---

Mrs. Beckett: I think that we are all very conscious of the difficulties faced by the pig industry. We have taken what action we can to help it through what I accept is a difficult period. I fear that I cannot promise a debate next week, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I always do my best to buy British bacon.

Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove): Following the right hon. Lady's frankly callous and insensitive response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) about the Government's proposals to impose a flat tax of £90 on all food shops in the country, will she reconsider whether the whole House should discuss the proposals? The shopkeepers in Bromsgrove find it completely unacceptable that they should have to pay the same amount as the out-of-town supermarkets, which have considerably more customers and make considerably greater profits.

We in Bromsgrove are very lucky in that many of our local communities--such as Rubery, Wythall, Hagley, Alvchurch, Aston Fields and others--have excellent local food shops where pensioners like to shop and which are the hub of their local areas. Those shops are already under severe pressure because of business rates and the competition from out-of-town shopping centres, and they regard the Government's proposals as disgraceful.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that I have somehow hurt her feelings or those of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). Frankly, what she said was just plain silly. How can it be callous to set out the facts? Many small shops will not have anything to pay. In some cases, and for a variety of good reasons, even small shops that sell certain foods will be exempt. Such matters can be examined, and that is the purpose of the consultation. I hope that no Conservative Member will do anything to spread alarm and despondency among people who will not have to pay the charge.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Will the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate in the next fortnight to consider the operation of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was passed last summer? That Act was thought to be sufficiently important for the House of Commons to be recalled in the recess, at considerable expense to the taxpayer. It was designed to ensure that people who use this country as a base to conspire to commit terrorist offences abroad could be brought to book. As far as I am aware, so far there has not been a single prosecution under that Act.

28 Jan 1999 : Column 483

Friendly countries abroad must resent what they believe to be the use of this country as a place to plan conspiracies against them, and they will find it difficult to understand that, although Parliament underwent an emergency recall to pass the legislation, nothing has happened as a result. Should there not be a debate to examine that matter, which I think would be of interest to both sides of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: It is a little unusual to be asked to provide time for a debate because nothing has happened. Any credible information or intelligence that is received on the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is fully investigated, and action would certainly be taken were any relevant evidence uncovered. However, I fear that I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the matter in the near future.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): The Leader of the House announced that the Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill would take place on 9 February. Will she find time before then for a debate that would set the Bill, which will impose yet further burdens on British business, in context? During the past few days there have been reports that 90 per cent. of British businesses would not consider starting up now if they faced the weight of legislative and regulatory burdens placed on them by the Government. The burdens on business have already increased by more than £5 billion since 1 May 1997.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate in which the Conservative party could pursue the allegations it made throughout the general election, and with which it was so patently unsuccessful in frightening British business.

28 Jan 1999 : Column 484

Point of Order

1.6 pm

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you say a word about the question put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) about his being referred to a parliamentary answer on the internet? While I suspect that the relevant information might also have been made available in the Library, is it not also the case that the Library can secure information for a Member from the internet if a parliamentary answer refers to it?

The positive benefit of using the internet is that, for the first time, answers can be made available nation wide to any member of the public not only throughout the United Kingdom but across the world. The parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is historically significant in beginning a process of opening up the House of Commons. I recognise that the Library has an important function for us, but the answer opens out information in a way that many of us would wish to welcome.

Madam Speaker: It is of course good to put answers to questions on the internet so that they may be available to a much wider audience. However, I take the view that answers should be printed in Hansard for us all to see. By all means, put information on the internet, but when a Member asks a question, I like to see the answer in Hansard.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The relevant question asks for the publication of

"proceedings of his"--

that is, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's--

"recent conference on the future of agriculture"--[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 302.]

It may be that the proceedings in question would have consumed the whole of Hansard. It may therefore have been totally impractical to place all the proceedings in Hansard.

Madam Speaker: We do not know if that is so, and it would have been helpful if the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had let us know whether the answer would have consumed the whole of Hansard. I need no argument about this matter on the Floor of the House: I want answers to be printed in Hansard. By all means let us publish to a wider reading audience through the internet, in addition to Hansard.

28 Jan 1999 : Column 485

Orders of the Day

Social Security

1.8 pm

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

The House is being asked to consider a fourth order in addition to the uprating orders because an error in the main order shows the amount of benefit for widowers pension in industrial injuries benefits as £66.25, whereas the actual uprated amount is £66.75. The error will not affect the actual benefit paid. I apologise to the House, which I hope will approve the amended order. I am grateful to the Opposition who have, as far as I know, not objected to the late tabling of the fourth order.

I want to deal with the orders in four parts. First, I want to place them in the context of overall spending on social security, because the question of whether they are affordable will arise. Secondly, I shall deal with the uprating orders themselves. In general, most insurance benefits will increase in line with the retail prices index, at 3.2 per cent. Means-tested benefits will generally increase by 2.1 per cent., in the normal way. That is providing £3.7 billion of extra help for millions of people, including 1.5 million pensioners, and 6.5 million families with children.

Thirdly, I want to deal with the pensions uprating. Finally, I shall set out how we are improving the system for getting benefits to disabled people and people of working age.

The orders are affordable. They are part of our strategy to ensure work for those who can and to provide security for those who cannot. Our objective is to build an affordable social security system that meets the needs of the next 50 years, not those of post-war Britain, and that provides active help to get people into work and off benefit, and not only cash benefits.

We are doing this while maintaining prudent levels of public spending and tighter controls. Increasingly, we ask for more evidence before we pay awards and we are changing the culture of Benefits Agency staff, asking them to engage in active case management to ensure that benefits are right from the start and kept right throughout the duration of their payment.

We inherited a system characterised by spiralling costs and sometimes slack controls. Between 1979 and 1987, the Conservative Government spent no less than £43 billion more on social security while inequality, poverty and social exclusion increased dramatically. They were spending to treat the symptoms of failure, not its causes.

We inherited a situation where one in three children live in poverty, which is why we are introducing today a record increase in child benefit. One in five households of working age have no one in work, which is why we introduced the new deal. One in three people of working age risk retiring on means-tested benefit, and that is unacceptable. That is the reason for our pension reform, which I announced last December.

---