thoughts at this time.

I welcome the help that the right hon. Gentleman and his office are providing to the relatives of those who have been killed or injured. I also join him in paying tribute to those who are providing that help on the ground. I believe, too, that the noble Lady Baroness Amos was right to go to Bali and to recognise the concerns on the ground, and to make the apology that has been repeated by the Foreign Secretary in the House today.

We all realise that dealing with such tragedies is never easy, but at the same time lessons must be learned. I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will look again at the way that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responds to such incidents. Is there not now a case for maintaining an ad hoc group within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on a reserve basis, for swift deployment to help handle the aftermath of such outrages?

I believe that we are right—both in the wider public interest, and for the peace of mind of the injured and the bereaved—to ask direct questions today. As Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, said yesterday:

"That does not denote a lack of confidence in the agencies. But when something of this magnitude occurs we have an obligation to have it thoroughly examined."

On that basis, I also welcome the Foreign Secretary's stating that he is asking the Intelligence and Security Committee to examine the evidence on what information was available, and what action was taken on it. I ask him, however, to request that Committee, which normally reports annually, to report separately and urgently on its findings. If it is to be a vehicle for looking into this important matter, not only should there be a separate report, but that report should form the basis of a debate in this House.

In the meantime. the Foreign Secretary's statement still leaves unacceptable uncertainty in the public mind. The questions that still need to be answered do not risk compromising intelligence sources but allow the Government to show the public either that they acted appropriately in the light of information available, or that there are lessons to be learned. So I shall put a number of those questions to the Foreign Secretary today, because it is important that he address them.

When, within the last 12 months, was information first received from the United States or other intelligence resources about potential terrorist activity in Indonesia? Is it true that the public assurance, which survived 11 September last year, that

"Bali and north Sulawesi province remain safe"

was removed from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website earlier this year? If so, why was it removed, and what was the information that caused its removal? Why was Jemaah Islamiyah not proscribed after last December's thwarted attempt to blow up the high commission in Singapore, when it appeared that the Government of Singapore were convinced that it was the alleged potential perpetrator?

Why, following warnings from the United States, did we update our travel advice in relation to Indonesia in August, but not after further warnings in September, when the Americans saw fit further to update their travel advice? Why were no warnings passed on to United Kingdom tourists and residents after the United States Embassy in Jakarta advised its citizens in Indonesia on 9 September that the country was at risk of a "credible" terrorist attack? When did the Government first receive the United States intelligence warnings that referred to six Indonesian "hotspots", including Bali—that differs somewhat from what the Foreign Secretary has told us today—and which were mentioned by the Downing street spokesman in the briefing given last Thursday? How on earth can this information, on six out of 6,000 inhabited islands, be regarded as generic, rather than specific? Why did the Foreign Secretary, unlike Downing street, appear not to know about this information when he answered press questions last Thursday? Yet on Friday, on BBC radio, he admitted it on the basis of

"one of the pieces of intelligence I have now seen."

Had he really not been shown this vital intelligence before then?

What is the right hon. Gentleman's response to the report attributed to United States intelligence officers in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph that

"a CIA briefing that Bali was a target was passed to the Government two days before the bomb blasts but not made public";

or that

"Britain was briefed that Islamic terrorists could be planning to attack nightclubs in Bali two days before the blasts"?

Will he clearly indicate whether there is any truth in those statements? It is vital that those points are cleared up.

Finally, why on earth, if Britain had the same information available to it as the Americans, did we not issue the same warnings to our citizens at the same time? Why did we not mention clubs and places of entertainment until after 12 October, when the Americans had seen fit to mention them before? Furthermore, as regards Indonesia, which is a very large country, where are the greatest preponderances of such venues and is not that, too, something that should have been taken into account?

Those are the unanswered questions that have created the doubts. To dispel the fog of uncertainty created by the ambiguous and contradictory Government briefings of last week, the Foreign Secretary must answer them now.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me a number of questions.

First, we always learn lessons in the light of events such as this, and plans are already afoot to ensure that better standing arrangements of the type that the right hon. Gentleman described are established in the Foreign Office and in relation to groups of British posts across the world. I intend to bring those forward. Not all the 15 staff currently in Bali come from Jakarta; a number of them come from other posts in south-east Asia.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Intelligence and Security Committee would report separately and urgently in respect of this matter. As he understands, that is fully a matter for the Committee, but I am sure that the Chairman will be made aware of the right hon. Gentleman's request. In any event, as I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary know well, the reports of the Committee are always the subject of at least one full day's debate a year in the House, when thorough scrutiny takes place.

Some of the right hon. Gentleman's questions on intelligence can be properly discussed only within the ISC, although I shall try to answer some of them. However, the right hon. Gentleman will realise, not least given the fact that he had four years of experience in handling intelligence when he was a Northern Ireland Minister, that it is extremely easy when dealing with such matters to raise possibilities that it is then difficult for those in possession of the intelligence to deal with in a way that provides complete reassurance. That is in the nature of intelligence. Would that one could lay out all the intelligence that we had received because that would provide reassurance, but the right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience that it is not appropriate, responsible or sensible to do that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked various questions about the position of the United States. There were differences in the detailed advice offered by the United States, the Australian Government and ourselves. Those can be seen clearly from comparing the different travel advisories that I have placed in the Library and to which the right hon. Gentleman already has access. The key advice in all the advisories issued by the three Governments was the same; in none of them was travel to, or stay within, Bali advised against.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the position of the United States. Its position was the same as ours. Sadly, three United States citizens were among the casualties in Bali. However, the United States was sufficiently relaxed about travel to Bali that I am told authoritatively that at least six of its own staff from Jakarta were on holiday in Bali at the time of the blast. The right hon. Gentleman should bear that information in mind before coming to the type of conclusions that he drew.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the reference in the Downing street briefing last Thursday. We are talking about the same information. As far as I am aware, we first received that information on 27 September and it was then the subject of assessment by the Security Service.

Was I aware of that information before I made my statement last Thursday? The answer is yes, but we had made a judgment that it would not be appropriate to give details about some of that intelligence. It happens that, for separate reasons, such information was given by my Australian counterpart, Alexander Downer, and that became clear between when I made my statement and when the Downing street press office answered questions at its briefings. What happened, as the right hon. Gentleman will see from the record, was that that was then referred to in the Downing street briefing, but we were talking about exactly the same statement.

My view is that we should always err on the side of caution when sourcing intelligence. The crucial thing, about which there has never been the slightest uncertainty, is that the right hon. Gentleman describes this issue as referring to six islands out of 6,000, but it happens that those islands cover 55 per cent. of Indonesia's land mass, 40 per cent. of the total population—100 million people—and 60 per cent. of all western tourists go to those six islands. The judgment had to be made as to whether there was sufficient information in that intelligence to advise against any travel to any of those islands or to one of them—Bali. The judgment that was made here and in Australia and the United States was the same: there was not sufficient information in that intelligence to justify any significant change in the travel advice, and none therefore was made.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must not allow our undiminished sense of horror or our natural anxiety about British citizens to stand in the way of a proper understanding of the consequence of those terrible events for the people of Bali, particularly in the long term?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reference of these matters to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I am sure that he would agree that speed is of the essence and that, if there is any question of delay, will he consider again the suggestion, which I made earlier, that these matters should be remitted to a High Court judge or figure of similar calibre, with a request to conduct a private investigation and to report to the Prime Minister, not for the purpose of seeking scapegoats or indulging in a witch hunt, but to see what lessons need to be learned for the future?

In the matter of consular assistance, it is clear that, in spite of their valiant efforts, the United Kingdom consular staff were literally overwhelmed. Since the events in Bali may not be the last occurrence of that kind, will the right hon. Gentleman consider—to an extent, I echo the observations of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—establishing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a unit ready to move at 24 hours' notice to give consular assistance where demands exceed the capacity of the staff already in place?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. My view is that the appropriate mechanism for an examination of the facts is the Intelligence and Security Committee. After all, it was established by the House and senior Members of the House and the other place serve on it, and they are well used to looking at intelligence. I have asked the intelligence co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office to ensure that, obviously, all the relevant intelligence is made available to that Committee, and it can then come to its own conclusions on it.

Is there a case for establishing a unit to ensure that there is a faster response where the evidence emerges over a period of hours, as it did in Bali, that the atrocity was on a very large scale? The answer is yes, and as I told the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), we are bringing forward our plans to do just that.

We grieve with those who lost loved ones in this outrage, but is not hindsight a wonderful thing? It gives a remarkable 20:20 vision. Is not it significant that, on the basis of the same evidence, our Australian allies, with their neighbours, reached the same conclusions as my right hon. Friend, but can he say a little more about the response of the Indonesian Government? We know that they have taken measures to combat Jemaah Islamiyah and that they have now arrested Mr. Bashir, the alleged leader of that group, but is it not true that certainly more than a year ago the Indonesian Government were advised that there was a training ground for al-Qaeda on Sulawesi? They have had a great deal of information about the way in which terrorist groups operated freely in Indonesia. Therefore, in the light of that record, is my right hon. Friend fully convinced that they have now taken on board the gravity of what they have allowed to develop on their territory?

On my right hon. Friend's first point, he is right about hindsight. What the intelligence agencies have to do on the basis of imperfect and inadequate information—namely the intelligence that terrorist organisations try to keep from the intelligence agencies—is to make the best judgments that they can. At the same time, we must not shut down the world, which is exactly what the terrorists want. Such judgments are very difficult, and we always err on the side of caution because human lives are at risk. However, if we were not to make proper judgments on the basis of assessments, the world would literally be closed down and the terrorists would then have won.

On my right hon. Friend's point about the Indonesian Government, they are now showing an increased determination to recognise the very severe threat that terrorism poses to them and to their society as well as to the wider world. We are therefore grateful to them for the collaboration and co-operation that they are showing to our law enforcement agencies, obviously to the Australians and to the agencies of other countries that had people killed or injured in this atrocity.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, at least at present, there is no obvious connection between the bombing in Bali and the Iraqi Government? Does he understand that there is a real concern among many right hon. and hon. Members to the effect that, if we are to take military action against Iraq even if supported by the authority of the United Nations and probably in any event, we will increase the support currently seen in the Islamic countries for terrorist activity? That really is a matter that we must take account of.

I find that a curious assertion. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we should not do one thing that is right—namely deal with the threat posed by Iraq—while we are doing something else that is also right, namely fighting terrorism. I do not share his view.

It is believed that my constituent Natalie Perkins died in the atrocity along with her cousin, Laura France, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). Unfortunately, the families received contradictory information at different times from the Foreign Office regarding the availability of flights to the area. Can I seek my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's assurance that there is now improved liaison with the families and a clear point of contact to ensure that they are given whatever accurate information is available at the time? May I also suggest that, in these situations, there should be one clear contact point for Members of Parliament, who are often contacted at such times, so that they too can have the up-to-date, accurate information to help and support families through a traumatic period?

I would like to express my very sincere condolences to the families concerned. I will look immediately into what my hon. Friend has today told me and the House. I am very sorry that that was the service that these families received.

As I have already said, there are a number of lessons to be learned, albeit that the staff were working in very difficult circumstances and under very great pressure. We intend to learn those lessons, and I shall ensure that the House is fully informed about them.

Will the Foreign Secretary note that family friends of mine are the father and mother of Peter Record, who was murdered in Bali? They are obviously suffering grievously in these circumstances.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that, as far as I can see, he has not answered the important questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those questions are properly answered in due course and, furthermore, that we have a further opportunity to consider the matter when the Intelligence and Security Committee has reported to the House?

I express my condolences to the hon. Gentleman's close friends on their loss.

The burden of the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) rests on the claim that evidence was available to warn against a specific threat in Bali on which we failed to act. There was none. It was also claimed that we did not issue warnings when the United States did, on which their citizens acted. That is also not the case. As I explained, the US judged Bali sufficiently safe that members of its embassy staff in Jakarta were on holiday there when the atrocity took place.

Although we do not know who was responsible for the barbaric act, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that about a year ago bin Laden said on al-Jazeera television that Australia was a crusader state because of its role in the United Nations in East Timor, and that Bali is predominantly a Hindu island? In those circumstances, is he satisfied that we will do everything possible, both here and overseas, to ensure that countries such as Indonesia, which has a large Muslim population, recognise the danger of religious war, and that all of us who are involved in religion and politics do everything possible to avoid such a war?

Yes. One reason why Bali was judged relatively safe was because 95 per cent. of its population is Hindu, a fact to which my hon. Friend alluded.

I have no doubt that the House will share the Foreign Secretary's confidence that the ISC will do its job thoroughly and that the intelligence co-ordinator at the Cabinet Office will learn, as far as it is possible, whatever lessons there are to be learned from the terrible events of the past few days. Does the Foreign Secretary agree, however, that there is a fatal flaw? In the 1990s, the obsession with signals intelligence—SIGINT—over human intelligence left the west at a grave disadvantage, which needs to be made up. Even allowing for the real and welcome increases in expenditure on security services, which I wholly welcome, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that there is a constant build-up of our ability to decipher human intelligence in those parts of the world where the risk is greatest, so that we do not rely only on SIGINT?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Everyone lowered their guard after the collapse of the Berlin wall. It was generally assumed that because the possible conflict between east and west was over, no significant threats to our interests and those of the west remained. We have sadly learnt to our cost that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of human intelligence alongside electronic intelligence—the one complements the other—and I am glad that he highlighted the fact that there has been, and will continue to be, a significant increase in resources to those parts of our intelligence apparatus that deal with human intelligence.

Can we hark back to the question asked by the former Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? The Foreign Secretary said that it was a curious question, but to some of us it is a self-evident question. Let me ask a direct question: in the view of the Foreign Office, is there any connection whatsoever between the monstrous events in Bali and Iraq? Can the Foreign Secretary imagine anything more likely to recruit terrorists from Algiers to the Philippines than raining down bombs on Baghdad from 15,000 ft?

I have the same difficulty as my hon. Friend in remembering the name of what used to be Grantham. It is Sleaford and North Hykeham. On the main point of his question, I see no connection between the atrocity and the Iraqi regime.

May I again return to the genuine problem of warning fatigue? Obviously, I urge the Foreign Secretary to continue to warn of genuine terrorist threat, but I stress that if too many warnings are issued about too many countries, the public will not believe them. For example, in the recent India-Pakistan crisis, the Foreign Secretary urged British nationals to leave. In such circumstances, warnings will be ignored, at everybody's peril.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke with greater wisdom to some extent than Conservative Front-Bench Members. He is right: we must achieve a balance. We always err on the side of caution—as I did at the end of May about travel to India and Pakistan—in the travel advisories that the United Kingdom and the United States issue together. However, the right hon. Gentleman was right about subsequent difficulty with the credibility of the warnings. We must be careful about the way in which we issue the warnings and the currency that we thus establish.

We shall continue to issue warnings whenever we judge them appropriate and especially when we consider lives to be at risk. Let me repeat that we cannot simply act on unassessed, raw intelligence, some of which is presented to us precisely because it is inaccurate. The overall effect would be to shut down economic and social activity throughout the world, which is exactly what the terrorists want.

I am sure that those who lost loved ones in the Bali outrage will appreciate the support that the Department offered. However, will my right hon. Friend also consider those such as the group of five young people from my constituency who fortunately escaped injury but witnessed the carnage at close hand? Will he discuss the matter with his colleagues and try to ensure that such people receive some support so that their lives are not blighted by terrorism?

Yes is the answer to my hon. Friend's question. If she has any details, I am happy to follow up on the case that she described so that we can learn from her constituents' experience.

Hindsight may be wonderful, as was said earlier, but foresight is much better. Was it not blindingly obvious, after 11 September and the Government's rightly strong reaction to those events, that British citizens around the world would be in danger of assault? If so, why were no preparations made to have a team on stand-by to react in support of British citizens around the world when they were attacked?

The fact that there is a worldwide threat is not only obvious but made clear in all our travel advice. For example, travel advice, which was last updated before 12 October on 27 August, said about Indonesia:

"After the terrorist attacks in the US, there is a heightened terrorist threat to US and UK interests worldwide."

It goes on to give advice about a series of precautions.

We have been strengthening our consular and support arrangements since 11 September last year. Many were put in place quickly. For example, in the United Kingdom, the emergency consular department was established and operating fully by the small hours of 13 October. We may be able to do more here. Notwithstanding the difficulties of a remote location, where there was simply one British honorary consul on 11 October, not a full diplomatic staff, we must have more flexible arrangements that can respond more quickly to the possibility of atrocities.

We welcome the decision to refer all the evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Will my right hon. Friend repeat or confirm that if all raw intelligence were taken at face value, the world would come to a standstill? As someone who also served in Northern Ireland, I can say that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) should know that.

What my hon. Friend says is entirely correct. Those of us who work, or have worked, with intelligence have particular responsibilities in this area.

While echoing the Secretary of State's condolences in relation to the Bali attack, may I ask whether he is aware of the security report produced by the Government of Spain on the operations of al-Qaeda in Indonesia, which was reported in The Herald today and, in depth over the weekend, in El Pais? Although the Secretary of State made no mention of other European intelligence agencies, or, indeed, of the role of the European Union, I know that this matter is on the agenda of the Council of Ministers today and tomorrow. What specific enhancements does the Secretary of State favour, in terms of intelligence sharing, to help to avoid this kind of catastrophe in the future?

I have seen the report. It is important, particularly when dealing with intelligence, not to treat one individual report—particularly one in a newspaper—as though it were somehow gospel. There is a stream of intelligence coming through all the time. We have very professional and competent intelligence services, as do many other countries. However, notwithstanding the high level of intelligence assessment and capacity available in the United States, there was no warning or intelligence whatever before 11 September last year that could have led the United States to take action to avoid that most appalling atrocity. There are standing arrangements by which we share intelligence and assessments with other intelligence agencies around the world, and those will continue to be strengthened in every way possible.

Is the Secretary of State in a position to make any observations on the significance of the Bali atrocity to the importance of continuing to fight against international terrorism, in terms both of this country acting alone and of international action?

My hon. Friend's question raises the importance of us continuing this fight. We must not let our guard fall, or be led into believing that the last atrocity is really the last. That cannot be the case. Within the al-Qaeda organisation, within the organisation likely to have been responsible for the Bali atrocity and within many other terrorist organisations, there are people who are determined to attack our way of life—not just the west's values, but universal human values enshrined in the United Nations charter—and randomly to make victims of our citizens in the course of their attacks on our society as a whole.

Are the Government planning to give any immediate assistance to the people of Bali, who have not only had to deal with many dead and injured among their own population, but will have almost totally lost their livelihoods as a result of this terrible event?

We are giving immediate assistance, particularly in respect of the law enforcement inquiry—the anti-terrorist inquiry—in which we have a number of police officers on the ground working with the Indonesians and the Australians on the investigation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will look carefully at any requests that we receive from the Indonesians for further assistance.

May I come back to the question raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)? Building on the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), may I ask whether it is not a fact that Balinese people have lost their lives in this tragedy? I am thinking of the six taxi drivers who plied their trade outside the nightclub, never to be seen or heard of again, and of the tragic consequences for their families. Is it not an incontrovertible truth that the terrorists, and only the terrorists, are responsible for this atrocity, and that, no matter how much we seek to shuffle responsibility or blame, it lies on the terrorists and only the terrorists?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that indigenous Balinese people lost their lives; I mentioned that at the beginning of my statement. On his second point, were I someone who had been injured in this atrocity or the relative of someone who had been killed, I would be asking all these questions. It seems to me entirely reasonable that they should be asked. I think, however, that those of us who are or have been responsible for dealing with intelligence must also be responsible for ensuring that all the intelligence available is properly scrutinised—which it will be, in this case, by the ISC—and, in addition, provide reassurance about the nature of intelligence. Would that we had had intelligence that could have warned us of this atrocity, because we would then have issued a warning within seconds; but we did not, and responsibility for the atrocity is that of the terrorists and the terrorists alone.

To what extent are the Indonesian authorities co-operating with Australian and British police investigations?

My understanding is that they are cooperating thoroughly. That was a point made by President Megawati when she saw my noble Friend Baroness Amos, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at her meeting earlier today.

Does not this terrible, savage, barbaric terrorist tragedy show us once again just how difficult it is to get at the al-Qaeda network, or whoever else may have been involved in the bomb attack on Bali? If the only warnings we in the west had of the tragedy were generic, is it not even more difficult for the Indonesian Government? We tend to forget that they are only a three-year-old democracy, still emerging from the tragedy of Suharto's dictatorship and trying to establish democracy and human rights. If they had rounded up all who we have been told were involved in this particular tragedy, half the Indonesian population would have been in jail and human rights organisations everywhere would have been shouting about them.

Yes, it is difficult to get at such networks. As with criminal organisations, the first priority of terrorist organisations is to ensure that what they are doing does not come to the attention of law enforcers. They do not telephone the intelligence services and announce when their next atrocity will take place. That is why penetrating those organisations and gaining intelligence that can be relied on is inherently difficult. I believe that our agencies do it better than any other agency in the world, and they are joined in that high standard by a number of others; but it is still intrinsically difficult.

My hon. Friend speaks about Indonesia and its new democracy on the basis of considerable experience. We have a responsibility to help support the forces of democracy and of law enforcement in Indonesia, and we are seeking to do just that.

As the Foreign Secretary will know, there have been a number of bomb outrages in Indonesia over the past year, including the bombing of the Jakarta stock exchange. Can he confirm reports that the bomb was not made from professional explosives such as C4, but from fertiliser and oil? If so, what comfort does he have that the bomb outrage was linked with al-Qaeda, and was not part of a continuing internal war of terror in Indonesia?

I cannot confirm those reports publicly.

Experience has taught us that the best way of reducing the number of acts of terrorism of this kind is to win over the hearts and minds of supporters and potential supporters of terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend agree that among Muslims in this country and throughout the world there is a wholly misplaced but deep sense of grievance against the west and against Christian countries? While that does not excuse these terrible acts in any way, how does my right hon. Friend expect a land invasion of Iraq, before there is a settlement of the Palestine question, to affect that sense of grievance and the likelihood of more terrorist acts?

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go all the way in the direction in which he entices me. I will say, however, that nothing justifies this kind of atrocity. Yes, there is a separate issue. On the three occasions on which the west has intervened with military action on any scale during the last 12 years, we have saved hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, of people who happened to be Muslims. That is what we should be saying. We should remind people that the last time we had to take military action against Iraq was because it had gratuitously invaded the law-abiding sovereign state of Kuwait, which is Muslim.

rose—

Order. I shall first take the Standing Order No. 24 application.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate a specific and important matter that requires urgent consideration, namely,

."the proposed strike by members of the Fire Brigades Union."

In this brief submission, I am well aware that I am not allowed to go into the details of the subject. All I would say is that if any subject meets the three criteria listed in Standing Order No. 24 it is this one. Our emergency services are on the brink of being disrupted, and it is not just the fire service that will suffer if the fire brigade strike goes ahead. There will be repercussions for the railways, the underground and for many other parts of our national life. The matter is specific because the strike is due to take place next week, and no one could suggest for a moment that this is not a matter of grave public importance.

Mr. Speaker, you have at your discretion the opportunity to allow the House to debate this matter. Whatever one's views on the merits of the FBU's case, everyone in the House must feel that this subject should take precedence over other business before us, and that we should be able to debate it. Outside the House, people frequently say that we do not debate what is most relevant and pertinent in their lives: we are all accosted with that accusation. I submit that people who are likely to be affected by the strike will view with some incomprehension a House of Commons that does not debate it. I submit my application to you, Sir.

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. Therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request from the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement clarifying the press reports that have created great anxiety among a number of people whose lives may be affected and who have to make preparations for a call-up of reservists? Surely there should be a statement in good time because, if that is to happen, people who have jobs as doctors, engineers or teachers will have to make some preparation and should be given maximum warning.

I have had no approach from the Minister.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the problems outlined so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the risk to the public and to the economy, and the difficulties faced in the Fire Brigades Union dispute, yesterday I contacted the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ask whether he would make a statement to the House. Have you heard anything from his Office to indicate that he will make a statement later today or tomorrow?

I have not heard from the Deputy Prime Minister.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Deputy Prime Minister is not to make a statement, have you received an indication that any Minister is likely to make a statement on the important issue of the firefighters' strike?

All I can say is that Ministers do not seem to be contacting me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the various points of order that we have heard from Conservative Members, have you had any notification from the Leader of the Opposition or from the Liberal Democrats that they want to use the Opposition day debate on Wednesday afternoon on the Government's mismanagement of the national lottery to pursue this subject?

That is not a point of order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made a compelling case on a matter in respect of which the Prime Minister—belatedly, and astonishingly belatedly—has called the Cobra committee together only today. Do you recall, in your long years in the House, a Minister not coming to the House of Commons to make a statement on such a matter of the gravest and most fundamental national importance? If no Minister has burnt the wires to you over the weekend, will you ensure that Ministers learn from you that you think they ought to do so?

In my long years in the House, the Speaker has never been drawn into an argument.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the Government's abject failure to come to the House to make a statement on this extremely worrying potential strike, may I appeal to you to use your discretion in the selection of certain topics for Adjournment debates to give due consideration to this important matter?

The hon. Gentleman can make an application in the usual way.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for giving only very short notice of my point of order. On Wednesday last week, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the press and media on some 92 schemes involving 145 million in a rolling programme to tackle congestion and improve safety at junctions across England's trunk roads and motorways. I made inquiries in the Library on Wednesday, but the only document available was a print-out from the Highways Agency website. There was no parliamentary announcement—neither a statement nor a written answer—and no possibility of holding the Secretary of State to account. I declare an interest, as one of the crossings is in my constituency. The local media phoned me, but I had no information to give at that time. Is that a proper way to make such an announcement? There was no democratic accountability, and there is no record of the matter in Hansard.

The hon. Lady gave me some notice on the matter. I can assure her that the Secretary of State has, in this case, met his obligations to the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following on from the point of order made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), it is a fact that about 19,000 members of Her Majesty's armed forces are being diverted to take over from the firemen when they go on strike. Will you tell the House whether you would warmly welcome the Secretary of State for Defence seeking your permission to make a statement? It seems astonishing that the House is not able to consider a matter of such urgency. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made clear, it is of great concern not only to the ordinary people of this country, but to our armed forces, which may be called on to take part in operations elsewhere in the world, which, although they are not more serious, are certainly much more in line with what they are trained to deploy for.

Clearly, a Secretary of State does not require my permission to make a statement. He has only to inform me, out of courtesy, that the statement will be made.