in the Chair]

May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week, please?

The business for next week will be as follows:

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business. Last Thursday, at column 367, I raised with the Leader of the House the matter of the vote next Monday on the Human Rights Act motion, and the Leader of the House gave what I thought was a rather complacent answer on that, suggesting that a deferred vote was an adequate way of dealing with such an important matter. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House is aware that yesterday, his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) returned to that issue, and said that

"there must be certain items that the House feels are of the utmost importance and deserve a vote immediately after the debate."

You, Mr. Speaker, said:

"I have no powers in these matters, but the hon. Gentleman will know who does. He"—

that is, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North—

"should take the matter up with the appropriate Minister." — [Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 880.]

I think that the Leader of the House is the appropriate Minister, and therefore I ask him yet again: will he listen not only to Conservative Members but to his own hon. Friends, who have now rumbled the fact that to have the disgraceful let-out of the deferred Division used on such an important and substantive matter is frankly unacceptable, and will he, even at this late stage, please look at that matter again?

I also want to follow up a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) who, on 13 November at column 713, raised a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, about the very important matter of the report of the parliamentary ombudsman on the ministerial code. He said there—the ombudsman said—

"I have concluded that there is no valid reason under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information why this information should not be released, and that there is a public interest in making it available. I" —

that is, the ombudsman—

"therefore much regret that Ministers have not agreed to the release of the information."

We must have a debate on this matter, must we not? This is a matter of the utmost importance. Here is the ombudsman saying that the Government are engaged in a cover-up—and, worse than that, in a cover-up relating to Ministers and the ministerial code of practice. I hope that the Leader of the House can tell us that we shall have an urgent debate on this matter, so that the Government can come clean.

On 1 November, in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), the Secretary of State for Defence said that he was

"currently considering the conclusions of a review on the employment of women in the armed forces"

and would

"make a further statement in due course." — [Official Report, 1 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 767W.]

Surprise, surprise: no such statement has been forthcoming, but equally unsurprisingly, in The Sunday Telegraph last Sunday, 11 November, we find an item saying that

"the Defence Secretary is understood to have made the decision"

on women in the armed forces—

"after receiving overwhelming evidence from the Chiefs of Staff … One official said: 'The trials proved that to allow women to serve in the infantry or armoured corps would undermine the operational capability of those units which could not be allowed to happen.'"

We hear that we may be about to send some of our armed forces into the theatre of war in Afghanistan. Are they going to go without us hearing on the Floor of the House what the position is with regard to the use of women in an operational capacity in the armed forces? We yet again have an example of no statement in the House but an inspired leak or briefing in the press. It simply is not good enough, and certainly not in this case.

Finally, I think that we should have an urgent debate on what I would describe as the delicate condition of certain Members. We hear, do we not, that some Members of Parliament—probably mainly the babes on the Labour Back Benches—need counselling, because apparently the fact that—

Cuddling.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) says "cuddling". If he is volunteering to cuddle the babes, that is a matter for him. However, there is a serious point here, is there not? The House of Commons, as everyone knows, sits from 2.30 in the afternoon until often as late as 10 o'clock at night. We also know that, generally speaking, barely half of the Government Back Benchers are even present when the House sits—that is a matter of record—and we also know that we recently voted ourselves substantially more staff to ease the burden on our delicate persons. I believe that we must have a debate, and I suspect and hope that the Leader of the House can grant it urgently, and I would suggest that it is called: "Stressed-out MPs: Myth or reality?"

I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that if any of my colleagues need counselling or cuddling, they will not be turning to him.

I do think, on a day when I have announced that we shall be having three days of debate on legislation against terrorism, that we shall be having a debate on NHS reform, and that we shall be having a debate on civil defence, none of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised at the Dispatch Box, however entertaining they may be, match the severity of the international crisis or the nature of affairs at home or what our constituents are interested in.

On the employment of women in the armed forces, of course there has been no announcement of any change, nor am I aware that any change is likely be announced. As long as there is no change, the present position applies. However, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for Defence and his Ministers have had quite a bit to think about over the last two months. It may have passed him by, but it is important that they should focus on the international situation, and just a word of congratulation from the right hon. Gentleman on the progress that we have been making in Afghanistan would have been welcome in a very long set of questions.

On the ombudsman, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the ombudsman never said that there was a cover-up. He did not say it, even in the words that the right hon. Gentleman quoted. I am sure that if he had said it, the right hon. Gentleman would have made a point of quoting that.

Finally, on the question of deferred Divisions, what I said last week was that we actually have a much larger turnout of Members voting. [Interruption.] I have checked the figures. Since we introduced deferred Divisions, on average 463 Members have voted in those Divisions. It is in everyone's interests that there should be as large a vote as possible on the derogation from the human rights convention. I return the right hon. Gentleman's question for a response—possibly, a Conservative Member can answer it. That derogation permits us to detain terrorists whom we cannot deport. Is the Conservative party really going to vote against that on Monday and leave those terrorists at large in Britain?

May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 323, which was signed by 225 Members from all parties and calls for the House to make an early decision about hunting wild mammals with dogs?

[That this House congratulates the Scottish Parliament on the passage of the first stage of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill; looks forward to taking the earliest possible opportunity to re-affirm its stand on the abolition of hunting; and reminds Her Majesty's Government of the overwhelming support for abolition in the House and the high expectation amongst the electorate that the Government will honour the manifesto pledge to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue in respect of England and Wales.]

I remind my right hon. Friend of the Labour manifesto undertaking and the inclusion of the measure in the Queen's Speech. We have had plenty of time since we returned after the summer recess to debate it. Can we resolve the matter by a straight resolution of the House, so that it can go straight to the other place rather than having to go through all the stages of a Bill yet again? Have any Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asked my right hon. Friend for time for the House to resolve the matter? It is about time that the Government started to think about 225 Members of Parliament, rather than appeasing the Countryside Alliance.

The position as stated in the Queen's Speech was that there would be a free vote on that issue in this Session. That will take place—there has been no reason to change that. As my hon. Friend knows because I discussed the matter with him, there has been no shift from that position. I note his interesting suggestion about proceeding by resolution rather than by a Bill. Obviously, that is a consideration. I see no reason not to anticipate that there will be a free vote this Session.

First, does the Leader of the House recall representations that were made to him and supported on both sides of the House that, by amalgamating so many different topics in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, we are in danger of squeezing out important issues—notably, those relating to agriculture and the countryside? Will he look again at the practice that was used for Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions questions, which were split in two so that there was obvious opportunity for questions relating to both subjects to be reached?

Secondly, will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government propose that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol should take place? Does he intend that there should be a debate in the House before or after it takes place?

Thirdly, I certainly recognise the importance of the legislation on anti-terrorism, crime and security that is coming before the House next week and the week after. Will he demonstrate how seriously the Government take concerns about that legislation? The Bill has 125 clauses and already controversial issues have been raised, not least by the Master of the Rolls this morning. The right hon. Gentleman said when dealing with the provisional business that he expects us to deal with the legislation in just eight days and with limited opportunities to discuss those extremely important issues. Will he undertake to the House that, if it appears as a result of our progress next week that we need more time to discuss it in the following week, the programming of the legislation will be adjusted accordingly?

On DEFRA questions, the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been raised before, and 1 note that he is saying that the system is still causing hon. Members difficulty. We will continue to discuss it to try to find a way forward.

On the Kyoto protocol, it is only within the past few weeks that we have achieved agreement at Marrakech on the protocol. I hope that we can progress the matter with all due speed. However, Britain has everything to be proud of in this matter. The cuts that we are offering in greenhouse gases are greater than those offered by any other country and we have consistently taken a lead to try to get the agreement that was subsequently secured in Marrakech.

I appreciate the co-operation that we have received in drawing up the timetable for the House to deal with the terrorism Bill. I hope that we will be able to meet that timetable, which provides a generous allocation of time to consider the main issue. Indeed, on the second day, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we propose to sit until midnight and thus make available additional time to the House and ensure that Third Reading does not take time from Committee proceedings. The timetable must be balanced against the fact that we are in a grave situation. As a result of 11 September we know the severity and potential scale of the threat that we face. While our constituents certainly want us to probe, test and scrutinise the Bill adequately, they would find it odd if Parliament were incapable of enacting measures by the end of this year that we think are essential to ensure that they have proper security.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Labour Members whose loyalty to the Government is regarded as verging on the grotesque, or even exceeding it, are growing increasingly impatient at the Government's failure to progress the vote on hunting with dogs? We expect that vote by Christmas so that, should the House vote in favour of a ban on such hunting, there will be sufficient time in this Session to get the legislation through the House of Lords and, if necessary, to use the Parliament Acts.

I would not wish to strain the loyalty of such a loyal supporter as my right hon. Friend. The programme that we mapped out in the Queen's Speech is for a full Session. Many issues listed in that speech have not yet been put before the House, but will be in due course. I am confident that the commitment that he mentions will be one of them.

I ask this question of the right hon. Gentleman because, as Leader of the House, he represents the interests not only of the House but all its Members. Is he aware of the growing concern about the extraordinarily arbitrary powers of the Electoral Commission, which has apparently decided that Members of Parliament who go abroad under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union, or as a member of a Select Committee, are obliged to notify the commission of that visit within 30 days, otherwise they are committing an offence? Is that not absolute nonsense? Is he prepared to make a statement to the House and to indicate that, if necessary, emergency legislation will be introduced to curb that nonsense?

decision of the Electoral Commission, of which I am aware. I have also been privileged to see the correspondence in which the Speaker robustly asserted the rights of the House in this matter. It is a bizarre ruling on the part of the commission and it carries the risk of undermining its credibility and authority as a body of common sense as well as of legal standing.

Given the current salience of terrorism in the public mind, will my right hon. Friend consider scheduling a debate on the chemical warfare that is being waged—in part, allegedly, using British-produced chemicals—in the southern provinces of Colombia and the adjacent provinces of Ecuador under the auspices of Plan Colombia?

I cannot say that I am aware of the matter about which my hon. Friend complains. Plainly, I will consider it and, if appropriate, draw it to the attention of the relevant Secretary of State. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I want to establish the facts before I comment.

In giving the business for the week after next the Leader of the House did not mention the Chancellor's commitment to publish his pre-Budget report on 27 November. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is still the case that the Chancellor intends to make that statement? If he does. will he assure me that thereafter, in the light of the recession in manufacturing industry, the rise in unemployment, questions of affordability about future Government expenditure and falling tax revenues, there will be a debate in Government time about the state of the British economy?

I am happy to confirm that it is expected that the Chancellor will give his pre-Budget report on 27 November. It is not normally announced as part of the forthcoming business. The fact that it was not announced should not indicate any change in that plan. I find it breathtaking that any Conservative Member should refer to unemployment, which is as low now as it has been for a generation. It is still below a million and that compares with 3 million under the Conservatives. If they want to debate unemployment, we will be delighted to do so.

May we have a debate on the work of the Environment Agency to improve flood defences in various parts of the country? In my constituency at Stockbridge the work to defend land near that part of the River Aire and further north will not commence until next summer, which means that many of my constituents are extremely anxious every time we have heavy rain. They are terrified that there will again be flooding only 12 months after it occurred before. That anxiety is not helped by the fact that some insurance companies have been less than helpful. Their sluggish response has meant that some of my constituents have still not moved back into their homes and one constituent has been told that there will be a £10,000 excess when she renews her insurance policy.

I fully understand the importance of that matter to my hon. Friend's constituents, and I am glad that she has had this opportunity to raise it, which will be noted by my colleagues in the relevant Department. We have invested a very large sum of additional funds in providing flood defences, and many of those projects have proceeded, but it does, of course, take time to put in place what is often complex and significant engineering work. I very much hope that the project to which she refers will go ahead as soon as possible. In the meantime, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that a debate on flood defences will take place in Westminster Hall next week, in which my hon. Friend and others can raise those matters.

Cannot the Leader of the House understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the motion to derogate part of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a very important matter, which should preferably be considered in prime time and certainly with a Division straight after the debate? It is his duty, surely, to ensure that that happens. Most reasonable people think that a Division should take place immediately after a serious debate, not on the following Wednesday for the convenience of the Prime Minister's voting record.

It is, of course, an important debate, and it seems that I am now hearing the answer to my earlier question: the Conservative party intends that those who are terrorists but who are not being deported—

Not so.

Well, that would certainly appear to be the implication of the enthusiasm for voting there and then. It is an important issue, so we should enable as many Members as possible to take part, which is why I robustly think it right to defer the Division.

Further to the Prime Minister's answer to the question that I asked last week, can we expect the Secretary of State for Health or the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or both, to make a statement to the House on the Government's contribution to the research, to be undertaken by the World Health Organisation, into deep vein thrombosis and air travel?

I cannot promise that a statement will be made on that matter, but I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend receives a full response from the relevant Department.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time, the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) referred to the campaign that the Haemophilia Society is running in relation to the estimated 5,000 haemophiliacs who were infected with HIV or hepatitis as result of faulty blood transfusions. The Prime Minister gave a woolly reply; he said that he would consider those matters and he promised to review them. We know what the Prime Minister's reviews often turn into. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange an urgent statement, so that those matters can be addressed on behalf of those very vulnerable people?

I recall my right hon. Friend's response, and it was one of great sympathy and understanding of the problems of those who have been infected in that way. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue relates to cases that date from the 1980s, when we were not in office, but the conduct of the then Government was entirely correct. They introduced the proper means of treating the products that were being used as soon as it was technically available, and they cannot be held responsible for failing to introduce it earlier than that. It is for that reason that the Department of Health resists a claim for compensation, for which there is plainly no legal liability, but it is, of course, willing to explore other ways in which it can help and in which it can ensure that there is no repetition of what happened in the 1980s.

Does my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the news that a further 73 police recruits commenced training in the west midlands last week, taking the figure to well over 400 new recruits in the past 10 months? However, does he recognise that there is growing concern about the problems of retention in the west midlands and the transfer of officers to other forces? Can we have an early debate on the problems of retention in police authorities such as that in the west midlands? Can we specifically consider the impact of the regional allowance paid to the Met and home counties forces? Can we consider the cost of training police officers in the west midlands who then work in other police authorities?

I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's local police force on the increase that he outlined, which reflects the fact that we now have a record number of police under training to join the force. I cannot promise to hold a debate on the matter, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Home Secretary will answer questions on Monday, when he may wish to raise the issue.

Earlier this week, the Government published a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and an implementation plan to take forward the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system. Does the Leader of the House accept that an undertaking was also given that the Government will review the operation of the Parades Commission and the legislation under which it was established? Can he say when that commitment will be fulfilled and the issue will be brought before the House?

I cannot announce such a date to the House, as that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is heavily engaged in ensuring that we fulfil our commitments at the present time. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of reviews are under way, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has that matter under consideration as well.

During last week's business questions, I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the Children's Society withdrawing from all its work in Wales. Since then, I have learned that that decision was made with virtually no consultation with all the other agencies involved in the work. May I appeal again to the Leader of the House to use all his influence with his colleagues to try to get the Children's Society to reverse its decision? The Children's Society has 13 projects in Wales, working on advocacy with the most vulnerable children in care, as a result of the Waterhouse report. Will he convey to those involved the damage that that decision has done to the voluntary sector—not only in Wales, but throughout the United Kingdom—especially given the large amounts of public funding in those projects in partnership with the voluntary sector?

I fully understand the reasons for my hon. Friend's concern about that issue, and I congratulate her on the persistence with which she has pursued a matter that is obviously of great importance to her constituents. I am sure that my hon. Friends at the Wales Office will wish to do all that they can, but we do not have any direct control over the matter—after all, she refers to a charitable organisation. It appears not to have had a good record of consulting on its decision, but my hon. Friends at the Wales Office will share her concern and will be willing to assist in any way that is practical for them.

Has the Leader of the House reached any decision on whether he will propose that there should be a short recess between Christmas and Easter, called a constituency week? If he claims, quite understandably, that that depends on the pressure and progress of business, surely that problem could be overcome by making a compensatory adjustment to the long summer recess. Does he accept that it would be extremely helpful to hon. Members on both sides of the House to know as soon as possible whether there will be such a recess, so that we can plan our constituency engagements, which many of us could not carry out if the House were sitting?

I totally accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Hon. Members are assisted in making maximum use of such time if that recess is predictable and known well in advance. That is why, in the first week back after the long recess, I announced the recess for the forthcoming Christmas and new year period—not to universal approbation from those on the Conservative Front Bench. Nevertheless I did so, and I can assure the House that I will announce the dates of future recesses as soon as I can.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the demise of Atlantic Telecom, which has gone into receivership? Is he also aware of the fact that Oftel has been absolutely no use whatever to the people who have been affected and that PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is in charge of the receivership, has also been unhelpful? In fact, as they say where I come from, it is about as much good as a chocolate fireguard. Will my right hon. Friend also try to help a company such as BT, which wants to take on the responsibility for the service provided by that company, but unfortunately at a cost? Can we have a debate not just about the fact that Atlantic Telecom and similar companies have gone bust, but about looking after small businesses? Perhaps we could create a body along the lines of the Association of British Travel Agents to look after those businesses and stop them going out of business.

I am aware from my constituency experience how difficult it can be for companies that are owed money by one that has gone into receivership. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his vigilance on behalf of his constituents and the enterprises in his area. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Secretary of State. My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to pursue this, as he has done today, through the other devices open to him as a constituency Member with an issue to raise and interesting proposals to make.

The Leader of the House will know that the Youth Justice Board is a public body funded by the Home Office, and that it publishes a periodical called Youth Justice Board News. The October issue has at its masthead a red box including the words "Pledge met—special pull-out supplement". One turns to the exciting special supplement to find a photograph of the leader of the Labour party, the Labour party pledge card and other Labour party political propaganda. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for a Home Office Minister to come to the Dispatch Box as soon as possible to explain how they understand the difference between public spending and party political spending?

It sounds an excellent publication, and I shall instruct my office to put me on its mailing list. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing to the attention of the House and the public how well we have met the pledges we made in the last election.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on competition policy? This request is prompted by the acquisition of Woodville Airbags in my constituency by an American business which, within 72 hours, announced the closure of the plant and the transfer of its work to plants in Romania, with the loss of 304 jobs. This involves nearly 30 per cent. of the European car airbags market, and means that the Company has effectively bought the order book and disposed of the work force. That seems like the unacceptable face of capitalism to me. May we have a debate on the issue?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government hope to improve a number of areas of competition policy, which is why we committed ourselves in the Queen's Speech to an enterprise Bill.

My hon. Friend draws attention to a matter that is of concern to his area, particularly to those of his constituents employed by the company. Having represented companies that have been taken over, I fully understand the deep concern of those who work in a company that is acquired in that way. It is Trade and Industry questions next Thursday and my hon. Friend will no doubt wish to raise the matter then.

Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) with regard to the derogation order. The Leader of the House knows full well that under article 15, the provision of the convention can only be derogated in time of war or other public emergencies threatening the life of the nation. Surely the matter really should be discussed in prime time.

The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which has 125 clauses, eight schedules and 114 pages, is to clear the House in seven days. There is no way in which the legislation will be properly scrutinised. If it be true that part of the Bill is really urgent, it cannot be true of the entire Bill. Surely the proper way is to identify that which is really urgent, make it the subject of a very short Bill, and take the remainder of the proposed legislation in the proper way.

I would not say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am grateful to his right hon. Friends for having agreed the timetable that he has just attacked. They were right to agree to the timetable because it is important that we demonstrate to the public that we are vigilant in ensuring that we take all steps to provide for their security.

It is true that the Bill covers a wide range of issues, spanning several Departments. That is because our response to 11 September has to be comprehensive. Are Conservative Members who wish to challenge the motion really saying that they are prepared to oppose it? Are they prepared to account for a situation in which terrorists whom we cannot deport are allowed to go free? If they are not saying that, I do not understand their concern.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who are as passionately committed to the fight against terrorism as he is and who supported with considerable enthusiasm the efforts of the Prime Minister in the current emergency nevertheless believe that there are different ways of translating that commitment against terrorism into legislation? Some of us have considerable reservations about the path that the Government have chosen. I commend my right hon. Friend's effort to get amendments to the Bill accepted from last Tuesday, but because that effort failed, we are left with an even more constricted timetable than he initially envisaged. I hope that he will listen to Labour as well as Opposition Members who wish to see the matter effectively debated and, if necessary, suitably amended.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the motion providing for amendments to be tabled in advance of Second Reading was carried last night. I regret that it was not carried earlier—the reason was that the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham and Sleaford opposed it.

My constituency is Sleaford and North Hykeham.

The fact remains that the right hon. and learned Gentleman blocked an extra day for Members to table amendments.

May I bring to the Leader of the House's attention a problem relating to the taking of legislation in this Chamber as a result of the passing of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament? There are often areas of Executive responsibility that are not part of a Bill but have a bearing on its passage. I refer in particular to the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is in Committee, and the need for assurances about the operation of civil legal aid north of the border.

I invite the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, to look at achieving a means of rectifying that defect at the earliest opportunity to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of Executive actions wherever the Minister is, whether here or in Edinburgh?

I am happy to examine the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If there is a problem, I am sure that, with good will, we can find a way forward. In general, the process of operating by Sewel motion has worked well on both sides and there has been good co-operation from both sides. Only last week we had a joint ministerial council with representatives of the devolved bodies to discuss an approach on European policy, on which there was strong co-operation. I welcome the fact that all parties are working together to find an outcome that everyone can respect in all parts of the United Kingdom.

I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 420:

[That this House welcomes the progress made in paying out compensation to miners and their widows in Wales which has now topped £100 million; notes that £1 million a week is being paid out in Wales; acknowledges that initially the rate of payment has not been as rapid as all would desire; recognises the important contribution of the Welsh Monitoring Sub Group set up by the Secretary of State for Wales; notes that the group by bringing together all the stakeholders has succeeded in pushing forward the prioritising of testing for older miners; looks forward to seeing an increase in more full and final offers being made; and congratulates all those who have campaigned for justice for miners and their widows.]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Government on the progress that has been made on miners' compensation in Wales? Will he also urge the Government to make greater progress in making full and final offers?

The Government have sought to resolve the issue as best they can. It is a complex issue which, as my hon. Friend knows, affects large numbers of people, including, no doubt, some of his constituents. We hope to complete the work as quickly as we reasonably can, and every possible effort is being made to secure that objective.

I invite the Leader of the House to reflect on the uncharacteristically intemperate reply that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who asked very courteously to have a debate on the economy in Government time. Has it not been the practice of the House to debate the economy in Government time in the autumn ever since the right hon. Gentleman and I came here? Is he seriously suggesting that we should spend the first six months of this Parliament with no debate in Government time on the economy?

I have no doubt that we will debate the economy at some point in the future. On 27 November, there will be a very full and lengthy exchange on economic matters when we debate the pre-Budget report.

As Leader of the House, I have to balance the wish of my Treasury colleagues for a debate and their keenness to put before the House what we are achieving in the economy with all the other competing requirements many more of which have arisen during this discussion.

May I tell my right hon. Friend about an unusual case in my constituency in which a head teacher was suspended from his duties following allegations of interference with the conduct of examinations? He was then subjected to an inquiry by the local authority which was presented to the governing body. That body reinstated the head teacher without making public the results of the inquiry. Does he agree that it casts an interesting light on the new burdens on school governors, particularly in respect of their employment responsibilities? Can he find time in the near future for a debate on the role and responsibilities of school governors?

I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that his constituents have also heard him raise the issue. Given the other pressures on business, I cannot promise a debate on the matter, but I am sure that he will wish to pursue it with the relevant Ministers.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on yesterday's decision to appoint 100 Labour Back Benchers as so-called ministerial sponsors, a role that has been so effectively carried out in the past by just two people—the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) and his butler? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, to many of us, ministerial sponsorship sounds rather like the London zoo scheme to sponsor a camel or a crocodile, or, in the case of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, a lame duck. Is not this just a scheme to extend the payroll vote by appointing 100 Members of Parliament, who have not gained promotion, essentially to be Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the Parliamentary Private Secretaries?

It may be helpful if I assure the House that such appointments will have no involvement in the payroll vote one way or the other. I regard newspaper reports of that as mischievous and untrue, and I am happy to ensure that the press keeps up its high standards of truth and accuracy, which it did not on this occasion. As to my hon. Friends promoting the Government's successes, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that there was such enthusiasm for the idea that it was passed unanimously by the parliamentary Labour party.

Highly desirable though it is that Afghan women should be able to throw off their burkas, was it for this that we went to war, or was it to apprehend al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? Are we not in danger of swapping one set of warlords for another, who may or may not help us to apprehend al-Qaeda? Ought we not have a serious debate about that, given that we still have great problems in Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons and the pleadings of the Pakistanis not to continue bombing during Ramadan?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the volume of the bombing has diminished markedly as a result of events on the ground and is much more concentrated on one particular part of Afghanistan. He is absolutely right—nobody at the Dispatch Box has suggested otherwise—that the primary aim is to bring to justice those who perpetrated the appalling mass murders of 11 September and to break up the al-Qaeda network. We are now much closer to being in a position to achieve that than we were a week ago.

I fully share my hon. Friend's concern that no terrorist group should ever get hold of a nuclear weapon. I only say to him that if we had followed his counsel and not taken any action in Afghanistan, that would have been much more likely to happen than it is now.

Does not the question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, illustrate the point that during the crisis, the Conservative Opposition have given the Government far more solid support for the necessary military action than they have been able to rely on from their own Back Benchers? Does not that mean that when my right hon. and hon. Friends raise questions about whether a vote will take place at the end of a debate or, inappropriately, in a deferred Division, it is not right for the Leader of the House to presume that we, rather than his own rebels, will divide the House, so our point stands?

May I remind the Leader of the House that in answer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the combat effectiveness gender study, the right hon. Gentleman said that as the policy was not going to change, there would not be a statement? However, the Secretary of State for Defence, who was accurately quoted by my right hon. Friend, said:

"I am currently considering the conclusions of a review on the employment of women in the armed forces and will make a further statement in due course." — (0fficial Report, 1 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 767W.]

Will we get that statement, or must we just continue to read about it in The Sunday Telegraph?

That is not what I said to the House. I said that the policy on the ground would not change unless a policy was announced, and that that would require an announcement to Parliament. I fully recognise that, and I did not suggest otherwise.

On the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, we fully appreciate that the policy has been bipartisan. We welcome the fact that it has had support in all quarters of the House, and not just on the two Front Benches. It has also had the full support of my hon. Friends on the Benches behind me. When we had a Division on the subject, more than 300 Labour Members voted with the Government, and only eight voted against. That is not a basis on which one can erect a major case for a split among Labour Members. There has been overwhelming support for the Government's position from my hon. Friends, as well as from Opposition Members.

We had a welcome statement from the Prime Minister yesterday on the rapidly changing position in Afghanistan. Does the Leader of the House agree that a primary concern for many hon. Members and, indeed, our constituents, is the fate of the 7.5 million Afghan people who face not only a difficult winter but a desperate situation? They will want to know that effective corridors have now been established from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to northern Afghanistan. They will want to be assured that money will be promised to the Governments of Iran and Pakistan for the succour of those in the refugee camps, and they will want to know that the money promised by the international community is getting through to Afghanistan. Is there is any possibility within the next week of a debate on this subject or a statement by the Secretary of State for International Development, whom I see in the Chamber?

This is an issue on which the House has held a full debate on a number of occasions. There has been an even larger number of statements, including one from the Secretary of State for International Development. We shall obviously keep under review the question of when it will be appropriate to provide another similar opportunity.

On the substance of the issue, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no shortage of money to fund the actions that we need to take to support the refugees who are outside the country and those in Afghanistan who are in need. The United Kingdom has been both early and generous in providing its support. I am pleased to tell the House that the volume of food entering Afghanistan has increased markedly. I am told that over the past week it has averaged over 2,000 tonnes, which is a substantial improvement on the position a month ago. If we can maintain that rate of supply, we will be able to ensure that we have sufficient stocks in Afghanistan. I shall only say to the House that of course we would not be in this position if we had not maintained the military pressure on the Taliban, which has enabled us to open up many more corridors into Afghanistan to reach the people in need.

The Leader of the House will be aware of my interest in Railtrack, First Group and Eurotunnel. Will he advise me on the powers of Select Committees not only to compel witnesses to appear before them but to answer questions put to them?

I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read the transcript of evidence from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in that Select Committee yesterday. Having admitted that he met the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, the right hon. Gentleman would not tell us when, and having admitted that he had prepared draft emergency legislation to remove the rail regulator's capacity for independent action, he would not tell us when he had done so. Will the Leader of the House compel the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box early next week and answer the questions that he refused to answer in the Select Committee?

I do not think that a single member of the Cabinet has appeared here or elsewhere more often to answer the entirely bogus allegations thrown at him by Opposition Members. We had a debate on the matter last Tuesday. Given the way in which my right hon. Friend trounced the points put to him by the Opposition, they would be wise not to attempt to repeat that experiment or to ask me to arrange it.

Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the availability of digital hearing aids on the NHS? Many Members have received correspondence on the subject, but so far we have had only a half-hour debate in Westminster Hall. Can he arrange a longer debate so that we can raise an issue that is important to the 2 million people who do not have access to the digital hearing aids that would vastly improve their quality of life? Many hon. Members from all parties have signed the relevant early-day motion on the subject, and we would be grateful for a debate.

The hon. Gentleman makes his request with clarity and courtesy. I shall bear it in mind along with the many other requests that I have received this afternoon, but not everyone is going to be happy. In the meantime, he will be aware that we are to debate the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill next week. I am sure that the Speaker will allow him to make a glancing reference to that issue.

I want to consider the number of places allocated on the Liaison Committee to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government slipped through in the small print of the Order Paper earlier this week a measure that will result in the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) or for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) losing their place on the Liaison Committee. Why has the right hon. Gentleman decided to downgrade the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, especially as its two active Sub-Committees do as much work as a main Committee? Is that decision a mere consequence of the Government trying to get their revenge for the trouble that they had over the appointment of the chairmanship of that Committee earlier this year?

For once, I find the hon. Gentleman's question almost breathtaking. He suggests that we slipped the measure through, but we debated it in prime time. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I took part in the debate. The Order Paper was in front of us. There was no question of it being slipped through. Not a single Member in that debate made the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and he did not turn up to raise it.

As for the treatment of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, it will be entitled to precisely the same representation as any other Select Committee. It is for it to decide who shall go on the Liaison Committee. Indeed, the terms of the motion before the House do not specify which Committee member will serve on the Liaison Committee. It is entirely possible for my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) or for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) to represent the Committee. The matter rests in the hands of the Committee. It is for its members to decide who they want on the Liaison Committee, and I would not presume to offer them advice.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—I see her on the Bench beside him—to come to the House to make a statement on the growing disarray of the postal service in my constituency, especially in Bexhill? Since the problem was first raised some three weeks ago by the Bexhill-on-Sea Observer, the problem has snowballed. More than 40 streets in Bexhill are now subject to an appalling postal service and countless letters are going astray, including this week a cheque for more than £50,000 to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which was misdelivered. Given that we stand on the threshold of the busiest time of year for the Post Office, my constituents are rightly extremely concerned and angry at the lack of postal service in our area. Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for a statement on that matter?

I regret to inform the House that the postal service has never delivered a cheque for £50,000 to me by error. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is with me and heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure that she will pursue it.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the fourth ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation in Doha, which concluded yesterday. I was joined in the delegation by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister for the Environment and my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment.

I am delighted to report a successful outcome. The Doha development agenda combines the launch of a broad new round of trade negotiations with a package of measures specifically focused on the needs of developing countries. At the same time, we welcomed two important new members, China and Chinese Taipei, into the WTO. Those are landmark achievements and we cannot overstate their economic and political importance. Launching a new world trade round has always been a key priority for the United Kingdom and our European partners. As I told the House last week, it was an outcome that we were even more determined to achieve following the atrocities of 11 September.

In the past few days we have seen significant progress in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. At the same time, nations have come together in Doha to agree a major step forward in the war on poverty, demonstrating that the nations of the world are determined to strengthen security by sharing prosperity. By stimulating economic growth, a development-focused trade round offers the best opportunity to billions of people in developing countries to escape from poverty. With the downturn in the world economy, this historic deal gives a badly needed boost to economic confidence.

The package that we have agreed brings real and in some cases immediate benefits to developing countries—benefits for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has long been working. We have opened the way to greater access to the medicines that developing countries need to deal with HIV/AIDS and other serious health crises, by clarifying the existing WTO rules without compromising the incentives required to ensure that new drugs are developed for the future.

We have ensured that the European Union will continue to give preferential treatment to imports from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—an issue that is of enormous concern to more than 50 of our WTO colleagues, including some of the poorest countries in the world.

We agreed on steps—both immediately and in the next year—that address developing countries' concerns over the implementation of previous WTO agreements. We reaffirmed the importance of building developing countries' capacity to participate in the global trading system and we emphasised the need for further capacity building to be an integral part of the new negotiations.

A new round opens the prospect of increased trade in agriculture, in other goods and in services. Such trade is the most secure path to economic progress for developing countries. If we could just halve the trade protection in both developing and developed countries the wealth of developing countries would be boosted by around $150 billion a year. For the least developed countries we have also agreed the objective of duty-free and quota-free access for their products, extending to other WTO members the principle of the EU' s everything but arms agreement.

For developed as well as developing countries, the Doha agreement will provide a significant new push in a number of areas of great importance to the UK. The new trade round, for instance, gives a real boost to reform of the common agricultural policy. In particular, we have agreed to negotiate on reductions of export subsidies with a view to phasing them out. This adds to the pressure that the EU already faces from the prospect of enlargement and strengthens our hand in moving ahead with CAP reform—a long-standing UK objective, now within our sights.

We reaffirmed the importance of sustainable development and for the first time agreed to negotiate within the WTO on environmental issues, in particular the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and WTO rules. That was a key objective for the UK and all our European colleagues.

We agreed important first steps towards negotiations to help investment flow more freely between countries, and to tackle cartels and other anti-competitive business practices. We reaffirmed the importance of internationally recognised core labour standards, a matter on which the International Labour Organisation leads. However, it is essential that the WTO contributes to the ILO's work on the social dimensions of globalisation. We also agreed negotiations on a number of other important areas including market access and industrial tariffs, transparency of government procurement and trade facilitation, aimed in particular at cutting customs procedures red tape.

The new trade negotiations will be good for British business and good for British consumers. We are the world's fifth largest trader and we stand to benefit directly from further trade liberalisation. Again, if we could halve trade protection around the world the average income of every household in Britain would be boosted by nearly £500 a year.

What was most striking about discussions in Doha this week was the growing confidence of developing countries, with African, Latin American and the poorest countries working together increasingly effectively. At the same time, and in striking contrast to the disaster in Seattle, we saw a growing trust between developed and developing countries.

The new Doha development agenda has involved great willingness from all countries to work together flexibly and constructively to overcome considerable differences in key areas. The result is a tribute to all those involved. Certainly, all of us in the European Union owe a particular debt of gratitude to the skill and persistence of our chief negotiator, Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy.

I pay tribute, in particular, to the state of Qatar for hosting the conference and for its excellent organisation and chairmanship. Conference chairman Kamal and the seven facilitators worked tirelessly for several days—a little longer than originally intended—to ensure that all member countries, including small and developing nations, had the opportunity to be fully involved and that proceedings were as transparent as possible. I also pay tribute 'to the World Trade Organisation's director-general, Mike Moore, and to its general council chairman, Stuart Harbinson.

I want to thank the tremendous team of civil servants from six different Departments. They worked tirelessly as a team and with Ministers to help to secure our objectives. I also thank the three additional delegation members—Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry, Ed Sweeney of the Trades Union Congress and Penny Fowler of the UK non-governmental organisation trade network. They made an invaluable contribution.

The UK and the EU have long sought the launch of a new trade round. We went to Doha seeking a round that would open up free, fair and sustainable trade. I am delighted today to present exactly that result to the House. However, this is just the beginning of the process. We now have to translate the agenda that we have agreed into real results for people all round the world. With more than 140 WTO members, we have taken the vital first steps. We will now work with them to complete the journey.

I thank the Secretary of State for letting me have a copy of her statement in advance and for coming to the House at the first opportunity after her return from Doha, particularly as I suspect that she and her colleagues may not have had much sleep in the past week.

Conservative Members clearly welcome the fact that an agreement was reached at Doha. After the failure of the Seattle meeting, it would have been a disaster if the talks in Doha had broken down. However, as the Secretary of State suggested, what has been achieved marks the beginning of the process and not the end. Is it not the case that what was achieved there was merely agreement in talks about talks, and that the really hard slog has yet to start?

The Secretary of State is right to suggest that a huge prize is at stake. The World Bank estimates that the potential boost to global income is $2,800 billion over the next 15 years. However, does she not find it slightly depressing that already the voices of protectionism are being heard, and that some of the loudest are closest to home?

On agriculture, does the Secretary of State agree that the earlier comments of EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, in defence of farm subsidies, and the resistance of the French delegation to committing to phasing them out are, at the very least, worrying signs of the battles that lie ahead?

Does the Secretary of State accept that achieving the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy that is needed is likely to require even more midnight oil to be burned than was the case at Doha, and will she again confirm the Government's absolute commitment to the declaration's aim of reducing, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies?

Will the Secretary of State give further details of the qualification inserted in the declaration to the effect that non-trade concerns will be taken into account in the negotiations, and make it clear that it should not be used as a means of reneging on those undertakings? Will she also comment on reports that the French agreed to sign the declaration only after receiving an assurance that it did not prejudge the outcome of farm trade talks?

On TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—we welcome the fact that agreement has been reached. However, does the Secretary of State accept that the pharmaceutical industry has never wished to prevent countries in the developing world from accessing vital medicines for tackling diseases such AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis? Will she none the less recognise the industry's legitimate concerns that production under licence in the developing world may lead to back-door imports of those drugs into the markets in the developed world, thus undermining the industry's intellectual property rights? Can she say what measures will be taken to prevent that from happening, and will she also clarify whether any agreement was reached on what constitutes a national emergency? Will that be left entirely for individual states to decide?

Does the Secretary of State agree that the outcome of the talks presents an opportunity for a real opening up of markets for the goods of developing countries and that it is potentially worth far more to them than overseas aid? Does she agree that we should now ensure that the assistance that we give to developing countries is focused on helping them to take advantage of that opportunity? Does she also agree that we will need to do more to persuade some of the campaigning organisations of the real value of what has been achieved?

Finally, does the Secretary of State agree that many countries deserve credit for their willingness to work for an agreement? As well as those that she mentioned, does she agree that particular praise is due to the United States of America for the success? However, does she also agree that the success in Doha in finding language and a text that is acceptable to all must now be translated in the next three years into real agreement to removing barriers and opening up markets. Is not success in achieving that objective just as important to global security and prosperity as the events in Afghanistan that have stolen the headlines in today's newspapers?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions.

On agricultural reform, I can of course confirm that the Government remain entirely committed to the objective that we have set out on several occasions—fundamental reform of the CAP, including the elimination of unfair export subsidies. We have made it clear on several occasions that non-trade issues, including issues of animal welfare that are of real concern to our constituents, should not and will not be used for disguised protectionist purposes.

TRIPS and public medicine were referred to in our exchanges last week. We will work with the pharmaceutical companies to deal with the real problem of back-door imports of cheap drugs. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the section in the declaration specifically on public health. It makes it clear that it is up to member states to decide for themselves when a public health emergency exists. A number of Ministers from developing countries made the point that the phrase "public health" crisis is not the right term to use given the fact that HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases are chronically prevalent in many developing countries. Those diseases represent the normal daily condition of public health; they are not what we would think of as an immediate crisis.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to enable people in developing countries to trade their way out of poverty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the UK Government have led the world in investing in capacity building in developing countries to enhance their chances not only of taking part in such negotiations but of benefiting from new opportunities for world trade. We can be proud of our achievements.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the attitude of some UK and other western pressure groups towards the agreement. I certainly observed that, whatever the state of the draft declaration as it progressed on the various days in Doha, one of the NGOs represented there regarded anything that was being proposed as an insult to the world's poor. It seemed to have a word-processor that churned out press statements that had absolutely no regard for what was being proposed and agreed. We should pay a great deal less attention to groups like that and a great deal more attention to the Governments of developing countries. Representatives of the Governments of Tanzania, Brazil, Nigeria and many others got up in the final session at Doha yesterday to say what a good deal this was and how much progress had been made for their people and for those of other developing countries.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that when, with good parliamentary manners and good sense, she made her pre-Doha statement, I asked her about the problem of Mindanao in the Philippines, and particularly the Muslim community and its trade in the centre of Mindanao, in the light of the heavyweight Inter-Parliamentary Union Philippines delegation? Were any officials able to make contact at Doha on that genuine problem?

I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that not only my officials but I myself had two meetings with the Filipino Trade Minister, Manuel Roxas. We discussed the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, which is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I shall be drawing it to her attention so that we can see what help we can give.

It was extremely helpful that my hon. Friend gave me advance notice of the problem in the Philippines because it turned out that there was a major issue for that country concerning access for its tuna products to European markets. Difficulties in resolving that issue very nearly unhinged the entire trade round negotiations. I was able to work with the European Commission in proposing an agreement to consult the Philippines on that problem. Its representatives were satisfied with that, and as a result, a potential block on agreement at Doha was avoided.

May I add my welcome for the statement—in particular, the Secretary of State's belief that a new round of trade liberalisation will be good for Britain, and the strong emphasis on the concerns of developing countries over access to western markets and intellectual property rights? But does she agree that we have been here before? The Uruguay round was launched with a similar flurry of good language, and developing countries in particular felt disillusioned, even betrayed, by the lack of implementation; it is implementation that is now essential. Confidence in implementation was not helped by the fact that in the key area of textiles, eight Republican Congressmen from the United States were allowed to emasculate the agreement.

On agriculture, is the Secretary of State not embarrassed to have signed up to a form of words that has allowed the European Agriculture Commissioner this morning to crow that no reform of the common agricultural policy is now needed because negotiations will take place

"without prejudice to the outcome"?

Is that not one of many cases of British Ministers allowing themselves to be suckered into weak agreements on agricultural liberalisation?

Following the comments of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), is the Secretary of State not also embarrassed by the tone of the remarks of the European Trade Commissioner, who made it very clear in his statements this week that his primary responsibility was to represent producer interests in France? If he cannot act on behalf of the EU as a whole, will the Government try to ensure that we have a Trade Commissioner who is more representative of the whole Community?

There is no doubt that one real difficulty in reaching agreement at Doha was the sense among so many developing countries that they had been sold a pup—betrayed—in the Uruguay round. What makes this round so different—I referred to this in my statement—is the effectiveness with which the developing countries, which after all represent more than two thirds of WTO membership, are working together, concerting their negotiating objectives and strategies. There is now a much greater basis of trust between the developing and developed countries, but there is also a very clear requirement for developed countries to meet the commitments that we made at Doha and to fulfil the expectations that we raised. If we do not do so, that trust will be destroyed.

On agriculture, the declaration that we agreed yesterday states that of course there is no prejudging of the outcome of negotiations. We were agreeing the terms of reference of new trade negotiations; we were not seeking to have those negotiations at Doha. To say that we were not prejudging the outcome of those negotiations is merely a statement of the obvious.

The negotiations will be about reductions in agricultural export subsidies, among other matters, with a view to their phasing out. That is very clear language. It was not only supported by all European Union member states but it has raised clear expectations in developing countries, where access to developed markets in agricultural products is essential to their farmers and all those who depend on them. We shall have to meet those expectations. That means that there is enormous pressure on the EU, added to the pressure from the prospects of enlargement, for radical reform of the CAP.

I am not aware of any such comments being made by the Trade Commissioner. Not only over the past week but in preceding months, I have observed outstanding work from Commissioner Lamy in negotiating with immense skill and toughness on behalf of all EU members.

I congratulate the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues on the successful outcome in Doha and join her in praising civil servants for their superb work there. On behalf of the very large number of representatives of United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in Doha, I thank the ministerial team for the daily briefings and the way in which the delegation listened to the detailed points made by NGOs. I believe that the UK was the only national delegation to offer such facilities to NGOs in Doha. What time scale will the Doha development round work to, and which issues does she believe that the round should prioritise? I suggest fairer trade for developing countries.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. The NGOs certainly played a very helpful role in almost every case in enabling us to achieve such a good outcome. Negotiations will begin early in the new year. There is a two-year time scale of preparatory work for the new issues—notably investment and competition—and, if I remember correctly, a five-year time scale for the negotiations themselves. I agree that the priority should be to deal with market access barriers and tariffs on both agricultural and industrial products and services, which are of particular importance to developing countries.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and the access that she gave all of us in Doha. She not only talked to us but listened to us. Will she thank the Minister for the Environment, who was the only Environment Minister from the European Union to be present? He played an important part in pressing environmental issues. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is remarkable how many environmental issues were included in the statement, and that none of us expected to do as well? Is it not true that that is very much the result of the work of the EU, working as a united force, without which such agreement could not have been achieved? The commissioner concerned showed a steadfastness that very few of us expected. He, too, ought to be congratulated on his work.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; it was a pleasure to see him in Doha. I am very pleased that he singled out the breakthrough that we have made on of the environment. I believe that we would not have made such a breakthrough had it not been for the EU. We were the ones pressing for serious attention to be paid to environmental matters. The persistence of Commissioner Lamy on that matter was excellent. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the importance of the EU will be noted with great interest in the more Eurosceptic sections of his party.

Will my right hon. Friend say when negotiations on reducing export subsidies on agricultural products are likely to start, who will be negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom and whether there is some deadline for them to end to prevent the French dragging them out ad infinitum?

In responding to my right hon. Friend's question, I shall correct a point that I made a minute ago. In fact, the declaration commits us to concluding negotiations by 1 January 2005. In other words, there is a three-year time scale for all the negotiations to which we signed up in the Doha agreement, including the negotiations on the reduction of agricultural tariffs and subsidies.

I add my welcome for the positive outcome and the statement of the Secretary of State. Will she amplify the implications of phasing and the timetable? I understand that there is a commitment to a fifth WTO ministerial conference in 2003. I asked a question on investment and competition policy when the Secretary of State made a statement before the conference. The implication is that some of those matters will be prepared for the formal opening of negotiations at the fifth conference. Does that mean that there is a risk of some loss of linkage between those matters and, for example, the tightening of rules on anti-dumping measures and the reduction of industrial tariffs? Or will we be able to make sure that progress on one is directly linked to progress on investment and competition?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I said earlier, we agreed that there will be two years of preparatory work on investment and competition. We have an enormous amount to do to ensure that all members of the WTO have a common understanding of the framework of investment and competition rules that is required, particularly to increase foreign direct investment in developing countries.

That will take two years, then there will be a report to the fifth ministerial conference in 2003 with a view to opening negotiations on those matters, subject to consensus on the modality of negotiations, to use WTO-speak. As that preparatory work proceeds, we will need to ensure that it runs in parallel with, and is related to, work going on in the substantive negotiations themselves.

Clearly, developing nations need access to developed nations' markets. A great deal in my right hon. Friend's statement shows that that is under way; that is most welcome. What about the other side of the coin and the markets of underdeveloped nations? They often need protection to develop their own productive forces and may need to be in agreement with one another about, for example, the sale of primary products, which may be seen as anti-competitive according to certain arguments. Were the principles that I am propounding taken into account at the WTO conference?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Running through our discussions and the declaration is a commitment to take into account the particular needs of developing countries including, above all, the least developed countries and small countries. The concerns of my hon. Friend will indeed be taken on board.

If the words "without prejudging the outcome" only state the obvious, why does the Secretary of State think that the French spent so much time insisting that they should be included in the final declaration? Does she believe that the French have committed themselves to phasing out farm subsidies?

I am really not here to answer for the French Government. All members of the European Union have signed up to the declaration.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, in which she mentioned 11 September and its impact on the talks. Given that that was the background music to the talks, is she confident that the agreements made on behalf of developing nations, particularly on the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), will stick once the music fades and that we will see genuine improvements in trade so that countries can trade their way to a further economic base?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The background of world events was uppermost in everybody's mind at Doha. I have no doubt at all that the events of 11 September and the conflict in Afghanistan made it easier, in a sense, to reach an agreement; there was even more understanding of the importance of doing so at the conference. I am certain that the agreement will stick, provided, as I said earlier, that the developed countries live up to the commitments that we made in the declarations. I know that the Government, for one, intend to do so.

The Secretary of State will be aware that before the Doha meeting, Christian Aid and others called for a review of existing agreements prior to embarkation on another round. Clearly, that has not happened. Are any mechanisms in place to review the delivery of promised improvements to developing countries?

Having said that, I warmly welcome the agreement on medical supplies in developing countries and congratulate the Secretary of State and Ministers on achieving it. It is only a partial agreement: there is no agreement on compulsory licensing in third countries, which may mean that developing countries without a drugs industry will be disadvantaged. Is the Secretary of State prepared to publish a detailed assessment of the agreement, particularly on TRIPS and key medicines, and say what efforts the United Kingdom Government will make to improve the situation

Finally, when the members of the delegation were listed, there was no mention of any member of the Scottish Executive. The Secretary of State gave a holding answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) this morning, but can she now say whether any member of the Scottish Executive was part of the delegation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least some of his remarks. There was no representative of the Scottish Executive in the delegation: world trade is a reserved matter. As for the agreement on TRIPS and medical access to drugs, the declaration clarifies the meaning of TRIPS—the intellectual property agreement—and therefore the rules of the WTO to ensure that people in developing countries have access to the drugs that they need without compromising the incentives to pharmaceutical companies to invest in the research and development required for new drugs in future.

There is, however, much else that needs to be done to deal with the appalling health situation in developing countries. Last week, I referred to the £l billion investment that the Government have already made in the development of primary health care in developing countries and the $200 million that we have contributed to the global health fund, designed specifically to make those essential drugs affordable for people in developing countries. We have made an enormous advance on the matter raised by Christian Aid and the suggestion that there should be an assessment of achievements so far before entering new negotiations. However, that matter was not particularly raised by developing countries at the conference.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Doha represents a historic moment for developing countries because it is the first time that they have significantly shaped the global economy? Is not that because of the WTO, not in spite of it? On agriculture and the phasing out of export credits, will she push for the European Union to reduce its protectionist tendencies regarding the common agricultural policy, and is that more likely after the French elections?

My hon. Friend is right on both counts.

May I welcome the statement and the right hon. Lady's answer about the Philippines? It is a delight to hear that Chinese Taipei has been received into the WTO. Does she agree that the example that it has given both in helping developing countries and in the political sphere of a smooth transfer of power from one party to another last year is an example for many developing nations and others?

Lest some of my constituents and others should be in touch with Members, perhaps having picked up from the media that the average home will be richer by £500, will the right hon. Lady explain where that money will go? I have a suspicion that the average home will not see it.

When I was in Doha, I had the pleasure of meeting the Trade Ministers both from China and from Chinese Taipei. I have no doubt that both will make an enormous contribution to the WTO. The accessions represent a real strengthening of the organisation. With the accession of China, we can for the first time regard the WTO as a truly global organisation.

The benefits that will flow from trade liberalisation to families in Britain depend upon a successful outcome of the negotiation. It was once said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers; it might be truer now to say that we are a nation of shoppers. All of us who shop, especially in supermarkets and markets, enjoy the benefits of world trade in the form of a wider choice of products and lower prices than would otherwise be the case. I have no doubt that as we enter into negotiations—it will be hard work—and as we bring them to a successful conclusion, we shall see significant benefits flowing through to British families and to British exporters.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the agreement. It gives hope to many of my constituents who have been arguing for a long time that the circumstances of the poorest nations should be improved.

I accept that the agreement is only a beginning. We must ensure that the developed nations carry it through and ensure that we create conditions which, like the coalition against terrorism that has created so much success in Afghanistan, enable the coalition for the fight against poverty to produce the same sort of result. If we do not do that, we shall be failing.

TRIPS is an extremely important matter. I press my right hon. Friend on the progress that we can make to ensure that underdeveloped countries can enjoy freedom from a disease in the same way that an ordinary civilised society can. If she can give me an assurance on that, I shall be grateful.

I know that my hon. Friend has done a great deal of work with churches in his constituency on issues that directly concern developing countries. There was a clear sense at Doha, among us all, that security in the world must go hand in hand with the sharing of prosperity.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has already ensured that the UK Government are playing a significant role in spreading access to medicines in developing countries. This is only in part a matter of WTO rules on intellectual property. Nine out of 10 medicines on the World Health Organisation's essential medicines list are generic drugs and outside patent protection. Even if they were all free, there must be an infrastructure of primary health care in developing countries that can ensure that medicines are properly prescribed and delivered to those who need them. That is why the investment that the Government have been making and will continue to make in primary health care in developing countries is even more important than the agreement that we reached at Doha.

I welcome the progress that has been made, and support the comments made about the importance of the agreement in that it will lead to positive benefits in the developing world. I ask the Secretary of State to address in more detail the accession to membership of the Chinese. In the past, there have been considerable difficulties with China over trading, not least in the sphere of intellectual property. I would be interested to hear about the Chinese contribution at Doha, and how she feels now that trading and China will move forward in the context of this round.

As a new member whose accession was formalised at the WTO only this week, and which has not yet been ratified by China, China did not play a direct role in this week's proceedings. It was not part of the discussions. It was clear, certainly in the discussions that I had with the Chinese Trade Minister, that he and his colleagues recognised the enormous challenge to China in becoming a full member of the world trading community and in ensuring compliance with the rules of the WTO. Even more important, China recognises the enormous benefits that opening up to trade will bring, especially in seeking to spread prosperity between Shanghai, Beijing and other parts of the eastern seaboard across to the desperately poor rural areas of the western provinces.

Has my right hon. Friend made any assessment of the plight of the people of Tibet, following China joining the WTO? Another factor to consider is the aggression that has always been shown to Chinese Taipei. With the two countries joining the WTO, perhaps an assessment has been made of relationships between the two. I am sure that she will work hard for countries outside the WTO to ascertain how we can encourage more countries to join in the next round of talks.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. China will become a member country in 30 days now that the Doha agreement has been concluded. China and Chinese Taipei have had a long and difficult history. I made the point last week that after the second world war the central motive for the establishment of the European Union was the belief that close economic and trading links between countries were likely substantially to reduce the risk of violent conflict between them.

My hon. Friend talked about encouraging other countries to join the WTO. There are 28 other candidates seeking accession to it. The critics of globalisation who regard the WTO as some sort of evil plot against developing countries should take stock of their views in the light of the Doha development agreement and recognise that, far from seeking to escape from the WTO, developing countries are joining it at a rapid rate. That is a good sign for the future of world security and prosperity.

I certainly recognise the benefits and the positive things that happened at Doha. The Secretary of State referred to the creation of a free, fair and sustainable trade platform. Does that include the bilateral trade agreements that we have seen over recent weeks, particularly that conducted with Pakistan—which will be very detrimental to a section of the UK's trade—in the absence of any parliamentary discussion of the topic? Was the matter discussed at Doha?

The Doha declaration makes it very clear that there is a role for bilateral and indeed for regional trade agreements within the context of the multilateral agreements led by the WTO. There is a proposal from the European Commission for a bilateral agreement between the European Union and Pakistan on textiles, which are of course enormously important to that country. The United Kingdom Government have considered the agreement very carefully and we support it. We believe that it is absolutely right to recognise Pakistan's outstanding contribution to dealing with the terrorist threat from within Afghanistan.

I have personally discussed the matter with the employers and the trade unions in the textile and clothing industry. As I said to them and am happy to confirm to the House, we shall continue to work with our textile and clothing industry to enable it to become more competitive and to specialise in sectors in which we still have competitive advantage. We have already made further changes to the help that we give our industry, to ensure that it can penetrate markets abroad.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be interested to hear that I recently participated in a simulation exercise with a number of school children on the issue of world trade and developing countries. Can she tell me and my constituents what benefit we derive from working with our European Union partners within the World Trade Organisation?

We derive enormous benefits from our membership of the European Union: half of our own trade is within the European Union. At Doha, we also saw the strength that we obtain as a member of that larger organisation, in securing a new world trade round that is good not only for Europe but for the developing countries of the world.

I welcome the Secretary of State's references to the importance of capacity building for developing countries. Will she say precisely what action she believes needs to be taken to ensure that developing countries can adequately represent themselves in the next round of talks? I am sure that she will agree that such action seems to be the key to ensuring that there is genuine and fair negotiation between the developing world and the rich northern nations.

The hon. Gentleman is right. The United Kingdom Government had already committed £15 million to capacity building in developing countries, and last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a further £20 million of programmes. Talking in Doha to Ministers from developing countries, it was very clear that they are enormously pleased by that investment, which is helping them to train officials to take part in often very complex negotiations. I think that we saw this week at Doha very mature and increasingly sophisticated leadership from the developing countries, which, as I said, were able to concert their negotiating strategy in pursuit of their objectives. Consequently, we have achieved at Doha an agreement that is good not only for the developing countries but for us as well.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, of which I have given Mr. Speaker and the relevant Minister prior notice. I wish to address the manner in which the Government have announced a relaxation of the rules banning hunting in areas that are free from foot and mouth disease.

Yesterday afternoon—Wednesday—I received from the Minister for Rural Affairs a substantive response to three questions from three hon. Members, including a question from me that had already received a holding reply. My copy appeared on the board after 6 pm. The answer clearly implied that it would be some time—I took that to mean at least a few days—before an announcement on the matter would be made. Driving home last night, however, I heard on the BBC Radio 4 10 o'clock news that an announcement would be made today, Thursday. That news came just four hours after I had received my answer. I believe that earlier bulletins carried similar reports although I did not hear them myself.

The policy was confirmed in an interview with the Minister on this morning's "Today" programme. Indeed, I have now learned that a press conference to announce the decision was held this morning, and that invitations to that press conference were issued shortly after lunch time yesterday. Although the Minister tells me that he regrets the fact that the decision itself leaked, the fact remains that the outside world was being told a very different thing from the information given to hon. Members.

Although my constituents will be pleased with the decision itself, I am left with the clear impression that the Government sought to avoid making the announcement to Parliament and indeed came perilously close to misleading the House. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will deplore the seriously incomplete statement made in answer to my question—the answer should have indicated that publication was due today—and accept that it is compelling evidence that the Government now routinely prefer to communicate their policy to the media rather than to the House.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Is it on the same topic?

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 25 October, I asked a parliamentary question on the very same subject—when the risk assessment would be published—and received a holding reply on 30 October. Although I have heard no more from the Minister since, on Monday morning, I was amazed to read in The DailyTelegraph an extensive briefing, which turns out to be extensively correct, on precisely what would happen when the risk assessment was received. I have still not received any response from the Minister to my perfectly legitimate question on the risk assessment. That seems to be clear evidence that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has correctly said, the Government are more determined to spin the story in the press than to inform hon. Members. Is that not disgraceful?

Mr. Speaker has made inquiries about these matters and has authorised me to make the following observations on his behalf. I understand that copies of the papers published by the Minister this morning were placed in the Vote Office at 9.30 am today. As Mr. Speaker has told the House before, he deprecates the making of announcements of new policy to the media before the House has had an opportunity to be informed. In addition, in this case Mr. Speaker has asked me to say that he deplores the fact that Ministers did not take the opportunity when replying to written questions on the subject yesterday to indicate that an announcement was to be made today.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, many of my colleagues see you and your colleagues in the Chair as the guardians of the interests of the House and of hon. Members, so I seek your guidance on how we should respond to questions of accuracy in relation to ministerial statements to the House.

The House will be aware that on 5 November the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions made a statement to the House in which he made it clear that at a meeting on 25 July with the chairman of Rai1track, the chairman of Rail track had sought extra financial assistance from the Government. However, in further comments in the Chamber on Monday and in specific evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee yesterday afternoon, the Secretary of State made it clear that no such request had in fact been made. In a case like this, where there is prima facie evidence at the very least that the Minister has made a misleading statement to the House, how should hon. Members such as myself respond?

That matter should really be directed to the Minister himself—

Where is he?

Order. There are ways in which the hon. Gentleman can pursue this matter and I am sure that he will be advised of those by his colleagues.