With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall now make a statement on the latest Government measures to help small businesses. The Government understand that many small firms are having real difficulties as a result of the credit crunch and worldwide economic slowdown. Those companies are critical to our long-term economic success. More than 99 per cent. of UK businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. They contribute as much as large businesses to UK output, and nearly 60 per cent. of private sector jobs.

We have always made getting the business environment right for SMEs a priority, and since 1997, 1 million more small businesses have been created. UK SMEs employ 1.5 million more people; they are more productive and more innovative, and they survive longer. Most recently, our enterprise strategy set out our renewed vision to make the UK the world’s most enterprising economy and the best place to grow and start a business. We increased the small firms loan guarantee lending allocations by 20 per cent. for 2008, boosted enterprise programmes and committed to a new approach that avoids placing unnecessary regulatory burdens on smaller firms.

These tough times have only made us more determined to help SMEs. We need to be practical and innovative; above all, we need to ensure that what we do makes a real difference. We are meeting business organisations and businesses across the country to discuss the problems that they are facing, such as cash flow, access to finance and higher bank charges and costs, and to ensure that their views are reflected in Government action.

Our first priority has been restoring financial stability. Without a strong financial system, small businesses cannot access the credit that they need, home owners struggle with their mortgages, and trade in the high street slows down. But as the impact of the global financial squeeze hits small businesses further, the Government believe that it is not enough for us to focus on financial stability alone. So, building on the measures that we have already brought forward, the Government announced yesterday further action, with immediate effect, to help SMEs through these tougher times.

For SMEs, cash dominates: cash in—prompt payment—and cash out, to their work force, for inputs and to the Revenue. Over the past year, the time that organisations take to pay their bills to suppliers has increased, intensifying the cash-flow pressures of many businesses. The Government are determined to do everything they can to help. The Government will aim to pay their suppliers as soon as possible, and within 10 days at the latest. That will bring forward billions of pounds-worth of payments, on top of the majority of payments already made within 10 days. The regional development agencies, which spend around £750 million annually with suppliers, have also committed to that. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wrote to the Local Government Association, and the chief executive of the national health service wrote to NHS trusts, asking those public bodies to review their payment performance and to follow the Government’s lead.

I recognise the essential role that the approach of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to business tax compliance can play in managing the economic downturn. HMRC already has a policy of flexibility in dealing with struggling businesses, and I know that the Treasury will continue to impress upon it the importance of implementing and publicising that policy in the current climate. We are also working with the Institute of Credit Management and all leading finance and business organisations to promote prompt payment and ensure that businesses have the best advice and guidance on managing cash flow.

The Government’s measures of financial support to the banking industry are designed to stabilise UK banks and support the long-term strength of the economy, which helps small businesses. As part of the recapitalisation package, Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS and Lloyds TSB committed to

“maintain the availability and active marketing of competitively priced lending to SMEs at a level at least equivalent to that of 2007”.

Small businesses must know that the banks are open for business. RBS, HBOS and Lloyds TSB make up 50 per cent. of small business lending, but given that they operate in a competitive environment, we can expect other banks to follow suit. The Government will monitor how recapitalised banks are delivering their commitment on SME lending. We will ask the banks how they will achieve that, including the availability of capital and liquidity allocated for small businesses, marketing plans, and their principles for SME lending, from head office to branch level.

We want to see banks taking appropriate risk assessments on SME lending—being responsible but not unduly risk-averse, and not passing on unreasonable costs. The Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will be meeting all the banks and building societies tomorrow to discuss those issues, and what small businesses can expect from them.

The Government have also been brokering contact between UK banks and the European Investment Bank. The four largest UK banks have now signalled their initial interest in negotiating loans totalling about £1 billion from the EIB to lend to UK SMEs. I hope that we will be able to make rapid progress on that for small businesses.

It is critical at this difficult time that businesses have access to support and advice that helps them to survive now and succeed in the future. Business Link advisers will provide a free health check for every small business, whatever its size, sector or location, and other advice on how to adapt to changing economic conditions and be ready for the economic upturn.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills yesterday announced that small businesses are the focus of £350 million of Government funds to help them get through the tougher economic climate by building the skills and expertise of their workers. The Government are making improvements to Train to Gain that will deliver advice and funding for training, with the minimum bureaucracy and delay. For the first time, training at level 2 will be free for all SME employees regardless of whether they already have qualifications at that level, and there will be free bite-size courses in business-critical areas, including business improvement techniques and customer service, to raise productivity. Management and leadership training will also be opened up to the smallest employers so that it is now available to employers with five to 250 employees.

Small businesses drive our economy forward, and during this global economic downturn, the Government are determined to give the millions of people who run and work for SMEs the chance to maintain their livelihood and prepare for better times in the future. That is why we have brought forward these measures, and we will continue to do all we can through the work of the National Economic Council to look for and implement solutions that help SMEs. I commend this statement to the House.

The Minister’s statement is an unprecedented occasion, representing an unacceptable mixture of farce and contempt. The Department has no one of Cabinet rank in this House, so instead, a Minister has just read out a statement that the real Secretary of State will deliver in another place in three hours’ time.

Last week the Leader of the House said that there would be no statement delivered today, but then today’s announcements were made first in a Select Committee, then in a press release sent out by the Department yesterday lunchtime, and then in a press conference attended by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. If the real Secretary of State says something in the House of Lords that the Minister has not said here, will we be entitled to a further statement tomorrow?

The Government have been slow to cotton on to the fact that the turmoil witnessed over the past few months in financial markets is now causing the deepest imaginable pain for businesses both big and small throughout the country. Is there not a danger that even the most imaginative measures to assist business cash flow will simply be too small and puny to cope with the scale of the fallout caused by a decade of Government mismanagement and financial hubris?

We have been ahead of the Government in sounding the alarm about the debt that has been built up, the taxes that have been raised and the irresponsible financial practices at the heart of Government. We want to see some immediate practical assistance for small businesses, which are having to deal with serious cash-flow problems: prompt payment from central and local government, deferral of VAT, a cut in national insurance, a reduction in corporation tax for small business, and more promotion of the small business rate relief, to which many are entitled but for which not all apply.

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the £350 million that was announced yesterday, and repeated today, to help SMEs train staff is, in fact, just a reheat of old money and a recycling of old schemes? How, indeed, can the Government possibly monitor prompt payment by Government and Government agencies, when they have admitted in a parliamentary answer that they never even record that information?

On what basis can the Minister defend the assertion made by the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills on the “Today” programme, and repeated today, that bank lending will continue at 2007 levels? How will the Minister measure that? Is it not the case that all over the country, contrary to the Government’s assertions, overdraft facilities are being viciously called in by the banks, to the severe detriment of thousands of businesses? Is it not blatantly evident that banks are not continuing to lend as the Government say they are and must, but are in fact pulling the rug from under many perfectly good firms?

To whom can business turn for a reprieve, when a bank declares that it will withdraw an overdraft facility or suddenly call in guarantees? What is the Minister’s estimate of the number of businesses that will go to the wall in the coming year? Does he agree with some independent economic experts that unemployment will shoot through the 3 million mark by the end of next year? Is it not the case that although the base rate is falling, actual borrowing costs are rising through 15 per cent.?

The Minister mentioned the small firms loan guarantee scheme, but what plans do the Government have to extend this very narrow scheme to help businesses more widely? How, indeed, can they claim that regional development agencies will make a difference when the Government have just raided their budget to prop up the housing market?

Does the Minister share my analysis that there is growing anger that a Prime Minister who has spent the last years declaring that he has abolished boom and bust, while in fact storing up all the trouble that is now hitting us hard, is massively to blame for mortgaging this country just as bankers have mortgaged their banks? While demanding praise for building what he has not yet even paid for, he has delivered only the illusion of prosperity, behind which will now follow massive bills for future generations to pay. Having built the country on a mountain of debt, the Labour Government are now as bankrupt as the economy that they have created. Does that not prove the abiding truth of post-war British politics—that Labour Governments always run out of money?

I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his courteous welcome to me at the Dispatch Box.

What we are doing as a Government is concentrating on the real work of helping small businesses through difficult economic times. I would have liked to think that he would welcome the package of measures that we are announcing today. He mentioned small business rate relief, so may I remind him that the Opposition voted against the Bill introducing it?

Let me address the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed, first about the £350 million announced by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. That focuses on SMEs as a top priority and relaxes the rules on spending on training to gain. I should have thought that that would be widely welcomed at a time when companies are thinking about shedding staff and about whether to move to short-time working. I should have thought that the ability to say, “You can work four days a week and you can train for one, so you will have additional skills”, would be warmly welcomed during these difficult economic times. I am surprised that the Opposition do not seem to accept that.

On the subject of prompt payment, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that Government Departments report annually on their progress in meeting payment targets. Yes, it is an ambitious target that Departments pay within 10 days—although I think that the majority of payments are already made within 10 days. If we can get this right, it could be a big boost to help small companies, but we are paying with taxpayers’ money and we need to make sure, when we are safeguarding the public purse, that the goods and services have been delivered and the invoice is right. We will then do everything we can to ensure that it is paid within 10 days.

Let me repeat the point about bank lending. We are not saying that there should be lending at 2007 levels; we are saying that the availability of that funding should be at 2007 levels, and that we expect banks to market actively and to offer competitively priced products to the SME sector.

There is clearly an issue in relation to rates. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence out there suggesting that some banks are starting to look again at their lending practices and are insisting on higher margins. Although we cannot interfere in individual lending decisions and it would be wrong to do so, it is right that we should expect banks to be clear about their lending principles. That will be one of the subjects for discussion when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Chancellor meet the banks tomorrow.

There was an accusation from the Opposition that we have been too slow in taking action. In March we announced that we would increase the small firms loan guarantee scheme by 20 per cent., because we understood that companies were going through difficult times and would need extra support. We are making such decisions. I heard the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) argue last night in the debate that there should be lower spending. I do not see how, in our current difficult economic times, low spending will help the SMEs that he professes to want to support. That is bad economics, and he should be ashamed of himself.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering bringing forward capital works in order to stimulate the economy in the face of the economic downturn. Is the Minister aware that improvements to the major road network and local rail services in the north-east, which are currently outside the scope of regional funding allocations, would be of major benefit to small businesses in the north-east, which have been calling for such improvements for some time? Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity that the proposal presents for helping small businesses in the north-east of England?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that a number of worthwhile infrastructure projects could be brought forward to provide strong economic benefits while at the same time helping small businesses during difficult economic times. We are actively looking at such possibilities. Our policy contrasts very sharply indeed with that of Conservative Members, who do not want to borrow, think we are wrong and think we should be spending less. That would damage our economy, so it is not the right or responsible thing to do.

I am grateful to the Minister for having sent me a copy of his statement in advance—although there is not much new in it. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of small businesses, which are the bedrock of commerce in many parts of the country and vital for our long-term economic growth. The key issue facing small businesses is cash flow and, more particularly, the availability of bank finance. Will he explain how the Government will ensure that the banks negotiating for refinancing will actually deliver on the sentiment? The sentiment in favour of maintaining availability is fine and laudable, but how will the Government ensure that that is what happens? May I suggest that a memorandum of understanding be agreed between the Government and the banks, which specifically deals with the question of rates, fees and availability? That should be agreed in principle in advance.

On payments to small companies, I welcome the move to oblige public sector bodies to pay up quickly, and within 10 days, if possible. Again, however, how will the Minister ensure that that actually happens, given that most of those bodies have computerised payment systems that operate on a monthly basis?

How will the Minister ensure that HMRC will be more flexible, particularly when the work force change programme is taking 10,000 skilled people out of HMRC and replacing them with a call centre operation? And what can he do to ensure that private companies, too, pay more quickly? Will he talk to the CBI about how it could talk to its members about that?

The Minister mentioned the small firms loan guarantee scheme. Is he aware that its annual report, published in August this year, noted a further decline in the number of loans given—notwithstanding the new money. Total loans now stand at £270 million, but default rates are about 13 per cent., and the biggest complaint from small businesses is about the administrative burden of getting into the scheme. The best way to make that scheme work is to improve the administration, so what action is the Minister taking to get the administration right?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, particularly his welcome for the Government’s attempt to ensure prompt payments. Yes, there are administrative difficulties in carrying out some of these measures, but there is a clear commitment from the top to do that. We need to ensure that the system continues to deliver. As I said, a significant majority of payments are already being made within 10 days, but we need to consider how to raise that performance; it is a question of managing for better performance. Yes, we also want to encourage large private companies to pay their suppliers more promptly, and I have no doubt that we will want to discuss the matter with them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about HMRC. We have said that we want it to look into how it can operate more flexibly during these difficult economic times, and I have no reason to believe other than that it will want to do just that.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about another matter that I mentioned in my statement—about how we can reach agreements with the individual banks that are taking advantage of the recapitalisation fund to ensure that they continue to lend to small businesses. We do want to monitor that closely; we will be in discussion with the banks about it and we have been very clear that we want them to continue marketing actively. We want to talk to them about ensuring that they make competitive rates available. As I said, it is not for the Government to make individual lending decisions, but we need to understand the principles by which they operate. That is the right thing to do.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the small firms loan guarantee scheme. We always want to see whether we can make that administratively simpler, so I shall take his comments into account. We also want to ensure that the scheme is actively marketed to SMEs by the banks, which have not always done as much as they should have. I hope that we will see significant change over the coming months.

On Monday, I met the chamber of commerce chief executive, who is also chief executive of the enterprise trust, and it became apparent to us that although we wanted to achieve things through HMRC, and, indeed, the Treasury, it is the Scottish Administration who have the power. Will the Minister agree to meet me, and a number of other Scottish MPs, to discuss how we can overcome that problem, because it is imperative that the changes are implemented in Scotland as quickly as possible?

As the House will be aware, enterprise policy is a devolved matter, so today’s statement applies only to England. However, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further, because supporting small businesses is important to this Government, wherever those small businesses are located.

I intend no criticism of the Minister, who is an able and decent man, when I say that he has said nothing to this House today that his noble Friend the Secretary of State did not tell the Select Committee that I chair at yesterday’s sitting. That raises important questions about the accountability of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to this House, but those are questions for another day.

Let me press the Minister on one issue that we also raised with the Secretary of State yesterday—the question of business rates, particularly void rates. Small businesses face a huge burden when they cannot let property in the current commercial downturn. That urgently needs to be relieved, and the Government should also drop their plans for business rate supplements, which pose another huge challenge to the cash flow and finances of businesses in very difficult times.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s points. As Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, he speaks with considerable experience. I believe that the package is an important one, which will be welcomed by business because it offers practical measures that will make a difference, but it should not be seen as the last word on Government support. It builds on the already impressive programme of business support that we, as a Government, have provided. Over the coming months, we will be looking to see what more we can do to help businesses through these very difficult economic times.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to SMEs, on which the economy and community of Northern Ireland are very dependent. On the policy of flexibility for HMRC, will he give further indication of what that means, so that we can interpret it on the ground and help our constituents to avail themselves of that opportunity?

I endorse the point in the previous question about the rates on vacant properties. Apart from the spectre of vacancies, we now have genuine vacancies brought about by the economic recession. As the Minister is probably aware, transport, gas and electricity costs in Northern Ireland are far above the UK average, so will he provide some help through equalisation or rationalisation?

Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister, even though he has no jurisdiction in the matter, whether he is aware that the failure of the Executive to meet in Northern Ireland has frustrated the issue of Government contracts for public utilities and public works, so could either he, if he has personal knowledge, or, if not, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, encourage the Executive—

Order. I am always interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I am, as he knows, very fond of Northern Ireland. Perhaps one day, however, I will get just one supplementary question from him.

My hon. Friend raises a number of points, most of which are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Administration and their Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I cannot reply to those questions, but in response to his question about his desire for HMRC to show more flexibility, I can be pretty clear. We do not want HMRC to be first in the queue to put companies into bankruptcy in order to get their money. We want it to be flexible, to recognise companies that are in difficulty and to discuss issues with them on a case-by-case basis—and I hope that that is what HMRC will do.

The Minister says that the Government are keen to do all that they can to help small business, yet this year they are increasing capital gains tax by £300 million and small business corporation tax by £370 million, and charging £900 million on empty properties. Will the Minister now tell us that those increases will not be implemented and that he will change the rating arrangements to provide relief—or are his words fine, but not very meaningful?

What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, in my view, the measures we have announced can help to make a real difference and are attuned to the difficult times that we face. I am sure he will welcome the entrepreneurs’ relief on the first £1 million of capital gains, and also the effective tax rate of 17.2 per cent. on a £10 million capital gain. I do not think that 17.2 per cent. on a £10 million capital gain is an unreasonable price to pay.

Small businesses are vital to the health of the rural economy. Will the Minister continue to work to ensure that high-quality broadband services are available even in the least populated areas?

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of rural areas, and he is right to raise the issue of broadband connectivity. We want to ensure that broadband is available in rural as well as in urban areas, and we have been very good at achieving the targets that we have set for broadband access, but there is more that we can do. I should be more than happy to discuss the issues with my hon. Friend, and also to put him in touch with Lord Carter, who has direct responsibility for them.

The Minister says that he expects the rest of the banking sector to follow the lead of the recapitalised banks—HBOS and the rest—in reopening lines of credit. I wish that I shared his faith in market mechanisms after all that has happened over the past few weeks. Surely a better approach would be to insist that all banks—not just those that participated in the recapitalisation scheme, but those that availed themselves of the £250 billion of Government guarantee for new debt—agreed to lend responsibly to small businesses.

We all want to see responsible lending, but, as I said earlier, the banks that have taken advantage of the recapitalisation currently constitute more than 50 per cent. of the market. There is still a competitive market out there when it comes to loan finance, and our priority must be to ensure that competitive products are available to SMEs.

I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s fear that banks that do not take advantage of the recapitalisation scheme will still not want to lend to good SMEs. What we must do is ensure that the many excellent companies that we have in the United Kingdom still have access to finance when they require it, on reasonable and acceptable terms, so that they can invest for the future.

The Prime Minister has said that, at the European summit, he put pressure on the European Investment Bank to release millions of pounds for small businesses in this country. How will that money filter through to small businesses in, for example, Leyton and Wanstead?

As I said earlier, the banks have expressed an initial interest in making £1 billion available to small and medium-sized businesses through the European Investment Bank. That has not yet been completely sorted out, but it is potentially a significant package which, if we can get it right, will benefit companies in areas all over the country, including my hon. Friend’s constituency.

The Minister has outlined a number of measures which we hope will go some small way towards assisting small businesses, although we must wait to assess their efficacy. He said that banks should not pass on unreasonable costs. Given the recapitalisation that was mentioned a few moments ago, what steps will the Government take to ensure that small businesses do not face the unreasonably high costs that have faced them heretofore?

I also said earlier that conditions had been applied to the banks involved in the recapitalisation scheme in regard to lending to small businesses, and also in regard to the provision of mortgages. We will continue to engage in a dialogue with the banks and monitor their actions, to ensure that companies are given fair access to loans at competitive prices.

Will my hon. Friend avoid returning to the woeful Conservative record on small businesses, which experienced a doubling of VAT, the imposition of a tax of more than 30 per cent., and a 25 per cent. interest rate which crippled them? Will he also ensure that the banks’ stampede to withdraw credit facilities and claw back their loans is halted, that the process is properly monitored, and that, at the appropriate time, the effectiveness of that action is reported to the House?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Opposition have form in this regard. The fact that they have wanted greater financial deregulation, the fact that they did not support us on Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, and the fact that they seem to have completely lost faith with the City of London give great cause for concern about whether they are acting as a responsible Opposition.

As I said earlier, during this difficult economic time we want to ensure that banks lend responsibly, but also to ensure that they do not profiteer and try to restore their balance sheets at the expense of good British businesses. That is something that not just the Government but, I am sure, the whole business community will want to watch very closely.

May I return the Minister to the issue of small business rate relief? Many businesses across south Essex are eligible for the relief, but do not access it because of the paperwork and bureaucracy involved. Why will the Government not make it automatic?

I understand that there is a two-page form for the claiming of small business rate relief, and that it needs to be filled up only once every five years. It has been suggested that it might be possible to automate the relief, and we will consider that possibility, but I do not think it is as difficult to apply for it at present as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest.

Last year, Swindon and Bristol jointly topped the league for the biggest growth in the number of small businesses. I welcome the announcement of practical measures to help our SMEs in the south-west, but what can my hon. Friend do to encourage more local councils to put business their way, and to persuade councils to follow central Government’s lead in respect of payment within 10 days?

My hon. Friend has made some good points. We certainly want to encourage local authorities to pay promptly, and a number of them already do. During these difficult times, however, we should consider how we can use public money most effectively to support our small businesses. As my hon. Friend says, Swindon and Bristol contain many very successful small businesses, and over the years I have visited a number of them.

I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new post. Does he agree that SMEs need proper and detailed macro-economic as well as micro-economic information? Will he confirm two facts: first, that we are now entering a recession, and secondly that we have not seen an end to boom and bust in the economic cycle?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. As somebody who used to run a small business, I always wanted to understand the global competitive environment, so what he says about SMEs is right. The Government do not make it their practice to provide a running commentary on the state of the economy, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, Government forecasts will be updated in the pre-Budget report.

The Government cannot make banks lend money to small businesses under the small firms loan guarantee, but given worrying reports of banks refusing to take any part in the scheme at the present time, can the Economic Secretary, at least for the duration of this serious global economic downturn, make the word “guarantee” refer to access to capital for those small businesses that need it?

It is important that we have a properly effective small firms loan guarantee scheme that is actively marketed. The Government will want to make sure of that, so I hope I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.

It is all too timely that we are recognising the real consequences for real people of this recession, with the news yesterday of the proposed closure of a paper mill in Inverurie, with the loss of 400 jobs. The recession will, therefore, hurt real people in the economy. To return to the Economic Secretary’s announcement about the HMRC and its policy to adopt an understanding approach to business and the collection of tax, I understand that it is also under an incentive to maximise its revenue collection. Will the Minister therefore place in the Library the revised guidance that will go out to the HMRC putting into effect what he has announced in his statement?

I cannot guarantee to do that at this point in time, but let me take that request away and see whether it is possible to do so. The redundancies in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are regrettable, and they reinforce that we are facing difficult times and that we need a Government who are active and decisive in taking practical measures that will help businesses.

I welcome the package my hon. Friend has announced, but he will be aware that many small businesses have earmarked for their January 2009 tax bill money that is currently invested in Icelandic banks. While they may get some of that money back under the guarantee scheme, that could take months. Is there any scope for the HMRC to defer payments in the same way as happened when the foot and mouth crisis hit us?

The situation involving the Icelandic banks is complicated, and people’s circumstances depend on whether they are creditors in an Icelandic branch that is regulated by the Icelandic authorities or in a subsidiary of an Icelandic bank that is regulated through the Financial Services Authority. I hope that we can make very quick progress in the administration of the Icelandic banks’ subsidiaries in the United Kingdom. We have also been strongly pressing the Icelandic authorities for a quick and fair administration in Iceland, so I hope we can give companies with investments in those banks some early reassurance—although I do not know the scale of the problem. We will continue to do all that we can to press the Icelandic authorities to ensure that the UK creditors are treated fairly.

For about eight to 10 days now, I have been asking the Government one simple question, and I would like to give them another bite at the cherry. Last Monday, I said there was concern among small businesses about the £300 million raid on their funding through the regional development agencies. On Monday, I was told by an official that it was a difficult decision, taken with reluctance, and that the Prime Minister and other Ministers had been involved in it. I would like to know what evaluation was made of the impact of that decision on small businesses. I asked on Monday, and got no answer. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden)—he is sitting next to the Economic Secretary now—and got no answer, and in my speech I requested an answer but got none, and nor was there any mention of it whatever in the summing up. I give the Economic Secretary another bite at the cherry: what evaluation was made of the impact on small businesses?

RDAs are important economic agents in their regional and local economies, and it is right that the Government provide support to them. Of course, decisions will from time to time be taken on different matters when there are changing priorities—and I would like to think that the hon. Lady would have welcomed the housing package we announced on 2 September this year.

The Government are right to focus on cash flow and improving credit, but what more can be done to help local authorities as, at the end of the day, it is they who are asked to give an—often discretionary—concession to small businesses, and they frequently say they do not have the funds to do that?

The hon. Gentleman is right that cash flow is one of the first priorities for businesses during economic downturns. That is why the Government have taken the action we have taken and why getting in good, top-quality business advice is crucial. Many big businesses have a range of support available to them, but small companies often feel left on their own, and we as a Government want to say very clearly that we are on their side, and, in turn, we are providing practical advice and support to them. I believe that responsible local authorities also want to do that. Local authorities are independent in these matters, but I want to encourage them to work with Business Link and to ensure that we have a co-ordinated programme of support in local areas, as that is important.

Does the Economic Secretary agree that sub-post offices are among the most important family-run businesses in both urban and rural areas? Does he also agree that as many of our constituents are currently moving money into safe post office and national savings accounts, now is not the time to scrap the Post Office card account, and will he give a guarantee today that it will remain in place?

That matter, which is clearly one for the Department for Work and Pensions, does not relate to the statement before the House. However, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, there are many small businesses in his constituency and the region that are the backbone of that local economy. It is right that this package of support is being made available to them. I hope he will welcome it, and I also hope he will appreciate that if his Front-Bench colleagues got their way and cut lending, it would not be possible to introduce such packages and small businesses in his constituency would be unable to get the support to which I think they are entitled.

rose—

Order. We must move on.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a matter of the greatest importance affecting your role as the defender of the interests of Members of Parliament? A decision has been taken and, sadly, Members have been denied an opportunity to comment on it. It was a decision to give an indemnity to an American company against future accidents that could cost the taxpayers multi-billion pound amounts. Information was given only to the Chairs of two Select Committees, while the minute informing Members arrived at the House only last week, 75 days after the date that was laid down for us to comment on it. That means there is no opportunity for us to comment on what appears to be a reversal of Government policy in subsidising the nuclear industry. It is a matter of great importance, which could lead in future to a very big bill for taxpayers.

What the hon. Gentleman raises is not a matter for me, but I understand his concern. It sounds to me like a good subject for an Adjournment debate, and I am quite sure he would be more than capable of informing the House of his concerns if such a debate were granted by Mr. Speaker.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make requirements about the integration of health and safety issues in education and vocational training; and for connected purposes.

Accidents at work destroy lives and cost money. Many, although not all, can be prevented. No amount of regulation or training can wholly eliminate human risk or error, but it is right that dangerous practices should be regulated. The principal focus of this Bill is to change mindsets, so that by the time young people reach employment they already have an understanding of the principles and practice of good health and safety. Correspondingly, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the human, economic and social toll that results from poor management of health and safety risks, through effective education and training. It would achieve that by embedding health and safety into national vocational and professional curricula and helping to provide the skills needed to keep people well and to create and sustain a modern and competitive work force.

Before I talk about the measures in the Bill, it is important to put it in context. Some 247 people were killed at work last year and 274,000 seriously injured. Some 2.2 million suffered an illness that they attributed to work. In addition, it is estimated that up to 1,000 people a year are killed in work-related road accidents and that thousands more die from occupational cancers. That is a particular concern in Knowsley, which is represented by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who is in his place.

In the past decade in Britain, 64 under-19s were killed at work, nearly 15,000 suffered major injuries and more than 50,000 other teenagers were hurt by their work. It has been estimated that the cost to society of workplace accidents and work-related ill health is up to £31.8 billion a year.

Reducing the number of needlessly lost and devastated lives must be a priority. We are fortunate that there is also a strong economic rationale for doing that. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that the cost to society of workplace accidents and work-related ill health ranges between £20 billion and £31.8 billion per annum. The total cost to individuals is estimated at between £10.1 billion and £14.7 billion a year, and the cost to employers at between £3.9 billion and £7.8 billion a year. A reduction in accidents will lead to reduced costs to employers, through less staff absence, and fewer disruptions in work flow.

The Bill provides the scope to build on the foundations already laid in schools, so that workplaces provide adequate training for all levels of the work force. Those in crucial vocational and professional roles such as architects, planners, designers, engineers, managers, doctors and teachers need to understand the essentials of health and safety so that core principles can be designed into buildings and new ventures rather than imposed after the fact.

There is a straightforward way to ensure that standards are raised consistently across the board. We need to embed relevant health and safety understanding as an integral element of all curricula. Clearly, that needs to be tailored to different ages and levels of expertise, but it makes sense to begin at an early age by tackling health and safety in schools before students start their work experience.

The Department of Health’s national director for health and work, Dame Carol Black, has rightly pointed out that future generations will have higher expectations, stating:

“Healthy workplaces need to become the expected norm…schools, further education and higher education have a role in embedding these expectations into the next generation.”

The good news is that much work has already been done. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, which I should thank for providing a good deal of briefing material for the Bill, has worked with the HSE, teachers and young people themselves to produce the workplace hazard awareness course, or WHAC. It is a free resource for teachers that emphasises the need to take a balanced approach. Additionally, it is important that managers understand their responsibilities, including how to supervise young people properly, and that people vetting work placements are suitably trained in health and safety.

A number of things could be done to ensure a safe start in work. First, teacher training should equip new teachers to deliver a short course on health and safety so that students are properly prepared for their first work experience. There is also a need for professional development to help existing teachers achieve similar objectives. Secondly, we need to teach health and safety in the classroom before young people start work experience. WHAC, produced by the IOSH and the HSE, should be delivered as part of work experience preparation and could lead to a level 3 entry qualification.

Thirdly, work placements should be organised in suitable environments. That means that people with the right health and safety knowledge must check that employers and workplaces are suitable. Training that meets national standards would help to achieve consistency and should be applied by schools, colleges and local authorities. That could be achieved more easily if bodies that award Government funding to work placement organisers required suitably trained placement officers.

Fourthly, employer vetting and workplace supervision need to improve. The HSE and the Learning and Skills Council have improved the guidance to those involved in educating, training and employing young people.

Fifthly, accidents need to be properly reported so that lessons are learned. There is a general problem of accidents being under-reported both at work and in education. Schools and colleges running vocational training on their premises are currently required only to report incidents in which students are killed or taken to hospital, as they are classed as members of the public. I ask the Government to consider tightening up the reporting requirements for students in colleges and schools.

Sixthly, health and safety needs to be a priority. The Government should signal the importance of health and safety when setting their strategic priorities for education, training and skills. There is an opportunity for the Government to show leadership on the matter. For example, in England the health and safety of young people on Government-funded programmes could be noted as a key priority in the next LSC grant letter, which is due in November.

I welcome the Government’s new Education and Skills Bill. Its drive to improve the skills of the UK’s work force is a welcome opportunity to integrate core health and safety principles into the training and education system. Health and safety should be seen as a key component of modern apprenticeships and new diplomas. It should also routinely be part of the disciplines of business and management qualifications, just as they currently cover marketing, finance and human resources. Such work is already being carried out by the inter-institutional group on health, safety and risk, to ensure that adequate health and safety knowledge is provided to engineering undergraduates. One such programme is being trialled at the university of Liverpool. All of that amounts to a welcome step forward, but more needs to be done so that business schools and universities systematically include health and safety in vocational disciplines, especially MBA programmes. Health and safety at work should also be fully incorporated into the new qualifications and credit framework.

Finally, it is worth remembering that evidence shows that people new to workplaces are at a greater relative risk of work-related injury. Rhys Davies and Paul Jones of the Warwick Institute for Employment Research estimate:

“Those with current employment tenure of less than one month are almost 400 per cent. more likely to have a workplace injury than those with 20 years or more experience in their current job.”

Their research showed clearly that the risks are greatest in the first four months of a new job, which also has implications for those working on short-term or agency contracts.

The Bill would create an opportunity to prepare young people so that when they begin their working lives, they are better able to handle the risks that face them. In time, that change in mindset will reduce unnecessary risk.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Edward O’Hara, Mr. Michael Clapham, Paul Rowen, Harry Cohen, Bob Russell, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Joan Ryan.

Health and Safety (Education and Training)

Mr. George Howarth accordingly presented a Bill to make requirements about the integration of health and safety issues in education and vocational training; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed [Bill 155].

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will tell me if this is not an appropriate time to raise this point of order, but in view of the fact that the Minister is about to move a programme motion relating to the order in which amendments are taken, it seems the appropriate time to put it to you. As you know, Sir, I wrote to you last week regarding the selection of amendments. I accept totally that it is absolutely within your discretion to decide which amendments you select for debate, and that you are not required by precedent or procedure to state the reasons why you have selected them. Nevertheless, I am asking, and I will accept it entirely if you say that my point of order is invalid or that I am not raising it at the right time, whether it is open to you to explain to the House—if it is not, I accept that—how it comes about that you have selected a large succession of new clauses on abortion when there is no reference in the Bill to abortion.

First, the right hon. Gentleman did write to me, but I did not reply to him or to any other letters because I did not want to be drawn into this argument. It was only this morning that I was drawn into the argument, but I think that I can put on the record that I did not reply to the right hon. Gentleman for the reason that I have given. The amendments were selected because they were within the scope of the Bill; it is as simple as that. All the amendments on the Order Paper are there because they are within the scope of the Bill, and that is the explanation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your advice and I am sorry that I have not had a chance to give you advance notice of this point of order. During business questions, we were told by the Leader of the House in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) that in today’s debate

“the clauses, new clauses and amendments will be considered in the normal way.”

That was in response to a question asking whether new clause 1 would be dealt with first. In response to a question from me, we were told:

“The Bill will be debated according to the procedures in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2008; Vol. 480, c.925-6.]

My understanding was that the normal way, in the absence of anything abnormal, would be that new clauses were debated before amendments in the order of selection, according to your selection. I should be grateful if you gave us guidance as to whether it is normal for there to be a programme motion that reverses the order of the normal way of doing these things.

The Leader of the House mentioned the normal way—I was in the Chair when that was said. I am not responsible for the way in which the Leader of the House or any other Minister of the Crown replies. On the normal way as the hon. Gentleman expresses it, he is right: it is laid out in a certain manner, except that the rules of the House allow a Minister to come forward and put down a programme motion. That is what is happening now, and we have before us a programme motion that changes the order of business in terms of what clauses will be called. Again, that is not a matter for me. A Minister is allowed to do that in the normal way, and it is up to the House to say yea or nay to what the Minister has to say.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a new clause in the first sequence of amendments.

The new clause is grouped.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that, on the subject of the programme motion, it is within the powers of the House to alter the order of debate, but you have certain powers, which are governed by convention, protecting the practice of the House and the way in which it normally expects to debate the matters regarded as most significant to large numbers of Members. Do I take it that you accept that the Speaker has no discretion whatever if the Government of the day choose to order for debate amendments, as well as new clauses, in whichever order they deem fit? Obviously, the consequence is that they are able to choose that the House debate only those matters that are not, for some reason, inconvenient for them to have debated, and everything else falls to a guillotine under our new timetabled arrangements.

This is up to the House. A programme motion is in order, and it is up to a Minister, if they so wish, to come forward with a programme motion. The motion has been tabled and it is for debate, and the House, if it so wishes, can vote it down. I am not suggesting that it should do that, but the House can vote the programme motion down, and if it does, we revert to the situation where the clauses are in the order of consideration. I hope that I am explaining myself properly. So, it is not a question of my discretion; at this stage it is before the House, and it is up to the House to say yea or nay to what the Minister is proposing.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note that the order in which the amendments are printed in the Order Paper is also not in accordance with the usual convention. Normally, the new clauses are printed first, followed by the amendments in the order in which they relate to the Bill. In today’s Order Paper, that convention has not been followed. On whose authority has this unconventional means of dealing with the amendments taken place?

It is a regular practice of the House to re-marshal when a programme motion has been tabled. We have the programme motion, and I shall call Dawn Primarolo to move it.

I beg to move,

That the Order of 12th May 2008 (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the following order: amendments to the clauses of the Bill; amendments to the Schedules to the Bill; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration.

3. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m. at this day’s sitting.

4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. at this day’s sitting.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill contains important provisions that are of great interest to the public and to patients, to the scientific community, to researchers and to Members in all parts of this House. They have a potentially profound impact. One in seven couples needs help with fertility treatment; 350,000 people in this country live with Alzheimer’s; every week, five children are born with, and three young people die from, cystic fibrosis. All those issues, and the potential for treatments, this Bill addresses.

Today is the last opportunity for the House to debate the Bill before it returns to the other place for consideration of the amendments that we have made. We have amendments for debate today that cover embryo research, the definition of embryos, the parenthood of people who receive assisted reproduction treatment, and saviour siblings. These matters go to the very heart of the Bill and they need consideration before it finally leaves this Chamber. The programme motion provides for that.

I shall confine my remarks at this stage specifically to the programme motion. As the Minister correctly said, this is the last chance for the House to discuss many detailed and complex issues before the Bill moves to the other place. We Conservatives have a completely free vote on the Bill—from the programme motion to all amendments, and through to Third Reading—and in my view the Government should have had far more free votes on it, as was the case with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The Government had free votes on only the three key areas, in addition to abortion: admixed embryos, saviour siblings and the need for a father.

The Conservatives have a totally free vote, so my remarks from this Dispatch Box will be personal ones. Clearly, having one day to debate the volume of amendments that have been tabled, both about the main part of the Bill and about abortion, demonstrates what a insignificant amount of time the Government have allocated. It is possible that significant aspects of the Bill will not have been debated on the Floor of the House and will not be reached. Such issues might include key amendments to the saviour sibling proposals, key changes to the surrogacy arrangements and the disclosure of donor information.

I sympathise with the Minister’s view that the Bill is not a vehicle for abortion issues, but the Government must take note of the significant feeling in all parts of the House that a serious debate about the workings of the abortion legislation needs to take place. There is real concern and anger in all parts of the House about the Government’s tactics to limit debate, both on abortion and on other key aspects of the Bill.

I know that the Minister wants to ensure that the Bill, when it is enacted, has the same longevity as the 1990 Act, and like most Members of this House, I share that aim. A key part of the 1990 Act’s success was the depth and thoroughness of the debate and discussion that took place on it, and my fear is that the curtailment of debate today as a result of the programme motion will mean that the same might not be said for this Bill. That is why I shall vote against the programme motion, given the chance.

I agree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) that the Bill deals with large and fundamental moral issues. I am not discussing the Bill’s merits at the moment, but I point out that it deals with fundamental moral issues about the human race. I therefore agree that free votes are appropriate on this Bill, just as they were on the Bill that became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, when my party, like the hon. Gentleman’s, had free votes throughout.

After a great deal of discussion within the Labour party, our Whips have agreed to free votes along the way on this Bill. They have agreed to more free votes than they originally intended—their original intention was that we should have none. Despite the fact that Labour Members are whipped on Second Reading and on Third Reading, paragraph 3 of the parliamentary Labour party’s code of conduct allows members of the PLP not to vote on an issue of this kind. Having written to the Chief Whip, I shall avail myself of paragraph 3 and not vote on Third Reading of the Bill, because I refuse to give it my support.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness rightly says that the issues raised in the Bill on which amendments have been tabled and to which the Government are giving priority go to the very heart of the nature of the human race. That is why it is very important that the programme motion allows the opportunity to discuss matters that trouble me and trouble large numbers of my constituents. Such matters relate to hybrid embryos and saviour siblings, among other things. It is essential that this House is given a proper opportunity—and uses it—to debate those issues and to come to decisions on them, whatever those decisions may be. I know on which side I shall be voting, as I did in Committee in May. I go that far with what the hon. Gentleman said.

This Bill is clearly not about abortion, which is why I raised my point of order with Mr. Speaker before we began discussing the programme motion, why I went to see him and why I wrote to him. The Bill does not contain a single word about abortion; it did not when it was originally published or when it was completed, and it does not now. I acknowledge—who would not acknowledge it?—that the issue of abortion is of profound importance, whatever view one takes on it. Many different views on abortion can be taken, so talking about pro-abortion and anti-abortion oversimplifies an approach to a topic on which people have very strong feelings. I respect those feelings, whatever side of the argument they represent. I do not regard it as appropriate for the issue of abortion, given all its profundities and the strong feelings it generates, to be pinned on to this Bill. The Bill was never tabled to deal with abortion and does not deal with it.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness is right to say that the issues relating to abortion, of which there are many—the time limit is but one such issue, despite its importance; other such issues include medical approval and the question of procedure—are very important. However, it is clearly not appropriate to debate them in relation to a Bill that has nothing to do with abortion. It should be appropriate, at some stage, to debate the issues associated with abortion. Since David Steel introduced his private Member’s Bill, the issue of abortion has never been introduced into, debated by or legislated on by this House of Commons as a Government issue and in Government time. As with a number of other very important moral issues, such as the legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults, these matters have been brought before this House of Commons by private Members.

I support the Government’s motion because the abortion issue should not be pinned on to a Bill that is not about abortion. If a Member of Parliament were to be successful in the ballot in the next Session and able to introduce a Bill on the issue, it might be appropriate at that stage for the House to debate it.

Order. Perhaps it would be convenient for the House if I were to re-emphasise the ruling that Mr. Speaker gave a short while ago that the subject of abortion is within the scope of the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to maintain a clear distinction between arguing about Mr. Speaker’s selection and about the order contained in the programme motion.

I made it perfectly clear in my point of order to Mr. Speaker that I totally respect the Speaker’s right to decide which amendments to select. Once I had put my point of order to Mr. Speaker, I in no way questioned his decision; the House must accept his decision and respect it. If anything that I was just saying appeared to infringe on the Speaker’s absolute right to make a selection within the bounds of order, I am very sorry, because that was never my intention. What the Government have done in this programme motion is to introduce an order in which the groups of amendments should be taken. That order, which the Government are proposing to the House and which I support and shall vote for in the event of a Division, says that amendments on abortion should be dealt with right at the end, after every amendment or group of amendments has been considered. That is appropriate because abortion is a subject all on its own. While it may well come within the ambit of the Bill as drawn, it was not intended by those who drafted the Bill to be debated as part of this Bill. That being so, I support this motion and I shall vote for it.

Like the Conservative spokesman, I confirm that my party will have free votes throughout the debate, including on the programme motion. What I say will therefore reflect my personal thoughts.

I will oppose the programme motion. There has been no consultation on it. The Minister said in her opening remarks that the Bill dealt with serious issues that needed to be debated, but the Government could have chosen to take two days to debate it, and they could also have chosen not to have a statement today. So there is no substance to the Minister’s suggestion that that is the reason for the proposed order for debate.

It has been suggested that there may have been some secret deal or understanding that has led to this outcome. There have been suggestions that the Government are concerned about what might happen in the House of Lords, but Front Benchers from all parties in the other place have confirmed that they would not interfere with the decisions of this House on abortion. That was the case in 1967 and 1990. In any event, that is no good reason to prevent debate in this House.

My hon. Friend surely recognises that abortion was not discussed at any stage in the consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords.

My understanding is that it was, but in any case that does not negate the points that I am making.

The Government allowed expectations to be raised that opportunity for debate would be provided at this stage. That is demonstrated by the number of amendments that have been tabled and the investment of time and energy by Members and by organisations outside on both sides of the argument. I am sure that all of us have received many letters and e-mails from women in Northern Ireland. Whatever side we take on that issue, those women clearly had an expectation that their case would be heard, but they will be denied that opportunity.

The Government say that it is not appropriate to debate these issues at this time. If that is the case, when is the appropriate time to debate abortion issues? On other occasions, such debates have arisen on amendments tabled by Back Benchers. In 1990, the Conservative Government allowed time for discussion of abortion issues. This time, the Labour Government have refused to do so. Will the Minister give a commitment now to allow time at some future point? There has been a suggestion that the Government would commit to allowing time on a private Member’s Bill. Will she now ensure that that is the case, because it is important that this significant issue, with strong feelings on both sides, should be properly aired and debated in this Chamber?

I speak against the programme motion because—and I say this with no pleasure—it and the order of discussion appear to be a shabby manoeuvre by Ministers to stop the full debate of some very important matters. I appreciate that Ministers did not intend this to be a Bill about abortion. I am open to the argument that we should have another piece of legislation that would enable a full debate on most of the matters in relation to abortion that have been raised as amendments and new clauses to the Bill, but there is a special case for debating and voting on the particular new clause that I tabled to extend the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland.

In Northern Ireland, abortion is a criminal justice matter. In due course, criminal justice matters will revert to the Assembly. At present, no major party in the Assembly supports a woman’s right to choose. If we do not debate my new clause today, women in Northern Ireland will lose for a generation the opportunity to gain the rights that women in the rest of the United Kingdom have enjoyed for more than 40 years. The other matters in relation to abortion can come back to the House in due course, but my new clause is widely regarded by the hundreds of women who have written to me as their last chance to get justice on this matter.

I have been roundly abused by male politicians from Northern Ireland for tabling the new clause, so I wanted to touch not on the substance of the new clause but on why I have tabled it. I have not tabled it out of any desire to run contrary to people’s deeply held religious opinions, nor out of a desire to persuade people in Northern Ireland that abortion is a good thing—which I do not think myself. Nor did I table the new clause to override the authority of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I certainly did not table it to force a single woman in Northern Ireland to have an abortion. I tabled the new clause because, as it stands, the law on abortion in Northern Ireland is the same law that was passed in 1861. So long as this remains the Parliament of the United Kingdom and so long as women in Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom, we have a responsibility to move those women’s rights into the 21st century.

Women in Northern Ireland cannot have an abortion under the 1967 Act, not even as a result of rape, incest or gross foetal abnormality. If we do not have sufficient time to debate my new clause this afternoon, we may miss the opportunity to change that for a generation. Women from Northern Ireland cannot have an abortion in Northern Ireland. The lucky ones are the thousands who have the resources and the support to travel to Britain to get an abortion. How can that be right? If I go to Belfast and break a leg, I can have an operation on the national health service, but because of the manoeuvrings of politicians down the years, poor women have to find the money—at a time of enormous stress and difficulty—to come here and pay for an abortion. I do not wish to speak to the merits of my new clause, but I do wish to emphasise the urgency of this matter. The question is whether this United Kingdom Parliament is content to keep a group of women as second class citizens on this important issue of liberty and rights.

I am in a quandary. Normally, the very mention of the words “timetable motion” is enough to have me rushing into the No Lobby, but we Conservatives have a free vote today, even on the timetable motion, and I shall not go into the No Lobby. More time should have been given to a subject of this order of magnitude, but the Government are justified in taking the view that they have taken on the order of subjects for debate. This Bill began in the other place. There was no substantial debate on abortion there, save one brief examination of a disability issue related to abortion. In other words, all the issues that were raised in this House were not raised in another place and have not been debated there. That would not matter if the Bill were starting here, but it started in another place. Surely the Government are right to say that given that we have limited time—which is a shame, because time should not be so limited—the issues that we must discuss are those in the original Bill, which have already been debated and which are still in the Bill, rather than those that were raised only at a late stage in this House, which have never been considered by the other place.

The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), and I have never agreed on any issue even remotely connected to this subject matter, but I reluctantly have to say that I think that the motion is right. I urge people who do not normally welcome timetable motions to at least take that into account when deciding how to use their free vote.

Many Opposition Members have laid proper emphasis on the fact that they will have free votes on this measure, but we will have free votes for those Labour Members who wish to exercise them. I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to do precisely that.

I wish to address a question to the Minister. She was so thoughtful in ensuring that the House had as much as possible of the 45 minutes available to discuss the programme motion that one did not even have a chance to intervene. I believe that the Government are right to say that we should concentrate on the main issues that gave rise to the Bill. I also believe that the way we go about debating abortion in this place, picking off bits and pieces as though we were playing bingo, is not an appropriate way to consider a major issue.

That is why I tabled a new clause that would empower the House to set up a Select Committee of both Houses to report back coherently on how we might or might not reform the abortion laws. My preference would be that we should make abortion much easier earlier on and much tougher later on, but it might be that that would not be the conclusion of the Select Committee. We would then at least have before us a coherent set of proposals. We would know what we were voting for and could table our amendments accordingly.

Although the Government are right to exclude abortion today, I hope that when the Minister gracefully replies she will tell us what the Government’s plans are to give us the appropriate time for the sort of debate for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) also asked.

I find this programme motion particularly cynical. It marks another rather important change in the way that Parliament is handled. The Government have decided to stop parliamentary debate on various important issues altogether and to ensure that no votes take place at all on key issues that they find it politically embarrassing to have raised at the present time. If that becomes an established practice, we will see another serious step back in the way the House can discuss matters.

This is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to discuss embryology or abortion in Government time since 1990. We have private Members’ Bills on the subject of abortion from time to time, but they do not have the faintest prospect of changing the law because there is always, on one side or the other, a sufficient blocking minority to stop progress. I would be very surprised if more Government time were made available in the next 20 years or so for those subjects to be returned to, but they are very important to many of our constituents and they arouse profound emotions.

The general public, whom we represent, have every view and none on the subject, but there is an enormous range of opinion, about which people on both sides feel very passionately. It cuts completely across political party, both for the public and for us, and there is no way in which a particular Member of Parliament can possibly hold himself up as representing the strong feelings that some sections of the population hold.

We must have legislation, and this is the legislative Chamber for the country. As it happens, the House is representative, because, again crossing party lines, Members of the House of Commons represent, in my experience, just about every range of opinion one could possibly have on the subject. Many Members have strong feelings on moral, political, practical and social grounds that ought to be expressed. Every now and again, a chance comes to address those issues.

The 1990 Act has been referred to, and I spent far too much time on Second Reading reminding the House of how that went through. A free vote was permitted to every Member of the House, including Ministers in the then Government. That Bill was deliberately drafted to ensure that abortion came within its scope. I pay credit to Geoffrey Howe, now Lord Howe, who was then the Leader of the House of Commons. He made it quite plain that he wanted me, as Secretary of State, to ensure that the Bill was drafted in such a way that Mr. Speaker would allow abortion amendments, because there was such a demand from the House that they should be considered. A great deal of time was allowed for the discussion and the law was settled for the next 18 years. It needs to be revisited and debated again.

A motion such as this programme motion merely serves to outrage the range of opinion in the House, on both sides of the argument, as people find that they are not allowed to open up the subjects again. There is no practical reason for it. It is some political embarrassment—political with a small p or a large P—that causes the problem. I suspect that Scottish by-elections are determining the progress of the Bill all the way through.

The House has lots of time in which it could consider the issues. I cannot remember a period in which the House of Commons has had less serious business to transact brought before it by the Government. There is no earthly reason why we should not have the powers extended today to go on into this evening. There is no earthly reason why we should not have two days’ debate, at least at this stage. A Christmas recess of quite unprecedented length has just been announced, because the Government cannot think of anything to occupy the time of the House.

As we have, in practice, a free vote on both sides, I make the usual hopeless plea that I have found myself making in recent debates on programme motions. I trust that Members on all sides will regard themselves as having a free vote. If we allow this motion to be whipped through, it will be applied to other sensitive and political Bills. In future, by reordering clauses and putting knives in the guillotine and so on, the Government will be able to determine that any subject that they regard as inappropriate or unsuitable will not even be debated, let alone voted on, by the House of Commons. Such cynicism would take my breath away if I were not becoming ever more accustomed to such a process on the part of a control-freak Government who regard the House of Commons as an embarrassing nuisance to be silenced on all suitable occasions.

I have spoken to the Bill on a number of occasions, and on each occasion I have spoken about the embryology elements, but I have been in the Chamber when amendments relating to abortion have been discussed. It feels to me as though the issue is being treated in an asymmetrical way, so that those who sought at an earlier stage to curtail abortion rights were heard, but those who seek at this stage to extend them are to be silenced by the programme motion. Frankly, I feel that that is a failure of leadership of this House and this Government and we should rethink.

I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) makes a reasonable point when he says that the Bill is not necessarily the right vehicle with which to deal with this matter. If we were assured by those on the Front Bench that there would be an opportunity to deal properly with the issue, when all aspects of the abortion debate could be properly discussed, I would be content to support the programme motion. If we do not receive that assurance, I shall not feel able so to do.

I rise to support the Government and the programme motion. I assure the House that my party was not party to any deal whatsoever on this issue.

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred to her new clause 30, which is before the House today and which would have the effect of extending the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland. One reason for our support of the programme motion is that we believe that it is not appropriate for the House to debate that new clause today, as there is strong opposition in Northern Ireland to the proposition on which it is based.

I know that hon. Members will have received a letter from the leaders of the four main parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The letter was written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who is my party leader, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), the leader of Sinn Fein, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, and Sir Reg Empey, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. Between them, those four parties represent more than 90 per cent. of the electorate in Northern Ireland, and have more than 100 seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That makes it clear that this sensitive matter should be dealt with by the Assembly and not by this Parliament.

Northern Ireland has had separate legislation on this and many other issues, going back centuries. Indeed, there are different bodies of law that apply in Scotland and Wales, and there is nothing unique about the issue of abortion. In Northern Ireland, we have laws in respect of other matters of legality that are different from the laws that apply in other parts of the UK.

It is clear that we should consider only the human fertilisation and embryology element of the Bill and not try to tack on something that will cause considerable problems for the political process in Northern Ireland. The implementation of the 1967 Act, if it were to be extended to Northern Ireland, would fall largely to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would therefore be entirely wrong for this House to legislate against the wishes of the parties in the Assembly, as those parties would be required to implement a law with which they did not agree.

Unless my memory serves me false—which it may be doing—my recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman did try to amend the Bill at an earlier stage in order to add abortion issues to it. If so, does he agree that his argument simply will not wash?

I did not table any amendments to this Bill at any stage, so the hon. Gentleman is entirely incorrect in that respect. As far as the principle is concerned, any Member of this House is of course free to vote on any amendment, but new clause 30 has been tabled by hon. Members who represent constituencies where abortion is already available. We are dealing with these matters in the context of the 1967 Act, and no hon. Member with a constituency in Northern Ireland supports new clause 30. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington has not set foot in Northern Ireland to talk to people about this issue.

The hon. Lady has not consulted about her new clause, even though section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—which was passed by this House and which enacted the Belfast agreement—requires that any major legislation brought forward by Parliament or the Assembly should be subject to proper consultation and equality impact assessments. There is no opportunity for the public to be consulted about new clause 30, so she and the other hon. Members who have proposed the new clause are simply seeking to impose their will in a way that goes against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and of their elected representatives.

The leaders of the four main parties in Northern Ireland have written to all hon. Members to say that the matter should be addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and not by this House. That is why I urge the House to support the programme motion, and to leave this matter to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.

I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for bringing this Bill back after July. At that time, I was unfortunately indisposed, and never got the opportunity to vote against it. I shall now be able to listen to the debate, take part in it if necessary—and then vote against it on Third Reading. That will give me some satisfaction.

The Bill is about human fertilisation and embryology issues, but that is not the perception in the public arena. The media coverage that the Bill has received means that the public perception is that it is purely about abortion, and that is why I support the programme motion. Abortion is a very serious issue, and I accept that it comes within the scope of the Bill, but it is not the dominant aspect of the Bill and there are many other important matters that need proper debate.

I believe that there should be a proper review of the Abortion Act 1967. That is the way ahead, because it would allow people on both sides of the argument to have a reasonably intense and detailed debate. If we were being honest with ourselves, we would not play this sort of game. We would treat all of these subjects with great seriousness.

I do not often feel sorry for the Government, but in a sense they are the victims of their own actions. We are debating these matters because they have recognised the pent-up demand in the House to examine the abortion issue, and the logical result of that is that any hon. Member can table an amendment on the subject.

We all recognise that the Bill is fundamentally about human fertilisation and embryology, and that is a very big and important subject. I must gently disagree with the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) and what he said about the amount of publicity given to the human fertilisation and embryology element of the Bill, but there is huge demand for clarification and modernisation of the law on abortion. That is what all the amendments are about, and I very much agree with those who have pointed out that there is plenty of time in our parliamentary timetable for the necessary debates to take place. That is why I shall go into the No Lobby against the Government, even though in general I approve of what they are trying to do with the Bill.

I am very disappointed to have to state that I will have great difficulty in supporting the programme motion this afternoon. I chair the House’s all-party fertility group, and am well aware that the community of people outside the House who have serious problems conceiving are looking to the Bill for support.

However, the Bill makes no mention of access to NHS facilities—something that was discussed in full in the other place. There, the subject was given a very fair run, but we in this House are not allowed to discuss it. The Bill focuses on the regulation of IVF treatment and research, and makes no mention of the many other treatments that infertile people can access.

The founding principle of the NHS was that people could receive treatment at the point of need, but most people with infertility problems have to go to private clinics, where IVF is the only treatment on offer. They often have to pay for that treatment by remortgaging their homes. I am seriously disappointed that we will have no chance to discuss these issues. I tabled an amendment in the hope that it might be selected for debate, but it has not.

I shall have great difficulty in supporting the programme motion this afternoon.

rose—

Order. I am prepared to call one more hon. Member to speak, on the basis that he or she respects the fact that I want to call the Minister to respond to the debate at 2.20 pm.

I call Mr. Robert Key.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with great regret that I shall not be supporting the timetable motion. I have supported the Government through thick and thin, I think, in their attempt to get on the statute book a moderate and tolerant piece of legislation that is absolutely necessary. I have accepted that it is perfectly in order to debate the question of abortion, so I regret very much that we shall probably not have time this afternoon to discuss even those important issues—such as parenthood, surrogacy or saviour siblings—that relate to the original Bill.

That is a very great regret, because I think that the Government are well intentioned with this Bill. I therefore ask that they—and Parliament—consider changing the habits of a lifetime: they should accept that the very important issue of abortion should not be shuffled off to a private Member’s Bill but instead tackled in Government time with a Government Bill. We are mature enough in this country now to take those issues as public business; they are public business. I therefore hope that they will be so treated in the future.

Meanwhile, I shall vote against the programme motion, because it ignores the wishes not only of almost everyone in the Chamber today, but of our constituents, who are bemused, indeed amazed, that although we have plenty of time, the Government are rushing the Bill through—even though they are largely right.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

These are very important matters, and it is important to focus on the Bill. It is about IVF treatment. Actually, it is about access to the treatment, the improvement of that treatment and broadening the range of people who are entitled to it. It is about research on debilitating and killing diseases and about giving hope. The Bill has had 81 hours of debate thus far. Unusually, it has had two days on the Floor of the House—unique for this type of Bill—including time for the debate on abortion, without restriction on the subjects on which amendments could be tabled.

I shall answer two specific questions that have been put to me. First, there are no plans to introduce a Bill on abortion. Secondly, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who asked about a special Committee of both Houses, that is not a matter for Ministers; it is a matter for the House authorities, and he can pursue that if he wishes.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I understand that she is saying that that is not a matter for her, but if we had a vote on that, would she support new clause 34, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) have tabled?

My right hon. Friend will know that that is not for me to say as a Minister. I may have a view personally, but I am speaking from the Dispatch Box as a Minister. There is a free vote, and each Member will be able to decide. Those are the free votes that we will conduct this afternoon.

I beg to move amendment No. 49, page 3, line 26, after ‘transmission’, insert ‘via cytoplasm’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 41, page 3, line 26, at end insert—

‘(5A) Regulations made under subsection (5) may not provide for an egg or embryo whose nuclear genetic material has been altered by genetic modification, or whose nucleus has been replaced by the nucleus of a somatic cell, to be a permitted egg or a permitted embryo.

(5B) In this section, “genetic modification” includes the alteration of the nuclear genetic material of an egg or embryo by—

(a) recombinant nucleic acid techniques which change the DNA sequence of nuclear chromosomes of the egg or one or more cells of the embryo, or

(b) the introduction into the egg or into one or more cells of the embryo of a stably-maintained artificial chromosome, virus or plasmid.’.

Amendment No. 47, in clause 4, page 4, line 37, at end insert—

‘(f) an embryo created by combining pluripotent or totipotent human cells with amimal embryonic cells in which the latter have been altered so as to contain double the number of chromosomes, or in which the animal cells have been otherwise altered to become largely or entirely extra-embryonic tissue.’.

Amendment No. 50, in clause 68, page 53, line 19, at end insert—

‘(2A) This section shall be subject to section (prohibition on placing human gametes into an animal).’.

Amendment No. 73, in schedule 2, page 58, line 42, at end insert—

‘(4A) A licence under this paragraph may not authorise any activity the purpose of which is to develop techniques for creating a child by germ line genetic modification.