May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business of the House for the coming weeks?

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 3 July—Estimates [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate on human reproductive technologies and the law followed by a debate on the work of the Electoral Commission. Details will be given in the Official Report.

At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Tuesday 4 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 3) Bill, followed by Ways and Means resolution on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, followed by progress on remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Wednesday 5 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Thursday 6 July—A debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 7 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 10 July—A debate on the BBC on a Government motion.

Tuesday 11 July—A debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee annual report 2005-06 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Wednesday 12 July—Opposition Day [18^th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 13 July—Remaining stages of the NHS Redress Bill [Lords].

Friday 14 July—Private Members’ Bills.

Following is the information: In so far as they relate to human reproductive technologies and the law: Fifth report of the Science and Technology Committee, session 2004-05(HC7-1) and the Government response (CM 6641) and the Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, A Public Consultation, Department of Health, 2005.

The House may wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, we will rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Tuesday 25 July and return on Monday 9 October.

Shocking!

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks. As he announced, on Monday 10 July there will be a debate on the BBC on a Government motion. Because the Government have timed that debate to take place just hours before the BBC publishes its year-end results, Members will not have up-to-date information. What is it about the BBC’s results that Ministers do not want questioned in this House; or is simply that that the debate has been timed for the convenience of ministerial diaries, not the benefit of Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore look again at the timing of that debate?

On 6 July, a debate is to take place on armed forces personnel, and I know that it has already been drawn to the right hon. Gentleman’s attention that the Defence Committee is visiting UK forces abroad during that week. Will he undertake to ensure that in future such debates do not take place when the relevant Select Committee is away on a fact-finding visit? Otherwise—taking this and the previous issue together—the suggestion is that the Government will debate matters only when the facts are not available or when Members who know about the subject are not around.

Over the past few days, we have seen yet further job cuts in the NHS. On Tuesday, 320 job cuts were announced at the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, on top of 300 cuts last year. Yesterday, 500 job cuts were announced by the East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, with the equivalent of two to three ward closures planned. Yesterday also saw the loss of 500 jobs at Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust. The local union leader Karen Jennings said:

“Thousands of staff have been taken out of the NHS in the last year, which will lead to permanent reduction of services…Patient care is now being put at risk by trusts desperate to balance the books.”

This week, I received a letter from the chairman of the Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead patient and public involvement in health primary care forum. She has written to the Health Secretary saying:

“We are concerned that, because of the many changes introduced over the last four years, tax-payers’ money is being spent on administrative changes, form-filling and box-ticking exercises instead of being used on the clinical needs of the patients.”

And this, according to the Health Secretary, is the “best year ever” for the NHS. Can we have a debate on the NHS before the recess?

Recently, I have been getting complaints from constituents about train fare increases by First Great Western. As one put it,

“the annual increase is over 5 times the rate of inflation…how do they explain such a dramatic increase in prices twice in a year?”

And that comes at a time when the service is being cut. Today, we read that after a secret deal with the Government, fares on the Thameslink-Great Northern franchise—also run by First—are increasing dramatically. A spokesman for the Department said:

“We accepted that this was a good commercial solution to the problem of overcrowding.”

So the Government are doing just what British Rail used to do—raising the fares if trains get busy, and pricing people off the trains and into their cars. But the Government’s policy is to get people out of their cars and on to the trains. It is not even a different Department that is involved; it is within the same Department. Can we please have a debate on train services and fares?

Yesterday’s judgment on control orders raised yet another problem in the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998. This morning, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said:

“There is a constitutional crisis emerging here”.

We have made our views clear. Ministers have hinted at reviewing the Human Rights Act. When will the Home Secretary come to the House to make a statement on the future of the Human Rights Act?

Debates before the facts are available, Departments contradicting their own policy, Ministers having to rewrite their own legislation, Ministers out of touch—are not those yet more signs of a Government in paralysis? Did not the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) explain all that earlier this week when he said:

“I do think there is a sense of Tony having lost his sense of purpose and direction.”

Is it not the case, however, that the whole Government have lost their sense of purpose and direction, and that time is running out not just for the Prime Minister, but for this Government?

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Lady, but as a matter of arithmetic, this Government have a couple of weeks less than four years to run. Let me just run through her points.

The right hon. Lady’s first point was about a debate on a Government motion. There has been no conspiracy, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ask the BBC whether its results can be made available earlier. In the case of quoted companies it is important for the times at which results are announced to be kept to exactly, but as the BBC is a public corporation with no share price to worry about, I see no particular reason why the information should not be available to the House in advance. I will do my best.

The right hon. Lady’s second point concerned the debate on armed forces personnel. First, there are, quite properly, five debates a year on different aspects of the armed forces. Secondly, a problem for the Chamber, with which we all have to deal, is the intensive activity of Select Committees, which means that their members are often abroad. I do not honestly think it is possible to programme debates to take account at all times of whether Select Committee members are abroad. I experienced the same problem with foreign affairs debates. I should have preferred members of the Foreign Affairs Committee to be present for those debates, but sometimes it simply was not possible.

Let me say parenthetically that we shall have to do something about the fact that Select Committees are increasingly meeting exclusively on Tuesdays or Wednesdays. That is affecting attendance in the Chamber, and putting disproportionate pressure on the facilities of the House. I hope that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee will be prepared to talk to me about it.

As for job cuts in the national health service, the right hon. Lady knows that, in a context in which spending on the health service has more than doubled, there are some temporary difficulties in the management of budgets. I wish that she and her colleagues would stop scaring patients in their constituencies, and implying that a golden age existed when the Conservatives were in power. She knows that to be completely untrue.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead health forum. That is fine, but why did she not mention that in her area, which is covered as a whole by Thames Valley strategic health authority, there has been an increase of 2,700—22 per cent.—in the number of nurses and a 40 per cent. increase in the number of doctors? There is no way in which marginal, temporary reductions in the overall level of spending will take away from patients in the right hon. Lady’s area, and in every other area in the country, that dramatic increase in the number of doctors and nurses, and the huge increase in levels of health care for the right hon. Lady’s constituents.

The right hon. Lady went on to talk about rail fares. Although her comments were rather opaque, I understood her to be complaining, root and branch, about the consequences of rail privatisation. I know that she was not in the House when the Railways Act 1993 was passed, but I gather that she would have supported railway privatisation. [Interruption.] I can read too, and what the right hon. Lady’s newspaper says is wrong.

It is true that in the case of one or two privatisations we may not have got things entirely right, but we were absolutely right when it came to the method of railway privatisation. The fares have been changed as a result of decisions by the train operating companies, which the right hon. Lady and her colleagues set up under the rail privatisation deal. Let her explain that to her constituents, along with the fact that since 2001 we have more than doubled spending on the railways.

The right hon. Lady’s last point concerned the Human Rights Act and the decision on control orders. I do not intend to comment on that, as it will go before the Court of Appeal shortly. All I will say is that I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who now chairs the Conservatives’ democracy group, was probably correct in describing the Leader of the Opposition’s proposals in respect of the Human Rights Act as “xenophobic” and wrong-headed. [Interruption.] What is the Government’s view? We have set it out.

Vernon Bogdanor was even more correct to say that, as the Leader of the Opposition’s former tutor, he would have sent his most recent speech back to him had it been an essay, and asked him to rewrite it.

If the current World cup competition has confirmed anything for us, it is that the position of the ticket tout is stronger than ever. Ticket touting robs many people, especially people from poorer backgrounds, of the opportunity to experience live music and sporting events and to witness their heroes in action. Could we have a debate to formulate a strategy with a view to eradicating ticket touting completely, whether it takes place via the internet or people skulking around theatres and football grounds?

We would all like to see greater action on that issue. There are clear offences on the statute book, but the difficulty is getting them enforced properly, not only here, but across the world. I share my hon. Friend’s great concern about ticket touts.

May I congratulate the Leader of the House on the signal distinction of being the answer to 10-across in the crossword in The Daily Telegraph yesterday? The clue however was

“Foreign Secretary no longer clutches at it”,

which may be a description of his performance.

I thank the Leader of the House for his response on the BBC debate and I hope that that is a successful initiative. I ask him again for a debate on the national health service, although not in the expectation of hearing a long list of the extra investment, because we acknowledge that. If I acknowledge that, I hope that he will acknowledge that many parts of the country are seeing the closure of community health facilities, such as cottage hospitals and maternity units. The great concern is that those closures are taking place on the basis not of strategic planning, but of short-term financial expediency. A debate could discover whether the Government intend to have a quasi-market approach to provision, which would greatly disadvantage many parts of the country—not least rural areas such as my own—or a planned national health service, providing facilities for all of our constituents.

May we have a debate on the ombudsman? The Leader of the House will be aware of the battle over the refusal of the Department for Work and Pensions to accept the ombudsman’s verdict on the payment of compensation to those who have lost their pensions. He will also be aware of the memorandum sent by Ann Abraham yesterday to the Public Administration Committee, which accused the Government of failing to address the basis on which she found that maladministration had occurred, making selective use of the evidence in her report and providing an unbalanced view of the role of Government. She said:

“I am concerned that the government’s response to my report, together with what appears to me to be an emerging attitude amongst government officials and ministers in relation to my findings of maladministration, has serious implications for the constitutional position of my office.”

That is a very serious matter, which requires debate.

Finally, what has happened to cross-cutting questions? I have asked this before and had no reply. We had a very good initiative of cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall, which allowed hon. Members to ask questions on subjects that crossed several different departmental areas. Can that be reinstated? It would be easy to do so, because we would not need a range of Ministers when we could just have the cross-cutting Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer questions on everybody’s behalf.

I am not good enough at crosswords to do the one in The Daily Telegraph, so I am grateful to learn that I was the answer to 10-across, which is much better than being the answer to 1-down. [Laughter.]

It wasn’t that good!

It wasn’t bad, either.

On the national health service, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there have been improvements—and there is a long list of them—and I note that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) agrees. It would be good if the Liberal Democrats’ recognition of the improvement in services in the NHS were accepted, even ungraciously, by members of the Conservative party. I do not accept that the short-term financial difficulties are a result of privatisation, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) alleges: they are the result of trying to get a grip on total spending in the NHS in the context of substantial rises. I appreciate that there is great anxiety in areas where community hospitals are to close. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is very alive to that, and there are many opportunities—more than there used to be—to raise such matters on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall. Moreover, let us not forget that we recently had a full day’s debate on the health service.

The ombudsman issue was raised in a debate of only two days ago on pensions. We do not accept what the ombudsman says about her constitutional position; we are acting with full respect for it. We have committed more than £2 billion to the financial assistance scheme to help those closest to retirement who have been worst affected, to cover the lifetime of the scheme.

On cross-cutting questions, I just say that I am happy to look at that again, and to consult the Chairmen of the Modernisation and the Procedure Committees.

Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an urgent debate on the increasingly dangerous situation in the middle east, following the deplorable and despicable kidnapping of the Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit, and the massive, and so far futile, Israeli response, which has, among other things, wiped out a power station, and which the Government have condemned? In view of the fact that the situation could reach a point of serious explosion, can we find time for a debate in which the Government can say what they are doing to put the road map back on course?

I understand the very serious concerns on this matter of my right hon. Friend and many other Members on both sides of the House. As I said at business questions last week, I hope—I continue to work on this—that it will be possible to find a slot for a foreign affairs debate before the summer recess.

If the Leader of the House is lucky enough to come to Hemel Hempstead, he will see that there is a fantastic general and acute hospital, which I freely admit has received a great deal of investment in the last few years; it has a new cardiac unit, stroke unit and maternity birthing unit, and there has been a great deal of expenditure on new staff and facilities. Sadly however, that is now all wasted because the hospital is going to be knocked down as a consequence of Hertfordshire’s deficit problem. Can we have a debate in which the Secretary of State for Health is brought before the House to explain to my constituents why this is the worst year ever for the health service in Hemel Hempstead?

I have always enjoyed my visits to Hemel Hempstead. The other day, I drove through the town that the hon. Gentleman represents and reflected on what a nice place it is. It used to be Labour, too, so it was even better in those days.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but in respect of the area he represents, I just say that Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority has had an increase of 2,500—30 per cent.-plus—in nurses and a 30 per cent. increase in doctors. Comparing the situation today with that of 10 years ago—as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do—it is the case that, despite the difficulties, health care is significantly better than it was.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 76-day summer recess brings this place and us into discredit with our constituents and that, as a matter of principle, it is not acceptable in a democracy to give a Government an almost three-month holiday from scrutiny? Does he recall that when our friend, the late Robin Cook, announced reforms to the parliamentary calendar, he promised that there would be September sittings? Indeed, they were introduced for a year, but the following year we were given the excuse that the security screen needed to be set up, and they disappeared. What is the excuse this year for not sitting in September, and does my right hon. Friend have any plans to do something about that?

When I inquired into the matter, the excuse that was given was that it was too late to do anything because the maintenance had already been planned for this year—that may or may not be correct. Personally, I am in favour of September sittings—which puts me in a minority among some colleagues, so it is a risky career move—but we are too late to do anything for this year; that is understood. However, it is my hope that there will be a vote of all Members early next Session on whether the House wishes there to be September sittings.

If we continue not to have September sittings, we will have to increase the number of sitting days in the rest of the year, because the deal that the late Robin Cook agreed with the House was that we would get half terms in return for sitting in September. However, folk are getting half terms and not sitting in September, which is certainly unacceptable to our constituents and active Members of this House.

rose—

Hear, hear!

I have not said a word. May I thank the Leader of the House for introducing debates on a substantive Government motion on important issues? We have had a debate on pensions, and we are about to have a debate on the BBC, both of which are very important subjects. Will he continue with this experimental initiative, but perhaps have a feed-in to the subject that will be available for debate on a substantive motion from Back Benchers as well as the usual channels, so that the House can be more involved in business, and issues of current importance can be debated at the initiative of Back-Bench Members?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that approbation, and, indeed, I am seeking to ensure that there are more debates on motions that can be voted on. In respect of the one on Tuesday, both sides agreed. In my judgment, the quality of debate is in general higher if there are motions that Members can vote in favour of or against. That is what this Chamber is for, so I hope that we can continue doing that.

On the issue of substantive motions at reasonable times of the parliamentary week balloted for by Back Benchers, the hon. Gentleman knows that we are considering that in the context of Modernisation Committee reports. That was available to Members until 1994; it was abolished as what was in my view an inadvertent consequence of the implementation of some of the Jopling recommendations. I think that it worked well, but I obviously must get others to agree.

My right hon. Friend will know that in just a few minutes’ time the report will be published of the public inquiry into the death of my constituent, Zahid Mubarak, in Feltham young offenders institution, and that that report is likely to have major implications for the Prison Service—it might be as serious for the Prison Service as the report of the Lawrence inquiry was for the police service. In that context, I must say that I am surprised that there is no statement today to the House on this matter from a Home Office Minister, and that it is being dealt with by a written statement. When my right hon. Friend takes a look at that report, I hope that he will agree that it is of sufficient importance that it ought to be debated and that Members ought to be able to question Ministers on its recommendations and on their intentions of implementing them.

I hope that I have the approval of the whole House in expressing our deep sorrow to the family of Mr. Mubarak, who was murdered in his cell some years ago, for his death and all the anxiety that they have suffered since then as the inquiries have ground through. A preliminary response by the Government is to be issued today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow that the recommendations will have to be the subject of debate in this Chamber or Westminster Hall. I cannot promise a debate in this Chamber before the summer recess, although it may be possible for there to be one in Westminster Hall. But in any event, those recommendations will have to be followed through.

Will the Leader of the House provide for a debate in Government time on the iniquities of the Extradition Act 2003, which stands to allow the extradition of the so-called “NatWest three”? Would he also observe that at present the United States can apply for the extradition of UK citizens without prima facie evidence, and yet a reciprocal arrangement with the US, whereby the UK can apply for the extradition of US citizens, does not yet exist?

I am not going to comment on that case, Mr. Speaker, if you will excuse me. I do not, however, believe that the Extradition Act is iniquitous; it is sensible and proportionate in dealing with a situation in which much greater movement of people occurs than ever did when previous such Acts were introduced.

It was clear during Tuesday’s excellent pensions debate that we are moving toward consensus in the House, but it was also clear that there is some way to go on certain issues. Will my right hon. Friend look at dividing up that debate so that we can examine specific issues, and particularly how pensions affect women? Given their broken work record and the caring responsibilities that they have to take on, if we can get the pensions issue right for them, all the other people with broken work records will also be helped.

Yes, I will do that. All of us are aware of the real concern that women have about a broken work record affecting their pension entitlement.

Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on audiology services in the NHS? Literally thousands of my constituents—and, I am sure, those of many other Members—are waiting up to two years for an appointment for a hearing aid. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is totally unacceptable and merits this House’s further attention.

I certainly acknowledge that some audiology waiting list times are unacceptable, and I will follow the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts to find time for a debate on the Israel-Palestine issue, for which, as he knows, Members in all parts of the House have been pushing for some weeks. The situation is becoming urgent, particularly this week, when we should perhaps be celebrating the opportunity for Hamas and Fatah to reach an agreement on a two-state solution. Instead, we are dealing with the appalling kidnapping of a soldier, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) mentioned, and the appalling abduction of 20 Palestinian parliamentarians and seven Cabinet Ministers overnight. May I ask my right hon. Friend to make all possible efforts to have that debate at the earliest opportunity, and, if possible, to arrange a statement by the Foreign Secretary?

As I said, I fully understand the deep concern felt about this issue, and I am doing my best to ensure that a foreign policy debate covering the middle east takes place before the recess.

May I echo the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for fuller discussion in this House of the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998? I put it to the Leader of the House that the Prime Minister might be rather disappointed with today’s business announcement, given that yesterday he said the following about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:

“He finally announced a domestic policy—his own Bill of Rights…Come on….I am happy to debate the right hon. Gentleman’s policies”.—[Official Report, 28 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 254.]

When is the Prime Minister, or indeed the Leader of the House, going to provide time for a debate, which we earnestly want, on that Act—or is he too terrified about the mess that it is in?

We are providing the time: the 18th allotted day for the Opposition is in just 10 days’ time. The hon. Gentleman is a man of very great influence in his party—let us have a debate, in Opposition time, on the Human Rights Act.

I call Mr. John MacDougall.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the last question—about the possibility of a debate on the Human Rights Act and its merits, or otherwise—was the one that I was going to ask. However, I also think it important to consider some of the claims that have been made publicly about a Bill of Rights without further consideration having been given to the wider legislative framework within which such a Bill would have to operate.

I am glad to know that my hon. Friend is supporting Opposition Members—some Opposition Members—in putting pressure on their Front Benchers to use their Opposition time sensibly. I have to say that they have squandered some Opposition days on the most eccentric subjects—

Such as what? Give us some examples.

Such subjects certainly would not—and did not when we were in opposition— rank in my order of suitable subjects for debate on Supply days.

As we approach the anniversary of 7/7, may we have a debate in Government time on a subject that I know is dear to the heart of the Leader of the House—how we can build a secure and tolerant multi-ethnic society? The need for a review of Government policy is urgent. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that a recent freedom of information inquiry, which was passed to me, reveals that the Government have given a grant of £150,000 to the Muslim Council of Britain. He may not be aware, however, that its new chairman, Dr. Muhammed Abdul Bari, recently invited to Britain a Saudi cleric who called Jews “pigs and monkeys”, and who also said that Hindus were idol worshippers to whom it would be wrong to talk sweetly. Dr. Bari was also involved in inviting a Bangladeshi cleric who has called for American troops to return from Iraq in coffins if they do not convert to Islam. May we have an opportunity to examine where Ministers have gone wrong in tackling extremism?

I of course wholly deplore the remarks attributed to those two clerics, as does the whole House. That said, I defend the Government’s decision to provide some modest financial aid to the Muslim Council of Britain. I, as Home Secretary, was the Minister who first did that, and I accept my responsibility in that regard. It is a sensible organisation that faces its own difficulties in trying to hold together a very diverse community that is itself under pressure. As for a debate on communities, there will be a debate on aspects of that issue. A debate is coming up—I am not being disingenuous in pointing this out—on the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report, which covers aspects of 7/7. That is an opportunity to raise some but not all of the matters that the hon. Gentleman referred to.

The Leader of the House will have heard yesterday’s exchanges at Prime Minister’s Question Time on Trident and its possible replacement, and on the legality of replacement within the terms of the non-proliferation treaty. Is the Leader of the House in a position to tell us when the relevant Select Committee reports will be available, and when the Government will make a statement on the cost and legality of replacing Trident, and on their strategy for fulfilling our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty? When, moreover, will there be a vote in this House, on a clear substantive motion, on whether we are to continue down the nuclear armament road?

That will be on an Opposition day.

The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that such a debate will be on an Opposition day. No, it will not; it will be on a Government motion. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that there is no issue of legality. I am happy to give him a seminar outside this Chamber—or inside it—on our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, but of the five nuclear weapon states that are under that treaty, we are the one that has made the most progress in meeting our obligations. We have reduced our nuclear warhead systems from three to one. I led for the British Government at last May’s revision conference, which sought to get an international consensus in order to make further progress. However, we were thwarted by other member states.

There will be a debate on this issue. As I told the House last week, I cannot anticipate at this stage the most appropriate form for that debate, but it will be one that shows proper respect for the House. My hon. Friend will excuse me if I remind him that he, as well as I, stood on Labour’s manifesto at the last election, which said:

“We are…committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent”.

Given the unsustainability of the imbalance of representation between England and Scotland and the worrying democratic deficit that that creates, may we have an urgent debate on the future shape of the constitutional settlement currently in place between these two great countries?

We have had plenty of debates on that issue. I shall just say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he and his party—which, as I reminded the House last week, was once called the Conservative and Unionist party—need to be extremely careful in pursuing the populist but wrong-headed line of suggesting that there is a contradiction between devolution to Scotland and the integrity of the Union. The second point that he needs to be aware of is that English MPs, of whom I am one, have overwhelming power over the Scottish Parliament in respect of one thing that is fundamental to all its operations: the allocation of money to it.

May I follow on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and ask for a debate in Government time on carers and the White Paper’s good recommendations on pensions? Carers were rather sidelined during this week’s pensions debate, and in fact we have a good strong message for carers.

I certainly understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I hope that there might be an opportunity to pursue this matter before the recess in Westminster Hall or in an Adjournment debate, and after the recess, on the Floor of the House.

I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join me in condemning the sickening hate mail received by Scottish tennis ace Andy Murray simply because he favours one football team over another. Do we not need a statement to remind fans, the media, commentators and pundits that football is just a game? Good-natured rivalry is what makes it so special around the world, so should we not make an appeal to stop all the cajoling and browbeating about who should support whom?

Everyone needs a sense of proportion about football. Bill Shankly famously said that some people believed that football was a matter of life and death, but that in fact it was much more important than that.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that we might get cross-party support to try to change the ridiculously undemocratic system of Orders in Council? This is an urgent matter. Yesterday afternoon, the whole of the Northern Ireland education system was changed radically—and in my view, detrimentally—by the vote of a Committee. No amendments were allowed, and no costings were brought forward. That is outrageous. The Order in Council procedure will apply until the Assembly returns, and it must be changed.

I shall certainly pursue those concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but at the end of her question my hon. Friend acknowledged that the fundamental problem is that the Assembly has been suspended. If it had not been, the matter to which she refers would be one for the democratic representatives in Northern Ireland.

May we have an urgent and early debate on our country’s chaotic immigration system? Yesterday, the Minister for Local Government, who has responsibility for community cohesion, said that of course we needed to debate it, and two examples from my constituency prove that. In the first, a person who has applied for indefinite leave to remain received a letter from the Home Office saying that his name appeared on the UN list of individuals belonging to or associated with the al-Qaeda organisation, but then apologised for “any delay or anxiety” caused by consideration of his application. My other constituent works for the European Bank for Research and Development, and is one of thousands of other Bulgarian nationals here on business visas who have been asked to produce 16 sets of additional documents within 28 days in order to prolong their stay. Surely our priorities are wrong if we are apologising to alleged al-Qaeda members yet harassing people with rare skills who are doing important jobs in this country in sectors such as international development?

I cannot comment on those individual cases, save to say that Bulgaria is one of those countries whose nationals need work permits in Britain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members would be the first to complain if we did not conduct proper checks of people seeking work permits.

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 2456, in my name?

[That this House notes with concern that representatives of Overseas Territories based in the UK are not invited to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in London on Remembrance Sunday; recognises the huge contribution made by Overseas Territories to supporting the UK military both during war time and during peace time and the number of lives lost whilst serving on behalf of British forces; pays tribute to the residents of the UK's Overseas Territories for their loyalty to the British Crown; and calls upon the Government to allow one representative from an overseas territory to lay a wreath on behalf of all the Overseas Territories at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday.]

It is supported by hon. Members of all parties, and deals with the recognition of overseas territories. It proposes allowing representatives from those territories to place wreaths at the Cenotaph, whereas at present, that is done on their behalf by a Minister. It is absurd that London representatives of those territories are not allowed to recognise their war dead. Those representatives, in rotation, should be allowed to place wreaths at the Cenotaph themselves.

I commend my hon. Friend on raising this important issue. I shall pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and to the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the Cenotaph ceremony.

Can we have a statement next week from the Home Secretary about his intended treatment of Rwandan genocide suspects? A number of such individuals currently reside in the UK, and at least one has been granted indefinite leave to remain. A statement by the Home Secretary would enable him to make it clear to the House whether he intends to deal with such people by extradition or by domestic prosecution. In particular, he would be able to underline the important point that asylum should be granted to people fleeing persecution, and not to those seeking to evade responsibility for their suspected persecution of others.

I do not think that a statement is necessary. I cannot comment on the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers, as I do not have the facts. However, the fact that people have been granted asylum is not a bar to their being extradited. Article 1F of the 1951 refugee convention provides that asylum status can be withdrawn if there is evidence that the person involved has committed a serious crime—which, plainly, genocide is.

I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 2447.

[That this House calls for a Government-led detailed inquiry into the pricing policies of the private utility companies to ensure that the consumer can make informed decisions on the provider and that the process for changing provider is simplified, which should create a truly transparent and competitive market.]

The motion has cross-party support, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw it to the attention of his Cabinet colleagues. Does he agree that it is wrong that energy companies are allowed to make significant price increases that have a devastating effect on all our communities?

I agree that prices for energy and other utilities have risen very significantly. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I shall certainly raise them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

I commend the Leader of the House for adding, in a speech outside the House, to the debate on party political funding and on the democratic deficit illustrated by very low election turnouts. Does he agree that there needs to be a debate in the House on the matter quite soon? That would enable those of us with doubts about parts of his policy to cross-examine him about them. I am referring to the fact that trade unions are excluded from funding restrictions, yet the restrictions apply to political parties outside election times. That policy seems to benefit the Government, whichever party is power.

Of course there should be a debate on party funding. Whether it will be held before we get the report from Sir Hayden Phillips is a matter for consideration, but I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Meanwhile, I invite him to read the chapter on donations in the Neill committee report published in 1998.

May I offer an additional reason for a debate on the middle east? Other hon. Members have mentioned the high-profile issues, but every day the Israeli Government continue to annexe Palestinian land and expel Palestinians from Jerusalem. Effectively, Israel is closing off the possibility of a two-state solution in the area.

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concern and great knowledge of these matters. As I have said to other hon. Members today, I understand that concern and want there to be a debate, and I am doing my best to ensure that there will be one.

I ask the Leader of the House, for the third time in six weeks, when he will put on the Order Paper a motion to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to meet in public. Last time he said:

“we must not embarrass ourselves by setting up systems that subsequently fall into disrepute”.—[Official Report, 8 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 414.]

There is nothing more embarrassing than the idea of that critically important Committee meeting in secret. Nothing would do it more good than the fresh air of public scrutiny.

That is one point of view.

It is a good one.

Well, that depends. The other point of view has to do with the Committee’s effectiveness in scrutinising documents that have otherwise not yet been made public.

Yours suffers from the disadvantage of being wrong.

The hon. Gentleman says that I suffer from the disadvantage of being wrong—but that is often the case. However, I do not think that I am wrong on this occasion.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make an announcement about the Government’s proposals for the second phase of the EU emissions trading scheme. Today, we are announcing the level of our cap. In due course, we will be presenting to the Commission our full and formal national allocation plan.

The case for tackling climate change, and the human contribution to it, is overwhelming. The scientific consensus is wide and deep, and the political consensus is widening and deepening. The need for international and domestic action, across all aspects of economic and social life, is very strong.

In the UK, we can take pride in the fact that we are projected to cut our emissions of greenhouses gases by 23 to 25 per cent. from 1990 levels over the Kyoto commitment period—nearly double the Kyoto targets. However, UK emissions of carbon dioxide are rising. We remain on track to meet our Kyoto targets, but on current trends, we will fall short of our national goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2010. Our challenge is to take action now to avoid the environmental and the economic and social costs of inaction.

The EU emissions trading scheme is the cornerstone of a Europe-wide drive to reduce emissions from highly energy-intensive sectors. It currently covers about 11,000 installations across Europe, and companies in the scheme in the UK account for some 45 per cent. of UK carbon dioxide emissions. The ETS gives a clear incentive to industry to invest in low-carbon technologies of the future, but achieves carbon reductions at lowest possible cost.

We are in the second year of the first phase of the scheme. The results from year one have provided a first opportunity to judge allocation against emissions, and most member states' caps for phase 1 do not provide the scarcity that the scheme demands. The UK cap was 245 million tonnes, and our system has worked well. The Government imposed the shortfall in allowances on the electricity supply industry, and all other sectors were allocated according to need. As intended, all but the electricity supply sector are living within their allocations.

The Commission has used the information from the first phase to assess what member states’ caps should be for phase 2, and has set out indicative figures that require substantial cuts from member states. Phase 1 has been, and is, in many ways a trial period. Phase 2 coincides with the first Kyoto period—2008 to 2012—and states that do not take the measures necessary within that period to reach their Kyoto targets will either have to purchase Kyoto allowances and credits from other states or face penalties for missing targets.

In March, in our consultation on the draft national allocation plan, we set out a range of UK reductions of emissions during phase 2, from 3 million tonnes of carbon to 8 million tonnes. At the time of consultation, that was equivalent to a cap of 234 to 252 million allowances a year, which, for the sake of clarity, I should explain represents 234 to 252 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

I have to report to the House that there have been important changes since we published the draft national allocation plan. Our projections for emissions in 2010 have risen by 3 million tonnes of carbon for the UK as a whole—significantly, because of changes in household numbers—and by 1.1 million tonnes of carbon for the installations covered by the EU emissions trading scheme.

In those circumstances, we believe it is essential to make the maximum effort consistent with the range on which we consulted. In other words, that means reductions of 8 million tonnes of carbon per year below business as usual, which is equivalent to a reduction of 29.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. It may help the House if I say that that is roughly equivalent to the carbon emissions of 4.5 million households. This is now, since the change in projections, equivalent to an annual total allocation of 238 million allowances to UK installations covered by the scheme in phase 1. The figures may change slightly to reflect the expansion of the scheme and removal of the installations that emit the smallest amounts of CO₂.

We looked carefully at the possible effects on business and consumers before making our final decision. Our intention is that for industrial sectors, including those most open to international competition, allocations should continue to be on the basis of need. In respect of electricity supply, however, the sector is mainly insulated from domestic competition, and is domestically liberalised. That sector's allowances could therefore be set lower and be subject to auctioning.

Phase 2 of the EU ETS allows for a maximum level of auctioning of allowances of 10 per cent. We propose to set the level of auctioning in the UK at 7 per cent. Obviously, the final amount raised by the auction cannot be determined in advance—it depends on the price of carbon—but it will be substantial.

We will build on the trading scheme agreement and go further. We believe there is a major opportunity for the UK not just to invest in renewable energy, other non-nuclear, low-carbon technologies, and energy efficiency, but to build successful businesses in these fields. We will establish a new environmental transformation fund, held jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry, administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself, to grasp this opportunity. Final details of the scale and scope of the fund will be announced in the spending review for implementation, as in the ETS, in 2008.

The EU emissions trading scheme is also linked to a global carbon market and has been a major driver in its development. Project credits, which are credits generated in developing countries through the clean development mechanism, or in other developed countries by joint implementation projects, may be used to help meet the caps set for operators. The use of these credits provides a further driver for sustainable energy projects in the developing world and for technology transfer. However, member states need to ensure a balance between domestic and international effort. UK companies are already at the forefront of this market, and we want that to continue.

In the UK we are providing for the use of these credits to meet up to 66 per cent.—two thirds—of the effort in phase 2. In effect, that means that 5.3 million tonnes of carbon—19.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—from clean development and joint implementation projects can be used, which is equivalent to 8 per cent. of the total cap. All installations in the UK may use project credits to meet emissions up to 8 per cent. of their allocation.

The EU emissions trading scheme has an impact on electricity prices via the cost of carbon allowances, and we have looked at that carefully. It is very important to realise that the cost is driven by the cumulative effect of all member states' decisions, not by the decision of any individual member state for the citizens of that country. Many factors drive electricity prices, including global fuel prices and the weather, but our estimate is that the impact of the proposal, relative to the phase 1 cap, will be a one-off rise in industrial energy prices in the region of 1 per cent., and approximately half that for domestic users.

Our decision to set the cap at the top end of the range of effort on which we consulted sends a clear message that the emissions trading scheme is here to stay; that the Government are committed to making it work, providing clear, progressive rewards for a shift to low-carbon technologies; and that the UK is determined to maintain its leadership role on this issue. Today's decision will set us on course to deliver a 16.2 per cent. reduction in emissions against 1990 levels by 2010. We said when we launched the climate change programme review in March that it was not the last word, and we will use further opportunities, including the energy review and the environmental transformation fund, to help us move progressively towards our 2010 target.

EU member states are required to use emissions trading as a means to deliver their Kyoto protocol commitments. The level of ambition that individual member states set for the reductions to be made by the sectors covered by the emissions trading scheme will be an important element in the price of carbon. Now that member states will need to show that they are meeting their Kyoto targets, and with the Commission having phase 1 emissions data, the UK expects to see more stringent caps enforced in phase 2. We will therefore encourage and support the European Commission in its efforts to ensure, tough caps, to provide greater long-term certainty and to help smooth the running of the system to avoid potential competitive distortions. I spoke to Commissioner Dimas, the Environment Commissioner, this morning to emphasise that point.

Phase 2 also forms an important element in the broader consideration of our long-term carbon policy framework. My right hon. Friend the Trade and Industry Secretary, who is in Geneva today as part of the World Trade Organisation negotiations, will next month be reporting the findings of the energy review in which the Government is reviewing the UK's progress against the medium and long-term Energy White Paper goals, including our 2050 carbon reduction goals, and the options for further steps to achieve them.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. This target for phase 2 will support the development of a global carbon market, and we will therefore continue to work with our EU partners to ensure that negotiations for future commitments under the Kyoto protocol make clear and convincing progress. We will continue to work through the Gleneagles dialogue, launched during the UK presidency of the G8, to search for consensus on practical measures for tackling climate change. The case for taking action is overwhelming; the speed at which the world responds to that case will determine the effectiveness and positive economic impact of our response. Today's announcement takes another step towards our long-term objective of a 60 per cent. reduction in C0₂ emissions by 2050. I commend it to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for prior notice of what is undeniably its hideously complicated content. As he said, the case for tackling climate change is overwhelming. It is the biggest environmental threat that we face; indeed, I would go further and say that it may well be the biggest threat that we face in our generation of politicians. We strongly support the European emissions trading scheme, and we are concerned to ensure that it works as effectively as possible.

I recognise that the Government have a difficult job in balancing the interests of United Kingdom industry with the need to cut carbon emissions. That becomes even more difficult and complicated in the context of the European Union, where we need to ensure fair competition across all member states and a fair allocation system that is robust and does not distort competition, but which also reduces carbon emissions.

Nobody said that any of this was easy. In that context, does the Secretary of State agree that the plans recently set out by Germany for a 0.6 per cent. cut under its national allocation plan are a matter for concern? Will he urge the EU Commission to make Germany raise its game?

We have argued for the UK to set ambitious targets and we have advocated the greater use of auctioning in the allocation process. In that context, the Secretary of State’s announcement provides some evidence of welcome progress. We are pleased that the Government have opted for the target of cutting 8 million tonnes of carbon, which is at the higher end of the range that they set out earlier this year. However, I note that, since March, the base case projection for business as usual has been revised upward. Does not that suggest that the range of emission cuts should have been revised upward proportionately?

I welcome the announcement that 7 per cent. of the UK’s national allocation plan will be auctioned. It is the way in which the allocations were made in phase 1—the horse trading and deals done behind closed doors—that has led to many of the problems that we have already seen in the working of the emissions trading scheme, and it explains some of the volatility in the market. Auctioning is a good thing, which we support, but has the Secretary of State given any thought to how the money raised from that process might be used? For example, it could be used to compensate the industrial sectors that are particularly exposed to international competitive pressure as a result of the emissions trading scheme.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that under the arrangements for phase 1, the UK power sector made windfall profits of in the region of £1 billion? What plans does he have to address that unacceptable situation in phase 2?

I take note of the plan to establish an environmental transformation fund to encourage UK investment in renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency—an area in which we are sadly lacking in progress and lagging behind our international competitors. We certainly need to encourage effective action on that front and we look forward to seeing the details, but how will the new fund relate to the work already undertaken by the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust and others? Would it not have been possible to use one of those existing bodies to undertake the functions that the Secretary of State envisages for the new fund?

Does the Secretary of State agree that setting five-year targets causes industry problems in failing to provide the long-term framework that they need to justify the long-term investment that they are being asked to make in carbon technology? Will he argue in favour of longer-term commitments in future?

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a need for a clearer and more regular reporting system in respect of national progress towards meeting the targets for delivering carbon reduction, which would help to avoid the destabilising volatility that we have recently seen in the carbon market? What plans does he have to promote a more open, transparent and visible means of measuring progress? He made no mention of the plan to include aviation in phase 2 of the emissions trading scheme, so I would be grateful if he updated the House on that issue.

Overall, I congratulate the Secretary of State on winning some of the arguments that his Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry. His announcement today represents a step in the right direction. I wish him well in the vital effort that needs to be brought to bear to ensure that realistic, robust and equitable allocations are made across the whole of the EU.

I wholly concur with the hon. Gentleman that this is a complicated area and I thank him for his congratulations. I wish him equal success in his doubtless robust discussions with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whose views on environmental policy are well known, and who I note is not in his place today. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is looking confused. He may have forgotten that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is leading the Conservative party’s review of trade and industry policy.

Let me respond to the questions. The hon. Gentleman made an allegation about Germany, but he must be careful—I think that his information came from the BBC website. He said that the German reduction was 0.6 per cent. That is wrong and it is important to correct it. The phase 1 cap in Germany was 499 million tonnes. The proposed second phase cap constitutes a reduction of 17 million tonnes and then a further reduction of 8 million tonnes arising from emissions in 2005. The Commission then said that the German Government will have to get down to 462 million tonnes. The Germans have already committed to a 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. cut and the Commission has suggested going further. I caution the hon. Gentleman to be careful about the 0.6 per cent. figure. New industries are included, but that does not invalidate the work being done. None the less, what I said in my statement holds true, and we are encouraging the Commission to take a robust approach with every single member state.

The hon. Gentleman asked about auctioning, but I believe that he was a little confused. As I mentioned in my statement, the auctioning figure is 7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman rather churlishly said that it was some evidence of progress, but given that the maximum was 10 and that the current level is zero, 7 per cent. is a pretty good whack at making the auctioning system work.

The hon. Gentleman also asked where the benefits will go. As I said in my statement, I view the environmental transformation fund as critical for non-nuclear carbon technologies of a range of different kinds. He made a perfectly valid point about ensuring that it is properly integrated with the excellent work of the Carbon Trust and other organisations. As I said, we will set out the details in due course in the spending review and we will certainly ensure that there is proper integration.

The hon. Gentleman then asked about compensation for the most internationally exposed sectors. As I tried to explain, our approach to the whole ETS system is that we allocate to internationally competing sectors on a business as usual basis. It is precisely because of the insulation of the electricity supply sector from international competition and the liberalised nature of the market, which is intended to drive down prices, that we have said that the burden of carbon reduction should be borne by that sector rather than by the internationally competitive sector. The compensation issue does not therefore arise.

Annual reporting is another issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my predecessor made a commitment to start it next year and then carry it out annually, so I can confirm that point. He legitimately asked about aviation. I had thought that the issues were complicated enough without getting into that matter, but it is very much on the table and the Government are fully committed to including aviation in the scheme. The Commission has made it clear that it wants to come forward by the end of the year with proposals for how to include the aviation sector in the scheme. It certainly represents a good step forward.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is a hideously complex area, it must be translated for general public as very good news for the environment? For anyone deeply concerned about global warming, it is indeed good news. Does the Secretary of State agree that seeing evidence of the DTI and DEFRA working together is also good news? Many in the environmental field hope that it means that they will work well together in other difficult areas such as the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. Will he assure me that all this will not mean a lack of competitive equality between countries like ours that are leading and other countries that are lagging behind?

I can reassure my hon. Friend on all three points. It is good news for the environment and also for the economy. The opportunities for business development in renewables and other low carbon technologies are significant. We must not forget the importance of our manufacturing sector, but we also have a growing environmental technology sector. At the last count, I think that it was worth about 400,000 jobs. I certainly concur with my hon. Friend about that. As for co-operation with the DTI, I can assure him that we fully recognise how vital it is and that the whole Government are committed to it. The energy review, as well as my statement, will provide further evidence of that close co-operation.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving us prior notice of his statement. There is indeed a cross-party consensus on the principle of the emissions trading scheme, but it seems from today’s statement that there is a danger that a good idea will be undermined by poor implementation—not just here, I hasten to add, but in other EU countries, too. Only one EU country, Germany, seems likely to meet the legal deadline for the submission of its national allocation plan. Why is it that here in Britain, where the Government affect to believe that climate change is the greatest issue facing mankind—I certainly believe that it is—we are unable to meet the deadline for our own national allocation plan?

By raising the UK projection of business as usual emissions in 2008 to 1.1 million tonnes of carbon covered by the emissions trading scheme, the Secretary of State is implicitly weakening our commitment to cuts in emissions. Does not that raise the serious question of whether a more objective baseline in the past would have been more sensible than the business-as-usual projections, which have the disadvantage from country to country of being based on far-out projections, which are subject to considerable doubt about the assumptions.

Should not there be a more transparent and open process of peer review for each member state, perhaps with a voting procedure for approval, to ensure that countries make equal sacrifices? Are the reductions that our businesses are being asked to make in line with those elsewhere in the European Union? Are the reductions by business as great or greater than those implied for households and individuals by our Kyoto targets? Fairness, not only between our businesses and other businesses but between our businesses and households, is also important. The Secretary of State said that he had spoken this morning to Commissioner Dimas. Did he receive assurances about those matters?

The statement is silent on the scope of phase 2 and I welcome the Secretary of State’s reassurance to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that the Government intend to continue to press for the inclusion of aviation. I should be grateful to hear the Secretary of State’s view on the inclusion of surface transport, especially freight and fleet transport, in the emissions trading scheme.

We welcome the commitment to auctioning. However, why did the Secretary of State select 7 per cent. rather than 6 per cent., 8 per cent., 9 per cent. or 9.5 per cent. instead of the maximum 10 per cent., which is a modest figure? It is also notable that the entire auctioning element will fall on the electricity supply sector, as it is sheltered from trade, as the Secretary of State explained.

We all understand that there is uncertainty and I note the presence on the Front Bench of the Financial Secretary, representing the Treasury’s interest. I suspect that the Government have made projections—it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to share them with us. Where will the revenue from auctioning accrue? What is his view of, for example, the proposal from some quarters for a revenue-neutral scheme? Does he believe that that might make the proposal more palatable and less prone to distort competition?

I would be grateful to know whether the Secretary of State or any of his colleagues who are involved in the process have had discussions with representatives of the nuclear industry on the matter. Will the likely incentives from the projection of the burden of auctioning on the electricity supply industry be enough to persuade nuclear generators to build new nuclear without further douceurs from the public purse or electricity consumers through higher tariffs?

Only someone with three PhDs and a background in journalism could read the statement and believe that it represents a weakening of our environmental commitment, as the hon. Gentleman alleged. Let me try to cut through the rhetoric—or perhaps the latest phase in his leadership election campaign—

What about yours?

We have a very good leader and we are happy with the next one, who is on his way. We are in a much stronger position than the hon. Gentleman.

Order. It would perhaps help if we could stick to the questions.

I am grateful for your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in keeping me on the straight and narrow.

The hon. Gentleman asked about assurances from Commissioner Dimas. I refer him to the commissioner’s public statements in his Financial Times article and his speech to the European Parliament. He repeated those assurances today.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the figure of 7 per cent. and why it was not 8 per cent. or 6 per cent. I am terribly sorry that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) finds the subject dull—that was a large yawn. The continuing debate about the extra 20 million tonnes that we wanted as the cap in the first phase weighed with us in making the decision about the figure. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is right to say that, in the end, there is maths and there is judgment. However, the issue that I mentioned was a factor in not going for the full 10 per cent. and opting for 7 per cent.

The hon. Gentleman asked what proportion of electricity supply industry funds would be allocated. I do not have the precise figure but I shall write to him later today. He asked about projected revenue and suggested that there were secret Government projections. Nothing secret or governmental is necessary—there are plenty of public projections. They depend on the price of carbon. If there is €15 a tonne price of carbon, that is worth £150 million.

What are the assumptions?

There are no assumptions built in, but we know that the market assumptions are based on a carbon price of between €15 and €20. A price of €15 a tonne would raise approximately £150 million from a 7 per cent. auction.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the scale and scope of the fund. As I said in the statement, that will be made clear at the time of the spending review. He asked about the nuclear industry—I have not had discussions with it about the matter. His final point about douceurs will have to wait until I consult my dictionary.

rose—

Order. I will endeavour to call as many hon. Members as possible, but could we now have brisk questions and answers?

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is a truism that anyone who tries to be a leader or go first will be the first to be criticised. That was the case for the United Kingdom in the first phase of the scheme. All the other nations in the EU that followed us last time escaped criticism. I am pleased that that fact has now been recognised.

Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with electricity suppliers to mitigate the increases in phase 2 of 0.5 per cent. for domestic customers, given that the suppliers made windfall profits in phase 1? They should use them to mitigate the costs on consumers in the second phase.

I think that I am right in saying that the electricity suppliers took advantage of the fact that the industry is vertically integrated to cushion some of the impact on domestic consumers in phase 1. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am sure that the electricity suppliers do, too.

I welcome the statement, but I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that, under the first phase of emissions trading, the clean development mechanism generated many projects that offered credits. That, together with some of the longer-term projections of falling energy prices over the second phase, calls into question the price of carbon and thus companies’ ability to fund the necessary investment to reduce their emissions. What steps can be taken at a European level to try to safeguard the necessary flow of investment to achieve the carbon reductions that are essential if ETS 2 is to be successful?

The first and most urgent priority is to ensure that the signal is given to business that the ETS is here to stay and that it will be stable and long term. That is one of the reasons why I stressed the 2050 goal. Business wants a long-term path. When the corporate leaders group met the Prime Minister and me, it emphasised, perhaps above everything, that it wants to know about the long-term commitment from the Government and the rest of Europe. In the next few months, under the Finnish presidency, we shall work to ensure the commitment to the ETS and therefore to business.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the key elements of the statement—the 8 million tonnes, the auction and the environmental transformation fund. They are essential to our climate change programme.

My right hon. Friend referred to the corporate leaders group on climate change, which will be delighted with the announcement. He has united keen environmentalists such as me and leading members of industry. Will he meet the group again to discuss its proposals for hydrogen storage and wave and tidal electricity generation technologies, which could make us a world leader? I believe—and I think that the group does—that they are essential for dealing with the problems that the electricity generating industry faces.

My hon. Friend has an incredibly distinguished record in this field and I am grateful for her kind comments. I can certainly confirm that we are working with the corporate leaders group to establish a work programme to further our discussions. Her point about non-mature industries, such as tidal, was important; when we talk about a level playing field for different forms of renewable energy we must recognise that some forms of renewable energy are more developed than others, and make sure that they all have every chance to develop to the full.

The Secretary of State talked about the corporate leaders group. Could he indicate more accurately how much input there was from industry and commerce in the decisions that the Government have taken? As he may know, I am deeply concerned about the position of the UK manufacturing industry, because we are competing with countries that are not in the least interested in carbon emissions—China and India, for instance, which are our major competitors. How much input was there from industry and how concern is there about the impact of the changes on manufacturing industry and its competitiveness?