1. What his current estimate is of the levels of assistance that will be provided by the financial assistance scheme. [218081]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written statement on the financial assistance scheme made on 22 February by the Minister for Pensions.

No one should doubt the Secretary of State's sincerity on this issue. Does he accept, however, that although the intention of last week's statement was no doubt to provide peace of mind, it has created another level of uncertainty? In order to dispel that, will he tell us at what level the cap will be set? When will we know for certain which companies are eligible, and how much money will be left at the end of the day for the 50,000 people who are beyond three years from retirement?

First, we envisage that the cap will be the same as that in the Pension Protection Fund—£12,000. That is our intention. Secondly, I understand that there is uncertainty for other people, but because we will not know absolutely what the assets and obligations are until all the schemes involved have been wound up, we had to make a choice. The temptation was to say nothing until the arrival of that happy state, which is some months away, but following representations by both Government and Opposition Members it was absolutely right to give some comfort to people who were three years away from their scheme age retirement. I am unable to say anything more until we have the final details of the schemes involved.

Following last week's news, the workers of the Richards pension scheme in Aberdeen were delighted to find that they were to be included in help from the financial assistance scheme. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said in answer to the previous question, can he can give us any idea of time scales? When might all pensioners in such schemes have an idea of what they are going to get and when they are likely to get it?

Our intention is to lay the regulations in the spring, to be in a position to have Royal Assent by around July, and then to give a six-month period for people to apply. The list of almost 400 schemes that we published last week is indicative, not definitive, and some schemes may not be on it. We hope that when the application process is completed and we have full details of all those schemes, which is impossible until those particular pension funds have been wound up, we will be in a position—it should be around the beginning of next year—in which to be absolutely sure about what we can offer and to have the scheme fully in place.

Will the Secretary of State confirm a simple point of arithmetic? If the scheme's entire £20 million annual budget were spent on the 15,000 people whom we understand he wants to help, would they get £1,300 a year each—which is not much—and how much would be left over to help the other 50,000 or so victims of pension wind-ups?

I had better immediately correct an error that I apparently just made. I said that the cap under the financial assistance scheme would be the same as for the Pension Protection Fund. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for misleading the House. The cap under the PPF is higher; the cap under this fund will be £12,000.

We have a sum set aside that we think, on the basis of our original calculations, will be enough to give proper compensation to people who are in this situation; that is what we want to do. On 22 February, we announced that the scheme review will now include the finances of the scheme. That process will begin with the next spending review and starts next year. We also said, because this is an issue of great importance to all those affected, that we would not force them to buy annuities, and that we would run the scheme from the DWP, which means that we take the risk rather than the individuals involved. I accept that the full details will have to be laid out at some stage, but I hope that people appreciate that no one has ever tried such an exercise previously. We are taking private sector schemes from 1 January 1997, piecing together all the information on their assets and the gap between their assets and their obligations, and trying to provide help from the centre—from Government. That is a difficult and complex process, which means that we will not be in a final position to give the sort of details that hon. Members obviously want until some time in the future.

But last week the Secretary of State called for consensus on pensions whenever possible. Can we at least get a consensus that £20 million divided by 15,000 people equals £1,300 per year? I would have thought that all hon. Members could agree about that. Does he accept that many victims of pension wind-ups are working that out and asking, "If we're not in the first 15,000, what is there for us?"? Talking about a review is not good enough. Does not he accept that, if a review is all he can offer, he will leave 50,000 victims of pension wind-ups facing desperate uncertainty? Would not it be far better instead to offer to use banks' unclaimed assets, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) originally proposed, to help those people?

I do not accept that. Conservative Members failed to vote for a Second Reading for the Bill that provided the basis for the legislation. If I understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues correctly, they would have stripped away the FAS from the measure and introduced another Bill. That means that we would be starting the process of getting the necessary legislation only now, with the result that people would have had to wait far longer.

Some of the schemes go back to the days when the Conservative party was in power. It never contemplated offering compensation to people in the position that we are considering. [Hon. Members: "Never had to."] Conservative Members claim that they never had to. The number of redundancies associated with the problem is the lowest on record. It was at its highest under the previous Government. There were plenty of people in that position under the previous Government. We have acted to rectify that, whereas they did nothing.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on acting first in the interests of those in the most immediate need, as many of us called on him and his predecessor to do in the many debates on the subject. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) described the announcement as a betrayal in the press. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is nonsense? Is not it the case that opening the door to the possibility of more funding for the FAS means that people can at least see some light at the end of the tunnel?

I agree, and I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his role in the campaign following the problems at Allied Steel and Wire. If the announcement is a betrayal, I think that working people need a few more such betrayals, given the assistance it provides to people, some of whom I met last week, who believed that they would never get anything. Some of those people are now in their early 70s.

Few people expected us to be able to provide a scheme, and when we did Opposition Members spread cynicism throughout the country and said that it would provide nothing substantial. Now that it has, their next trick is to spread more cynicism and say that people will get no assistance. We are determined to help people in the position that we are discussing. We are probably the first Government even to attempt such an exercise, and I am proud of that. It is far from being a betrayal.

The financial assistance scheme offers 80 per cent., whereas the Pension Protection Fund gives 90 per cent. The Secretary of State has admitted that the cap will be half the level of that for the PPF. There is a third aspect to the problem. Will he confirm that, once the pensions are in payment, they will be frozen until the recipient dies? If so, they will fall in real value year after year. Does he think that that is adequate?

The hon. Gentleman is cynicism personified. Yes, the cap has been set at a lower level than that for the Pension Protection Fund, but it is a level at which we estimate that 95 per cent. of people will qualify. It is right that resources should be focused where they are most needed, and that taxpayers do not end up funding pensions paid to executives of failed companies that might have led to the company failing in the first place. Of course the PPF is in a different position: it is an insurance scheme that we are setting up for the future. People cannot insure their house once it has burned down, and we have always made it absolutely clear that the FAS will not be as generous as the PPF. We said that from the start. We also said from the start that we were looking to provide some assistance in an area in which the Government do not have a responsibility to provide compensation. So we are providing assistance in these circumstances. The hon. Gentleman's point is that the PPF scheme guarantees more than the FAS does, but everyone has known that from the start—it is hardly news to anyone involved. It is about time he gave us some praise for seeking to resolve this issue in a way that gives people some meaningful compensation.

I was asked about the issue of freezing last week. Not all the schemes involved were index-linked. To index-link the financial assistance scheme would take resources away rather than concentrating them in the area that we think best for giving people maximum compensation. We shall not index-link the FAS, because many of the schemes involved were not index-linked in the first place.

My constituents at ASW in Sheerness are thrilled with this announcement. Kent people who had asbestos-related illnesses in Chatham had to wait 18 years for compensation, as did people with lung disease who had worked in the mines in Kent, yet we have done this in two and a half years. Given that the Secretary of State has now opened the door to the £400 million, will the amount being put in be reviewed every three years, or will he consider putting in £100 million a year over 20 years so that everyone knows that there will be adequate funding for the pensioners?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his involvement in this issue. He makes a very good point about the compensation offered to miners. He might also have mentioned the compensation provided to trawlermen by this Government. Those issues were all thought to have been lost a long time ago. I also reminded the House last week about the extra money that we put into the Aberfan fund after people had sought to get it from the Conservative Government for 18 years. When I raised that issue last week, Conservative Front Benchers said, "But Aberfan happened under a Labour Government." I suppose that that was their reason for not allowing the money to go into the fund during the 18 years in which they were in power.

On my hon. Friend's question about the triennial review process, we plan to look at the amount available in the next spending review, at which time we shall have full details of all the schemes. That should prevent us from having to have further reviews every three years.

3. What steps he is taking to encourage people claiming incapacity benefit back into employment. [218084]

6. What steps he is taking to encourage people claiming incapacity benefit back into employment. [218087]

We are committed to ensuring that significantly greater numbers of people on incapacity benefits are helped into the labour market. Pathways to work is the most significant initiative designed to meet this objective. We have recently set out our plans for fundamental reform of incapacity benefits in our five-year strategy. We want to create a new framework of support for people who can return to work, while offering greater security to those who probably cannot.

Although my constituency has full employment, hundreds of people who are still on incapacity benefit there would like to get back to work. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff of the Leyland Jobcentre Plus office, who have helped more than 90 people back into work since April last year? Will he also look at ways of helping them to provide even more support to help more people back into work in my constituency?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the staff at the Leyland office. It is a tremendous achievement to get 90 people off incapacity benefit and back into work in an area that is not part of our pathways to work project, given that pathways areas have double the success rate of non-pathways areas in putting people into jobs. Without the expertise, dedication and almost evangelical approach of front-line personal advisers, we would not achieve such results, so I pay due tribute to the staff involved and to my hon. Friend for taking such an interest in these issues in his constituency.

While I welcome the aims of my right hon. Friend's policy, I also seek two assurances from him. First, will he do all that he can to ensure that bureaucrats do not reinterpret those aims, as seems to have been the experience of my visually impaired constituent, Steven Buckley? He is doing everything he can to get to work, but the access to work people seem to prefer him to give up his job. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that there will be no attempt to limit the period for which people can claim incapacity benefit?

I invite my hon. Friend to write to me about the specific incident that he mentioned. Obviously I am not denying that problems arise in the system, but I think that in general we get the balance just about right between those who need assistance and those who will probably not be able to work again.

I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will not introduce time-limiting of incapacity benefit. That is not part of our five-year plan, and not part of anything that the Government propose.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, according to his plans, by 2008 new incapacity benefit claimants will receive a lower holding benefit but will be able to increase it to a higher rehabilitation support allowance if they successfully complete a work-focused interview and establish an action plan for seeking work? Is it not the case, however, that in two thirds of the country they will not benefit from the assistance of the pathways to work scheme, which provides more support?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on two counts. The holding benefit will be the same as the current benefit, which is about £54 a week, the same as jobseeker's allowance. Whereas the current benefit applies for 26 weeks, however, we plan to achieve completion of the personal capability assessment in 12 weeks. We are already achieving that in pathways to work areas. The process will become much quicker.

As for the move to other benefits, the idea is to ensure that pathways to work is in place throughout the country. That underpins the whole plan, and we will not introduce the new procedures until it has happened. The point is important, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised it. What we have said is that by 2008, when a third of the country will be covered by the pathways to work scheme, we intend to have in place legislation enabling us to change to the new system—which must be primary legislation—as well as training for GPs, occupational health provision overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, and linking rules so that people who take the huge step of giving up incapacity benefit know that they can return to the same position. All those proposals are crucial to making this a success. After 2008, we will roll out the rest of the pathways to work scheme and implement our proposals fully.

We have published proposals to build on the Government's new deal for disabled people, expanding the role of the voluntary sector. Our proposals would reduce the number of existing claimants by 400,000 over the course of a Parliament. Would what the Government recently announced reduce the number by more than that, or less?

I find it difficult to take those proposals seriously. Today I wrote to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) to try to clarify the position. It appears that the Conservatives are saying that they will take 65,000 staff out of Jobcentre Plus, close 600 offices, and give those on the new deal a better deal while ensuring that less money is available to provide that better service. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's figures do not add up.

Conservative Members do not seem to realise that a third of the Jobcentre Plus programmes are already in the private sector. Their figures do not take that into account. We expect to return far more people on incapacity benefit to work than would be possible under a half-baked proposal to close offices and cut schemes but improve services at the same time. We know the Conservative party's record, and we expect it to be replicated in the unfortunate event of their return to office.

Last week I had the pleasure of visiting my local Jobcentre Plus office and Stockton Blind People's Voice. I was there when Blind People's Voice introduced to all in Stockton its "into work" project. Its members were very pleased about much that Ministers are saying, but they wanted me to ask a question. Does not going into work require an enormous leap of confidence for blind and other disabled people? They ask for that to be acknowledged, so that they can work and receive benefit, but can work for as many hours as they can manage rather than a statutory number of hours. If they can work for four hours, that should be accommodated until they can manage 16 or more. I should greatly appreciate a response to that question.

I remind my hon. Friend—I accept her interest in these matters—that we have changed the permitted work rules precisely because of some of those issues. We need to see whether we need to do anything further. People with the most severe disability want to reconnect with the world of work. They were previously thought to be incapable of doing anything but sit at home. She is absolutely right. We need to use their skills and talents. That is what the Disability Discrimination Bill is all about. That is what the changes in the permitted earnings rules are all about. We need to go even further perhaps to make it easier for those people to take what is, as she says, a very difficult step.

The Secretary of State is right to say that more people in the United Kingdom should be economically active both for their financial benefit and to have something to do with themselves during the day. In answer to a previous question, he recognised that for many people it will be quite frightening to go back to work. There will be great anxiety as to whether they can go back to what they previously did, which is more comfortable, if it does not work out. Can he set out in more detail at what point people who find that their attempt to go into the labour market does not work will be able to go back to their more comfortable life, as they will see it, on incapacity benefit?

The hon. Lady raises one of the crucial issues. Now in the pathways to work experiments, we are reaching out not to people who have been on IB for 12 months, who were part of the initial pathways to work, but to people who have been on IB for longer—for up to two years. Ten per cent. of people participating have been on IB for much longer and are volunteers. The crucial aspect is the £40 a week in-work credit to allow them to get over that problem. Because of the linking rules that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget, they will have the opportunity to go back to where they were if it all comes to grief, rather than going through the whole IB process again. That only needs to apply for a certain amount of time—

Two years.

Up to two years, as my right hon. Friend reminds me. If someone has managed to get past those barriers and to be in work for two years, we can safely say that they are back in the world of work and on the road away from that terrible existence on the princely sum of £74 a week, sitting at home disconnected from society. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that we are seeking to tackle what she is right to say is a real and relevant problem.

4. If he will make a statement on the operation and performance of the new scheme of child support arrangements since March 2003. [218085]

10. What his latest estimate is of when he will approve the transfer of all old cases to the new system at the Child Support Agency. [218091]

13. If he will make a statement on progress in the transition to the new Child Support Agency system. [218094]

Under the new scheme, just under a quarter of a million applications had been cleared by September 2004 and over 33,000 first child maintenance premium payments had been made.

As I said to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, this area is at the top of my agenda. We have been working hard with Electronic Data Systems to overcome the computer difficulties. I intend to report back to Parliament following the next software release. We know that much more work still needs to be done and I am keen that we should explore a variety of improvement solutions.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the arrangements for child maintenance payments from March 2003 were meant to get payments flowing quickly and regularly. Two years on, like many of my colleagues, no doubt, I still regularly find cases of incorrect levels of assessment, delays in adjusting assessments and payments, and a system that seems to penalise those willing to pay, rather than those unwilling to pay, causing much distress to many. How quickly will that situation change?

My hon. Friend can ask me how quickly the situation will change. I am afraid that I cannot give—

He does not have a clue.

I think that that is a better description of the Conservative party when it was in power. When it comes to failures in the Child Support Agency and to computer failures, it built up a certain amount of expertise in its 18 years in power.

As I said in my initial answer, the first stage is to get the computer system right. I will report to Parliament. Indeed, the Work and Pensions Committee, whose Chairman, the hon. the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), is present, has asked for a report to Parliament in the spring. It is right that I report to Parliament when the final software upgrade has taken place, because we will then know whether we have got the computer system right. If it is right and up and running properly, we can plan accordingly and transfer the old cases across to it. I hope to be in a better position to provide a precise time scale when I report to Parliament in the spring.

The Secretary of State will know that many absent fathers trapped on the old system are paying so much of their income in CSA payments that they barely have enough left to live on, and certainly not enough to take advantage of their access rights. The best advice that the CSA can offer them is that they give up their jobs and go on to benefits. Clearly, that is to nobody's advantage—not the men themselves, nor the children nor the community at large. This situation cannot go on. Something has to be done about it urgently.

I would be surprised if anyone from the CSA advised such a person to go on to benefits. I know that the hon. Lady recently wrote to me about a case involving the CSA, too, and I should point out that if any such advice has been given, it is wrong and should be countered. In terms of the difficulties experienced with the CSA, no one should be exempt from criticism—neither me nor anyone in this House—except the CSA staff, who have tried hard to cope in very difficult circumstances. They should be applauded, but if there are occasions when the wrong advice has been given, I want to know about them so that we can deal with the situation immediately.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that even if the new software works as we hope it will and the transfer of old cases begins, the process has taken substantially longer than we hoped? Moreover, does he also agree that the transition disregard of only £10 a week each year—the intention behind it was to allow recipients more time to anticipate the change—is perhaps no longer appropriate? We have been anticipating such a change for year after year, so it will come as no surprise to anyone. Once we get the new system up and running, should we not implement the changes a little faster?

We should implement the changes as fast as possible. The £10 disregard is an important part of the new system—it is not intended as some form of compensation and nor is it dependent on the new system's being introduced more quickly. In fact, it is a very important component and it was agreed to in all parts of the House when the relevant legislation was passed. We are very keen to ensure that as many people as possible can take advantage of the £10 disregard, and to remind people that under the old system a £1,000 payment is available for single parents who take up work. That is an important element of the original CSA scheme.

Where the CSA has agreed that substantial arrears are payable to the parent with care, why cannot a manual payment be made, rather than waiting for the computer programme to be fixed?

Provision is made for manual payments. Indeed, our staff are working on four different systems: the old scheme on the old IT, the new scheme on the old IT, the new scheme on the new IT, and clerical cases. The purpose of that last approach is to deal with such problems where there is no alternative to a manual method. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about the particular case he has in mind, I will look into it.

Given EDS's track record of failing to deliver on its promises, what fall-back position do the Government have if EDS fails yet again?

As my right hon. Friend knows, we have withheld payments in respect of EDS until the system is right. In fact, to be fair to EDS, our Pension Service system, which it also runs, has been working very well. However, we want to ensure that the scheme is operating properly for the people whom we care about most—the children involved—and we will ensure that until that is so, the money will not be released to EDS. Indeed, we will withhold a substantial amount.

As the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he has been working closely with EDS, he will recall that it said last October that by the end of the year it would have given the agency the tools to do the job. Is it not now increasingly clear that the main problem is not just computers that do not work, but a management culture that is dysfunctional and an outcome that is based on discrimination between old cases and new cases, which is increasingly unacceptable? The chief executive has been given his cards, but he is apparently still working, so would it not be appropriate if Ministers, who appear to lack any political will or sense of urgency about this matter, were given their cards promptly, too?

I shall respond to a little of that. The hon. Gentleman knows that Her Majesty's official Opposition take the rather pathetic course of packing a Back-Bench Select Committee with their own Front Benchers—something that I always find rather distasteful and unnecessary—so Conservative Members know that we have been round the track on all of this. The hon. Gentleman is right about EDS having said last year that the computer software would be installed by the end of the year. It will not, but we hope that it will be in place by the next phase in the spring.

The system is working sufficiently well to make a decision on termination difficult, but not well enough to deliver the standards that our customers expect—that is the problem. It does not mean that we have removed the so-called nuclear option of changing the provider. That will be kept in play until we are absolutely sure that the new system will work. Changing providers can cause problems; it could mean making children who need the money wait even longer, so we must take that into account as well.

5. If he will make a statement on his policy on the number of new claimants who will be entitled to receive the new higher rate of benefit following incapacity benefit reform. [218086]

We expect the clear majority of new claimants to be on the rehabilitation and support allowance, as most people come on to an incapacity benefit with potentially manageable conditions. Disability and sickness allowance will focus on those with the most severe impairments where the health problem or disability will form a very significant obstacle to getting back to work.

What proportion of the current 2.7 million incapacity benefit recipients would be entitled to the new higher-rate disability and sickness allowance if the new rules were applied to them, as they will be in 2008? Does the Minister expect the proportion of new claimants eligible for disability and sickness allowance to be significantly different?

The distinction will be made using a functional assessment, and the current percentages, if we use the current personal capability assessment as a guide, are about 80 and 20. I do not expect them to be significantly different in future, but the point of the new programme is that it will provide significant extra help for those on rehabilitation and support allowance and for those on disability and sickness allowance, should they wish to take advantage of it. The much more supportive environment and additional help provided by pathways will provide an extra financial incentive so that many of the 1 million people currently on sickness and incapacity benefit who tell us that they want to work will have the chance to do so, and it is about time that they did.

Representing a constituency in a city where one in five of the working-age population claim incapacity benefit, I welcomed the Secretary of State's statement to the House last month in which he outlined the changes. However, I have to say that I am not optimistic that these new incentives alone will encourage enough claimants back into work. We have heard about the carrots, but can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell the House which sticks the Government considered using and why they have not been used?

I do not think that it is appropriate to talk about using sticks when we are dealing with disabled people. Many such people have been written off largely because the previous Government threw them on to invalidity benefit and abandoned them for years. What they need is help and assistance, not sticks. Through pathways, 90,000 people have so far been helped and 9,000 people have moved into work; and it is easy to forget that 200,000 people have been helped into work by the mainstream new deals. We are learning how to help these people and it is about time that we extended those lessons across the country. That is what Labour intends to do, unlike the Conservative party, which wants simply to privatise—

Order.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions on the great help that has been afforded to many of my constituents to get them back into work? In an earlier answer, my hon. Friend referred to additional help. Can she say something this afternoon about those rural constituents of mine who have not only mobility problems, but transport problems in getting to work, and therefore need extra help? What assurance can she give them that she will ensure that they have the opportunity to play a full and active part in working life?

We want the changes to build on the experience and support that our personal advisers can give to individuals. The importance of various interventions will, as my hon. Friend suggested, vary from place to place. The advisers' discretionary fund enables our staff to make the best use of the money available to provide that assistance according to local conditions. In a rural area, some of the money might be used to ensure that transport is available. Ensuring that our front-line staff have discretion means that the system will be sufficiently flexible to enable people to be helped, whatever part of the country they live in.

8. What steps he is taking to encourage lone parents to move into employment. [218089]

We are giving lone parents more choice and more help than ever to move off welfare and into work. We have introduced compulsory work-focused interviews to ensure that lone parents are aware of the help that they can get to move into work.

Since its launch in October 1998, the new deal for lone parents has helped almost 300,000 people into work and contributed to the increase in the lone parent employment rate to a record high of 55.8 per cent.

I thank the Minister for her reply. May I suggest that the proposed increases in the minimum wage from £4.90 to £5.35 next year will have a huge impact on lone parents? On Saturday, I was talking to a single mother who works 16 hours a week. She claimed that, taking child care costs into account, the net effect on her weekly income is 53p. Notwithstanding the increases in the national minimum wage, what additional steps will the Minister take to ensure that lone parents are not penalised for wanting to work?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the minimum wage. We are keen to ensure that work pays for lone parents and others and to encourage people to move from welfare into work. The level of the minimum wage is an important calculation in that.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, through the tax credit system we are enabling many more families who are in work to access the real benefits of that system. Almost 6 million families were benefiting from child tax credit and/or working tax credit in December 2004. We intend to do more. We will be piloting the payment of an extra £20 a week on top of normal income support, but there will be a condition. We want to engage with lone parents to encourage them to move into work and we must ensure that, in doing so, they see real benefits from that move.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the contribution made by the hard-working staff in job centres in getting lone parents back into work? With the new deal, unemployment in my constituency has been cut by 61 per cent. and youth unemployment has been slashed by 93 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend also acknowledge the vigorous campaign that is being fought in Deal by constituents, Dover district council, Deal town council and the citizens advice bureau to stop the proposed closure of its excellent job centre by the management in Kent? Will she acknowledge that the essence of job centres' duties is to remove barriers, and will she note that my constituency faces more than 1,000 job losses as we speak?

I am aware that my hon. Friend raised the matter during business questions last Thursday. He knows that we are due to meet to discuss it on 7 March, when we can explore the exact circumstances in his constituency and the reason behind the decision to change the distribution of offices and the way in which staff are employed. He knows that, ultimately, those are matters for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus.

The House will know that given the major investment in Jobcentre Plus, in the new systems and in the whole revolutionary process, the active engagement in encouraging people into jobs will make a massive difference to my hon. Friend's constituents. We should not be confined to delivering services through buildings alone, and they are now delivered in a wider variety of ways.

9. If he will make a statement on proposed work force changes in his Department and the expected effect on civil service employment in Fylde. [218090]

As part of its efficiency and modernisation programme, the Department plans to reduce staff numbers by 30,000, redeploy an additional 10,000 posts to front-line services and relocate 4,000 posts from London and the south-east by 2008. There are some 8,589 full-time equivalents in the Lancashire West area, which includes Fylde. Staffing levels in the Fylde area will be affected by the changes, but until further detailed work force planning is completed it is not possible to say what the precise effect will be.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I have had discussions with the PCS union about one of the items that is clearly being considered by her Department, namely the movement of some 500 people from the programme service division to locations such as Manchester, Salford and Warrington. The union expressed concern about the costs involved in that movement, as no office facilities are currently available outside Fylde for those jobs. The union also believes that some of the skills issues that may be informing the proposed change can be addressed locally through good links with local universities and colleges. Can the Minister look again at the proposal to ensure that it is justified, and will she write to me with details of it?

I am happy to do so. It is not in our interests to make changes that end up costing more. These are efficiency savings, not attempts to spend more money on employing fewer people. I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the issue is one of the biggest facing the Department between now and 2008? Does she accept that the uncertainty about people's jobs in the long term is affecting morale? I understand that the Department still needs to do a little more work before it knows the final number of staff reductions, but when does the Minister anticipate being able to end some of the uncertainty by saying where the job cuts will be made?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made regular statements to the House, and we expect to be able to give more details soon. It is important to do the work in conjunction with our staff and trade union representatives. I fully acknowledge that any such change affects people's well-being and leads to concern for their jobs. We want to ensure that we minimise that uncertainty by making staff and the House aware of what will happen as soon as possible.

11. When his Department's decision-making and appeals action plans will be implemented; and how progress in making the improvements to benefit decision-making arrangements set out in the plans will be measured and reported. [218092]

We are already implementing the plans across the Department. Progress will be measured in several ways, such as local and national monitoring, customer surveys and the work of the independent standards committee, which will report on progress in its annual report. We will also inform the National Audit Office of our progress.

In its 12th report of 2003–04, the Public Accounts Committee found that half of the decisions on disability living allowance and attendance allowance contained errors. What progress has been made since then and will the Department be able to achieve the target of reducing the error rate to a quarter of decisions?

I acknowledge the difficulties in decision making on the DLA. That is partly because qualification for the benefit is subjective. We are taking steps to improve training and to ensure that we get more consistent decisions, and we hope to make substantial progress over time. The disability and carers service makes more than 1 million decisions every year, only 8 per cent. of which are appealed; therefore, many of the decisions are correct and satisfy the claimants.

In relation to the 8 per cent. of decisions that are appealed, can the Minister tell the House what plans she has to speed up the appeal process and to review the location of appeals? In some parts of the United Kingdom, such as the east midlands, it can be quite difficult for appellants actually to get to the appeal.

I acknowledge that sometimes there are issues when our customers have to go to specific locations. We are piloting enhanced reconsideration processes, which aim to prevent cases that may be appealed from getting as far as the appeal process. We think that it can make a difference if we head off the appeal by checking again, in conjunction with the customer, that we got the decision right. One of the main reasons for a change in decision at appeal is that new evidence is presented that was not available to our original decision makers. A better and more informed reconsideration process could stop many of those appeals from going ahead, and that could be an effective way forward.

I am very concerned about the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). He stated that the National Audit Office found mistakes in 50 per cent. of cases. The Minister's response was that only 8 per cent. of decisions are appealed, which suggests that more than 40 per cent. of people, some of the most vulnerable, who are on the DLA or attendance allowance, are receiving the wrong amount of money. Surely she should be taking a rather more urgent approach than she seems to be taking today.

I deny that there is no urgency in the Department's response. The subjectivity of the DLA and attendance allowance—where our decision makers are trying to discover the impact of a condition or disability on the capacity of the individual either to look after themselves or to move around—means that the situation is inherently difficult to pin down. There is no doubt about that; I think that it would be acknowledged by everybody. It is a difficult process in which to make significant improvements, but that does not mean that we are not trying to do so. We are, and I hope that in future we will be able to make much more progress.

12. If he will make a statement on his Department's strategy to assist people to manage personal debt. [218093]

The best way we can stop people getting into debt is to make sure that we help them get into work and increase their incomes, so the extra 2 million jobs that we have created and the rise in the national minimum wage announced last week, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already referred, are important in the over-indebtedness strategy. A joint Department of Trade and Industry and DWP action plan on over-indebtedness was published in July 2004, aimed at increasing levels of financial capability and access to affordable credit and encouraging a savings culture to avoid over-indebtedness.

Admirably Churchillian though the Minister's attitude is—that the best way to stay out of debt is to earn more—in an age when gaining a credit card seems to have become a rite of passage and it is still possible, especially in working class communities, to borrow £500, repay £5,000 and still owe £10,000, can my hon. Friend tell us a bit more about what the Department could do to educate younger people to be as suspicious of strangers offering free money as they ought to be of those offering free sweets, free drugs or free anything?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the dangers, especially for young people, of finding oneself heavily in debt as a result of taking up offers that sometimes seem too tempting to refuse. The strategy to which I referred is cross-departmental and is intended both to increase education about financial resources and to ensure that affordable sources of credit are available in communities where, due to low income and financial exclusion, which we are seeking to address, people find that the only available sources of credit are very expensive and draw them further into debt. We are also working with agencies outside Government; as Members know, the Financial Services Authority has a financial inclusion strategy. We need to ensure that we address the problems faced by the relatively small minority of households that are in debt and for whom such debt can be extremely dangerous.

Does the Minister accept that the Government have created a society where it is easier to borrow than to save and where savings have almost halved since 1997? Is it any wonder that personal debt has spiralled out of control and pension savings, in particular, are hopelessly inadequate?

No, I do not accept that. Part of the strategy, as I explained, is intended to encourage a culture of saving—a culture that was badly damaged during the 1980s. Most of us consider credit to be something that helps us to balance our income and expenditure over time. A small minority of people—those in the 7 per cent. of households who find that their debt is such that it can be considered as over-indebtedness—need additional support and assistance, but most people's level of credit is quite sustainable. Our policies of economic stability, full employment, low inflation and low interest rates have ensured that far fewer people find themselves heavily in debt than did when the Conservative party was running the show.

Law centres, citizens advice bureaux and other advice agencies are often the first line of defence for vulnerable people who have got themselves into debt, yet in many areas, including my constituency, the grant reduction by local authorities and the end of regeneration programmes such as the single regeneration budget have caused budget cuts in those services, sometimes leading to long queues up the road of people waiting for advice, as at Paddington law centre. Will my hon. Friend liaise with his fellow Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor's Department to review the capacity of advice services to meet the needs of vulnerable people in personal debt?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing precisely that to ensure that the sources of advice are available. Of course, guidance is available to our own staff to identify those sources of advice for customers with debt problems. Since April, Jobcentre Plus personal advisers have been able to pay for the provision of debt advice, but we need to ensure that people are aware of the advice that is available and that we do everything possible to ensure that the agencies that provide that advice are sustainable.

14. Whether public sector (a) pension schemes and (b) pension scheme members will be required to contribute to the Pension Protection Fund. [218095]

A scheme that is eligible for protection under the Pension Protection Fund will have to pay the levy regardless of whether it is a public sector scheme. However, most public sector schemes, including those with a Crown guarantee, will not come within the ambit of the PPF.

No statutory provision requires schemes to pass on the costs of the levy to their members. How the costs of the levies are met will be for scheme trustees to decide. It is worth remembering, however, that we expect the levies to average out at about £20 per member per annum and only £10 in the first year.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I understand the Government's reason for not asking taxpayers to underwrite the Pension Protection Fund—many taxpayers are not members of pensions funds—but how do they justify not asking members of public sector pension funds, which are underwritten by the taxpayer, to contribute to the PPF when they require members of private sector schemes to do so? Surely, we as Members of Parliament are beneficiaries of that unfair discrimination, and we all ought to contribute to the protection scheme.

Let us remember that the PPF is coming into being because of the tragedy and scandal whereby pensioners are left bereft when a company goes bust and a scheme is underfunded. A common-sense comparison would suggest that most people in public sector schemes—the civil service and those in local government—are not likely to see their scheme go bust, although some non-departmental public bodies do not have a Crown guarantee and will pay a levy. Such bodies include the Arts Council, the Legal Services Commission, Remploy and the royal household.

What advice can the Minister give to several hundred ex-Anglo United workers who have been robbed blind by their employer now that Anglo United, which used to be called Coalite, has finished? Is he aware that, in a previous answer, he suggested that Anglo United was not in the scheme that was announced on 22 February? Why was it not included? Why is it not included in the protection plan? Surely the Government should find a way to try to protect the few hundred workers at what was Bolsover Coalite—their previous employer has robbed them blind.

I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to write to him about that scheme. The financial assistance scheme covers 380 pension schemes. I do not know the particulars of the scheme that he mentions, but the House must be very careful not to ask the taxpayer to underwrite schemes with solvent employers because some people may seek to dump pension liabilities on the taxpayer or the new PPF.

BILL PRESENTED

Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has been held up because of the snow. Therefore, the notice for the presentation of his Bill will take place at some other time.

Prevention of Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23rd February 2005—

1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order or at 10.00 p.m., whichever is the later.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

In programming today's business, the Government are, of course, very conscious of the speed with which we are having to consider this legislation, but we have tried, as far as possible, to ensure the maximum time available to the House to consider its provisions. Clearly, we are in this position today because of the House of Lords judgment that was made on 16 December. That judgment set out the reasons why it was considered that the existing part 4 powers were not compatible with the European convention on human rights. Therefore, it is necessary for us to have a new legislative framework in place by 13 March.

When the Minister or her officials drafted the timetable motion that we are now discussing, did she or did she not know how many amendments and new clauses would be tabled? Indeed, did she know the contents of the provisional selection of amendments by the Chairman of Ways and Means?

I am not aware that we had that information at the time that the programme motion was drafted. However, I can try to assure hon. Members that we will seek this afternoon to have as full a debate as we can on the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled.

rose—

I will give way again in a moment.

Today, we have guaranteed six hours of debate in Committee or until 10 pm, whichever is the later. We have agreed to an hour's extension to the business to protect the time for debate on Third Reading, and also to Opposition requests that no knives are placed on the debate in Committee so as to try to retain the maximum flexibility to consider the amendments that have been tabled.

Can my hon. Friend clarify the position? I understand that we have been told to listen with bated breath to the Home Secretary this afternoon, when he will show that he has been listening to the debate and will come forward with alternative proposals. However, those alternative proposals or amendments will not be before the House today; they will appear on a promissory note saying that he will introduce them in the House of Lords. Is that correct? If it is, it really is bad form. We should have allowed a day or two to elapse so that the House of Commons could discuss the amendments rather than there being a promise that they will be introduced in the House of Lords.

My hon. Friend will have to listen to today's debate as it unfolds and to the Home Secretary. I have said on many occasions that we have been listening very carefully to the strength of feeling—not just on the Government Benches, but on the Opposition Benches. I have no doubt that, as the debate develops today, we will see that matters are being taken fully into account. I am sure that my hon. Friend can make his points at that stage.

rose—

I will give way in a moment.

We need to have a legal framework in place by 13 March. Otherwise, without the renewal of the part 4 powers, we could face the prospect of looking at the possible release of detainees without any legal framework to provide some controls in respect of those detainees. That is why it is important that we consider this legislation today with some urgency.

The hon. Lady referred to the Opposition's view on knives in the programme motion. When the Government approached us to suggest that there should be knives in the programme, we did not even know the programme on which knives were to be imposed. It is not entirely correct to suggest that the Government have acceded to our request. It is true that they have not imposed knives, but they would not have known where they should fall.

As I said, we are trying to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to enable the various points that hon. Members have raised to be considered.

Even if one accepted what the hon. Lady said about the deadline, why could we not have had two days this week to consider such an important Bill?

A decision has been taken to consider the Bill today and we need to make progress with it. I entirely accept that its passage is very swift, but the time available will enable us to scrutinise the big issues of principle that remain matters of contention.

rose—

I am sure that we can have a good debate this afternoon. [Hon Members: "Will the Minister give way?"] I will give way to hon. Members in due course, but not on the basis that they are shouting at me.

My hon. Friend is well known for her flexibility and tolerance. Given that this is a basic and important question of not only the rights of the House of Commons, but those of every United Kingdom citizen, surely it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the Leader of the House to come to the other parties through the usual channels and ask for this week's programme to be rejigged so that we could have at least one more day to consider the Bill. Failure to do that will at least leave the Government open to the interpretation that they are frightened of free speech.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we will be discussing serious and fundamental matters today and the Government are not afraid of that debate or unwilling to enter into it constructively. The programming of the Bill has been considered by the usual channels and the Leader of the House, so I suggest that we press on with the business.

The hon. Lady said that she did not know how many amendments and new clauses would be considered. By her calculations, how many minutes—or seconds—will be available to discuss each amendment and new clause?

At the last count, about 160 amendments had been tabled, although I am sure that there are more now. As the hon. Gentleman well knows from his extensive experience in the House, some matters are more complex than others and some take longer to discuss. Some matters can be dealt with relatively quickly, but sometimes the shortest amendments take the longest time to discuss because they are more fundamental than others.

The hon. Lady has already conceded that she did not know the number of amendments and new clauses to be considered at the time at which the revised programme motion was tabled, so what conceivable grounds has she to say that the programme motion gives anything like sufficient time or that it is based on proper information?

As I said, I was aware of 160 extensive amendments when I left on Thursday afternoon. Without the use of knives, I believe that we can have a wide-ranging and flexible debate on the principles in the Bill.

The Minister concedes that there are a great many amendments, all of which relate to important matters. She also conceded a few minutes ago that the Bill is being rushed through the House and that we will have only a brief time to discuss such matters. Surely she can take up the extremely reasonable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and ask the Leader of the House to rejig this week's schedule. If she did that, she would get the support of every other party and most of her Back Benchers.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I did not say that the Bill was being rushed. I said that its passage was swift, but that we could nevertheless have a good, constructive and reasoned debate.

Just for absolute clarity, let me make it clear that the Opposition would be very willing to discuss with the Leader of the House any further rejigging of the motion to get proper debate on this important subject.

As I said, I think that we should press on with the business and maximise the time that there is for debate.

rose—

I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

I am sorry that the Minister is making the speech that she is making because she must know that it is an undignified performance. Given that Home Office Ministers usually pride themselves on speaking frankly, why is it that she has not felt able, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), to explain to the public that the Government's belief is that for more than 180 new clauses and amendments, it is satisfactory that the House should have less than two minutes for the consideration of each? If she does not think that that is a disgrace, she ought to do so.

I do not think that it is a disgrace. The hon. Gentleman will know, from his extensive parliamentary experience in this place, that many amendments are consequential and relate to minor matters. Some deal with serious matters of principle, and he is right that we should have time to discuss those—but if he thinks for one moment that every amendment and new clause carries equal weight, he is not the hon. Gentleman I thought he was because he clearly has extensive parliamentary experience in that regard.

rose—

I propose to press on. I have no more to add to the programme motion. [Interruption.] We are clearly not going to make progress if everyone shouts at once. I did not see the Father of the House and happily give way to him.

May I gently say that these proceedings bear no resemblance to the House of Commons to which I was first elected, because the last 10 minutes would not have been left to a Minister of State? It is unfair for a Minister of State to have to deal with this. What more pressing engagement than being in the House of Commons at this moment have the Home Secretary, the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House got?

I am more than happy to deal with the programme motion. Once we press on with the business, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will address some of the serious and fundamental matters of principle that face us.

If the hon. Lady looks back on the collective parliamentary experience to, say, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, she will see that it was discussed through the night and all clauses were examined. That is a very different situation from the one in which I find myself now. I am particularly interested in clause 9 and the schedule, because they will determine whether a person can see the evidence on the basis of which their liberty might be taken away or restricted, but I see no prospect of us getting that far on a six-hour timetable. Why not revert to the 1974 practice and run the business through until it is completed, as it was successfully done then?

These matters have been considered by the usual channels in the House and the business managers. The programme motion is in accordance with that consideration. I can only reiterate—

rose—

There are only so many ways in which I can say this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We propose to press on today, to have the debate, to consider these serious issues and to ensure that we have as much consideration of them as possible.

Will the hon. Lady not at least concede that by pressing on with this business in almost indecent haste, when one considers the number of amendments—

It is indecent.

I said "indecent".

The hon. Lady said "almost."

Does the Minister agree that that haste will lead people to believe that this action is more an attempt to justify the Government's disastrous foreign policy than it is to secure the security of the people of this country?

I reject that entirely. The people of this country are concerned that we get proper legislation in place which meets the threat that we face and provides us with a framework to ensure that we protect national security while striking that difficult balance with individual liberty. That is what the people of this country want us to do, and they want us to get on with it. I commend the programme motion to the House.

This is a very sad occasion. The House must consider carefully whether it wishes to take a grip of its own procedures or simply allow the Executive to roll us over and treat us as their rubber stamp. The Minister will know that I have always been willing when business has gone into Committee, to try to meet agreed timetables when they are reasonable. I have no objection to a sensible timetable if it can help to provide a degree of certainty for the House, but what we are being asked to do today is scandalous.

One need only look at the 230 amendments that have been tabled, the 10 new clauses and the 14 groups to realise that there is absolutely no possibility of our doing justice to what must be one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House has had to consider since the second world war. We are being asked to do this in a way that guarantees—the Minister admitted it in her comments—that this House cannot properly scrutinise the legislation.

Let me pick up a point that was made earlier. The Minister seemed to take the view that as long as the House could debate the principles, the detail did not matter. Yet the Committee stage of a Bill is precisely when the House is supposed to do its duty by looking at the details. Let us take the schedule as one example. Paragraph 4(3)(c) specifies that the Secretary of State will never be required to disclose information if

"he does not propose to rely on it in proceedings."

That means that he will be under no obligation to disclose relevant exculpatory material to the court. So if one informer says that somebody is a terrorist but somebody else says that he is not, the Home Office can choose to rely on and disclose what the informer whom it prefers has said, and not do so for the informer whose view it does not support. That is the sort of issue of detail that the House is to be wholly unable to consider in Committee because the schedule is at the very end of the Bill and there is absolutely no possibility of our reaching it.

I had not realised that there was an exact formula for the number of amendments and the time for debate in Committee. Perhaps Conservative Members could give me the number so that I can better understand exactly how many minutes per new clause and amendment they want.

The hon. Gentleman can make the calculations for himself. I would have thought that he had been in this House long enough to know how long it takes to have a sensible debate. He knows the number of his colleagues of all parties who want to participate in the debate, and it is perfectly obvious that we cannot do justice to the legislation.

Would my hon. Friend care to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) that if this Bill had gone into Committee in the ordinary way, it would not have taken less than 25 hours to consider, even on an agreed timetable?

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. That highlights the massive deficiencies in the House's procedure. Is the Minister really going to ask us, when we have had six hours of debate in Committee and one hour on Third Reading, to maintain consensus—as she wants—and send the Bill to the House of Lords with our approval? I could not approve a Bill on that basis under any circumstances. The Minister is ensuring that the Government's desire to try to achieve a meeting of minds on an important issue is fatally undermined from the outset.

Surely it is a question not just of the number and complexity of the amendments but of the principle involved. We are talking about 800 years of legal precedent. I understand that that leaves us one hour for every 100 years of legal precedent.

It is less than that.

Less, indeed.

The Minister clearly has not got the authority to change the Government's view today, so can we redouble our efforts through the usual channels and through every channel to try to have a decent debate, so that we can reach some consensus to preserve civil liberties in this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. May I make one point clear? The Minister suggested that the decision had been arrived at after discussions through the usual channels, implying that we have had some part in the process. I assure my hon. Friend that we have not. We have consistently asked for a proper period of time to consider this legislation. I entirely agree with what was said earlier: I do not like going home late or, for that matter, in the early hours of the morning, but this is a Bill for which I would be perfectly happy to stay all night. It is, without doubt, the most important legislation that I have examined since I entered this House.

I am not being silly about the numbers of minutes. According to the analysis of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), eight minutes is fine, but two minutes is wrong. Conservative Members are being childish and ridiculous.

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman demeaning himself in that fashion.

Not only is today's timetable grotesque but, because of the way in which the matter has been handled since Second Reading, hon. Members have had grossly insufficient time in which to consider the detail of the legislation and to select their amendments. The Clerks of the House have had great difficulty in grouping the amendments, which is the inevitable consequence of requiring amendments to be tabled in haste. It would have been so much better if we had had more time to consider the matter.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, which the curmudgeonly Minister would not do. It would help our proceedings if we knew which amendments the Government will propose within the tight timetable. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have received absolute and categorical assurances from the press that there is a letter in the post to all of us setting out the Government amendments? Does he have a copy yet?

Well, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have a copy of a letter from the Home Secretary, which tells us that the Government will amend this Bill in another place. We are being asked to pass this legislation, which is of huge constitutional and legal significance, on the basis of promises that will be fulfilled elsewhere. That is an impossibility.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sorry to interfere with my hon. Friend's speech, but he has just made an important statement. He has received a letter, which will apparently be sent to all other hon. Members, about the future progress of the Bill, but most hon. Members have not received such a letter. Should we not stop these proceedings until we are in a position to read the letter, which is apparently important?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A note entitled, "Note on non-derogating control orders", was handed to me in the Lobby. It is dated 28 February and it is unsigned, although I assume that it comes from an agent of the Home Office. Will you confirm that it has been handed not only to me, but to other Government and Opposition Members? It would be a great pity if Government Members did not know what their Government were doing in their names.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The situation is wholly unsatisfactory. Will you use your powers to stop the clock and suspend the sitting to allow all hon. Members the chance to read that letter, and Government and Opposition Front Benchers the chance to work out a sensible programme?

As I understand it, a note has been placed in the Vote Office and it should be available to all hon. Members. I am not aware of the letter to which hon. Members have referred, but it is usual for any matter which is to be relied on in debate to be made available to all hon. Members. I am not aware of the extent to which those documents are available. On previous occasions, the Chair has ruled that anything that is vital or relevant to the debate should be available to all hon. Members.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The letter is addressed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). It arrived less than an hour ago by fax and is signed by the Home Secretary, who makes two points of which the House should be aware. First, he says:

"I shall make each of these points clear in the debate this afternoon."

Where is he? I cannot see him. Secondly, he says:

"I hope that this letter makes my intentions clear and so I am placing a copy of this letter in the library of the House for the benefit of all Members before the substantive Committee debate begins."

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. It appears to the Chair that both documents that have been referred to have been made available in the appropriate ways to which the House is accustomed. [Interruption.] Well, the intention is that they should be available. On that basis, we must proceed with the programme motion.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is right, as has been read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), that the Home Secretary expects us to see the letter in the Library before the substantive debate begins—in other words, before the debate that follows the programme motion begins—would you please suspend the House so that we can do it?

I have to assume that the Home Secretary's intention, as stated, is being fulfilled. That is relevant to the substantive debate, rather than to the programme motion. It is a separate issue from the question of the suitability of the programme, which the House is discussing at present.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gather that, as has been said, a copy has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons, but a single copy in the Library would lead to an unseemly queue if every hon. Member went along to make a photocopy. It would seem appropriate if the Department or the Library were asked to provide copies as rapidly as possible for circulation to Members in the Chamber and those who want it from the Vote Office. I hate to say this, but, if necessary, the House should be suspended until they all have a copy of the letter, which I have.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, what the Home Secretary is trying to communicate to us through the letter in the Library is that, presumably because we have only six hours for debate, he does not intend to table amendments in the House today, but he has already formed a clear intention of amending the Bill, and he will table those amendments in another place once we have finished our proceedings. I have never heard of that process being followed before. It is an outrage. Could you suspend the sitting while the usual channels consider whether the Government can proceed with an important Bill on that basis? It reduces our proceedings to a farce if we know that we are about to discuss a Bill that is going to be amended, if the Government get their way, in another place. It is an intolerable contempt of the House to proceed in that way.

rose—

Order. As I understand it now, the letter—I have a copy in my hand—is being made available in the Vote Office so that it will be available to all Members before the substantive debate begins. By continuing this argument, time is being taken out of the overall time available, which the Chair does not control. There is a programme motion before the House, which the House has yet to decide upon. That is the first step the House has to take—

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is distributing the letter.

Order. If I may say so to the right hon. Lady, there is a method for doing these things. If hon. Members wish to have documents relating to the debate, it is more orderly for those to be collected and not distributed while the occupant of the Chair is on his feet. The programme motion before the House is precedent to the business—[Interruption.] Order. That has to be determined first. The House must make a decision on that. If the House decides on the programme motion, the business goes ahead. Anything that happens outside the Chamber between the usual channels is nothing on which the Chair can adjudicate. I advise the House that we should proceed with the programme motion and decide thereafter how we deal with the substantive order.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All legislation is important, but surely no legislation is more important than legislation that might have the effect of depriving the individual citizen of his or her liberty. I feel great discomfort about the way in which these proceedings are being conducted, particularly in the past 15 or 20 minutes. Would it not be appropriate for you to consider the applications made on both sides of the House for a suspension so as to allow right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to study the documents that have now been made available?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has a great resemblance to what happened a few weeks ago when the Lord Chancellor had entered into correspondence with people outside the House. Mr. Speaker was very annoyed that we did not get proper notice of the letters that had been exchanged earlier that day. Surely the Government are again treating the House with total contempt. Is the Chair happy with that?

The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to second-guess the state of mind of the Chair. The Chair is attempting to conduct these proceedings in an orderly manner. I have suggested to the House that the business motion, which has so far appeared to attract criticism, still has to be decided upon by this House. The decision of this House on the programme motion determines whether we proceed on the substantive business in the way that is laid out. I think that that is the best way for the House to proceed.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I gently remind you that it is normally seen as the duty of the Chair to protect the House of Commons? We all heard on the news at midday that a letter had been sent to us. I went to the Vote Office before I came into the Chamber, and the letter was not there. This is a crucial consideration in our attitude to the allocation of time, as well as to the content of the Bill. I gently suggest that for the Chair to defend the behaviour of the Government, which dishonours this House, is to take on a duty that is not in line with the way in which the Chair normally sees its role.

I do not think that I made any such imputation. I have merely said, or thought that I had merely said, that the documentation to which reference had been made—two separate items—now appeared to be available, and that the orderly manner for Members to respond to that is to collect them from the place where they have been put. I was simply objecting to a disturbance in the House while I was on my feet about the distribution that was going on unofficially. These documents are now, as I understand it, in the Vote Office and available to all Members.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the House has made it very clear that it wants to suspend and that the Chair is being put in an impossible position. It could help us if you would indicate whether it is your intention to accept manuscript amendments in any discussion. That could influence the decision of individual Members who might feel very strongly that, if you were so inclined, they could allow the discussion to go ahead.

Manuscript amendments can be submitted, but must of course be considered in the usual way, so I cannot give any guarantee that simply because such an amendment is submitted it will necessarily be chosen for debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have one small point and one more major one. The small point is that it is not yet clear to the House whether the Government are circulating one document or two. A statement from a Minister would clear that up.

The substantive point is that, if the Home Secretary is proposing amendments to the Bill and has decided that he does not want to put them to this House on Report, that is probably because six hours does not give us enough time to discuss them. That is why this matter is relevant to the programme motion. It would be a courtesy and a help to the House if the Leader of the House or the Home Secretary could come here to say what those amendments would be. We could then decide whether to extend the programme motion or reject it so as to allow the Government amendments to be considered at the Report stage of this important Bill.

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that there are, to my knowledge, two documents, which, also to my knowledge, are both now in the Vote Office.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, he said that the country faced a threat the like of which we have never faced before. Looking at the rest of this week's business, I would suggest that nothing on our agenda ranks higher than the consideration of this measure. Clearly, there has been pressure from both sides of the House for the Government to give us more time to consider whether it is proper or appropriate given the level of threat that we face. The Opposition parties have a day's debate this week. If the Government are unwilling to give us some of their time to extend the timetable, might not the Opposition give us their day so that we could at least have two days' debate on the Committee and Report stages?

Yes, we would.

Given that the Opposition are prepared to give us their Opposition day to extend the timetable on the Bill, may we ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how we might act positively on that helpful suggestion?

The Chair is unable to make any suggestion about the way in which the usual channels work. That is one of the great mysteries of the House. However, it is always open to the usual channels to act in the way that they think fit.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to ask your assistance on a matter that stems from a point that was raised earlier. What is happening is unprecedented in my experience and that of hon. Members who have been here much longer than me. Many serious amendments have been tabled on the derogating aspects—the most important elements—of the Bill. How can hon. Members possibly debate amendments to a Government Bill that is not, in fact, the Government Bill? We are told that there are inchoate, as yet unexpressed and undrafted amendments that the Government will table in the House of Lords. I seriously ask how can the House conceivably debate those amendments?

The hon. and learned Gentleman, in making those remarks, seeks to draw the Chair into the debate. The House is trying to determine precisely that issue in considering the programme motion. The Chair cannot comment on that.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not recall an occasion of such importance, with points being raised on the way in which the House should proceed, when the Leader of the House has not hurried into the Chamber, if he was not already present. In my experience, the Chair often has to rely on the Leader of the House to take some action following any expression of concern from the Chair. Is there some way in which you can communicate to the Leader of the House that he should be here to assist the House in finding a way out of the difficulty of ensuring that the measure is properly debated?

There is an admirable system of electronic communication around the building and I would be surprised if most hon. Members were not aware of the proceedings.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have we been in order for the past 37 minutes or so? It appears that we are discussing a programme motion for allocation of time to consider amendments that will be redundant because the Government intend to amend the Bill in their own way in another place. Before we came into the Chamber, the letter and the documents were not available to hon. Members such as me. We have spent 25 minutes discussing a programme motion for which relevant documents were not available before we began the debate. Is that in order? If not, surely it would be better to suspend proceedings, get the information and begin the process again.

We are in danger of repeating ourselves. I have said that the documents are available. Their absence at the beginning may have been unsatisfactory in the eyes of some hon. Members but they are available now.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The letter may be available but the amendments are not. As the guardian of the House's rights, will not you protect us by ensuring that we have the papers that are relevant to the debate? The only way in which that can happen is to have the amendments.

I am afraid that that matter is outwith my control. It is not unprecedented for the House to be informed during the course of a debate that amendments, sometimes not completely specified, will be tabled in another place. We are in that position today. It is not for me to comment on the suitability of that, but it is not without precedent. In the circumstances, the House must rely only on the Home Secretary's letter.

The House will have heard the comments and representations that were made in the points of order. The programme motion prevents proper consideration of a most important Bill. Irrespective of hon. Members' views on the measure, I urge them to take back control of our proceedings and vote against the motion.

In the short time left, I will simply say that, in our Second Reading debate last Wednesday, we saw Parliament at its best, but what is taking place this afternoon shows us Parliament at its worst. The problem is that the letter from the Home Secretary makes critical changes to the Bill, which will undermine the debate on the first group of amendments and make nonsense of the process that we shall go through in the next few hours.

The hon. Gentleman says that we are seeing Parliament at its worst, but I believe that the responsibility for this state of affairs lies with the Government, not with Parliament.

Unfortunately, though, this reflects on all of us, whether it is this Government or any other who have proposed the measures that we are considering.

I suggest to the Minister that we need not have reached this situation in the first place. This problem has existed for three years and the Liberal Democrats have consistently pointed out that the Government should have tackled it during that time, rather than leaving it until a point at which, because of a Law Lords judgment, we are faced with such a short time scale. It cannot be right that we have to deal with such critical issues in such a short period of time.

These are not small matters. We shall have only two hours in which to discuss whether a judge or a politician takes certain decisions, although the Home Secretary is going to help us out with that later. We shall probably have only two hours in which to discuss the standard of proof. We might have only an hour to consider whether evidence can be heard in certain situations and a similar time to discuss what the control orders will involve. It cannot be right to rush such fundamental issues through in six hours.

I am sure that all hon. Members want to try to resolve this issue in a way that will prevent a terrorist attack from taking place in this country, while ensuring that we defend our strong principles of justice. We are not being allowed to get into that debate this afternoon or to do justice to that difficult balancing act. I have two questions for the Minister, and I hope that she will have time to respond to them.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for interrupting him. As it has been indicated that the official Opposition would be prepared to allow this debate to continue on Wednesday, would you accept a manuscript amendment to the programme motion to enable that to happen?

No. We have only three minutes of the debate on the programme motion left, and I could not accept such an amendment. If there is any question of more time being provided by an attempt being made through the usual channels to do so, that is how it will have to be done. If the programme motion is accepted, we shall move on to a debate that might be determined by the hours set out by the programme motion or might be extended by decisions taken elsewhere. At this stage, however, the Chair does not know what will happen in that regard.

I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm that he will come to the Floor of the House to explain his letter, so that we have a proper chance to debate that matter later. It is totally wrong that four days have been allowed for this debate in another place, while this House has only two. We find that unacceptable, and we shall vote against the programme motion.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) has made most of the points that I wanted to make, but I want to add a further comment to the Minister. We have been told that we must rush this Bill through. That is simply not correct, because it is not necessary to have new legislation of this kind in place by 13 March. The truth is that the detainees in Belmarsh could be let out tomorrow without there being any danger whatever to the state. The point has already been made that they are not going to be subject to house arrest. They are going to be placed under surveillance and they can be kept under surveillance without any new legislation being passed, so there is no pressing need for the Bill.

If there were a pressing need for this legislation, it would be the fault of the Government, because they have had since last December to contemplate the terms of the House of Lords judgment. They have had more than a year to reflect on the contents of the report prepared by Lord Newton. The fact that we are where we are now is solely and exclusively the fault of the Government. What they are doing is a disgrace. It is profoundly undemocratic, it undermines the liberties of each and every one of us, and this House should have no part of it. I urge the House to recover its authority over its own proceedings, and to reject this guillotine.

It is worth noting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendments and new clauses already referred to were selected by you as being worthy of debate. There should be no doubt that the Chair told the House "Here are the matters that we believe are worthy of debate: 13 distinct groups of amendments—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (8).

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether we are yet in Committee or whether you are still in your role as a Deputy Speaker of the House, but in either guise, will you allow me to read a few brief lines from the letter sent by the Home Secretary to my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, which I have now had a chance to look at? I will be quick. It states:

"The new procedure for derogating control orders will be as follows. The Secretary of State would make an ex parte application to the High Court for an order. The application would be heard by the judge as quickly as possible . . . The order would be subject to automatic referral to the full court for an inter-partes hearing".

To me, that amounts to a wrecking amendment by letter. If that is true and that is the Government's intention, clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill are otiose—

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that this is a matter for debate. If the House moves into Committee, these matters can be debated then. That, indeed, is the time for all those points to be considered. Any amendments or intended amendments will be taken into account then; we cannot have this matter debated as a point of order.

rose—

Order. I advise the House that we are now moving into Committee. We must complete that process—[Interruption.] Order.