I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the most important environmental issue of our time. The threats and challenges posed by climate change do not fit comfortably into the conventional time scales of domestic politics: significant changes of policy do not have immediate effects but without such changes we will continue to walk into the unknown, facing the prospect of unprecedented social and environmental disaster in the first half of the next century.

Climate change is an issue that needs to be dealt with urgently, not only because the clock is already ticking but because, as each day goes by, the scale of the problem is steadily increasing. New research on the availability of the world's oil reserves has highlighted the need for urgent action.

I pay tribute to the work of right hon. and hon. Members who have already made outstanding contributions to the politics of climate change. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as Secretary of State for the Environment, ensured that the implications of climate change were understood by the previous Government.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister ensured that our Government provided international leadership at the Kyoto conference through his tireless work in seeking agreement on the protocol from powerful nations whose natural interests did not automatically coincide.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is admired by environmentalists both in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union for his detailed understanding of the wider implications of climate change and his dogged determination to secure the implementation of the necessary policy changes.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for his work on the issue and in particular for his recent establishment of the all-party globe group—and I congratulate him on his recent election to the Welsh Assembly.

As tomorrow is polling day for the European elections, I pay tribute to the present Conservative Member of the European Parliament for Surrey who, in his capacity as president of Globe International, has ensured that climate change has been widely debated in the European Parliament and in the legislatures of many other countries. Sadly, he is not a candidate in tomorrow's elections. Had he been so, it is difficult to imagine which of the two Conservative parties he would have represented. Offering a choice of two Conservative parties is taking the belief in freedom of choice to remarkable extremes: it is freedom of choice with a vengeance, and I suspect that the emphasis will be very much on the vengeance after tomorrow's elections.

Climate change was first identified as an issue of international political significance at the Rio Earth summit in 1992, as a result of which 174 countries signed the framework convention on climate change, the substance of which allowed for a voluntary target of restoring the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000.

As a result of the evidence produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community, the Kyoto conference of December 1997 established a protocol, including a legal agreement under which the developed countries would reduce their emissions of the six main greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and nitrous oxide—to 5.2 per cent. below 1990 levels in the period from 2008 to 2012.

The international scientific community concluded that if no action were taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would rise by between 1 deg and 3.5 deg by the end of the next century. That statistic will not excite the electorate in an election campaign, but it nevertheless represents the biggest increase in temperature on this planet since the ice age 10,000 years ago.

For those who are sceptical of scientists' ability to make such predictions, I would simply point out that in the past 10 years we have experienced seven of the hottest years since records began in 1860. Climate change is with us now. I repeat that the consensus of the scientific community is that the almost exponential growth in carbon emissions brought about by our burning of fossil fuels throughout the past 200 years, and particularly in the past 100 years, is largely responsible for those temperature increases.

Climate change may not be the most exact term and perhaps we should be speaking of climate instability or climate volatility, because if no action is taken we will experience a dramatic rise in sea levels, by between 15 and 95 cm, as the polar ice caps melt. I calculate that that would result in the loss of virtually the whole of East Anglia and the fenlands, representing about 35 Conservative seats at the last count. I note the presence of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns); his seat is on the list of those that would be flooded.

The whole pattern of the world's weather will change, increasing the likelihood of heatwaves, floods, droughts and storms, and intensifying the process of desertification in certain parts of the world, so that many millions of people will no longer be able to grow their own food.

The availability and distribution of water supplies will change unpredictably, with disastrous consequences for agriculture, and biodiversity will be lost as the habitats of rare and vulnerable creatures are destroyed. The economic costs will be enormous, as many insurance companies are now beginning to realise, and the impoverishment or displacement of whole populations will lead to refugee crises of a kind that the world has not yet experienced.

It therefore seems sensible to take the necessary precautions now, to avoid those unpredictable consequences later. I reiterate my recognition of the preparatory work done by the previous Government, and congratulate the present Government not only on the international leadership shown in helping to negotiate the agreement at Kyoto, but on the speed with which policy has been developed.

It is significant that we are now committed not only to the 12.5 per cent. target—our legally binding share of the European Union's Kyoto target—but to our manifesto commitment to a domestic target of a 20 per cent. cut in CO, emissions. To their credit, the Government have moved swiftly in outlining the framework of policies that might achieve that.

The October 1998 consultation paper on climate change was preceded by the White Paper on transport, and followed last month by the White Paper on sustainable development. There have also been important Government statements on renewable energy, the review of energy sources for power generation and the recent consultation paper on fuel poverty.

The recommendations of Lord Marshall's report, which led to the establishment of the climate change levy in the 1999 Budget, as well as other measures in that Budget, will also in time play a significant part in the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the time for talk is now over; it is time for action and implementation.

In response to the admirable range of measures that the Government have already proposed or implemented, I shall raise a series of further points for consideration. First, it is crucial that the Government make clear the nature and status of the 20 per cent. domestic target. It is not legally binding, but it is politically binding. Our election manifesto said:

"We will lead the fight against global warming, through our target of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO₂ emissions by the year 2010".

Last month's White Paper on sustainable development talks about moving towards a domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction, and I fear that there is a slight shift of emphasis there. We need clarification, because the target will determine the range of future policies not only in the first decade of the next century but beyond. It should now be possible to set interim targets for a Parliament, with strategic targets for the longer term.

Secondly, transport contributes about 23 per cent. of total emissions. The White Paper on integrated transport produced some excellent ideas around which a new consensus on transport policy can be built, but we are waiting for the means to implement many of those ideas. For example, our attitude to traffic growth is crucial, because we need to clarify the precise extent to which we aim not only to reduce the predicted growth in traffic but to reverse it. I welcome recent ministerial statements confirming the intention to achieve a genuine reduction in absolute terms.

Thirdly, the White Paper refers to a target of generating 10 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2010. Subsequent statements have implied that that may not be quite such a precise target, so I draw the attention of the House to what has already been achieved elsewhere— for example, in Denmark, where 5 per cent. of electricity is already generated from renewables, and a much tougher target of 20 per cent. has been set for 2010.

A recent report by Greenpeace argues the case for the development of an offshore wind industry, which it says could provide 30,000 jobs. The expansion of renewable forms of energy is no longer a question of technological limitation; it is almost entirely a question of political will.

Fourthly, there is the question of energy efficiency. Four private Members' Bills on the subject have come before the House recently. The Energy Efficiency Bill and the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill received Government support, but were blocked by Opposition Members. We have to ask ourselves how much longer we can endure a system for dealing with private Members' Bills which allows the infantile antics of a single eccentric Back Bencher to block proposals that are widely considered on both sides of the House to be sensible and positive.

I urge the Government to explore every possible means of incorporating the eminently sensible proposals in those two Bills into other legislation at an early stage. I hope also that they will reconsider the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill in the context of preparing the climate change programme later this year.

I welcome the Government's support for the Fuel Poverty and Energy Conservation Bill, and also the recent consultation paper on fuel poverty. There is an urgent need for co-ordination of all the Government's programmes dealing with fuel poverty and energy efficiency along the lines proposed in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill. It may not be possible at this stage to propose such an ambitious programme, but the fact remains that energy efficiency programmes produce long-term savings after an initial short-term investment. Moreover, where they are specifically designed to alleviate fuel poverty, such programmes emphasise the point that the policies of social justice and the policies of environmental protection are in most cases two sides of the same coin.

Before leaving the subject of energy efficiency, I must point out the continuing anomaly whereby VAT is still levied on most energy-efficient materials. It is particularly important that the Government seek to extend the very welcome VAT exemption that they have already introduced for the home energy efficiency scheme to all energy-saving materials.

My hon. Friend has been very candid and well informed in speaking to the House, but how can we duck the question that to achieve those objectives, nuclear capacity will be needed?

If over the past 50 years a fraction of the public investment that has been made in developing nuclear energy had been applied to developing renewable energy and energy conservation, we would not now need nuclear energy. I think that there is a future role for nuclear energy, but all kinds of questions surround that role, and I do not think that it will be as large as the role that nuclear power now plays. I repeat that at the moment, for reasons of safety and sustainability, I do not believe that there is a strong argument for an expansion of nuclear power.

On the domestic front, the climate change levy is one of the most important economic instruments at the Government's disposal. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to be congratulated on the way in which he and Lord Marshall have successfully developed a consensus behind the concept of the levy. That is not to deny that there are many issues still to be resolved. There will be some lively discussions between the Treasury and the different industrial sectors before agreement is finally reached.

In that context, I draw attention to renewables, to combined heat and power, to the recycling of the revenue from the levy into energy efficiency, and to the need to protect small businesses. If the levy is to be generally accepted as a sensible measure, it must operate with consistency. It would be inconsistent if renewable forms of electricity were subject to the levy to the same extent as other forms, as that would undermine the part of the industry that, by definition, is contributing to the solution rather than causing the problem. A similar case can be made for combined heat and power because of the additional efficiency of CHP plants, although clearly such plants generate significant emissions.

The Government have been at pains to stress the revenue neutrality of the whole operation of recycling revenues. Some £50 million has been set aside for investment in energy efficiency schemes, and there is a strong case for increasing that allocation. It would be self-defeating if the demand for investment in energy efficiency schemes could not be met because of arbitrary limits on the share of climate change levy revenues to be recycled. In the long run, of course, recycling the revenues into energy efficiency could be more productive than simply providing national insurance rebates. However, the key aim underlying the levy must be to deliver whatever form of recycling of revenues will achieve the most effective reduction in CO₂ emissions.

Although the domestic programme is important, when the Government draw up their final strategy, we must accept that whatever they can achieve domestically depends on international developments. However radical our local programme in this country might be, global climate change will not be halted or even slowed down without international agreement. In no other context is the limitation of the power of the nation state in today's inter-dependent world more obvious, or the need for international co-operation through international institutions more important.

Therefore, I wish to comment on the state of negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, which will be enforced only when the signatory nations choose to ratify it. Currently, there is a problem with the position of the United States and of the major blocs representing the developing countries. The Americans will not agree to reduce emissions unless the Chinese and others agree to a reciprocal reduction, while the developing countries do not see why they should have to prejudice the chance of economic growth when the problem of climate change has been created by emissions from the industrial countries. It is crucial that we find a way forward to which the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians and the African nations can agree.

In many analysts' opinion, a policy of contraction and convergence provides the way out of the logjam. Under such a policy, each nation would be allocated a quota of emissions based on population, and set in the context of agreed environmental limits. Over time, industrial nations would be required gradually to reduce emissions, while developing countries would be permitted gradually to increase theirs, until a point was reached at which the emissions quotas of all countries were relatively equal.

That seems to provide the only practical and principled resolution of the conflicting interests of the developed world and the developing world, based on equal rights for all human beings. I urge the Government to present the case for contraction and convergence as a realistic means of facilitating the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I commend the research conducted by the Global Commons Institute in developing that model.

Another issue related to the Kyoto protocol has to do with the so-called flexibility mechanisms, and in particular with the use of emissions trading, whereby countries can buy pollution credits from other countries. Realistically, that is a necessary device to enable the United States to ratify the protocol and achieve some progress in reducing emissions. However, unless a framework of contraction and convergence is agreed, there remains the problem of the proportion of any country's total emission reductions that can be achieved through emissions trading. Above a specific figure—50 per cent., for example—it would be unlikely that any global emissions reduction would be achieved, as countries would merely buy and sell each other's permissions to emit. Emissions trading can provide an incentive to reduce emissions, but it could also be a device to defer indefinitely the reduction of emissions. To avoid the latter possibility, it is essential that a policy of contraction and convergence is established in advance of agreeing an emissions trading regime.

I have spoken widely about the domestic and international dimensions of the policy changes needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Some people will say that it is an unnecessarily complex, bureaucratic and cumbersome set of responses to a single scientific assertion—that accumulated carbon deposits are the direct cause of climate change—and ask what would happen if that theory were to be disproved in a few years' time.

My answer would be simple. Even if the collective wisdom of the intergovernmental panel on climate change were subsequently to be disproved, and even if the political judgment of almost every nation in the world were to be reversed, it would still make absolute sense to start now to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels because, by definition, they will not last for ever. If sustainable development means anything, it surely means that we do not leave the next generation without the means to power factories or heat homes, schools or hospitals.

The finite nature of fossil fuels is most evident with oil. Industrial progress and economic growth in the 20th century have been built on the assumption of infinite supplies of cheap and accessible oil. Empires have been built on the back of cheap oil, and wars fought to maintain its supply. As older oil fields dried up, new ones were discovered and it was assumed that the process would continue indefinitely.

Until recently, it was assumed that current reserves of oil would be plentiful until about 2050. Unfortunately, some of the latest research—and I refer to the work of Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere, published in the past few months—indicates that that assumption was based on inaccurate figures generated by a dubious methodology that stemmed from the need of oil companies and oil-producing nations artificially to inflate their reserves for their own political and economic purposes. Global oil production is now forecast to peak before 2010.

There are two consequences of that. First, it is inevitable that the price of crude oil will start to rise, as has happened quite dramatically in the past few months. Secondly, given that North sea production will start to peak even earlier, probably within the next two years, in the early years of the next century the industrialised world will once again be largely dependent on oil from the middle east. Therefore, the geopolitics of the next century will allow only two scenarios: either we start now drastically to reduce our consumption of oil through energy conservation, the exploitation of renewable forms of energy and the development of alternative sources of fuel, or we find ourselves involved in a semi-permanent conflict with Iraq—or another country—throughout the early years of the next century.

To avoid the worst effects of climate change and the possibility of future military conflicts fought in a vain attempt to continue the illusion of infinite supplies of cheap oil, we must initiate now a radical programme of energy conservation, renewables and the development of alternative sources of fuels.

I am sorry that I missed the very start of my hon. Friend's speech, but he has concentrated on the role of producers of energy. Will he comment on the role of consumers? In my constituency, consumers have attempted to form a co-operative so that they can buy renewable energies. Is that not a valuable addition to the movement away from our traditional treatment of our climate?

That is an extremely important point. People's willingness to act depends on the extent to which they understand the scale of the problem, which in turn depends on the extent to which the Government are prepared to introduce a significant programme of political education on these matters. My gut feeling is that many people in Britain have a general understanding that something called global warming is taking place, but that they have not yet understood fully the scale of the problem. There is a major responsibility on the Government and industry not to shy away from the reality of the situation. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I know that many similar bottom-up schemes exist elsewhere in the country, where people understand the need to take action at local level.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that we developed a sensible policy towards Iraq, which probably has the largest oil reserves in the world?

I endorse my hon. Friend's comment.

The time has come for us to see the Government's climate change programme in action. I have a number of questions for my hon. Friend the Minister, in the hope that he will be able to clarify certain matters.

First, will he confirm that the reference to the domestic target for CO₂ reductions included in the White Paper on sustainable development does not represent a shift in the Government's position away from the general election manifesto commitment and from the Prime Minister's statement? Are we still committed to the 20 per cent. target and will the climate change programme include a clear statement showing how we can achieve it? Secondly, will the Government adopt the underlying principles of the contraction and convergence model as the basis for future international negotiations as they seek both to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to achieve international agreement for the years beyond 2010?

Thirdly, will the Minister tell us the latest thinking on the most effective means of recycling revenues from the climate change levy? How will it be used to avoid harming the development of combined heat and power and a viable renewable energy industry? Fourthly, does he accept recent research by Colin Campbell and others that has been adopted in the International Energy Agency's planning assumptions? Does he accept that that creates added impetus for urgent action for a planned and phased withdrawal from our over-dependence on fossil fuels?

It is to the enormous credit of the Government that they—far more than any previous Government—have committed themselves to the objective of sustainable development that will meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The way in which the Government respond to the threats and challenges posed by climate change, and the many difficult decisions that will need to be taken over coming years and months, will present the major test of how successfully they have achieved their objective.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for making this debate possible. I am delighted to be able to speak briefly. I am not a scientist and it is five years since I last spoke in a science debate. I doubt whether non-scientists should speak in science debates more than once in a lustrum. I may be the sole survivor in the House of a seminar on climate change that was mounted by the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, 10 years ago at 12 Downing street. The sole American observer present said at the seminar's conclusion that he doubted whether any other country could have assembled as much political authority and scientific knowledge in a single room.

The hon. Gentleman issued a valuable brief in advance of his debate and I am grateful to him, although I do not intend to speak on that brief. I wish to telegraph a series of largely unrelated points. Winding-up speeches may follow the example of Burke, for whom all the arguments were marshalled in advance like soldiers, although that is generally more suitable for opening speeches. Alternatively, they may follow the example of Fox, who could extemporise at the drop of a hat and genuinely respond to a debate. The Government contain winding-up speakers of both types. On the whole, Foxes make better winding-up speakers and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), with whom I frequently discuss matters on a wide variety of subjects, will follow the example of Fox.

For the benefit of the ignorant among us, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what a lustrum is?

I hesitate to seek to educate the hon. Gentleman, of whom I am very fond, but I said that I had spoken once in five years on science. A lustrum is a period of five years. It is the matching word for decade.

What I have said about wind-up speeches is relevant to environmental change, a subject on which at the end of conferences and debates policy makers from all countries tend to sound as if they had prepared their concluding remarks in advance and then fitted the facts of the conference around them. I said that I would telegraph some points. First, integrated assessments are all very well, but they are only as good as the sum of their parts. Secondly, the buying of surplus from poorer countries—what treaties call flexibility—may not prompt investment by rich countries in energy saving.

Thirdly, the most ambitious targets for energy saving are being set by countries, including the United Kingdom, that have the lowest public sector expenditure on research and development in this area. We had quite high public sector expenditure on R and D during the 1970s, when there was the oil threat, but it has receded. The countries that invest the most in public sector R and D, such as Japan, may have identified a global commercial opportunity that underlies that investment.

Fourthly, new energy sources are grand, but they may bring ancillary problems. For example, as much solar energy could be created in Egypt in a space one two-hundredths of the area covered by the Aswan dam and its hinterland, but the storage problem would have to be solved. There is a moral lesson there: we lost out on the on-land wind issue in the UK seven years ago because the environmental factors were not embraced at the same time as the technology.

Fifthly, 95 per cent. of population growth in the next generation will be in cities. Sixthly, we are confronted by massive problems of biological invasion through trade, air passengers, military mobilisation and mail. Some 54 million air passengers enter the United States, and 180,000 are biologically infested. Of the 80 million Mexican road passengers, 201,000 are biologically infested. Of 40 million Mexican foot passengers, 55,000 are infested. Of 95 million road passengers from Canada, 322,000 are biologically infested. Four per cent. of parcel mail is infested.

Air passenger growth of 15 per cent. means that passengers may be a much larger problem than freight, although the Asian long-haul—I mean longhorn—beetle, which is the greatest current threat in the UK, enters in wooden pallets that must be replaced by plastic. The Mediterranean fruit fly has already been eradicated 17 times in California at a cost of $111 million, but climate change can alter the entire global map of Mediterranean fruit fly incidence.

Seventhly, cloud distribution, with its uncertainties, could have twice the impact of CO₂. We do not yet understand the basic science and we need much more understanding of water vapour in cloud water feedback. Eighthly, few ecological experiments are taking place. The soil experiments in the ecotron under the auspices of the National Environmental Research Council are demonstrating how much we still have to learn. I do not want to enter the debate on soil and genetically modified foods, but soil is a Cinderella and I believe that we have no soil legislation. The ecotron experiments show how effects vary markedly depending on whether the CO₂ is ambient or elevated.

Finally, let me mention three unrelated public policy issues that emphasise the complexity and consequences of these matters. First, the Master of the Rolls is interested in the establishment of an environmental court. It may be imagined that such a court could survive with a handful of environmental experts, but a minimum of a dozen would be required.

Secondly, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs will meet in private this afternoon to discuss the problem of fuel smuggling into Northern Ireland. The facts are stark. The terms of Kyoto mean that the UK has a reduction target of 12.5 per cent., while the European Union average is 8 per cent. The Republic of Ireland need not reduce at all, but can increase by 13 per cent., making a 25 per cent. difference between the Irish and ourselves. It is no wonder that there is so massive a discrepancy between fuel taxes in the two jurisdictions.

Smuggling is a natural consequence, and law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland are being turned into law-breakers unless they wish to go out of business. I say gently to the Minister that the Government's response currently verges on the casual as the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Office seem to seek to distance themselves from the predicament, implying that the problem is the other Department's responsibility. So much for joined-up Government.

My third point is a related tax matter. We are all going to be deluged soon with the views of industries on the climate levy. I have not been subjected to any briefings yet, but I suspect that one conclusion that will emerge is that there is a limit to how far industry can carry that particular freight. Although the Government are reluctant to tax us as individuals, if they wish to change behaviour, they will have to consider taxing individuals at last.

Finally, I pay tribute to Imperial college in my constituency, which has assembled 120 academic staff dealing with such issues, with more than 1,000 students, of whom more than half are postgraduate. MSc students can take a shot at addressing the integrated problems of a green society in 2050 after 10 elaborate panel sessions. As an Oxonian, I am necessarily sad that Imperial has temporarily overtaken Oxford as a university; but as its constituency Member I am intensely proud of its contribution, some of which was generously made to me in preparation for this debate.

It is always a delight to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whose contributions are immensely enjoyable. As a scientist, I wish that all non-scientists were as well informed as him. I shall go to my bed tonight wiser for knowing what a lustrum is.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for making this debate possible. I congratulate him on his remarks with almost all of which I agreed. The one with which I did not agree I shall deal with later. I have four brief points.

First, climate change is happening. It does not matter why but it is. One might argue that it is due to cyclical effects or greenhouse gases. One might be a proponent of chaos theory and believe that it is caused by a butterfly flapping its wings a hundred years ago, but the fact is that it is inevitable and it will affect us, so we had better start planning for its effects over at least the next two generations. By planning, I mean starting to adapt for the inevitable changes. Clinicians, architects, planners and agriculturalists must get involved in the debate to work out the shape of the world in the next 50 years. Politicians and aid workers must focus on the inevitable changes around the world.

Secondly, the weight of the evidence suggests that greenhouse gas production is linked to the fact of climate change. When they see an animal squashed in the road, most people assume that it was hit by a car without needing to see the car doing the damage. Similarly, the weight of the evidence suggests that greenhouse gases are producing climate change. The wise man, or wise politician, therefore starts to take account of that fact and to plan practical strategies for dealing with it. The American auto industry can object as much as it likes; it can argue that climate change is caused by cyclical effects if it wishes—but the weight of evidence suggests that we should address the issue.

Thirdly, the public like to talk about green issues and watch green documentaries. They may even be prepared to recycle a few bottles and newspapers, but they have shown little sign of being seriously prepared to change their behaviour to address green issues. The previous Government introduced the fuel escalator, which this Government have rightly continued. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions and dug some information out of the Library on car use, car ownership, miles driven and petrol consumption over the past 10 years. There is not the slightest evidence that the public have changed their driving or petrol consumption habits one iota over that time. There is no correlation with price or the highlighting of green issues in the political arena. According to the evidence in the public domain, not one fewer gallon of petrol has been consumed, not a mile fewer driven and not one lower fuel consumption car bought.

The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) was with me in America a year ago. Does the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) agree that the American approach, of producing cleaner cars, is the way forward because taxes have not persuaded people not to drive?

I agree. Cleaner cars are vital and must be encouraged. I recommend that the Minister urgently consider the work on fuel cells of the company Zevco, not least because it has promised to produce them in my constituency if its developments are successful. The Government will have to change from taxes such as road fuel duty to more direct and huge taxes on dirty cars with high petrol consumption to force people to buy smaller, more economical cars. We must consider road charges because if people can see a more direct link between the money that goes out of their pockets and the miles that they drive, they may be more willing to take account of such issues.

Fourthly, given that climate change is happening, that we believe that greenhouse gases are involved and that the public are unwilling to change their habits, we must come up with more practical strategies to reduce greenhouse gas production. I have reached my difference with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. I believe that one of the most practical things that we can do is to increase our nuclear energy production. I can see no alternative. No single change that we could make could so dramatically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the air.

If the debate is shifting towards the role of nuclear power in responding to climate change, how does my hon. Friend propose that the additional waste that would be produced by its expansion be handled, given that we have not got a clue what to do with the mountains of waste generated over the past 40 years?

I disagree with my hon. Friend's last point. We have got a clue. Scientists have suggested a range of waste strategies but the nature of the debate has not allowed us to acknowledge the fact that safe tools are available if we have the political will to use them. A kilowatt of nuclear energy produces 4g of carbon dioxide, but a kilowatt of gas energy 446g, of oil energy 818g, and of coal energy 955g.

As an engineer—mechanical, electrical and civil—I have a vested interest in my hon. Friend's observations. The folly of his argument is to pretend that emissions resulting from nuclear energy justify expansion of the industry. That is misleading, because one of the problems that we are struggling with is the life cycle of the energies available. Life cycle analysis of nuclear energy production shows that its problems far exceed anything from renewable forms of energy. To take only one aspect or benefit of an industry is to mislead the House as to the absolute benefit of that source.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, but the practical benefits and possibilities of using renewable energies are exaggerated. For example, we can calculate the amount of energy that can be extracted from the wind—even whether we can extract 100 per cent. of it—and work out how many wind generators we would need to produce a certain amount of energy. We know what the polluting effects of tidal energy are. If one takes the energy out of the tides, the sediment settles and that can be as polluting to marine life as any oil slick. There are practical limitations to renewable energies.

I put it to my hon. Friends that a 10 per cent. increase—from the current 30 per cent. to 40 per cent.—in the amount of energy that we generate from nuclear power would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering our atmosphere in the UK by about 20 million tonnes a year. That would meet our Kyoto guidelines in one fell swoop. We cannot ignore that possibility. However, I do not propose that we act immediately and that we start tomorrow and force it on the public.

In relation to that theoretical 10 per cent. increase in nuclear energy and its impact on the reduction of emissions, has my hon. Friend calculated how much that 10 per cent. increase would add to our existing plutonium stockpile?

I have not made that calculation.

Is not the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) another reason why the Government should reply to the House of Lords recommendation that there should be an engineered deep repository? In his winding-up speech, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could refer to the House of Lords recommendation and to what the Government's attitude is likely to be—at least in respect of timing.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the issues on which we need an answer.

However, I do not propose forcing matters on the public. I propose that we open our minds to the possibility that a solution is ready for practical implementation. We should start to have a full debate with the public on that issue. We need unprecedented openness from the industry and from scientists. As someone who began his scientific career working on a reactor site and who also did his postgraduate degree on a reactor site, I have a familiarity with the industry that other right hon. and hon. Members may not have.

When I did my research, I worked seven days a week-like most PhD students. I used to climb happily over the security fence and work alone in the reactor hall and the laboratories—that was in the early 1970s, which were simpler times. My student friends used to do the same. We knew what we were doing and felt confident about it and confident about the technology. People who work in the industry have that degree of familiarity and find it difficult to understand why other people cannot see the benefits that are available from it.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most people are quite happy to sail 20 miles across the channel, or travel under it, to France, where there are about 20 nuclear sites? The people of France are not suffering any devastating down side from that; indeed, they are probably doing rather well for cheap energy.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. My constituents may not realise that they live about 25 miles over the water from those reactors. So far, they have fortunately suffered no side effects.

I want that degree of familiarity with the debate and the issues to register more widely in the public domain. We could then make a sensible and objective decision as to whether we want to increase nuclear power as a percentage of our overall energy strategy. I offer that idea to the Minister as one suggestion for what we might do. Let us start talking again about that issue and put it back on the agenda. Let us consider whether it can be part of the package of measures that we introduce in the future.

The debate has been extremely interesting. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on initiating it on this timely occasion. He put a number of questions that he hoped that the Minister would answer when he winds up. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) hoped that the Minister would ad lib a bit in order to respond properly to the debate. Some additional matters have now been brought to the Minister's attention to which I hope that he will be able to respond, because some significant issues have been raised. Perhaps we need to continue the debate in a wider context, as the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) requested.

Hon. Members who have spoken so far seem to agree that climate change is real, dangerous and preventable—or at least containable. Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Government's input to the international scene—for example, at the Kyoto and Buenos Aires conferences and in the plethora of reviews and consultation documents that have been published since. There have been so many reviews that, as an energy spokesman, one needs a special wheelbarrow to carry them around in.

Although I welcome those reviews, I point out that the missing element is any consequence from them, so I add a further question to those that have already been put to the Minister: how soon can we expect real policy initiatives and changes to be introduced to implement the ideas in the reviews? I remind the Minister that the target for emissions was to achieve a reduction by 2010 on the baseline of 1990. We are now halfway through that period and, if we need legislation—as we undoubtedly will—together with new taxes, new instructions to the regulators and a public information campaign, all those will take time. Time is leaking away and the opportunities to reach even the legal target—never mind the Labour manifesto target—are becoming harder to achieve.

In some ways the Government have gone the wrong way since they began to take action on climate change. They have slowed down the dash for gas in electricity generation. That means that the rate at which we are making carbon emissions savings has slowed down and will slow down more. The Government have cut value added tax on domestic fuel; that has the consequence that more people—especially those in low-income households—will be able to afford to burn more fuel. Indeed, that is why the cut was made. One can well understand why that was done; I welcome action to relieve fuel poverty. However, the Government have not, at the same time, reduced VAT on insulation and other technologies that could prevent the wasteful consumption of fuel.

The Government have talked about an integrated transport policy, but we understand from the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no time in the legislative timetable to introduce such a policy. At present, there is no money for that. As the hon. Member for Bury, North pointed out, the Government have stood idly by while private Members' Bills that could have helped have been blocked. In the case of the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, the Government offered active spoken support, but they rejected the Bill.

I urge the Government to consider three sectors in which we need to make progress. The first is traffic and transport, which contribute about one quarter of the carbon emissions in this country. It is good to hear that, at speaking engagements throughout the country, the Minister for the Environment and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions continue to express a commitment to road traffic reduction—that is, an absolute reduction in road traffic. However, in the House, the words have been more woolly and imprecise. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will be able to say that what was in the Labour party's manifesto and what Ministers say in the country to sympathetic audiences about an absolute reduction in road traffic remain the Government's commitment. I hope that we shall hear that said clearly in the House.

One of the paradoxes of the debate on climate change is that it focuses to such an extent on transport and traffic, when such factors contribute only one quarter of the UK's carbon emissions. We spend much time worrying about traffic taxes, road pricing and similar measures when we know not only that such measures are unpopular with the public, as the hon. Member for South Thanet indicated, but that they are unlikely to be effective. However, there is little political debate or policy preparation on other major sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom.

Chief among those is electricity generation, which is responsible for a greater proportion of carbon dioxide emissions in this country than traffic—some 30 per cent. I urge the Minister to produce plans and a timetable for a comprehensive energy policy. In the context of the renewables review, I have submitted evidence to the Department of Trade and Industry on the way in which I believe we should proceed. I shall spend a couple of minutes detailing that approach and exploring the "nuclear versus the rest" debate, which has been aired this morning.

We have to develop a strong conservation option: we must stop wasting power and electricity. Such a policy is feasible and the Government should set a target that looks further ahead than 2010. Much of the target setting to 2010 consists of a push here and a squeeze there without any fundamental changes being contemplated. The assumption appears to be that, come 2010, we will reach a plateau beyond which it is not necessary to go; but in fact, after 2010, we shall have to take accelerating and increasingly stiff measures to speed up carbon reduction—which means that we need to develop a strong conservation option.

We have to stabilise and then reduce overall energy use—for example, the use of electric power—while retaining the country's competitiveness and the quality of life of our population. There is nothing difficult about that—we need only apply existing technologies and techniques. Many technical assessments state that half the energy used in the domestic sector is wasted and could be saved by the application of simple, state-of-the-art and currently available measures. Were we to reduce domestic energy consumption by 50 per cent., we would achieve more than could be achieved through the nuclear option.

In addition to conservation, which by 2050 could result in a reduction to only about 70 per cent. of current electricity consumption while maintaining competitiveness and fully implementing any new technology that can be dreamt of, we have to develop a strong renewables option. Using existing, known technologies, we could reach 25 per cent. of electricity generation by use of renewables by 2020, and 50 per cent. by 2050. We should try to achieve that.

We should look at the international scene and learn from other countries that are ahead of us in this respect—countries that currently export renewables technology. Japan has already been mentioned, but I shall refer to Denmark, which supplies 60 per cent. of the world's wind turbine market, thereby enabling both the generation of electricity from renewable sources internationally and the creation of jobs in Denmark. Countries in the developing world, such as China and India, will use increasing amounts of energy, but supplies of coal and oil are not inexhaustible and nor is the atmosphere. Such countries already invest significant sums in renewables: my information is that China already spends more on renewables than the whole of western Europe. A strong indigenous renewables industry would not only be able to exploit such wide open markets, but would help us to achieve our domestic targets.

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's argument in respect of renewables, but are not his figures on potential energy consumption in 2010 based on the assumption that, in 2010, we shall be producing the same sort of things as we produce today, but doing so more efficiently? Is it not true that neither he, nor I, nor anyone else can predict the shape of industry in 2010, what sorts of things we shall be producing, or whether the processes of producing those things will consume large amounts of energy?

Yes, I entirely agree—in this area of policy, almost nothing is predictable from decade to decade. For example, 15 years ago, no one would have predicted that gas would become the preferred fuel for electricity generation. The circumstances might change in future, but even within the existing decision-making framework, technologies are available that could contribute to a solution.

In any case, I suspect that we will all be living in houses, not only in 2010, but in 2050, which is the time scale I am envisaging. There are savings there to be made in the domestic sector, no matter how many computers or unimaginable electronic devices people have. If we act along the lines that I have set out and achieve 50 per cent. of electricity production through renewables, then instead of producing the current annual total of 42 million tonnes of carbon emissions from electricity generation, we could get that figure down to about 10 million tonnes a year. We should be trying to achieve that.

I am not sure whether this is the right debate to discuss the nuclear option, its feasibility and viability. However, I should like to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North—that for 20 or 30 years the nuclear industry was given every pound it wanted for research and development in the search for the perfect, cheap fuel that would save civilisation. That the industry failed to find that fuel is at least open for discussion. Had similar sums been invested in other technologies, we might be in a better position today.

The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster about wind power and the environment were absolutely true, but it must be emphasised that every energy-generating technology, including the existing electricity generation and distribution network, has an environmental impact of some sort. There are about 100,000 steel electricity pylons in this country; temporarily disregarding the engineering or the science of doing so, by putting a 1 MW wind turbine on each pylon, we could generate three times this country's current energy consumption. Even though we might have stopped noticing the environmental impact of current technologies, it does not mean that impact does not exist.

I hope the Minister will tell us today that the Government are going to be bold: that at the hard end they will examine taxation and legislation, that at the soft end they will consider regulation and information, and that they will work hard to change popular culture. I am far more optimistic about our ability to change popular culture than the hon. Member for South Thanet. Everybody now wears a seat belt, not because that is the law, but because popular culture has accepted the wearing of seat belts; and everyone is now so keen to recycle paper that the market is permanently swamped and we cannot get rid of the stuff. Once people accept that doing something is good, it can catch on remarkably quickly.

We need regulation and we must ensure that new energy supply companies have strong rules. For example, it would be good if ESCOs administered home MOTs for energy wastage, or if they were required to provide two-way meters so that micro-renewables could be applied at point of use. Many things could be done and in my evidence to the renewables review I made some suggestions to the Government.

I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will support private Members' legislation that is neutral and has a low fiscal impact. I also hope that the Government will introduce a real carbon tax and reinvest that money in renewables and conservation. They should also get the regulators to impress on energy companies the need for conservation and renewables and should work with others to inform the public and to change popular culture. The debate has raised several questions and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them at least.

I thank the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue and for instigating an intelligent and thought-provoking debate. In this country, we are fortunate that the environment, and the specific issue of climate change, are high up the political agenda, unlike in certain other countries. That is due originally to a speech by Baroness Thatcher in the late 1980s, to the work of my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) at the Rio summit, and—in fairness—to the efforts of this Government, through the work of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment in Kyoto and in Buenos Aires.

Some criticisms have been made that we hear much rhetoric and less action, and they were echoed modestly today by some hon. Members. While reviews and consultation are important, it is time—after two years in government—for action. No doubt the Minister will be able to elaborate on the Government's plans for the next two years.

The policies on climate change of the previous Government and of this Government have focused on prevention. They have set targets for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and that is welcome. Indeed, the Government in their manifesto went beyond the requirements to which we signed up in Kyoto, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response to the questions from the hon. Members for Bury, North and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) about a possible shift in the 20 per cent. target.

I wish to raise the issue of adaptation, which is as important as prevention but does not figure as much in the public mind. We could take three approaches to the catastrophic problem facing our planet. We could accept the changes and take no action, but no one in his right mind is prepared to be complacent and take that approach. I have already mentioned the prevention approach, which the previous Government and this Government have sought to undertake through our international commitments and by encouraging other nations to play their part.

Reference has also been made to the United States. I welcome the fact that the US Government had a more positive approach at Buenos Aires, but I have serious misgivings because the US Government are not the US Congress. Any hon. Members who have had dealings with American Congressmen will probably have felt that they were dealing with Neanderthals when it came to the question of climate change and its environmental impact. That is more to do with internal domestic politics in the districts of those Congressmen, who are not prepared to show the courage that Governments in this country have shown in the past decade, and more must be done in that area.

The third approach is the adaptation of human and natural systems to protect society and individuals from the impact of what is happening. The 1996 climate change impacts review group report contains several key responses, and more should be done to ensure that we can adapt to living in a greenhouse world. We must develop more ability to cope with extreme weather-related events, such as storms, floods, landslides and the erosion of our coasts. We must ensure that we have a cohesive policy for managing agriculture to respond to the changing conditions.

It is also crucial to safeguard the public against disease, heatstroke, food poisoning and tanning, with all the problems the latter causes for skin, such as cancer. We must ensure maximum conservation of water resources, especially in the south-east of this country, and we must encourage more exciting and innovative approaches to construction and urban design to minimise the effects of increased temperatures, higher wind speeds and flooding, and to improve energy conservation and the warmth of homes.

Several hon. Members rightly drew attention to the four relevant private Members' Bills before the House. I fully support the ethos behind those Bills and I hope that they will reach the statute book, if necessary through the use of Government time. Energy efficiency, the reduction—preferably the abolition—of fuel poverty, combined heat and light and, as many hon. Members have mentioned, renewable sources of energy are all important. I thank the hon. Member for Bury, North again for what has been, for the House of Commons, a very intelligent debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing this debate on a subject that, as he emphasised, is probably the most important environmental issue facing the world today, and on the knowledgeable and skilful way in which he presented the issues. He demonstrated clearly why he is widely recognised as having great expertise on this subject.

I shall begin by making a few general points about the action the Government are taking to tackle the threat of climate change and then I shall respond briefly to some of the points that have been raised this morning. I acknowledge the approach of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in emphasising the quality of this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown a serious and intelligent approach to the issue. My only difficulty is that the complexity and scale of the issues that have been raised will make it impossible for me to do justice to them in just over 10 minutes. I shall do my best, however.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) challenged me to adopt a Fox approach rather than a Burke approach. I am delighted to hear him supporting the radical rather than the Conservative, and I will do my best. As he will recognise, because he was a Minister for many years dealing with issues of huge importance, certain subjects must be put on the record clearly without extemporising to the degree that some hon. Members would like.

I loved the right hon. Gentleman's references to the problems created by the growth of air traffic and the pests that can now travel from one country to another. He made a delightful slip of the tongue when he referred not to the longhorn beetle but to the long-haul beetle—which is a further illustration of the problem. I noted also the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to Imperial college and his slight ambivalence at the fact that its rising academic success has meant that it has surpassed the record of his former university. I am delighted to inform the House that my former university, Cambridge, remains ahead of both Imperial college and Oxford university and is renowned in the field of science.

Scientific evidence on the rate of climate change is becoming clearer all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North emphasised, records show that, globally, seven of the past 10 years have been the hottest since records began in 1860. Global surface temperatures are increasing at a rate that will exceed anything that has been seen since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The world's most authoritative scientists on the intergovernmental panel on climate change have concluded that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate. There is no doubt that it is getting warmer and there is also no doubt that man-made emissions are contributing to that rise in temperature. This means that, unless we act now, we can expect more flooding, more severe winter gales, more storms and more droughts. The human, social and economic costs could be extremely severe.

The Government have pledged to do what we can to ensure that the impact of climate change is reduced as much as possible. We are playing a leading role in international negotiations, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for acknowledging the Government' s attempts to work with all other countries in this field to achieve satisfactory international agreements.

The Rio earth summit in 1992 demonstrated an international consensus on the need to act, when 154 countries signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change. In Kyoto in 1997, industrialised countries went further, agreeing legally binding targets for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. That was an important and historic step. Of course, we must now move from agreement to implementation. International negotiations are focused on working up the rules and procedures needed for the effective implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

In Buenos Aires last November, the parties agreed a detailed work programme—the Buenos Aires action plan—that sets out all the issues that still need to be resolved. They include: the design of the "Kyoto mechanisms"; the definition of guidelines for reporting emissions and monitoring compliance; and procedures for addressing cases of non-compliance. The United Kingdom is keen to ensure that we make real progress on all those issues and that the negotiations do not get bogged down in a sterile debate between developed and developing countries.

My hon. Friend raised the difficult and important issue of contraction and convergence. It is an interesting idea, but at Buenos Aires neither the developed nor developing countries were ready to sign up to the kinds of targets envisaged by this approach. It will be difficult to match up, given the widely differing conditions in different countries—I think particularly of differing weather patterns and temperatures, which can have a profound effect on the energy mix required in any country—and very real difficulties will need to be factored into any converged emissions target. The idea of contraction and convergence is likely to make an important contribution to the climate change debate in future, however, when negotiations take place on how further greenhouse gas reductions may be achieved equitably. I hope that that is a helpful response to my hon. Friend's comments.

Although the Kyoto protocol sets targets only for developed countries, we should not underestimate the steps that developing countries are also taking to reduce their emissions. Many developing countries are taking domestic action to improve transport technologies and energy efficiency, all of which can be only beneficial to climate change. The United Kingdom is working to engage key developing countries, such as India and China, in a constructive dialogue about how they can build on existing domestic action.

However, developing countries rightly want to see that the developed world is serious about delivering on its promises. There are many options open to developed countries, including the use of the Kyoto mechanisms, to enable them to meet their targets cost effectively. However, we firmly believe that domestic action must form the main means of meeting our Kyoto commitments. I think it will help the House if I outline what we are trying to do in this field.

We have led the way by going beyond our legally binding Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction and setting our much more challenging 20 per cent. domestic goal for reductions in CO₂ emissions rather than the basket of greenhouse gases. In response to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who raised this question, I can confirm that that remains the Government's goal—although all hon. Members will recognise that it is an extremely challenging target. Unless we are successful in implementing the range of policies that I shall describe, that goal will be even harder to achieve.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) asked several questions about the integrated transport policy. He recognised that that policy is critical to achieving significant reductions in CO₂ emissions. Changes to transport taxation announced by the Chancellor that are designed to cut emissions will make a contribution. I refer not only to the continuation of the fuel duty escalator but to a new vehicle excise duty system that benefits those driving smaller, more efficient cars, and changes to the company car tax system designed to remove incentives for people to drive more and to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars.

Speaking as Minister for London, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have introduced powers in the Greater London Authority Bill to enable the mayor of London to introduce a congestion charging and non-residential parking scheme designed not only to discourage the unnecessary use of motor vehicles—particularly in congested areas—but to allow the hypothecated revenue from those charges to be used for specific investment in public transport, to make it easier for people to travel other than by private car. We are taking important practical steps to give effect to the integrated transport White Paper strategy.

The utility reform Bill will assist the Government by including powers to set energy efficiency standards of performance and requiring the gas and electricity companies to encourage and assist customers to use less energy. Meanwhile, we hope that the energy regulator, using the powers under the existing legislation, will continue the successful electricity EESOP scheme and extend it to help gas consumers. The radically improved fuel poverty programme that we announced recently—to which several hon. Members referred—will help to ensure that old people, the disabled, children and people with health difficulties have properly insulated and heated homes. The measure aims primarily to tackle fuel poverty, but it will contribute to reducing carbon emissions in certain cases.

I stress that the programme's main focus is to help those people who suffer seriously from fuel poverty to enjoy higher standards of comfort. I make no apologies for measures that are designed to help the poor to keep warm. It is not acceptable that many people die during the winter because they cannot keep warm. That is a major social responsibility that we must tackle.

That is peanuts compared to the nuclear issue. Will the Minister comment about the vitally important deeply engineered repository?

I was about to come to that. My hon. Friend will recognise that there are a wide range of issues, and I do not accept that the points that I have raised are "peanuts". If we succeed in reducing carbon dioxide emission from motor vehicles, in the home and in buildings through more energy efficient measures and better building regulations—we are reviewing part L of the building regulations—that will be a significant achievement.

The climate change levy will encourage businesses to use energy more efficiently. We recognise the particular concerns of energy-intensive industries and offer the prospect of a significantly lower rate of levy to those sectors that enter into agreements to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions. We are consulting specifically on that issue—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North referred—and we are working to ensure a constructive approach to combined heat and power and renewables as part of the package. That approach is under consultation so I cannot give a more definitive answer today.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to the importance of changing people's attitudes. That is a key element in the Government's £7 million "Are you doing your bit?" publicity campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the Government's response to the House of Lords recommendations on the storage of nuclear waste. The Government will respond to that in due course, and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to write to my hon. Friend about it—

Order. We shall now move on to the next debate.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this debate, which is crucial for the United Kingdom. This morning, however, I speak more particularly as the Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire. It is worth my admitting, before anyone else points it out, that I am a Scot. I was born, bred and educated in Scotland, as I have already pointed out in one or two debates on devolution. Now, I speak not as a Scot but as someone who has spent more than half his life in England. I speak as an honorary Englishman, and as a Member who represents an English constituency.

This debate is vital for my constituents because, in the past two years of constitutional debate and the headlong rush towards devolution for Scotland and Wales, not a word has been said about the English question. England is a slumbering giant who is only now beginning to wake up and think about the English question.

I am delighted to see in his place this morning the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who, 20 or 30 years ago, first raised all these issues in the famous West Lothian question. Unfortunately, he will have to leave the debate later, so we shall not hear his views on the English question, which would be to the point. The West Lothian question remains on the table, unanswered. The Labour Government, in their fixation on Scotland and Wales, have not even tried to address that question and its consequences for England.

Even the recent report by the Select Committee on Procedure, which is grandly entitled "The Procedural Consequences of Devolution", does not mention the English question in its many hundreds of pages. It makes no attempt whatsoever to address the consequences of devolution for my constituents in England. That is a shame, because there is a variety of procedural and structural solutions to the West Lothian question which should have been addressed, and which should be addressed now that Scotland and Wales are, so to speak, out of the way.

Those solutions include a full English Parliament. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who recently produced a book called "The English Parliament". If she is lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will undoubtedly want to expand on that option. Another procedural option is curiously called the in-and-out method. I shall not attempt to deal with all the various options this morning because this is not an academic lecture. We are not discussing the various constitutional possibilities available to us, although I look forward to hearing my right hon. and hon. Friends' solutions to the West Lothian question later in the debate.

The important point is the principle that, since devolution, Members of the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood speak and vote exclusively on Scottish business; to a lesser degree, Members of the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff speak and vote on Welsh matters, and Northern Ireland Members in Stormont will speak and vote on Northern Irish matters. Why, then, should Scottish and Welsh Members come here and speak and vote on English matters? That position is totally illogical and unsustainable. Why should the fate of my constituents in North Wiltshire depend on the peculiar parliamentary arithmetic that includes those people who have chosen to set up their own Parliament in Edinburgh and Assembly in Wales? There is no logic in that, and it is important that this Parliament now addresses that question.

If the solution is that English Members of Parliament come to Westminster to speak and vote exclusively on English matters, as they did before 1707, so be it. That is my personal preference. That would be the price that Scotland and Wales must pay for devolution. If we have English MPs in this place speaking and voting on English matters, there will be important constitutional consequences that we must start to address. Those consequences are the prime reason that the Labour party will not even consider that solution.

First, it is extremely likely that the party in power—the majority party—in England would be different from the majority party in the United Kingdom.

indicated dissent.

The Minister shakes his head. He would be right to say that in this Parliament, of course, there would be a Labour majority in England as there is in Scotland. I shall return to his challenge in a moment.

Labour's fear is that there would be a Conservative majority in England, as there has been for about 90 per cent. of this century, even when there has been an overall Labour majority provided by the Scottish Labour MPs. While we have one Parliament, one Government and one constitution, we in North Wiltshire do not mind being dominated by Labour MPs and a Labour Government even if there is a Conservative majority in England. However, the position is quite different if Scotland and Wales have their own Parliament and Assembly respectively. Why should my constituents in North Wiltshire then be dominated by a Labour Government if there is a Conservative majority in England?

That brings me back to the Minister's indication of dissent a moment ago. If he believes, in his arrogant new Labour manner, that new Labour will have a majority in England for all time, I put to him not the West Lothian question but the Chippenham challenge: he must allow an English Government to be set up, based on the majority of Members of Parliament in England, as he appears to be confident that Labour will dominate that Government as well as the UK Government. Let the Minister put his money where his mouth is and agree to my proposal.

It is clear that if we had English Members of Parliament speaking and voting on English matters in Westminster, the UK Government would not fall every time they lost a Division in the English Parliament. They would want to maintain their power over the UK. The majority in England would effectively form an English Government. Perhaps an English Parliament is too grand an expression, but we could have an English Government. Certain Departments of State, particularly those that have no interest in Scotland and Wales, would then be answerable to English Ministers sitting in this place as part of an English Government, who would match those in Scotland and Wales.

If there were any difference in parity between the English and UK Governments, the position would be no more complex than it would if we had a Conservative Government in the UK—as many Conservative Members hope and expect that we shall in two years—and a Labour Government in Holyrood or a Labour-dominated Assembly in Cardiff. The stresses and strains between Holyrood and Westminster, which have so often been pointed out by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, are precisely the same as those that would exist if we had a Labour Government nationally and an English Government.

The second problem of which the Labour Government are well aware, and the second reason that they will not even begin to accept my proposed solution, relates to the Barnett formula. If we had an English Government at Westminster, how could we justify the fact that the Government spend £4,792 per head in Scotland, compared to £3,897 in England? Why is less spent on the English than on the Scots? Why does Scotland annually receive a subsidy of £7 billion, or £1,000 per head of population?

That is fine while we are one nation with one Government and one Parliament. The richer parts of the nation must subsidise the poorer parts. I am only too pleased that that is the case. That would remain the case for the north-east and north-west of England and, perhaps, Devon and Cornwall. My relatively prosperous constituents in North Wiltshire should pay their taxes towards subsidising the less prosperous parts of the nation, but not when the less prosperous parts are making their own decisions. Why should my constituents subsidise decisions made in Holyrood over which I have no control and in which I have no say?

The Institute for Fiscal Studies considered that question carefully and said that if we ended the subsidy to Scotland, the base rate of income tax in Scotland would be 48p in the pound. If so—I should regret it from the point of view of my mother and my relations and friends who live in Scotland—so be it. The Scots will be realising for the first time the true cost of the Parliament with which I for one so often disagreed.

If there is such a solution to the West Lothian question, a number of interesting consequences arise will from it. The first I call the Airdrie and Shotts question. If the Government accept my solution, why on earth should Scottish Members of Parliament—in this case the Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell)—have a say in London over English transport matters? The right hon. Lady cannot do so similarly in Holyrood. She has no influence over Scottish transport—she is not allowed to have any such influence. She is specifically excluded from talking about Scottish transport matters, but may pontificate on what English truckers and drivers must do. What possible justification can there be for that? I cannot go to Holyrood and pontificate on Scottish transport, so why should she do so on matters concerning my truckers in Wiltshire? Representing a Scottish constituency, she has no say whatever over transport matters in Scotland.

The situation is even worse than that. The matter is not just one of the Minister for Transport pontificating. She is presiding over a roads budget in England which the Government have drastically slashed. The M6 in the north of my constituency, just south of the Scottish border, is a good case in point—an important piece of road has not been built. At the same time, the right hon. Lady, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, is benefiting from a Scottish roads budget that is 24 per cent. greater. That is a fundamental injustice.

My right hon. Friend makes a very sound point. The Prime Minister will shortly have an opportunity to correct that wrong. If he is to avoid the wrath of the English, he must consider in the reshuffle that is coming up whether it will be acceptable for Scottish Members of Parliament to remain as Ministers in England.

There is a slightly broader question, too. Why should Scottish Members of Parliament have such a disproportionate effect in the Cabinet? Around the Cabinet table, there are at the moment 22 Cabinet Ministers. Five of them represent Scottish seats and a further two happen to be Scots representing constituencies here in England. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security are all Scots who sit here in England and talk about English matters. The Scots amount to 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, but are represented by 33 per cent. of the Cabinet. Why should that be?

While we were one nation, with one Parliament and one Government, that was of course acceptable. As a Scot who is proud to represent an English seat, I am only too delighted that my nation has had a disproportionate effect on running the world over the past 200 or 300 years. However, now that the Scots have gone their own way in Holyrood, how can we possibly justify the fact that 33 per cent. of the Cabinet that runs the United Kingdom are Scots, and the English are ignored?

In addition to the inequities that my hon. Friend has described, does he agree that Members of this House representing Scottish constituencies, who also serve in the Scottish Parliament and are therefore twin-trackers, should not be allowed to vote in this House so as to advantage their Scottish constituents and the cause of the Scottish Parliament, and in the process disadvantage the vast majority of constituencies represented in this House? Is that not palpably wrong?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point on the arithmetic of the number of Members of Parliament here and their prospective jobs. If he will forgive me, I shall reply to his point in a moment.

Before I lose sight of the way in which Scots run the United Kingdom, I for once want to quote Jeremy Paxman—not usually a friend of anything that the Conservative party says, although on this occasion what he said was quite sensible. He said:

"An Englishman can be defined as someone who lives on an island in the North Sea governed by Scots."

That may work for one Parliament, but the moment that there is a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, as is now so, it is no longer acceptable. England, this morning, is beginning to turn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned the consequences for Back Benchers in this place. There are indeed consequences for Back Benchers' roles. At the moment, every Scottish Member of Parliament represents about 54,000 people, and every English Member of Parliament represents about 69,000 people. I am particularly fortunate because I represent 77,000 people in North Wiltshire. I therefore represent about one and a half times as many people as Scots Members of Parliament do.

The Government realised that fact during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, and wrote into the Act that as soon as time permits—I believe well into the next century, following the next boundary commission report—Scots Members of Parliament will move to parity with English Members. They will have to represent 69,000 people, and perhaps 77,000 people in one or two places, as we do. Why on earth should that be? What possible logic is there in a Scottish Member of Parliament who, due to the proportional representation system that has prevailed in Scotland, is helped out by two or three Members of the Scottish Parliament, doing the same job as I do single-handedly for my constituents in England?

I deal with education, health, the environment, transport and all such issues. I deal with every parliamentary issue on behalf of my 77,000 constituents, whereas there are four Members of Parliament for each Scottish constituency, and one deals only with foreign policy, defence and social security. What on earth will these guys in England do all day? Their constituency business will be divided among four people, and much of it will be dealt with in Edinburgh. They may have the Child Support Agency and one or two other constituency bits and pieces to address down here, but they will have nothing to do in most policy areas. How can they justify their time here?

What is more, how can they justify how much they are paid? How can I be paid £47,000 a year to represent 77,000 people on a range of policies, whereas, apparently, they will be paid £47,000 a year to do half or a quarter of my job? I say that slightly tongue in cheek because, of course, they will have the same outgoings as I do, and I would not want some of my friends who are Scottish Members of Parliament at the moment to cease buying my drinks in the bar. Nevertheless, the point behind my remarks is important. Scottish Members of Parliament may sit here, but they do not have a job to do.

Never mind parity, as the Scotland Act allows; what about reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament—the twin-trackers of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham reminded us—perhaps even as far as the number of Members of the European Parliament who represent Scotland, which is currently eight? Perhaps we should generously allow 15 or 20 Scottish MPs to remain here to talk about UK issues, foreign policy and defence. Why should there be parity with the English? There should be significantly fewer constituencies. They wanted their own Parliament, and now that they have it, they must pay the price for it.

The only attempt that the Labour Government have made so far to address the English question has been to come up with the half-baked, half-hearted notion of English regional development agencies and regional assemblies to go with them. The Government hope that that will buy off the West Lothian question and be the magic answer to it. Of course, it is not for a host of reasons—although there are two primary ones.

There is absolutely no appetite in England for regional government. There is no such thing as the south-west of England. Swindon, towards the east of my constituency, is a great deal closer to Paris than it is to Penzance. Gloucester, which is also in the south-west, is closer to Glasgow than to Penzance. If anything, the south-west is Devon and Cornwall, but to include Bournemouth, Swindon and Gloucester in it is simply nonsense. The same of course applies to the south-east, for example. There is no such thing as the south-east; to try to suggest otherwise and that there will be a Parliament for it is nonsense.

There is no appetite for such government; the Government are merely trying to find some way of answering the unanswerable West Lothian question. Anyhow, no one has ever suggested that regional assemblies should have the right to make primary legislation, as the Scottish Parliament does. There is no link between the two forms of government; the proposed regional government is an attempt to fudge the issue.

Such a proposal may be an attempt to fudge the issue, but is it not slightly more sinister? It is very convenient for there to be all these regions, given the Government's intention to create a federal Europe of regions.

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I was alarmed the other day to see a European map of Britain on which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were marked, but for England all it said was "Regions of the European Union". The word "England" was not mentioned at all. The truth that is known by all of us from England is that England has as strong an identity and place in the world as either Scotland or Wales, but that we have allowed ourselves to forget it.

It is perfectly healthy, and no form of English nationalism, to remind ourselves of that English identity. Perhaps we should consider moving the May bank holiday, for example, from its absurd position of 1 May, and hold it a week earlier, on 23 April, to celebrate St. George's day. Why not be proud of St. George and the dragon? St. George is as great a hero as St. Andrew or St. David. Shakespeare called England

"this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England".

The people of England have quietly watched the Scots and the Welsh go their own way, but now is the time for us to assert our English rights. Our English identity must be recognised, and the unbalanced English constitution must be righted. As G. K. Chesterton put it:

"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget.

For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet."

As Churchill said, when he was on the other side of the Chamber:

"There is a long-forgotten—nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England."

Now is the time for the House to speak for England.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, as I think that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has made some very interesting points. Although I think that he was a little harsh to say that there has been no response from the Government to the West Lothian question, it is certainly true that there has been no convincing response to the challenge that is posed by devolution to Scotland and Wales. I should make it clear that I welcome moves to devolution in Scotland and in Wales, but I also recognise that devolution has implications for England, many of which have been touched on by the hon. Gentleman.

One of the contributions towards answering the West Lothian question has to be devolution to the English regions. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I disagree on that issue. However, I think that he was right to say that devolution to the English regions will not in itself be an answer to the West Lothian question.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that there is absolutely no appetite for English devolution. A recent MORI poll found that two thirds of voters would like decisions to be made closer to home. We are one of the most centralised nations in the democratic world. Far too much is decided at Westminster and in Whitehall that people would instinctively welcome being decided nearer to home, at a more community level.

Is that not the purpose of local councils?

That is not the purpose of local councils. Local councils are responsible for running public services in their communities.

Although many services in this country are operated on a regional level, those regions are not conterminous from one sphere of public service to another. We have one set of health regions; we have different Departments operating in completely different regions; and we have the media operating in still different regions. Every organisation in this country divides itself to form a regional footprint of one sort or another, and there is absolutely no commonality between them in how they do so. We are almost unique in the democratic world in doing that.

Some people say that because England is small geographically, there is no need for division into the provinces, states or regions into which other countries divide themselves. I appreciate that point, but in England we are trying to organise public services for far greater numbers of people on the basis of a far more centralised footprint than almost any other country in the world. I therefore believe that, over time, there will be more demand for devolution in England.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that, currently, either in his constituency or in mine, there is not a clamour for the creation of a south-west regional parliament.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, as he develops his remarks, whether he would retain parish councils, district councils, county councils and regional councils—plus this place, plus the European Parliament? If so, how would he explain that to his taxpayers?

I have every intention of addressing that issue, and shall come to it in just a few moments.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No; I shall make a little progress, if I may.

We organise services regionally, but in a very muddled and inconsistent manner. I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that the footprint being used by the Government's regional offices, which is being duplicated for tomorrow's European elections, is simply wrong, and that the boundaries that they use make absolutely no sense. The boundaries are slightly more sensible in the north of England than in the midlands. However, in the south of England, it is sheer nonsense to suggest that one should pass through only two regions in driving from Penzance to Dover, which is a distance equivalent to that from London to Edinburgh. As a result of that nonsense, there is certainly much less support for moving towards regionalism in the south of England than there is in the north.

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I very much agree with the Government's moves to establish regional development agencies. My only regret is that the agencies do not have bigger budgets and greater powers. However, I hope that, over time, those will come. Currently, although the RDAs' budgets total about £800 million, all but 10 per cent. of that is simply funds drawn together from schemes that already existed and put under a different form of management.

I recently met the chairman and chief executive of the south-west RDA, which is making good progress in developing an ambitious but realistic economic strategy. Like me, however, I think that people at the RDA are concerned that the scale of their success will be limited by the lack of resources and freedoms available to them.

Regional chambers are developing alongside RDAs. In a sense, the chambers are an embryo of directly elected regional assemblies, which I also welcome. However, at least for the time being, the chambers are nothing more than talking shops. The Deputy Prime Minister has been rather slow in designating chambers as the official bodies that the RDAs must consult, and that has not enhanced the RDAs' credibility. Nevertheless, we are able to see where the Government are beginning to go with the policy.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) that the Government's policy on regional devolution is part of a ghastly plot to do away with the nation state, but believe that it will simply put us on the same basis established by other nation states.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that whenever hon. Members talk about taking powers from this Parliament to other bodies—whether to the European Parliament, regional assemblies or to any other devolved body—they are really talking about depreciating and devaluing the importance of this House of Parliament and the importance and relevance of its Members?

The starting point of my speech was that Britain is too centralised. Therefore, if we decentralise, we shall by definition be taking powers away from this House. Personally, I have no great paranoia about that. In a sense, we are too centralised, and it would be a good thing to decentralise. I think that my constituents would welcome the idea of decisions being made nearer to where they live.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No; I shall make more progress, if I may.

I have mentioned the fact that the boundaries are not realistic, and that they should be revisited before we go any further down the devolution path. However, the Government must themselves take the lead in using a common definition of "region", and they should ensure that Departments that currently are not organised according to the regional footprint become so organised. Nevertheless, as I said, that will be only part of the solution to the West Lothian problem, and it cannot be the whole solution.

Neither I nor anyone else would want different English regions to have different criminal laws, different school systems or leaving ages, or completely different health provision systems; and we certainly would not want people in the east midlands to drive on the left, while those in the west midlands drove on the right. Therefore, many important issues will still have to be decided at Westminster in primary legislation. Once certainly cannot say that devolution to the regions is the whole answer to the West Lothian question, because it certainly is not. That brings us to the West Lothian question.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that, in the long term, it is not sustainable for Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament to come to this place to vote on and run English services. The issue will come to a head most particularly when we have a general election with the type of outcome to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is entirely possible that, in a tighter general election, on current party lines, there could be a Labour majority across the United Kingdom, but a Conservative majority in England. I have no difficulty with that. It would not result in a constitutional crisis. The situation would be similar if we had a Conservative majority across the UK and a Labour majority in the Scottish Parliament. We should not be hugely concerned about that.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman has been dying to get in, so I shall give him his moment.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for charitably giving way. To prevent the House from being enveloped in a fog of confusion, would he care to answer two simple questions? First, does he, individually or on behalf of his party, believe that twin-tracking—or, as some people impolitely call it, double troughing—whereby a Member of this House is also a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is in principle wrong? Secondly, given that he has said that he has no objection to a decentralisation of powers, are we to take it that he objects to the centralisation of powers? If so, will he explain his tergiversation on entry to the euro, which manifestly involves the centralisation of power in the European Union?

I am not sure that entry to the euro has anything to do with constitutional reform in England and the balance between England, Scotland and Wales which we are discussing.

I do not favour a permanent dual mandate, but it is a reasonable interim arrangement when a new body is brought into being. The rules that will not permit that beyond the next round of elections are a sensible balance.

I do not support the ideas of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on the creation of a separately elected English Parliament, but there is nothing wrong with this House sitting in English session, excluding the representatives of Scottish constituencies, when it is discussing English business. Similarly, there is no difficulty with English and Welsh Members sitting together here when English and Welsh matters are being discussed.

rose—

I note the right hon. Gentleman trying to get in, but time is pressing and I am supposed to keep to a time limit, so if he will forgive me I shall not let him in at the moment.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked about the different layers of government. The Government have already said in two or three places that, before any region had a regional assembly, there would have to be unitary systems of local government. I entirely agree. It would be unacceptable for taxpayers to have a district council, a county council and a regional assembly, so unitary systems of local government would be a prerequisite, but I hope that that would not be brought about by means of the ludicrous and farcical commission process that we went through under the previous Government, under the chairmanship of Sir John Banham.

To sum up, we live in the most centralised nation in the world. It is essential to introduce some devolution in England, but that is not a solution to the West Lothian question. It will still be necessary for English Members to sit here alone as an English body when discussing English business.

When people went to the polling booths at the general election, I am sure that they did not realise that Labour was planning the restructuring of our constitution. The party had no intention of making that clear. Since the election, six constitutional Bills have come before the House, providing for change in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, as well as reform of the Lords and, most significantly, the creation of regional assemblies. Those issues have not been linked in the public mind as a massive change in the constitutional structure that has served us very well for generations, giving us a remarkable amount of peace. We have never seen refugees moving around our country, or the disturbances and turmoil that we see to this day in Europe.

The harmony that we have enjoyed is being disrupted in the most irresponsible way by the Labour Government, purely for political advantage. They see the process as a way of establishing their power in the Chamber into the foreseeable future. They also want to bring us closer to the European structure. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), whom I congratulate heartily on securing the debate, has pointed out, the hidden agenda for England involves the Committee of the Regions, which is part and parcel of the Maastricht treaty.

It is no accident that England has been left out of the referendums, which I am sure that the Liberal Democrats greatly support. I am astonished that the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) could want yet another layer of government. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats think that people have bottomless pockets to pay for such structures. The Scottish Parliament is already predicted to cost £50 million a year, but we all know that that will be a massive underestimate. We have already said that some people will be drawing twin salaries for popping up and down on first-class flights between here and Edinburgh to poke their nose into English affairs whenever it suits the Labour party to sway a vote one way or another. They will be able to vote on matters of domestic importance to England.

There is no first-class fare between Scotland and England on British Airways.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Private enterprise has clearly cottoned on to the fact that the Scots are canny with their money and do not want to waste it.

It is our money.

With our money, then; I bet that they travel first class if they come down by train.

The issue is well illustrated by one of the Labour party's thinkers, as I believe that he is known—the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who has recently fallen from grace in his party, but who occupied a prominent position in its thinking and strategy. He announced at a meeting of the European Movement in March 1998:

"The era of pure representative democracy is slowly coming to an end. Democracy and legitimacy need constant renewal."

I am sure that we all agree with that fairly bland statement. He then said:

"They need to be redefined with each generation. Representative government is being complemented by more direct forms of involvement from the Internet to Referenda."

Remarkably, he missed out England, where 48 million of our population reside, when offering referendums.

Two years ago, I promoted a Bill calling for a referendum on whether the people of England wanted a Parliament for England. I used that term advisedly. It has nothing to do with nationalism; it has to do with fairness. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has frequently pointed out, there is no justification for leaving the people of England out of decisions on their future, when that courtesy has been paid to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Our country is to be sold off in a gigantic boot sale, a bit at a time, to Europe so that it can dispose of us and our long-established traditions. The institutions that we take for granted, including this place and the other House, which is currently being blitzed by Labour, are tremendously important for the stability of our nation. They have proved their worth over generations and we disturb them at our peril. One of the basic tenets of membership of this House is that we are all equal and our rights to speak in debates and our ability to influence legislation are equal, but Labour's policies for Scotland and Wales have disturbed that.

Labour is not the only party involved. Historically, it was a Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, who gave the Scottish people a Scottish Office to deal with domestic issues. There was no great need for a new Parliament in Scotland because many of the decisions have always been made within the Scottish Office and that tradition has continued, particularly in education and law, and we have all learned lessons from that. There has been no particular political animosity in the Conservative party towards Scotland, but I know that that issue has been played up by the Scottish nationalists.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is indicative of the sheer indifference to the wishes and interests of the people of England that there is not a single Labour Back Bencher sitting behind the Minister?

That is a telling point. However, in the Tea Room, quietly and out of earshot of the those on the Government Front Bench, I have heard murmurings among Labour Beck Benchers—when they can be bothered to turn up—about their considerable misgivings over what the Government are doing to our country. Now that they are beginning to find a little courage, I hope that they will put in their fourpenny worth on this issue.

As I was saying, the Conservative party has never done anything to bring about disturbances such as we are seeing now. Indeed, more recently than Lord Salisbury, Winston Churchill created the post of a Minister for Wales and gave Wales a seat at the Cabinet table within the United Kingdom Government—and that is what matters.

Naturally, the Labour Government would prefer to keep the Union alive—the Prime Minister has said that on a number of occasions. Of course that is what they want because it provides Celtic voting fodder at Westminster. The Scots and Welsh will be able to represent views here, particularly on budgetary issues which, as has already been pointed out, will be grossly imbalanced to the disadvantage of the English taxpayer.

There is no question of the English people tolerating such a situation indefinitely. If the Government believe in referendums, as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool has stated, is it not time that they decided that those of us who live in England, including those of Scottish and Welsh origin and others from all over the globe, should have a say? We have taxation without representation in parts of the United Kingdom that will be disposing of the money, whereas the people in Scotland and Wales will have representation within their Parliament and Assembly without the need to raise the funds to back it up. We have already seen the problems that that is likely to cause.

The hon. Member for North Devon talked about more regional devolution of power. I wonder whether he has any idea what the powers will be or their limit. We have already pointed out the ludicrous nature of a separate transport policy in different regions—but it is possible. We saw such an anomaly immediately after the election of the Scottish Parliament, when the Labour party needed to get into bed with the Liberal Democrats. There was a hoo-hah about whether they would overturn their own Government's policy on higher education funding. Such anomalies will develop all over the country and we will have fratricide. People will contend with each other for funds. There will be animosity, and the harmony, which, as I have said, is vital to the success of our country, will be damaged.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is not exaggerating the different policies that may be in operation. The lesson we have learned from the Lib-Lab pact in Scotland is that the Liberals were so desperate to get jobs and to become Deputy First Ministers that they backed down on their election promises and got into bed at the Government's price. There was no real dissension.

That is what happens when the Government are broken into bits and pieces and start doing deals. The same applies to proportional representation as a form of election.

In the spirit of the hon. Lady's belief that proportional representation is bad, she could solve the problem of the need for deals in the Scottish Parliament by urging every Scottish Conservative elected by PR—there would be no Conservatives without it—not to attend the Parliament or to vote. That would solve the problem.

The ludicrous nature of the hon. Gentleman's remarks will preclude me from allowing him any more interventions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has pointed out, England is being wiped off the map. It is no accident but is part of the Labour Government's policy, which they are not prepared to declare openly to the British people. The Conservative party is making that clear and will continue to do so. We see the passions of patriotism beginning to stir in the breasts of those who live in England. I hope that the people of England who, as we know, have yet to be made fully aware of the implications for their back pockets as well as their hearts and minds, will, in the not-too-distant future, decide that the party which embraces their cause—the Conservative party, which has always believed in the Union of this country—will stand up for their right to be treated equally with the rest of the United Kingdom. They will then put the Labour party back where it belongs—on the Opposition Benches.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on obtaining this debate and on the lucid and logical presentation of his argument. It was a delight to listen to. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who can take credit for having broached this subject initially. She put it on the political agenda. Many people are grateful to her for doing so and for all she does to keep it in the public eye.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has recited many of the problems that exist today. He mentioned the West Lothian question and the problems created by the Barnett formula. He explained that both those problems have been exacerbated by Welsh and Scottish devolution which, in turn, is leading to the burgeoning demand for an English Parliament.

I should like to broaden the debate by drawing the House's attention to other problems. There is potential for the break-up of the United Kingdom. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) in an intervention when he rightly identified that as being part of a recognisable policy from the European Union so that ultimately we have a Europe controlled, governed and ruled through the regions rather than through national Parliaments.

We are seeing the deliberate destruction of the United Kingdom constitution, ruthlessly pushed forward by the new Labour Government. It is consistent with the views of those in the Councils of the European Commission who want to see the power of national Parliaments reduced.

The other problems essentially concern the upper House. The new Labour Government know that their first move is to abolish the power of the hereditaries. We all know that that is their policy and, to give credit where it is due, they made no secret of it because it was in their election manifesto. However, many of us depart from the Labour Government because we recognise that they do not have a living clue what the next move will be. So, in addition to the problems caused by the West Lothian question, the Barnett formula and the burgeoning demand for an English Parliament we have the problems in the upper House. The argument rages back and forth as to whether we should have an upper House elected by universal suffrage or one that is appointed. If it is to be appointed, it is obvious that we would be increasing the patronage power of the Executive. There are some who argue that we should have a mix of the two.

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's excellent, powerful and fascinating speech. However, I take issue with him on one point. I think that the Government and the Prime Minister know exactly what they want to do in the other place. They have made their first move to abolish hereditary peers and they do not intend to have another replacement chamber elected democratically or by any other means. Quite clearly they intend the Prime Minister to appoint his own placemen and to continue that for the next 20, 30 or 50 years.

My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point and I do not resile from it. That is very likely the Government's intention. If it is, what I am about to suggest is even more pertinent than I originally anticipated. If the intention is to make the upper House an extension of the power of the patronage of the Prime Minister and the Executive, surely the House of Commons would wish to question that.

We should use the opportunity created by Lords reform to try to deal with as many as possible of the existing problems. I have instanced several of them. We must now be prepared to consider the creation of a United Kingdom federal Parliament sitting on the red Benches in the upper House and an English Parliament sitting on the green Benches here. That would eliminate at a stroke four real and readily identifiable problems.

The duties and responsibilities of the federal Parliament would be essentially those appertaining to defence, foreign affairs, law and order and Treasury, with all other functions devolved to the English and Scottish Parliaments and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. Admittedly, my proposal envisages a unicameral system, but it has to be recognised that the precedent for a unicameral system has already been well and truly established by Scottish and Welsh devolution.

What is more important is that the proposal eliminates any possibility of turf wars between the two elected Chambers. In addition, because the federal Parliament would be elected by universal suffrage, it removes the prospect of an upper Chamber filled partially or entirely with placemen. The question of competing claims for democratic legitimacy as between two House of Parliament simply would not arise in those circumstances.

A federal Parliament comprising Members returned by unitary authorities and counties would bind the United Kingdom together at a time when its historical cohesiveness is under threat as never before. It would solve the West Lothian question, end the inequity of the Barnett formula, satisfy the English dimension and represent an intelligible and practical solution to an otherwise intractable problem.

As an addendum, it goes without saying that elections to the United Kingdom federal Parliament must be by the first-past-the-post system so as to ensure that as far as is humanly possible, ultimate power rests with the people and is not handed to the political parties.

I regret that the time has come to take seriously the question of an English Parliament. I say that not because I am a devoted fan of the concept of an English Parliament or English nationalism, but because I passionately believe in the United Kingdom and keeping what we can of our United Kingdom Parliament. However, the United Kingdom is heading for destruction and so is the United Kingdom Parliament because of the unbalancing carried out by the Government in the past two years.

Scotland will have its own Parliament and Wales its own Assembly. I suspect that in order to do any deal at any price in Northern Ireland, the Government will settle for anything there, so we can assume that at some time, sooner rather than later, there will be independent Government in Northern Ireland. This Parliament will be left quite unbalanced in its rights, duties and responsibilities.

The United Kingdom Parliament has worked because in this Chamber we were all equals. Admittedly, the Prime Minister, primus inter pares, is slightly more equal than others as are the rest of the Government, with their unique duties. Nevertheless, attempts were made to make sure that we represented roughly the same number of constituents with a unique formula built in for Scotland giving Scottish Members fewer constituents and therefore slightly greater powers. However, that was part of our settlement and it was acceptable as long as we had a United Kingdom Parliament in which all Members had equal voting rights. When we walk through this Lobby or that, we do so as individuals and a vote on one side is worth exactly the same as a vote on the other side.

From 1 July, however, that will no longer be the case as there will be 12 double troughers: six Scottish Nationalists, two Liberal Democrats and five Labour. A number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, who yesterday were voting themselves bigger salaries or allowances, will also sit in this House as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. The nonsense will be that 72 Members representing Scottish constituencies will continue to sit in this House with the right to vote on everything in my constituency and the constituencies of all my right hon. and hon. Friends from England, but they will have no right to vote on those issues in Scotland and nor will we. That will unbalance the House. Therefore I say to the Government, not with any sense of glee because it fills me with great distress, that they will cause the destruction of the United Kingdom.

This Parliament has worked rather like a centrifuge. If each side is loaded equally, it can spin at any speed and turn a great number of revolutions without destruction, but if one side of the centrifuge is overloaded, it will become unbalanced and inevitably destroy the whole machine. While we are still a United Kingdom, I can say to my constituents in Cumberland, just south of the Scottish border where there is an appalling stretch of M6 dual carriageway—the so-called Cumberland gap—that the Government are spending 24 per cent. more on roads in Scotland than they are on roads in England, but as part of United Kingdom policy, wealthier areas subsidise poorer ones.

Last weekend, some of my constituents pointed out to me that now that the Scots have their own Parliament, why should we tolerate Scottish MPs and MPs being able to vote on budgetary decisions in England which allocate their own constituencies 25 per cent. more money than English constituencies. The Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) is one of the grossest and vilest examples of that. We have a Labour Minister from Glasgow dictating roads policy in England when she and other Ministers from Scotland have the benefit of higher financial rewards for their own constituencies. I shall not labour the point any more, but my constituents have spotted it and they do not like it.

Something must done about those injustices. They are not just perceived injustices, given that the Government have now created two classes of Member of Parliament in this House—those who get the money and those who have to vote it through but have no rights to it. Creating two classes of Member of Parliament here will destroy this House in its present form.

We must go down the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), which would be an acceptable solution. The Government have decided to give Scotland its independence, and Wales its semi-independence. Let us make no bones about it—Scotland will be independent sooner rather than later. One cannot be 95 per cent. pregnant—one cannot be 95 per cent. independent. Having given the Scots almost complete independence, the Government have discovered that the Scots have said, "Thank you, but we want a little more." The Government have not understood that reaction.

Sooner rather than later, Scotland will be independent, yet Scottish Members of Parliament will have unique voting rights in this House on domestic English matters. The only way in which we can keep something of our United Kingdom is by moving to a federal system. I despised such a system until last year, when I saw it as possibly the only solution. If Scotland has its own Parliament deciding on health, roads, education and other devolved matters—and Wales has the same—it makes sense to consider a similar solution for England, so that those matters are decided by English Members of Parliament and by English taxpayers, making the most of the budget that they have been allocated, or any extra money that they wish to raise by their own taxation powers.

However, for the sake of the defence and security of this country—and our voting clout in Europe—let us not destroy the United Kingdom. For defence, security and foreign affairs—and for our votes in the Council of Ministers in Europe—let us keep the United Kingdom for those large, federal issues. It grieves me to come to this conclusion, because I believe that our previous system worked well. However, that is gone and there is no point in crying over spilled milk.

Scotland will be independent and Wales is going its own way. Presumably, Northern Ireland will be hived off by the Government to Prime Minister Adams in due course. If we are to keep something of the United Kingdom, the federal system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow must be something at which we look seriously. We could use either this Chamber or the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend suggests.

I am sad that we have had to debate this matter, because I thought in the past that the concept of an English Parliament was unnecessary—and it was. However, an English Parliament is now the only possible solution to the West Lothian question, and in terms of keeping what remains of the United Kingdom intact. It will be the only way to stop the nasty side of English nationalism, which will rise if the perceived injustices continue.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on obtaining this debate, which relates to matters of enormous constitutional importance. However, the field of argument is populated by more than its fair share of canards, Aunt Sallies, delusions and mirages, some of which I shall endeavour to knock down.

The Minister has argued that the case for an English Parliament originates solely from some unpleasant form of English nationalism. That is not remotely true—certainly not in my case. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—who has played a sterling part in bringing this issue forward—said that I have always argued that this is not an issue of nationalism, but of fairness and duty. It is an issue of fairness to English constituents, who have had their democracy diluted—a democratic deficit has been created for them—and it is an issue of duty on our part. Just as we can no more give away the sovereignty of our country on behalf of our constituents as their representatives, neither can we allow their democracy to be diluted and undermined. That is taking away from them something which they own and we do not.

This is an issue primarily of primary legislation. I had some sympathy with some of the points made by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), but he did not spend long dealing with that issue. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I favour an English Parliament not from a sense of romance and emotion—although there is plenty of romance and emotion about feeling English—but through a clinical application of logic. Like my right hon. Friend, I would not have started from here, if I had been given the choice. I think that the United Kingdom's original arrangements were viable, and they were admired by many other democracies. However, we do not have that choice any more.

Now, it is possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to be unrepresentative of an English nation, but to legislate for that English nation against the political will of that English nation. I arrived at my conclusion by eliminating all the other options—a sort of Conan Doyle approach. All the other proposals would lead, unfortunately and inevitably, to a constitutional crisis of one sort or another.

We have heard talk of English-designated days, English-designated legislation or an English Grand Committee. Let us imagine how that would work where the UK Parliament was of a different political persuasion from the English Members of that Parliament. People talk of Labour and Tories in this context. Frankly, we are designing a constitution for centuries, not years or days. Therefore, we must allow for the fact that there might be two completely different parties dealing with this system.

In circumstances where there were different political persuasions in the UK Parliament, the UK Government would have come to power on the basis of a manifesto which would have included policies relating to transport and health—issues that are massively important to the voters who put them there. They come top of the salience league when people are elected—they are what our electors care about most.

If a system had emerged where the English Parliament was responsible for those matters while the UK Parliament had a completely different set of responsibilities, why would the Government come to power on that platform? Surely their platform would be different.

That is precisely my point. My argument concerns what would happen if there were not an English Parliament, but an English Grand Committee, or English-designated legislation or English-designated days. In those circumstances, the UK Government could propose a health Bill which, because it would be an English health Bill, would be defeated. The Executive would be defeated time and time again on principle planks of their manifesto. How long would this Government put up with that situation? Straight away we would have a major constitutional crisis.

It is for that reason that I come to the inevitable conclusion—with no great pleasure—that we need an English Parliament. It could sit in this place, and I am happy with the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), which is a perfectly sensible option. There are many other options as to where it sits, how it is chosen and whether it includes people who are already Members of the UK Parliament.

We must have an English Executive. If we have anything other than that, we cannot solve the problem. That is why I arrive at my position—not by emotion or sentiment, but by the elimination of the other possibilities. If we choose the other possibilities, we will have a constitutional crisis, and then we really will have a problem with English nationalism. At that point, the English will feel badly treated.

I have one minute to deal with some of the canards, so I shall be brief. It is argued that such conflict does not happen very often, but we are legislating for centuries. If it happens once, it is a problem, and in centuries it will happen much more often.

Some argue that an English Parliament would accelerate the break-up of the Union. My argument is based on my experience in Canada, which has a similar federal system. There are much greater tensions between Quebec and Ontario than there ever are between Scotland and England, yet the federal system has withstood the pressures.

Some argue that we would play into Europe's hands by taking the federal route. In fact—I speak as an ex-Minister for Europe—the countries that are best at defending themselves against European predations are those that are themselves federal states. Germany is one example. I do not want to pick Belgium as an example, but we should note that it has to ratify European legislation through seven parliaments, so it has a ratchet.

Most of the canards can be seen to be false if one examines them carefully. The only solution that we can ultimately adopt is an English Parliament for the English people, giving democracy to all the British people.

This has been an astonishing debate, first because the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) are perhaps among the most serious that face the nation today and secondly because—with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom one would have expected, above all other hon. Members, to be present, and who has been present in so far as his diary has permitted—we have Witnessed the entire absence of interest on the part of the very large number of Labour Members.

My right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that that is remarkable. It arises not from any lack of interest in Adjournment debates as such but from the fact that Labour Members, and the Government, do not regard these issues as serious. They do not think that there is a problem. We owe my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire a great debt for bringing a very real problem to our attention.

There is a packed meeting of the parliamentary Labour party upstairs, with the Home Secretary addressing us on the question of asylum. One ought to view these matters in proportion.

That may well be part of the explanation. I shall be most interested to see whether Labour Members show any real interest in the subject by raising it themselves on other occasions.

The Government have for most of the past two years taken the position that there is not a problem. I shall be very surprised if the Minister tells us anything other than that the Government do not think that anything needs to be done, with the possible exception of the creation of regional government in England. Some of my hon. Friends animadverted to that subject, but only the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) went into it in any detail.

The idea of regional government in England is far worse even than my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire suggested. We could add another layer of government and generate the huge paradox of accountability of no one having the slightest idea at which level various decisions are made. We are perilously close to that even now. The paradox is that the larger the number of forms of government we have, the less we can hold any of them to account, because the less idea we have about their actions.

The hon. Member for North Devon had a solution: to abolish county councils—and district councils, for all I know—and regionalise. That would move us in the opposite direction: far from bringing government down towards people, it would take it up away from them. Worse than that, the Government do not plan to introduce regional government in any rational form. They are suggesting regional referendums—no doubt without any rules to make them fair—and if, for example, the north-east, and no other area, voted in favour, we would have the bizarre arrangement of not only Scotland and Wales but other areas creating further imbalance in the constitution. I cannot imagine any less satisfactory form of dynamic constitution making.

Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, absolutely rightly, said that the move towards regionalisation was part of a deeper plot. I do not know whether the Minister is part of that plot or whether the Government are aware that they are part of it. Much that happens in relation to our gradual absorption into a federal united states of Europe is not designed by anyone in this country; we merely fall into it by a series of lapses of attention. The European Commission has demonstrated its clear intention, in a series of remarkably well argued and powerful cases, proposed in various studies and in the maps to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred, that we should end with a Europe of the regions, without England, and indeed without the United Kingdom as an entity.

For all those reasons, the Conservative party is, and will remain, wholly opposed to the regionalisation of England as a solution to the West Lothian question. Moreover, such a move would require giving primary legislative powers to the regions, and that is not in the Government's, let alone anyone else's, wildest ambitions, so it does not even constitute the beginning of a solution.

How do we tackle the West Lothian problem? Conservative Members have lucidly and powerfully illustrated why it needs to be tackled: the imbalances and the sense of unfairness to which the current situation will increasingly give rise. There must be a solution. We must come up with a set of policies to begin to diminish what will otherwise be a growing feeling of unfairness.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have, to a man—and a woman—argued with eloquence in favour of various forms of the solution broadly known as an English Parliament, which is in a sense a misnomer, because it really means an English Executive or Government, together with an assembly or parliament with primary legislative powers. I understand the reasons behind that view, as well as the objections advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) to other solutions, but I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends may have understated the difficulties attending the proposition that there should be an English parliament and an English Government.

There is no problem in principle about having a parliament within a federal state, as many countries operate such a system and we are now in the process of operating it vis-à-vis Scotland, but there is a problem if there is an imbalance between one part of the kingdom and another, and the fact is that, regardless of whether the situation is desirable, England is overwhelmingly larger, richer and more powerful than Scotland, and its Parliament and Government would be overwhelmingly larger and richer—and, I suspect, more powerful—than any federal government. It would certainly be responsible for the great bulk of the taxation and spending in the United Kingdom.

What is wrong with that?

I am saying not that there is anything wrong with that in itself, but that it would cause difficulties for a federal Government, supposedly responsible for macro-economic policy, if they could not control the great bulk of fiscal policy and expenditure. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to attend to that issue, which needs serious consideration before we leap in the direction of an English Parliament.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden asked whether a federal UK Government, if one were brought about by the creation of an English Government, would be able to maintain sufficient national confidence in the face of a powerful English Government to hold its own in the European Union. All my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that any federal government should have such an ambition.

Because of such problems we need to pause before launching ourselves into the idea of an English Parliament. We must ask whether there is any other less dramatic solution that might address the West Lothian question, while not suffering from those drawbacks.

The range of options that my right hon. and hon. Friends have described, including giving a veto over English legislation to Members of this House who represent English constituencies, are serious possibilities. I do not think that they would necessarily create constitutional crises, but I see that they would create constitutional tensions.

I fear that what the Government have created, and the problems to which it has given rise, make it impossible to conceive of a solution that is wholly perfect for this country, configured as we are. I do not think that regional government gives us the beginning of an answer. I see that an English Parliament and an English Government would give us one answer, but an answer that involves real difficulties. I do not argue that a veto for English Members over English legislation, or any of the other variants, gives us a perfect solution, but those ideas may have fewer deficiencies than that of an English Parliament.

In any event, this is the terrain on which we need to hold the debate. We need to admit that there is a problem and to agree that it needs a solution, and that we need to discuss urgently as a nation—with the co-operation of the Government, I hope, rather than in the absence of any real interest from them—whether we shall choose an English Parliament, or perhaps some more modest proposal, so as to discover whether that would be a sufficient response.

One of the pleasures and privileges of the life of a junior Minister is to be frequently present in the Chamber on Wednesday mornings and at other times when Adjournment debates are taking place. I will have had the pleasure of listening to and responding to two debates this morning, and I must tell the House that there was a marked contrast between the two.

The first was a serious and intelligent debate with high quality contributions from both sides of the House, characterised by an almost total absence of party political jibes, nasty personal attacks, overblown rhetoric and paranoid hyperbole. However, I have to say that—with at least three honourable exceptions, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who wound up for the Opposition—the tone of this debate has been rather different. At its lowest, it sank to inexcusable and nasty personal attacks on the Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). To one of the Opposition Members who made those attacks, I must point out that my right hon. Friend represents Airdrie and Shotts, not Glasgow. It is somewhat odd that a Member who referred to the nasty side of English nationalism should reveal such ignorance about Scotland.

The Government are determined to decentralise power, to open up government, to reform Parliament and to increase individual rights. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London authority and the proposals set out in our local government White Paper are all important examples of how government is being tailored to suit the circumstances of the different areas within the United Kingdom.

The debate about some form of self-government for parts of the United Kingdom seems always to have been with us. The response over the years—from the time of Lord Salisbury, who was mentioned in the debate—has been to provide for increasing administrative devolution, with powers and functions being exercised by the Secretary of State. But that was not matched with arrangements to ensure accountability to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—or, indeed, to the people of parts of England. The need for action to address that "democratic deficit" became more and more pressing. Only by taking action to relieve those concerns could we provide a sound framework to maintain and secure the long-term future of the United Kingdom.

Some would argue that devolution means the end of the UK as we know it. That tends to be the cry of those who are resistant to change, and have resisted it over the years. We want there to be change, where appropriate, to address real concerns, because we know that resistance, especially unthinking resistance, to change has given added force to the voices of those who argue that there is no possibility of responding to the legitimate concerns for more devolved government in different parts of the United Kingdom.

Any student of the history of these islands who thinks about the debates in this House more than a century ago, when the idea of some degree of devolution in Ireland was first considered, will recognise the force of the argument that unthinking resistance to change does not guarantee the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Government are determined to support the continued integrity of the United Kingdom by responding to the legitimate concerns of the different elements within the UK who wish to see more devolved power.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that referendums are an important part of his party's new democratic outlook? If so, will he explain why the people who live in England are not allowed to have a referendum to express those views—if, indeed, they hold them?

I have two answers for the hon. Lady. First, I agree with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Secondly, I must remind her that she is wrong, because one of the referendums involved the people of London, who had an explicit opportunity to say whether they wanted a degree of devolved power within London—power that is currently exercised by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but which will in future be exercised by a democratically elected London mayor. I shall deal with that element in a moment.

The first step in our regional agenda for England was to establish regional development agencies to improve competitiveness and to provide for effective co-ordination of economic development. The RDAs were established last December and became operational on 1 April.

We expect RDAs to become powerhouses for regional economic development. Currently only two English regions exceed the European average in terms of GDP. That cannot be right, and we must take action to tackle that deficit. RDAs are now lead bodies at regional level for co-ordinating inward investment initiatives, raising skills, improving the competitiveness of business, and social and physical regeneration.

Our aim is for RDAs to provide a framework for economic decision making in the regions, and to give a better strategic focus. They need to support and enhance national policies, while addressing the needs of the regions. We are also encouraging the formation of regional chambers to build up the voice of the regions within the current framework.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) chided us for the delay in proceedings, but last month we designated the first ever regional chambers—in the north-west, the east midlands and the west midlands. Chambers in other regions are currently under consideration. We are proceeding, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on the basis of consent and the views of the different regions, which, as he acknowledged in his speech, is an appropriate approach. We shall continue in that vein.

The chambers are voluntary groupings of local councillors and representatives of the various sectors with a stake in a region's economic, social and environmental well-being.

Will the Minister give way?

Very briefly, because I am trying to respond to a debate, and I have been given only 10 minutes in which to do so.

Is the Minister aware that in the north-west, which he has mentioned, the regional chamber is already planning to call itself the north-west regional assembly, and that 70 per cent. of its members are councillors, with not much representation from productive industry?

The right hon. Gentleman is clearly extremely unhappy about the idea of a chamber or regional assembly in his region, but we believe that it is right that the voices of those who have proper responsibilities in the region should be taken into account. That includes councillors, as well as representatives of other sectors. As I have already said, the chambers are representative of a wider group of people than councillors. As the RDAs are business led, it is appropriate that there should be a counterbalance in the form of the chambers, which involve democratic representation.

We have given the chambers a specific role in relation to RDAs—to help make them responsive to regional views and to give an account of themselves to those with an interest in their work. We also remain committed to move in due course to directly elected regional government where there is a demand for it. How quickly we move in that direction will depend in large part on the success of the RDAs and regional chambers—

What about England?

I am trying to talk about England. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, who took a great deal of time to talk in absurdly inflated and extravagant language, had allowed me rather more time—[Interruption.]—and were not barracking me now, they might learn something on the subject, instead of pandering to their own prejudices.

I begin by expressing my gratitude for this opportunity for a debate on human rights in Pakistan and the related persecution of the millions of Ahmadi people in that country. The worldwide headquarters of the Ahmadi people is in Putney, to where the supreme head of the people has had to move following threats to his life in Pakistan.

The Ahmadis are one of the 72 sects of Islam, although it should be remembered that there are even more sects in Christianity. Within Islam, the Sunni and Shi'ite sects are far larger, but there are about 20 million Ahmadis and the sect is growing quickly. The House of Commons Library estimates that there are about 5 million Ahmadis in Pakistan.

Discrimination against all minority religions in Pakistan is severe. Other hon. Members may wish to mention the plight of Christians, but the laws afflicting the Ahmadis are the most severe, involving life imprisonment and the death penalty for the simple profession of the Ahmadi faith.

The constitution of Pakistan, founded under Muhammed Ali Jinnah in 1948, is based on religious tolerance. Only in 1974 did the Government of Mr. Bhutto amend the constitution to deem Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. In 1984, General Zia ul-Haq passed ordnance 20, which made it a criminal offence, subject to imprisonment, to describe Ahmadis as Muslims. Even after the lifting of martial law in 1985, the constitutional position remained unchanged, and in 1986, the death penalty was introduced for forms of blasphemy—a measure aimed at the Ahmadis in particular.

In 1992, the death penalty was made mandatory. Amnesty International commented at the time that it was concerned that

"under the amended form of Section 295-C of Pakistan's Penal Code, members of the minority Ahmadiyya Community may face the death penalty as a mandatory punishment for the exercise of their religious beliefs."

Of course, they now do. The democratic Governments of Pakistan since then have continued the use of ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws to persecute the Ahmadis in Pakistan.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion has long been recognised as the basic human right by all religions and all civilised societies. That right is enshrined in the founding charter of the United Nations, and in the United Nations charter on human rights—both of which have been signed by the Government of Pakistan.

When the then President of Pakistan, General Zia ul-Haq, was told by members of the UN Commission on Human Rights that ordnance 20 contravened the UN charter, he replied that Ahmadis personally offended him, that he was aware that ordnance 20 violated human rights but that he did not care. When she was Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto said that Ahmadis

"were declared non-Muslim in my father's rule. How can I undo the great service my father did for Islam? My Government will not give any concessions to Ahmadis."

The present Government of Mian Nawaz Sharif follow the same restrictive practice of persecuting members of the Ahmadian movement on any and all charges, which include charges of un-Islamic activities, blasphemy, and even of calling themselves Muslim. During the latest census, many new Ahmadis were prosecuted for declaring themselves to be Ahmadis and Muslims. That shows not only a blatant breach of confidentiality by the Government in releasing such information, but it institutionalises persecution of the Ahmadis at the highest level. However, Pakistan is a peculiar state, which has chosen to legislate and enact laws, such as the recent anti-terrorism provisions, to target Ahmadis and to make the laws more barbarous and unbearable.

I shall give a couple of instances of that. An Ahmadi Muslim was accused by non-Ahmadis that he had preached and propagated his faith to the villagers, and was brought before the specially constituted anti-terrorist court. In spite of strenuous denials, the case was considered proven under Pakistan's penal code ordnance 295-C. He was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and was fined 100,000 rupees. Only in Pakistan is preaching considered to be a terrorist offence.

Then there is the case of Mirza Ghulam Qader, a high official and a nephew of the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. He was murdered in broad daylight in front of many people. The assassins took refuge in a school and took the children hostage, before being killed in a shoot-out with the police. Large amounts of heavy weaponry, including rocket launchers, sub-machine guns and hand grenades, were recovered from the assassins' vehicle, which I believe pointed to a deeper conspiracy. Within two days, all the recovered weapons disappeared from police custody, leaving no proof or evidence of the offence.

That was only one of the high-profile murders of Ahmadiyya members in Pakistan. In fact, in the past year many members of the community have been murdered in broad daylight in front of witnesses, but no one has been apprehended or prosecuted for the crimes. The murders were all religiously motivated, and the victims included doctors, engineers, lawyers, business men and eminent citizens of their areas.

The Islamic National Front issued a very large prize for the murder of, among others, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the supreme head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim community. That news was covered in many well known mass-circulation newspapers in Pakistan on 1 October 1988. The INF declaration said that

"any Muslim warrior who despatches this enemy of Islam to hell will be offered cash prizes of 1 million rupees."

The Government of Pakistan took no action against that incitement to international terrorism.

I should further point out that Pakistan alone among the Islamic states has taken this draconian stance towards the Ahmadis. So what should be done? I was pleased by the answer to a written question in the other place on 13 April this year, which stated that the Government have

"called upon the Government of Pakistan to prevent the misuse of that country's blasphemy laws and to introduce legislation which would abolish the death penalty for blasphemy."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 1999; Vol. 599, c. 118]

However, we need to do more to protect the rights of all minorities to freedoms of religion.

Therefore, the following questions suggest themselves. Pakistan is a full member of the United Nations and a signatory to the UN human rights charter. At the next review, would it be possible for the British Government to take up the case of religious freedom in Pakistan? The US President has already spoken in support of the repeal of ordnance 20.

The UN Commission on Religious Intolerance is taking evidence. Can the Government support the petition of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan, and work to remove the fatwah placed on the supreme head of the Ahmadiyya community, as they have done successfully in other cases?

Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth, whose human rights initiative, chaired by Dr. Kamal Hussein of Bangladesh, recently published its report on the right to cultural tolerance in all Commonwealth countries. Will the Government ensure that this report is fully debated at the Commonwealth conference in Durban, South Africa, this autumn? Will they also ensure that the situation in Pakistan is brought to the attention of all those present, perhaps in terms of a review of the 1991 Harare declaration, which Pakistan signed? That declaration spoke of

"fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, regardless of race, colour"

or creed.

I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to me in writing in connection with those questions, but an additional question involves all Members of the House. Would it be possible for colleagues, at meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to raise our abhorrence of ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws? An appropriate opportunity to raise those matters would be that organisation's annual conference this September.

The Ahmadis expect that clerics of other sects or faiths may object to their religion. Their criticism—and mine—is not of that. What is different in this case is that the Pakistani Government have institutionalised and supported such objections with the death penalty or life imprisonment.

The Putney debates of 1647 in St. Mary's church, Putney, speak down the centuries. The belief, which I share, is that it is not the state's responsibility to determine the religion of its subjects. Religion is personal and private. To any Government, all subjects should be equal when it comes to their personal and religious inclinations.

I shall finish by connecting this matter and the Jewish faith. This week is Anne Frank week. On 11 June, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, His Excellency Chief Emeka Anyaoku, will sign the Anne Frank declaration for the new millennium on behalf of the Commonwealth nations. It includes a pledge that people should work together for a better world, free of bigotry in the next millennium. Anne Frank was 15 when she died for her faith.

A 14-year-old boy, Nazir Ahmed, is in central prison, Hydrabad, Sind, awaiting sentence under the blasphemy laws as an Ahmadi. The sentence could be life imprisonment or death. Many Pakistanis must be repulsed and disgusted by that. May I recommend to the Government of Pakistan that they think about the fate of Anne Frank, the declaration and that 14-year-old boy, and repeal ordnance 20 and the blasphemy laws forthwith? By doing so they can demonstrate that Pakistan is a full member of the Commonwealth nations for the new millennium.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this important debate. The headquarters of the Ahmadi community lie in his constituency, but I have the privilege of having the Ahmadi education and conference centre, called Islamabad, at Tilford. In the summer, up to 10,000 members of the Ahmadi community from around the world gather there. Tilford is a beautiful Surrey village, and it is a tribute to the community that the Ahmadis are valued, respected and well integrated. Around 25 families live there permanently.

During my time as a Member I have heard appalling tales of unhappiness and discrimination. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is appalling, given that Pakistan is a signatory to the United Nations declaration on human rights, that we cannot take further steps to protect a well-educated, civilised and public-spirited community. In Pakistan, the press is gagged; the judiciary appears to play to the gallery and there are arrests, trumped-up charges and assaults; employment opportunities are constrained; and there is no freedom of speech or religion.

In February, I put a question to the Minister's predecessor, Derek Fatchett. At the same time as the hon. Member for Putney, I received a reply in which Mr. Fatchett said that he had raised the matter during a recent visit to Pakistan. He had been assured by a Minister that the Pakistani Government were determined to ensure that all religious minorities received the rights granted to them by the constitution. That Minister was examining ways of ensuring that religious minorities could play their full part as equal citizens of Pakistan.

Mr. Fatchett said that the Government would monitor closely the situation of the religious minorities in Pakistan and would raise further concerns with the Pakistani Government. In the present climate, we would all agree that that is not enough. The hon. Member for Putney made specific and practical suggestions on how we could put greater weight behind the campaign to ensure that the Ahmadi community's human rights are recognised not only in the United Kingdom, but in Pakistan.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on his success in securing a debate that gives the House a timely chance to discuss an important issue that is rightly causing concern here and elsewhere.

From the outset, the Government have ensured that the promotion and observance of human rights has been at the very heart of our foreign policy. Intolerance, wherever it occurs and in whatever guise, is unacceptable. It is particularly disturbing that we are debating intolerance in Pakistan, a country with which Britain has so many links—history, culture, trade, development, sport and, of course, for many, family ties. Ours is a warm relationship of mutual respect, which allows us to speak freely to each other about our respective concerns.

My hon. Friend has specifically raised concerns about Pakistan's Ahmadiyya community. We share his concerns about the position of the Ahmadis, as we do about the position of other religious minorities in Pakistan, including Christians and Hindus. Those responsible for the establishment of Pakistan were wholly committed to religious tolerance. On the day of partition, the founding father of Pakistan, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, inspired and reassured the new citizens of a new nation with the words:

"You may belong to any religion, cast or creed … There is no discrimination, no distinction between one community or another."

Those values are reflected in Pakistan's constitution. Article 20 says:

"Subject to law, public order and morality, (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions."

Unfortunately, while the constitutional framework is clear, particular legal acts continue to give cause for concern, especially the controversial blasphemy laws. Article 295(c) of Pakistan's penal code prescribes the death penalty for those who by words, spoken or written, directly or indirectly, are taken to defile the name of the prophet Muhammed. The law has frequently been misused by groups and individuals to target members of religious minorities. Accusations of blasphemy can lead and have led to death sentences being handed down, although none has yet been carried out.

We have repeatedly asked the Pakistani Government to amend or abolish the blasphemy laws, of which Ahmadis are frequent victims. During our European Union presidency last year, we made representations in May. In October, we joined a further EU initiative about the blasphemy laws. At the recent Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva, the EU called for abolition of the death penalty for blasphemy.

The Ahmadi community do not believe that Pakistan's constitution gives them full freedom of faith. A constitutional amendment passed in 1974 declares them to be non-Muslim. That resulted in a change to Pakistan's penal code forbidding them the right to practise their religion as Muslims. Specifically, they cannot openly use traditional Islamic words, phrases or greetings without risking arrest and punishment of up to three years imprisonment plus a fine. That law, like the blasphemy laws, is open to abuse.

We know that there is a great deal of worry among the Ahmadis—indeed, among other minorities—about Pakistan's new anti-terrorist law. In particular, there is a fear that the new offence of civil commotion will be abused. Ahmadis have voiced fears that arrest under the blasphemy laws will result in cases being heard by the new anti-terrorist courts, in which there is no right of appeal. We have urged the Pakistani Government to implement the new laws fairly and responsibly.

Another piece of legislation, the Shariah Bill, has given rise to further concern over the position of non-Muslims in Pakistan. Although the Bill, which has yet to pass Pakistan's Senate—where it has failed to achieve the two thirds majority required if it is to become law—specifically protects the rights of religious minorities, there are fears that its wider effects may be to lower tolerance for religious diversity and women's rights. We do not consider that the proposed Bill is inimical to human rights per se, but we have urged on the Pakistani Government that the new law should adhere to internationally accepted human rights standards.

Those concerns relate to individual legal instruments, but the wider public and political atmosphere is equally important. We are worried by signs that general intolerance is on the increase. In relation to the Ahmadis in particular, we were greatly concerned by the recent decision of the Punjab provincial assembly to change the name of the principal Ahmadi town in Pakistan, Rabwah. In the wake of that, two senior Ahmadi leaders, Colonel Ayaz Muhammed and Mirza Masroor Ahmed, were charged under the blasphemy laws. We are watching their cases—and others—closely.

From what I have said, hon. Members will recognise that one of the main problems facing the Ahmadis and other religious minorities in Pakistan is the apparent gap between the protection that Pakistan's constitution gives to religious minorities and the drafting of individual laws and their day-to day implementation.

That is the very point that the late Derek Fatchett made during his visit to Pakistan in February, which the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) mentioned. He raised the issue of religious minorities with Pakistan's Minister of Law. He told the Minister of the great concern in the United Kingdom about the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan. The Minister acknowledged the concern outside Pakistan's borders, but said that there was great concern in Pakistan too. He said that the Government of Pakistan were concerned that all religious minorities received the rights given to them under Pakistan's constitution and that he would consult his colleague, the Minister for Religious Affairs, to examine ways to ensure that members of religious minorities are full and equal citizens of Pakistan. We will continue to keep that situation in mind.

We approach this subject as a concerned friend of Pakistan. It is with that in mind that we regularly raise these issues with the Pakistani Government. I am sure that the House will agree that it is important that we recognise where problems lie, but we must also recognise and acknowledge the efforts being made to put things right. Where we can, we must help those efforts.

It was in that spirit that last month, senior Foreign Office officials discussed a wide range of human rights issues with their Pakistani counterparts in Islamabad. The reports of religious persecution, the blasphemy laws and the anti-terrorist law were among the topics discussed. Pakistani officials acknowledged that religious tolerance was a cultural as well as a legal problem. We will of course continue to follow closely the progress on each issue.

It is important that the legal framework is right, and we will continue to urge the Pakistani Government to ensure that their laws are just and justly enforced. However, the key to changing wider social attitudes is education. Tolerance and respect for other cultures, religions and nationalities can be encouraged and, indeed, taught. It is there that we can make a practical difference.

The UK development programme for Pakistan, run by the Department for International Development, is worth approximately £25 million a year. It places a strong emphasis on improvements in human rights in all its projects and includes regular dialogue with the Government of Pakistan, other donors and advocacy groups in Pakistan about human rights issues. Current projects that are directly tackling human rights in Pakistan include a police training project for senior officers. We also hope to be able to do more to promote access for marginalised groups to the criminal justice system.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also sponsors human rights projects in Pakistan. In Karachi, for example, Shell and the FCO have co-sponsored a human rights education project that has produced a human rights textbook on the rights of the child for use in schools It is proving very successful. We are actively pursuing other proposals.

For all the justifiable concern that reports of human rights problems and religious intolerance in Pakistan have caused, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will agree that there remain grounds for considerable hope in Pakistan. The vast majority of the Pakistani people believe in the right to worship for each and every individual according to their beliefs. We believe that the Pakistani Government are sincere in wanting to tackle religious intolerance, which damages their country and its international reputation. We will continue to monitor reports of religious intolerance wherever they may occur and to raise our concerns, but change will not occur overnight. We are ready to offer practical help through our development aid programme.

I would like my hon. Friend to take up the points that I made—I realise that he has only just heard them—and raise them at the Commonwealth conference in Durban this autumn. In particular, will he take up the essence of the Harare declaration, which is relevant in this situation?

My hon. Friend anticipated my next sentence. I made a detailed note of the thoughtful suggestions in his excellent speech. I shall write to him in detail on each point. I hope that he would prefer a detailed exposition of the Government's response to my perhaps ad hoc observations.

Religious diversity is a fact in Pakistan, as it is in this country and that should be welcomed. Pakistan is the richer for the presence of religious minorities such as Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus, who will all contribute to the future of that great country.

I begin with a confession: recently, I have been spending rather a lot of time in the company of Mr. Bill Gates. Not literally, I hasten to add; I suppose that "virtually" would be the way to put it. I have recently acquired two of his books—one of which was free, although I bought the other. The book that has had a great effect on me is "Business at the Speed of Thought". At the end of about 300 pages of Mr. Gates enthusing about the growth in the internet and what he calls "the web life style"—with a name like mine, I am also very enthusiastic about the Webb life style—it is difficult to avoid the sense that, although one suspects that Mr. Gates has his own agenda on the issue, even if only part of what he describes comes true, there is a tremendous opportunity for British business, education and consumers. It is important that we do not miss that opportunity.

My contention, therefore, is that we must get telecommunications regulation right. It is not unfair to say that the present regulation was largely not framed with the internet in mind. I am well aware that the regulation is under urgent review and I hope that we shall hear more about the direction of the thinking on that matter during the debate. I argue that there is a problem and will cite some statistics in evidence. Obviously, there are different statistics showing how far behind Europe is compared with the United States. A report from Jupiter Communications suggests that only 18 per cent. of United Kingdom households are on-line, compared with 44 per cent. in the US. The report notes that, although that gap will close, and in four years' time, the UK figure may have risen to 41 per cent., by that time, the US figure will be 63 per cent. I am sure that the figures will vary according to definitions, but there is clear evidence of a gap and of a problem that needs to be addressed.

Some other problems are tied in with telecommunications regulation issues—for example, telephone communication charging structures and their implication for the structure and location of British business. Once this debate became common knowledge, I received several emails, including one from a young man aged 20, who lives in Bradley Stoke in my constituency. He described himself as an internet entrepreneur. I am delighted that such people live in my patch, and look forward to meeting that young man. He tells me that, in his business, the huge cost of local calls—running into thousands of pounds—or the cost of dedicated lines means that he has had to locate and register his business in the United States.

My constituency is home to many high-tech companies—Orange, TeleWest, Hewlett Packard and so on—so it should be a natural home for internet entr—epreneurs, even those aged 20. Clearly, if my constituent is being forced to relocate in the US, something somewhere must be wrong.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a problem in that a business in the US can service European customers throughout Europe more cheaply than a business based in a European country? Does he agree that regulation is necessary to try to get rid of the cost of telecoms crossing national boundaries in Europe? Such additional costs make the UK and other European countries uncompetitive compared with the US.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. As chairman of the Select Committee on Information, he is most knowledgable on such matters. His points tie in with what I was saying. If telecommunications regulation is causing British entrepreneurs to site their businesses—either physically or virtually—in the US or elsewhere, there is clearly a problem to be addressed.

Before considering some possible solutions, I want to consider the problem of whether telecom giants—for want of a better word—are stifling the potential for expansion in this area. For example, I was told, by e-mail, about cable modems; that might be one way of facilitating greater access. Henry Jaremko of QE Data Ltd.—someone I had not met before—told me that he had tried for two years to get BT to sort out a cable modem for him. He was told that the company was considering the matter and researching it. He stated:

"I talk to friends and colleagues in the Netherlands and in America and they are all using cable modems NOW—they pay … £30 to £50 a month for the service and they get speeds typically five times faster than an average modem … More importantly for the fee … they are ONLINE ALL THE TIME."

He put that last phrase in capitals, which means that he was shouting at me. He continued:

"There is no concept of dialling—their computers are permanently wired to the net from their homes or offices."

As they have initiated this welcome debate, I am sure that Liberal Democrats were only too pleased to receive messages. Last night, I had dinner with representatives from several telecoms companies; they told me that, within weeks—literally—we shall receive announcements from several sources about a fixed fee, on-line all the time, to an internet provider. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we should get the regulation right. The regulation is already in place; the market will provide the solution for the UK. Despite the fact that our telephone calls are already cheap, he is right to identify the problems on the internet side, but I think that the solution will occur soon.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will be aware of the latest developments and will be able to brief us on them.

I do not know how new cable modems are, but Mr. Jaremko says that other European companies seem to have managed to take up that new technology. Is BT a slumbering giant? Is that why the company has not moved as fast as it might have done to take up that technology? I have also been briefed about digital subscriber loops. That is a new world to me, but it seems to be another form of technology that would provide a means for extensive internet access. However, again there seems to be a problem with an incumbent supplier, who is perhaps not as innovative as possible.

We have a series of problems. What could be the cause? One obvious candidate—although it is not the sole problem—is the cost of local calls. In the US, local calls are free in many circumstances, whereas in the UK, local calls are metered with a 5p minimum charge. That 5p charge may be relevant when one is going on-line, receiving e-mails and coming off-line, and it may discourage people from doing that regularly. However, my key concern is the metering of local calls and its implications. In terms of e-commerce, I draw an analogy with being charged for window shopping in the high street. Retailers would be appalled if that were the case, yet we make people pay by the minute for window shopping on the internet.

Some people might respond that Freeserve has come in and everyone is on-line so the problem is solved. However, we are talking not only about people being on-line, but about using the internet as part of their "life style"—as a servant in business, education and leisure. Being on-line and having access is only part of the battle, we then have to use the thing. There is evidence that usage increases when metered charges are abolished and replaced with fees. When America OnLine moved from one structure to the other in 1996, monthly use went up from an average of 14 minutes to 33 minutes over three months. The average figure is now an hour a day for that company. Of course, there are limits, but, if the internet is to be a servant and is to be part of our lives, we must remove the marginal cost to a greater or a lesser extent.

The Minister will probably recall that, when I wrote to him on this subject, his response was that average telecom charges are low in the UK. However, I am concerned not only with the average, but with the margins. Once one is on-line and has paid the set-up costs, one wants the marginal costs to be low to provide an incentive. Clearly, the costs are not as low here as they are in the US.

Assuming that greater coverage and use are good, what should we do? I make one query of that assumption. I am enthusiast in all those matters—I suppose that enthusiast is a euphemism for an anorak—but internet content is also relevant. As a parent, I am aware that there is material on the internet that I do not want my children to see, just as there is material on the top shelf of the newsagent that I do not want them to see. However, rationing by price—getting people to come off the internet—has nothing to do with that problem. It is vital that the problem is addressed, but we are tackling it in a haphazard and ineffective way. I have reservations about teenagers in their bedrooms spending hours on the net unsupervised. However, the issues that we are raising in the debate are not inconsistent with tackling that problem.

What can be done? The Campaign for Unmetered Telecommunications, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, has been energetic and effective in publicising the issue. It has an excellent website at www.unmetered.org, and I have spent many happy minutes surfing it and then getting off-line. It quotes the "father of the web", Tim Berners-Lee, who says:

"universal internet access for all in a country is very important. To be practical, internet connections must be permanent … The time taken to dial up over a telephone line makes many uses of the internet … prohibitively bothersome. Regulatory systems and charging which support the status quo in which the telephone system is used to dial every time the internet is used hobble a country's ability to use the network—it is a bit like asking a motor vehicle to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. It is forcing the new technology to operate in the mode of the old technology."

That final observation is a telling one. We are not talking about more people having PCs with modems in the back, or more people hopping on and off-line. We are talking about—to use the awful phrase—the web life style, in which the internet is integral to our activities, but as a servant, not a master.

America OnLine has just surveyed more than 11,000 of its customers, almost all of whom cited local call costs as the main barrier to greater internet use. I know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We are talking not about free local calls, but about unmetered local calls coupled with some sort of subscription charge—that is, trying to get marginal costs down and so increasing use.

Some might say that that is happening anyway and that the market will produce that result because, if that is what customers want, suppliers will provide it. However, it strikes me as inherently unlikely that the commercial interests of BT in a regulated environment will coincide exactly with society's best interests. BT has a job to do: it exists to make profits within the constraints imposed on it. Why should its pricing policy be identical to that which society wants in order to maximise internet use among lower income households, students and so on? Such a coincidence is unlikely to occur.

The market has made some progress, but there is no guarantee that it will take us where we want to go. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and others would say that we are getting there: for example, Screaming.Net—a phrase I have been dying to get into Hansard—set up a freefone access system, but there are strings attached in that the customer has to change phone company and go over to Localtel. Mysteriously, BT has been slow in getting people over to Localtel: it claims that it underestimated demand, but Localtel says that it forewarned BT of the demand and that BT has simply not coped. The idea that BT would enthusiastically commit resources to moving its customers to someone else's business is hard to swallow—it would not be surprising if it did the bare minimum.

Last weekend, without making a lot of fuss—the announcement was made on the internet, because the company did not want many people to know, which is telling—BT gave free 48-hour internet access to BT internet subscribers. The company did not publicise that service, because it was not sure that it could cope with large-scale use. Strangely enough, the service proved extremely popular, but, once again, there were strings attached: it was provided only at the weekend, customers were logged off after 20 minutes if they did not do anything, and they were restricted to a maximum of 12 hours on-line at a time.

Perhaps we are inching in the right direction, but I doubt that the cultural shift that is necessary will take place without active Government intervention. In short, we need a new approach to those issues. Tim Berners-Lee says:

"Personally, having the luxury of a permanent … connection at home I notice the change of role a computer plays in the home—it becomes immeasurably more friendly. One is much more inclined to order things, pay bills, and check news and weather using it when one does not have to wait and bother with dialling into a service provider."

It seems to me that British skills and temperament are well suited to taking advantage of these great technological advances and to taking a world lead in using the internet for business, education and leisure. We have a great opportunity, but we are behind in the game, and the reasons for that can be found in the regulatory structure. I hope the Minister will assure us that he is urging the Office of Telecommunications, Oftel, to encourage, not incremental change, but a cultural shift in the way in which we perceive the internet, which will be to the benefit of all our citizens.

I thank the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for raising such a vital issue and congratulate him on securing the debate. I share his enthusiasm for the liberating and empowering potential of the internet for every individual and every business, large and small. He is right to identify that potential and the Government wholly agree with him.

I agree that we are in a transitional period. The technology is remarkably new—in fact it is remarkable in every way. If I may be a little extravagant at this point, never before in human history has a technology with such a profoundly transforming potential become available to so many people so rapidly. Inevitably, all sorts of questions arise about how we as a society cope with such an incredible new technology and, during this transitional period, we have to consider carefully every aspect of our actions in that respect.

I also agree that the widespread availability of a speedy access infrastructure and a high-quality backbone telecommunications network that is available at an affordable price are vital to the growth of the internet. Ultimately, those things will be best provided through effective competition in both telecommunications infrastructure and in the services provided through it.

That competition is already at work in the UK to give us the networks that we need in order to lead the world in this field early in the next century. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that effective competition depends on effective and appropriate regulation. We have one of the most liberalised telecommunications markets in the world. As a result of competition, the cost of calls is steadily decreasing, and that is to the benefit of all internet users. I shall run through the range of competition in this country, which is remarkable for the rate at which it has increased over the past few years.

In fixed-line telecommunications, 45 domestic public telecommunications operators are now licensed, an increase of nearly one third since May 1997, when there were 33. They provide their own infrastructure and services in competition with the former monopolist, BT. Three major cable television companies offer telecommunications services over their lines. In March 1997, there were 125 active cable franchises passing 8.2 million homes, with 2.3 million homes connected. By January this year, the number of active cable franchises had increased to 134, with 11.5 million homes—more than half of all the homes in the UK—passed by cable and approximately 3.5 million connected. Those figures show an increase of more than 50 per cent. in less than two years.

More than 14.5 million people subscribe to the four mobile phone networks—a figure that has more than doubled since March 1997, when only 7.1 million people subscribed. The mobile phone market is now worth approximately £3.5 billion, or roughly one third of the fixed-line market. New pricing packages mean that the mobile phone market is increasingly competitive with fixed-line services. More than 100 companies are licensed to provide international facilities. The DTI has licensed 73 new operators of international services since the general election, and BT's share of the international market is now less than 52 per cent.

As a result of all that competition, call prices have fallen by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1984, and there have been even more dramatic price cuts for international calls. However, competition is still increasing: the roll-out of cable and other fixed-line telecommunications is progressing steadily and, later this year, we are to auction off the third generation of mobile telephone licences, which will dramatically increase competition in that sector. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that third generation will enable the provision of internet access through mobile phones.

We have an effective competitive framework for telecommunications in this country, but the hon. Gentleman was right to remind us that we must not be complacent. The Government are not complacent and are working to ensure that the regulatory framework develops in a way that continues to encourage competition and the provision of new services available to everybody.

A range of EC directives has reduced regulatory burdens and promoted competition across the EU. We continue to work with other member states on the 1999 review of the telecommunications regulatory framework in the EU to ensure that that process continues. Within the UK, the Government are reforming telecommunications regulation to ensure that it continues to promote competition effectively. For example, we are streamlining the process for modifying licences and we are consulting on a new appeals mechanism. In the longer term, as the hon. Member for Northavon mentioned, the Government are considering more fundamental reform to move away from the current prohibition-based licensing regime to a more flexible system. We shall publish further ideas on that in the follow-up to the convergence Green Paper later this month.

I receive much correspondence about the specific question of internet access. At present, most consumers access the internet through dial-up services—so-called narrowband access. That can be slow and cumbersome and, as the hon. Member for Northavon graphically described, is not necessarily the best way to access the internet. A key current issue is the provision of broadband access in the local loop. The question is how can we provide faster internet access and the ability to transfer much more data at high speeds, because that is the key to the effective roll-out of the technology.

Many new technologies are coming on stream to help to give consumers access to broadband services in the home. The hon. Member for Northavon mentioned digital subscriber line—or DSL—technology. Cable, satellite and terrestrial digital television services incorporating new interactive services will become available later this year. Cable modems, in particular, offer the prospect of much faster internet access without the need to dial up every time the user wants to go on to the net. As I have mentioned, third-generation mobiles will be another key innovation. We hope shortly to launch a consultation on making new spectrum available for fixed radio broadband access services.

The Minister mentioned cable modems. The chap who e-mailed me was concerned that those have been available elsewhere for a couple of years. He approached BT and it said that it was getting round to it. Is the Minister worried that leaving it to competition is not making the advances in technology available quickly enough?

I shall address the impact of the current competitive situation in a moment, but we believe that competition is the best way and is working. 1 do not want to sound complacent, but all the lessons of recent history tell us that competition is the most effective way to roll out the technology, although that does not mean that there is no place for regulation.

OFFEL has just finished consultation on access to bandwidth which aimed to determine whether there were barriers to the commercial provision of high bandwidth services to residential and small business users, especially services using that approach. It also considered whether OFTEL needed to intervene to allow competing network operators to offer such services directly to customers, by renting BT's copper wires—the so-called local loop unbundling.

The outcome of that consultation will have a significant impact on the UK telecoms market and in particular on achieving our goal of affordable high-speed internet access to consumers. We are in close touch with OFTEL and I understand that it expects to publish its conclusions later this month. I hope that the hon. Member for Northavon will forgive me, but I cannot pre-empt that process. However, I can assure him that the issue is at the forefront of our minds.

The hon. Gentleman asked what effect competition is having and he gave us some figures. He is aware of the Government's intention to make this country the best place to do business electronically by 2002. We are making progress. More than 1 million people in the UK became internet users for the first time during the third quarter of 1998. Worldwide, the speed of take-up is unprecedented. We should not only compare the position in the past in this country, but examine what our competitors are doing.

Some 16 per cent. of our population had internet access by 1998 compared to 28 per cent. in the US. We are behind the US and we have to catch up, but the comparison with other competitors is better. We have higher figures than Japan at 11 per cent. and much of Europe—only 9 per cent. of the population of Germany have internet access and only 5 per cent. in France. Those comparisons were made before the recent developments in internet pricing, such as Freeserve, and we expect those figures to increase considerably. However, our competitors are also increasing access and we cannot be complacent. Our recent benchmarking survey showed that more than 60 per cent. of UK business now has internet access. More than 50 per cent. has a website. Website use has almost doubled and e-commerce has trebled since 1997. We have seen faster growth in that area than either Japan or the US. We had 30 per cent. growth in internet penetration among British business, and 40 per cent. growth in website penetration since 1998. That compares to 6 and 11 per cent. growth in Japan and 20 and 30 per cent. growth in the US. I accept that the US is starting from a higher base, but we have made considerable advances that show that competition is working.

The ambitious target that we set for 1 million small and medium-sized companies to be hooked up to a network by 2002 will probably be achieved by 2000. The technologies are rolling out quickly and, as I have said, that shows that competition is working.

I know that the issue of the cost of access is of great concern to the hon. Member for Northavon and many other people. Is the cost affecting the take-up of the technology? The short answer is no. Of course cost is a consideration, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is a significant barrier to take-up, especially for businesses. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we are just below the OECD average costs for internet access for peak times and, at off-peak times, we are cheaper than the US. The hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished economist, will understand that there is no such thing as a free service: it must be paid for at some point in the process. The question is whether the packages are put together in a way that encourages as many people and businesses as possible to take them up.

I would not like the hon. Member for Northavon to be deluded about the possibility of free access, but companies are free to offer whatever innovative tariffing packages they wish. We have seen a great explosion of such packages in recent months. For example, Kingston Communications in Hull recently introduced a package of £12.77 per month plus 5.5p per call, no matter how long. Cable and Wireless Communications offer combined internet access and telephone charges from £5.99 per month. That includes the internet service provider subscription and up to 12 hours free online each month. NTL has launched a service providing high bandwidth internet connections for a flat rate of £40 a month. It is likely that such services will be rolled out more widely in the coming months. In addition, some internet service providers are now offering internet access on freefone numbers such as 0800 at off—peak times or weekends. The Government welcome such innovation in pricing packages which are delivering for consumers.

The hon. Member for Northavon is right to say that the market will not necessarily provide in all areas and the Government will have to step in. We are doing so to ensure that every school in the country is hooked up to the internet by 2002. We have made remarkable progress. In April 1998, only 20 per cent. of schools were hooked up and only 10 per cent. of those were connected through an integrated services data network link. In April 1999, just a year later, 40 per cent. of all schools were connected, including 30 per cent. via an ISDN. Our target, which we are confident of meeting, is 100 per cent. of schools connected by 2002, including 90 per cent. through an ISDN link. We must also ensure that we do not create a society of the information rich and the information poor. We have a program and a raft of initiatives—

Order. We must now turn to the next debate.

I am glad to have this opportunity to raise an issue that is causing significant financial problems for community and public bodies in my constituency, throughout the county of Worcestershire and I suspect the entire area covered by Severn Trent Water. I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the effects of the change in charging for surface water drainage for non-domestic customers that has been implemented by that company. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Director General of Water Services considers this change and its disproportionate and damaging effects in detail.

The duties of the regulator, as laid down in the Water Industries Act 1991, state that the director general

"has a duty to customers to ensure that no undue preference is shown and that there is no undue discrimination in the way companies fix and recover charges, and that rural customers are protected".

My argument is that Severn Trent Water's surface water drainage charging policy does, and will, discriminate against non-domestic customers who are least able to pay and that it will also disadvantage rural non-domestic customers.

Surface water drainage is part of the sewerage service offered by water companies and, until 1990, Severn Trent Water charged all its customers on the basis of rateable value. Since then, new customers and those with substantially altered properties have been charged on the basis of surface area. The company is now in the midst of a three-year plan to convert all existing customers from the rateable value basis for calculating charges to a system based on the total site area that the properties occupy. That transfer of the vast majority of non-domestic properties is causing the difficulties that I shall address. It is also important to note that my research and contacts with other water companies suggest that no other water company has chosen to make that change.

As the director general points out in his "Report on Tariff Structures and Charges 1999-2000", companies currently charge for surface drainage in a variety of ways. For example, they charge as part of foul sewerage charges through the volumetric tariff, as a flat fee within the fixed charge or through a combination of both, by reference to the rateable value of the property, or via a charge related to the surface area that drains to the public sewer. Severn Trent Water appears to be the only company that has chosen the last option.

I accept that there appears to be a certain logic in charging for drainage on the basis of the size of the area drained. However, as I will demonstrate, the results of that change in practice have been far from fair or logical. The director general may have foreseen some of those difficulties in his 1991 report on water payments when he said that, although surface and highway drainage raised a number of charging issues, recovering the costs associated with those services by reference to the volume of water delivered to customers—that is, instead of the surface area—might be simpler than, and just as good as, other approaches. When I look in detail at the effects of Severn Trent Water's decision, I believe increasingly that the director general was right.

I want to consider in detail the implications of those changes on two types of customers: first, village halls and community centres; and, secondly, schools within Worcestershire. I was first alerted to this issue about a year ago when a village hall in Feckenham in my constituency contacted me. Prior to September 1997, it had paid water bills on the basis of its rateable value. In September 1997, a meter was fitted and it therefore moved to the new site area method of calculating surface water drainage. The effect of the change was a 310 per cent. increase in the charge for sewerage services. The new sewerage charge would have been more than the total water and sewerage bill before the change and the surface water drainage element was by far the largest component of the bill. We should remember that the charge was levied for the service of draining rain water from a property. Can that really be the most costly part of the provision of water and sewerage services?

An administrative difficulty associated with the change became evident at this point. After the village hall appealed to Severn Trent Water, the company surveyed the site properly and agreed that some parts did not drain into its sewers and could therefore be removed from the site area calculation. To the company's credit, it has clearly been willing to put right the many mistakes made in calculating the surface area. However, those mistakes occurred originally because the work of estimating the surface area was put out to contractors who referred simply to ordnance survey maps and made no attempt to determine whether any parts of the total surface area, such as playing fields or lawns, did not drain to the areas served by Severn Trent Water. Furthermore, although the site area taken into consideration was reduced, the Feckenham village hall was left with a 165 per cent. increase in its sewerage charge.

Severn Trent Water and Ofwat have made much of the company's willingness to consider an abatement when part of a site does not drain into the company's sewer. However, for the vast majority of the community and public services affected, that will be just a drop in the ocean—or should I say the sewer—compared with the significant effect of the shift from rateable value to surface area charging.

Following my intervention and pressure from the village hall committee, the Feckenham village hall received a stay of execution as Severn Trent Water agreed that the basis of its surface water charging could revert to rateable value. However, without a change in policy, the village hall volunteers will have to meet the increase next April. The Hereford and Worcester community council and Action with Communities in Rural England—ACRE—have also highlighted the difficulties caused by the company's policy, providing examples of one Worcestershire village community centre that is facing an £800 increase in its water bill and another village hall that will see its bill increase from £550 to £2,000 per year.

Following publicity about the issue, I was contacted by Worcestershire county council which expressed its concern about the effect of the change in water charges on its public buildings, particularly schools. Due to the administrative difficulties and complications inherent in the new system and disputes about the surface areas that should be included in the calculations, Worcestershire county council only recently received detailed information from Severn Trent Water about the effects of the charging changes. The overall effect of this change alone will increase water bills in the county by nearly £200,000. One school in Inkberrow in my constituency faces a yearly increase of £2,560 or 1,106 per cent.—in its water bill. Another school faces an increase of 779 per cent. and one of the smallest first schools in the town faces an increase of £787—or 449 per cent.—in its water bill.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. As a fellow Worcestershire Member of Parliament, I assure the House that this problem affects the whole county. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government did not allocate extra money to health and education in order to top up Severn Trent Water's dividend? Does she agree also that this problem affects not only schools and community associations but commercial premises? A chain manufacturer in my constituency faced a 250 per cent. increase in his water bill. After we argued the case with the water company, the increase was reduced to 6 per cent. Throughout the Severn Trent Water area, businesses face rising water bills, and the jobs of our constituents are under threat merely so that that company's already massive profits can increase.

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I know that he has been active in raising the issue.

My particular concern is schools. In my constituency, water bills for schools will increase by a total of £24,000 next April. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that money must come from tight education budgets when, as we all agree, it should be spent in the classroom to improve standards.

When I wrote to Severn Trent Water and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions last year about my concerns, both pointed out that any change to charges will result in winners and losers. I agree, but in this case we must consider who will be the losers and the disproportionate extent to which they will lose.

Like my hon. Friend, I have raised this issue with Severn Trent Water and Ofwat and received the same reply about winners and losers. The problem does not relate to rural areas alone, although my hon. Friend rightly stressed their importance, but to urban areas, commercial premises, schools and public buildings. Surely we need more research to find out who are the losers and whether some are subject to undue discrimination. I asked Ofwat and Severn Trent Water what research they did before embarking on the policy, and I await the response with interest.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I shall refer to that later in my speech. I am grateful that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the problems caused by the charges set by Severn Trent Water.

The company has argued that the change will be revenue neutral, but if that is the case, some of its non-domestic customers must think that Christmas has come early. Of course, anyone who substantially gained from the change would be unlikely to contact their Member of Parliament to complain, but given Severn Trent Water's assertion and the village halls and schools that are facing the significant losses that I have outlined, it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, incumbent on the company to provide evidence to the director general about the customers who will gain from the change and the extent to which they will benefit.

To return to my point about the nature of the losers, I am concerned that the losses appear to be hitting community and public facilities. The effect of the change is regressive in that it hits services that have little ability to find money to pay the increased charges. The determining factor for the organisations that have been hit badly by the change is the relationship between the rateable value of their property and the surface area that it occupies. In other words, the losers are the non-domestic customers whose property has a low rateable value but a high surface area. Those properties tend to be public buildings and they are predominantly in rural areas.

It is not only the nature of the losers that causes concern but the extent of their losses. Increases of hundreds of per cent. in sewerage charges are not isolated occurrences. It is not reasonable for any customer of a utility to face such enormous increases. Those increases are particularly unreasonable when they will also have social costs. Furthermore, the distorting effect of the change is demonstrated by the large proportion of the overall bill that surface water charges now constitute for many non-domestic customers. That cannot be a true reflection of the costs involved, which the director general set as a priority for charging schemes.

Having outlined the difficulties being caused by the change to surface water charging by Severn Trent Water, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to undertake to instruct the water regulator—the Director General of Water Services—to consider in detail the effects of the change, with particular reference, as I have already said, to where the losses occur, the disproportionate nature of the increases and the extent to which the new system fulfils his demand that charges should more clearly reflect the costs of delivering the service.

I am encouraged that my hon. Friend will be able to do that following the extension of the director general's powers to approve charging schemes introduced in the Water Industry Bill. I am further encouraged by a letter sent to ACRE in February in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment stated:

"Water companies will have the prime responsibility for considering and proposing their charges schemes. However, these will be subject to approval by OFWAT, and Ministers will have powers to ensure that particular issues are addressed in charges schemes".

Later in the letter, he stated:

"where charges for sewerage are covered by companies' charges schemes—including, for instance, surface water drainage—it will be for the Director General, under the provisions of the Bill, to consider whether to approve such charges schemes."

The director general should outline in his consideration whether Severn Trent Water should allow non-domestic customers to opt for their surface water charges to continue to be based on rateable values. That would be appropriate given the repeal of section 145 of the Water Industry Act 1991 in the Water Industry Bill. In its literature, Severn Trent Water has used the need to comply with section 145 as the justification for the change. Now that the need has been removed, it should offer customers the option to stay with rateable values for surface water charging.

The social costs caused to non-commercial and non-profit-making organisations by those large increases in water charges highlight the demand of organisations such as ACRE that a third tier of water charging should exist for such customers, who fall between commercial and household customers. Severn Trent Water has recognised that there is a distinction to be made because it was willing to defer the introduction of the higher charges for customers and properties that it defined as "sensitive". Those included registered charities and any other non-commercial or non-profit-making organisation. That sensitivity will not disappear next April when Severn Trent Water intends to impose the increased charges. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that the company should recognise the particular position of those community and public bodies and find a third way to deal with their water charges.

In conclusion, this change to surface water charging will impose significant social costs; it will hit those who are least able to pay; it is administratively difficult for all involved; and it will drain resources from vital public services such as education. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me and other hon. Friends in resisting the change and seeking a fairer solution.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) on securing this debate and for setting out clearly why surface water drainage charges are a major local concern. I thank her for her generosity in affording time to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) to express the concerns of their constituents which should be brought to the attention of the House.

Water is an essential service, vital for life and health. The Government believe that a charging system must reflect that fact, ensuring that customers are not deprived of water for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation. The principles behind our policy are to provide a system of charges that are fair and affordable, particularly for vulnerable customers, to protect public health, to ensure that water supplies are used in a sustainable way and to protect the aquatic environment. We believe that consumer choice should lie at the heart of the new system.

Our consultation document, "Water Charging in England and Wales—A New Approach", set out a number of proposals that we believe offer customers greater fairness and choice. We are now taking our proposals forward through the Water Industry Bill.

It cannot be right for anyone to be deprived of essential water because they cannot afford to pay their water bill. The loss of water supply can have a severe effect not only on the individual consumer but on wider public health concerns. The Water Industry Bill therefore prohibits household disconnection, and ensures that premises providing key services to the community cannot be deprived of their water supply because of non-payment. That provision extends to institutions such as schools, hospitals and nursing homes and children's homes.

We also recognise that some customers—those with high essential use of water—could suffer severe hardship if required to pay on the basis of a measured bill. We propose to ensure that targeted and effective protection is available for vulnerable households. Those entitled to protection should be large families on low incomes and those with medical conditions requiring a high use of water, although we would be happy to consider targeted proposals to protect other groups if a case could be made that they would suffer severe hardship.

We wish to extend customer choice in water charging as far as is practicable. Household customers should have a right to remain on an unmeasured charge when they are using water for essential purposes only. In ruling out universal compulsory metering, we have accepted that meters may suit the circumstances of some customers with low water use. Therefore, household customers should be able to opt for a meter, to be installed free, with the protection that those who do so may revert to an unmeasured charge within one year. In addition, the Bill will remove the deadline for use of rateable values in calculating charges. That fulfils our commitment to continue permitting water companies to use rateable value for charging, avoiding the need for significant upheavals in charging arrangements.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said, the Director General of Water Services is responsible for economic regulation by controlling companies' overall price limits, ensuring that changes to charges, such as those that my hon. Friend has mentioned, cannot be used as a device to boost company income and profits. The director general also has a responsibility to ensure that charges do not reflect undue preference for, or unduly discriminate against, any class or group of customers. However, the director general does not currently have more specific powers over the individual elements of companies' charges.

The Water Industry Bill will give the director general new powers to approve water companies' charging schemes, and will enable Ministers to give the director general guidance on the exercise of those powers. That represents an important new assurance for customers, and will put greater pressure on companies to consider carefully and thoroughly the impact of their proposals. It is essential that water companies create charging arrangements that are responsive to their customers' concerns and reflect local needs.

Severn Trent Water—as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said—charges households for surface and highway drainage by reference to the rateable value of the property. Properties without a rateable value pay a charge related to property type. Severn Trent Water—again as my hon. Friend stated—has embarked on a programme of charging non-household customers on a site area basis. Its intention is that all non-household customers will be charged on that basis by March 2000.

Anglian Water, Welsh Water and South West Water charge for surface and highway drainage through volumetric charge. North West Water, Northumbrian Water, Southern Water, Thames Water and Wessex Water include surface and highway drainage in their standing charges. Northumbrian Water is the only company other than Severn Trent Water that charges non-household properties by a method different from that applied to households. Those companies use a method that refers to rateable value rather than a site area based charging system.

The Government understand the concerns that have been expressed about Severn Trent Water's method of charging non-household properties for surface water drainage. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch had occasion to say, any change to underlying charging methods will be likely to throw up winners and losers. Planning how to handle the consequence of change, including identifying likely losers and developing transitional arrangements as necessary, must be a key part of considering the case for change.

It appears that, under a change to charges based on surface area, premises with high rateable values but small sites will gain, but premises with low rateable values and large sites will lose. We understand that Severn Trent Water has agreed to delay the introduction of a site area based charge in some cases on the ground of merit. We also understand that, where properties have significant areas of grass, garden or car park without a drainage system that connects with the main drain, it has agreed to remove those areas from the measured assessment of those properties.

Anyone faced with large increases as a result of the change introduced by Severn Trent Water should contact the company with a view to establishing that the whole of their site indeed drains to the public sewerage system, and the possibility of phasing in the increase in charges. If they are not satisfied with the company's response, they may wish to take up the matter with Ofwat's central customer service committee. That committee has the duty to represent the views of water customers and to investigate their complaints.

Surface water drainage is not a service provided by sewerage undertakers to every customer. Many customers are not aware that they pay such a charge. Much surface water soaks into the ground where it falls, or flows into soakaways on the premises rather than public sewers. Even though in such cases some companies offer a voluntary rebate, rebates are not universal and the onus is on customers to seek them out.

Sewerage charges on customers' bills seldom identify separately the three elements of charge: foul water, surface water and highway drainage. Customers do not, therefore, have full information on the cost of each of those services. The Government believe customers should be aware of all elements of their bills and would expect water companies to ensure that they are separately identified.

The Director General of Water Services also wants more transparency in the way in which customers are billed. Companies which charge for surface and highway drainage through a fixed charge have been asked to show the amount separately on bills, and all companies have been asked to provide, at the very least, an explanation of their charges.

In principle, we consider that all customers who can demonstrate that they do not receive a specific sewerage service should be entitled to an appropriate abatement of charges. Therefore, when customers are only connected for foul drainage, charges levied by companies should not cover surface drainage. In such circumstances, the director general would like companies to provide abatements in charges. The Government support that approach, as we recognise that surface water drainage for some users can make up a substantial element of the overall charge—a point most tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch.

Under the legislative framework that we inherited from the previous Government, water companies have considerable freedom in deciding how to levy charges on customers, including widespread powers to insist on compulsory metering, as well as the method of calculating surface water drainage charges.

When the Minister for the Environment contacts the Director General of Water Services on—quite rightly—the structure of abatements in charges for properties that have soakaways, will he ensure that the forms that companies issue to customers who want to apply for such abatements are simplified? I recently came across a case of Severn Trent Water requiring detailed plans—which the average householder simply could not produce—to prove that the customers qualified for an abatement to which they were clearly entitled.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is debatable whether I have ever heard anything more ridiculous than Severn Trent Water's requirements of its customers in that regard, particularly as I would imagine that many of its customers are somewhat elderly and would have some difficulty in reading any form. Being required to discover plans and forward them is absurd.

We are taking action to deliver our manifesto commitment to pursue tough and effective regulation of the water industry in the interests of customers and the environment. The Water Industry Bill that is before Parliament will make the charges of water companies subject to tighter regulation. The Government plan to consult soon on the draft guidance that Ministers will give to the director general on the use of his new powers. I shall ensure that a copy is sent not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch but to my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest and for Northfield as part of the consultation process.

I am sure that the director general will have noted the issues debated today, and will bear them in mind when considering future charges in the Severn Trent Water area and, indeed, the rest of England and Wales. I have little doubt that, if the directors of Severn Trent Water do not notice this debate, they will have it drawn to their attention.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.