With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's review of energy sources for power generation and the preliminary conclusions on which I am now consulting.

The review was set up following the crisis in the coal industry last autumn, amid claims that the electricity market was rigged against coal. In response, the Government set up a wide-ranging review of electricity generation. The review has looked widely at the issues, with the assistance of independent consultants, about 150 outside representations, and meetings with some 40 parties. It has confirmed that there are, indeed, serious distortions in the electricity market. As a result, prices have been higher than they should have been. New gas stations have entered the market, benefiting from those high prices, displaced coal and failed to bring prices down for consumers. Without action to address those distortions, prices for consumers will continue to be higher than necessary, and diversity and security of supply will suffer.

Some have pressed the Government to go further and guarantee a specific share of the electricity market for UK deep-mined coal. The Government have given careful consideration to those and all other proposals. We do not, however, believe that to identify a defined share of the market, regardless of other considerations, would be the right course to take. Our aim is to put all fuels on a level playing field, and not to give priority to any one. We do not propose to subsidise any part of the UK coal industry. Coal producers themselves have asked for fairness, not favours.

I must therefore make it clear, against a background of speculation in the press, that there is no deal with the generators by which the Government have offered to introduce new policies in return for the generators buying British coal. Nor are the Government's policy conclusions in any way conditional on their doing so. That, and the fact that coal purchase decisions are a matter for them, has been made clear to the generators.

I have asked the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply, and his views are set out in our consultation document. He has identified significant problems both in the electricity pool and in the market structure. Those, and the high prices arising in the market, have been among the factors encouraging the growth of gas in electricity generation at the expense of coal. He has advised me that action is needed to reform the trading arrangements so that all plant plays a full role in competition, and to address the market power of the major generators. He also sees new entry as important. We agree with him that reform of the market is needed.

The review has confirmed that the main objective of our energy policy should be secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. That includes our concern to achieve environmental improvements. Taking account of the advice we have received from the DGES, we intend to achieve that objective by creating a competitive electricity market, founded on diverse fuel sources, providing secure supplies and, into the bargain, delivering significantly lower electricity prices to customers.

The Government are therefore making the following proposals to remedy the market distortions. We shall promote competition by reform of the wholesale electricity trading arrangements, and by pressing forward with competition in electricity supply. We shall seek practical opportunities for divestment of coal-fired plant by the major generators. We shall establish separate licensing of distribution and supply, and ensure fair trade in electricity with our European partners. We shall ensure that all generators are fairly remunerated for the services they provide to the grid. Taken together, those measures should remove the current distortions, which work against coal.

Market distortions disadvantage consumers, but they also have an impact on fuel use. That could put our energy policy at risk from both high prices and the loss of diversity and security that the squeezing out of coal and the consequent loss of coal-fired power stations would produce. Projections by our independent consultants, based on the current operation of the market, suggest that gas-fired generation could rise sharply, accounting for over 75 per cent. of our electricity within 20 years. In our view, a properly functioning market could well produce a different result.

There are also technical issues that arise from the growing use of gas on the grid. Our independent electrical engineering consultants report that the present arrangements have failed to resolve them. The DGES has said that better arrangements are needed. We propose to take that matter forward.

There is a wide reform agenda to pursue. That will take time; our aim is that, once it is achieved, the market will operate in a fully competitive way. However, the risk is that, before market reform is complete, fuel choices will be distorted, and diversity and security of supply will suffer. Therefore, during this period, we propose to apply a stricter energy policy to power station consents. In fact, significant market entry is still likely. Additional gas-fired power stations in various stages of development, equal to about 10 per cent. of system capacity and owned by competitors of the major generators, need no further authorisation.

Although the DGES has reservations about restrictions on consents, he recognises the Government's responsibility for energy policy, including diversity issues. In my view, it is of primary importance to avoid the pre-emptive destruction of our scope for diversity and security while reforms are yet to feed through.

The new consents policy will be in place only while our reform agenda is being addressed. I have asked the DGES to keep me informed of progress in dealing with the competition issues. I would expect the new consents policy to be relaxed when, on the basis of his advice, we conclude that our reforms have been undertaken and the distortions removed.

I turn now to the details of the proposed policy. We propose to approach new and pending applications for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 on the basis that new natural gas-fired generation would normally be inconsistent with our energy policy concerns about diversity and security.

However, combined heat and power projects have environmental and other benefits that may outweigh those concerns. They will do so if the project is properly sized to meet on-site or nearby heat and electricity requirements and to deliver high efficiency, although each case will be examined on its merits. It will be especially important that the relevant heat and electricity uses are clearly identified.

Other applications likely to support our environmental objectives without compromising energy security or diversity should be consistent with the Government's energy policy aims. They are likely to include renewable energy projects, including energy from waste, in support of the Government's intention to launch a strong drive on renewables, proposals using clean coal technology and the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment.

We shall take the same energy policy approach when considering existing and new notifications under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 relating to the construction of gas-fired power stations. That will apply whether or not consent has been given under the Electricity Act. The consultation document gives further details of our proposals, including those on notifications under section 14(2) of the Energy Act 1976, dual-firing power stations and black start units.

Decisions on individual applications for consents under section 36 of the Electricity Act and notifications under section 14 of the Energy Act will take into account all the circumstances of the particular case. In particular, in applying the new policy to cases that are already before me, I would take care to weigh carefully the impact on the interests of the promoters against the wider public interest.

The policy that I am proposing today should lead to substantially lower electricity prices by promoting genuine competition and efficiency. It will also safeguard diversity and security while we, with the regulator, press on with making the market work. There have been suggestions that, in the absence of restrictions, real falls in wholesale electricity prices of at least 10 per cent. should be possible in the medium term. My hope and expectation are that prices will in fact fall under our proposed policy by even more than that. While the new consents policy is in place, I have asked the DGES to continue to monitor electricity prices and alert me to any further concerns he may have.

As I have said, coal purchase decisions are a matter for the generators. However, if UK coal—including Scottish and Welsh coal—can be competitive on price and other terms of supply, I see no reason why it cannot have a very positive future in the electricity generation market. Achieving that success is a matter for the management and work force of coal producers.

Decisions on any pit closures would also be a matter for coal producers. However, in the event of any closures taking place, the Government are firmly committed to taking early action to put effective regeneration programmes in place. Consideration will be given to establishing a regeneration fund to help affected communities.

My right hon. Friends are reviewing separately the planning policies for opencast coal developments in England, Scotland and Wales in the light of the pre-election 10-point plan, environmental and local concerns and relevant conclusions of this review. They expect to announce proposals following the final outcome of that review.

Safeguarding the environment is a priority for the Government. Sulphur dioxide emissions from the major electricity generators in England and Wales are already programmed to fall to 365 kilotonnes in 2005. That target, and significant interim reductions, must be achieved. We believe that coal-fired generators should take all reasonable steps to run their plant with flue gas desulphurisation more than their plant without it, and major coal-fired generators should be encouraged to have at least one FGD-equipped plant.

Against that background, the Environment Agency will be discussing with generators its proposals for revision of emission limits. We expect those discussions to encompass the implications of this announcement, such as for the likely lifetime and usage of coal-fired power stations and policy on flue gas desulphurisation.

On climate change, the Government remain committed to achieving our targets. Our policy remains consistent with a decline in carbon emissions from the electricity generating industry. We shall be consulting this summer on meeting our legally binding Kyoto target of a 12·5 per cent. cut in greenhouse gas emissions, and on how we can move beyond that towards our own aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.

The proposals that I have made today are open for consultation until Monday 20 July, and we intend to announce our conclusions shortly thereafter. Until then, I propose to defer decisions on power station consents and notifications. Where decisions are necessary and should not be deferred, I propose to apply the proposals announced today, subject to the circumstances of each particular case. A consultation document, with full details of our proposals, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office.

I thank the President of the Board of Trade for that statement. We learn that the Government have laboured for a whole year to bring forward an energy policy. Today, they have brought forward a few more soundbites and another round of consultation. We were promised an elephant of a policy, and we have been offered a mouse. Over the past year, they have given us hot air. Today, it is more soothing oil than solid coal or cleaner gas. [Interruption.] Labour Members should not leave the Chamber now, but stay and listen. They know that we have been given no substance or policy, and that it is the mining jobs in their constituencies which are at risk.

In opposition, Labour said that it would save mining jobs with a radical plan for coal. In government, it embarked on the opposite policy—licensing gas power stations; announcing tougher environmental targets; and failing to step up clean coal technology. The Government soon faced the predictable large-scale pit closures and lost mining jobs. So they panicked, and went out to consultation.

The Opposition welcome the pool price review. I suggested such a review months ago. Why has it taken so long to come to conclusions? When will the Government make some decisions about that vital matter? Will they find a way that is fair not only to coal but to gas? How many mining jobs will go regardless?

The Government's proposals are not so much a U-turn as a skid and a spin. How long will it be before clean coal technology is used at more coal power stations? What is the future of the gas industry—which was expanding fast and doing well before the moratorium was imposed? Why is there no statement on the future of the nuclear industry, particularly in the wake of the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? We have heard a statement from the President which—by trying to face all ways at once—merely creates more confusion.

The Government's energy and environmental policies remain at loggerheads. The Prime Minister pledged the United Kingdom to tougher targets than the challenging ones that the previous Government had set and left in place. To hit them means burning less coal—a lot less coal—and turning to cleaner ways of generating power. Now the President wants us to believe that she will save some of the mining jobs that her own Government were threatening. That means that they will fail to hit their very own environmental targets.

It is no good the President replying that dirtier electricity will mean fewer cars on the road, because the Deputy Prime Minister is briefing to say that he will not be stopping us driving. Nor—I hope—will they force granny to turn down the central heating. Therefore, the Government must do something about power generation.

It has taken so long to produce such a sketchy policy because the Government have been at war over what to do. Those who wish to subsidise mining jobs have clearly been defeated. The Energy Minister has been sidelined once again. The Treasury has intervened liberally, and the President has been left with the unenviable task of playing across the line of the spin from No. 10 Downing street. Cricketers will know what happens next: the batsman gets caught out.

Ministers say different things to different audiences, to get through difficult days. They seem more interested in saving their own jobs than other people's.

Will the President today admit that, on this policy, the UK cannot hit its environmental targets, and that those targets will have to be changed? Will she promise to return to the House when she has made up her mind on all the issues that are so notably missing from the statement? The Government will have to understand that, by trying to be all things to all men, one ends up satisfying no one and closing a lot of pits.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about saving mining jobs. In December 1980, a total of 230,000 people were employed in Britain's coal mines; today, there are 12,000. We do not need any lessons from him about what can happen to mining jobs.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that he suggested the review months ago. He spent his first few months as Opposition spokesman complaining that the Government were reviewing too many things, and attacking us for proposing to review any more.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale on clean coal and renewables. Contrary to what he said, the Government have already increased investment in renewables. I am sure that he will be gratified to learn that we already have an application to build a suitable station, which we shall, of course, be considering with great interest.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be torn between wanting to know the future of the coal industry and wanting to know the future of the gas industry. On the future of both industries, we shall unrig the market that the Conservative party left rigged, so that both industries can fairly compete against each other.

Why nothing about nuclear power? Nuclear power currently is not economic—as I think even the right hon. Gentleman will accept—and the Government have no plans to proceed down that route. He further asserts that the Government set tougher targets for the environment. He has alleged that that is behind the problems, and that those targets cannot be hit. He is wrong again; they can be hit.

Finally, I note the right hon. Member's observations about various of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have played an extremely important, worthwhile and supportive role throughout Government, ironing out the implications of those policy issues for a variety of Departments. The right hon. Gentleman seems incapable of taking on board the fact that Government colleagues can co-operate in that way. No doubt, that says more about the record of the Conservative Government than this one.

I thank the President for her statement. This is a complex issue, as my colleagues on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and I found when we started looking into the energy industry. We recognised that it will involve not only Government policy but a degree of consensus throughout the various parts of the industry. Therefore, it is essential that the proposals should be put out for extended consultation. Does she also agree that the problem is not so much one of the existing owners of power stations not buying coal, but of getting people into ownership who are prepared to buy it? Therein lies the strength of the proposal for a divestment of ownership of some of the stations.

Secondly, does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us will welcome the flexible approach that she is prepared to take towards the moratorium? The blunt instrument that has been wielded for the past six months has not won any friends anywhere in the energy business. Those who want instant action today should not forget that coal is never bought in substantial amounts between June and September, and that there is time to get a proper deal to put the energy market on a proper footing so that the long-term security of miners' jobs can be guaranteed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and for the important work of the Committee that he chairs. He is entirely right to say that it takes time to thrash out those issues. As he will have seen, we have allowed a further period of consultation so that people can take account of the Government's proposals. Of course, many people have already given us the benefit of their views during the review that has already been undertaken.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about divestment and the flexible approach to a stricter deferment policy on gas consents. The Government believe that all that offers a constructive way forward, and I appreciate his observations.

May I thank the right hon. Lady for making the statement and for many of the things in it, although I must say something about those that, unfortunately, are not? We welcome the restraint on generation capacity and the removal of price distortion, although we will be interested to see precisely how that is to be achieved. Also, we welcome the reprieve for combined heat and power schemes, and the more flexible approach for the future. There were many sweet words in a rather long statement, but not too much action. For instance, there is still no clear overall energy policy for the nation or the Government. When can we expect that? There is no clear support for declining coalfield communities, which must clearly face substantial economic problems in the next five years as a result of the statement. No clear help is set out for renewables, there are no proposals on fuel efficiency or energy conservation, and what of the subsidiary issues, such as opencast mining? There were many unanswered questions in a long statement, and I hope that the right hon. Lady can provide some supplementary information now.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming some issues, although slightly surprised that, having welcomed a number of proposals, he said that there was nothing in the statement—he managed to find at least three things. He suggested that there was no clear overall policy. I said repeatedly throughout the statement that Government policy is to obtain diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies at competitive prices. That is very much our underlying approach.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to say more about the detail of coal communities support. I do not share the view that he seems to take about the extent to which such support is likely to be needed, but he will appreciate that, if a regeneration scheme in the coalfields is required, that would be a matter for my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is not a matter to which I would be referring today.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about proposals for, among other things, fuel efficiency. Again, those issues are addressed elsewhere, but we have issued proposals on such matters in, for example, our Green Paper on utility regulation. As I said, we are increasing support for renewables.

In hoping that the President will disregard the totally hypocritical comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whose party consciously, deliberately and politically destroyed the coal industry throughout its period of government; and in thanking her for providing some alleviation to the short-term crisis afflicting the industry may I ask whether she recognises that any serious, long-term energy policy for Britain must take account of the fact that there is 1,000 years of coal under our territory, which is mined by some of the most highly skilled engineers in the world? It must also take account of the fact that nuclear power is much more expensive than coal, that opencast coal mining inflicts terrible environmental damage on mining areas—where people lose their jobs and their environment—and that up to 40,000 jobs in the mining manufacturing industry could be endangered if the domestic mining industry is allowed to collapse. Does she recognise that competitiveness, level playing fields and market forces are not the basis on which a nation can preserve its long-term policy, as the oil crisis of 1973 should have taught us all?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his recognition of the ludicrous attitude of the Conservative party. He talks about a serious, long-term policy, the coal reserves that may be available and his concern about the mining manufacturing industry, and I completely understand that those issues arise. However, I do not share his view that the serious, long-term and sustainable energy policy that we have outlined today will not leave a place for coal. We inherited a market in which coal had no future—that was, indeed, a measure of the Conservative party's hypocrisy—but, in these proposals, the Government are creating the space within which the coal industry has a chance to make its case.

Does the President recall that a few Conservative Members, including me, voted against the pit closure programme, and that, shortly after the general election, I had an Adjournment debate which, some may reasonably say, stimulated discussion on this subject?

I congratulate the Government on their intentions as set out in the review, but I deeply regret the fact that no decisions have yet been taken. The right hon. Lady speaks about competition and a fair deal, but what specific action will the Government take to deal with the disgraceful distortion whereby, in the context of European coal, the German coal mining industry receives £5 billion a year in subsidy, but there is no equivalent redress for the British coal mining industry? I congratulate the Government on their intentions, but the review is very short on specifics.

I remember and respect the hon. Gentleman's stance on the previous Government's proposals, which resulted in so many pit closures. However, I say—with respect—that, if he had taken his opposition further and opposed some of the other actions of the Conservative Government, he might not have needed to oppose those closures. The previous Government's programme did nothing to redress the distortions in the marketplace on which we are taking action. Today's proposals, our review and the pressure we are applying over subsidies in the European Union—on which we share the view of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and on which my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has again been in touch with the Commission today—are issues on which the Government have taken a stance, unlike the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. We believe that our actions will create the fair market for coal that did not exist under the Conservative party.

Will my right hon. Friend take no notice of the comments by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? He is a classic case of Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, because he did one thing and says another. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, during the period when the discussion document is out for consultation, she will apply the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to protect men in the industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am not altogether sure I can even say cognitive dissonance without thinking hard. I recognise the importance of his point, but he will realise that TUPE conditions are a matter for the industry.

I heard the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry announce the Government's policy on the radio this morning, and I have listened to the President expand on the details. However, I must confess that I am none the wiser about what the statement was all about. As I understand it, the President will restrict development of gas-fired power generation, albeit on a temporary basis, and will allow coal-fired generators to purchase as much coal as they like, wherever they like and at whatever price.

To compete, however, the generators will have to buy coal at world prices. There is an awful lot of coal in the far east at the moment, and to get British coal prices down to world price levels, we would need more opencast-mined coal that we could blend with deep-mined coal. Yet the President says that there will be a further restriction on opencast mining, which makes no sense under the logic of what she is proposing. She must explain more fully for the benefit of the miners in my constituency exactly what she is proposing to do.

One thing is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said: he has not understood the degree to which we inherited a market rigged by the incompetence of his party. Currently, gas and nuclear power have privileged access to the market. Coal was simply not able to compete fairly, and that is the source of the coal industry's difficulties. There are competition issues which the coal industry itself must address, but contracts have been signed for British coal in recent months, and it is clearly possible for UK coal to be competitive. That was not possible in a market that was deliberately rigged against the coal industry by the Conservative party.

Is the President aware that pit closures in areas of high unemployment would be a dangerous step, now that unemployment is possibly beginning to rise? Will she assure me that there will be no pit closures until proper conclusions have been reached from the holding review? Will she take into account necessary measures such as cutting imports, opencast mining and the French electricity link? If those actions cannot do the job, will she remember that our coalfield area is tiny, containing only 20 large pits at the most after the disastrous Tory years? There is, of course, one easy way to ensure the industry's stability, and that is to take it back into public ownership.

I know that that is, and always has been, my hon. Friend's view, but he knows that it is not the Government's policy. He asked about potential pit closures. His expertise on the subject is such that he knows that I cannot give that assurance. Apart from anything else, matters of geology can arise at any time. I cannot give the assurance that he seeks, but I can say that I do not anticipate that we will, in the aftermath of today's statement, see anything other than a coal industry that is able to find its competitive feet and to make its way fairly in the marketplace. He knows that that is what the industry has sought.

My hon. Friend asked for a statement on opencast mining. He knows that that is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. They will make a statement when the further review that I announced today is concluded in a few weeks. He also mentioned the French interconnector. I assure him that, just as we are continuing to press the issue of subsidies elsewhere in the European Union, we are considering how we can tackle this issue. We hope that the electricity liberalisation directive will offer an opportunity for coal-generated electricity when it is in place.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows that her statement will have been received with disbelief by the environmental community. Can she explain who among the plethora of advisers and specialist consultants were her environmental consultants? How much extra CO₂ will go into the atmosphere as a result of her policies? In what specific ways is she going to reduce CO₂ elsewhere? How is she going to produce a 20 per cent. cut in CO₂ when every Government policy has increased emissions, despite what they have said?

The Government are absolutely clear that what we are announcing today is consistent with the targets that we have set. The right hon. Gentleman himself has a contradiction to sort out. I understand that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has said that the reason why coal mining jobs are at risk is because we have tightened environmental targets more than the Conservatives would have done. I suggest that they come back when they have sorted out their difficulties.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the two pits in my constituency, Welbeck and Harworth, the miners have made fantastic increases in productivity of up to 250 per cent. in the past few years, but still find their jobs in jeopardy? The harder they work, the more it seems that the EC imposes restrictions on their industry and favours cheap imports from north Africa and Russia. Why should the Germans be able to subsidise their coal and the French dump on us? Why should our miners always have to face supposedly fair competition that actually works against them? Can she not stop opencast mining, which destroys the environment? Can she set at rest the minds of miners now that the extra redundancy pay period has expired? If their jobs are going because of EC decisions, we should restore the redundancy pay that they were getting only a few years ago.

I respect my hon. Friend's long-standing expertise on this matter. We are continuing to press on subsidies, whether in Germany or elsewhere in the European Union, and on the French interconnector. A statement on opencast mining will be made later. He knows as well as anyone in the House that there are circumstances in which some opencast coal is needed to sweeten the use of deep-mined coal. It is not an altogether straightforward issue. I have taken on board his point about the miners in his constituency continuing to deliver higher productivity but still finding their jobs at risk. The simple reason, as he well understands, is that the market left by the Conservative party was deliberately rigged against them. It will not be in future.

The right hon. Lady says that she will conduct a price review. She knows that the problem is the structure of the pool and how it operates, and that gas is much more appropriate for interruptible supply than for base load, where it is largely used now. How will we deal with that problem? She also said that she wants diversity and security of supply, and that she will reduce emissions by 2010, by which time virtually all, if not all, of the Magnox stations will have closed. They do not produce any emissions at all. How does she intend to replace those stations if, as she has said today, she does not propose to take any initiatives on new nuclear stations?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the structure of the pool. That has been the nature and source of the problem, although I do not recall his saying so when his party was in government, but never mind.

Yes, I did.

He did. In that case, I take that back. I beg his pardon.

We are very well aware that the structure of the pool is the difficulty. That is the issue which we intend to tackle. One of the things that the hon. Gentleman will find when he has a chance to study the consultative document—I recognise that he cannot have done so yet—is that there are a number of issues surrounding the use of gas. He is right to say that it gives a more readily interruptible supply, but there are a number of issues related precisely to diversity and security of supply, and technical issues related to the way in which the market operates at present as a result of the operation of far more gas-powered stations, where there used to be a greater role for coal. The Government have received preliminary reports from consultants, and we shall continue to consider the issues.

The 1,200 miners and 33,000 electricity customers in my constituency will have a strong interest in my right hon. Friend's statement today. I welcome her recognition that the Conservatives did not merely shut pits but outrageously rigged the market against the coal from the pits that were left. Will she give an assurance that the pool will be radically restructured? It lies at the heart of many of our problems with coal. What does my right hon. Friend believe would have happened to the coal industry if we had continued with the policy of the previous Government?

Of course I recognise the importance of the mining industry to my hon. Friend's constituency and the wider concerns of her constituents. She is right about the rigged market. I certainly assure her that it is very much the Government's intention that the pool review will produce proposals that allow for radical restructuring. She will probably recall that we announced the pool review as long ago as October, if my memory is correct. It is our intention that it should proceed.

My hon. Friend asked what would have happened to the coal industry had the Conservative party remained in power. There is no doubt about it. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has made the point that the Conservatives would have taken a different attitude to some of these issues, but none of us has any doubt that, had the policy that the Conservatives left in place continued to operate, the coal industry in Britain would have simply disappeared. I doubt whether more than one or two Conservative Members would have cared tuppence.

In welcoming the right hon. Lady's statement and recognising that there has to be considered examination of the consultation document, may I ask what overall assessment has been made of the impact on employment? Reports are circulating in the Scottish press that the proposals could cause the loss of several hundred jobs in the gas industry in Scotland and beyond. Does the right hon. Lady believe that she has produced a sustainable policy that will reduce dependency on the nuclear industry?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her recognition. These are complex issues, and the impact on employment is not easy to assess. I am aware of some of the stories in the Scottish press. To be honest, we find it rather hard to understand the basis for them. It is not our expectation that those stories will prove to be soundly based. On the overall aspects of energy policy, it is the Government's intention to pursue diverse, secure and sustainable sources of electricity at competitive prices. Within that, there is a role for a variety of sources. That, we believe, could be one of the strengths of energy policy as a whole.

May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome her statement, which is the first bit of good news the deep-mined coal industry in this country has had for more than a decade? Does she agree that nobody on the Labour Benches argued that the coal industry ought to be subsidised? We said that it ought to have a fair chance—a level playing field in a market that had been rigged by the Conservatives when they were in office.

I am sure that many people in coal mining communities will thank my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government, who have been working for many months to give a bit of pride and honesty back to those communities. I am sure that they will deliver a sustainable deep-mined coal industry for many years to come, from which all the people of this country will benefit, not least electricity consumers, who will derive immediate benefit from the decisions that my right hon. Friend is taking.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The proposals in the review stem deliberately from our proposals for energy supply, but he is right to say that they will also have a beneficial effect in creating, for the first time in many years, a reasonable and fair market for coal. I am grateful for his recognition of that. As he reminded us, it is ironic that, because of their desperate efforts to rig the market against coal no matter what the cost, the Conservatives left us in a position where all customers—every family and every industrial consumer in this country—have been paying a higher price for electricity than they need to. That was the price of rigging the market against coal.

What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the adverse environmental impact of her regime for coal-fired power stations? In giving that estimate, can she tell us how she proposes to meet the Kyoto targets, given the effect that coal-fired power stations will have; and in which areas other compensating reductions will take place?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have been paying attention to recent statements by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I assure him that we have looked carefully at the issue and that we are clear that there is nothing in my statement that will prevent the Government from reaching the targets we have set ourselves—which are, of course, rather firmer targets than those set by the Conservatives.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that her statement will be widely welcomed in coalfield communities, because it provides a framework that gives to coal fairness but no favours? Will not her announcements on the review of the pool and on tighter consent for gas stations give the opportunity for both coal producers and generators to come to new contract arrangements? Although that is a matter for them, is it not possible that a contract for, say, 25 million tonnes might be achievable? If that were achieved, there could be no question of any pit closures or job losses.

I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on this issue, and that, with the Coalfield Communities Campaign, he has always argued for fairness rather than favours. He has recognised the impact of the proposals announced today.

My hon. Friend asked me whether there are specific tonnage implications in the statement, but he also said, correctly, that the contracts to be made between generators and coal producers are a matter for them, so he will understand why it is for them and not for us to come to that judgment. All I can say is that I am in no doubt at all that the proposals we have announced today and the way in which we are unrigging the market, which was biased against coal, give a real space for coal in this country, which has not been present for many years.

Having represented a coal mining area in local government some years ago, I have long had a loyalty to the industry and those wonderful men who work in it. Having said that, and appreciating its long-term role in energy in this country—picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said that there is 1,000 years of indigenous energy sourcing under our very earth—may I ask what specific measures the right hon. Lady has announced this afternoon to give the mining industry confidence that there will not be further coal mine closures and redundancies in an industry which I believe is of essential importance to this country? I was one of the few Conservative Members who voted against the decimation of the industry by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the coal industry and those who work in it. I hope that I will not harm his career by saying that I recognise his loyalty not only to that industry but to British manufacturing.

It is too late.

That may be true.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we believe that today's statement will create confidence in the mining industry. 1 believe that it will. I remind him that, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the industry has not asked for subsidy. It has asked for a fair, unrigged marketplace within which it can compete. That is what we are delivering in the statement. That, and the understanding that we shall remove the bias against the industry—against which it has fought, although, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, many Conservative Members denied that it existed—is doing more to create confidence than anything else that we could do.

I very much welcome the statement, and I am sure that the miners at Rossington pit in my constituency will also welcome it. We now have a Government who say that there is a future for coal.

Will my right hon. Friend's Department promote the image of the new coal mines in this country? During the past year, there has been a portrayal of an old industry with old skills, and new industries such as gas have been promoted against that. The pit in my constituency has some of the finest technology and engineering skills in the world which are not only used to produce coal in this country, but are marketable abroad where they create jobs for British people. I hope that her Department will ensure that that image of coal is conveyed, rather than the images of the past.

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I welcome her words. As she says, coal is in many senses a new industry, as is mining support. There are technologies of the future for which there is a potential substantial market elsewhere in the world. We would have been unable to take advantage of that if we had followed the policies pursued by the Conservative party and allowed our own industry to disappear. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point that the industry has a future in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and I shall bear it in mind.

The President may be aware that, in my constituency, British Nuclear Fuels plc manufactures all the fuel for Britain's nuclear power stations and operates the Magnox stations that provide electricity at the lowest marginal cost. Her statement was silent on the effect of her proposals on the nuclear industry. Many of my constituents would like to know what estimate she has made or received about the impact of her proposals on the market for nuclear-generated electricity.

Our proposals are for competition in the market that is fair between nuclear and other fuels, so there was no need for further comment on that. We inherited a market that was rigged against coal. Steps to advantage the nuclear industry have already been taken. This is not the first action that the Government have taken on the energy market; we have taken a series of actions since we came to power, and my statement does not change the basic position of the nuclear industry.

Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), does my right hon. Friend agree that coal is now a modern, flexible, high-tech industry with a highly skilled and highly productive labour force? In many ways, it is a new Labour dream and is well able to compete on the level playing field to which my right hon. Friend referred. Does she agree that there is not only an opportunity but a responsibility for RJB Mining and the electricity generators to make use of the breathing space that the Government have given them and to invest for the future, particularly in clean coal technology?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I am grateful to him for his observations. He is right to say not only that the industry is modern, flexible, high-tech and able to compete, but that the market in this country has been given opportunities and a responsibility to seize them. In addition, given that coal will now have a level playing field in the UK, there are opportunities in overseas markets which, having a sound domestic basis, the industry will be in a better position to seize.

The President has said several times this afternoon that energy prices are higher than they need be. Will she be so kind as to place in the Library the evidence supporting that assertion, and give it to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? It is slightly surprising, in that all the electricity consumer organisations, the CBI, the Select Committee and others are concerned that Government interference in the energy market will put up prices, to the detriment of consumers.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been following what has been going on. There is no dispute that energy prices are higher than they need be. The Director General of Electricity Supply and the major energy users agree with that. The hon. Gentleman will find some supporting material in the consultation document that I have already placed in the Library—but I can assure him that the assertion is not contested, even by those who have benefited from the fact that energy prices are indeed higher than they need be. They have just kept quiet, but they do not dispute the fact.

Some people may have assumed—perhaps even hoped—that the Government would interfere in a way that raised prices. I stress that the Government are interfering to unrig the market that the Conservatives left. That will lower prices, because the rigging was keeping prices up.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. As a miner who worked underground for 30 years, I welcome transparent and open statements from Ministers. We have heard it accepted that there has been a serious distortion in the energy market in favour of gas; I welcome the fact that we now have a Government who are being honest.

I consider that the regulator and the Environment Agency have played a part in the distortion of the energy market. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that cannot happen again, to show that fairness and honesty in the energy market are the Government's intentions for the future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose long experience in the industry I know of, for his observations and his welcome to the background of the Government's proposals. It is clearly not altogether understood—if it were, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) would not have said what he did—that the review and the study done by the consultants have clearly exposed the fact that everything said by the coal industry and the coalfield communities down the years about how the market was unfairly and deliberately rigged against coal, resulting in higher prices for customers, was absolutely true.

The Director General of Electricity Supply has himself recognised that the way the market now operates has resulted in higher prices, and he is seized of the need to take action to redress that.

Does the President accept industry estimates that about £3 billion of investment in new gas-fired power stations is at risk from an extended moratorium? If she does not accept those estimates, will she tell the House what hers are, and on what they are based?

There have been a lot of estimates based on a lot of rather wild rumours about what policy the Government might pursue. The Government are now putting these proposals in the public domain for consultation. No doubt people will have the chance to respond, and we will have the chance to assess their responses. We are determined that the coal industry should get a fair place in the market, and that consumers and the coal industry should both be fairly treated. That does require a deferment policy on consents, if justified.

As I have made clear—it will certainly be pursued over the weeks ahead—we shall look carefully, case by case, at any of these issues, should they need to be raised.

May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome what she and her ministerial team have done in taking this important step toward a sustainable energy policy? However, there are major concerns from coalfields such as that in my constituency, where, because of what the previous Government did, it is already too late to safeguard coal mining. People are anxious that there should be no confusion between the concerns about a level playing field for deep-pit coal and those about opencast, and a licence should not be given to opencast. Will she meet anti-opencast campaigners, to ensure that concerns get fed into the review for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?

I thank my hon. Friend. I well recall the circumstances in her area and constituency—the implications for what were quite modern pits there, and the stance that she and her colleagues in the city took on the matter. I also thank her for her words about the ministerial team. One of the rewarding features of this whole consideration of policy has been the way in which Ministers within my departmental team and across Departments have worked so constructively and well together. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General and to the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, and others, for the way in which everyone has worked co-operatively together. My hon. Friend asked me a question about opencast mining. As I have said, there will be a subsequent statement about opencast in the light of the outcome of the further review. I am always willing to hold meetings or discussions where an issue is directly relevant to my own portfolio and concerns. The issue that she raises may be a matter for my colleagues, but no doubt that will become apparent in due course.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the business for next week.

The business for next week will be as follows.

MONDAY 29 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day).

Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate which the Opposition have called "The Government's mishandling of the economy", followed by a debate which they are calling "The Government's broken pledges on class sizes". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

TUESDAY 30 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 1 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Completion of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 2 JULY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY 3 JULY—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.

MONDAY 6 JULY—Estimates Day (1st allotted day).

There will be a debate on further education, followed by a debate on the Government's proposal for a freedom of information Act.

The question will be put on the relevant estimates at 10 pm.

TUESDAY 7 JULY—Opposition Day (16th allotted day).

There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

WEDNESDAY 8 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Competition Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 9 JULY—Debate on the national health service, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 10 JULY—The House will not be sitting.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 8 July there will be a debate on the 1999 preliminary draft budget in European Standing Committee B.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving the House next week's business and for indicating the business for the week thereafter. The right hon. Lady has not found time for a debate on the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and I make no apologies for returning to this subject in light of the publication this morning of its second special report. The right hon. Lady will know that today's special report criticises the Executive for imposing restrictions on the release of information properly sought by a Select Committee. That can frustrate the work of the House in its primary role of holding the Executive to account.

Yet again, the Select Committee seeks the views of the House at an early date. I hope that the right hon. Lady will end her boycott of those requests and listen to what the Chairman of the Select Committee, the highly respected hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), said when he called for a debate to be held as soon as possible, and warned that the issue was reaching a "high noon" between Ministers and Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said at this morning's press conference that not only should there be a debate in Government time but there should be a free vote on the matter. Will the right hon. Lady respond to the all-party requests for a debate, which goes to the heart of our role as Members of Parliament?

The need for that debate on holding the Executive to account has been made more urgent by the use by one of the right hon. Lady's supporters on the Select Committee of a device, which has not been used for 60 years, that can guillotine any line of questioning by any witness or any member of the Select Committee on any subject. That is simply unacceptable. I hope that the right hon. Lady will support the representations being made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee seeking to end the device.

Also on foreign affairs, the right hon. Lady may have seen that, in another place on 19 June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons, reaffirmed the commitment to debate NATO enlargement, which was first given nearly a year ago. When might we have that long-overdue debate?

The right hon. Lady has not announced time in the next two weeks for a debate on a Bill to ratify the Ottawa treaty on land mines. We have given a commitment to assist that legislation, contrary to the assertion yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence. Legislation could have been introduced earlier in the Session, so is it not a sign of panic that the Government have introduced it so late in the session? The right hon. Lady has said that she will not invite the House to sit on a Saturday in order to consider normal business. As the ratification of an international treaty such as this constitutes normal business, I suggest that we consider it instead on a non-sitting Friday.

Finally, the right hon. Lady would not expect me to sit down without asking her, in the interests of all those who work in the building, about her latest plans for the summer recess.

I shall go through the right hon. Gentleman's points in order. He asked me about the first special report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He will know that, following the publication of that report, further discussions between the Committee Chairman and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary led to some progress on the matter, which is acknowledged in today's report.

I know that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has issued a report today, but I have not yet been able to go through it with the Foreign Secretary. However, I am aware that it contains some praise for the Foreign Secretary's actions. We shall examine that report carefully, but I remind the House that the Legg inquiry is well under way, and we do not want to do anything that might prejudice its outcome.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has announced his commitment to publishing that report and to making more information available at that stage if necessary. In those circumstances, I am not sure that it is unreasonable to ask the Committee to contain its impatience a little longer. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in the ground rules regarding information to Select Committees. On that basis, I am slightly surprised that he should ask me to comment on the actions of a member of a Select Committee, because if I did so, he would accuse me of interfering in the activities of that Committee.

I would still like to find time for a debate on NATO enlargement before the summer recess, and I have not ruled that out absolutely. However, it is difficult to have such debates when we are providing time for other matters.

Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to do that again when he mentioned the land mines issue. As he knows, although the commitment predates his position as shadow Leader of the House, we have been saying all along that we would like to find time to ratify the Ottawa convention as soon as possible. It has been difficult to find time, not least because of the important progress which has been made on Northern Ireland, which I think we all welcome.

The Bill on land mines has not yet been introduced. It is being drafted, and I expect that it will be ready for introduction in the near future. We have heard very recently that the Leader of the Opposition has said that his party would be willing to help with the progress of that legislation. We are asking all parties if they are willing to do that, and we shall be seeking assurances on exactly what that means in terms of the progress of legislation in the House and in another place.

The question of the summer recess depends on the progress of business. All the requests that we receive for extra debates make the start date of the recess more likely to be later than earlier.

May I for once unequivocally congratulate my right hon. Friend and other members of the Modernisation Committee on its recently published excellent report on the scrutiny of European legislation? If the Committee's recommendations are fully implemented, the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation coming from Brussels will be greatly enhanced. However, we need speedy implementation. When does my right hon. Friend propose to have a debate on these matters that will enable the House to vote on the recommendations?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I think that I can say on behalf of the Modernisation Committee that I am grateful for the work that has been done by the European Legislation Committee. We are glad that it has been so supportive of our recommendations. I should like to find time for an early debate on the report and on the changes that are proposed. I know that some of the changes can be introduced without any alterations to Standing Orders. I know also that there has been at least one pre-Council meeting of my hon. Friend's Committee, where the Minister involved talked through the issues that would be coming up. I understand that that was very successful. I hope that we can continue to make progress, and that it will not be too long before we can make progress on other matters. We shall be discussing them further through the usual channels.

Does the Leader of the House recall that, on behalf of my party, I offered our fullest co-operation to achieve ratification of the Ottawa convention some weeks ago, so that it could be achieved before the anniversary of the Princess of Wales's death? The right hon. Lady may recall that I suggested that, if necessary, we should meet on a Saturday. I believe that the matter is uncontroversial, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will find time for it. Can she confirm the briefing, following the Cabinet meeting this morning, that that is what the Cabinet has in mind?

Turning to the vexed question of the way in which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has been treated, may I invite the right hon. Lady to take off her hat as a member of the Government and put on her hat as Leader of the House? May I remind her that both the Committee's first report and the second report, which has been published today, seek not the views of the Government but those of the House? It is the House that is being asked to express a view. By preventing the House from having a view, I believe that the right hon. Lady is not doing her duty to the House as Leader.

I remind the right hon. Lady that there is a Government majority on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and that we are not talking of a partisan matter. The majority of the Committee believes that it is an extremely important issue. I invite the right hon. Lady to comment on the relationship between the Select Committee and the House. Complaints have already been made to the Procedure Committee about the way in which the Government are treating the views of Select Committees.

Finally, I remind the right hon. Lady that, in the business that she has announced for Monday 6 July, there is an opportunity for a debate on the Select Committee's report. I ask her to ensure that that debate takes place.

I know that the Select Committee has asked for the views of the House. I know also that there are guidelines, which have been laid out for some time, about the obligations on Government to provide information to Select Committees. As far as I can see from the examination that I have carried out so far—as I have said, I have not read in detail the report that came out today—there has been no departure from the guidelines. I would have to be convinced that there was some need to debate the issue further. There is a code of practice, and I believe that it has been followed.

I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of land mines with me at business questions in the past, as have a number of my hon. Friends.

My right hon. Friend has been in the House long enough to know that all Governments manage to give themselves legislative indigestion from time to time. It will not come as a surprise to her that there is a lot to be done. Will my right hon. Friend accept that the easiest way out is not to keep suggesting that there is some magic way round the difficulty, but simply to abandon non-sitting Fridays and do what previous Governments have done, which is to take Government business on those days?

I think that non-sitting Fridays are much appreciated by Members who want to plan constituency engagements. I said that I had no plans to take the normal business of the House—the programme that we outlined in the Queen's Speech—on days other than those when we would normally be sitting. I think it is appropriate to consider the possibility of sitting on days other than those that are already scheduled for matters that have come up recently, such as the land mines issue.

No decisions on that have been made. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the Leader of the Opposition, and other parties are being consulted. We shall make decisions through the usual channels so that we can make best use of what time may be available for new issues that have arisen.

Does the Leader of the House agree that the resurrection this week of the antique objections procedure, last used in the House in the 1937–38 Session, is incompatible with the proper functioning of modern Select Committees? Does the right hon. Lady further agree that this is a matter that she, as both Leader of the House and Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, should be supporting for reference immediately to the Procedure Committee? I shall be copying to her this afternoon my formal reference, which I trust she will support.

I shall look at the right hon. Gentleman's letter when I receive it.

As the person who invoked this procedure, Madam Speaker, I hope you will allow me just for the record to say that I was asked at the press conference—

What is this?

Just a moment. I cannot hear the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). Is the hon. Gentleman putting a question to the Leader of the House?

I am indeed.

I was saying that in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs there are major disagreements. Those major disagreements involve the obsessional look of some members of the Committee. As on all Select Committees, when there are differences, those who are in disagreement have to use the methods that are open to them. The method I used was not intended by me to stop discussion in Committee.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a statement, and this is not the time for statements. If he is putting a question to the Leader of the House about next week's business, I ask him to do so precisely.

My point to the my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is that she should encourage the Select Committee to take up the offers made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to carry out an investigation when all the information is available.

I will certainly bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend has raised when I receive the letter from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). I know that it is true to say that both reports are split reports, and that there have been differences of opinion in the Committee. I think that it would be wrong for me to go into too much detail in terms of how any Select Committee works in practice. Obviously, if the Modernisation Committee were to turn its mind to these matters, they could all be examined.

Will the Leader of the House reconsider her answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and to the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? The actions taken on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, particularly the use of an internal inquiry to fend off information being sought by the Committee, have implications for all Select Committees, and as a result undermine the ability of the House to hold the Executive to account.

I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. The inquiry is independent, and the Government have not said that information cannot be available—it is a question of timing.

It is about time that we had a debate on the coal industry in Government time, in the light of today's statement.

May I request a debate on the relationship between the European Union and third-world countries? The EU is trying to foist on third-world nations trade treaties which are deeply exploitative and detrimental to their economies. It is also trying to force third-world nations into groups in which there will be big free market areas that could be exploited. It is about time that that sort of practice was exposed. If we do not have time for a debate in July, we should run into August, and perhaps stop the grouse shooting.

I cannot possibly comment on the summer recess any further than I have done. I agree that a debate on the coal industry is a good idea, but my hon. Friend knows that there is a shortage of time. He also knows that the Government have been active in seeking to protect third-world countries, and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister of Agriculture have been working hard to co-ordinate the Government's approach on these matters—with some success, I hope. I cannot offer a debate in the near future, but International Development questions are on Wednesday.

May I direct the attention of the Leader of the House to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was published last weekend, on what can only be described as the disgraceful fiasco surrounding the private finance initiative forerunner—the Skye bridge toll contract.? The report says some damning things about previous Ministers and people who continue to be civil servants.

There will obviously be a response from the Scottish Office in due course and an opportunity for a debate, but may I none the less draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that I prayed against the toll order—the Invergarry-Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Toll Order (Variation) Order 1997? To be fair, the Government introduced it in good faith, although it has not yet been possible to secure a debate on the Floor of the House or in Committee on the issue.

Given the damning nature of the PAC report, does the Leader of the House agree that we should debate the order with alacrity, so that Ministers can rehearse the background to what is an extremely sorry situation for my constituents?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I realise that he understands the problems that the Government have—that was the situation we inherited. As he acknowledges, the Government will study the PAC report carefully and put out a formal response. The lessons from the Skye bridge have already informed our best practice guidance for subsequent public-private partnerships, but there is certainly no room for complacency. I shall consider the specific matter of the order, without any promise of a debate, and I shall be back in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the timing of the debate on the national health service, especially as this year is its 50th anniversary? Furthermore, the debate will take place a day before an important 40th anniversary—my birthday—and the Department of Health is to produce a document stating that life begins at 40. We should celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS on the Floor of the House, because it is one of the important issues that underline the difference between Labour Members and Conservative Members. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on allowing time for the NHS to be debated on the Floor of the House.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed this debate. It is important that we recognise the 50th anniversary of the NHS, and, as he points out, there is a great difference in approach between the parties. We should never forget that the creation of the NHS was opposed by the Conservative party, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking forward to the debate, and to getting a few facts on the record.

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the urgency of the matter of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the procedure used by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)? Regardless of the merits of the subject that was being inquired into, it has raised profound areas of importance for the operation of Select Committees—indeed, all Committees in this House. Surely it cannot be appropriate for a procedure that is more than 60 years old to be used in respect of Select Committees which were set up fewer than 20 years ago. As the right hon. Lady is hiding behind Sir Thomas Legg's inquiry, will she ask the Prime Minister to reply to my written question, which I tabled more than six weeks ago, asking whether he would extend the scope and terms of reference of the inquiry to include intelligence reports sent to No. 10 Downing street and copies of telegrams sent from Sierra Leone to the Foreign Office, which were copied to 10 Downing street? [HON. MEMBERS: "Line to take."] The Prime Minister has not confirmed that that will fall within the terms of reference of the inquiry.

I have nothing to add on the hon. Gentleman's first, specific point. In terms of his written question, it was made clear from the beginning that it would be perfectly possible for there to be an extension of the terms of reference, if the Legg inquiry wanted that to happen.

Conservative Members made a sedentary intervention about whether the line to take was being put on my pager; I can tell the House that Holland and Mexico are through, and that Belgium is out of the world cup.

The Leader of the House said that she would be having discussions with the Foreign Secretary about this morning's report. Will she urge the Foreign Secretary to make available forthwith the information sought by the Select Committee? We are meeting next Tuesday at 9.30 am, and it would be in the mutual interests of the House and the Government if such documents were made available.

Will my right hon, Friend reflect on the fact that there is a void in our procedures? There should be a fast-track way for Select Committees, when faced with an impasse, to be able to report such matters to the House. I remind her that, because Legg is independent, we have no way of knowing when he will be able to report. The summer recess is coming up, and it would be wholly unsatisfactory for the matter to be put off until the autumn.

Again, I have nothing further to add, except that my understanding of the timing of the Legg committee is that we are hoping that the report will be available next month.

Is the Leader of the House aware that, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I was gravely concerned to learn what transpired at the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on Tuesday 23 June? Does she agree that the archaic procedure which was used could negate and frustrate all the work of the Select Committees of the House of Commons? Select Committees are not independent of the House; they represent the House, and their valuable work could be frustrated on many occasions if an individual member of a Committee chose to use that procedure.

I shall ensure that my Committee gives the matter consideration at the earliest possible date, but does not the Leader of the House believe that it is of such importance that it might be the subject of a special debate on the Floor of the House—before the Procedure Committee considers it?

If the Procedure Committee chooses to look at the matter, I shall consider its report with great interest. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about procedures being somewhat ancient, but he is usually the first to defend our traditional procedures.

Despite the tight timetable, will my right hon. Friend consider squeezing in a debate on occupational health and safety, so that we might discuss the implications of the health and safety report published today by Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines? The report shows that accidents in mines have been under-reported to a substantial degree–52 per cent. If that is the case in the mining industry, which is extremely tightly regulated, it could be much worse in other industries.

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We should all be concerned about occupational health and safety. I was not aware that there has been under-reporting of 52 per cent. That is very alarming. Given that my hon. Friend represents a mining constituency, I understand why he is extremely concerned by that, as we all should be. I cannot promise a debate in the near future, but perhaps my hon. Friend and colleagues with a particular interest in the matter could apply for an Adjournment debate, which would be one way of taking the matter further.

First, may I make it quite plain that the Opposition's support for the Ottawa agreement has never been in doubt? My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made that clear to the Minister of State many months ago.

May I return the right hon. Lady to the subject of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs? Will she, in her capacity as Leader of this House, take on board the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? It is crucial that Select Committee reports are debated. There is no more important Select Committee, nor a more respected Chairman than the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. He has asked the House to give its views. It is the right hon. Lady's duty to find time for a debate, even if we sacrifice a second non-sitting Friday, to ascertain the views of the House. Will she make sure that that is done?

The rather arcane procedure was perfectly legitimately used, but it nevertheless raises many important questions, given that departmental Select Committees were not established until 1979 and that procedure was last used in 1937. Will right hon. Lady, at the very least, give an unequivocal assurance, in her capacity as both Leader of the House and Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, that she will have immediate discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to decide how the matter can best be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, on the Ottawa convention, we look forward to receiving more details about what the Opposition's offer of co-operation means. Obviously it must apply to both Houses, and must not prejudice the hard work on legislation in which Members of this House have been involved over the past year. That is why I said that we needed greater clarification, and why the Prime Minister has written to the Leader of the Opposition.

I have nothing further to say on the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made it plain that the Procedure Committee intended to look at one aspect of the issue. Obviously I look at every Select Committee report, and I always consider what I should be doing. However, when it comes to debates on Select Committee reports, it would normally be for the Liaison Committee to decide. Governments respond to Select Committees. The Select Committee is entitled to make any recommendation it wishes, but, as Leader of the House, I must make a judgment about what business should be conducted on the Floor of the House.

rose—

Order. I am going to move on now, because I have the minority party interest to consider in this House.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you are more than aware, there has been much comment in the House on the Government's policy of financially discriminating against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland when they seek to attend universities in Scotland. You are also aware, from what the Leader of the House has said, that the issue will shortly come back before this House.

In the House on 23 June, in column 821 of Hansard,the Scottish Minister responsible said that the number of applicants to Scottish universities from the rest of the UK was down to 33,081. The following day, the Prime Minister said:

"the number of English students applying to Scottish universities is up, not down. It is actually 33,000."—[Official Report, 24 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 1047.]

Even in this Government, "down" cannot mean "up". This matter is very important, and I wonder whether you have had any requests for a statement from the Scottish Office or No.10 to clarify it. If not, is it not reasonable for the House to expect clarification before we attend to this important matter next week?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am not responsible for policy matters or for comments made by various Ministers. If he believes that there is a discrepancy, he can pursue the matter by raising it with the Ministers concerned, but he should raise no further points of order. I am not responsible for Ministers' comments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find a way to raise the matter with the two Ministers concerned or via the Order Paper.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek guidance on a related issue. I have received a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), which says that the Government do not collect the statistics on which the statements by the Prime Minister and the Scottish Office Minister were based. Thus, other parts of the Government say that they do not collect the figures that allow them to decide whether the figure is up or down. Which should I take as a more authoritative statement: a written answer from a Minister in the relevant Department; or an oral answer from the Prime Minister to the House?

Why does not the hon. Gentleman have an Adjournment debate and get the Minister at the Dispatch Box to sort it out?